The Age Of Metternich Analysis

The question of whether one would risk peace for the sake of their freedom is a hard one to answer. Contemplating the importance between the two concepts of peace and freedom was a struggle brought about by the Congress of Vienna. Following this attempt to create peace and prosperity was the Age of Metternich. This was the time of Klemens von Metternich, an Austrian diplomat, and how he preserved peace at the cost of freedom. He was the most influential representative during the Congress of Vienna. Discontent with the ideas about democracy, Metternich saw stability to be more important to ensure peace. The Congress of Vienna therefore supported conservatives. He believed that keeping the government the same would promote stability. The more …show more content…
Some agree with Metternich and feel that anything should be given up for the sake of peace. In spite of this, others feel that freedom is more important than peace. The rights of people should not be taken away. The majority of historians see 1848 as the most important year in the Age of Metternich. This is because it was the year of transition from conservative Europe to liberal Europe. There were many rebellions and revolutions that were usually failures. However, it gave people a glimpse into a life with more freedom (Rapport). Some historians think in this way, and feel that people should have their freedom. Mike Rapport, the author of 1848: Year of Revolution, thought that even at the risk of bloodshed the rebellions were worth the taste of freedom after the long period of absolutism the people of Europe had endured. Another example of someone who favors freedom over peace is E. J. Hobsbawm. He states in his book, Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality what he thinks about nationalism. He writes that a person is given an identity when nationalism becomes popular in their nation. He expresses how Europeans prefer their freedom compared to how the government used harsher ways to keep order. In spite of these views, other historians will have different thoughts on the change to liberalism as well because everyone’s beliefs on what is a success and what is not, vary. …show more content…
This is a very difficult topic to think about because there are negative and positive consequences for each side chosen. While I favor freedom over peace, there are still many arguments that can be said for peace over freedom. It can be said that peace does not come often, and any chance to seize it, in theory should be taken. However, people in Europe were not at a peace of mind. They were not happy with the absolutism they lived in and wanted change. So even if there was peace at a national level in Europe, there was not peace at a local level. The freedom of people is very important because the people make the nation. The nation should not make the people. This is a point that is hard to argue though because, peace can avoid a lot of bloodshed. Despite this, I believe that people deserve their basic human rights although I do see the benefits that peace can bring when over freedom. History is so important because people in the present day look back on it. We try to repeat the success that has occurred in our past and learn from the failures. When success is hard to decipher from failure, which it many times is, our next steps as a people can be uncertain. However, that is why we examine our history and will learn from the future history we will create. This belief of mine makes Metternich very important because his actions may have been a