On September 14 (26), 1815, Russian Emperor Alexander I, Austrian Emperor Franz I and Prussian King Frederick William III signed the “Act of the Holy Alliance” in Paris.

The act on the formation of the Holy Alliance was drawn up in a religious spirit with references to the teachings of Jesus Christ, “who preaches to people to live like brothers, not in enmity and malice, but in peace and love.” 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, the Holy Alliance was a kind of mutual assistance agreement between the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia, which was extremely broad in nature. The main goal of the Union was to maintain the inviolability of the post-war borders in Europe and to fight by all means against revolutionary uprisings.

In November 1815, King Louis XVIII of France joined the Holy Alliance, and then the leaders of most countries of Western Europe. Only the Prince Regent of Great Britain, the Turkish Sultan and the Pope refused to sign the treaty, but representatives of England were constantly present at the congresses of the Union and influenced their decisions. The leading role in the activities of the Holy Alliance was played by the Russian Emperor Alexander I - the ideological inspirer of the unification process - and the Austrian Chancellor Metternich.

During the existence of the Holy Alliance, four congresses were held, at which the principle of intervention in the internal affairs of European countries was developed. In practice, this principle was implemented when Austrian troops were introduced into Italy to suppress uprisings in Naples (1820-1821) and Piedmont (1821) and French troops for a similar purpose - into Spain (1820-1823). Based on the main tasks of the Holy Alliance, its members had a purely negative attitude towards liberation war Greeks against the Turkish yoke.

The Congress of Verona in 1822 and the intervention in Spain were essentially the last major acts of the Holy Alliance, after which it virtually ceased to exist. In 1825 and 1826, due to the Greek issue, relations between Russia and Austria began to deteriorate. Alexander I (towards the end of his reign) and then Nicholas I gave support to the Greeks, while Metternich continued his previous line regarding the Greek "rebels". Contradictions began to escalate between the Holy Alliance and Great Britain, which, being interested in the markets of Spain's American colonies, demonstratively recognized their independence. Contradictions also emerged between other participants in the Holy Alliance.

Revolutionary and liberation movement continued to develop, despite all the efforts of European monarchs. In 1825, the Decembrist uprising took place in Russia, in 1830 revolutions broke out in France and Belgium, and an uprising against tsarism began in Poland (1830-1831). This dealt a heavy blow not only to the principles, but also to the very existence of the Holy Alliance. The contradictions between the participants turned out to be so great that they led to its collapse in the late 20s - early 30s. XIX century

Lit.: History of diplomacy. T. 2. M., 1945. Ch. 6. From the creation of the Holy Alliance to the July Revolution (1815–1830) gg.); Troitsky N. A. Russia in the 19th century. M., 1997. From contents: Russia at the head of the Holy Alliance: Monarchs against peoples.

See also in the Presidential Library:

A few days before Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo, on June 9, 1815, Austria, England, Prussia, Russia, Switzerland and France signed the "Final Act" - the final document of the Congress of Vienna. This document consisted of 121 articles. It provided for restoration French dynasty Bourbons represented Louis XVIII and the deprivation of France of all her conquests. Other European states significantly strengthened their positions: Switzerland received strategically important Alpine passes; in Italy the Sardinian kingdom was restored, to which Savoy, Nice and Genoa were annexed; Austria established its power over Northern Italy and Eastern Galicia, also gaining predominant influence in the German Confederation; the lands of the Duchy of Warsaw went to Russia, with the exception of Krakow, which was given the status of a “free city”; Prussia received North Saxony, the left bank of the Rhine, most of Westphalia, Swedish Pomerania and the island of Rügen; Holland and Belgium formed the Kingdom of the Netherlands; Sweden received the territory of Norway; England secured part of former colonies Holland and France.

After the signing of the Vienna agreements, the Austrian Foreign Minister Metternich said: “In Europe there is only one problem - revolution.” It is also noteworthy that Napoleon himself, a week after the defeat at Waterloo, said: “The powers are not at war with me, but with the revolution. They always saw me as its representative, a man of the revolution.”

Indeed, after the final overthrow of Napoleon, the desire to preserve the established international order arose and strengthened in Europe, and the means for this were the permanent union of European sovereigns and the periodic convening of international congresses. Russian Emperor Alexander I was an ardent supporter of this idea. On September 26, 1815, on his initiative, the formation of the Holy Alliance was announced, and the document was also signed by Emperor Francis I of Austria and King Frederick William III of Prussia. This treaty was subsequently gradually joined by almost all the monarchs of Europe with the exception of Great Britain and the Ottoman Empire. This union was intended to preserve the inviolability of the decisions of the Congress of Vienna of 1814-1815. and the system of international relations established by him. Based on the principle of supporting the ruling monarchical dynasties, the participants in this union fought against any manifestation of the revolutionary and national liberation movement in Europe.

