An anecdote from Vienna during the Vienna Congress: “The Tsar of Russia loves for everyone; the King of Prussia thinks for everyone, the King of Denmark speaks for everyone; the King of Bavaria drinks for everyone; the King of Württemberg eats for everyone… and the Emperor of Austria pays for everyone.”
Interesting Tallyrand fact. In my French Revolution class I asked the professor what Tallyrand was up to doing the Terror portion of the French Revolution as he disappears from our book. The professor didn't know and as he should offered me a bit of credit if I would find out for the class so I did and turned he decided around then would be a good time to visit the new world. He hung out with Aaron Burr and on the way back bumped into Benedict Arnold in England.
Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (1754-1838) was a bishop of Autun, France, (1789-1791), then he was excomunicated by the Pope Pius VI. But before his death, he managed to rejoin the Church (1838).
@@dies1domini He was temporarily excommunicated from 1791 till 1802, at which point the pope released him from the ban. However, upon Napoleon's request, Talleyrand then requested to be laicized (removed from the clergy), in order to marry his long-time lover Catherine Grand, which the pope reluctantly granted. On his death bed in 1838, Talleyrand signed a document of reconciliation with the Church, but this isn't where his excommunication ended (which had been revoked in 1802).
I hope it dosent take another six months. But even if it does, it’ll be worth the wait like this one. I’m the mean time, I’m going to rewatch your Talleyrand video
I've been Reading "Russia Against Napoleon" by Dominic Lieven, and he has an interesting take on Alexander; basically Alexander's father and grandfather had both been overthrown and murdered (though Alexander had a hand in his dad's overthrow), and Alexander was acutely aware that there were factions in Russia that could, would and had overthrow and kill the Tsar. As a result, Alexander made a point of never letting anyone know what he was thinking, and made sure to present everyone with whatever he thought they would want to hear. Lieven's thesis is basically that a leader who was deranged or decided things at random could not have pulled off the diplomatic/military manoeuvring after Austerlitz nor held popular discontent in check during the retreat to and burning of Moscow during Napoelon's invasion. I also tend to think that's it's a bit uncharitable to say that the fall of Napoleon would have happened anyway, Russia just happened to be the Catalyst. If Napoelon forces Russia out of the war and manages to preserve even half his army, that's an extra 300,000 French troops available to fight the other powers. More importantly, that means fighting Napoleon with a veteran (if diminished) cavalry corps, rather than Napoleon with a desperate lack of cavalry. That said, I'm by no means an expert; one of the interesting things about history is how uncertain everything is, and how much of what we "know" beyond names, dates, places is supposition and conjecture based on people who, particularly in the case of politicians and monarchs, have every reason to deceive people around them. Claudius from the BBC series said it best: "When people die, so much dies with them, and all that's left are pieces of paper that tell lies, lies, lies..."
I think the point being made was not that Russia was inconsequential to Napolean's defeat, but that it was not solely due to Russian efforts. Without the other 3 armies also marching on Paris and attacking French cities, even the diminished Grand Armee might have been able to defeat the Russian army. It truly was the group, and not one individual Great Power, which ended Napoleon. Even Waterloo would have been different if there had only been a British army that Napoleon needed to defeat.
I think there's a prevailing sentiment among western historians to try and downplay Russian military and political achievements. It's not generally conscious, it's a background ideological thing. It comes up a lot when you talk to Americans about world war II especially, and it's extremely pervasive. Not that I feel that HC engaged in this, but it is worth mentioning.
Another side of Tallyrand: Incredible funny and wise quotes -Treason is a question of date. -A diplomat who says yes means maybe, one who says maybe means no, and one who says no isn't a diplomat!
The Congress of Vienna was a shameful meeting and an effort to suppress people freedoms and delete French Revolution achievements. Thank God people revolted and ended this evil plan in 1830.
26:00 Fun fact: Bernadotte later went on to become the King of Sweden! Sweden was facing a bit of a succession crisis, and Bernadotte ended up being adopted by Karl XIII, the at-the-time King, and was himself crowned King Karl XIV Johan (the Swedish version of his French given name Jean) in 1844. The current king is a direct descendant of his.
Bernadotte was not quite adopted as he was offered the crown prince role by the Swedish government, who could not get a successor from the old and childless Karl XIII. The Swedes wanted a 'royal' successor with ties to Napoleon but not any of his actual family members. As Bernadotte's wife was the sister in law of Joseph Napoleon (Nappy's brother and one time King of Spain) that was deemed good enough.
It's so nice to hear that end music again, it's almost nostalgic. I was somewhat worried you'd stopped making videos; it's good to have you back, and thank you for your hard work.
While you wait, I HIGHLY recommend the podcast "Death Throes of the Republic" by Dan Carlin. It covers this Era in phenomenal detail, but primarily touches on events that most history channels/books tend to gloss over.
The Congress of Vienna is one of the saddest historical moments. Tyrants reintroduced their absolute monarchy influence and small countries in Europe were dominated by others. I'm glad the 1830 Revolution ended the old system once and for all.
0:01 Background 2:29 The Situation in France 6:58 The Situation in Britain 17:34 The Situation in Russia 27:14 The Situation in Austria 40:27 The Situation in Prussia
There is no other channel on UA-cam who can so effortlessly interest me in something that I wasn’t particularly interested in. It’s easy to engross an audience that already cares about a subject - WW2 history, cars, architecture, tanks. But drawing in an audience and fascinating them with these disparate crossroads in history takes a real skill. This channel is possibly my favorite in all of UA-cam and I thank you for sharing your gift.
Every time I reason that Civilis has dropped off the map as one of the great historical UA-cam narrators he comes out with masterclass content. Quality > Quantity is beautiful to behold.
One addition I would like to add is that you really undersold the relevance and importance of Bernadotte, not only was he responsible for bringing Sweden into the war by being elected as heir to the Swedish throne (and then turning against napoleon) but he was also instrumental in bringing together the coalition itself and in developing allied strategies and war plans, he was the one who came up with the idea to focus on Napoleons marshals instead of Napoleon himself and his deep understanding of the French military structure was vital in devising plans on how deal with the marshals and their style of command since he knew many of them personally
46 minutes of happiness. Mr Historia Civilis. I must confess that your videos were the decisive factor for me to move from economy to history in college (history was always my passion but I didn't like academical research as much as economics). But your videos on diplomacy, politics, and the one of Charles I made me remember that I do love history and want to do that with my life. I would like to make my thesis on the relations between the Spanish empire (catholic monarchy) and the Tlaxcala republic and it's participation in the early conquests of the new world. Hope some day I'll made a video about it as good as yours. Thanks for the videos. Keep the amazing work.
I had a similar happen to me when I did my degree. It was Mike Duncan's podcasts as well as the Great War series for me. I wish you well on your thesis fellow historian
Welcome to the history department! I'm a history major that went into Christian ministry. (Talk about a fertile historical field!) Your thesis sounds interesting!
I'm at my 4th semester of studying history. I also close to study what I found interesting instead of seeking something that gives me the most money and might not make me happy.
I am currently at the last years of highschool, I might have had choose to study history as I do love it very much. However with concerns that I probably wont make much money at least during my early adulthood ( I am living in turkey by the way, a country in a serious economic crises) i opted to become an Engineer, dont get me wrong, I do actually Like engineering, physichs and the idea of building stuff but still, I am not sure would i make the same decisions as I did if there were not any financial problems. Anyway I am happy for you and I think your thesis will be a very interesting one and I would like to watch a video of it!
Whenever I hear "Hallon" playing in your videos I have mixed feelings. I'm mostly sad the video is over and filled with anticipation for the next video. At this point I think I also feel a little nostalgia for various squares (mostly green; you know... along the lines of "my child, this was a learned man and a lover of his country") whenever I listen to it. Also I'm glad you introduced me to that banger of a song :D
Oh god I’m so hyped! One of the only channels I’ll exit another video to start watching. Would love to see more coverage of the Napoleonic and post-Napoleonic period!
As a Hungarian, your assessment of the Austrian Empire was extremely accurate. The aristocracy's exemption from taxation was only done away with in 1848 by the Hungarian revolutionary government, which also ended serfdom (at least on paper). One of the reasons for the few Hungarians in the army may have been their tendency to periodically rebel - there has been a major rebellion, revolution or exposed plot to incite one in like every 50 years in the previous centuries, some of which came extremely close to succeeding. The last thing the Emperor would have wanted was to feed one of those revolts with people with military experience, and these people would have provided unreliable troops anyway, ready to turn around and march home if they heard news of a revolution (this happened in 1848).
Well, I would say pretty accurate. Croatia was part of the Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania was only partially Romainan. Also, it wasn't a naked tax exemption, but they "taxed by blood", as they had to provide millitary service in case of an invasion. But one can't put all the nuance in a ~46 minute video :)
Well the previous century of anti-austrian revolts were with a very vast majority taking place in Slovakia(Upper hungary then) because of Habsburg centralization efforts and religious conflict. They pretty much only ended when the ottomans were no longer at the border of Slovakia, by which time Slovakia was economically damaged by the frequent noble revolts. Of course, the nobles were largely hungarian and to be honest I dont think the Austrian court could tell the difference between the different ethnicities in their in that time little empire so yeah.
"Extremely accurate". He got all the ethnic groups wrong and he's addressing the Hungarian issue way too early. At the time of the Congress of Vienna, these are emerging problems that will only become dominant issue for Austria in 1848 and 1862. Austria in 1814 was more concerned with patching up its possessions again, since the modern-day areas of Slovenia and Croatia were under French administration and had been given important rights. That's why Metternich is considered a reactionary, because he wanted to bring back order to an Austria that had experienced revolutionary liberalism. Yes, the pressure of the other ethnic groups on Austria to not get too involved in Germany was a factor, but it was minimal at the time and played a role during the Revolutions 1848. The video includes a bunch of mistakes clearly.
8:06 I really appreciate the tenderness and empathy you describe George II's health conditions with. Ordinarily people treat his mental health like the punchline to a joke.
"And now my punishment for bringing up the Holy Roman Empire is that I have to explain what it was". Literally laughed out loud here. Brilliant video, sir.
Bernadotte did not really turn against Napoleon, he was made the Crown Prince of Sweden and when he took that position he made it clear that he will only act in the interest of Sweden. Bernadotte brought Sweden into the war against France only because the anti-France coalition could give Sweden a better deal. I am sure deep down he still cared for France and continued to have positive feelings toward his benefactor Napoleon but he had a job to do and he was a pro.
If I remember correctly, Bernadotte and Napoleon had a long-standing personal rivalry and distrust with each other - despite Bernadotte being a prominant French Marshal in his Grande Armée.
By many accounts napoleon and Bernadette didn’t much like each other, they had many arguments over strategy, tactics and personal matters some described as “furious disagreements”.
No he didn't. They were never "friends". And the better deal was to take some russian troops and use it as rare as possible to avoid risk of being eaten by Russia in the epilogue of the era. Finally his own kingdom, soon end would be unfortunate. Plus Britain paid them money for such feats of doing nothing with small forces since Gustav....4? Since 1794.
The HRE was a good concept at its initial few centuries. Remember it last for almost a thousand years. So its form of government would obviously be archaic at its final years. It last much much longer than most countries today . The US hasn’t even reached half of its age yet.
