THE 19TH-CENTURY
INTERNATIONAL SYSTEM
Changes in the Structure
Bv PAUL W. SCHROEDER"
THE problem to be posed in this essay is a central one in the history of
international politícs. Having dealt with it intensively in the tgth and early zoth
centuries, historians of international politics have long regarded it as basically
solved. The question is how to account for the overall peaceful stability of tgthcentury
European international politics from t8t5 on. The phenomenon in question is
a familiar oné, and the conventíonal answer is 6rmly established in the historical
literature. In describing in unavoidably oversimplified fashion the phenomenon and
the normal explanation, I hope to show that a real question remains and that a
different kind of broad answer is more satisfactory.
Most scholars would agree lhal Europe was more stable from t8t5 to t85q than
during any equivalent éra in the entire t8th century, and lhal, taken as a whole, the
tgth century was more peaceful than the t8th. Various explanations have been
offered: the widespread exhaustion, warweariness, fear of revolution, and desire for
peace produced by a generation of war and upheaval from t~8~ to r8t5; a moderate
peace settlement, a stable balance of power, a systém of diplomacy by conference,
a Concert of Europe, and other díplomatic devices; the prevalence of monarchial
conservative ideology; international cooperation to preserve the existing social order;
and prudent, skillful statesmanship. The explanations are complementary rather
than conflicting, so that hístorians can disagree on emphases while tacitíy accepting
that the phenomenon can be explained adequately by some combination of these
factors.
The explanations involve an explicit or implicit deniat of any systemic change in
international politics in this more peaceful, stable éra. They do so in three general
ways. First, the t8i5 settlement is commonly interpreted as a restoration of an t8thcenzury-style
balance of power, a con
scious return to classical t8th-cenzury political principles.' Second, most if not all
historians see the post-r8t5 change in the character of international politics as
temporary, with stability and harmony beginning to fade by t82o and in definite
decline by t8jo, and normal political competition back in force after t848' Third, peace
and stability are usually explained as volitional and dispositíonal rather than
structural-i.e., a matter of what statesmen chose to do and were inclined to do in
international politics, rather than what the prevailing systém constrained them from
doing or permitted them to do.
On these particular counts, this essay disputes the general consensus. It is not
exactly wrong, but it leaves important things out. Nineteenth-century international
peace and stability derived mainly from sý"stemic change, reflected in major
institutionalized arrangements and practices divergent from the t8th-century norm.
The i8t5 settlement did not restore an t8th-century-type balance of power or revive
r8th-century pólitical practices; the European equilibrium established in t8r5 and
lasting well into the 19th century differed sharply from so-called balances of power in
the r8th. The systemic change, moveover, proved enduring; it lasted into the latter
part of the century, despite the upheavals of t8q8t85o and the wars of 1854-I871.
Furthermore, 18th-century political patterns of conduct differed from their t8thcenzury
counterparts not so much because of the more pacific, conservative
dispositions, aims, and desires of most statesmen-this difference, if it existed, tended
to disappear quickly-but because the two prevailing systems afforded different systemic
conštraints and possibilities for action.
Much of the argument involved in this counter-thesis cannot be presented here,
much less demonstrated. To show, for example, how the typical rgth-century
conception of the European equilibrium differed from the prevailing t8th-century
ideas of balance of power, and how it worked differently, or to explain how new rules
and practices of politics emerged in the crucible of the NapoleonirWars, would
require lengthy historical analyses. In this essay, I intend only to present a plausible
argument that systemic changes really occurred, and to identify certain ways in
which they show up.
To start with, the most impressive aspect of post-1815 European politics is not
simply the virtual absence of war. More notable is an array of positive results
achieved in international politics in this era, of problems settled and dangers averted
by diplomacy. Leaving the remarkable record of the Vienna Congress in thís respect
aside entirely, a short list of the accomplishments would have to include the
following: the speedy evacuation of Allied armies from France and France's quick
reintegration into the European Concerr the complětion and implementation of the
federal constitution of Germany; the suppression of revolutions in Naples, Piedmont,
Spain, and the Danubian Principalities by international action, without serious
European quarrels; ehe recognition of Latin American independence; the prevention
of war between Russia and Turkey for seven years (1821 to 1828), and a moderate
end to that war after it did break out; ehe creation of an independent Greece; ehe
prompt recognition of a new government in France after the revolution of t83o; the
creation of an independent, neutralized Belgium, despite major dangers of war and
obstacles to a setelement created mainly by quarrels between the Dutch and the
Belgians; the prevention of international conHict in r83o-1832 over revolts in Italy,
Germany, and Poland; the managing of civil wars in Spain and Portugal without
great-power conHict; and two successful joint European rescue operations for the
Ottoman Empire.
One need not accept that all these outcomes represented long-range gains for
domestic and international peace and stability in Europe; nor would anyone claim
that they were reached without crises, tensions, and crosspurposes. Nonetheless, it
remains remarkable that such results could be achieved ae all-chat r9th-century
statesmen could, with a certain minimum of good will and effort, repeatedly reach
viable, agreed-upon outcomes to hotly disputed critical problems. The i8th century
simply does not record diplomatic achievements of ehis kind. To the contrary,
enormous effores were repeatedly expended by t8th-century statesmen not so much
to solve problems as simply to keep them under control and avert breakdown-usually
in vain. Consider, for example, how England and France struggled fruitlessly to
control Elizabeth Farnese's Spain, and tried not to get into war with each other in
y39-t~4i and y54-t756; how much useless effort Charles VI put into securing the
peaceful accession of Maria Theresa in Austria; how Austria and France
unsuccessfully attempted to keep Russia from dominating Poland and the Ottoman
Empire or from partitioning them. The list could readily be extended.
