Holy Alliance of Emperors. Holy Alliance. Congress in Troppau
home At the end of the Congress of Vienna in the fall of 1815, the sovereigns of Russia, Austria and Prussia were in Paris at the same time and concluded here the so-called Holy Alliance, which was supposed to ensure peace in Europe in the future. The initiator of this union was Tsar Alexander I. “Leader of the immortal coalition” that overthrew Napoleon, he was now at the height of power and glory. His popularity was also supported by the fact that he was considered a supporter of free political development , and indeed, at that time his mood was quite liberal. Annexing Finland to Russia in 1809 , he retained in it the class constitution in force in Sweden, and in 1814 insisted that French kingLouis XVIII
gave his subjects a constitutional charter. At the end of 1815, the Kingdom of Poland, newly formed at the Vienna Congress, received a constitution from its new (Russian) sovereign. Even earlier than this, Alexander I had constitutional plans for Russia itself, and even later, opening the first Polish Sejm in Warsaw in 1818, he said that he intended to extend the benefits of representative government throughout his entire empire. But at the same time with this liberalism, which later turned out to be insufficiently deep and strong, there was a different mood in the soul of Alexander I. The grandiose events in which he had to play a role could not help but affect his entire psyche, and the result of this action was the development in him of religious dreaminess and mysticism. After the fire of Moscow, which, by his own admission, “illuminated his soul,” he, together with the devout admiral Shishkov He began to diligently read the Bible, some passages of which he interpreted in the sense of prophecies about events that had just happened. This mood intensified in Alexander I after his acquaintance with one pietist , Mrs. Krudener
, with whom he often saw in 1815 in Heidelberg and Paris: she already directly applied various prophecies of the Apocalypse to Alexander I himself, called him the angel of peace, the founder of the thousand-year kingdom, etc. Having outlined what later became the main act of the Sacred alliance, the mystical emperor showed her his project, on which she put the words “La Sainte Alliance” in the form of a title.
The essence of the matter was that the sovereigns of Austria, Prussia and Russia gave a solemn promise in all their actions to be guided by the commandments of the holy Christian faith, to remain in brotherhood among themselves and “to give each other assistance, reinforcement and help”, relating to their subjects and troops, how fathers of families should behave, etc. Declaring themselves “as if appointed by Providence to manage three branches of a single family,” the three allied sovereigns “with the most tender care convinced their subjects from day to day to establish themselves in the rules and active performance of duties” taught by the Divine Savior. In conclusion, it was pointed out that the powers wishing to solemnly recognize the “sacred rules” set forth in the act “may all be willingly and lovingly admitted into this Holy Alliance.”
Having drawn up this religious and moral declaration without any specific political and legal content and without any mention of the rights of peoples, Alexander I submitted it to the Austrian Emperor for consideration FranzI and the Prussian king Friedrich WilhelmIII. Neither one nor the other liked the project. The Austrian emperor was, however, under the unconditional influence of his minister, Prince Metternich, who completely agreed with his sovereign, finding that this “philanthropic undertaking under the cover of religion” is nothing more than an “empty and boring document”, which, however, could be very badly interpreted. Metternich just at this time began to play the role of the first statesman of Austria, in which he remained for more than thirty years, directing the policy of the Habsburg monarchy in the most reactionary direction. In his stubborn conservatism, he could not have been more suitable to the character of Franz I, a pedantic absolutist who believed only in the patriarchal method of government and in the need for the strictest discipline. Francis I instructed Metternich to negotiate the proposal of the Russian emperor with the Prussian king, and he also found the matter inappropriate, but at the same time pointed out the inconvenience of rejecting the project. Both allies then indicated to Alexander I some, in their opinion, desirable changes, and Metternich convinced the author of the project of the need to make them, after which the document was signed by all three monarchs. For the actual signing of the act of the Holy Alliance, its initiator chose September 26 of the new style, which in the last century coincided with September 14 of the old style, i.e., with the celebration in Orthodox Church the day of the Exaltation of the Cross of the Lord, which also for Alexander I apparently had a special religious meaning.