@@Chris-hp9be yeah the US is only a quarter it's age and it's system, which made sense and worked mostly for the period it was created in, has already been made obsolute for more than a century
@@wildfire9280 The HRE back then was very much Holy (in grace with the Papacy), not quite Roman (sure, they usurped the title from the Byzantines through some technicalities, by the Byzantines were still quite powerful until the 4th crusade), but very much an empire (large, powerful, relatively unified by the era's standards in Europe).
25:37 It was more than that. Russia had first given refuge to Louis XVIII under Paul the Ist but, after many incidents about his bad manners and contempt to the russian way of life, and with the betterment of the relation between Napoléon and Paul (for which he would be killed by the brits and russian nobility), Louis XVIIII would see his right of refuge revoked. The contempt of Louis XVIII would continue. When Alexander made a tour of Europe in 1815 (creating the holy alliance between Russia, Austria and Prussia), he was then considered as the greatest leader in Europe. And in every court he was received as such with great celebrarion and aller the honors that are due to a great sovereign... Expect by Louis XVIII who made little event of his venue. Another great example his the diner that their shared : Louis would be presiding the table and be served before Alexander. So yeah, he was right, Louis XVIII really had alot of distain for him.
A 45 minute video about the Congress of Vienna by Historia Civilis is basically my personal crack and I'm gonna need you keep dropping these awesome videos so I can get my hit please
I loved 99% of this video. The only thing I didn't love was that important individuals were portrayed as painting like portraits rather than squares of their own individual color.
just a little tip, any time you see a channel get to 5-6 months without an upload, expect a new one shortly. UA-cam temporarily demonetizes channels that have been inactive for 6 months so creators are always pressured to upload at that point.
I've been watching a bunch of your videos and I just realized: You make learning history fun. This is a much better way to learn than the way I learned in school.
45:13 Near the end: Castlereagh, Alexander I, Metternich, Talleyrand, and Hardenberg are the coolest bunch of names ever. This was a really interesting video on a period and place of which I know virtually nothing, i.e. after the Napoleonic Wars. I am familiar with the powers at play in Europe on the map at this point in time, but I know very little about political or military affairs specifically.
It’s nice to see a UA-cam commentator who admits they lack knowledge. I feel that every single commentator on UA-cam has infinite knowledge on every conceivable topic and it’s nice to see someone admit that they don’t know anything about a subject. It’s pretty sweet keep up the good work pal. Learning is a life long pursuit. Anyone who acts like they know it all usually knows very little.
@@antoinesilva1527 yeah 🤣 they sound exactly how they are. We got a viscount, emperor and aristocrats of every stripe dividing up Europe for the next hundred years. This is the most elite group of elitists history has ever gotten together in one room with the most elitist goals ever conceived. So yeah I’d say their names are pretty bourgeoisie. Astute observation my friend. Quite astute.
Absolutely. You could tell me those were the names of a group of Bond villains or movie-going bank robbers and I'd believe you. Civilis does such a good job of bringing these characters to life, too.
Some remarks on the relationship between the Habsburgs, Hungary and taxation. It's true that the Hungarian tax system was pretty complicated, but the Habsburgs did earn some revenue there. First of all, the Hungarian taxation was carried out by the local nobility, each land owner collected tax on his own property. The Habsburg family was also the biggest land owner in Hungary, owning large estates in the West and in the region of Székesfehérvár. Also the Habsburgs owned various strips of land all over the country, these were mostly confiscated estates of protestant nobles during the 30 years war. So these funds headed straight into the treasury. The other source of income was the tax passed by the Hungarian parliament the 'Országgyűlés' (assembly of the realm). This parliament was both feudal and liberal at the same time with 2 chambers: the lower chamber was dominated by the gentry, the upper chamber was dominated by the aristocracy. This parliament (when assembled by the king) initiated something like a modern day annual budget and sent tax revenue to the king... but usually with some compromise (like 80% of the money should be spent inside Hungary etc.) Another titbit:the official language of the Hungarian parliament (since 1222) was Latin, up until 1823, when Hungarian aristocrat István Széchenyi made his speech in Hungarian (magyar) and it became trendy to speak the language of the 'peasant'. Btw his speech was about his contribution to establish the National Museum of Hungary. He also funded the first suspension bridge across the Danube constructed by the Scottish engineer Adam Clark. (Széchenyi, a liberal aristocrat was fascinated by British engineering to the point he was the first one to install a modern flush toilet all over his estates.)
@@industrialborn fitting as anything I ever read. In my country, not too long ago, we had a minister who became famous for spending a small fortune on private restrooms in the parliament building.
Never thought that the 'toilet' part would become so popular. 😏 You can make fun of it as you wish, but the truth is that modern sanitation and sewer systems were top priorities in the 19# century, especially when popular growth and urbanization really kicked in. For example, Hungary had it's last major cholera outbreak in 1830-31, while cholera outbreaks in Britain continued until the late 1850's. Although truth be told: the population growth and urbanization in Hungary wasn't as intense as in Britain. The population went from 9 million (1790, including Transylvania) to 14 million (1848) to 20 million (1900) in it's pre-1918 borders. The city of Pest -Buda (current Budapest)went from 60 000 (early 19# century) to 1.3 million (late 19# century).
I keep coming back to this one more than any of your other videos. It's such a spectacular flash of insight, into a period of European history that was always very much impenetrable to me. What you've made here is a gorgeous piece of work. Really, I mean that. Thank you.
Talleyrand could enter a room on a unicycle and with two party hats, and everyone else would consider it a plausible diplomatic move. Hell, Talleyrand could literally die and still leave the other foreign powers to wonder about "what he meant by that."
@rin_etoware_2989 Did you know Prince Maurice Talleyrand's body was mummified, not embalmed, before being placed in his coffin? It is interred in a handsome black marble tomb at the chapel he build next to his palace, Chateau Valançay and which he had dedicated to his patron, St. Maurice. It has since been renamed Chapel of Notre Dame, as, -- due to his disreputable private life -- nobody wanted to imply that he was a saint, despite being a (reluctant) priest & Bishop. His devoted niece / mistress the Duchess of Dino's (Princess Duchess of Talleyrand & Sagan) last -- unfulfilled - wish was that her heart be placed in Talleyrand's tomb.
Oh man, you're killing it. This is above and beyond the production quality I'm used to from the best "TV" channels for documentaries (like ARTE). And that that perfect outro, with a cliffhanger that will have me thinking about European history and future until I can press that play button again, and all underlined with my favorite melody - it's my phone's alarm and I called it "And Roman history would never be the same". The only thing I miss are the by now famous talking squares, Thought the portraits are a clear improvement... it's just nostalgia :D Keep going as this will be my future's kids history lessons! You can bet on that
I've had a couple of different times I've learned about the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars, each with quite different angles on it. I think however that the kindest thing I've ever heard about Talleyrand's ship jumping was that he was an astute observer of political change, but it was said with a kind of implied wink. My favourite however was when I was in college, and taking a class devoted to the subject, my professor grinned from ear-to-ear, flipped the projector to Talleyrand, and said something like "This person here is the biggest snake whoever lived. He survived five changes of government and always came out of it with his nose up and his pinky extended."
@@fuckgoogle2554 Bonaparte was envious of Talleyrand's notorious attractiveness to women, despite being a cripple. (Talleyrand was born with a club foot, and both legs were weak) Enemies called him "the lame devil" Napoleon said of him, "His pockets are full of women." Talleyrand himself said, "Politics IS women" His intelligence was gathered, and his propaganda spread, in the political salons of his intellectual women friends, most of whom had been his lovers; most of whom he kept as cherished and lifelong friends. Though he bedded many women, it's hard to categorise him as a "womaniser" -- he respected and preferred the company of intelligent women to men, and seems to have had a gift for loyal friendship.
This channel has pretty basic animation and production value compared to many counterparts, but uses amazing storytelling and clear explanation to make itself my absolute favourite history channel on UA-cam My only wish is you'd make more!
@@ydk1k253 so true, if I've been scrolling through youtube for awhile and see a new historia vid i have to mentally reset so i can savor it. favorite history channel easily
Interestingly, the reason the Whigs were so dominant for so long was because King George I, the first king of the the House of Hanover, openly preferred the Whigs to the Tories because the Tories had supported the House of Stuart, which had recently been overthrown by parliament. This had the effect of putting all the power in the hands of parliament because the monarch supported the party that supported limiting the power of the monarchy.
It's probably not a coincidence that the British monarchs' power began disappearing under foreign monarchs. The Stuarts had too many balls to juggle with commitments to Scotland. William III only saw Britain as a source of tax revenue so he called Parliament so often it became impossible to dissolve for longer than the election would take. This gave Parliament the constitutional security it needed to survive, which George I's disinterest (he couldn't even speak English) reinforced. But the biggest thing was William II's wars and constant taxation leading to Parliament forcing significant concessions in return. I've always wondered at how a country ends up with such a power structure governed almost entirely by convention and legal fiction
2 days after release, I just finished my third watch of this vid. I look forward to these releases more than any other channel on UA-cam, and that’s saying a lot. Thanks for the awesome content. When I go back to work in April, my first move will be to become a patron of this channel. No one deserves it more.
Thank god you’re back. I used your video on “1814, Peace?” For a term paper for college. I got an A on it. Great to see your back historia. And thanks for the great videos
then again, you cant really have every decision voted on by everbody. That might have worked in the days of the greek city states where you had far smaller populations, only a small fraction of that population was allowed to vote and politics happened a lot slower.
Look at all these bootlickers talking about how the unwashed masses are incapable of ruling themselves or even being reasonable at all. Get over yourselves, you will never be the landed gentleman you so badly want to be.
Concerning Alexander the 1st, apparently he would change his opinions on things depending on who he was speaking to to confuse his opponents. His grandfather and father were both murdered in conspiracies involving the nobles and various factions of Russian aristocracy. He even supposedly had a part to play in his own father's downfall. He had learned from these two examples to be very unpredictable and as you put it Historia Civilis not letting people know what he was thinking.
Just because there's a good reason for it doesn't mean it's a good idea in every circumstance. And just because it was a functional defense mechanism doesn't mean he wasn't actually crazy. Craziness does not mean incompetence. Unless there was a lot more going on at the lower levels, the way he kept troops in all that central European territory, which HC highlighted, implies that he wasn't just being inconvenient due to insanity or its own sake, he had political reasons to throw everyone off, but that doesn't mean that HC's portrayal of him was actually inaccurate. It's difficult to intentionally pull off truly unpredictable behavior. If that was what he was doing, then genius, but I think it more likely he was highly skilled at coping with and taking advantage of some form of mental problem. Though this might be my biases as a relatively high functioning autist coming through.
Ye, funny how he pushes hard on unpredictablity of alex while continuously talking about him being somewhat pro-napaleon and definitely not pro-british
An unpredictable, flighty diplomat is still the sort of diplomat that I would not send to an important international conference regardless of the reasoning behind that unpredictability. Alexander made a particularly bad impression among the other delegates, while his tactics may have made sense within his own court it did him no favors in Vienna nor did it do him any favors when he met with Napoleon and gave him just about everything he desired during his surrender. It is difficult to explain Alexander's actions in regards to Napoleon regardless of his reasoning other than to imagine him being so completely manipulated by Napoleon as to have given in to his every demand or in some way mentally unstable as Castlereagh opined.
