European Monarchs' Fear: France & 19th-Century Alliances

In the 19th century, the specter of revolutionary upheaval, embodied by the memory of the French Revolution, haunted the crowned heads of Europe. The Concert of Europe, established after Napoleon's defeat, represented an attempt to suppress republican and liberal ideologies. Klemens von Metternich, the Austrian statesman, championed a system of alliances designed to maintain the balance of power and stifle dissent. This environment underscores what did European monarchs fear from France, whose revolutionary ideals threatened the established aristocratic order and the principle of divine right upon which their legitimacy rested.

The Shadow of France Over 19th-Century Europe

The 19th century was a period of immense change and upheaval in Europe, shaped significantly by the long shadow cast by France.

A pervasive sense of apprehension towards France permeated the corridors of power across the continent.

This stemmed from a confluence of factors, including the lingering impact of the Napoleonic Wars, the contagious spread of revolutionary ideals, and the recurring threat to the established balance of power.

Thesis: Apprehension and the European Order

The apprehension towards France amongst European powers in the 19th century stemmed from the legacy of the Napoleonic Wars.

Furthermore, it was due to the reverberations of revolutionary ideals, and the consistent threat to the established Balance of Power.

This ultimately necessitated intricate diplomatic and military strategies to maintain continental stability.

The Post-Napoleonic Landscape

The defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte in 1815 marked the end of an era of French dominance in Europe.

However, it did not erase the memory of his sweeping conquests and the profound disruption he had caused.

The Napoleonic Wars had left a continent scarred by devastation, with borders redrawn and political systems upended.

The rise and fall of Napoleon served as a potent reminder of France's capacity for military aggression and its potential to destabilize the existing order.

The Congress of Vienna and the Quest for Stability

In the wake of Napoleon's defeat, European leaders convened at the Congress of Vienna (1814-1815) to forge a new framework for international relations.

The primary aim of the Congress was to restore a stable balance of power in Europe.

This was to prevent any single nation, particularly France, from achieving hegemony.

The Congress sought to achieve this through a combination of territorial adjustments, the restoration of legitimate monarchies, and the creation of a system of collective security.

The aim was to contain French ambitions and ensure lasting peace.

The Napoleonic Echo: Lingering Fear of French Hegemony

The defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo in 1815 marked a watershed moment in European history. However, the Congress of Vienna's attempt to restore order could not entirely erase the profound impact Napoleon had on the continent. The lingering fear of French hegemony remained a potent force, shaping the political landscape and influencing the actions of European powers for decades to come. This apprehension stemmed from the disruptive force of Napoleon's military campaigns, the spread of revolutionary ideals, and the perceived instability of successive French regimes.

The Enduring Shadow of Napoleon Bonaparte

Napoleon Bonaparte's rise to power and his subsequent military conquests fundamentally altered the European political order. His campaigns instilled widespread fear and resentment, as he toppled monarchies, redrew borders, and imposed French control over vast territories. Even after his defeat, the memory of his ambition and military prowess remained a stark reminder of France's potential for dominance. He forced Europe to modernize its approach to warfare, national identity, and governance.

The Vulnerabilities of Louis XVIII and the Restoration

The restoration of the Bourbon monarchy under Louis XVIII was intended to provide stability and legitimacy to France. However, Louis XVIII faced significant challenges in reconciling the pre-revolutionary order with the changes brought about by the French Revolution and Napoleonic era. His perceived weaknesses and the limitations of the Restoration fueled concerns among European powers.

Balancing Royalist and Revolutionary Factions

Louis XVIII struggled to navigate the deep divisions within French society, attempting to appease both royalists who sought a return to the old regime and those who embraced revolutionary ideals. This delicate balancing act often left him vulnerable to criticism from both sides, creating a sense of uncertainty about the future direction of France.

The Specter of Bonapartism and Radical Republicanism

The potential for a resurgence of Bonapartism or the rise of radical republicanism further complicated the situation. Supporters of Napoleon continued to harbor hopes of restoring the empire, while radical republicans sought to overthrow the monarchy and establish a democratic government. These competing factions posed a constant threat to the stability of the Bourbon regime and heightened anxieties across Europe.