WORLD POLITICS
Of course, we are told that European statesmen after t8t5 were in a different
mood. But were they?.How much so? Previous European wars, allowing for
differences in population and level of economic development, had becn almost as
costly and exhausting as those of r792-t8t5the Thirty Years' War had probably been
worse3-and had left behind comparable legacies of war-weariness and fear of
revolution. After the conclusion of every great war, in 1648, 1713-1714, 1763, 1783,
18o1, 18o7, and 18o9, there had been statesmen who desperately yearned for
peace, wanting not just peace treaties but durable peace settlemenes. The resules
achieved in this direction in the early r8th century alone by George I, Stanhope, the
Abbč Dubois, Baron .Miinchhauscn, Carteret, Cardinal Fleury, Townshend, Walpole,
Bernstorff, and others in no way compare with the will and energy expended, or with
the record of 1815-1848. The presence or absence of good will and peaceful
intentions clearly does not suEfice to explain this phenomenon 4
Moreover, the conservative "Holy Alliance" spirit of 1815 cannot mainly account
for r9th-cenzury international stability, for this spirit, nevcr universai in Europe,
clearly did not survive the revolutions of 1848, while the structural changes in the
states system established in t8t5 largely did. The upheavals of t848-r85o affected
European international politics in ehree main ways. First, ehe revolutions discredited
the so-called Metternich system, the attempt to repress liberalism, nacionalism, and
revolution purely by authoritarian preventive measures. After r85o, even
governmenes that were still basically authoritarian, such as those of Austria, Prussia,
and Louis Napoleon's France, tried to deal with national discontent and revolution by
active policies of modernization and economie development directed from above;
these policies tended to promote rivalry between states, especially in the economic
are Second, the Holy Alliance between ehe three Eastern powers was undermíned.
Prussia and Austria once again became open rivals in Germany, and Russia and
Austria were concealed rivals in the Balkans, while France under
Louis Napoleon and to some extent Britain under Palmerston looked for chances to
exploit and widen the rifts. Third, European conservatism itself made long
strides away from the paci6c, legalistíc internationalism of Metternich's generation,
and toward its own union with nationalism. The new generation of leaders, though
often almost as conservative in domestic politics as Metternich had been, hoped to
defend the existing order not so much by preserving international peace and
monarchial solidarity as by maintaining a strong army and an active foreign policy
that would attach the masses to the regime.
1n other words, the events of 1848 generally undermined the old monarchialconservative
spirit of t8i5 and liberated new forces of nationalism and liberalism even
in Eastern Europe, thereby changing the tone and character of international politics.
With the old motives for a peaceful, stablě international system in decline or in
disrepute, the syslem itself should presumably have been overthrown. Yet, despíte
revolutions in 1848-185o more widespread than those of 1789-1793 and almost as
radical; despite clashes between insurgents and police or armies almost everywhere
in Central and Southern Europe, and serious civil conHicts in France, Prussia,
Saxony, Southwest Germany, Naples, Lombardy, Venetia, Lower Austria, Bohemia,
Hungary, Croatia, Transylvanía, and the Rumanian Principalities; despite two wars in
strategically vita) areas, one in Northern Italy, the other in Schleswig-Holstein, each
involving one major power in combat and other major powers in political complications,
what actually happened in international politics was that, when everything was
over, not one war between Great Powers had broken out, not one international
boundary had been altered, and not one treaty had been torn up. In short, though all
the factors that were said to have produced peace and stability after r8t5 had been
suspended or destroyed, peace had been maintained, and the international crises
had been managed.
But, the critic will reply, not for long. When the Crimean War (t85356) broke out, it
wrecked the European Concert and paved the way fo~ the greater convulsions of
1859-1871 True enough, but not perhaps the most important truth. A.J.P. Taylor
indicates the salient fact, without exactly explaining it, in his essay entitled "Crimea:
The War that Would Not Boil."~ Considering the explošive elements in it, this war
should in
the normal course of events have become a general European conflict. It was the
first war between European great powers in 39 years. Britain and Russia, world
rivals and the strongest powers in Europe, were pitted against each other. Public
opinion, mass passions, and hostile ideologies figured promínently in the outbreak
and conduct of the war. It involved the most complicated, persistent, and dangerous
question in Europeart politics, the Eastern Question. And above all, two of the major
combatants, Britain and France, persistently employed every means at their command
to make it a general war by drawing Austria, Prussia, the German
Confederation, and other neutrals imo it. The leader in lhal effort, Lord Palmerston,
pursued a typical t8th-cenzury war aim, a sweeping reduction of Russia's territory
and poweř, ostensibly to restore the balance of power in Europe.
And what were the results, after two years of costly fighting and unremitting
diplomatic pressure? No neutral joined the war except Sardinia-Piedmont, which
came in almost as a mercenary auxiliary for reasons of its own.e Despite his great
energy and popularity in Britain, Palmerston could not even carry his own cabinet
along in his extreme war aims; in the end, Britain was persuaded by France, with
Austria's help, to end the war and make peace before it wanted to. The war had
sotne profound domestic and international consequences, without a doubt. Russia
was humiliated and weakened internally; Austria was left isolated and vulnerable,
and the Italian, German, and Balkan questions were thrown open. But France won
only a prestige victory, and Britain not even that, while the map of Europe and the
treaty system remained almost unchanged. The only real winners, it turned out, were
thosc who could later exploit the war for their individual purposes: Sardinia-Piedmont,
Prussia, and the nationalists in the Rumanian Principalities.
To be sure, the wars of Italian and German unification quickly followed, and
profoundly altered the map and the treaty system of Europe. 1'hey had significant
effects upon the European states system, particularly the long-range impact of the
so-called unification of Germany? Yet this very period of upheaval in some ways
dcmonstrates the persistent strength of the European system, showing how even in
its dedine it continued to inhibit conflict and promote international arrangements and
stability in a way that could hardly have occurred in the t8th century.
Two striking features of these wars esere the difficulties Cavour and
Bismarck encountered in getting them started under the right conditions, and the
relative ease and speed with which they were ended. By t859, Austria and SardiniaPiedmont
had been waging a cold war for a decade; their diplomatic relations had
been suspcnded for a year, and both powers were poised in armed confrontation;
Cavour had concluded a conspiratorial agreement for war with Napoleon III;
revolutionary nationalist agitation was rife in Italy and tension was high in Europe;
and Austria had almost no friends and many enemies. Despite all this, Cavour was
at the point of resigning in despair in Apríl 1859 because his quest for war had been
foiled by European diplomaty; át the last moment, Austria rescued him with its fatal
ultimatum to Sardinia.'° When Bismarck became Minister-President of Prussia in
t86z, Auseria's position was even worse and the prevailing conservative restraints
upon the exercise of Machtpolitik were still weaker. Bismarck matched or possibly
exceeded Cavour in skill, daring, and lack of scruple, and he operated from a far
stronger base of power. Yet it took him four years before he could maneuver Austria
into war under the right conditions. When he chose to confront France four years
later, only a combination of amazing luck and French blunders saved him from
political defeat and enabled him to conduct a German national war against France
without European interference. In other words, in both 1866 and 187o, despite the
undoubted decay of the European system, there remained enough residual
resistance to the kind of ruthless r8th-century Realpolitik Bismarck frankly espoused
to make his tank difficult."