In 1818-1822. a number of congresses of the Holy Alliance took place - in Aachen, Troppau, Laibach (modern Ljubljana), Verona, the participants of which expressed their readiness to fight against any manifestation revolutionary sentiments on the continent. Thus, Alexander I, contrary to public opinion in Russia, refused to support the uprising that began in 1821 in Greece against Ottoman rule.

Thus, at this time there was a regrouping of forces in Europe, as French hegemony was replaced by the political dominance of Russia, England and Austria. To a large extent, this balance of power contributed to the stabilization of international relations. The Vienna system lasted for more than forty years, and during this time Europe did not know significant bloody wars. However, she, like most political associations, was characterized by the aggravation of contradictions between the great European powers and the desire of these states to expand the spheres of their political and economic influence.

JULIANA KRUDENER

Alexander left Vienna in 1815, without waiting for the completion of all the work of the Congress. By this time, by the way, he met an elderly lady imbued with mystical ideas, Baroness Juliana Krudener. Many historians and biographers of Alexander have attached great importance this meeting in relation to the strengthening of the religious-mystical mood that began to manifest itself in a noticeable way at that time. And Alexander himself attached great importance to this acquaintance. But it must be said that a penchant for mysticism developed in him even before meeting Baroness Krudener, and one can think that it was thanks to this circumstance that Mme Krudener gained access to it. Apparently, the terrible events of 1812 gave a decisive impetus to the development of Alexander’s mysticism, but even before 1812 Alexander willingly talked with various monks and “holy people.” From Shishkov's notes we learn that in 1813, between reports on important state affairs, Shishkov, the Secretary of State, read to Alexander a selection of extracts from the ancient prophets, the text of which, as it seemed to them both, was very suitable for modern events, - at the same time, both of them shed tears of emotion and excess of feelings. Since 1812, the Gospel was constantly with Alexander, and he often seemed to guess from it, opening pages at random and dwelling on the coincidence of individual texts of the Gospel with the external facts of the surrounding life. However, many people in Europe then indulged in such a mystical mood. It was especially popular to apply some expressions of the Apocalypse to Napoleon. The enormous spread of Freemasonry and Masonic lodges also marked a strong development of mysticism. The colossal world upheavals of that era obviously influenced the alarmed minds of contemporaries in this regard. Be that as it may, this mystical mood of Alexander in 1815 was not yet noticeably reflected in his socio-political views and did not entail any steps in the field domestic policy. Only the insightful La Harpe, even then, was extremely upset by this new inclination of Alexander.

In the field of foreign policy, this inclination of Alexander - not without the participation of Baroness Krudener - found for the first time a rather innocent expression in his proposal to his then allies to form the Holy Alliance of the Princes of Europe, which would introduce ideas of peace and brotherhood into international relations. According to the idea of ​​this union, the sovereigns of Europe should treat each other as brothers, and their subjects as fathers; all quarrels and international misunderstandings must be settled peacefully. The Prussian king Frederick William reacted with some sympathy to this idea; the Austrian Emperor Franz, a Pietist, who was constantly in the hands of the Jesuits, signed this treaty only after consulting with Metternich, who said that although this was an empty chimera, it was completely harmless. The English Prince Regent could not sign this act without the consent of Parliament, but he politely expressed his sympathy for Alexander’s idea in a special letter. Then, little by little, all the sovereigns of Europe, except the Turkish Sultan and the Pope, entered into this union. Subsequently, in the hands of Metternich, this institution degenerated into an alliance of sovereigns against the restless peoples, but in 1815 the alliance did not yet have such significance, and Alexander was and showed himself then to be an obvious supporter of liberal institutions.

THE FATHERLAND IS IN DANGER!

As always happens when dividing the spoils, Napoleon's victors began to quarrel: Austria with Prussia - because of hegemony in Germany, Prussia with England - because of Saxony, and all of them with Russia - because of Poland, since tsarism wanted to annex the Duchy of Warsaw entirely to himself (“I conquered the duchy,” said Alexander I, “and I have 480 thousand soldiers to defend it”), and other powers were against the excessive strengthening of Russia. Disagreements escalated. On January 3, 1815, England, Austria and France entered into a secret agreement and outlined a plan for a military campaign against Russia and Prussia, which it was decided to open by the end of March. The commander-in-chief of the troops of the three powers, Prince K.F., was also appointed. Schwarzenberg. In such a situation, on March 6, the “brothers” of the monarchs learned amazing news: Napoleon left Elba and landed in France. Yes, having analytically compared the rejection of the Bourbons in France and the strife within the 6th coalition, Napoleon saw in this a chance for himself to return to the French throne. On March 1, with a detachment of 1,100 people, he landed in the south of France and in 19 days, without firing a single shot, he again subjugated the country. The Bourbons fled to Belgium. This is how Napoleon’s enchanting “Hundred Days” began.

