Talk:Congress of Vienna

Frederick William III

I may be wrong, or have missed a point some where... But wasn't Prussia represented by their King at the time, Frederick William III????? Hannah20 10:47, 25 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

2004

I have to say this page is well done but seems to be leaving out the background to the Congress of Vienna. So I would like to add to it. Particularly the rise of Conservatism. GrazingshipIV 03:07, 10 March - 18:29, 18 October 2004 (UTC)[reply]

fhgdf

This was a really good help

Reading this was a really good help for any one that needed to know somthing about this meeting and I would recomend them to use this website to find out anything that they need to know. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.63.253.3 (talk • contribs) 17:03, 11 February 2005 (UTC)[reply]

I Wish You Could Answer Questions Like...... The Congress Of Vienna Could Best be Described As :a)Conservitive B)Democratic C)liberal or moderate d) radical Or e Solcialistic — Preceding unsigned comment added by 151.203.179.14 (talk • contribs) 17:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

On Finland

I have a question: it says on the 1st line of the chapter territorial changes: "(Russia) was allowed to keep Finland (which it had taken from Sweden) until 1917". From this sentence one can jump to the conclusion that it was agreed upon at the Congress that Finland should gain independence in 1917. This can't be right. Yes, Finland gained independence but it has never come to my attention (i'm a finn myself with rather good knowledge of my country's history) that such datelines would have been under discussion at the Congress. Or if this is true, where do you base your argument? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.221.64.108 (talk • contribs) 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

"Bizarre" Swiss Sentence

An anon/unlogged in user from IP 141.150.17.236 removed from Line 58, the following sentence: "The Swiss the started a war with the Aricans."

There were other, less important territorial adjustments, including significant territorial gains for the German Kingdoms of Hanover (which gained East Frisia from Prussia and various other territories in Northwest Germany) and Bavaria (which gained the Rhenish Palatinate and territories in Franconia). The Duchy of Lauenburg was transferred from Hanover to Denmark, and Swedish Pomerania was annexed by Prussia. Switzerland was enlarged, and Swiss neutrality was guaranteed. The Swiss the started a war with the Aricans.

I believe whoever added that in the first place, may have been talking about the Swiss attacking the (Rauracian?) Republic on the border of Switzerland and Italy (or Sardinia-Piedmonte at the time), which I believe did happen (read in some other wiki). The phrasing is certainly peculiar and worthy of concern, but if in fact there was such a conflict (Switzo-Rauracian?) it should be included, albiet in a more understandable manner. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Hellenica (talk • contribs) 05:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Questions on congress of Vienna

from the congress of Vienna, how did it effect European history in later time periods? And was it affichent and successful to the European stability?i know that the congress set goals of a balance of power but what did it really do in history? What was its significance? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.96.80.147 (talk • contribs) 08:57 - 9:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What effect did the congress have on Italy? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.163.194.124 (talk • contribs) 01:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

slave trade

is the slave trade being condemned really part of territorial changes?--iceman 10:29, 24 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A case of bad wording. If no one has any objections within 24 hrs, I'll change the wording to "Major elements of the Treaty", or something like that. Apart from that, I found the article very interesting. I salute those who made it. Tourskin 22:59, 18 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Nice article but I think a bit more could be said about the slave trade, unless all they said was "We condemn the salve trade? StevenAFC

pretty much - many powers were already anti-slavery like England or about to be like Spain and Portugal. Tourskin 22:24, 24 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

map

a before and after map would be nice — Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.146.44.171 (talk • contribs) 08:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Agreed! Matthew 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What would be the before map? Europe in 1792, or Europe in 1812? john k 23:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

1791 (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:BlankMap-Europe-1791.png) 1812 (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:Europe_map_1812.PNG)

Something based off of this map (http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:BlankMap-Europe-v3.png) would be good — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.59.97.219 (talk • contribs) 01:19 - 01:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'd suggest four: before (1791), during (height of french conquests), after (1812, pre congress) and final (1815, post congress) Modest Genius ^talk 02:25, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Participants: historical states, not the modern ones

Austria and Russia did not participate, they are modern states. Instead, there were Austrian_Empire and Russian_empire.

No more than England or France participated, since they were officially Kingdom of Great Britain and First French Empire. Lets not split hairs and leave it be.Tourskin 01:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Er, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Kingdom of France. john k 03:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

France?

So at this conference did France gain in territories or loose?82.114.81.151 11:43, 15 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]