Like Palmerston's efforts in the Crimean War, ehe record of 1866 and 1870
illustrates how r8th-century politics worked when tried in the t9eh century. Cavour
and Bismarck were in many respects t8th-century-style Kabinettspolitěker, pursuing
the traditíonal expansionist policies of the Houses of Brandenburg and Savoy. Their
r8th-century predecessors, Frederick the Grcat and thc Dukes of Savoy, had had
different problems, however: their wars were easy enough to start, but difficult to
control and to end. Historians have often noted the remarkably limited extent, duration,
and violence of the wars between 1859 and 1871, considering how
much was at stake in them, and have often explained ehis as resulting from the skill
and moderation of Bismarck and Cavour. Leaving aside the question of whether the
aims and tactics of either statesman can be called moderate (Cavour's almost
certainly were not and Bismarck's only in a limited sensc)," that kind ofexplanation is
dcarly inadcquate systemically. Cavour did not end the war in 1859; France and
Austria did, in good part because of European pressure. Cavour was not responsible
for the European response to his actions in t86o-r86t, and was not even alive to see
Italian unity completed. As for Bismarck, remarkable though his fertility in expcdients
was, he clearly was working within a framework of limits and opportunities set by the
European system, and he always knew it.
Even more surprising ehan the limited extent and duration of ehese wars is ehe
rapid integration of their results into ehe European syslem. Two states that had
aggrandized ehemselves by methods widely condcmned in Europe, defeating and
humiliating other European grcat powers in the process, now sought recognition and
acceptance. Onc leaped in a decade from last to first place in the European
pentarchy; the other, though still essentially a second-dass stale, now demandcd
recognition as a great power. One was widely feared as being militarist and ruthless,
ehe other generally despised as weak and unreliable. Yet both were readily
accepted into the great-power dub and, more important, no effort was ever made to
reverse ehis outcome. For the other powers, this involved not merely coming to
terms with accomplished facts and present realities. It meant putting aside deeply
rooted eraditions and goals, and incurring real risks. Austria, for example, has been
accused of hoping after r859 to reverse the outcome in Italy (which is largely true)
and, after 1866, of plotting revenge on Prussia for Sadowa (which is almost wholly
false). What needs explanation and ought to catch the attention of historians is
instead the astonishing readiness of Austria to come to terms with the new states of
Italy and Germany. It involved seeking good relations in the south with a state that
was bound to be its rival in the Adriatic and its potential competitor in the Balkans,
and that still harbored daims to Austrian territory. At the same time, Austria sought
an actual alliance with its historic rival to the north, now expanded into a national
state that threatened Austria militarily, jeopardized the loyalty of its most important
national group, and undermined its raison d'étre as a multinational stale and
European great power.
In a similarly myopic fashion, historians have concentrated their attention on
France's refusal to accept the loss of Alsace-Lorraine in the wake of the FrancoPrussian
War, and the fatal effect this is supposed to have had on Franco-German
relations.'; Actually, while zhe war was still going on, France accepted something
that proved to be vastly more dangerous for French security and power than the loss
of Alsace-Lorrainenamely, the union of South Germany with the North under
Prussian control; now, a militarily superior Germany would directly face France along
a greatly extended Franco-German frontier. Russia, in accepting German unification
under Prussia, swallowed the loss of its most important security asset, a defensive
glacis to the west, the cornerstone of which had always been a federal, divided
structure for Germany and a rivalry between Austria and Prussia that Russia could
rely upon and exploit.
The question is not rvhether the European powers were wise in thus accepting the
faiu accornplis presented to them by Sardinia-Piedmont and Prussia. My own view is
lhal in many ways this was a fatal error, and that Italian and German national
unification needed at least to be controlled and legalized by Europe in concert, even
if after the fact. The important consideration here is that this kind of peaceful
accommodation to drastic changes in the syslem did not happen, and could not have
happened, in the t8th century. One only needs to remember, by way of contrast, how
long and determinedly Austria resisted the loss of Silesia to Prussia, and France the
loss of colonial supremacy to Britain. Some systemic change is required to account
for it.
There is another important and general phenomenon of t9th-cenzury internazional
politics; it is suggested in the title of A.J.P. Taylor's The Struggle for Mastety in
Europe 1848-1918.'~ Actually, for most of the period covered, up to t8go or t9oo at
least, there was no such struggle for mastery in the sense of a conscious drive to
achieve preeminent position and dominant power. Although it makes sense to speak
of a struggle for mastery in Germany and Italy, no one stale ever tried for, much less
achieved, such mastery in Europe as a whole, and it is questionable whether any
coalition did. Britain enjoyed command of the seas, and for a long while was
preeminent in empire, industry, and commerce. But so far as continental Europe is
concerned, what Lord Salisbury said was always true and well known: "We arc fish."
Russia was the strongest member of the Holy Alliance up to the t85os, buj never
dominated Europe as
a whole, or even Central Europe; after the Crimean War, it no longer even led the
Eastern bloc. The common view that Russia enjoyed an enormous and growing
power and prestige in Europe until the Crimean War broke the bubble is a great
exaggeration.'S After t8tg, Russia never was the arbiter of Europe or exercised the
dominant inRuence in Germany lhal Catherine II or Paul I had enjoyed for a time,
and the young Alexander I had aspired to. France, Austria, and Italy were never
serious candidates for mastery. That leaves only Bismarck's Germany. What it
enjoyed (or rather, possessed without really enjoying it) was, in Andreas Hillgruber's
phrase, a labile halE hegemony in Europe, an unintended result of Bismarck's
policy.'6 Basically, he had not wanted to control Europe, but to disentangle Prussia
and Germany from extraneous European quarrels. Instead, as Lothar Gall's excellent
biography shows, he became a sorcerer's apprentice, overwhelmed by his own
success, compeiled to manage and manipulate European problems he had hoped to
be able to ignorc.' ~
The same thesis applies to t9th-century coalitions and alliances: in contrast to t8thcenzury
ones, they were not bids for mastery in Europe. The dominant coalition of
t8t5 was strictly a defensive one against France (and tacitly against one of its
members, Russia); it quickly broke down. After r8zo, the Holy Alliance could not
control events in Western Europc, and the Western powers could not control those
in Central and Eastern Europe. Near Eastern alignments frequently crossed and
shifted. Britain and France could not create a dominant coalition against Russia in
the t8gos: Napoleon III toyed with the idea of a dominant Franco-Russian or FrancoPrussian-Italian
coalition, but never seriously pursued it. Bismarck's alliance syslem
after 1879 was a reluctant defensive coalition intended to keep France from seeking
revenge, and Austria and Italy or Austria and Russia from fighting each other. The
rival allíances of the t89os were basically blocking coalitions in Europe; they were
used as bases to compete for world position.