In addition to the three sovereigns who signed the act of the Holy Alliance, other sovereigns also joined it. There were very few exceptions. First of all, dad PiusVII declared that he had nothing to accede to the principles which he had always recognized, but in fact he did not want his signature to be among the signatures of minor sovereigns. Secondly, the English prince regent, replacing his mentally ill father, refused to join the union GeorgeIII: The treaty was signed by the sovereigns alone, and the English constitution also requires the signature of the responsible minister. Finally, the Turkish Sultan, as a non-Christian sovereign, was not at all invited to participate in this union of “a single Christian people,” as the union was directly named in the act. In addition to major and minor monarchs, Switzerland and the German free cities also joined the union.
The Austrian minister, who at first found the “philanthropic undertaking” of Alexander I “at least useless,” subsequently benefited more than anyone else from the document, which he himself called “empty and boring.” After the fall of Napoleon, Metternich became the most influential politician Europe, and even Alexander I submitted to his system, despite the fact that Austrian policy was often in conflict with the most vital interests of Russia. Of all the statesmen of this era, the Austrian Chancellor embodied the principles of reactionary politics more fully than others and more steadfastly than anyone else put them into practice, not without reason calling himself a man of existence. The very state tradition of the Habsburg monarchy was a tradition of political and religious reaction. On the other hand, no state needed to suppress popular movements to such an extent as Austria with its diverse population: there were Germans in it, and therefore it was necessary to ensure that it was quiet and peaceful in Germany - and the Italians, and therefore, it was necessary to monitor all of Italy - and the Poles, whose fellow tribesmen in the Kingdom of Poland, to Metternich’s displeasure, had a constitution - and, finally, the Czechs, Magyars, Croats, etc. with their particularistic aspirations. All this made the Habsburg monarchy the general center of reactionary politics, and Metternich its leader throughout Europe. The advice of the Viennese oracle was followed not only by the petty sovereigns of Germany and Italy, but also by the monarchs of such great powers as Russia and Prussia. In particular, Alexander I often submitted to the influence of Metternich, who usually very skillfully supported the demands of Austrian policy with references to the Holy Alliance.
The declaration of mutual assistance of all Christian sovereigns, signed in October 1815, was subsequently gradually joined by all monarchs of continental Europe, except England, the Pope and the Turkish Sultan. Not being, in the exact sense of the word, a formalized agreement between the powers that would impose certain obligations on them, the Holy Alliance, nevertheless, went down in the history of European diplomacy as “a cohesive organization with a sharply defined clerical-monarchist ideology, created on the basis of the suppression of revolutionary sentiments, wherever they never showed up."
History of creation
Castlereagh explained England's non-participation in the treaty by the fact that, according to the English constitution, the king does not have the right to sign treaties with other powers.
Signifying the character of the era, the Holy Alliance was the main organ of the pan-European reaction against liberal aspirations. Practical significance it was expressed in the resolutions of a number of congresses (Aachen, Troppaus, Laibach and Verona), at which the principle of intervention in the internal affairs of other states was fully developed with the aim of forcibly suppressing all national and revolutionary movements and maintaining the existing system with its absolutist and clerical-aristocratic tendencies.
Congresses of the Holy Alliance
Collapse of the Holy Alliance
The post-war system of Europe created by the Congress of Vienna was contrary to the interests of the new emerging class - the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois movements against feudal-absolutist forces became the main driving force historical processes in continental Europe. The Holy Alliance prevented the establishment of bourgeois orders and increased the isolation of monarchical regimes. With the growth of contradictions between the members of the Union, there was a decline in the influence of the Russian court and Russian diplomacy on European politics.
