... Brief history of modern Europe, from 1814 to the great war

Front matter

^0

• J J55xtw k *- O

BRIEF HISTORY OF MODERN EUROPE jFotmDatton l£tetotg Series

Preface

IS Egypt in Europe or in Asia? Why do such a patriotic people as the Russians cling to an alien religion, that of the Greek Church? Where and what is Poland? Is it really true that a great many of the inhabitants of Austria cannot speak the Austrian language? What is the good of learning the names, capitals, and boundaries of the ever-changing Balkan States? Are German bands typical examples of' German musical Kultur?

Before the Great War sent us to our maps and our books of history, questions such as these were by no means uncommon, even in highly respectable society; for up to that time we were more interested in the towns, cities, and regions of our own country than in those of Europe.

Now, however, we have opened our eyes and see that to take an interest in the nations of Europe is really quite worth while. Whether we like it or not, we must live on terms of relationship with our neighbors, even though large bodies of water separate us from them. So, though possibly late in the day, we have come to study the ways of other nations with a view to understanding the characters and conditions of the people who compose them.

In this little book the author has tried to give what he believes is needed for pupils in the upper classes in grammar schools or the lower classes in high schools — a plain, simple, straightforward narrative of European events, consecutive as far as possible, with some side lights on motives, manners, and customs, a few conclusions which perhaps deserve to be driven home, and one or two reflections that may tend to stimulate further thought.

W. G.

Contents

CHAPTER

1 An Introduction which should not be Skipped

II A Great Opportunity

Chapter I An Introduction Which Should Not Be Skipped

WHAT is meant by ' modern ' European history ? To that question different people would doubtless give different answers. We, however, in this little book, will take the term * modern ' to indicate the period between 1815 and 1915.

In one sense, it is of course impossible to write a satisfactory history of any particular period — just as it is impossible to write a satisfactory history of a particular day in a man's life. For the day has its roots in the many days that have gone before ; and the period, too, has its roots in the many periods that have gone before ; and so both day and period lose much of their meaning if we treat them as mere fragments of the present and ignore their relations with the past.

To take an illustration, we might liken history to a web of cloth, the weaving of which began at the Creation and will end only with the end of the world. Periods are like little pieces snipped out of the web ; and each thread in the piece snipped out runs right back to the beginning, and will only end with the end, of all things.

But the web is by no means uniform. Indeed, Time, the great weaver, now and then changes his pattern in most sudden and startling fashion — so sudden and so startling that he seems to be trying his hand upon an entirely new and different material. One of these abrupt breaks in continuity occurred in 1815, and of this fact we take advantage. But we must be careful to bear in mind that the break is not, after all, complete ; for, in spite of great changes, our period is inseparably joined to the past; and so from time to time we must look back to note some of the past causes that have combined to produce present effects. With this warning we may now proceed to our story.

Europe in the Melting-pot. — In the closing months of the year 1814 it appeared as though the star of the great Napoleon had set; for the Terror of Europe had been banished to the island of Elba. But what was to come next ? Certainly no more fighting ; on that point everybody was agreed ; for by this time the nations of Europe were thoroughly and heartily sick of the long and terrible wars that had cost them so much blood and treasure. Moreover, there was no call for fighting, as not only was the arch-enemy, whose genius had raised and inspired mighty armies, now in captivity, but the mighty armies with which he had hoped to realize his dream of world-empire lay shattered and broken. With Napoleon in exile, and the power of France crushed, peace was possible ; and the nations determined to have it. But on what terms ?

Iron will take the shape of any mould into which it is run in a liquid state. Napoleon had broken the Continent into what we may compare to a heap of scrapiron ; and this was now, as it were, to be flung into the melting-pot of a great Congress that should decide the fate of many nations. Into what mould would liquid Europe be run ? Into one that was based on natural lines, and was therefore strong and shapely ? Or into one that was based on artificial distinctions, and was therefore weak and ugly ? In the former case, the 10

AN INTRODUCTION

settlement of European affairs might be expected to be lasting and peaceful ; in the latter, change and trouble would probably soon ensue.

On November 1, 1814, representatives of the Powers met at Vienna, and proceeded to reconstruct Napoleon's Europe. It was a great task ; and if the representatives had all been great men — men of far-seeing wisdom, filled with noble unselfishness, and resolute in the carrying out of their great intentions — how well that task might have been performed !