This is not a quarrel over words, or one of those unavoidable but tiresome disputes
by historians over periodization or taxonomy. It involves the fundamental nature of
the t9th-cenzury international syslem, and challenges the overall view of the history
of international politics expounded by Ludwig Dehio'° and many others, who saw it
as a succession
of bids by various powers for hegemony or supremacy, met ultimately by
defeat and ehe restoration of a balance of power. That ehesis may fit other eras
(ehough even here one can have serious doubts). It does not suit the rgeh
century, which contains no Charles V, Philip II, Louis XIV, Chatham, Catherine
the Great, Napoleon, Hitler, or Stalin. The reason is not lhal igth-cenzury
statesmen were wiser or more restrained, but lhal the tglh-cenzury syslem
inhibited bids for mastery in Europe.
Certainly there was serious competition in rgth-cenzury internalional politics.
It was essentially competition for advanlage, like the competition for shares of
ehe market in an oligopolistic industry. The main advantage sought was lhe
ability to profit from the international syslem at little cosi, to enjoy freedom
and choices others did not, and to escape burdens and payments that others
had to bear. "Being the arbiter of Europe," "having a free hand," and "holding
the balance" were code terms for this advanlageous situation. The critical
consideration, in any case, is that in ehe rglh century, unlike in others, lhe
competition for advantage went on for a long time without degenerating into a
struggle for maseery.
Some evidence even exists to satisfy those who would like quantifiable data to
support the supposed qualitative difference between t8eh- and tgth-century
international politics. This evidence lies in the numbers of battlefield deaths in
European wars in ehe ewo centuries. It should not be pressed too hard, of
course. Statistics are not very reliable, calculations are inexact and hard to
interpret in this area, and there are many variables, such as the size of ehe
respective armies, the effects of different weaponry, tactics, and strategy,
different standards of hygiene and care of the wounded, and so forth.
Nonetheless, the conerast belween the ewo centuries is revealing enough as
an indicator of the scale and frequency of warfare to be meaningful even if
large margins are allowed for error. If one takes the total number of deaths
for1715-1792 (1858,000, according to a recent assessment) and compares it to
that for 1815-1914 (63g,ooo), and then figures in the growth in the population
of Europe between the two centuries (not quite double) and the greater
number of years in the rgeh-cenzury sample, the ratio of r8th- to tgeh-cenzury
battlefield deaths per year is somewhere between 7:t and 8:1
Thus, a prima facie case exises that a profound, durable change occurred in
international politics after 1815. Three features introduced into international
politics in r8t3-t8r5, which became constitutive elemenes of the system, help
to account for this change, and make it systematic in character. Thcy made it
possible for tgth-cenzury statesmen to manage three centra) and perennial
problems of international politics in the face of which the t8th century system
had been relatively helpless. The three problcms wcre: how to assure a
reasonable amount of mutual security and status for all ehe great powers; how
to insulate Europe from exeraEuropean sources of conAict; and how to
reconcile the legitimate requirements of smaller states for a secure
independence with the equally Icgitimate and unavoidable quest of great
powers for spheres of inAuence beyond eheir frontiers.
Thc three new elements of international politics that served to meet these
problems were the treary syslem of 1815 and the European Concert; the
"fencing off' of the European stale system from the extra-European world; and
the establishment of a system of ineermediary bodics between the great
powers. 1 will make no attempt here to show how these elements arose, on
what new bases of collective outlook they rested, how ehey worked in most
individual cases, what led to their gradual breakdown and supersession, and
how this affected the sys~em. That sort of historical exposition must be done if
the argument is to hold up in the long run, but to attempt it here would shatter
the bounds of this essay.
The treaty system of r8rg and ehe European Concert are the bestknown
elements, and the easiest to define and illustrate. Beginning with thc Vienna
setelement, thc tgth-cenzury international system guaranteed the existence,
security, status, and vítal interests of all the Europcan grcat powers. Between
r8r3 and t8tg, the members of the final coalition against France worked out
Europe's boundarics in a way mutually tolerable to all the important powers,
including France, and then guaranteed ehese eerritorial arrangements by a
series of interlocking ereaties and a general great-power alliance, from which
France was initially excluded, but which it soon joined. A variety of procedures
and devices serengthened this network of treary guarantees, induding a sys~em of
diplomacy by conference and some general principles of a European Concert. The
lateer protected the righes, intereses, and equal status of the great powers above all,
but they also committed these powers to the performance of certain duties
connected with ehose righes-respect for treaties, noninterference in other states'
internal affairs, willingness to participate in the Concert's decisions and actions, and
a general observance of legality and
restraint in their international actions. This system of guarantees for the rights,
status, and existence of the great powers, though egregiously violated and badly
strained in the mid-cenzury wars, managed to make something of a comeback and
to endure after a fashion till the turn of the century.
By contrast, though r8th-century statesmen and theorists had often talked about
such a system,°~ the rights, status, vítal interests, and very existence of great
powers were never safe at that time, and were often deliberately attacked. Attempts
to partition the territory of other major powers and to reduce them to second- or thirdrank
status were a normal part of r8th-century politics"-constitutive and necessary
features of the system rather than its accidental products'3 Thus, the total
destruction of the European balance during the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars
represents merely the climax of a process begun much earlier, rooted ín the
conviction shared by all great powers and many smaller ones that, in order to
preserve their status and security, they not only needed to aggrandíze themselves
but also to eliminate the threats posed by the existence of their rivals.
The second major element is not as obvious. In the rgth-century syslem, international
politics within Europe was essentially separated from colonial, maritime, and commercial
competition between European powers in the non-European world. In Gustav Adolph Rein's
phrase, Europe was hedged in, fenced off from the rest of the world ~ The most striking
evidence of this change from the r8th century is what happened to maritime and colonial
questions in the peace settlement and after it. Like the major i8th-cenzury wars, the wars of
the Revolution and Napoleon were world contests fought around much of the globe. The
main stakes in the struggle between France and Britain were marítime and coloníal su
premacy which, after 18o7, became almost the only reason for continuing the war.
