Talk:Congress of Vienna

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search


I have to say this page is well done dick tits

This was a really good help[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 17:03, 11 February 2005 (UTC)

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 (talkcontribs) 17:40, 21 January 2006 (UTC)

On Finland[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 18:46, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

"Bizarre" Swiss Sentence[edit]

An anon/unlogged in user from IP 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 (talkcontribs) 05:53, 17 March 2006 (UTC) Spain was not on it because it wasn't born. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 02:20, 6 January 2012 (UTC)

Questions on congress of Vienna[edit]

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 (talkcontribs) 08:57 - 9:01, 31 March 2006 (UTC)

What effect did the congress have on Italy? —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:39, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

slave trade[edit]

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

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)
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)


a before and after map would be nice —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 08:38, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

Agreed! Matthew 22:23, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
What would be the before map? Europe in 1792, or Europe in 1812? john k 23:30, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
1791 ( 1812 (
Something based off of this map ( would be good —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talkcontribs) 01:19 - 01:22, 17 August 2006 (UTC)
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)

Participants: historical states, not the modern ones[edit]

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)
Er, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland and the Kingdom of France. john k 03:24, 9 June 2007 (UTC)
) Mallerd 18:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)
And to make things even more complicated, Kingdom of France itself ceased to be during the Congress - because of Hundred Days))))) (talk) 22:12, 30 August 2008 (UTC)


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

France's territorial boundaries had already been set by the Treaty of Paris (1814) (which reduced France to its 1792 borders), and would, after the Hundred Days, be revised in the Treaty of Paris (1815) (which reduced it further to its 1790 borders, except with the addition of Avignon and the Comtat Venaissin). France's borders were not discussed at Vienna. john k 22:27, 19 June 2007 (UTC)

Final Act[edit]

I have renamed Treaty to "Final Act" this is a common name as a Google search on [Congress of Vienna "Final Act"] will show.

It gets away from problems of other treaties signed in Vienna that same year. Notably the "Treaty of Alliance and Friendship" of 25 March 1815, concluded between Austria, Russia, Prussia and Great Britain, pledging 150,000 solders each to give Napoleon a dammed good thrashing (James MacQueen The New Annual Register, Or General Repository of History, Politics p. 152,153) --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 12:37, 7 September 2008 (UTC)

Beginning and end[edit]

As always, pinpointing the beginning and the end of an undertaking is easier said than sourced. Let's start with the end of the Congress of Vienna - I think there is general consensus that the signing of the Final Act was the end of the Congress. Per Encyclopaedia Brittanica 1911 and others, the Act was signed on June 9, 1815. Then the beginning: as much as I can determine right now, there was no plenary opening session. Per Kissinger's A World Restored: Castlereagh arrived in Vienna on 13 September and immediately began discussions preliminary to the formal Congress which was to open on October 1. Also per Kissinger: At this point, on 23 September, Talleyrand arrived in Vienna [...] In the same section, Kissinger implies that Alexander arrived on October 1. And of course, Metternich was in Vienna all the time. Later will check Charles Webster's The Congress of Vienna, 1814-1815 for any plenary opening session. For now, I like to leave the beginning of the Congress to "September 1814." -- Iterator12n Talk 22:48, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

Frederick VI of Denmark at the Congress of Vienna[edit]

Frederick VI did attend the Congress; unfortunately I don't have any english-language reference for it. If you check his Danish Wikipedia article, you'll find a section entitled "Frederik 6. ved Wienerkongressen 1814-15" which is clear enough even if you don't speak Danish. The reason there's no mention of this in English Wikipedia – I guess – is because the Danish delegation ultimately accomplished nothing and Denmark was permanently demoted to its current "cute little country" status. (The other delegates saw the king as a "tragisk figur/tragic figure".) I'll add this to the English "Frederick VI of Denmark" article when I get the time; it's a fairly important event in his reign. He's worth mentioning in the "Congress of Vienna" article because 1) He was there, so it's factually correct; 2) Denmark was still a moderately important country at the time; 3) the "negative information" that he accomplished nothing (except acquiring an 18-year-old mistress) should be mentioned in passing when this article is expanded. (Maybe there should be a separate article: "List of all participants at the Vienna Congress"?) (talk) 18:46, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the info. Still, the Final Act of the Congress does not list the king as a participant, nor any representative of the king. Another aspect that raises suspicions about Frederick as a participant is that the Congress was a matter of embassadors (with the exception of Alexander, and then only in the background), not kings, emperors or tsars. Instead, as you suggest, Frederick may have had an 18-year old reason to be in Vienna. (Apart from Frederick or not, it remains curious that the Final Act does not spend a word - or that the embassadors apparently did not spend time - on Scandinavia, Greenland or Iceland - not that nothing had happened in these reaches of the world in the Napoleonic times!) In sum, there is insufficient evidence of Frederick as a participant of the Congress. -- Iterator12n Talk 20:43, 17 November 2008 (UTC)

As allies of Napoleon, Denmark and Frederick were seen in 1815 as losers that had punishment (the loss of Norway) meted out to them. Just revenge, nothing tragic there. Unbeatablevalue (talk) 21:34, 17 November 2008 (UTC) See Harold Nicolson, The Congress of Vienna, page 295: "It was thus decided to reward Bernadotte and to punish Frederick by detaching Norway from Denmark and giving her to Sweden." -- Iterator12n Talk 18:50, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

Participation by the Iroquois Confederacy?[edit]

Sure, the British saw the Iroquois Confederacy as an ally - but where is the evidence that the Confederacy had a representative (plenipotentiary) at the Congress?? Neither Nicolson nor Kissinger nor Freksa mention the Iroquois. Time to let the Iroquois red herring go. -- Iterator12n Talk 17:28, 4 January 2009 (UTC)