Here was a Continent ripe and ready for the great experiment. For hundreds of years it had, as it were, been ground down under the iron heel of Authority. " Obey your rulers, your sovereigns by divine right ; obey the ministers whom they, in their good pleasure, think proper to appoint ; and submit without a murmur to the form of government they see fit to institute." That was the code which, hitherto, comparatively few people had dreamt of disputing.

Then had come the French Revolution, with its gospel of liberty, equality, fraternity, and the right of the people to rule themselves and make their own laws. The Age of Authority was proclaimed to be dead, or at least dying ; and its place had been taken by the new-born Age of Reason. But, unfortunately, the Age of Reason, like other children of tender years, did not always act reasonably. It pulled down a great deal better than it built up. Many bad features of French life were destroyed, but, alas ! many good ones too; and in place of the bad old social order, with its tyranny and oppression by kings and nobles, there did not come the hoped-for condition of gentleness and justice. Moreover, the weapon of militarism, even though wielded by a Napoleon, with an intellect of the very highest type, had failed to impose the ideals of the Revolution upon nations not yet ripe for them.

The Ideals of the French Revolution. — But though the

Revolution had failed, as yet, to embody its ideals in a permanent and successful form, the ideals which had inspired it were by no means dead ; indeed, they were very much alive, and a great deal more widespread than many of the absolute rulers liked ; and it soon became clear that the peoples would never again be contented with what had formerly satisfied them. "Two things," they said, " we must have : a recognition of the claims of nationality, and a recognition of the claims of democracy." It would have been much better if they had gone a step further, and demanded a recognition of the claims of federation. I will say a few words about each of these three terms.

First, take nationality. What do you mean by that ? In the eighteenth century it meant no more than the common tie which bound together a people in allegiance to their sovereign. As the sun is the centre of the solar system, and holds all the planets in their places by the power of gravitation, so the sovereign was supposed to be the centre of the State, which he held together by the bond of loyalty to himself. Indeed, some people went so far as to say, " Where my king is, there is my country"; and for them a country with the king in exile was like a land with the sun in eclipse. Nowadays, however, nationality, as we understand it, is something very different from that. How shall we define it ? I do not think we can do better than speak of a nation as a people that (1) belongs to one race, (2) speaks one language, (3) has common sympathies, (4) has common material interests. When all these conditions are found together, the nation is really and truly one ; and the fewer the number of conditions present, the less firmly does the nation hold together. Race, language, sympathies, and material interests : these four, we may safely say, are the four chief bonds of national unity, and it would be difficult to say which is the strongest. 12

AN INTRODUCTION

Second, take democracy, that is, the government of the people by the people — a state of affairs that, at the beginning of the eighteenth century, was almost unknown outside Britain. Sovereigns, and the ministers whom they appointed, did all the governing, and had the chief influence in making the laws ; while the people were so much putty to be moulded as the king and his ministers thought fit. With the coming of the French Revolution the idea of democracy took a firm and gradually tightening grip, not only upon France, but also upon many other European countries.

Third, federation. This is a union of governments in which several States, while independent of each other in home affairs, combine for purposes common to all. The United States of America is a good instance of a federal government ; each State manages its own internal business, but all combine in affairs of common interest, such as dealings with foreign Powers and the defence of the whole country.

1. An abrupt break in European history occurred in 1815. Comment on this statement.

2. Why was Europe, on the fall of Napoleon, ripe for reconstruction ?

3. What were the chief ideas which lay at the roots of the French Revolution ?

4. What are the chief distinguishing marks of nationality ?

5. Explain the term ' democracy.'

6. Say what is meant by ' federation.' Give as many examples as you can of the federal form of government.

Chapter II A Great Opportunity

NOW had the representatives of the Powers who met in 1814 at the Congress of Vienna been wise, unselfish, far-seeing men, what a fine settlement of European affairs they might have made ! — one, too, that, though it might not have pleased everybody just at first, would in the long run have proved more and more satisfactory ; for, being made on natural lines, and based upon powerful and widespread ideas, it would probably have lasted peacefully not only until now, but also far into the future.

The Problems of Settlement. — The task of settlement would not have been easy ; on the contrary, it would have been very difficult indeed ; but it might have been performed if only the right people had been there to perform it.

" Here," these wise, unselfish, far-seeing representatives — our dream-folk, we will call them — might have said, " Here is the Continent of Europe in a condition just fit and ready for treatment. How shall we treat it ?

" Well, our first step shall be to divide it into States ; and in doing this we have determined to be guided by no other considerations than those of race, language, sympathies, and material interests. Districts of the same race, speaking the same language, and having common sympathies and material interests, shall be put 14

A GREAT OPPORTUNITY

into one and the same State ; and if we are uncertain as to the rightful placing of any particular district — in which the people are divided on our four essential points — the matter shall be decided by a plebiscite, that is, by a vote of the whole people concerned. On one point, however, you may take it for granted that we have quite made up our minds : we will not give a slice of territory to any czar, emperor, king, or sovereign of any kind, simply because he wants it with the object of increasing his own importance and that of the country over which he rules.

" Next we will lay down the principle of democratic control, which means that the people shall not only make the laws under which they are to live, but shall also choose the machinery by which the laws are to be enforced ; in other words, each State shall no longer be regarded as the private property of dynasty, sovereign, or aristocracy, but as the possession of the people themselves.

" But here we will sound a note of warning. The changes should not be too drastic ; they should be gradual, so as to avoid unnecessary confusion ; and each should be preceded by an educational campaign, in which the people are taught the meaning of the new rights and duties upon which they are about to enter. Some States, being better prepared for the coming conditions, will naturally adopt democratic control more rapidly than others. The rate of progress will thus vary; but everywhere it must be borne in mind what is the general end to be attained.

" Lastly, for the whole of the Continent we will have a great Federal Government, to which delegates from each State shall be summoned ; and this central Federal Government shall deal with international affairs, that is, with the relations of the individual States to each other."

A plan of this kind would not, of course, have given us a Continental paradise ; for that we shall never have until we can change the character of individuals, and people Europe with men and women of goodwill, kind hearts, and sound minds in sound bodies. But, if ably carried out, it might have been one step in the direction of making paradise possible ; and, in any case, it would have saved many terrible wars. We might have expected from it the following results :

1. A Europe divided into a number of States, large and small, each compact, and thoroughly welded together.

2. Each would have been left free to develop on its own national lines, according, in each case, to the will of the people concerned. This, in itself, would have been a distinct world-gain. For, just as we believe that each individual person has some good gift which nobody but he possesses, and which, therefore, nobody but he can contribute to the welfare of the society in which he lives, so we believe that each individual State has some good gift which nobody but it possesses, and which, therefore, nobody but it can contribute to the welfare of the world. But for the perfecting of this good gift, it is necessary that both man and State shall be left free to develop on their own particular lines.

To take a case in point, German, Russian, French, Belgian, and British culture each has a special mission to perform ; and it would be a distinct loss to the world if the will of some great Power were to impose its own culture upon one of its neighbours, and thus stamp out the special contribution which that neighbour might have made to the world's advancement.

3. The welfare of the States as a federated whole would have been put under the guardianship of the central Federal Government. No State, no matter how powerful it might be, would then be permitted to infringe upon the liberties of even the very weakest; and the relations of each State to its neighbours, as well 16

A GREAT OPPORTUNITY

as to the extra-European countries, would be regulated by a code of international law.

The Enforcement of International Laws. — But suppose, some one may say, that a particular State should refuse to obey the ruling of the International Board — what then ? Well, there would be two distinct ways of dealing with the offender. You might " send him to Coventry " ; and if every other State in the Federation refused to trade with him, the economic pressure would probably very soon bring him to his senses and make him hand in his submission. If this method did not succeed — though I do not see how it could fail if properly applied— you might try the second, viz., that of direct compulsion. In the present state of civilization, there is no doubt that behind all government there must be force, downright actual physical force ; so that those who refuse to obey the law can be compelled to do so. And the Central Federal Government would, as a matter of course, have at its disposal a body of ' compellers ' — call it an International Army, an International Police, or any other name you will ; but remember that its function is to enforce the decisions of the Central Federal Government. This important body would deal with international offenders; and as each State, being now free from the fear of aggression on the part of its neighbours, would have little or no need of a State army — and indeed would not be permitted to have more than quite a small one — the International Army would not necessarily be very large in order to maintain international discipline.

But all this, perhaps you say, is a dream. Undoubtedly you are right ; it is a mere dream of things that might have been in the year 1815 ; and, moreover, there would have been many difficulties in the way of its fulfilment. But difficulties have a way of disappearing when resolutely faced ; and the dreams of to-day are sometimes the realities of to-morrow.

1. When, and for what purpose, did the Congress of Vienna meet ?

2. What three steps should have been taken in order to place the peace of Europe on firm foundations ?

3. Name three consequences to which these three steps would probably have led.

4. Name and explain two ways of dealing with States which rebel against the rulings of a Central Federal Government.

Chapter III The Use That Was Made Of It— I

WE now turn from dream to reality. The European Congress met at Vienna ; and, though the deliberations were interrupted by the escape of Napoleon from Elba, the Congress resumed its sittings at the end of the wonderful ' hundred days.' Vienna seemed full of famous personages. There were the two emperors, Francis II of Austria and Alexander I of Russia; there were the kings of Prussia, Wurtemberg, Bavaria, and Denmark ; there were numbers of German dukes and princes ; and there were representatives from most of the other countries of Europe — Castlereagh for Great Britain, Metternich for Austria, Talleyrand for France, and Consalvi for the Pope.

And very fine times these famous people must have had ; for the Austrian capital was ablaze with splendid balls and magnificent banquets, so that dancing and feasting seemed to be the chief business that had called them together. In the intervals of pleasure, however, they found time to meet together in order to settle the affairs of the nations — after a fashion; and, says a close observer : " All Europe was then at play round a large green table ; kingdoms were the stakes ; and a diplomatic shake of the dice might win a hundred thousand or a million heads."

The Failure of the Vienna Settlement. — Now the members of the Congress, as a body, professed to have intentions that were really splendid. They stated that their objects were " the reconstruction of the moral order," " the regeneration of the political system of Europe," " an enduring peace founded on a just redistribution of political forces." That is to say, Europe was to be new-born to an order of morality and justice that should give abiding peace. What programme could have been finer than that ? Unhappily, however, the programme was very badly carried out ; so badly, indeed, that the history of the nineteenth century is largely made up of a long series of attempts to break up the Vienna settlement ; and a period which opened up with a vision of the brotherhood of man, closed on the terrible reality of a jumble of States armed to the teeth, and each guarding its own exclusive privileges as jealously as a greedy dog guards a bone. How was it that such a deplorable failure came to pass ? Chiefly, no doubt, because the members of the Congress, though they had brilliant men amongst them, were not great enough for the task they had undertaken. They were not great enough in knowledge ; for they did not understand the spirit of the age, and had not fully and freely grasped the new ideas that were to do so much toward moulding the future of societies and States. And they were not great enough in disinterestedness, most of them being zealous for the welfare of the State they represented, and caring little for the .welfare of others. In other words, they were not a body of men who combined deep wisdom with world-wide sympathies.

Moreover, it must not be forgotten that they were, after all, a company of diplomatists, and, as such, keen at outwitting each other and snatching an advantage, subtle in plot and counterplot, given to secrecy and intrigue. Consequently they could have had little sympathy with the sounding phrases of their published program ; and, doubtless, many of them regarded such utterances as addressed, so to speak, to the gallery, 20

THE USE THAT WAS MADE OF IT

and intended only to " tranquillize the peoples, and give to the solemn reunion an air of dignity and grandeur."

With ideas such as these, the Congress set to work to reshape the destiny of Europe ; but before telling in detail how they did, or tried to do, this, it will be well if we make a brief survey of early European history.

A Resume' of Earlier History.— Going back a long, long way, we learn that in the year 27 B.C. the first emperor of Rome was Augustus. In the beginning the Roman Empire was a heathen one, and was ruled from Rome as a centre. About a.d. 323, however, the then emperor, Constantine, became a Christian ; and in the course of the fourth and fifth centuries the Roman Empire came to adopt the Christian faith ; that is to say, Christianity became the acknowledged State religion. Constantine, moreover, removed his capital to the old Greek city of Byzantium, now known as Constantinople, the city of Constantine.

Through the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries there was only one Roman Empire, with its seat at Constantinpole, and only one Christian form of State religion ; but then came a religious dispute which led to a great split, after which there were two Empires, an Eastern and a Western. The former was ruled by an emperor residing at Constantinople ; its religion was that form of Christianity professed by the Greek Church ; and the head of that religion was the Patriarch of Constantinople. The latter was ruled by an emperor residing at Rome ; its religion was that form of Christianity professed by the Roman Church ; and the head of that religion was the Pope of Rome.

We need say little about the Eastern Empire. It was overthrown in a.d. 1453, when the Turks captured Constantinople, and when the Greek scholars and teachers hitherto residing there were scattered far and wide, and, carrying their culture with them, laid the foundation for a great revival of learning in Western Europe.