While France's most effective propaganda weapon in Europe was to denounce
Britain's tyranny on the seas, Napoleon's attempt to counter British seapower
through the Continental System may have done more than anything else to hasten
his ultimate downfall. The maritime and colonial conflict had enormous worldhistorical
results. Among other things, it brought the United States into the war and
helped confirm its independence, led to the revolutionary liberation of Latin America,
and laid the foundations of Britain's territorial empire in India. Moreover, maritime
and colonial issues werc heavily involved in European international politics; a good
part of the diplomacy of the various allied coalitions, including the final one,
consisted of efforts by various continental powers to get Britain to make colonial and
maritime concessions to France and its allies in the interests of continental peace.
Yet before the war was over, this intimate, seemingly indissoluble connection
between European and overseas wars and politics had been severed. Britain flatly
barred the issue of maritime law from discussion at the peace table and firmly
rejected any Russian or allied mediation of its war with the United States. As to the
colonial settlement, the British insisted that though they would be generous (and on
the whole they were), in principle they would not make colonial concessions in return
for France's agreement to continental peace terms. First Britain's major allies, then
France, and finally its client Holland accepted the terms Britain offered, and that
ended it. The only overseas issue discussed at Vienna concerned the slave trade,
which involved morality and prestige more than power or material interests. In other
words, Europe accepted British naval and colonial supremacy, choosing to live with it
and, so far as strictly European politics was concerned, to ignore it.
Something similar happened with regard to the Ottoman Empire, which had
become a major zone of European conflict in the late r 8th century and the
Napoleonic wařs. Proposals were made to include it in the general settlement and its
guarantees, but they were not pursued. Russia had unsettled grievances against the
Turks which it did not want to submit to European control; Metterních-who viewed
the Balkans as part of Asia, and Austria's southeastern border with Turkey as
equivalent to a sea frontier-wanted the Ottoman Empire left as it was. Other parts of
Asia (India, Persia, the Middle East) also underwent major changes in the
Napoleonic wars; some historians have traced the origins of Anglo-Russian world
rivalry back to i8t5 or earlier's But even if certain roots of the
later struggle can be detected at this stage, the British government as a whole did
not begín to see Russia as a serious menace to India and the empire until the t83os;
even then, British policy remained Europecentered overall'6 The post-Víenna period,
in fact, witnessed the abatement of both rivalry and intimacy in Anglo-Russian
relations. Before IHIS, Catherine II, Paul I, and Alexander I had each at various times
been avowed enemies and close allies of Britain. After t8t5, the two powers were
neither one nor the other-never enemies until 1853, and never close allies, despite
the efforts of Nicholas I and his advisers to reach a partnership with England on
European and Near Eastern questions'~ In the typical post-Vienna manner, each
power saw the other as a potential rival to be managed by ostensible friendship. In
any case, the Eastern powers-especially Austria and Prussia, but Russia as well---
did not let extra-European questions seriously affect their policies in Europe.'s
Nor, in the main, did the English and French. Their rivalry overseas never
disappeared entirely after i8t5, and Hared up on occasion over various issues, such
as the slave trade, Britain's right of search, Latin America, Madagascar, Tahití, and
Algeria. But this was more an irritant than a serious danger, it kept the two powers
from genuine entente but never threatened the peace. In Europe, Britain and France
were able to cooperate in a wary fashion in the Iberian Peninsula, Belgium, Greece,
and the Near East. The only serious crisis between them, in r84o, arose over a
European Concert issue, the Eastern Question, where a perceived insult to France's
honor was deemed more important than any blow to her interests' In a similar way,
Britain and the Netherlands remained friends in Europe despite their commercial and
colonial rivalries and disputes in the Far East
To dismiss this shielding of European politics from extra-European quarrels as
unimportant, or to attribute it simply to Britain's unchallenged superiority overseas, is
to ignore or underrate the sharp contrast between the 18th and 19th centuries in this
respect, as well as the change
in outlook that made it possible. The 18th century was filled with wars in North
America, the West Indies, India, and on the high seas, which spilled over into
Europe, and vice versa. Eighteenth-cenzury statesmen had often tried, without
success, to separate European from extra-European quarrels-witness Walpole's
failure in t73g-t74o, and Newcastle's tn t754-r756 j' Nineteenth-century statesmen
not only could separate the two if they wished, but found it relatively easy and normal
to do so. Europe's acceptance of British maritime and overseas domination does
need explanation; it was not automatic. During the lazter part of the t8th century and
the Napoleonic Wars, British naval practices aroused much resentment of Britain on
the contincnt, as British statesmen were well aware; several major efforts at united
action were promoted against them (the Leagues of Armed Neutrality led by Russia
in t78o and r8oo-t8or, and the Continental System). No such anti-British continental
combination was ever contemplated in the t9th century until Russia proposed one
during the Boer War, and then it came to nothing. One major reason was lhal Britain
made its maritime and colonial supremacy far more tolerable to othet powers, and
even advantageous to them in some respects, than it had been in the t8th century.
Thus the position advanced by Friedrich von Gentz and other defenders of Brizain
during the Napleonic warsthat the anti-British arguments about maritime law and
neutral rights were spurious and that Britain's control of the seas, though vital to Britain's
existence, threatened no one else-was made good in the postwar era. With the
gradual transítion from a mercantilisz to a free-trade empire, British maritime
supremacy became at worst only an irritant and a latent threat to others, and in some
ways even an asset. British naval vessels cleared out pirates in the Red Sea and the
Persian Gulf to the advantage of all nations,3' guarded sea lanes all could use, and
held colonies with whom all could trade. Moreover, while expanding its own empire,
Britain did not for most of the century seriously interfere with imperial expansion and
consolidation by other states, especially France and the Netherlands. Nineteenthcentury
Britain is often praised for maintaining peace and the balance of power
within Europe, and criticized for greedy imperialism outside it. So far as the
European states syslem is concerned, the verdict could well be reversed. Britain, in
my view, did not really
maintain the European balance and more than once endangered tl peace of Europe,
but the way Britain ran its empire contributed much i making the r9th-century syslem
work.
I
The third element is the least recognized, but quite possibly the most important.
The settlement of t8tg established a broad syslem of inter mediary bodies in Europe:
smaller states situated and organized to serve as buffers and spheres of influence.