The Reign of Charles X and the Resurgence of Revolutionary Sentiment

The reign of Charles X, Louis XVIII's successor, witnessed a resurgence of revolutionary sentiment due to his increasingly reactionary policies. Charles sought to restore the power and privileges of the aristocracy and the Catholic Church, alienating liberals, republicans, and even moderate royalists.

Ultra-Royalist Policies and Societal Impact

His ultra-royalist policies, including restrictions on freedom of the press and attempts to compensate nobles who had lost their property during the revolution, sparked widespread discontent. This discontent manifested in growing support for opposition parties and a renewed sense of revolutionary fervor.

The July Revolution of 1830 and its Ripple Effects

The culmination of this tension came in the July Revolution of 1830, which led to Charles X's abdication and the installation of Louis-Philippe as the "Citizen King." The July Revolution sent shockwaves across Europe, inspiring liberal and nationalist movements in other countries and reinforcing fears of revolutionary contagion.

Napoleon III and the Revival of Bonapartism

The election of Louis-Napoleon Bonaparte, Napoleon's nephew, as President of France in 1848 and his subsequent seizure of power in 1851 resurrected fears of French expansionism and military aggression. Napoleon III, as he became known, sought to emulate his uncle's glory and restore France to its position as a dominant European power.

Domestic Policies and European Perceptions

His authoritarian domestic policies, coupled with his ambitious foreign policy agenda, raised concerns among European leaders about his intentions. While Napoleon III initially sought to reassure European powers of his peaceful intentions, his actions often contradicted his words.

Foreign Policy Adventures and Challenges to the Established Order

His involvement in the Crimean War, his support for Italian unification, and his attempts to expand French influence in other parts of the world challenged the established order and fueled anxieties about French ambitions. European powers were wary of his intentions, constantly monitoring his actions and seeking to contain his influence.

Waterloo: A Fleeting Moment of Assurance

The Battle of Waterloo serves as a powerful symbol of the end of French dominance. Yet, it also acted as a grim reminder of its potential revival. Waterloo's fragile peace necessitated constant vigilance and strategic alliances among European powers to prevent a resurgence of French hegemony. The battle, therefore, became a constant point of reference in European diplomacy and military planning throughout the 19th century, a testament to the enduring impact of Napoleon and the anxieties he engendered.

Revolutionary Contagion: Ideological Challenges to European Order

The defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo in 1815 marked a watershed moment in European history. However, the Congress of Vienna's attempt to restore order could not entirely erase the profound impact Napoleon had on the continent. The lingering fear of French hegemony remained a potent force, exacerbated by the spread of revolutionary ideals emanating from France. These ideals, encompassing liberalism and nationalism, presented a fundamental challenge to the monarchical systems that had long dominated Europe.

The old order, characterized by absolute rule and aristocratic privilege, found itself increasingly under siege by new and dynamic forces demanding change. This section will explore the nature of these ideological challenges and their destabilizing effects on the European political landscape.

The Revolution's Ripple Effects

The French Revolution, with its rallying cries of liberty, equality, and fraternity, sent shockwaves across Europe. These concepts, seemingly radical at the time, directly challenged the very foundations upon which monarchical rule and the established social order rested.

The notion of inherent rights, previously unheard of for common subjects, questioned the legitimacy of divinely ordained authority. If all men were created equal, as the revolutionaries proclaimed, what justified the vast disparities in wealth, power, and privilege that defined the aristocratic system?

The ideals of the Revolution were not confined to France. They spread through pamphlets, newspapers, and word of mouth, igniting revolutionary sentiment in other countries. This created an environment of uncertainty and fear among Europe's monarchs, who viewed the Revolution as a dangerous precedent that threatened their own survival.

Liberalism as a Destabilizing Force

Liberalism, as an ideology, gained traction throughout the 19th century, becoming a powerful force for change. It challenged traditional hierarchies and autocratic governance in several key ways.

Liberals advocated for constitutionalism and representative government.

They believed that political power should be vested in elected assemblies, rather than in hereditary monarchs. This demand for popular sovereignty threatened the absolute authority of kings and emperors.

The Demand for Constitutionalism

Constitutions, which enshrined individual rights and limited government power, were seen as essential safeguards against tyranny.

Calls for Representative Government

Representative assemblies, elected by the people, would ensure that the government was accountable to the governed. This was a direct challenge to the principle of absolute monarchy.

The rise of liberalism also posed a threat to the power and privileges of the aristocracy.

Liberals argued that merit, rather than birth, should determine social and political status. This challenged the aristocratic system. This system had long ensured that power and privilege were concentrated in the hands of a select few. The concept of equality before the law struck at the heart of the aristocratic system.

The Disruptive Force of Nationalism

Nationalism emerged as another powerful ideology in the 19th century, posing a significant threat to the multi-ethnic empires of Austria and Russia.

Nationalism promoted the idea that people who shared a common language, culture, and history should form their own independent nation-state. This principle, seemingly straightforward, had profound implications for the existing political order.

The Rise of Movements for National Unification

In fragmented regions like Italy and Germany, nationalist movements sought to unite their people into unified nation-states.

These movements challenged the existing political boundaries, which had been drawn by monarchs and diplomats without regard for national identity.

Separatist Movements within Empires

Within the multi-ethnic empires of Austria and Russia, nationalist movements sought independence from imperial rule.

These movements, often fueled by ethnic and cultural grievances, threatened to tear apart the empires from within. The Balkans, with its diverse mix of ethnic and religious groups, became a hotbed of nationalist agitation, contributing significantly to instability.

The ideologies of liberalism and nationalism, born out of the French Revolution, presented formidable challenges to the established order in 19th-century Europe. These ideas inspired movements for reform and revolution, undermining the legitimacy of monarchical rule and threatening the stability of the continent.

Architects of Stability: Key Figures and the Balance of Power

The defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo in 1815 marked a watershed moment in European history. However, the Congress of Vienna's attempt to restore order could not entirely erase the profound impact Napoleon had on the continent. The lingering fear of French hegemony remained a significant undercurrent in European politics, necessitating the careful navigation of international relations by key individuals who sought to maintain a delicate balance of power. These "architects of stability" played pivotal roles in shaping the 19th century, and their actions continue to be subjects of historical analysis.

Klemens von Metternich: The Conservative Cornerstone

Klemens von Metternich, the Austrian statesman, stands as a central figure in the post-Napoleonic era. As the architect of the Concert of Europe, his primary objective was to suppress revolutionary ideas and maintain the established order.

His influence on Austrian foreign policy was undeniable, shaping the nation's approach to international relations for decades. Metternich's deep-seated conservatism led him to view liberalism and nationalism as existential threats to the stability of the Austrian Empire and, indeed, the entire European continent.

Strategies of Suppression

His strategies for suppressing liberalism and nationalism were multifaceted. He employed censorship, surveillance, and repression to stifle dissent within Austria. Internationally, he championed the principle of intervention, arguing that the great powers had a right to intervene in other countries to quell revolutionary movements.

This approach, while effective in the short term, ultimately proved unsustainable in the face of rising nationalist sentiment throughout Europe.

Tsar Alexander I: From Alliance to Opposition

Tsar Alexander I of Russia initially allied with Napoleon but later became one of his most formidable opponents. His evolving stance toward France significantly influenced the post-Napoleonic order. Initially drawn to some of Napoleon's reforms, Alexander grew disillusioned with the French emperor's ambition and expansionist policies.

Following Napoleon's defeat, Alexander played a key role in the Congress of Vienna, advocating for a balance of power that would prevent future French dominance. His commitment to the Holy Alliance, a pact based on Christian principles, reflected his desire to maintain peace and stability in Europe, albeit through conservative means. However, his mystical leanings and increasingly autocratic rule also sowed seeds of discontent within Russia.

Frederick William III: Prussian Resilience

Frederick William III of Prussia experienced firsthand the devastation of the Napoleonic Wars. His contributions to the efforts to contain France were crucial in reshaping the European landscape. The Prussian army was humbled by Napoleon at the Battle of Jena-Auerstedt in 1806, leading to significant territorial losses and occupation.

However, Frederick William III, guided by reformers such as Stein and Hardenberg, undertook sweeping reforms to modernize the Prussian state and military. This enabled Prussia to play a vital role in the final defeat of Napoleon. Following the Congress of Vienna, Prussia emerged as a major power in Germany, laying the foundation for its future unification.

Louis-Philippe: The Citizen King and Cautious Acceptance

Louis-Philippe, the "Citizen King" of France, ascended to the throne following the July Revolution of 1830. European powers responded to his reign with caution. His rule represented a compromise between the old order and the revolutionary ideals, making him a figure of both hope and suspicion in the eyes of other European monarchs.