*The Peace After War* 0:15 99 Years Without Major International Warfare *The Five Nations* 2:17 France Monarchy Restoration, Constitution, Reform. 4:01 2nd Most Populous Nation 4:55 Talleyrand 6:57 Britain 8:52 4th most populous, wealthy, informed electorate 9:54 Whigs vs Tories. Whigs win and win and win and win elections. 13:15 Shifting Political Window, Moderate Paletability. 14:35 Count Castlereagh 17:23 Russia, Tsar Alexander I, God's Tzar 20:04 Lots of people, low technology, but Beat Napoleon using Winter Storm. 23:12 Friendly to France today 27:24 Austria, Age of Metternich 28:24 Holy Roman Empire, loose collection of Austrian-German Fiefdoms, Habsburgs 33:33 "An Entire Generation of Young Men...wiped out." 34:29 Fear of Future Revolution 35:20 The Austrian Empire - Demographically Complex 39:48 Prussia, less people, less land, in the middle of it all. 42:20 Karl August Von Hardenberg 44:18 Who Would Get The Most Say At The Conference? 5 People, How can they all come to an agreement? 46:00 To Vienna They Went. In September.
I’ve watched/listened to every single upload from this dude 3-4 times now lol. Especially while working. Always craving a new one. I would honestly listen to him narrate anything tbh.
the amount of history i missed in history class that you cover here is astounding. Wish you could upload more frequently but its a rich reward anytime I see you post
@@jackzarazun5007 Politics and warfare have always been two sides of the same coin, inseparable from each other and not making much sense without this context.
I know right? It took me so long to get round to watching a nearly hour long video about peace negotiations but I'm so glad I got there eventually. I hope they make a TV series about it.
You forgot to mention that, thankfully for Tsar Alexander, he was accompanied by Kapodistrias, a brilliant diplomat. Also, portraying Metternich as a product/victim of war who wanted peace at all cost is very generous. He was still obsessed with autocracy and Austrian dominance and his rivalry with Kapodistrias was the diplomatic drama of the decade. Thankfully, in the long run, Kapodistrias' vision for Europe prevailed.
I think the image of Metternich as a reactionary, comes of his behavior during the national awakening of Germany and the Revolution of 1848 where he repressed civil liberties and instituted a strict police state. That lead to one of the key demands of the mob in March of 1848 to be for Metternich to be removed from power and he fled to Britain in disgrace. His resignation marked a dramatic shift in Austria's History and to this day the period between the congress of Vienna and the Revolution is known as the "Pre-March", esentially encompassing all of his time in Office
I think reactionary is a bit harsh, but he fits the defenition of a conservative perfectly. He wants to preserve the old absolute power of monarchs, he wants to maintain the balance of power and peace in Europe. He opposes any idea of reform or constitutionaly limiting the monarchs power. And he (with the help of other conservative allies) chrushes any attempt at revolution that arrises before 1848. Finaly the revolutions of 1848 remove him from power and break his system of maintaining the status quo in Europe.
@Barış C. Kaştaş I agree, Metternich almost makes the revolutionary situation by 1848 worse with more reactionary policies after the Congress of Vienna. Limiting freedom of speech, repressing liberal newspapers, creating a spy network to monitor dissidents. The British may well have avoided this upheaval in Europe by advancing with the Great Reform Act (1832) granting Male suffrage, which was very progressive for 19th century standards.
I always thought that Voltaire's line about the Holy Roman Empire was greatly overused. In the earlier centuries the Holy Roman Empire was a lot more cohesive about standing together with the emperor in times of conflict. That changed with the Guelphs vs Ghibelline conflict between Emperor and Pope; followed by the death of competent Emperor's like Barbarossa and the decline of his house. After that the lands were more autonomous. However, the Habsburgs were wily and cunning. They understood that if you can unite people by marriage, and a common enemy (mostly france and the ottomans); then you can still unify into a more centralizing empire. It wasn't until after the peace of Westphalia from the 30 year's war that the Empire was truly broken on religious grounds. After that it remained largely an Imperial confederation of states protected by the Emperor. I do believe that the Holy Roman Empire tried to emulate Rome's language, governorship, and religion into itself; but after so many centuries, you could barely see its roots. National identities change overtime. Much like Plutarch's ship of Theseus, after enough time, no country will resemble its "old" self anymore.
I would say that (for the most part, and by most i mean half of it's existance) holy roman empire was indeed holy and empire (by the standards of those times). The only sloppy part is roman but even this part was true for some time
@@benismann Rome but not Roman Empire that was still in existence till the fall of Constantinople in 15th Century and by that point the Holy Roman Empire was not much of an empire. The Roman Empire never fell until the fall of Constantinople. The idea it was the fall of Rome a Catholic vs Orthodox thing and idea carried on in Western Europe. This was my belief until recent years deceived by the term Byzantine Empire which was never what it was really called as it called it self the Roman Empire. This whole thing started because of a attempt to claim total power over the Eastern Empire when a woman became Emperor and the Church refused to accept it. Then later again to claim the right to the title which never worked especially after the split of the church into Catholic and Orthodox parts. And as you stated a Empire by the standards of the Middle Ages but not one compared to all power at the top Empires of the past and future and that ended in 13th Century. So not really half although what emerged in the 14th Century was stronger than what would exist later. Holy was highly variable depending on the power of Pope and Empire and that varied a lot.
Dear Historia Civilis, thank you for this very well-made video! Informative, understandable, well researched and written, and excellent narration! I truly enjoyed it and want to see more of your work! There were some interesting facts which I had not known before, so it was a valuable addition to my education. I 'm from Vienna originally, so I certainly felt I should catch up on points I may have missed in school. Many regards to you and all the viewers out there.
The “99 Years of Peace” statistic always bugs me. Even if we overlook the regional conflict of the Crimean War for some reason, the Franco-Prussian War was definitely a major war between great powers. It just so happens that the Prussians won it so handily that nobody remembers it.
@@krankarvolund7771 Well everything is relative, it was for the time between 1815 to 1914. The only longer and bloodier war in Europe was the Crimean war.
Ha, talk about wars won by Prussia so quickly that nobody remembers it! What about Austrian-Prussian War? It was conflict right in the middle of Europe, it involved two great(ish) powers and saw some 160,000 casulties. Yet it's even less than a footnote in history.
I have to say, Historia, that your videos and their quality are exceptional. Giving a detailed description of very complicated events in a very simple and comprehensive manner, this is rarely acheived by historians, especially the ones analysing this period. Good luck and keep up with this amazing work!!!
I have an affinity for learning about history, but this channel is literally a binge worthy episodic show/series. I have not found something so entertaining on UA-cam before or since finding this channel. It literally makes me excited about history again as though I was just learning about Great Conquerors all over again. Genuinely I love your videos and voiceover and I am over the moon to be a subscriber. Thank you. Also that dog hasn’t been pet for sooooo long, probably made his day
My history teacher had a great reason why Austria was a great power at the time it went along this line: Austria was militarily, internally, and economically not a great power but if your diplomats enter the International stage already knowing how to deal with other people and states whilst foreign diplomats had never really experienced dealing with a foreign power the Austrian will know what to say to whom and who to play against each other to get the exact results he required because he has the experience, giving the rest of Europe the Illusion of Austria as a greater Power than it ever was.
Well, it may not be wrong to a certain extent but in general I think people are exagerating about Austria's weakness. For example regarding the military, it was only weak per capita, in absolute terms it was very powerful. They were the second allied power with the largest army after Russia, and during that particular period of the Napoleonic wars I think they didn't perform worse than Prussia. Big population, large military and extensive diplomacy, made Austria a recognized power. In terms of economy it's hard to say, as most continental European economies were still pre-industrial economies. So metrics like gdp don't have that much value here (since it often mostly just reflect how large the population was) and knowing the actual available wealth of the empire might be complicated.
@@xenotypos Yes the Austrian Military in terms of manpower and equipment was up to date back then but this was still the time of warfare where generals and pre-battle planning was the way to win wars, not individual aces or commander level competency. The Generals won wars, not the soldiers and their equipment back then and Austria was lacking in even decent generals with the only noticeable exception being Radetski but he was at the time not in command of the Austrian Military.
Why would the other diplomats not have experience talking to others? Don't countries talk to each all the time unless they're deliberately not, and weren't the Napoleonic Wars about six attempts at teaming up against France i.e. talking to each other?
Very simplistic view of what their diplomatic power meant. More than simply knowing the politics of the other realms a priori, the austrian monarchs knew well which of those other realms had marriage ties with them, and thus play along with their rules.
As a czech, i can really tell you that it was not cooperation and cohesion. Only the hungarians were equal to austrians. Other nations, as czechs, were "second grade" citizens... That was not EU. That was not cooperation...
Oh dear boy. You haven't heard western europeans talk about the EU! I'm latinamerican and I can 100% assure you. Your "second grade" citizen status has not changed. It's just that there's third and fourth grade citizens now.
@Nicholas Davalois yup. And they dont even try to pretend. The balkans are marginalized while the Ukraine got special treatment just because they are now suddenly on the "right" side of a conflict. Meanwhile, Germany gets richer and more powerful. When the EU inevitably falls, only those who organized it will be better off.
You're presenting the Whigs in a ridiculously rosy light. The electoral system disenfranchised the poor, leaving only the rich with voting rights. It was a time of the enclosure of the commons, i.e. the mass expropriation of the peasantry to make room for aristocratic farms. The beggared commoners were forced to become urban proletarians, and their poverty was so appalling that even the British ruling classes openly admitted that the average British factory worker was more miserable than the average Russian serf. It's difficult to overstate the unmitigated hellscape Britain was for most of its inhabitants. The GDP numbers looked impressive, but all that wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few business oligarchs.
It's better to think of this kind of historical presentation as a form of fiction. Hell, ANY historical presentation is basically a form of fiction. The framing, context, perspective, and other subtle nuances change historical narratives in profound ways. All the more profound, I would argue, because they are not blatant or overt.
I don’t think it was overly rosy though it would’ve helped if he layed out how parliament was elected during this period and emphasised the ‘slow’ part in ‘expansion of political rights’. The wigs were a pretty diverse group as he points out and he does lay out that they were the party of capital and industrialists. Laying out the electoral system of parliament would emphasise how they weren’t the force behind workers liberation, but this is about the Congress of Vienna not the internal political culture of Britain.
@@benismann You gotta be careful with british bias on all english speaking history channels. Reminds me of next-door neighbor kings and generals skipping over battle of Patay (most important battle) of the hundred years war.
@@thatdudeoverthere2188 I agree. I don't think these negotiations were necessarily any more or less "thought through" than other peace settlements from around the world. The nature of the conflict, the relationships between the nation-states/empires, and the general parameters of the political world are just much more recognizable to us, and so we can latch onto and contextualize their actions much more intuitively. The speed at which huge amounts of geographic, economic, and martial information can travel would be lightning fast in this era compared to past eras, may also allow for more nuanced negotiations than perhaps was possible in the past. They were all absolutely about grabbing power, but simply had different priorities based on different national needs and positions. I'm sure the Austrians, for instance, would have LOVED to grab some French colonies if they were at all in a position to hold them. They simply weren't.
This channel is great!! I watch channels like this on this subject every evening religiously. I really love your approach. More please. You have my undying support. I am over 70. So please take that into consideration. LOL
Tsar Alexander may have been a bit childish, but He was right about the Bourbon King Luis 18th. He was incompetent and weak and got overthrown immeadeatly. He was also right about the Bourbon kings permanently destabelizing Europe.
Louis XVIII was the last French monarch to die on the throne. He was keenly aware of the tensions within French society and managed to keep them under control for a decade. I don't think that's an achievement that one can just scoff at.