While they separated the great powers, making it more difficult for them to fight, they
also linked them by giving them something in common to manage. The importance
of intermediary bodies ín the tgth-century syslem has been little recognizednoť
because the facts about them are unknown, but because these fact: have been
interpreted in a different framework. The arrangements made concerning smaller
powers in the Vienna settlement have traditionally been viewed in terms of balanceof-power
politics, or a barrier system designed to contain France, or territorial deals
and compensations negotiated to meet rival stale and dynastic claíms. None of these
explanations is wrong. Statesmen thought and acted according to these ideas, as
the documents show, though they also talked about intermediary bodies and their
uses. But here is where one must distinguish between what the leaders intended to
do and what they actually did. The syslem of intermediary bodies emerging from the
Vienna settlement was less a product of deliberate planning than ít was the ultimate
outcome of arrangements reached mainly for other, more immediate purposes. The
most important historic results are often unintentional. Mazzini once said of the
Italian Risorgimento, "We aimed for ten and achieved two:' In t8t5, European
statesmen aimed for two and achieved six or seven.
The Kingdom of the United Netherlands, formed of the Dutch provinces, Belgium,
and Luxemburg, is a good case in point. It was of course designed to be the
keystone of the proposed defensive barrier against France. In its actual role and
function, however, it was no more simply a barrier state than Poland or
Czechoslovakia after World War I were simply part of the French cordon sattitaire
against Germany and Russia. King William I intended his kingdom to be an
independent power playing a meaningful general role in European politics; that is the
main reason he fought so stubbornly against the loss of Belgium after r83o?3
Metternich specifically called the Netherlands an intermediary body linking Austria
to Britain, through South and West Germany, forming a conservative phalanx to
keep the restless powers, Russia and France, from weighing on the European center
Prussia, once its own conflicts with the Dutch were settled, considered the
Netherlands a sphere of influence to be shared with England, linking Prussia and
Britain. The other German princes looked at William, a member of the Germari
Confederation as Grand Duke of Luxemburg, as their ally in preserving the
independence of middle-sized and small states against Austria and Prussia?s Even
Russia considered its influence in the Netherlands important and for this reason
promoted a marriage between the Dutch Crown Prince and a Russian Grand
Duchess. In short, the United Netherlands served a number of functions as an
intermediary body; most of these survived when its role as a barrier against France
disappeared with the Belgian revolt of t83o. Belgium itself became an intermediary
body with various important functions aside from lhal of being a neutral barrier
against France.3ó
Scandinavia (Denmark and Sweden-Norway) represents another intermediary
body after r8t5, but one to which balance-of-power and barrier-syslem considerations
hardly apply at all. Once the territorial struggle between Sweden and Denmark over
Norway was settled in t8r4, the Baltic was opened to general, peaceful trade. None
of the three neighboring great powers, Russia, Prussia, and Britain, tried to dominate
it exclusively, but all were anxious to maintain free access through the straits and
preserve the status quo. Scandinavia was thus effectively removed from great-power
politics, ending the centuries-old Northern Question, which had been a.major arena
of conflict throughout the t8th century and the Napoleonic wars
Neutral Switzerland is the clearest and most familiar example of an intermediary
body,in the peace settlement. It is important to correct an impression fostered by
some Swiss historians that, in restoring and neutralizing the Swiss Confederation in
the Vienna settlement, the great powers merely reestablished a traditional Swiss
arrangement, with the intention of removing Switzerland entirely from European
politics. Although the allies certainly based their work on Swiss tradition, the Swiss
Confederation of t8rg was distinctly a great-power accomplishment
something the cantons themselves, riddled by internal rivalries, could never have
achieved on their own?e Moreover, in guaranteeing the Swiss federal constitution,
the allies were not attempting to remove Switzerland from the European states
system, but to ensure that the Swiss played certain important roles within it. An
independent, neutral, loosely federated Switzerland was intended to be part of the
barrier system, to hold the Alpine passes, to provide a bulwark against revolution,
and to afford a safe sphere of influence for its neighbors. Including the Swiss
constitution in the Final Act of Vienna did not mean that no power could say anything
about Swiss affairs, but that no one power could have an exclusive say; all had the
right to hold Switzerland to the performance of its international obligations. From t8t5
to 1848, Switzerland's neighbors made considerable use of their right of intervention
in Switzerland, sometimes illegitimately, sometimes with good reason.
The German Confederation (Deutscher Bund was an even more important
intermediary body than Switzerland. The conventional textbook view is that the Bund
represented a good way of organizing Germany for external defense against France
and Russia without making it a threat to its neighbors. For internal purposes,
however, it was considered unsatisfactory, since it kept the German territory divided
into many small states dominated by Austria and Prussia, who used their control to
repress liberalism, constitutionalism, and nationalism. This liberal-nationalist view
contains some truth, but also considerable distortion, as scholars have long
recognized. For one thing, the main foreign policy problem of Germany was not the
external threat from France or Russia, but the internal rivalry between Austria and
Prussia. Their t8th-cenzury conflicts and wars had devastated Germany, destroyed
all chances for reform in the old Empire, promoted both French and Russian
influence in German affairs, and ultimately led to conquest by the French;9 The
partnership between Austria and Prussia and their joint victory in the War of
Liberation and the final campaign against France temporarily overcame ehis rivalry,
but did not itself solve the problem. It remained alive during the Congress of Vienna,
reaching a climax in the Polish-Saxon question; in t8t4-t8t5, both French and
Russian leaders still entertained ideas about regaining their former influence in
German affairs by exploiting Austro-Prussian differences. Thus, from the standpoint
of the European syslem, the main function of the German Confederation was to
make the problem of Aus
tro-Prussian rivalry manageable, which it did for almost half a centurya remarkable
achievement. The whole of Germany became an intermediary body for Europe
generally and for Austria and Prussia in particular. It was neither divided into
scparate Austrian and Prussian spheres, as Prussia wanted, nor was the Empire
restored under Habsburg leadership. Instead, Germany was united into a princely
confederativn of independent states which Austria and Prussia had to manage
jointly. This same approach served to make Germany's other foreign policy
problems, also internal in origin, similarly manageable-it settled rivalries and territorial
disputes between various smaller states, between estates and princes,
between the bene6ciaries and the victims of Napoleonic rule, between Catholics and
Protestants, and even between diffcrent factions of Catholics and Protestants
It is equally mistaken to assume that the main forces that the Gcrman
Confederation of t8t5 needed to accommodate, but chose instead to repress, were
liberal and nationalist ideas and movements stimulated by the French Revolution
and the War of Liberation. These ideas were indeed repressed, especially in t8t9t8zo
and after; but they had only a narrow following in Germany anyway-among
some students, intellectuals, and enlightened stale officials. The prevailing political
sentiment among rulers and masses alike was much more conservative in t8t5 than
in 1792. The War of Liberation was fought and won overwhelmingly by regular
standing armies; as for the people (i.e., the peasants), they eíther did not rise at all in
t8t3 or did so mainly for God, king, and local country-not for a free and united
Germany!' Therefore the main realities of 1792t8t3 in Germany with which allied
statesmen had to deal-asidc from considerable destruction, residual Francophobia,
and a heightened aversion to revolution•'-were the results of the destruction of the
old Empire and Napoleon's Confederation of the Rhine. The princely revolution of
t8o3 and after, not the French Revolution of 1789 or the German uprising of t8t3,
represented the dominant political fact of post-Napoleonic Germany. Lacking even
the rudimentary bond of the old Empire and its ideal of government based on law
rather than power, Germany now included centralized, territorially integrated states,
run by new bureaucra
cies and supported by a new stale-consciousness. These states had already
swallowed up the ecclesiastical principalities, mediatized and absorbed the small
semi-independent princes, incorporated most free cities, and wcre working to uproot
old estate, religious, local, and tribal loyalties.„ This not only clcared the stream bed
of German history (as German historians say); it also created divisions more than
unity, and promoted stale patriotism more than German nationalism, at least in the
short run The main task of German statesmen in t8t3-t8tg, rather than satisfying a
popular cry for German unity, lay in bridging conflicts, not merely between states, but
especially between the old dispossessed and the new beati possidentes.