The news of Napoleon's return frightened, but also rallied the coalition. They instantly cast aside all their feuds and, in the words of V.O. Klyuchevsky, “convulsively grabbed hold of Russia, of Alexander, ready to again be at his disposal.” On March 13, eight powers declared Napoleon “the enemy of humanity” and pledged to fight him until victory, thereby legally formalizing the 7th and final anti-Napoleonic coalition.

Napoleon this time did not want to raise France to the revolutionary war under the slogan “The Fatherland is in danger!” In a conventional war, he did not have enough strength to fight the 7th coalition. On June 18, at the Battle of Waterloo, the Allies defeated it. Napoleon was deposed for the second time and now exiled literally far away - to the distant and deserted, almost uninhabited island of St. Helena, where he spent the last 6 years of his life in strict isolation (he died there on May 5, 1821).

In the 50s of our century, the Swedish toxicologist S. Forshuvud established by bombing nuclear particles Napoleon's hair that the emperor died not from stomach cancer, as was believed throughout the world, but from gradual arsenic poisoning. According to Forshuvud, the poisoner was Count S.T. Montolon is a Bourbon agent.

The Congress of Vienna completed its work shortly before Waterloo. Its final act was signed on June 9, 1815. It satisfied the ambitions of all coalitionists. Russia received the lion's share of the Duchy of Warsaw under the name “Kingdom of Poland” (in the same 1815, Alexander I granted the Kingdom of Poland a constitution and autonomy within the Russian Empire). Austria and Prussia divided the remaining part of the Duchy of Warsaw among themselves and acquired rich lands: Austria in Italy, Prussia in Saxony. England secured Malta, the Ionian Islands and a number of French colonies. As for France, it was reduced to the borders of 1792 and occupied for 5 years. The monarchs overthrown by the French Revolution and Napoleon returned to its throne, as to other European thrones (in Spain, Piedmont, the Roman region, Naples, and the German principalities).

Thus, the Congress of Vienna legitimized the restoration of feudal-absolutist orders in Europe. Since the people did not want to accept the old kings and opposed them, the organizers of the congress agreed to jointly suppress outbreaks of popular discontent anywhere. To this end, they decided to unite in the Holy Alliance.

ACT OF THE HOLY ALLIANCE (1815)

They solemnly declare that the subject of this act is to reveal to the face of the universe their unshakable determination, both in the government of the states entrusted to them, and in political relations with all other governments, to be guided by no other rules than the commandments, sowing the holy faith, the commandments of love , truth and peace...

On this basis he led them. agreed on the following articles:

Art. 1. According to the words of the sacred scriptures, which command all men to be brothers, there are three dogas. the monarch will remain united by the bonds of real and inextricable brotherhood and, considering themselves as if they were fellow citizens, they will, in any case and in every place, begin to give each other assistance, reinforcement and help; in relation to their subjects and troops, they, like fathers of families, will govern them in the same spirit of brotherhood with which they are animated to preserve faith, peace and truth.

Art. 2. Therefore, let there be a single prevailing right both between the mentioned authorities and their subjects: to bring services to each other, to show mutual goodwill and love, to consider themselves as members of a single Christian people, since the three allied sovereigns consider themselves to have been appointed by providence for the management of three single family branches, namely Austria, Prussia and Russia, thus confessing that the autocrat of the Christian people, of which they and their subjects form a part, is truly no other than the one to whom the power actually belongs, since in him alone treasures of love, knowledge and endless wisdom are found, that is, God, our Divine Savior, Jesus Christ, the word of the Most High, the word of life. Accordingly, their Majesties, with the most tender care, urge their subjects to strengthen themselves from day to day in the rules and active fulfillment of the duties in which the divine Savior instructed people, as the only means of enjoying peace, which flows from a good conscience and which alone is lasting.

Art. 3. All powers who wish to solemnly recognize the sacred rules set forth in this act and who feel how necessary it is for the participation of kingdoms that have been shaken for a long time, so that these truths will henceforth contribute to the good of human destinies, can all be willingly and lovingly accepted into this sacred union.