Not true he was not overthrown. He really wasn't that bad, not that he was good either. It was his successor Charles 10th that was the true idiot that got overthrown during the July Revolution
Alexander also oversaw that continued decline of Russia, despite all evidence screaming to him that his country was falling behind and only moving with momentum of size.
Amazing video, hugely informative and well-researched. Taking the time to describe the actors before getting into the council of Vienna itself is a great decision, really helps put everything into perspective.
omg this is so exciting! the entire time I've binged the Historia Civilis Rome vids, there were no new videos. now i can take comfort in knowing the uploads are still coming!
Q: When you need to deceive an audience, is it better to present one narrative or two? A: Two, because you can play a good cop-bad cop game where one narrative is obviously wrong, which the audience sees and uncritically thinks "This is wrong, so the alternative is correct," allowing you to make the alternative as big a lie as you want it to be.
Fantastic, your vids are always so thorough, professional and enjoyable; I really look forward to them no matter what topic you discuss. Haven't seen you on here for a little while so I'm really glad to see you back. Hope all's well with you and yours
On my second rewatch. Such a great take on these events. After binging your videos from your first to now, its great to se your evolution as a creator and story teller. Amazing work as always.
This makes a hugely complicated situation really clear, and I learned so much from it. It also helps explain how some of the hopes and fears that shaped post-Napoleonic Europe played into later conflicts, right up to now …
I honestly think Alexander's negotiation strategy may have been more effective than what you are giving it credit for. It can confuse rivals and produce results - case and point Elba. What did he care about the possibility of Napoloen possible returning from Elba in the future? It would be a more localized problem. In turn Alexander could bank some credentials for his "honourable" personality that could help him when he needed to be ruthless the next time.
He was very uninformed on Alexander I, and likely hasn't studied the Tsar much. He was actually a fairly intelligent man who got precisely what Russia needed from Vienna.
I'm reading the Master and Commander books at the moment and your explanation of British politics at this period is very helpful. Also, I'm so happy to see another video. I love this channel.
Where one UA-cam channel ends, another begins. There’s another famous UA-cam channel that has talked about the Napoleonic wars but now we have this amazing channel talking about the aftermath. I love this! I feel like I’m learning more about history now as an adult than I ever did in school.
It's always good to see you after so long with such a good breakdown of the post napoleonic wars arrangements. But I miss "my boy" Caesar. And the squares, for sure 🤘😁
I was waiting for so long for this episode, but it has been well worth waiting! Great piece HC, that was a damn good decision to support you on patreon.
36:10 Just a small correction: you may have intended to say “Slovens” (who still live in that region today, mostly in the country of Slovenia ) instead of “Slovaks” ( who inhabit to the North of Hungary and to the East of Bohemia, in what’s today Slovakia, part of Czechoslovakia up to the early ‘90s). I know they sound very similar in name, so it’s very easy to get confused with all those medium-small and relatively new States. ( I apologize for my eventual mistakes, English is not my first language) Anyway, great video as non usual; I’ve never commented before on a video, but your work and research really deserve praises and lots of compliments Keep up with your astounding quality and dedication 👍👍 Greetings from Italy 🇮🇹🇮🇹
Having read Dick Leonards massive omnibus of British PM's, I recognised Castlereagh as one of those massively important politicians who defined their age, but remain a footnote nowadays mostly due to never reaching the position of PM, much like Charles Fox a few decades before them. Nice seeing them spotlighted here.
GUYS THE LEGEND IS BACK! I REPEAT THE LEGEND IS BACK WITH ANOTHER AMAZING UPLOAD Btw im also doing a lot of mini projects around early 19th century Europe for me school and im so happy with this perfectly timed upload with a perfect topic.
This channel has some of the best historical videos on UA-cam. Hopefully my grandchildren will one day enjoy the sequel to this informative documentary.
Voltaire was a hack who didn't understand the empire and has led to many people characterizing it to have always been what it was at the end of its life, it was at times more centralized than France or England and the Holy Roman Emperor was on many occasions the most powerful man in Europe
It is baffling to me how many people just eat up that French propagandist like he wasn't friends with all the enemies of the Emperor when he said that quote.
Any nation or institution that exists for over a 1000 years will by it's demise inevitably be very different entity than it was at its inception. (E.g. the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, etc.) So quick unnuanced statements about such entities are only ever true for a limited space in time. Voltaire's statement was no exception to this.
@@elonwhatever even post Westphalia the Empire was a significant institution and realistically it wasn't until after Prussia and Austria relations had soured and the Prussians had proven themselves capable of challenging Habsburgs that the Emperor lost significant internal influence, something that didn't take place until Voltaire was 54 years old. Just look to the war of Spanish succession, the empire near universally (with the exception of Bavaria) threw its weight behind the Emperor supplying tens of thousands of troops. Make no mistake Voltaire was willfully mischaracterizing the empire.
You’re videos popped up on my home page and I gotta say, where have you been all these years??? I’ve been obsessed with history ever since I was in elementary school and 13 years later I’m just now finding your channel! Keep doing what you do best please
Honestly, "99 years without major war between great powers" is kind of an odd statement, given this timeframe saw the Crimean war and the Franco-Prussian war, to name a few. Sure, they are nothing compared to the two World Wars, but even so they were quite major.
These seem more like the Gulf war in comparison to modern conflicts. Civilian and military deaths were not comparable. Sure, super powers fought each other, but not for long, or for much.
Your comment is spot on. Anyone who puts out videos that claim to be historical and makes such an obviously untrue statement makes me wonder whether any of the other statements of fact are true. The Franco-Prussian and Crimean wars were major wars, there is no dispute about that.
6:20 thank you for petting the good boy Mr Historia Civilis, sir🐕
🙏
🙏
Boats are based actually
🙏
@@HistoriaCivilis wow.. how good it is to see you back here.
An anecdote from Vienna during the Vienna Congress: “The Tsar of Russia loves for everyone; the King of Prussia thinks for everyone, the King of Denmark speaks for everyone; the King of Bavaria drinks for everyone; the King of Württemberg eats for everyone… and the Emperor of Austria pays for everyone.”
Thats a sweet anecdote.
The king of England?
Sweden 🇸🇪?
@@felixbeutin8105 he get mad for everyone
@@felixbeutin8105 doesn't really care what is going on on the continent
The only thing I would ever say I get "giddy" over is a new Historia Civilis video.
same bro
@@truffleshuffle314 same bro
facts
@@lurkie-o same bro
and 3/4 hour one at that.
Historia civilis, is one of those channels where every video is just a straight up banger
Like zootier and lemino
With no ads
The only channels I wait to upload for.
Including the outro. That shit absolutely slaps
at the cost of biannual uploads
Interesting Tallyrand fact. In my French Revolution class I asked the professor what Tallyrand was up to doing the Terror portion of the French Revolution as he disappears from our book. The professor didn't know and as he should offered me a bit of credit if I would find out for the class so I did and turned he decided around then would be a good time to visit the new world. He hung out with Aaron Burr and on the way back bumped into Benedict Arnold in England.
Charles-Maurice de Talleyrand-Périgord (1754-1838) was a bishop of Autun, France, (1789-1791), then he was excomunicated by the Pope Pius VI. But before his death, he managed to rejoin the Church (1838).
Talleyrand was an exile in America from April 1794 till June 1796.
@@dies1domini He was temporarily excommunicated from 1791 till 1802, at which point the pope released him from the ban. However, upon Napoleon's request, Talleyrand then requested to be laicized (removed from the clergy), in order to marry his long-time lover Catherine Grand, which the pope reluctantly granted. On his death bed in 1838, Talleyrand signed a document of reconciliation with the Church, but this isn't where his excommunication ended (which had been revoked in 1802).
Outstanding! Did you get the credit?
Tallyrand could honestly be some hack historical fiction authors self-insert fan fiction character, his life is just so ridiculous.
This is brilliant, I can't wait for part 2!
Is this THE Jacky racky!!!
I hope it dosent take another six months. But even if it does, it’ll be worth the wait like this one. I’m the mean time, I’m going to rewatch your Talleyrand video
On his webpage there is a tracker. HC has only the animation left and ist about 15% ATM.
Jack-
I think it’s time you… “inherit” … France.
Wait like a year or so.
I've been Reading "Russia Against Napoleon" by Dominic Lieven, and he has an interesting take on Alexander; basically Alexander's father and grandfather had both been overthrown and murdered (though Alexander had a hand in his dad's overthrow), and Alexander was acutely aware that there were factions in Russia that could, would and had overthrow and kill the Tsar. As a result, Alexander made a point of never letting anyone know what he was thinking, and made sure to present everyone with whatever he thought they would want to hear. Lieven's thesis is basically that a leader who was deranged or decided things at random could not have pulled off the diplomatic/military manoeuvring after Austerlitz nor held popular discontent in check during the retreat to and burning of Moscow during Napoelon's invasion.
I also tend to think that's it's a bit uncharitable to say that the fall of Napoleon would have happened anyway, Russia just happened to be the Catalyst. If Napoelon forces Russia out of the war and manages to preserve even half his army, that's an extra 300,000 French troops available to fight the other powers. More importantly, that means fighting Napoleon with a veteran (if diminished) cavalry corps, rather than Napoleon with a desperate lack of cavalry.
That said, I'm by no means an expert; one of the interesting things about history is how uncertain everything is, and how much of what we "know" beyond names, dates, places is supposition and conjecture based on people who, particularly in the case of politicians and monarchs, have every reason to deceive people around them. Claudius from the BBC series said it best: "When people die, so much dies with them, and all that's left are pieces of paper that tell lies, lies, lies..."
Thanks for sharing that. Love getting alternative perspectives on a historical narrative!
Great comment.
Derek Jacobi is a DeVere guy. Keep the new faith.
I think the point being made was not that Russia was inconsequential to Napolean's defeat, but that it was not solely due to Russian efforts. Without the other 3 armies also marching on Paris and attacking French cities, even the diminished Grand Armee might have been able to defeat the Russian army. It truly was the group, and not one individual Great Power, which ended Napoleon. Even Waterloo would have been different if there had only been a British army that Napoleon needed to defeat.
I think there's a prevailing sentiment among western historians to try and downplay Russian military and political achievements. It's not generally conscious, it's a background ideological thing. It comes up a lot when you talk to Americans about world war II especially, and it's extremely pervasive. Not that I feel that HC engaged in this, but it is worth mentioning.
Another side of Tallyrand:
Incredible funny and wise quotes
-Treason is a question of date.
-A diplomat who says yes means maybe,
one who says maybe means no,
and one who says no isn't a diplomat!
"It is worse than a crime, it is a mistake"
The Congress of Vienna was a shameful meeting and an effort to suppress people freedoms and delete French Revolution achievements. Thank God people revolted and ended this evil plan in 1830.
My favorite line describing him is "a pile of shit in a silk stocking" by Napoleon
"I found there to be a country with 32 religions and only one sauce."
26:00 Fun fact: Bernadotte later went on to become the King of Sweden! Sweden was facing a bit of a succession crisis, and Bernadotte ended up being adopted by Karl XIII, the at-the-time King, and was himself crowned King Karl XIV Johan (the Swedish version of his French given name Jean) in 1844. The current king is a direct descendant of his.
That is a fun fact! Love learning about this stuff. Thank you
Bernadotte was not quite adopted as he was offered the crown prince role by the Swedish government, who could not get a successor from the old and childless Karl XIII.
The Swedes wanted a 'royal' successor with ties to Napoleon but not any of his actual family members. As Bernadotte's wife was the sister in law of Joseph Napoleon (Nappy's brother and one time King of Spain) that was deemed good enough.