Balancing Act

Louis-Philippe attempted to balance domestic reform with international stability. While he enacted some liberal reforms, he was also wary of upsetting the delicate balance of power in Europe. His foreign policy was largely cautious, seeking to avoid any actions that might provoke another major conflict.

However, his reign was ultimately undermined by social unrest and his own increasingly conservative tendencies, leading to the Revolution of 1848.

Queen Victoria: British Influence and Restraint

Queen Victoria's reign in Great Britain coincided with a period of relative stability and prosperity in Europe. Her role in maintaining the balance of power, particularly in relation to French ambitions, was significant, although often exercised through subtle diplomatic channels. Britain's naval dominance and economic strength gave it considerable influence in European affairs.

Victoria and her government were committed to maintaining a balance of power that would prevent any single nation from dominating the continent. This often meant acting as a check on French ambitions, whether under Louis-Philippe or Napoleon III.

Otto von Bismarck: Architect of German Unification and Diminution of France

Otto von Bismarck, the Prussian statesman, fundamentally altered the European power balance. His role in diminishing French power and influence through the achievement of German unification cannot be overstated.

Bismarck's realpolitik approach to foreign policy was characterized by pragmatism, opportunism, and a willingness to use any means necessary to achieve his goals. He skillfully manipulated European rivalries to isolate France and create the conditions for German unification.

Master of Manipulation

His calculated orchestration of wars against Denmark, Austria, and France demonstrated his strategic genius and ruthlessness. The Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 resulted in a decisive German victory and the establishment of the German Empire, significantly diminishing France's power and influence on the European stage. Bismarck's actions ushered in a new era of German dominance and reshaped the geopolitical landscape of Europe for decades to come.

Tools of Control: Diplomacy, Alliances, and Military Might

The defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo in 1815 marked a watershed moment in European history. However, the Congress of Vienna's attempt to restore order could not entirely erase the profound impact Napoleon had on the continent. The lingering fear of French hegemony remained a significant factor in shaping European politics, prompting a complex web of diplomatic maneuvers, strategic alliances, and military posturing aimed at maintaining a delicate balance of power.

The Primacy of Diplomacy

Diplomacy served as the primary tool for managing relations and preventing conflicts among the European powers. Regular conferences, negotiations, and treaties were employed to address disputes, negotiate territorial claims, and foster a sense of collective security.

The Concert of Europe, established after the Napoleonic Wars, aimed to provide a framework for resolving conflicts through dialogue rather than war.

However, the effectiveness of diplomacy was often limited by the competing interests of the Great Powers, their shifting alliances, and the rise of nationalism.

While diplomacy could prevent some conflicts, it often failed to address the underlying tensions that fueled European rivalries.

The Strategic Significance of Alliances

Alliances played a crucial role in maintaining the balance of power, acting as a deterrent against potential aggression and providing a framework for collective action.

The Quadruple Alliance, formed by Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia, was initially aimed at containing France after Napoleon's defeat.

However, the dynamics of alliances shifted throughout the 19th century as national interests diverged and new powers emerged.

Shifting Dynamics

The Crimean War (1853-1856) exposed the fragility of the Concert of Europe and led to a realignment of alliances. The rise of Germany under Bismarck further complicated the alliance system, creating new rivalries and tensions.

The Shadow of Secret Treaties

Secret treaties and agreements also played a significant role in shaping European politics, often undermining the transparency and stability of the alliance system.

These clandestine arrangements could create mistrust and suspicion among the Great Powers, increasing the risk of miscalculation and conflict.

Military Might as the Ultimate Instrument

While diplomacy and alliances were important tools, military power ultimately served as the ultimate instrument of coercion.

The ability to project military force influenced diplomatic negotiations and shaped the European landscape.

The Arms Race

The 19th century witnessed an arms race among the European powers, driven by technological advancements and a desire to maintain a military advantage.

The development of new weapons, such as breech-loading rifles and improved artillery, transformed warfare and increased the destructive potential of conflict.

Shaping Strategic Thinking

Military technology also shaped strategic thinking. The rise of railways, for instance, allowed for the rapid mobilization of troops and transformed the nature of warfare.

The Franco-Prussian War (1870-1871) demonstrated the importance of military preparedness and the devastating consequences of military defeat.

