Customer Reviews
"L'Elephant, C'est Un Question Polonaise" - By: M. W. Stone, 11 Oct 2008 
We were overdue for a readable history of this period, & Zamowski (bar the odd quibble) has done a creditable job.
In particular, he brings out well the crucial importance of the Hundred Days, not for what might have happened - Napoleon's prospects were never very bright - but for what did,in giving the victors a badly needed cold shower. In the Summer of 1814 - barely three months after Napoleon's despatch to Elba - disputes over Saxony & Poland had brought them to the brink of war - with Britain & Austria ready to ally with France against their fellows. With Napoleon's defeat, all thought themselves "home & dry" & free to quarrel among themselves. The Deus ex machina - or "Diabolus ex Elba"? - delivered the mother of all wakeup calls, ramming home how fragile their victory still was, & concentrating their mindsin a Johnsonian sense.
And not just temporarily. The Holy Alliance, formed to preserve their victory, would endure for decades. Britain dropped out early - being an offshore island she could afford to - as did France after 1830, but not until the Crimean War did its core - Austria, Russia, Prussia - fall apart, & it was a further decade (1866) before one of those three actually fought another. Even that war - the work of another "wild card" of even lower probability than Napoleon - remained a unique "exception that proved the rule" until 1914. For Bismarck, having got what he wanted, promptly formed a "Dreikaiserbund" which was essentially the Holy Alliance by another name. All this was Napoleon's work, & specifically the result of his returnin 1815. His admirers often speak of how he would have "united Europe" had he won, overlooking the degree to which he did unite a much of it for a remarkably long time. It recalls the old "united Ireland" joke that the Irish can unite only under British rule - because that unites them against the Brits. Napoleon did a similar job of uniting Europeans against himself.
Some nitpicks. Zamowski seems to take Napoleon's 1815 embrace of constitutional government seriously, though a plainer case of "The Devil was sick, the Devil a monk would be" is surely hard to find. And the last chapter spoils it somewhat, with his grumbles about the settlement often sounding plaintive & almost childish. He speaks of "Siberian chain gangs" as if these weren't a normal part of Russian history, or could have been made less common by some changein the Vienna settlement. More generally, complaining about their disregard of nationalism, he talks as if the peacemakers had a "tabula rasa", to draw on as they pleased, after himself spending the earlier & better parts of this work showing they didn't. Take Poland. The Tsar had it & was set on keeping it. Condemning the 1815 arrangements leaves only two alternatives, to close with the Tsar over the Poland/Saxony deal - little change, just slightly more Polesin Russia & lessin Prussia - or else return to the carve-up of 1795, which from a "national" viewpoint is even worse. Which does he prefer? Ditto (pretty much) for Germany & Italy. The Kings of Sicily & Sardinia, however "imbecilic", were on the winning side, so could hardly be dispossessed, & if the Tsar kept Poland, Austria & Prussia could only be compensated westwards, iein Italy & north Germany respectively. South Germany wasn't available, as its rulers had deserted Napoleonin good time, so were alsoin the winning camp. In short, most of the continent was already "spoken for".
Zamowski grumbles about the arbitrary transfer of "souls" between rulers, as undermining traditional loyalties. But given how much of that Napoleon had done, especiallyin Germany, it wasn't easily avoidable. Bar Venice & Genoa, extinguished nearly two decades before & not restored, the worst examples were Norway & Saxony, but those who stick too long to the losing side have always risked loss of territory. And given the straggling & quite un-ethnographic borders of Napoleon's Francein 1812, the total number of people under foreign rule may have actually gone down.
One can't help feeling Zamowski is just miffed that his own country didn't fare better. It recalls the international school which set an essay on elephants & got -
Englishman - how to hunt an elephant
American - economic importance of the elephant
Frenchman - sex life of the elephant.
German - military importance of the elephant
Pole - the elephant & the Polish question.
Yet, at the risk of blasphemy, did even Poland do so badly? My impression is that through the 18C her "independence" was a joke, & that from the Northern War to the Seven Years, she was routinely trampled over & plundered by foreign armiesin pursuing their own conflicts. Was this better for her people than the nasty but brief ordeals of 1830-1 & 1863-4?
Zamowski is rather sniffy about the "century of peace" after 1815. Perhaps, as a Pole, it matters less to him, but the wars between Britain & France, since 1689 (1066?) had been events as regular as the World Cup (and British victories celebrated like Olympic golds) were certainly ended. There was still a rebellion or three, but even counting these, the two biggest - China's Taiping Rebellion & America's Civil War - werein areas not covered by the settlement. Europe got off light. And were the 1830 Poilish & Belgian revolts really "major wars"?
As even Zamowski acknowledges, the peacemakers had an enormous task, & it is far from clear that different decisions would have caused fewer long-term problems. As King Albert of the Belgians told a critic of the Versailles Treaty. "They did what they could". Perhaps an even fairer comment on the 1815 than the 1919 settlement.