@@SantomPh
True, but I thought it was close enough, so I used the word 'adopted' for brevity's sake
@@moonyasnow36 Eh, tomato tomato, the only thing that changes is who does the adoptin'
he implies this in the video btw
It's so nice to hear that end music again, it's almost nostalgic. I was somewhat worried you'd stopped making videos; it's good to have you back, and thank you for your hard work.
His website linked in the description has a progress bar for his vids
The end music had the same effect on me.
Weird to say that I've been doing it for years, but I always pump up the volume in my headphones for the drop.
The outro music is fucking BANGIN
Just when I thought I couldn't wait for "the fall of the Roman Republic" storyline, you bring in something as equally amazing
While you wait, I HIGHLY recommend the podcast "Death Throes of the Republic" by Dan Carlin. It covers this Era in phenomenal detail, but primarily touches on events that most history channels/books tend to gloss over.
The Congress of Vienna is one of the saddest historical moments. Tyrants reintroduced their absolute monarchy influence and small countries in Europe were dominated by others. I'm glad the 1830 Revolution ended the old system once and for all.
If was Mars was watchimg he wouldn't allowed such a disgrace.
@@scribeslendy595 is this one of the paid ones?
@@ernestov1777 so basically things were better then than they are now?
0:01 Background
2:29 The Situation in France
6:58 The Situation in Britain
17:34 The Situation in Russia
27:14 The Situation in Austria
40:27 The Situation in Prussia
thanks!
You forgot:
6:20 StrongBoy
You forgot:
22:45 Spin the randmizer
This should be the pinned comment, not the one about him petting the dog.
There is no other channel on UA-cam who can so effortlessly interest me in something that I wasn’t particularly interested in. It’s easy to engross an audience that already cares about a subject - WW2 history, cars, architecture, tanks. But drawing in an audience and fascinating them with these disparate crossroads in history takes a real skill. This channel is possibly my favorite in all of UA-cam and I thank you for sharing your gift.
I can’t wait for part 2! I hope you’re well, HC. You really have created so much more passion for history.
Sometimes I play with my willy and the white stuff comes out
That wait is probably gonna be 6 months to 2 years
@@patiencemtisi5648 the other video on his website is almost finished
YOOOO PART TWO JUST DROPPED LIKE ONE MINUTE AGO!
Every time I reason that Civilis has dropped off the map as one of the great historical UA-cam narrators he comes out with masterclass content. Quality > Quantity is beautiful to behold.
top tier
I mean it would be bad if he *actually* disappeared, but generally a delay just means a better video. =)
Look who came back from the dead. We missed you, Historia.
History never dies
Vive L' Historia!
Rarely uploads are a sign for a quality channel.
Check out his Twitter. It’s obviously not a replacement for these huge stacks of YT hot cakes HC always serves up but it tastes pretty similar.
Faccccttsss! Love it!
One addition I would like to add is that you really undersold the relevance and importance of Bernadotte, not only was he responsible for bringing Sweden into the war by being elected as heir to the Swedish throne (and then turning against napoleon) but he was also instrumental in bringing together the coalition itself and in developing allied strategies and war plans, he was the one who came up with the idea to focus on Napoleons marshals instead of Napoleon himself and his deep understanding of the French military structure was vital in devising plans on how deal with the marshals and their style of command since he knew many of them personally
Dude was a Marshall of the Empire, of course he's gonna know their tactics and strategy.
thanks for the extra bit of info
46 minutes of happiness.
Mr Historia Civilis. I must confess that your videos were the decisive factor for me to move from economy to history in college (history was always my passion but I didn't like academical research as much as economics).
But your videos on diplomacy, politics, and the one of Charles I made me remember that I do love history and want to do that with my life.
I would like to make my thesis on the relations between the Spanish empire (catholic monarchy) and the Tlaxcala republic and it's participation in the early conquests of the new world. Hope some day I'll made a video about it as good as yours.
Thanks for the videos. Keep the amazing work.
Sounds like an interesting thesis man!
I had a similar happen to me when I did my degree. It was Mike Duncan's podcasts as well as the Great War series for me. I wish you well on your thesis fellow historian
Welcome to the history department! I'm a history major that went into Christian ministry. (Talk about a fertile historical field!) Your thesis sounds interesting!
I'm at my 4th semester of studying history. I also close to study what I found interesting instead of seeking something that gives me the most money and might not make me happy.
I am currently at the last years of highschool, I might have had choose to study history as I do love it very much. However with concerns that I probably wont make much money at least during my early adulthood ( I am living in turkey by the way, a country in a serious economic crises) i opted to become an Engineer, dont get me wrong, I do actually Like engineering, physichs and the idea of building stuff but still, I am not sure would i make the same decisions as I did if there were not any financial problems. Anyway I am happy for you and I think your thesis will be a very interesting one and I would like to watch a video of it!
I like how Historia Civilis has ever-so-gradually let his meme side become as subtly prominent as his historical side with every new video.
And also manages to slide it in with increasing proficiency
I feel like it started with the bibulis awards episode
@@quixote_7 Don't forget the "Happy Birthday" meme as well
Don’t forget tribune acquila!
Memes are relatable and sarcasm sells
Whenever I hear "Hallon" playing in your videos I have mixed feelings. I'm mostly sad the video is over and filled with anticipation for the next video.
At this point I think I also feel a little nostalgia for various squares (mostly green; you know... along the lines of "my child, this was a learned man and a lover of his country") whenever I listen to it. Also I'm glad you introduced me to that banger of a song :D
Fully agree!!
Maybe it's because he had just said the words 'euphoric' and 'festive' this time, but it had me dancing in my chair 😄
Timestamps:
00:00 Introduction
2:30 France
7:00 Britain
17:40 Russia
27:16 Austria
40:30 Prussia
44:10 The Congress of Vienna
6:20 Boats
@@mygills3050Doggy :)
jeez 10 mins on brits
Thanks hahaha
Ow and ye 10 minutes on the Brits were the best haha no I’m joking but still
Nice, cool to see the Post Napoleonic Wars videos continue. However, it would also be really cool if you plan to continue the Octavian-Antony series.
yes
We miss our squares!
Heck, let's get a Marius-Sulla series too!
let him take his time on that masterpiece
The one coming is probably the series finale, better to build the hype.
Oh god I’m so hyped! One of the only channels I’ll exit another video to start watching. Would love to see more coverage of the Napoleonic and post-Napoleonic period!
Same lol
As a Hungarian, your assessment of the Austrian Empire was extremely accurate. The aristocracy's exemption from taxation was only done away with in 1848 by the Hungarian revolutionary government, which also ended serfdom (at least on paper).
One of the reasons for the few Hungarians in the army may have been their tendency to periodically rebel - there has been a major rebellion, revolution or exposed plot to incite one in like every 50 years in the previous centuries, some of which came extremely close to succeeding. The last thing the Emperor would have wanted was to feed one of those revolts with people with military experience, and these people would have provided unreliable troops anyway, ready to turn around and march home if they heard news of a revolution (this happened in 1848).
Well, I would say pretty accurate. Croatia was part of the Kingdom of Hungary and Transylvania was only partially Romainan. Also, it wasn't a naked tax exemption, but they "taxed by blood", as they had to provide millitary service in case of an invasion.
But one can't put all the nuance in a ~46 minute video :)
Well the previous century of anti-austrian revolts were with a very vast majority taking place in Slovakia(Upper hungary then) because of Habsburg centralization efforts and religious conflict. They pretty much only ended when the ottomans were no longer at the border of Slovakia, by which time Slovakia was economically damaged by the frequent noble revolts. Of course, the nobles were largely hungarian and to be honest I dont think the Austrian court could tell the difference between the different ethnicities in their in that time little empire so yeah.
"Extremely accurate". He got all the ethnic groups wrong and he's addressing the Hungarian issue way too early. At the time of the Congress of Vienna, these are emerging problems that will only become dominant issue for Austria in 1848 and 1862.
Austria in 1814 was more concerned with patching up its possessions again, since the modern-day areas of Slovenia and Croatia were under French administration and had been given important rights. That's why Metternich is considered a reactionary, because he wanted to bring back order to an Austria that had experienced revolutionary liberalism. Yes, the pressure of the other ethnic groups on Austria to not get too involved in Germany was a factor, but it was minimal at the time and played a role during the Revolutions 1848.
The video includes a bunch of mistakes clearly.
Also the taxation part, which is described accurately by a top comment.
@@peterjerman7549 Also the Ukrainian ethnic group/ language in the early 19th century...???
8:06 I really appreciate the tenderness and empathy you describe George II's health conditions with. Ordinarily people treat his mental health like the punchline to a joke.
"And now my punishment for bringing up the Holy Roman Empire is that I have to explain what it was".
Literally laughed out loud here. Brilliant video, sir.
Worst punishment of all time
But how could you miss a chance to quote Voltaire?
As the foul ManadaloreGaming (GLORY TO THE SSETH) put it, it was like herding cats.
That too was hilarious, just a 26:38 was!
Bernadotte did not really turn against Napoleon, he was made the Crown Prince of Sweden and when he took that position he made it clear that he will only act in the interest of Sweden. Bernadotte brought Sweden into the war against France only because the anti-France coalition could give Sweden a better deal. I am sure deep down he still cared for France and continued to have positive feelings toward his benefactor Napoleon but he had a job to do and he was a pro.
And thanks to that, the Bernadotte dynasty still reigns over Sweden to this day!
If I remember correctly, Bernadotte and Napoleon had a long-standing personal rivalry and distrust with each other - despite Bernadotte being a prominant French Marshal in his Grande Armée.
By many accounts napoleon and Bernadette didn’t much like each other, they had many arguments over strategy, tactics and personal matters some described as “furious disagreements”.
No he didn't. They were never "friends". And the better deal was to take some russian troops and use it as rare as possible to avoid risk of being eaten by Russia in the epilogue of the era. Finally his own kingdom, soon end would be unfortunate. Plus Britain paid them money for such feats of doing nothing with small forces since Gustav....4?
Since 1794.
@@princevesperal because they were fine living using Sweden's money with no ambitions to grab power, wage wars and their weiners worked, even wombs
I heard the HRE referred to as "a loose coalition of toll booth castles" once and I loved it.
tfw when no one remembers the HRE before the 1100s
The HRE was a good concept at its initial few centuries. Remember it last for almost a thousand years. So its form of government would obviously be archaic at its final years.
It last much much longer than most countries today . The US hasn’t even reached half of its age yet.
@@Chris-hp9be yeah the US is only a quarter it's age and it's system, which made sense and worked mostly for the period it was created in, has already been made obsolute for more than a century
@@wildfire9280 The HRE back then was very much Holy (in grace with the Papacy), not quite Roman (sure, they usurped the title from the Byzantines through some technicalities, by the Byzantines were still quite powerful until the 4th crusade), but very much an empire (large, powerful, relatively unified by the era's standards in Europe).
The Holy Roman Empire of the Germanic Nation
25:37 It was more than that. Russia had first given refuge to Louis XVIII under Paul the Ist but, after many incidents about his bad manners and contempt to the russian way of life, and with the betterment of the relation between Napoléon and Paul (for which he would be killed by the brits and russian nobility), Louis XVIIII would see his right of refuge revoked.
The contempt of Louis XVIII would continue. When Alexander made a tour of Europe in 1815 (creating the holy alliance between Russia, Austria and Prussia), he was then considered as the greatest leader in Europe.
