![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Title: The Congress of Vienna: A Study in Allied Unity: 1812-1822
Author: Harold Nicolson
Genre: Early 19th C History
Thingummies: 3
Synopsis: Covers from Napolean's retreat from Russia though the final conference in Verona in 1822, with a brief explanation of the main players' later careers at the end. Focuses on the issues being wrestled with (such as the independence of Poland) and the diplomatic wrangling that ensued, with only brief summaries of the outcome of battles. Mostly centered on Castlereagh and Metternich.
Thoughts: It's always interesting to examine the lens a given historian is looking through. This is a particularly good example of that--the book was written in 1946 by a British diplomat who had been in Parliament from 1935 to 1945. Viewing the end of the Napoleonic Era and the diplomatic manuverings that basically preserved peace on the majority of the continent for nearly a century through the lens of a Brit who just survived World War II is fascinating. Of course, the British envoy is the hero of the story. And of course Russia and Prussia seem terribly menacing. (I'm not saying either of these things were not true; Metternich is kind of scary, Tsar Alexander is rather nuts, and while the leader of Prussia at the time was quite weak, you know Bismarck's coming along later.) What Nicolson approves of or disapproves of is fascinating. And you kind of sense that, while he fully acknowledges the complexities of the situation, he kind of longs for what seems like a more civilized diplomatic era.
Every history book fights with the problem of how much to assume the reader knows. You don't want to explain in detail who Hitler is, but you also don't want to assume that the reader knows every minor player is. I suspect that this book struck a better balance back when it was written fifty years ago and these events were closer to "modern" times. The British-centric viewpoint also caused me some confusion. There's a lot of royalty prancing about with just their titles, or with names that half a dozen others also share. (Which Princess Charlotte, again?) For example, there's a lengthy discussion about whether to replace Napoleon with a Bourbon or whether to put his son on the throne with a regent. Suddenly, we're talking about the Prince Regent. It took me two pages to realize that the Prince Regent in question was Prinny of England, and not a French regent for Napoleon's kid. (I knew what the final choice for the throne would be, but not the intermediate steps.) I suspect to a Brit in 1945, saying "the Prince Regent" would be like saying "Elvis"--you don't need to specify which one. To an American in 2011, that's less of a valid assumption.
Still, it's interesting stuff. Well, if you're a history buff who already knows a bunch about the later parts of the 1800s and wanted to know how some of those political lines got drawn. 'Cause otherwise, it's a bunch of people you never heard of talking forever about issues that haven't been an issue in two centuries.
Author: Harold Nicolson
Genre: Early 19th C History
Thingummies: 3
Synopsis: Covers from Napolean's retreat from Russia though the final conference in Verona in 1822, with a brief explanation of the main players' later careers at the end. Focuses on the issues being wrestled with (such as the independence of Poland) and the diplomatic wrangling that ensued, with only brief summaries of the outcome of battles. Mostly centered on Castlereagh and Metternich.
Thoughts: It's always interesting to examine the lens a given historian is looking through. This is a particularly good example of that--the book was written in 1946 by a British diplomat who had been in Parliament from 1935 to 1945. Viewing the end of the Napoleonic Era and the diplomatic manuverings that basically preserved peace on the majority of the continent for nearly a century through the lens of a Brit who just survived World War II is fascinating. Of course, the British envoy is the hero of the story. And of course Russia and Prussia seem terribly menacing. (I'm not saying either of these things were not true; Metternich is kind of scary, Tsar Alexander is rather nuts, and while the leader of Prussia at the time was quite weak, you know Bismarck's coming along later.) What Nicolson approves of or disapproves of is fascinating. And you kind of sense that, while he fully acknowledges the complexities of the situation, he kind of longs for what seems like a more civilized diplomatic era.
Every history book fights with the problem of how much to assume the reader knows. You don't want to explain in detail who Hitler is, but you also don't want to assume that the reader knows every minor player is. I suspect that this book struck a better balance back when it was written fifty years ago and these events were closer to "modern" times. The British-centric viewpoint also caused me some confusion. There's a lot of royalty prancing about with just their titles, or with names that half a dozen others also share. (Which Princess Charlotte, again?) For example, there's a lengthy discussion about whether to replace Napoleon with a Bourbon or whether to put his son on the throne with a regent. Suddenly, we're talking about the Prince Regent. It took me two pages to realize that the Prince Regent in question was Prinny of England, and not a French regent for Napoleon's kid. (I knew what the final choice for the throne would be, but not the intermediate steps.) I suspect to a Brit in 1945, saying "the Prince Regent" would be like saying "Elvis"--you don't need to specify which one. To an American in 2011, that's less of a valid assumption.
Still, it's interesting stuff. Well, if you're a history buff who already knows a bunch about the later parts of the 1800s and wanted to know how some of those political lines got drawn. 'Cause otherwise, it's a bunch of people you never heard of talking forever about issues that haven't been an issue in two centuries.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 01:18 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 02:16 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 03:29 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 04:02 pm (UTC)From:Poor Castlereagh, though. (Spoilers?) He ends up getting ill, going mad, and cutting his own throat with a penknife.
How does one pronounce his name, anyway? In my head it sounds kind of like Castle*gargle*, which can't possibly be right.
no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 04:11 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 05:05 pm (UTC)From:no subject
Date: 2011-01-26 08:47 pm (UTC)From: