a reactionary association of European monarchs that arose after the fall of Napoleon's empire. 26. IX 1815 Russian Emperor Alexander I, Austrian Emperor Franz I and Prussian King Frederick William III signed the so-called in Paris. "Act of Holy Alliance". The real essence of the “Act”, designed in a pompous religious style, boiled down to the fact that the monarchs who signed it pledged “in every case and in every place ... to provide each other with benefits, reinforcements and assistance.” In other words, S. s. was a kind of mutual assistance agreement between the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia, which was extremely broad in nature. 19.XI 1815 to S. p. the French king Louis XVIII joined; Later, most of the monarchs of the European continent joined him. England did not formally become part of the S. s., but in practice England often coordinated its behavior with the general line of the S. s. The pious formulas of the “Act of Holy Alliance” covered up the very prosaic goals of its creators. There were two of them: 1. To maintain intact the redrawing of European borders that was carried out in 1815 Congress of Vienna(cm.). 2. Conduct an irreconcilable struggle against all manifestations of the “revolutionary spirit.” In fact, the activities of S. s. focused almost entirely on the fight against the revolution. The key points of this struggle were the periodically convened congresses of the heads of the three leading powers of the United States, which were also attended by representatives of England and France. Alexander I and K. Metternich usually played the leading role at the congresses. Total congresses of the S. s. there were four - Aachen Congress 1818, Troppau Congress 1820, Laibach Congress 1821 And Congress of Verona 1822 (cm.). Powers of S. s. stood entirely on the basis of “legitimism,” that is, the most complete restoration of the old dynasties and regimes overthrown by the French Revolution and Napoleon’s armies, and proceeded from the recognition of an absolute monarchy. S. s. was a European gendarme who kept the European peoples in chains. This was most clearly manifested in the position of S. s. in relation to the revolutions in Spain (1820-23), Naples (1820-21) and Piedmont (1821), as well as the uprising of the Greeks against the Turkish yoke, which began in 1821. 19.XI 1820, shortly after the start of the revolution in Spain and Naples , Russia, Austria and Prussia at the congress in Troppau signed a protocol that openly proclaimed the right of intervention of the three leading powers of the Socialist Republic. into the internal affairs of other countries in order to fight the revolution. England and France did not sign this protocol, but did not go beyond verbal protests against it. As a result of the decisions taken in Troppau, Austria received the authority to armedly suppress the Neapolitan revolution and at the end of March 1821 occupied the Kingdom of Naples with its troops, after which the absolutist regime was restored here. In April of the same 1821, Austria forcibly suppressed the revolution in Piedmont. At the Congress of Verona (October - December 1822), through the efforts of Alexander I and Metternich, a decision was made on armed intervention in Spanish affairs. The authority to actually carry out this intervention was given to France, which actually invaded Spain on April 7, 1823 with an army of 100,000 under the command of the Duke of Angoulême. The Spanish revolutionary government resisted foreign invasion for six months, but in the end the interventionist forces, supported by the Spanish domestic counter-revolution, were victorious. In Spain, as before in Naples and Piedmont, absolutism was restored. S.'s position was no less reactionary. in the Greek question. When a delegation of Greek rebels arrived in Verona to ask Christian sovereigns and especially Tsar Alexander I for help against the Sultan, the congress even refused to listen to it. England immediately took advantage of this and, in order to strengthen its influence in Greece, began to support the Greek rebels. The Verona Congress of 1822 and the intervention in Spain were essentially the last major acts of the Socialist Revolution. After that, he virtually ceased to exist. Decay of S. s. was due to two main reasons. Firstly, within the union very soon contradictions between its main participants were revealed. When in December 1823 the Spanish king Ferdinand VII turned to S. s. for help in bringing its “rebellious” colonies in America to submission, England, interested in the markets of these colonies, not only declared a decisive protest against all attempts of this kind, but also demonstratively recognized the independence of the American colonies of Spain (XII 31, 1824). This drove a wedge between S. s. and England. Somewhat later, in 1825 and 1826, due to the Greek question, relations between Russia and Austria, the two main pillars of the Socialist Revolution, began to deteriorate. Alexander I (towards the end of his reign) and then Nicholas I supported the Greeks, while Metternich continued his previous line against the Greek "rebels". 4. IV 1826 between Russia and England the so-called. Petersburg Protocol on coordination of actions in the Greek issue, clearly directed against Austria. Contradictions also emerged between other participants of the S. s. Secondly, and this was especially important, despite all the efforts of the reaction, the growth of revolutionary forces in Europe continued. In 1830, revolutions took place in France and Belgium, and an uprising against tsarism broke out in Poland. In England, the rapid movement of the popular masses forced the Conservatives to accept the electoral reform of 1832. This dealt a heavy blow not only to the principles, but also to the very existence of the Socialist Union, which actually collapsed. In 1833, the monarchs of Russia, Austria, and Prussia tried to restore S., but this attempt ended in failure (see. Munich Convention).

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 are highlighted in the significance of the Vienna System for the history of 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 domestic and foreign policy of 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.

Russia's policy after the Congress of Vienna was ambivalent. 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 his political plans was the 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. This helped the Russian emperor pursue a policy of counterbalances, strengthening France in 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 extremely closely monitored the internal state of France and did everything possible to maintain the power of the Bourbons. 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 the situation of France, its relations with its allies and some other international problems (the mediation of powers in the conflict between Spain and its colonies; freedom of navigation and the cessation of the slave trade).

Even before the start of the congress, the Russian government raised the question of terminating the activities of the Quadruple Alliance, which, however, was 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.