By the end of the 1820s, the Holy Alliance began to disintegrate, which was facilitated, on the one hand, by a retreat from the principles of this Union on the part of England, whose interests at that time were very much in conflict with the policy of the Holy Alliance as a matter of conflict between Spanish colonies V Latin America both the metropolis and in relation to the still ongoing Greek uprising, and on the other hand, the liberation of the successor of Alexander I from the influence of Metternich and the divergence of interests of Russia and Austria in relation to Turkey.
The overthrow of the monarchy in France in July 1830 and the explosion of revolutions in Belgium and Warsaw forced Austria, Russia and Prussia to return to the traditions of the Holy Alliance, which was expressed, among other things, in the decisions taken at the Munich Congress of the Russian and Austrian emperors and the Prussian crown prince( G.); nevertheless, the successes of the French and Belgian revolutions
The war, which lasted a full 10 years in Europe, brought enormous damage to the countries of the continent. At the same time, it contributed to the emergence of the first world experience in regulation international relations and achieving political stabilization in Europe, guaranteed by the entire might of the victorious powers.
The Congress of Vienna, its decisions, inconsistent, contradictory, carrying the charge of future explosions, nevertheless played this role. But the monarchs were not satisfied with this. More durable guarantees were needed, not only by force, but also by legal, as well as moral, guarantees. Thus, in 1815, the idea of the Holy Alliance of European States appeared - the first pan-European organization, the purpose of which should have been to firmly ensure the existing order of things, the inviolability of the then borders, the stability of the ruling dynasties and other state institutions with the already accomplished different countries post-war changes.
The initiator of the union of European states was Alexander I. Alexander wrote the main provisions of the treaty on the Holy Alliance in his own hand. They contained the following articles: to maintain bonds of fraternal friendship between states, to provide assistance to each other in case of destabilization international situation, govern their subjects in the spirit of brotherhood, truth and peace, consider themselves members of a single Christian community, and be guided in international affairs by the commandments of the Gospel.
Thus, the ideas of the Holy Alliance, which really became the prototype international organizations XX century, were filled with the best intentions, and Alexander I could be pleased with his brainchild. Soon, almost all the countries of Europe, except for island England, joined the Union, but England also actively participated in the work of its congresses and had a fairly strong influence on their policies.
Essentially, the decisions of the Congress of Vienna and the Holy Alliance created in Europe the so-called Vienna system, which existed for about 40 years, protected Europe from new big wars, although contradictions between the leading European powers still existed and were quite acute.
This became clear immediately after the introduction of the “Vienna system” into life. And its main test was not so much the territorial claims of the powers against each other, but the growth of the revolutionary movement on the continent, which was a logical continuation of grandiose transformations public life countries of Europe, generated and continued by the Great French Revolution.
The dawn of a new revolution, a national liberation movement, which since the 1820s. rose above Europe, instilling horror in the organizers of the “Viennese system”. The ghosts of Jacobinism and the merciless destruction of thrones loomed again. Revolutionary movements broke out in Spain, Portugal, and Italy. Under these conditions, even liberals, including Alexander I, hesitated. The Russian Tsar slowly but surely moved away from his idealistic ideas about the post-war structure of Europe. Already in the early 1820s. Using the example of events in Spain, Italy, and the example of the uprising of his own Semenovsky regiment in the center of St. Petersburg, he realized what a gulf lies between his liberal dreams, cautious constitutional steps and the storm of popular revolutions or military rebellions. The real breath of popular freedom frightened the creator of the Holy Alliance and forced him to drift to the right, although at first he opposed the use of force, as Austria and Prussia insisted on it.
And yet, despite the deep contradictions that tore apart the Holy Alliance from the very beginning of its existence, it largely contributed to the stabilization of the situation in Europe, introduced new humanistic ideas into European practice, and prevented Europe from sliding into a new military one.
Holy Alliance
The Holy Alliance (French La Sainte-Alliance, German Heilige Allianz) is a conservative alliance of Russia, Prussia and Austria, created to maintain the established Congress of Vienna (1815) international order. The statement of mutual assistance of all Christian sovereigns, signed on September 14 (26), 1815, was subsequently gradually joined by all the monarchs of continental Europe, except for the Pope and the Turkish Sultan. Not being in the exact sense of the word a formalized agreement of the powers that would impose certain obligations on them, the Holy Alliance, nevertheless, went down in the history of European diplomacy as “a close-knit organization with a sharply defined clerical-monarchist ideology, created on the basis of the suppression of the revolutionary spirit and political and religious free-thinking, wherever they appear"
Collapse of the Holy Alliance
The system of the post-war structure of Europe, created by the Congress of Vienna, contradicted the interests of the new emerging class - the bourgeoisie. Bourgeois movements against feudal-absolutist forces became the main driving force of historical processes in continental Europe. The Holy Alliance prevented the establishment of bourgeois orders and increased the isolation of monarchical regimes. With the growth of contradictions between the members of the Union, there was a decline in the influence of the Russian court and Russian diplomacy on European politics.
By the end of the 1820s, the Holy Alliance began to disintegrate, which was facilitated, on the one hand, by a retreat from the principles of this Union on the part of England, whose interests at that time were very much in conflict with the policy of the Holy Alliance both in the conflict between the Spanish colonies in Latin America and metropolis, and in relation to the still ongoing Greek uprising, and on the other hand, the liberation of the successor of Alexander I from the influence of Metternich and the divergence of interests of Russia and Austria in relation to Turkey.
The overthrow of the monarchy in France in July 1830 and the outbreak of revolutions in Belgium and Warsaw forced Austria, Russia and Prussia to return to the traditions of the Holy Alliance, which was expressed, among other things, in the decisions taken at the Munich Congress of the Russian and Austrian Emperors and the Prussian Crown Prince (1833 G.); nevertheless, the successes of the French and Belgian revolutions of 1830 dealt a strong blow to the principles of the Holy Alliance, since now the two great powers, England and France, which had previously completely adhered to these principles in the sphere of international relations (and domestic ones as well), now adhered to a different policy, more favorable to bourgeois liberalism - a policy of non-intervention. Nicholas I, who initially tried to persuade the Austrian emperor to jointly act against the “usurper” of the French throne, Louis Philippe, soon abandoned these efforts.
Meanwhile, contradictions between the interests of Russia, Austria and Prussia grew.
Austria was dissatisfied with Russia's war in the Balkans: Austrian Chancellor Metternich pointed out that helping the “Greek revolutionaries” was contrary to the principles of the Holy Alliance. Nicholas I sympathized with Austria for its conservative anti-revolutionary position. Nesselrode also sympathized with Austria. In addition, support from Austria could give Russia a free hand in the Balkans. However, Metternich avoided discussing the “Turkish question”. But during the revolution in the Austrian Empire of 1848-1849, he lost his position, and Nicholas I began to hope that Austria would change its position.
In the summer of 1849, at the request of Emperor Franz Joseph I of Austria, the Russian army under the command of Field Marshal Paskevich took part in the suppression of the Hungarian National Revolution. Then Russia and Austria simultaneously sent notes to Turkey demanding the extradition of the Hungarian and Polish revolutionaries. After consulting with the English and French ambassadors, the Turkish Sultan rejected the note.
Meanwhile, Prussia decided to increase its influence in the German Confederation. This brought her into several conflicts with Austria. Thanks to Russian support, all conflicts were resolved in favor of Austria. This led to a cooling of relations between Russia and Prussia.
But Russian-Austrian cooperation could not eliminate Russian-Austrian contradictions. Austria, as before, was frightened by the prospect of the emergence of independent states in the Balkans, probably friendly to Russia, the very existence of which would cause the growth of national liberation movements in the multinational Austrian Empire. As a result, in Crimean War Austria, without directly participating in it, took an anti-Russian position.
INTRODUCTION
The system of international relations, called the Vienna one, began with the decisions of the Congress of Vienna in 1814-1815. It became an instrument for maintaining lasting peace in Europe and achieving a balance of power on the continent.