Thus the Eastern Empire fell ; but not so the religion ; for the Eastern or Greek Church still flourishes in Russia and Eastern Europe.

The Western, or Holy Roman, Empire, with its special form of Christianity, lasted much longer, and during its existence did much to mould the nations of Europe into their present form. The first emperor was the Teutonic prince Charles the Great, who began his reign in a.d. 800, and the last was Francis II of Austria, who abdicated in 1806 ; all of them were of German blood ; and all endeavoured to consolidate a great part of Europe round Germany as a nucleus. When Francis II resigned, he did so chiefly, perhaps, because he found that the attempt at consolidation had utterly failed, and now seemed quite hopeless; for, instead of ruling over one great, united State, he found himself merely the nominal head of a large number of States over which he had little or no real control.

The German States. — At the time of the Congress of Vienna, then, there was no German Empire, but only a number of separate and independent German States — over three hundred before the Napoleonic wars, but thirty-nine afterward. The largest of these were Prussia and Austria ; then came Bavaria, Saxony, Hanover, and Wurtemberg ; the rest were small States, such as Hesse, Weimar, etc. There was great rivalry between Prussia and Austria as to which should be the leader of this German group ; and there was great jealousy and distrust of each other among the whole of the thirty-nine. Though all of them doubtless felt that it would be advantageous if they could be united under one common government, they were unwilling to sacrifice their complete independence and their special privileges for the common good. One step, however, they took toward national unity. Each of the thirty- 22

THE USE THAT WAS MADE OF IT

nine sent delegates to a central parliament, or Diet, at Frankfort, and this loose confederation was called the Bund ; but as the Diet had little real power beyond the power of making speeches, the Bund was not much of a bond of union after all. It is well to note, too, that the members of the Diet represented, and were appointed by, not the people of the respective States, but the rulers.

1. To what extent were the different States represented at the Vienna Congress ? Name a few of the representatives, and give brief notes on the character of each.

2. Write a short theme on " Diplomacy and Diplomatists."

3. What do you understand by the term ' national selfishness ' ? Illustrate your answer by reference to the Vienna Congress.

4. When, and why, did the Roman Emperors remove the seat of government from Rome to Constantinople ?

5. What led to the division of the Roman Empire into two parts ?

6. Say what you know about the Eastern Empire.

7. When, and why, did the Western Empire come to an end ?

8. What were the political divisions of Germany in 1815?

Chapter IV The Use That Was Made Of It— II

HAVING now, as it were, cleared the ground, we will proceed to see how the Congress of Vienna dealt with the three great nineteenth-century notions of nationality, democracy, and federation. First take the case of nationality. Since revolution in France had led to such terrible confusion, not only in France itself but also in the rest of Europe, it was now determined that, as far as possible, the work of revolution should be undone ; and, to that end, the sovereigns whom Napoleon had deposed and despoiled, or, failing them, their next heirs, should be restored to the pre-revolutionary thrones. This principle was called ' legitimacy/ and the legitimate monarchs were to be given back their kingdoms. Various territorial changes, however, were made, of which the following were the most important :

Territorial Changes in 1814. — 1. Prussia continued her career of expansion. Starting in the seventeenth century with the little Electorate of Brandenburg, a district round Berlin, the ruling family of Hohenzollern inherited the Duchy of Prussia ; upon which they changed their title from Elector of Brandenburg to King of Prussia. Later, Prussia annexed Silesia, Pomerania, and part of Poland ; and that was its fullest extent at the time of Napoleon's fall. From the very first, the policy of the Hohenzollerns seems to have been to rule despotically as kings by divine right, and 24

THE USE THAT WAS MADE OF IT

to organize thoroughly the civil life of their subjects. Military power, wielded by aggressive sovereigns, was the secret of Prussia's territorial expansion ; and civil organization was the secret of her undoubted internal prosperity.

If you look at the map, you will see that up to this point Prussia had been an East German Power. By the award of the Vienna Congress, however, she received a large district situated on the Rhine ; and these new lands, viz., the Westphalian and the Rhine Provinces, made her a Western Power too, and also gave her a frontier touching France. She wanted Alsace-Lorraine as well, and was very much dissatisfied when the Congress refused her demands ; indeed, she kept on wanting, until, as a result of the Franco-Prussian War of 1870, the Alsace-Lorraine plum dropped, as it were, into the German mouth. But of this we shall speak later.