"First occasion in history"?[edit]

The introductory section reads: … the Congress was the first occasion in history where on a continental scale people came together in place to hammer out a treaty, instead of relying mostly on messengers and messages between the several capitals. What about the Peace of Westphalia? This point seems debatable and the sentence should probably be rewritten. Any objections? (talk) 02:00, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

I have to go back and double-check, but I think Russia had no plenipotentiary in Westphalia. And who was there for Britain? Correct me if I'm wrong. Anyway, have to go back to the source to find the the citation for the stmt as it stands right now - my best guess is I saw it in Zamoyski. -- Iterator12n Talk 06:45, 14 January 2009 (UTC)
I believe you are correct in stating that neither Russia nor England had envoys at Westphalia. However, "continental scale" is not the same thing as "having representatives from every European country." That's why in my opinion the phrasing needs tweaking. Even if Zamoyski used that specific wording, it still seems like overreaching. (By the way, was the Ottoman Empire represented? At that time its territories in Europe were larger than most European countries.) (talk) 21:46, 26 January 2009 (UTC)


Where exactly (city or town) was the Congress held? Firio (talk) 22:18, 3 March 2009 (UTC)


man you are one big group of nerds, do you even realize how stupid you guys sound? geez! what a bunch of nerdy losers. get lives and live them you spineless sack of geeks! —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 19:10, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

Date confusion in the Polish-Saxon crisis[edit]

Regarding the following passage, it appears the dates are either transposed or mistaken altogether:

The Austrians, French, and British did not approve of this plan, and, at the inspiration of Talleyrand, signed a secret treaty on January 3, 1815, agreeing to go to war, if necessary, to prevent the Russo-Prussian plan from coming to fruition.[18]
Though none of the three powers were ready for war, the Russians did not call the bluff, and an amicable settlement was set on October 24, 1814, by which Russia received...

It seems that the Austrian/French/British fears would have been allayed by the Russia's Oct 24th settlement, thus obviating the secret treaty signed 10 weeks later on Jan 3rd, 1815. Not an expert on this topic, but passage is either confusing or wrong.

additional illustration[edit]

Somewhere, there's a great political cartoon showing Napoleon, shut out of the Congress' "ballroom", straining to listen to the "music". If anybody finds it before me, please include it.--Piledhigheranddeeper (talk) 16:40, 9 June 2011 (UTC)

Irrelevant material[edit]

The last paragraph in the 'other changes' section reads:

"Dalmatia from Zadar to the northern end of the Dubrovnik Republic and Dalmatia from the southern end of the Dubrovnik Republic to the port city of Bar belonged to the Bosnian Villayet in the Ottoman Empire. The treaty of Karlsdadt comes to mind as far as borders are concerned as well as the fact that Nikola Tesla was Born in the Bosnian Villayet, Ottoman Empire that later was transferred to the Austro-Hungarian empire at the time of his naturalization in the United States. "The Mourning Song of Hasan Aga's Wife" was a Bosnian song that was based upon a daughter of a Bosnian Bey in the city of Split, Bosnian Villayet, that married into an Aga family in the city of Hlivno, Bosnian Villayet. The book was translated by Sir Walter Scott into English, Pushking into Russian, Goethe in German, Fortis into Italian, etc. The map shown is not correct because Dalmatia belonged to the Bosnian Villayet from Zadar to Bar excluding the Republic of Dubrovnik all the way until the Austro-Hungarian genocide on Bosnia and Bosnians in 1867 where all the Bosnians were forced to leave Lika and Dalmatia from Zadar to Dubrovnik directly to Ottoman Turkey (actually what is mainland Turkey today)."

How is this material relevant? Nikola Tesla, a Bosnian song, "Aga family", translation of (an unmentioned!) book into different languages, "Austro-Hungarian genocide on Bosnia"... That is some serious tangent. And, seemingly, all just to point out that the "map shown is wrong". — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 05:45, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The text was added by Ekltaks (talk|contribs) probably by mistake. It belongs only to the talk page, so I have removed it from the article. Sharkb (talk) 23:40, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Clarification of the composition of the Great Powers[edit]

In the general introduction, it is mentioned that "Austria, Britain, France and Russia brokered local and regional problems." In the same introduction, it the same four countries are mentioned as constituting the Great Powers: " Great Powers of Austria, France, Russia, the United Kingdom and sometimes Prussia".

Under the section "The Four Great Powers and Bourbon France" the four Great Powers are different: Russia, UK, Prussia & Austria.

As a newcomer to this topic, I am unclear as to which countries actually make up the Great Four. Is Prussia included? Is France included?

Perhaps this could be made clearer. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Vburmester (talkcontribs) 00:07, 21 November 2012 (UTC)

Luxembourg in or out?[edit]

The Final act section states: "...with Luxembourg (but not the Netherlands) inside the German Confederation." But the map shows Luxenbourg to be outside the German Confederation. Wich is it? (talk) 09:55, 2 April 2013 (UTC)

It was within the German Confederation. The map is incorrect. john k (talk) 14:39, 3 April 2013 (UTC)
I checked on the official site of the Grand Duché du Luxembourg and, indeed, Luxembourg was part of the German Confederation. I just corrected the map but sometimes it takes a while before a new version appears.--Lubiesque (talk) 17:13, 3 April 2013 (UTC)

Alternate names for the conference.[edit]

I was logged out and decided to check out the specifics of the conference, while doing so I remembered that the conference has also been referred to as the Dancing Conference; I decided to add that into the article, but some one reverted my change. I was wondering why my change was reverted and if it was all right to add alternate names or nicknames for the event in. — Preceding unsigned comment added by GordonFields3 (talkcontribs) 21:22, 6 August 2015 (UTC)