Two aspects stand out in the significance of the Vienna system for history European countries and peoples.
On the one hand, it gave Europe the opportunity to survive until the early 1850s. without deep military upheavals, although it must be borne in mind that within the framework of the Vienna system, contradictions between the great powers grew.
On the other hand, the positive significance of the Vienna system, associated with the possibility of peaceful resolution of military conflicts, was reduced by its extremely reactionary nature, aimed, in many cases, at the direct suppression of revolutionary movements, which slowed down the modernization processes in Western Europe.
The purpose of this work is to explore the role of the Holy Alliance in the history of the development of Europe and Russia.
THE SACRED ALLIANCE IN EUROPEAN HISTORY
The “Final General Act” of the Congress of Vienna on May 28 (June 9), 1815 was not the final stage in the establishment of a new European order. Back in March 1815, Russia, Great Britain, Austria and Prussia concluded the Quadruple Alliance, in words aimed at supporting the Bourbon dynasty restored in France, but in reality, to control the internal and foreign policy defeated France.
By virtue of this agreement, France was occupied by the Allied forces and a huge war indemnity was imposed on it. All this meant the desire of the great powers to weaken France in every possible way and deprive it of the opportunity to pursue an independent foreign policy.
The initiators of the creation of the Quadruple Alliance were England and Austria, who did not want the revival of France. Russian Emperor Alexander I (1801 - 1825) treated France more kindly and took significant measures to return France to the rank of a great power.
Russian policy after the Congress of Vienna had dual character. Not completely trusting his allies, Alexander considered it necessary to continue efforts to stabilize the situation in Europe. Firstly, to carry out possible transformations within one’s own country, and secondly, for future evolutionary changes in European political systems. The third factor that determined it political plans, there was a desire to maintain stability in the newly acquired Polish lands (Kingdom of Poland). In this regard, Alexander drew up the text of a new agreement with his own hand - “ Act of Holy Alliance ».
The document had religious-mystical character with the obligation of Christian monarchs to provide each other with help and support. At the same time, under the religious cover there was hidden a common political task - supporting the principle of legitimism and maintaining European balance. In comparison with previous treaties (Chaumont and Paris in 1814, on the Quadruple Alliance in 1815), the provisions of the Holy Alliance looked somewhat vague in terms of the motives, means and goals that were stipulated in it.
Meanwhile, the Union, as conceived by its creators, was supposed to play the role of, on the one hand, a deterrent against national liberation movements, and on the other, a unifier of all its participants to protect the existing order. Not for nothing, the text included the provision that the Union members will “give each other a hand and help to preserve peace, faith and truth.”
Creation of the Holy Alliance. The text of the agreement on the creation of the Holy Alliance was signed on September 14 (26), 1815 by three monarchs: the Austrian Emperor Francis I of Habsburg (1792-1835), the Prussian King Frederick William III of Hohenzollern (1797-1840) and the Russian Emperor Alexander L Great Britain, represented by Prince George of Wales - in 1811 - 1820. he acted as regent for the mentally ill King George III of Hanover - she refused to sign the document. At the same time, as subsequent events showed, the British leadership took an active part in the policy pursued by the Holy Alliance.
Soon all European powers, except Turkey and the Papal Court, joined the Union.
Despite the vagueness of the established principles, the Union gradually began to gain significant weight and strength. It became a counterweight to the Quadruple Alliance, which was actively advocated by Great Britain and Austria. It helped to the Russian Emperor pursue a policy of counterbalances, strengthening France with all possible ways. Already the accession of France to the “Act of the Holy Alliance” meant its inclusion in the pan-European concert.
In November 1815 between Russia and France officially signed a peace treaty. At the same time, Russian diplomacy watched extremely closely internal state France and did everything possible to maintain Bourbon power. On this basis, already in 1816, the French government turned to the English commander of the occupation forces, Duke A. Wellington, with a petition for the possibility of reducing the occupation army, which was warmly supported by Alexander I. The size of the indemnity was also reduced.