A futther problem: although Germany was intended to be the main component of
the defensive system against France, neither Austria nor Prussia wanted that direct
responsibility. Both tried to put other states on the front line, distancing themselves
from France as much as possible. Wilness Austria's refusal to take back its former
holdings in the Netherlands, its readiness to shcd its old Southwest German
territories, and its steady rejection of new territory or obligations on the Rhine; recall
also Prussia's effort to annex the whole of Saxony and to compensate the King of
Saxony with a new kingdom madc up partly of Prussian territory on lhe Rhine. The
rest of Germany, in othcr words, was supposed to be a buffer and intcrmcdiary body
belween France and Austria and Prussia.
As a result, while the Bund was certainly designed to hold France in check, it did
not take sensible Frenchmen long to realize that it might be penetrated politically,
thereby restoring France's old influence. For years after t8t5, French diplomats
continued to consider Bavaria as France's natural ally, for example; some leading
Bavarians, including the King, agreed wilh them!S To be sure, France failed to
exploit the opportunities
it had, and German public opinion even in formerly pro-French cirdes turned
nationalisl and, Francophobe, as proved by the crisis of t84o!6 Yet, even after
France lost its chance to regain its former influcnce and friends, the Bund never
threatened France, and actually contributed to its security. Certainly it was a safer
arrangement than a Germany united under either German great power, or under
both of them. If Frenchmen resented the Confederation, it was for the same reasons
lhey resented the whole settlement of t8tg: not because il was a danger to France,
but because they somehow considered it an insult and a humiliation.
When all this is added up, it becomes clear that the Bund rcally functioned as a
great multipurpose intermediary body in Central Europe. It both linked and separated
all the parts of Germany, preserving their individual independence while enabling
them to exist in the same space. It separated Germany as a whole from the rest of
Europe, preventing the sort of outside intervention common in the 18th century, while
linking it to Europe in various ways-to lhe other great powers, guaranlors of the
federal constitution through the Final Act of Vienna; to the Netherlands and
Denmark, who were part of the Bund as owners of Luxemburg and Holstein; to Italy
(Istria, Trieste, and the South Tyrol were members); and even to the Slav world
(Bohemia and Carínthia). The Prussian and Austrian territories that were not part of
the historic Reich (East and West Prussia, Posen, Galicia, Hungary, Dalmatia, Illyria,
and Lombardy-Vcnetia) were not included, however, so that Austria's and Prussia's
roles as European great powers were consciously separated from their functions as
leaders of Germany. The Bund did not unify Germany; that would have been
impossiblc in t8rg, and dangerous at any timc. But it did a reasonable job of
providing for Germany, in Melternich's words, "Einigkeit ohne Einheit," concord
wilhout union.
In three areas of Europe-Italy, the Balkans, and Poland-the intermediary body
interpretation of the i8t5 settlement does not seem to work. Even here, however,
closcr examination alters the initial impression. Italy supposedly came under direct
Austrian control in t8tg. True, Austria gained Lombardy-Venetia and cnjoyed strong
dynastic and treaty links to much of the rest of Italy. Metternich used all his
diplomatic skill, both in t8I4-t8t5 and later, to try to exclude French and Russian
influence. At the same time, Italy was deliberately organizcd to separate France and
Austria, and Austria's leading influence never developed into exclusive control.
Various attempts by Metternich to make it so (for ex
ample, his efforts to create a Lega Italica, an Austrian-led Italian Confederation)
failed in the face of Piedmontese and papal resistance l~ British inAuence and naval
power remained important. The fact chat Austria retaincd the lead in Italy for two
dewdes aftcr t8t5 was due not so much to the peace settlement or Austrian power as
to the fact that most Italian governmcnts were even more conservative and fearful of
revolution than Austria, and sought Austria's help in time of trouble. France had
chances to compete successfully, but threw them away. Had Napoleon not come
back from Elba and overthrown Louis XVIII in March t8t5, the Bourbons would have
been restored at I`daples under royal French sponsorship, giving France the lead in
southern Italy. In this and other ways, Napoleon's last adventure set back French
policy in Italy for a generation. In any case, indcpendent entities such as SardiniaPiedmont
and the Papal States functioned as intermediary bodies, sěparating
France and Austria, making it hardcr for them to go to war (which was of
considerable importance in t83t-3z), and giving them common problems that they
somehow had to approach jointly. By t83t, France and Austria were involved in an
international conference over the Roman question. By the mid-t83os, Metternich was
trying to limit French inAuence rather than to exclude it; and by the mid-t8qos, he
was actively trying to work with Francc in Italy.