And in every court he was received as such with great celebrarion and aller the honors that are due to a great sovereign... Expect by Louis XVIII who made little event of his venue. Another great example his the diner that their shared : Louis would be presiding the table and be served before Alexander.
So yeah, he was right, Louis XVIII really had alot of distain for him.
A 45 minute video about the Congress of Vienna by Historia Civilis is basically my personal crack and I'm gonna need you keep dropping these awesome videos so I can get my hit please
I loved 99% of this video.
The only thing I didn't love was that important individuals were portrayed as painting like portraits rather than squares of their own individual color.
I’ll be honest, while I do appreciate that being part of Historia Civilis’ style, it sometimes gets confusing and I forget who is who.
true but i can never unsee green= cicero or red= caesar
Been checking this channel a lot recently. So happy to see a fresh upload
just a little tip, any time you see a channel get to 5-6 months without an upload, expect a new one shortly. UA-cam temporarily demonetizes channels that have been inactive for 6 months so creators are always pressured to upload at that point.
I’ve been looking at his website, twitter and UA-cam everyday. It finally paid off!
fancy seeing you here :)
Hit that Patreaon son!
@@snarknado6430 on god this video came out like 2 weeks ago on Patreon and I’m rewatching it
I've been watching a bunch of your videos and I just realized: You make learning history fun. This is a much better way to learn than the way I learned in school.
45:13 Near the end: Castlereagh, Alexander I, Metternich, Talleyrand, and Hardenberg are the coolest bunch of names ever.
This was a really interesting video on a period and place of which I know virtually nothing, i.e. after the Napoleonic Wars. I am familiar with the powers at play in Europe on the map at this point in time, but I know very little about political or military affairs specifically.
Those names sounds really posh and bourgeois.
It’s nice to see a UA-cam commentator who admits they lack knowledge. I feel that every single commentator on UA-cam has infinite knowledge on every conceivable topic and it’s nice to see someone admit that they don’t know anything about a subject. It’s pretty sweet keep up the good work pal. Learning is a life long pursuit. Anyone who acts like they know it all usually knows very little.
@@antoinesilva1527 yeah 🤣 they sound exactly how they are. We got a viscount, emperor and aristocrats of every stripe dividing up Europe for the next hundred years. This is the most elite group of elitists history has ever gotten together in one room with the most elitist goals ever conceived. So yeah I’d say their names are pretty bourgeoisie. Astute observation my friend. Quite astute.
Absolutely. You could tell me those were the names of a group of Bond villains or movie-going bank robbers and I'd believe you. Civilis does such a good job of bringing these characters to life, too.
Some remarks on the relationship between the Habsburgs, Hungary and taxation.
It's true that the Hungarian tax system was pretty complicated, but the Habsburgs did earn some revenue there. First of all, the Hungarian taxation was carried out by the local nobility, each land owner collected tax on his own property. The Habsburg family was also the biggest land owner in Hungary, owning large estates in the West and in the region of Székesfehérvár. Also the Habsburgs owned various strips of land all over the country, these were mostly confiscated estates of protestant nobles during the 30 years war. So these funds headed straight into the treasury. The other source of income was the tax passed by the Hungarian parliament the 'Országgyűlés' (assembly of the realm). This parliament was both feudal and liberal at the same time with 2 chambers: the lower chamber was dominated by the gentry, the upper chamber was dominated by the aristocracy. This parliament (when assembled by the king) initiated something like a modern day annual budget and sent tax revenue to the king... but usually with some compromise (like 80% of the money should be spent inside Hungary etc.) Another titbit:the official language of the Hungarian parliament (since 1222) was Latin, up until 1823, when Hungarian aristocrat István Széchenyi made his speech in Hungarian (magyar) and it became trendy to speak the language of the 'peasant'. Btw his speech was about his contribution to establish the National Museum of Hungary. He also funded the first suspension bridge across the Danube constructed by the Scottish engineer Adam Clark. (Széchenyi, a liberal aristocrat was fascinated by British engineering to the point he was the first one to install a modern flush toilet all over his estates.)
Somehow you started with taxation but ended with toilets
@@industrialborn fitting as anything I ever read. In my country, not too long ago, we had a minister who became famous for spending a small fortune on private restrooms in the parliament building.
From tax, to legislation, then nationalism, and toilets
Never thought that the 'toilet' part would become so popular. 😏 You can make fun of it as you wish, but the truth is that modern sanitation and sewer systems were top priorities in the 19# century, especially when popular growth and urbanization really kicked in. For example, Hungary had it's last major cholera outbreak in 1830-31, while cholera outbreaks in Britain continued until the late 1850's. Although truth be told: the population growth and urbanization in Hungary wasn't as intense as in Britain. The population went from 9 million (1790, including Transylvania) to 14 million (1848) to 20 million (1900) in it's pre-1918 borders. The city of Pest -Buda (current Budapest)went from 60 000 (early 19# century) to 1.3 million (late 19# century).
Historia Civilis: "Boats!"
*Proceeds to zoom in and pet a dog
This man might be my favourite person ever.
THE IRS APPROVES THIS MESSAGE
6:22
Every dog deserves a pet
Even if he's painted
I keep coming back to this one more than any of your other videos. It's such a spectacular flash of insight, into a period of European history that was always very much impenetrable to me. What you've made here is a gorgeous piece of work. Really, I mean that. Thank you.
Talleyrand could enter a room on a unicycle and with two party hats, and everyone else would consider it a plausible diplomatic move.
Hell, Talleyrand could literally die and still leave the other foreign powers to wonder about "what he meant by that."
Can confirm. Foreign policy since his death has been wondering what he meant by that.
U referencing something?
@@hx5525 yea, that one time Talleyrand died
@rin_etoware_2989
Did you know Prince Maurice Talleyrand's body was mummified, not embalmed, before being placed in his coffin?
It is interred in a handsome black marble tomb at the chapel he build next to his palace, Chateau Valançay and which he had dedicated to his patron, St. Maurice.
It has since been renamed Chapel of Notre Dame, as, -- due to his disreputable private life -- nobody wanted to imply that he was a saint, despite being a (reluctant) priest & Bishop. His devoted niece / mistress the Duchess of Dino's (Princess Duchess of Talleyrand & Sagan) last -- unfulfilled - wish was that her heart be placed in Talleyrand's tomb.
@@hx5525 The remark was supposedly made by Metternich. (but it's a delightful myth).
Oh man, you're killing it. This is above and beyond the production quality I'm used to from the best "TV" channels for documentaries (like ARTE). And that that perfect outro, with a cliffhanger that will have me thinking about European history and future until I can press that play button again, and all underlined with my favorite melody - it's my phone's alarm and I called it "And Roman history would never be the same".
The only thing I miss are the by now famous talking squares, Thought the portraits are a clear improvement... it's just nostalgia :D
Keep going as this will be my future's kids history lessons! You can bet on that
yeah we need the squares back asap :D
I've had a couple of different times I've learned about the French Revolution and Napoleonic wars, each with quite different angles on it. I think however that the kindest thing I've ever heard about Talleyrand's ship jumping was that he was an astute observer of political change, but it was said with a kind of implied wink. My favourite however was when I was in college, and taking a class devoted to the subject, my professor grinned from ear-to-ear, flipped the projector to Talleyrand, and said something like "This person here is the biggest snake whoever lived. He survived five changes of government and always came out of it with his nose up and his pinky extended."
Bonaparte himself described the man as "shit in a silk stocking".
@@fuckgoogle2554 Which is pretty funny
@@fuckgoogle2554 Bonaparte was envious of Talleyrand's notorious attractiveness to women, despite being a cripple. (Talleyrand was born with a club foot, and both legs were weak) Enemies called him "the lame devil" Napoleon said of him, "His pockets are full of women." Talleyrand himself said, "Politics IS women" His intelligence was gathered, and his propaganda spread, in the political salons of his intellectual women friends, most of whom had been his lovers; most of whom he kept as cherished and lifelong friends. Though he bedded many women, it's hard to categorise him as a "womaniser" -- he respected and preferred the company of intelligent women to men, and seems to have had a gift for loyal friendship.
I Respect his skill in survival not just for himself but his national identity.
That is some Tiberius Claudius Nero level of flip flopping
Fantastically interesting, exceptionally high quality, and a pleasure to watch and listen! Thank you for your history docs!
This channel has pretty basic animation and production value compared to many counterparts, but uses amazing storytelling and clear explanation to make itself my absolute favourite history channel on UA-cam
My only wish is you'd make more!
To put it in my perspective, I prepare the best of meals for his videos only
@@ydk1k253 Hahaha I love that! I'm bouncing around the room when that sign off reggae beat drops
@@ydk1k253 so true, if I've been scrolling through youtube for awhile and see a new historia vid i have to mentally reset so i can savor it. favorite history channel easily
good music makes the biggest difference
Tell me you don't know anything about video production without telling me you know nothing about video production
Interestingly, the reason the Whigs were so dominant for so long was because King George I, the first king of the the House of Hanover, openly preferred the Whigs to the Tories because the Tories had supported the House of Stuart, which had recently been overthrown by parliament. This had the effect of putting all the power in the hands of parliament because the monarch supported the party that supported limiting the power of the monarchy.
Seems like a huge misplay on their part, but maybe in the long run the only reason the monarchy survived was due to weakness
He probably didn't care much about his authority in Britain, since he was the absolute monarch in Hanover anyway
I mean it's better to have diminished power but remain in charge, rather than having your people overthrow you for other king and give him more power.
It's probably not a coincidence that the British monarchs' power began disappearing under foreign monarchs. The Stuarts had too many balls to juggle with commitments to Scotland. William III only saw Britain as a source of tax revenue so he called Parliament so often it became impossible to dissolve for longer than the election would take. This gave Parliament the constitutional security it needed to survive, which George I's disinterest (he couldn't even speak English) reinforced. But the biggest thing was William II's wars and constant taxation leading to Parliament forcing significant concessions in return. I've always wondered at how a country ends up with such a power structure governed almost entirely by convention and legal fiction
@@fullmoontales1749 lol, when was Britain not ruled by "foreigners" in its history?
2 days after release, I just finished my third watch of this vid. I look forward to these releases more than any other channel on UA-cam, and that’s saying a lot. Thanks for the awesome content. When I go back to work in April, my first move will be to become a patron of this channel. No one deserves it more.
I have watched the whole series on the Congress of Vienna four or five times over the years. This really is such a great retelling of history
Thank god you’re back. I used your video on “1814, Peace?” For a term paper for college. I got an A on it. Great to see your back historia. And thanks for the great videos
Ahhh, I love how so few individuals decide on the fates of millions of lives... makes me confident in our leaders today!
aren't you the minecraft towny server
then again, you cant really have every decision voted on by everbody. That might have worked in the days of the greek city states where you had far smaller populations, only a small fraction of that population was allowed to vote and politics happened a lot slower.
Better than to let the chaotic masses decide.
Tbf, letting decisions like this be made by millions of voices sounds like a recipe for constant chaos, war, and destruction :p
Look at all these bootlickers talking about how the unwashed masses are incapable of ruling themselves or even being reasonable at all. Get over yourselves, you will never be the landed gentleman you so badly want to be.
where are the squares?
It's a good day when this man posts
Concerning Alexander the 1st, apparently he would change his opinions on things depending on who he was speaking to to confuse his opponents. His grandfather and father were both murdered in conspiracies involving the nobles and various factions of Russian aristocracy. He even supposedly had a part to play in his own father's downfall.