Alexander's demonstrative support for the French government was connected, first of all, with the fact that the European balance in his understanding included France among the great powers as a counterweight to Anglo-Austrian influence in Europe.
THE ROLE OF CONGRESSES OF THE SACRED ALLIANCE IN INTERNATIONAL POLITICS
Aachen Congress. The first congress of the Holy Alliance met in Aachen, Germany on September 18 (30), 1818. The main participants in the negotiations were: from Russia - Alexander I, from Austria - the Minister of Foreign Affairs and the de facto head of government K, Metternich, from Prussia - Chancellor K. Hardenberg, from Great Britain - the minister Foreign Affairs R. Castlereagh, France - minister of the government of Louis XVIII of Bourbon (1814-1815, 1815-1824)L. Richelieu.
The Congress was convened to discuss questions about the situation of France, its relations with its allies and some other international problems(on the mediation of powers in the conflict between Spain and its colonies; on freedom of navigation and the cessation of the slave trade).
Even before the start of the congress Russian government raised the question of terminating the activities of the Quadruple Alliance, which was, however, sharply rejected by its other members.
The Aachen Congress made decisions: on the withdrawal of occupation troops from France by November 30, 1818, on the reduction of indemnities paid by France, and on its admission to the Holy Alliance.
Second in importance was the question of helping Spain in the issue of revolutionary unrest in its Latin American colonies. In the end, the condemnation of revolutionary actions in Latin America did not lead to a decision on armed intervention by the powers in favor of Spain.
Regarding the issue of the slave trade, Russia advocated an early end to the trade in blacks and strict monitoring of the implementation of the powers’ decision to end the slave trade.
Despite general declarative statements about the need to combat revolutionary manifestations in various parts of the World, the Aachen Congress did not take on the character of the reactionary organization that subsequent congresses of the Holy Alliance had.
During the discussion of many issues, harsh confrontation between Russia and England emerged, as well as the latter’s desire to win Austria and Prussia to its side. As Russian Secretary of State I. Kapodistrias noted, “Great Britain claims absolute dominance at sea and in trade relations of both hemispheres... It owns Portugal, holds Belgium under its influence and humiliates Spain by trading with the rebels.” Kapodistrias was referring to the rapid spread of British priority on the seas and oceans.
The Russian government was also extremely dissatisfied with the position of Austria, which, in its opinion, sought to regain all the privileges of the crown of the former “Holy Roman Empire of the German nation.”
As a result, the Aachen Congress not only failed to bring the great powers closer together, but also revealed obvious contradictions between them. The Congress in Aachen, which closed on November 9 (21), 1818, did not give the Holy Alliance an exclusively anti-revolutionary orientation, but declared many legitimate and anti-revolutionary postulates.
Troppau-Laibach Congress. The intensification of the revolutionary movement in Europe necessitated the convening of a new meeting of the members of the Holy Alliance. She was appointed to Troppau (Opava, Czech Republic) on the initiative of K. Metternich.
Great French revolution late XVIII V. and the era of the Napoleonic wars caused serious changes not only in social composition and the position of various population groups of the European continent, but also in the self-awareness of the peoples of Europe. Despite some positive results of the Congress of Vienna and the creation of the “system of 1815,” the main thing remained that the peoples of European states refused to put up with the restoration of the old orders and dynasties. The restoration of the rule of the Bourbon dynasty in the Italian lands and on the Iberian Peninsula was especially hated.
By the beginning of the 1820s. In Spain, Italian and German states, numerous secret societies were formed, the program of which included the demand for the introduction of constitutional orders. In the “small” German states, the revolutionary movement was led by students, in the Italian lands the middle strata of society rose up to fight, in Spain the ferment affected the army.
The situation was also difficult in France, in which the ministry of A. Richelieu was replaced by the rule of E. Decaze, an ardent supporter of an unlimited monarchy.