The Power of Propaganda

Propaganda played an increasingly important role in shaping public opinion and justifying actions. Governments employed propaganda to rally support for their policies, demonize their enemies, and create a sense of national unity.

The press became a powerful tool for shaping public perceptions of international events, influencing diplomatic negotiations and contributing to the escalation of conflicts.

The skillful use of propaganda could sway public opinion, justify military action, and contribute to a climate of fear and mistrust.

Tools of Control: Diplomacy, Alliances, and Military Might

The defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo in 1815 marked a watershed moment in European history. However, the Congress of Vienna's attempt to restore order could not entirely erase the profound impact Napoleon had on the continent. The lingering fear of French hegemony remained a significant factor, prompting European powers to seek new mechanisms for maintaining stability. Among these mechanisms, the Concert of Europe emerged as a key system designed to prevent future conflicts and uphold the balance of power.

The Concert of Europe: A System of Collective Security?

The Concert of Europe, established in the aftermath of the Napoleonic Wars, aimed to create a framework for collective security and diplomatic cooperation among the major European powers. While its intentions were noble, its effectiveness as a system of collective security is a matter of considerable debate. This section examines the establishment, functionality, and limitations of the Concert of Europe.

Establishment and Core Principles

The Concert of Europe was not a formal organization with a written constitution, but rather a series of agreements and understandings among the Great Powers: Great Britain, Austria, Prussia, Russia, and, eventually, France.

The core principles underpinning the Concert were:

• Maintaining the Balance of Power: Preventing any single nation from dominating the continent, a direct response to the Napoleonic era.
• Legitimacy: Restoring monarchies and traditional hierarchies that had been overthrown by revolutionary forces.
• Cooperation: Resolving disputes through diplomacy and consultation rather than resorting to war.

Key figures such as Metternich of Austria and Castlereagh of Britain played instrumental roles in shaping the Concert’s initial framework. Their vision was to create a system where major powers could collectively address threats to the established order.

Case Studies: The Concert in Action

The Concert of Europe faced numerous challenges throughout the 19th century. Examining specific crises reveals both its successes and failures.

The Crimean War (1853-1856)

The Crimean War exposed the limitations of the Concert of Europe. The conflict, involving Russia against an alliance of Great Britain, France, and the Ottoman Empire, demonstrated the breakdown of cooperation among the Great Powers.

Conflicting interests and the rise of nationalism in the Balkans undermined the Concert’s ability to prevent or effectively manage the crisis. The war highlighted the growing tensions between the powers and the inability of the Concert to enforce its principles uniformly.

The Balkan Crises

The Balkans, with its complex web of ethnic and nationalistic tensions, presented a persistent challenge to the Concert of Europe. Various uprisings and conflicts in the region tested the Concert’s ability to maintain stability.

While the Concert managed to prevent large-scale European wars on several occasions, it often did so by supporting the status quo, which meant suppressing national aspirations and maintaining the Ottoman Empire’s fragile control. This approach ultimately proved unsustainable, as the rise of nationalism continued to destabilize the region.

Limitations and Challenges

Despite its initial successes, the Concert of Europe faced several limitations and challenges that ultimately undermined its effectiveness.

Rising Nationalism

The rise of nationalism throughout the 19th century posed a significant threat to the Concert. Nationalist movements challenged the legitimacy of existing empires and sought to create independent nation-states.

The Concert, committed to preserving the existing order, often found itself in opposition to these movements, leading to internal divisions and weakening its ability to act decisively.

Conflicting National Interests

As the century progressed, conflicting national interests among the Great Powers became more pronounced. Economic rivalries, colonial ambitions, and strategic considerations often took precedence over the principles of cooperation and collective security.

The pursuit of individual national interests frequently undermined the Concert’s ability to address common challenges effectively.

Lack of Enforcement Mechanisms

The Concert of Europe lacked formal enforcement mechanisms. Its effectiveness depended on the willingness of the Great Powers to cooperate and abide by its principles.

When faced with crises where national interests diverged, the Concert often proved incapable of enforcing its decisions or preventing unilateral actions. This absence of a binding authority ultimately limited its capacity to function as a true system of collective security.