He had learned from these two examples to be very unpredictable and as you put it Historia Civilis not letting people know what he was thinking.
Thanks. I like Historia Civilis, but he can play fast and loose with the truth sometimes.
Well that changes everything.
Just because there's a good reason for it doesn't mean it's a good idea in every circumstance. And just because it was a functional defense mechanism doesn't mean he wasn't actually crazy. Craziness does not mean incompetence. Unless there was a lot more going on at the lower levels, the way he kept troops in all that central European territory, which HC highlighted, implies that he wasn't just being inconvenient due to insanity or its own sake, he had political reasons to throw everyone off, but that doesn't mean that HC's portrayal of him was actually inaccurate. It's difficult to intentionally pull off truly unpredictable behavior. If that was what he was doing, then genius, but I think it more likely he was highly skilled at coping with and taking advantage of some form of mental problem. Though this might be my biases as a relatively high functioning autist coming through.
Ye, funny how he pushes hard on unpredictablity of alex while continuously talking about him being somewhat pro-napaleon and definitely not pro-british
An unpredictable, flighty diplomat is still the sort of diplomat that I would not send to an important international conference regardless of the reasoning behind that unpredictability. Alexander made a particularly bad impression among the other delegates, while his tactics may have made sense within his own court it did him no favors in Vienna nor did it do him any favors when he met with Napoleon and gave him just about everything he desired during his surrender. It is difficult to explain Alexander's actions in regards to Napoleon regardless of his reasoning other than to imagine him being so completely manipulated by Napoleon as to have given in to his every demand or in some way mentally unstable as Castlereagh opined.
*The Peace After War*
0:15 99 Years Without Major International Warfare
*The Five Nations*
2:17 France Monarchy Restoration, Constitution, Reform. 4:01 2nd Most Populous Nation 4:55 Talleyrand
6:57 Britain 8:52 4th most populous, wealthy, informed electorate 9:54 Whigs vs Tories. Whigs win and win and win and win elections.
13:15 Shifting Political Window, Moderate Paletability. 14:35 Count Castlereagh
17:23 Russia, Tsar Alexander I, God's Tzar 20:04 Lots of people, low technology, but Beat Napoleon using Winter Storm. 23:12 Friendly to France today
27:24 Austria, Age of Metternich 28:24 Holy Roman Empire, loose collection of Austrian-German Fiefdoms, Habsburgs
33:33 "An Entire Generation of Young Men...wiped out." 34:29 Fear of Future Revolution
35:20 The Austrian Empire - Demographically Complex
39:48 Prussia, less people, less land, in the middle of it all. 42:20 Karl August Von Hardenberg
44:18 Who Would Get The Most Say At The Conference?
5 People, How can they all come to an agreement? 46:00 To Vienna They Went. In September.
I’ve watched/listened to every single upload from this dude 3-4 times now lol. Especially while working. Always craving a new one.
I would honestly listen to him narrate anything tbh.
the amount of history i missed in history class that you cover here is astounding. Wish you could upload more frequently but its a rich reward anytime I see you post
Dude you make the “boring side of history” and make it really entertaining.
There is nothing boring about the Napoloenic era.
@@zico739 I think he means the non-military side since most of the popular focus on the napoleonic wars are the big battles and not the aftermath
@@jackzarazun5007 Fair enough.
@@jackzarazun5007 Politics and warfare have always been two sides of the same coin, inseparable from each other and not making much sense without this context.
I know right? It took me so long to get round to watching a nearly hour long video about peace negotiations but I'm so glad I got there eventually. I hope they make a TV series about it.
My man! 46 minutes and still part 1? You've outdone yourself
Love your works, it's amazing, keep it up, Civillis
You forgot to mention that, thankfully for Tsar Alexander, he was accompanied by Kapodistrias, a brilliant diplomat. Also, portraying Metternich as a product/victim of war who wanted peace at all cost is very generous. He was still obsessed with autocracy and Austrian dominance and his rivalry with Kapodistrias was the diplomatic drama of the decade. Thankfully, in the long run, Kapodistrias' vision for Europe prevailed.
I think the image of Metternich as a reactionary, comes of his behavior during the national awakening of Germany and the Revolution of 1848 where he repressed civil liberties and instituted a strict police state. That lead to one of the key demands of the mob in March of 1848 to be for Metternich to be removed from power and he fled to Britain in disgrace. His resignation marked a dramatic shift in Austria's History and to this day the period between the congress of Vienna and the Revolution is known as the "Pre-March", esentially encompassing all of his time in Office
I think reactionary is a bit harsh, but he fits the defenition of a conservative perfectly. He wants to preserve the old absolute power of monarchs, he wants to maintain the balance of power and peace in Europe. He opposes any idea of reform or constitutionaly limiting the monarchs power. And he (with the help of other conservative allies) chrushes any attempt at revolution that arrises before 1848. Finaly the revolutions of 1848 remove him from power and break his system of maintaining the status quo in Europe.
It's so fucking funny that both Metternich and Karl Marx lived in London in exile at the same time.
@Barış C. Kaştaş I agree, Metternich almost makes the revolutionary situation by 1848 worse with more reactionary policies after the Congress of Vienna. Limiting freedom of speech, repressing liberal newspapers, creating a spy network to monitor dissidents. The British may well have avoided this upheaval in Europe by advancing with the Great Reform Act (1832) granting Male suffrage, which was very progressive for 19th century standards.
Thank you
@@KKKKKKK777js Definitely a reactionary by 1848.
I always thought that Voltaire's line about the Holy Roman Empire was greatly overused.
In the earlier centuries the Holy Roman Empire was a lot more cohesive about standing together with the emperor in times of conflict. That changed with the Guelphs vs Ghibelline conflict between Emperor and Pope; followed by the death of competent Emperor's like Barbarossa and the decline of his house.
After that the lands were more autonomous.
However, the Habsburgs were wily and cunning. They understood that if you can unite people by marriage, and a common enemy (mostly france and the ottomans); then you can still unify into a more centralizing empire.
It wasn't until after the peace of Westphalia from the 30 year's war that the Empire was truly broken on religious grounds. After that it remained largely an Imperial confederation of states protected by the Emperor. I do believe that the Holy Roman Empire tried to emulate Rome's language, governorship, and religion into itself; but after so many centuries, you could barely see its roots.
National identities change overtime. Much like Plutarch's ship of Theseus, after enough time, no country will resemble its "old" self anymore.
Kind of like Taiwan, where most of the younger generations now identify as Taiwanese rather than Chinese.
Absolutely. Though as you implicitly state yourself, Voltaires quote was very much true in Voltaires time
@@maximilianbeyer5642 Exactly, it's just that some people think it's always been that way.
I would say that (for the most part, and by most i mean half of it's existance) holy roman empire was indeed holy and empire (by the standards of those times). The only sloppy part is roman but even this part was true for some time
@@benismann Rome but not Roman Empire that was still in existence till the fall of Constantinople in 15th Century and by that point the Holy Roman Empire was not much of an empire. The Roman Empire never fell until the fall of Constantinople. The idea it was the fall of Rome a Catholic vs Orthodox thing and idea carried on in Western Europe. This was my belief until recent years deceived by the term Byzantine Empire which was never what it was really called as it called it self the Roman Empire.
This whole thing started because of a attempt to claim total power over the Eastern Empire when a woman became Emperor and the Church refused to accept it. Then later again to claim the right to the title which never worked especially after the split of the church into Catholic and Orthodox parts.
And as you stated a Empire by the standards of the Middle Ages but not one compared to all power at the top Empires of the past and future and that ended in 13th Century. So not really half although what emerged in the 14th Century was stronger than what would exist later.
Holy was highly variable depending on the power of Pope and Empire and that varied a lot.
Love the longer format and going more in depth. Definitely would like to see more!
Dear Historia Civilis, thank you for this very well-made video! Informative, understandable, well researched and written, and excellent narration! I truly enjoyed it and want to see more of your work! There were some interesting facts which I had not known before, so it was a valuable addition to my education. I 'm from Vienna originally, so I certainly felt I should catch up on points I may have missed in school. Many regards to you and all the viewers out there.
As a giga-nerd for IR theory, a Historia Civilis video on the Congress of Vienna just made my week.
The “99 Years of Peace” statistic always bugs me. Even if we overlook the regional conflict of the Crimean War for some reason, the Franco-Prussian War was definitely a major war between great powers. It just so happens that the Prussians won it so handily that nobody remembers it.
I mean it was the second longest and bloodiest war of the period after the Crimean war, not exactly a small and quick affair.
99 years of Peace followed by countless asterisks
@@orpheonkatakrosmortarchoft4332 It was a six-months war with less than 200 000 deaths, not exactly long and bloody mess ^^'
@@krankarvolund7771 Well everything is relative, it was for the time between 1815 to 1914. The only longer and bloodier war in Europe was the Crimean war.
Ha, talk about wars won by Prussia so quickly that nobody remembers it! What about Austrian-Prussian War? It was conflict right in the middle of Europe, it involved two great(ish) powers and saw some 160,000 casulties. Yet it's even less than a footnote in history.
It's always thrilling when you release a new move, Historia Civilis (with or without boxes).
I have to say, Historia, that your videos and their quality are exceptional. Giving a detailed description of very complicated events in a very simple and comprehensive manner, this is rarely acheived by historians, especially the ones analysing this period. Good luck and keep up with this amazing work!!!
YES! WE HAVE WAITED AND WE HAVE FINALLY RECIEVED :)
I have an affinity for learning about history, but this channel is literally a binge worthy episodic show/series. I have not found something so entertaining on UA-cam before or since finding this channel. It literally makes me excited about history again as though I was just learning about Great Conquerors all over again. Genuinely I love your videos and voiceover and I am over the moon to be a subscriber. Thank you. Also that dog hasn’t been pet for sooooo long, probably made his day
My history teacher had a great reason why Austria was a great power at the time it went along this line: Austria was militarily, internally, and economically not a great power but if your diplomats enter the International stage already knowing how to deal with other people and states whilst foreign diplomats had never really experienced dealing with a foreign power the Austrian will know what to say to whom and who to play against each other to get the exact results he required because he has the experience, giving the rest of Europe the Illusion of Austria as a greater Power than it ever was.
Well, it may not be wrong to a certain extent but in general I think people are exagerating about Austria's weakness. For example regarding the military, it was only weak per capita, in absolute terms it was very powerful. They were the second allied power with the largest army after Russia, and during that particular period of the Napoleonic wars I think they didn't perform worse than Prussia. Big population, large military and extensive diplomacy, made Austria a recognized power. In terms of economy it's hard to say, as most continental European economies were still pre-industrial economies. So metrics like gdp don't have that much value here (since it often mostly just reflect how large the population was) and knowing the actual available wealth of the empire might be complicated.
@@xenotypos Yes the Austrian Military in terms of manpower and equipment was up to date back then but this was still the time of warfare where generals and pre-battle planning was the way to win wars, not individual aces or commander level competency. The Generals won wars, not the soldiers and their equipment back then and Austria was lacking in even decent generals with the only noticeable exception being Radetski but he was at the time not in command of the Austrian Military.
Why would the other diplomats not have experience talking to others? Don't countries talk to each all the time unless they're deliberately not, and weren't the Napoleonic Wars about six attempts at teaming up against France i.e. talking to each other?
Very simplistic view of what their diplomatic power meant. More than simply knowing the politics of the other realms a priori, the austrian monarchs knew well which of those other realms had marriage ties with them, and thus play along with their rules.