Although the Ottoman Empire in southeastern Europe was not formally included in
the peace settlement, it functioned as an intermediary body between Austria and
Russia. It is clear why no formal arrangement was reached: after three generations
of growing rivalry in the Balkansf°-a rivalry that reached its most dangerous stage for
Austria in t8og-t8tz with Russia's attempt to anncx the Rumanian Principalitiesboth
great powers found it wiser to leave the issue alone, since their relations were
strained enough by other questions. Besides, any formal arrangement, such as a
guarantee of Turkish territory, would run afoul of Russia's residual territorial claims
on Turkey, as wcll as of traditional Russian interests, ambitions, and claims to a
protectorate over the Orthodox Church in the Balkans. Moreover, throughout the first
half of the tgth century, Russia's position vis-á-vis Turkey was far stronger than
Austria's militarily, strategically, and on ethnic and religious grounds. Thus, the only
possible basis for general Austro-Russian cooperation in
Europe (wanted by both sides) was conservative nonintervention in Turkey. So long
as Russia was content to preserve the Ottoman Empire as a weak, inoffensive
neighbor (which was most of the time), and to accept Austria as a junior partner in
this, the two got along well. Whenever Russia seemed headed toward destroying
Turkey or dominating it exclusively, ít caused an Austro-Russian breach which, as in
t853-t855, could lead to the brink of war. The Balkans served as an intermediary
body for other powers as well. In the new kingdom of Greece after t83o, Britain,
France, and Russia competed and cooperated as supervisors,~9 while interna)
Ottoman crises in the t83os and t8qos made Turkey the central object of Concert
diplomacy.
Poland does not fit the general pattern of t8t5, of intermediary bodies separating
and linking great powers. It was partitioned in t77z-t7g5 by Russia, Austria, and
Prussia, although these powers knew this would cause trouble by gíving them long
common frontiers; in t8tq-t8tg, it was re-partitioned in an even more dangerous way,
bringing Russia deep into Centra) Europe. Everyone knew that the partition of
Poland violated the rules and made Poland a problem for Europe. Many Austrían
leaders admitted privately that the original partition had been a great mistake, and
Castlereagh and Talleyrand argued in principle for restoring an independent Poland.
But no one really believed in this possibility, and for good reasons. The weaknesses
that had promoted Poland's demise in the t8th century had grown worse through
war, devastation, and interna) divisions. More important still, in t8ts an independent
Poland would not have been a barrier to Russian expansion, but an integral part of it,
just as an independent Ukraíne would have served German imperialism if Germany
had won thc First World War. The plan Prince Adam Czartoryski presented to
Alexander I in t8t3 proposed, in fact, to join the kingdom of Poland permanently to
Russia and to make it Russia's junior partner in dominating Centra) Europe.
Poland thus was not restored for much the same reasons as those for which the
Holy Roman Empire was not restored: the attempt could not have succeeded, and
would have constituted a dangerous power play by one state against the others.
What Russia and Prussia actually tried to do in relation to Poland and Saxony was
bad enough. The only way the Polish lands could serve intermediary functions after
t8tg was the one actually employed: each of the partitioning powers promised to
respect Polish nationality and culture and to grant its Polish territories a separate
administration and institutions. The arrangements made for this purpose were
unsatisfactory from the outset, and the situation became worse with time and Polish
insurrcctions. Yet the provisions were not worthless, at least at first, and contríbutcd
something to the survival of Polish nationality 5° So far as international politics was
concerned, while Poland represented a European problem and a danger to peace,
especially in the revolts of i83o-t83r and 1863, in a curious and tragic way it was also
a source of stability-the cement lhal helped hold the Holy Alliance powers together
while simultaneously keeping them potential rivals.
Even apparent exceptions like Poland, then, show how the r8r5 settlement
involved a network of intermediary bodies in Europe, designed to inhibit great-power
conflict and to promote Rexible interaction. The system did not make the smaller
powers of Europe simply the tools and pawns of the great ones, as some have
believed. One of the more striking aspects of the I8c3-t8t5 negotiations is the
genuine concern of the allies to ensure the independence of all states, including the
smaller ones. The charge ofgreedy expansionism fits some smaller stateš (the
United Netherlands, Bavaria, Sweden, Sardinia-Piedmont) better than any of the
bigger ones. Nor did the European Concert and great-power solidarity, when they
existed, mean that the desires and interests of small states could be ignored. Small
states could get away with much resistance and obstruction, even in the face of
united European pressure. Witness how Bavaria and Wiirttemberg resisted the great
powers in t8tq-r8z6 with regard to the Bund and territorial questions, and how
Holland and Belgium did so from r83r to t83g. There has never been an era in
European history before t8rg-i8q8 or since that time when a small stale could feel so
confident that it would not be the target of conquest or annexation by some great
power. This respect for small-stale independence was not based on legitimist
dogma, self-denial, or mora( sentiments, but on a healthy realism-the recognition lhal
buffers and barriers were needed all round, not just against France, and that the
independence of great powers was intertwined with that of lesser states. In the r8th
century, by contrast, smaller states had been pawns on the great-power chessboard,
continual objects of compensation, exchange, and conquest, while those
intermediary bodies lhal were in existence (the Holy Roman Empire, Scandinavia,
Poland, Italy, Turkey) were spongy, riddled with interna( weaknesses and rivalries,
and thus were vulnerable targets for takeover or arenas of all-out conflict.
If this essay has succeeded in showing that real systemic change oc
curced in international politics between the 18th and 19th centuries and in identifying
some of its structural elements, it still affords no basis for hard conclusions or
sweeping generalizations. Historians and political scientists will undoubtedly want to
have many questions answered, challenges met, and details clarified before they
accept the prima facie case made here. Still, if this thesis adds something to the
politícal scientists' fund of concepts and models for analyzing international politics,
and encourages diplomatic historians to concentrate more on systemic factors and
systemic change, it will not be useless. Moreover, the centra( problems with which
the tgth-cenzury syslem had to cope are not unique to its time; they may be
irreducible constitutive elements of intcrnational politics in any era: How to ensure
the security and status of great powers while curbing great-power hegemony and
imperialism; how to shield the overal( system and its centra( power-political
relationships from shocks emanating from peripheral conflicts; how to reconcile the
independence and security of smaller states with the inevitable determination of
great powers to exercise influence beyond their borders and to protect their wider
interests-these are problems lhal statesmen still face every day, and presumably
always will. More light on the reason for the rgth century's relative success may not
be irrelevant to today's concerns.