In conclusion, the Concert of Europe represented an ambitious attempt to create a framework for maintaining stability and preventing conflicts in post-Napoleonic Europe. While it achieved some successes in managing crises and promoting diplomatic cooperation, its limitations, particularly in the face of rising nationalism and conflicting national interests, ultimately undermined its effectiveness as a system of collective security. The Crimean War and the recurring Balkan crises stand as stark reminders of the Concert's inherent weaknesses and the challenges of maintaining order in a rapidly changing Europe.

Geopolitical Flashpoints: Specific Regional Concerns

The defeat of Napoleon Bonaparte at Waterloo in 1815 marked a watershed moment in European history. However, the Congress of Vienna's attempt to restore order could not entirely erase the profound impact Napoleon had on the continent. The lingering fear of French hegemony remained a significant concern, prompting European powers to focus on key regions and their respective roles in maintaining a delicate balance of power. This section will delve into these geopolitical flashpoints, examining how the political and social conditions within France, the strategic importance of Austria, the rise of Prussia, and the balancing act of Great Britain all contributed to the broader European apprehension.

France: The Source of Unease

France itself remained the epicenter of European anxieties. Despite the restoration of the monarchy, the nation was far from stable.

The political landscape was fractured, with Bonapartists, Republicans, and Royalists vying for control, creating an environment of constant uncertainty. This internal division fueled fears that France might once again embark on a path of expansionism or revolution, disrupting the hard-won peace.

The social conditions further contributed to the unease. The rise of industrialization led to social unrest and inequality, creating fertile ground for radical ideologies. The memory of the French Revolution and its reign of terror was still fresh in the minds of European leaders, who feared that similar events could unfold once more.

Austria: A Bulwark Against Revolution

Austria, under the leadership of Metternich, emerged as a staunch defender of the old order. The Austrian Empire, with its vast territories and diverse population, served as a crucial buffer against French expansionism and the spread of revolutionary ideas.

Metternich's policies were aimed at suppressing liberalism and nationalism, which he viewed as existential threats to the stability of the empire. Austria's influence extended throughout Central Europe, making it a key player in maintaining the balance of power.

However, Austria's commitment to the status quo also made it a target for nationalist movements seeking to unify Italy and Germany. The empire's internal weaknesses, particularly its ethnic diversity, made it vulnerable to these challenges.

Prussia (later Germany): The Rising Rival

The rise of Prussia as a military and economic power fundamentally altered the European landscape. Prussia's victory over France in the Franco-Prussian War of 1870-71 marked a turning point in European history.

The newly unified Germany, under the leadership of Bismarck, replaced France as the dominant power on the continent. Bismarck's skillful diplomacy and military prowess allowed him to isolate France and create a powerful German empire.

Germany's industrial might and military strength posed a direct challenge to French influence and forced other European powers to reassess their strategic alliances. The balance of power shifted dramatically, ushering in a new era of international relations.

Great Britain: The Balancing Act

Great Britain played a vital role in maintaining the balance of power in Europe through its naval power and commercial interests.

Naval Dominance

Britain's naval dominance allowed it to project its power across the globe and exert influence on European affairs. The Royal Navy ensured the security of British trade routes and prevented any single power from achieving hegemony.

Economic Interests

Britain's economic interests also shaped its relationship with France. While Britain sought to maintain a balance of power, it also recognized the importance of trade and economic cooperation with France.

Strategic Considerations

Britain's foreign policy was driven by strategic considerations, aiming to prevent any one power from dominating the continent. This led to a complex web of alliances and rivalries, as Britain sought to balance its own interests with the need for European stability.

Vienna: Symbol of a Post-Napoleonic Order

Vienna held particular importance because it was the origin point for key agreements and a symbol of the post-Napoleonic order. The Congress of Vienna, which redrew the map of Europe after Napoleon's defeat, took place in Vienna.

The agreements reached at the Congress sought to prevent future French aggression and maintain a balance of power. Vienna became synonymous with the conservative order that sought to suppress revolutionary ideas and preserve the existing political structures. The city represented a commitment to stability and a rejection of the radical changes brought about by the French Revolution.

So, yeah, 19th-century Europe was a real pressure cooker. It’s wild to think how much European monarchs feared from France, not just Napoleon himself, but the revolutionary ideas that country kept churning out. All those alliances and shifting loyalties? Just a bunch of rulers trying to keep a lid on things, hoping the next French spark wouldn't set their own kingdoms ablaze. History, right? Always messy.