In January 1820, a revolution broke out in Spain under the leadership of Captain R. Riego, which ended the despotism of Ferdinand VII of Bourbon (1808, 1814-1833). In the summer of the same year, the Cortes (parliament) met in Madrid, effectively depriving the king of power.
In June 1820, several regiments in the Kingdom of Naples rebelled. They were supported by the broad masses of the people, which forced the King of the Two Sicilies, Ferdinand I of Bourbon (1816-1825") to turn to Austria for help. K. Metternich was clearly aware that Austria's sole intervention in Italian affairs would be viewed with hostility by other European states. In connection with This is why he proposed convening a new congress of the Holy Alliance.
To understand Russia’s position at the future congress, it is necessary to note the transformation of the views of Alexander I towards a significant improvement. If before 1820 he oscillated like a pendulum between the remnants of liberal views and his reactionary sentiments, then the revolutionary events of the 1820s. throughout Europe, strengthened his reactionary views. This was reflected in the change of managers Russian ministry foreign affairs: from 1815/1816 There were two secretaries of state - the liberal I. Kapodistrias and an adherent of the ideas of Metternich K.V. Nesselrode, but in 1822 Kapodistrias was dismissed. This made it possible for the Austrian chancellor to increasingly influence the position of both Alexander and Russia. In his memoirs, Metternich reveled in the possibility of this influence, although he clearly exaggerated it in many ways.
This was the international situation on the eve of the opening congress in Troppau, which began its work on October 11 (23), 1820.
Already at the beginning of the congress, news arrived about the performance of the Semenovsky regiment in St. Petersburg, which further strengthened Alexander’s reactionary sentiments.
The main issue on the agenda of the congress was the development of measures to suppress revolutionary uprisings. In this regard, the participants heatedly discussed the question of the right to intervene in the affairs of other states, without waiting for such a request from them.
As a result, three of the five great powers - Russia, Austria and Prussia - signed a protocol on the right of armed intervention in the internal affairs of other states (the principle of intervention) and a special protocol concerning measures to suppress the Neapolitan revolution. This protocol authorized Austria's military occupation of the Kingdom of Naples. In addition, Ferdinand I was invited to the congress, whom it was important for the heads of the powers to isolate from the rebellious people in order to prevent him from fulfilling his earlier promise of introducing constitutional government in Naples.
In January 1821, the meetings of the Congress were moved to Laibach(Ljubljana, Slovenia). The elderly Ferdinand also arrived here.
Without waiting for the completion of the congress, Austrian troops moved against revolutionary Naples in February 1821, and in March 1821 the power of the Bourbon dynasty was restored there.
In March 1821, a revolution broke out in Piedmont (north of the Apennine Peninsula). The representatives of the great powers remaining in Laibach immediately authorized Austria to suppress this revolution as well, which it carried out in April 1821, after which Austria, Prussia and Russia signed a declaration extending Austria’s occupation of Naples and Piedmont.
Great Britain and France occupied a special position at the congress meetings. They did not support the principle of intervention, did not sign the protocol on the suppression of the Neapolitan revolution, but did not oppose these decisions.
Troppau-Laibach Congress and the decisions he made demonstrated that the Holy Alliance had turned into an organization of a reactionary political nature, designed to suppress any revolutionary uprisings aimed at the political modernization of Europe. The Congress showed that there were no serious differences between the five great powers on this issue, although political differences remained in full force on other international issues.
The congress participants did not specifically discuss the issue of measures to suppress the revolution in Spain and Portugal, however, in a declarative form, Russia, Austria and France expressed the idea of the need to intervene in the internal affairs of the Iberian Peninsula. At the congress, the reactionary role of Russia and Alexander I personally became obvious.
The official closing of the congress meetings took place on February 14 (26), 1821, but in fact its participants remained in Laibach until the end of April, monitoring the actions of the Austrian troops in Piedmont.
Verona Congress . The third congress of the Holy Alliance took place on October 20 (November 1) - December 14 (26), 1822 in Verona, Italy. It was mainly devoted to the issue of events in Spain.