@@admontblanc I see. They spent all that time building alliances so some good had to come out of it.
As a czech, i can really tell you that it was not cooperation and cohesion. Only the hungarians were equal to austrians. Other nations, as czechs, were "second grade" citizens... That was not EU. That was not cooperation...
Naah
Oh dear boy. You haven't heard western europeans talk about the EU! I'm latinamerican and I can 100% assure you. Your "second grade" citizen status has not changed. It's just that there's third and fourth grade citizens now.
@@korosuke1788 Whut?
@Nicholas Davalois yup. And they dont even try to pretend. The balkans are marginalized while the Ukraine got special treatment just because they are now suddenly on the "right" side of a conflict. Meanwhile, Germany gets richer and more powerful. When the EU inevitably falls, only those who organized it will be better off.
@Nicholas Davalois Not true.
stoked for part 2!
Nice to see you here
Yo it that even guy who friends with noahfinnce
You're presenting the Whigs in a ridiculously rosy light.
The electoral system disenfranchised the poor, leaving only the rich with voting rights.
It was a time of the enclosure of the commons, i.e. the mass expropriation of the peasantry to make room for aristocratic farms.
The beggared commoners were forced to become urban proletarians, and their poverty was so appalling that even the British ruling classes openly admitted that the average British factory worker was more miserable than the average Russian serf.
It's difficult to overstate the unmitigated hellscape Britain was for most of its inhabitants. The GDP numbers looked impressive, but all that wealth was concentrated in the hands of the few business oligarchs.
It's better to think of this kind of historical presentation as a form of fiction. Hell, ANY historical presentation is basically a form of fiction. The framing, context, perspective, and other subtle nuances change historical narratives in profound ways. All the more profound, I would argue, because they are not blatant or overt.
I don’t think it was overly rosy though it would’ve helped if he layed out how parliament was elected during this period and emphasised the ‘slow’ part in ‘expansion of political rights’. The wigs were a pretty diverse group as he points out and he does lay out that they were the party of capital and industrialists. Laying out the electoral system of parliament would emphasise how they weren’t the force behind workers liberation, but this is about the Congress of Vienna not the internal political culture of Britain.
Ah i see. I wasnt sure if he was just a mistake shitting on alex so hard, but with ur comment i can be sure that he's just very pro-british
sad
The bias this channel has is getting ridiculous
@@benismann You gotta be careful with british bias on all english speaking history channels. Reminds me of next-door neighbor kings and generals skipping over battle of Patay (most important battle) of the hundred years war.
This really is a special time in history: the victors don't just grab power, they think things through and pursue their interests in unique ways
Giving me real bad vibes with this take "extremely moral" guy.
@@thatdudeoverthere2188 I agree. I don't think these negotiations were necessarily any more or less "thought through" than other peace settlements from around the world. The nature of the conflict, the relationships between the nation-states/empires, and the general parameters of the political world are just much more recognizable to us, and so we can latch onto and contextualize their actions much more intuitively. The speed at which huge amounts of geographic, economic, and martial information can travel would be lightning fast in this era compared to past eras, may also allow for more nuanced negotiations than perhaps was possible in the past.
They were all absolutely about grabbing power, but simply had different priorities based on different national needs and positions. I'm sure the Austrians, for instance, would have LOVED to grab some French colonies if they were at all in a position to hold them. They simply weren't.
This channel is great!! I watch channels like this on this subject every evening religiously. I really love your approach. More please. You have my undying support. I am over 70. So please take that into consideration. LOL
Tsar Alexander may have been a bit childish, but He was right about the Bourbon King Luis 18th. He was incompetent and weak and got overthrown immeadeatly. He was also right about the Bourbon kings permanently destabelizing Europe.
Even a broken clock...
Or better yet, a clock with 24+ hands pointing in all directions.
Louis XVIII was the last French monarch to die on the throne. He was keenly aware of the tensions within French society and managed to keep them under control for a decade. I don't think that's an achievement that one can just scoff at.
Not true he was not overthrown. He really wasn't that bad, not that he was good either. It was his successor Charles 10th that was the true idiot that got overthrown during the July Revolution
@@skywalkeradam well, he was temporarily overthrown by Napoleon during the hundred days. Came back, though
Alexander also oversaw that continued decline of Russia, despite all evidence screaming to him that his country was falling behind and only moving with momentum of size.
Amazing video, hugely informative and well-researched. Taking the time to describe the actors before getting into the council of Vienna itself is a great decision, really helps put everything into perspective.
omg this is so exciting! the entire time I've binged the Historia Civilis Rome vids, there were no new videos. now i can take comfort in knowing the uploads are still coming!
I like how the "generous" way of viewing Talleyrand still has him as a traitorous spy.
Nothing wrong with that
Talleyrand didn't betrya his country
Q: When you need to deceive an audience, is it better to present one narrative or two?
A: Two, because you can play a good cop-bad cop game where one narrative is obviously wrong, which the audience sees and uncritically thinks "This is wrong, so the alternative is correct," allowing you to make the alternative as big a lie as you want it to be.
Fantastic, your vids are always so thorough, professional and enjoyable; I really look forward to them no matter what topic you discuss. Haven't seen you on here for a little while so I'm really glad to see you back. Hope all's well with you and yours
Been a fan of this channel for years and I just can't get over how good his video is despite fully knowing what this channel is capable of!
Exactly my thoughts!
On my second rewatch. Such a great take on these events. After binging your videos from your first to now, its great to se your evolution as a creator and story teller. Amazing work as always.
Dear sir, please post more of such full length videos when you have time. It was a great watch!
This makes a hugely complicated situation really clear, and I learned so much from it. It also helps explain how some of the hopes and fears that shaped post-Napoleonic Europe played into later conflicts, right up to now …
I honestly think Alexander's negotiation strategy may have been more effective than what you are giving it credit for.
It can confuse rivals and produce results - case and point Elba. What did he care about the possibility of Napoloen possible returning from Elba in the future? It would be a more localized problem. In turn Alexander could bank some credentials for his "honourable" personality that could help him when he needed to be ruthless the next time.
You may be right.
He could make extravagant proposals and demand some compensation for giving them up.
He was very uninformed on Alexander I, and likely hasn't studied the Tsar much. He was actually a fairly intelligent man who got precisely what Russia needed from Vienna.
I'm reading the Master and Commander books at the moment and your explanation of British politics at this period is very helpful. Also, I'm so happy to see another video. I love this channel.
This hands down is the most entertaining thing i have watched in weeks, great job mate.
Where one UA-cam channel ends, another begins. There’s another famous UA-cam channel that has talked about the Napoleonic wars but now we have this amazing channel talking about the aftermath. I love this! I feel like I’m learning more about history now as an adult than I ever did in school.
Epic History is top shelf, isn't it?
It's always good to see you after so long with such a good breakdown of the post napoleonic wars arrangements. But I miss "my boy" Caesar. And the squares, for sure 🤘😁
I was waiting for so long for this episode, but it has been well worth waiting! Great piece HC, that was a damn good decision to support you on patreon.
Tsar Alexander is the most interesting person in this tale. Tbh, i like how he throws wrenches into everyone else's plans.
Brilliant. Now I want a Napoleon series from you but you're already doing so much lol. Can't wait for more Alexander!
Take it easy
This was an absolute treat-- Thank you, Historia!
36:10 Just a small correction: you may have intended to say “Slovens” (who still live in that region today, mostly in the country of Slovenia ) instead of “Slovaks” ( who inhabit to the North of Hungary and to the East of Bohemia, in what’s today Slovakia, part of Czechoslovakia up to the early ‘90s).
I know they sound very similar in name, so it’s very easy to get confused with all those medium-small and relatively new States.
( I apologize for my eventual mistakes, English is not my first language)
Anyway, great video as non usual; I’ve never commented before on a video, but your work and research really deserve praises and lots of compliments
Keep up with your astounding quality and dedication 👍👍
Greetings from Italy 🇮🇹🇮🇹
I have watched this once a day every single day since it came out. Super excited for part 2!
Having read Dick Leonards massive omnibus of British PM's, I recognised Castlereagh as one of those massively important politicians who defined their age, but remain a footnote nowadays mostly due to never reaching the position of PM, much like Charles Fox a few decades before them. Nice seeing them spotlighted here.
Castlereagh was probably the most fascinating character in British politics at that time.
This is so good to watch while waiting for Vic 3 to come out. I can't believe how fast those 40 mins went.
When is it supposed to come out?
Dude..... idek if vic 3 will ever be released......
@@mmbon9739 they did say 2022 in the announcement but it’s gonna be vastly different from vic2, especially the wars
@@mmbon9739 There was a leak from nvidia that said March 7, but to be honest it's probably more like April/May before June.
@@chainingten3819 Don't worry, it will and it looks good so far from dev diaries.
GUYS THE LEGEND IS BACK! I REPEAT THE LEGEND IS BACK WITH ANOTHER AMAZING UPLOAD
Btw im also doing a lot of mini projects around early 19th century Europe for me school and im so happy with this perfectly timed upload with a perfect topic.
See you guys next year!
This channel has some of the best historical videos on UA-cam. Hopefully my grandchildren will one day enjoy the sequel to this informative documentary.
Voltaire was a hack who didn't understand the empire and has led to many people characterizing it to have always been what it was at the end of its life, it was at times more centralized than France or England and the Holy Roman Emperor was on many occasions the most powerful man in Europe
It is baffling to me how many people just eat up that French propagandist like he wasn't friends with all the enemies of the Emperor when he said that quote.
Any nation or institution that exists for over a 1000 years will by it's demise inevitably be very different entity than it was at its inception. (E.g. the Ottoman Empire, the Roman Empire, etc.)
So quick unnuanced statements about such entities are only ever true for a limited space in time. Voltaire's statement was no exception to this.
I really hope he sees this because i'm so done with that Voltaire quote and the pop history take that it reinforces.
@@elonwhatever even post Westphalia the Empire was a significant institution and realistically it wasn't until after Prussia and Austria relations had soured and the Prussians had proven themselves capable of challenging Habsburgs that the Emperor lost significant internal influence, something that didn't take place until Voltaire was 54 years old.
Just look to the war of Spanish succession, the empire near universally (with the exception of Bavaria) threw its weight behind the Emperor supplying tens of thousands of troops.
Make no mistake Voltaire was willfully mischaracterizing the empire.
Voltaire clearly said "is", not "was". What the empire was centuries before Voltaire existed wasn't relevant.
You’re videos popped up on my home page and I gotta say, where have you been all these years??? I’ve been obsessed with history ever since I was in elementary school and 13 years later I’m just now finding your channel! Keep doing what you do best please
Damn, seeing a new Historia vid after so long made my day.
Honestly, "99 years without major war between great powers" is kind of an odd statement, given this timeframe saw the Crimean war and the Franco-Prussian war, to name a few.
Sure, they are nothing compared to the two World Wars, but even so they were quite major.
These seem more like the Gulf war in comparison to modern conflicts.
Civilian and military deaths were not comparable. Sure, super powers fought each other, but not for long, or for much.
They were short "smal" wars compared to what was normal before the congress. Some outliers are to be expected
the Franco-Prussian war had the 6 month siege of Paris
@@lorenzooliveira1157 or for much? What? The Franco-Prussian war directly set the stage for WW1
Your comment is spot on. Anyone who puts out videos that claim to be historical and makes such an obviously untrue statement makes me wonder whether any of the other statements of fact are true. The Franco-Prussian and Crimean wars were major wars, there is no dispute about that.