The Great French Revolution of the late 18th century. and the era of the Napoleonic wars caused serious changes not only in the social composition and 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 of the Russian Ministry of 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 Greek uprising against the rule of the 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. The powers broke off diplomatic relations with Spain 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 the 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, Holy Alliance 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 the 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 resolution of conflict situations by peaceful means, then 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

History: Textbook / P.S. Samygin, S.I. Samygin, V.N. Shevelev, E.V. Sheveleva. - M.: NIC Infra-M, 2013.

New Historical Bulletin, 2014, No. 2 (40)

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."

Encyclopedic YouTube

• 1 / 5

  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. Its practical significance 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 trends.

  Congresses of the Holy Alliance

  Aachen Congress

  Congresses in Troppau and Laibach

  Typically considered together as a single congress.

  Congress in Verona

  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 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 Alexander I’s successor from the influence of Metternich and the divergence of interests of Russia and Austria in relation to Turkey.

  “As for Austria, I am confident in it, since our treaties determine our relations.”

  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 the Crimean War, Austria, without directly participating in it, took an anti-Russian position.

  Bibliography

  • For the text of the Holy Alliance, see Complete Collection of Laws, No. 25943.
  • For the French original, see Part 1 of Vol. IV “Collections of treatises and conventions concluded by Russia with foreign powers” ​​by Professor Martens.
  • "Mémoires, documents et écrits divers laissés par le prince de Metternich", vol. I, pp. 210-212.
  • V. Danevsky, “Systems of political balance and legitimism” 1882.
  • Ghervas, Stella [Gervas, Stella Petrovna], Réinventer la tradition. Alexandre Stourdza et l’Europe de la Sainte-Alliance, Paris, Honoré Champion, 2008. ISBN 978-2-7453-1669-1
  • Nadler V. K. Emperor Alexander I and the idea of ​​the Holy Alliance. vol. 1-5. Kharkov, 1886-1892.
  • Lyapin V. A., Sitnikov I. V. // The Holy union in the plans of Alexander I. Ekaterinburg: Ural Publishing House. University, 2003. - P. 151-154.

  Congress of Vienna and the Holy Alliance

  Congress of Vienna 1814 – 1815

  After the victory over the Napoleonic Empire in 1814, the Congress of European States met in Vienna. The main role was played by Russia, England, Austria and Prussia. The French commissioner was also allowed to attend the behind-the-scenes meetings. All important issues were resolved at these meetings. The main goals of the congress participants were to restore, if possible, the former dynasties and the power of the nobility, to redistribute Europe in the interests of the victors and to fight the emerging new revolutionary movements. Disregarding the people, the victors shredded the map of Europe in their own interests; England retained the island of Malta and the former Dutch colonies - the island of Ceylon off the coast of India and the Cape Land in southern Africa. England's main success was the weakening of its main enemy, France, and the consolidation of British superiority at sea and in colonial conquests. Russia secured most of Poland.

  The fragmentation of Germany was greatly reduced. Instead of more than two hundred small states, a German Confederation of 39 states was created. The largest of them were Austria and Prussia. The German Confederation had no government, no money, no army, no influence on international affairs.

  The rich and economically developed provinces of the Rhineland and Westphalia became the possessions of Prussia. Some of the bourgeois orders introduced during Napoleon have been preserved there. Western Polish lands were also recognized as the possession of Prussia.

  The territory of Austria increased significantly - its former possessions in Italy and a number of other lands were again transferred to it. The previous dynasty was restored in Piedmont, and Austrian dukes reigned in the small states of Northern Italy.

  The temporal power of the pope over the Roman region was restored, and the former Bourbon dynasty was installed on the throne in the Kingdom of Naples. The Pope and the Neapolitan king ruled relying on Swiss mercenaries.

  In Spain, the absolute monarchy and the Inquisition were restored. The persecution and execution of patriots - participants in the revolution of 1808 - 1814 - began.

  Belgium was annexed to the Kingdom of the Netherlands. Switzerland regained the mountain passes leading to Italy and was declared a perpetually neutral state.

  The territory of the Sardinian kingdom was increased, the main part of which was Piedmont with the city of Turin.

  According to the peace treaty with France, concluded in 1815, its territory was returned to its previous borders. An indemnity of 700 million francs was imposed on her. Until it was paid, the northeastern part of France was to remain occupied by Allied troops.

  England, Russia, Austria and Prussia renewed the military alliance with the obligation to prevent the restoration of the Bonaparte dynasty in France and to convene congresses from time to time to protect the order in Europe established after the Napoleonic wars.

  "Holy Alliance"

  In order to consolidate absolutism and noble reaction, European sovereigns, at the suggestion of Alexander I, in 1815 concluded the so-called “Holy Alliance” against revolutionary movements. Its participants pledged to help each other in suppressing revolutions and to support the Christian religion. The Act of the “Holy Alliance” was signed by Austria, Prussia, and then almost all the monarchs of European states. England did not formally join the Holy Alliance, but actually supported the policy of suppressing revolutions.

  In the early 20s. In Spain, the Kingdom of Naples and Piedmont, bourgeois revolutions led by advanced officers broke out against absolutism. By decision of the “Holy Alliance” they were suppressed - in Italy by Austrian troops, and in Spain - by the French army. But it was impossible to perpetuate the absolutist feudal order. Revolutions and national liberation wars covered more and more countries and continents.

  A universal gsm repeater can be ordered at - TVdelta.

  
  

  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 the class constitution in force in Sweden, and in 1814 insisted that the French king LouisXVIII 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.

  Holy Alliance

  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 the Orthodox Church of 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 political figure in 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.