Still, with all its faults, an excellent book. Enjoy it.
An excellent read - By: Alan Lenton, 21 Jul 2008 At a time when most history seems to consist of unconnected trivia suitable only for pub quizzes, it's a relief to find a book by an author who sees history as a process. The book is a study of the Congress of Vienna at the end of the Napoleonic Wars. The Congress was one of the most important gatherings of the 19th century, & it set the tone for 'big power' politics for the next hundred years. The wayin which it carved up Europe between the victors & losers without consideration for the wishes of the populations also set the parameters for the two World Warsin the 20th century.
But Zamoyski doesn't just deal with the 'dry' politics - he also deals with the social event that was also the Congress of Vienna. Judging from his description & the quotes from reportsin the archives of the Austrian police, many of the main participants spent far more time with their assorted mistresses than trying to sort out the problems caused by the Napoleonic wars.
Even before I read this book I always thought that Talleyrand was the consummate politician of the 19th Century. Having read what he achievedin defending France's interests at the congress, I now appreciate just how brilliant he was. No wonder that when he eventually died, most of the people at his funeral were there to make sure he really was dead, with no chance of coming back!
An excellent read.
A most magnificent book - By: Thomas Koetzsch, 27 Apr 2008 I would agree with both the other reviewers here that The Rites of Peace is a most magnificent book. Adam Zamoyski has again written a master piece. He notesin his introduction that there isn't a lot of information published on `The Congress of Vienna'. In future one needs only to read Zamoyski's book.
Zamoyski starts his tale right after Napoleon's disastrous Russia campaign. If you need any background information on this, you should perhaps read Zamoyski's `1812', which covers this campaign quite thoroughly. In fact, 1812 could be regarded as the prequel to `Rites of Peace'.
The lack of loyalty displayed amongst the leading politicians of the day by taking service with one country after the other didn't really surprise me because you can read that right through the history of the time. But thank God it doesn't happen today because otherwise George W. Bush could conceivably be the next Prime Ministerin Britain.
The Peacemakers are a rather screwy bunch. Principally, these are Austria, Russia, Prussia & England & France after Napoleon is retired to Elba. The only thing they do all day is to work out how best to take advantage of the other Peacemakers & at the same time hang onto or gain as much new Territory as possible. It struck me as a good jokein a way that the central issue of the Congress of Vienna turns out to be the Kingdom of Saxony & that of Poland.
It doesn't surprise me that the Peacemakers threatened to go to war against each other more than once. With Napoleon gone, there is no common cause. It also didn't surprise me that the Congress of Vienna went on for so long. The constant maneuvering cannot be done quickly. Besides, the whole event struck me as one gigantic orgy. It would appear that never has so much sex been performed by so many peoplein one place.
What made me laugh was how quickly the Congress of Vienna was over once Napoleon left Elba to conduct his 100 daysin power. Amongst the statesmen assembledin Vienna, both Lord Castlereagh & Metternich & probably Talleyrand struck me as the most capable & both Tsar Alexander & Frederick William III of Prussia as a complete waste of space.
At the end of his book, Zamoyski notes that the Congress of Vienna re-shaped Europe & that the effects of this `New Order' could be felt right into the early part of the 20th century. I would wager that some of these could still be felt today.
A magnificent achievement - By: Ralph Blumenau, 07 Mar 2008 Adam Zamoyski saysin his introduction (p.xiv) that the literature on the subject is scanty, elusive & one-sided. Noone can say this after having read this magnificent, scholarly & entertainingly written book. 570 pages on essentially three years of diplomacy could have been stodgy, but the writing is extremely lucid, & the minutiae of day-by-day negotiations (sometimes, as over the Saxon question, very repetitive, & just occasionally, as over Swiss affairs, also a little tedious) are seamlessly interspersed with vivid accounts of the personalities involved, of their moods & of the hedonistic & frivolous waysin which they spent their time between negotiations (much of the latter information culled from the reports of Metternich's secret surveillance teams).
Fascinating details include:
1. The ease with which politiciansin those days were able to move from employment by one court to employment by another: von Stein from the Prussian to the Russian Court; Hardenberg from the Hanoverian to the Prussian Court (and in office there during Prussia's annexation of Hanover); Gentz from being a civil servantin Berlin to being an agent of the British government & then to taking servicein Austria.
2. The intense suspicion between all of Napoleon's opponents. Each constantly feared that others might come to terms with Napoleon at their expense: after all, there had been a long history before Napoleon's invasion of Russia when countries had made just such deals with Napoleon, whose victories had made it possible over & over again for him to play one of his enemies off against another. Even within delegations there were animosities: initially Britain was represented at negotiations by no fewer than three envoys who so obviously detested each other that they were simply ignored by the other diplomats. The English, not well versedin continental politics, were universally considered gauchein manner & women's dress; but eventually Castlereagh took over, & after a while he became one of the key players, & one of the more sensible ones at that.
At one time the allies nearly went to war with each other - but the extraordinary thing is that while the threat of war hung over the Congress, the rival delegates met at balls & other spectacular entertainments every evening.
3. The open & promiscuous randiness of the principals is truly astonishing, as is the readiness of aristocratic & royal ladies to move from bed to bed. So many statesmen had affaires during the Congress: Metternich, who, while he had been ambassador at Napoleon's court, had slept with two of Napoleon's sisters, now fellin love with the Princess of Sagan & wrote her letters as remarkable for their love-struck clichés as for his measureless conceit; Humboldt sought out fat lower-class girls; women threw themselves at the ever-willing Alexander I. There are marvellous chapters (esp. 18, 19 & 21) on what life was like during the Congress of Vienna, how kings away from their courts let their hair down, & how the aura of majesty was dispelled.
4. The immature & headstrong nature of Alexander, who, confident of his huge military might, frequently took unilateral action to the dismay of the other powers. The confidence & skill of Talleyrand. The shameless greediness of Prussia, which exceeded the considerable greed of the other participants.
5. A great deal hung on the moods & personal characters of the principal characters, & this account is certainly a challenge to the structuralist view of history. A powerful final chapter shows how these individuals, backward rather than forward looking, managed to clamp a reactionary settlement on the continent that, so far from producing a stable Europe for a hundred years (a view that Henry Kissinger propoundedin the 1950s & 1960s), would create during that time many rebellions, civil & international wars with a heavy costin human lives.
A social occasion to end all social occasions - By: David Roy, 04 Feb 2008 
Adam Zamoyski is rapidly becoming one of my favorite Napoleonic era historians. His Moscow 1812 was brilliant, well-researched, & extremely detailed. Now, Zamoyski has added to the previous book with his latest, Rites of Peace: The Fall of Napoleon & the Congress of Vienna. Beginning almost immediately after Napoleon's final withdrawal from Russia, this book tells the story of the aftermath & the end of the Napoleonic wars. Zamoyski's rich detail is included, unfortunately almost too a fault. While the book is definitely interesting, it gets bogged down to the point where it's extremely slow reading for most casual readers.
Once again, Zamoyski doesn't dwell on the military details of battles, though he certainly doesn't gloss over them, either. Readers wishing for in-depth examinations of the battles of Liepzig or Waterloo will be left wanting. Instead, Rites of Peace covers how these battles affected the greater societal wholein Europe, how the various monarchs handled them & what they wanted to do afterward. Zamoyski introduces all of the major playersin European politics, with Metternich (Foreign Minister of Austria) getting a lot of detail. Once Napoleon is defeated, the Treaty of Paris is signed & other problems present themselves.
Zamoyski saves his greatest detail for the Congress of Vienna. Openingin early November, 1814, this Congress (which Metternich figured would last about 6 weeks) lasted upwards of 6 months. Ostensibly, it was supposed to solve all of Europe's pressing problems, but it turned into more of a social occasion & negotiations often dragged on to great lengths to solve small issues. Zamoyski spends an incredible amount of time on the sexual escapades & romantic dalliances of all of the attendees, from the Russian Tsar to Metternich & Talleyrand of France. Zamoyski's able to provide this detail because Metternich had the Austrian police keep close tabs on every delegate & the police reports are extensive.
Of course, it wasn't all social occasions. The Congress of Vienna consisted of a lot of horse-trading between the powers, with each side trying desperately to get the best deal that would favor them, often at odds with other European powers. Zamoyski does a great job of showing what each faction wanted & how it contrasted with others' plans. Almost every province or duchyin Europe,in addition to the great powers themselves, has representatives at the Congress, & all of them were looking to get a piece of the action. Zamoyski makes all of this fascinating, as we see all the conflicts that arose from these negotiations.
Unfortunately, Rites of Peace does get miredin the social aspects of the Congress. I agree that these issues are relevant, especially when they interfered with the negotiations. But Zamoyski spends so much time on them that many of the personages started to run together, causing some exceedingly slow reading. This is countered by Zamoyski's writing style, which makes these passages much more interesting then they would normally be.
Rites of Peace is well-researched, with many end-notes to takein if you're the type of reader who does that. Zamoyski also provides an extensive bibliography & index as well. Maps are scattered throughout the text to illustrate points, such as the Swiss territorial gains after negotiation, & there is a block of full-color picturesin the middle of the book, giving a face to all of the major personages involved. That's a big plusin a book where personal & romantic issues are so much at the forefront. The book is quite long, however, so be ready for an extended read (as well as the weight, as the hardcover is quite heavy).
Allin all, Rites of Peace is an extraordinary examination of the end of the Napoleonic Wars & their aftermath. While it does get slow at times, the amount of detail & the vivid pictures that Zamoyski paints are well worth the effort. Combined with Moscow 1812, Adam Zamoyski has created quite a treat for the history reader.
David Roy