The Congress was extremely representative. Its participants: from Russia - Emperor Alexander I, from Austria - Emperor Franz /, from Prussia - King Frederick William III, from Great Britain and France - foreign ministers, as well as Italian monarchs, diplomats and prominent military leaders of other European countries.
In addition to the Spanish problem, attention was paid to the flaring up Greek revolt against rule Ottoman Empire and the fate of the Latin American colonies seeking independence from Spain. The last question was of particular urgency, since Paraguay, in essence, became independent since 1811, Chile - after the popular struggle in 1810-1823, New Granada - since 1819, Venezuela - since 1821, as a result of victories, won by S. Bolivar over the Spanish troops.
Of great importance for the decision-making of the Congress was the fact that after the death of the British Foreign Minister R. Castlereagh, he was replaced by D. Canning, who took more liberal positions than his predecessor. In addition, England, fearing the strengthening of the role of France on the European continent, was a principled opponent of interference in relations between Spain and its colonies. British policy was determined by the desire to ensure, in its own interests, the independence of the southern Latin American colonies and their separation from Spain.
However, Alexander I and K. Metternich were staunch supporters of the decisive suppression of the revolution in Spain by French troops. On November 19 (December 1), 1822, Russia, Austria, Prussia and France signed a protocol in which the circumstances were formulated that determined the French intervention in Spain to restore the fullness of royal power in it. Powers broke with Spain diplomatic relations and expressed their readiness to provide moral and material support to France. Great Britain did not sign the protocol, not wanting to interfere in Spanish affairs, although Field Marshal A. Wellington, a representative of the British Foreign Office, in a private conversation with Russian representative(H.A. Lieven) expressed support for the decisions of the Congress. In April 1823, a French army under the command of Prince Louis of Angoulême crossed the Pyrenees and by the fall crushed the Spanish revolution.
The coordinated position of Russia, Austria and Prussia was also reflected in their common declaration condemning any revolutionary uprisings, including the national liberation struggle of the Greek people.
CONCLUSION
So, , with whom he often saw in 1815 in Heidelberg and Paris: she already directly applied various prophecies of the Apocalypse to Alexander I himself, called him the angel of peace, the founder of the thousand-year kingdom, etc. Having outlined what later became the main act of the Sacred alliance, the mystical emperor showed her his project, on which she put the words “La Sainte Alliance” in the form of a title. The 1815 Congress was a conservative political alliance between Austria, Prussia and Russia designed to maintain the system of international order established at the Congress of Vienna in 1815. The practical functions of the Holy Alliance were reflected in the resolutions of a series of congresses (Aachen, Troppaus, Laibach and Verona), which formed the principles and conditions for intervention in the internal affairs of other sovereign states with the aim of preventive violent suppression of all revolutionary movements and maintaining existing political system with its absolutist and clerical-aristocratic values.
At the Verona Congress, the reactionary essence of the Holy Alliance was clearly revealed. If the Vienna system played a dual role: on the one hand, supporting the legitimate sentiments of European monarchs, on the other, it contributed to the balance of power in Europe and the solution conflict situations peaceful means, the Holy Alliance was a conservative organization that for a long time slowed down the creation of independent European states and their bourgeois modernization.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Alekseev, I. S. The art of diplomacy: not to win, but to convince [ Electronic resource] / I. S. Alekseev. - 4th ed. - M.: Publishing and trading corporation "Dashkov and Co", 2013.
General history of diplomacy. - M.: Eksmo, 2009.
History of Russia: Textbook / Sh.M. Munchaev, V.M. Ustinov. - 6th ed., revised. and additional - M.: Norma: SIC INFRA-M, 2015
Story: Tutorial/ P.S. Samygin, S.I. Samygin, V.N. Shevelev, E.V. Sheveleva. - M.: NIC Infra-M, 2013.
New Historical Bulletin, 2014, No. 2 (40)