L.V. Melnikova

“The Holy Alliance... enjoys... extremely bad fame both in the prevailing historical tradition and in modern public opinion. Not a single event modern history Such a mass of incorrect and misconceptions is not widespread” 1 . These words were written by Professor V.K. Nadler more than 120 years ago and, one might say, have not lost their relevance to this day. The signing of this unusual religious and political act by European monarchs on the initiative of Alexander I gave rise to a variety of interpretations among contemporaries, which soon smoothly migrated into Western European historiography. At the same time, few people gave the same meaning to the “Treatise of the Fraternal Christian Union” as its creator. Two ideas prevailed: 1) the act of the Holy Alliance is the product of a fantastic dream of the Russian emperor and does not have the slightest political or practical significance 2 ; 2) it is a cleverly devised weapon for spreading reaction in Europe and strengthening Russia's influence 3 .

Five-volume work by V.K. Nadler 4, which still remains the only work national historiography, specifically dedicated to the problem under consideration, was intended to show that the creation of the Holy Alliance was the only “conscious and sincere” attempt in history, but ahead of its time and therefore not understood by contemporaries, “an attempt to organize international and political relations based on the teaching of the Gospel” 5 . Soviet historians, as well as their Western colleagues, have repeatedly emphasized the reactionary nature of this association. For example, the authors of the “History of Diplomacy” noted: “The Holy Alliance was not, in the precise sense of the word, a formalized agreement of powers that would have imposed certain obligations on them... But it “entered the history of European diplomacy as an organization with a sharply defined monarchical-clerical ideology , created on the basis of the idea of ​​\u200b\u200bthe suppression of revolutions and political and religious free-thinking, wherever they appear" 6. Only in post-Soviet times did a tendency appear in Russian historiography to consider the creation of the Holy Alliance as an attempt by Emperor Alexander I to realize the idea of ​​a “united Europe” 7 .

The idea of ​​a “united Europe” itself was not new. In the XVIII – early XIX centuries. in one form or another, it was repeatedly expressed in their works by European thinkers (W. Penn, C. Saint-Pierre, J.-J. Rousseau, etc.). Alexander I, who was educated under the leadership of F. Laharpe, was undoubtedly familiar with the concept they developed of ensuring “eternal peace” by uniting the political efforts of the main European states. He was also aware of the works on a similar topic by the Russian researcher V.F. Malinovsky. On final stage During the struggle against Napoleon, Alexander became seriously interested in the “European idea” and, having given it very definite political outlines, decided to try to put it into practice. It was no coincidence that he intended to coincide with the completion of the work of the Congress of Vienna. The new principles of international relations, set out in the act of the Holy Alliance, were, in the opinion of the Russian emperor, to help the monarchs provide the European peoples with the peace they had conquered. In fact, for post-war Europe, Alexander I developed a program of peaceful coexistence, designed to help maintain European balance and strengthen the legal foundations of the “Vienna System” of international relations (maintaining the existing balance of power and preserving the inviolability of forms of government). The voluntary alliance was concluded by European monarchs to ensure stability and collective security, as well as to jointly solve major international problems. One of the motivating reasons for signing this collective agreement was undoubtedly the fear of a repetition of bloody events like the French Revolution and those that followed it Napoleonic wars. However, the goal of the Holy Alliance was not at all limited to the suppression of emerging revolutions. Moreover, the act of its conclusion did not say a word about this.

The draft act of the Holy Alliance was written by Alexander I and, after some amendments were introduced into it by the Austrian side (Chancellor K. Metternich on behalf of Emperor Franz I), on September 14 (26), 1815, it was signed in Paris by the monarchs of Austria, Prussia and Russia. The document consisted of three articles. In the preamble, Franz I, Frederick William III and Alexander I, recognizing the protection of their states by Divine Providence during the Napoleonic invasion and following their “inner conviction,” expressed their “unshakable determination” to be guided in their domestic and foreign policy by the “commandments of the holy faith” - “love” , truth and peace" 8 . In Art. I the three contracting monarchs were declared united by “bonds of real and indissoluble brotherhood” and promised “in every case and in every place to give each other assistance, reinforcement and assistance” 9 . Such vague wording made it possible for the act to be interpreted very broadly, including as providing assistance and support in suppressing the disobedience of the monarchs’ own subjects or in the event of the latter’s interference in the internal affairs of other states. It is interesting that in the original, Alexander's edition, it was not about “three contracting monarchs”, but about “subjects of three contracting parties” 10. The amendment introduced by Metternich, according to the fair remark of O.V. Orlik, emphasized the legitimacy of the royal power and created the opportunity to further strengthen the counter-revolutionary orientation of the Union 11. Art. II called on the subjects of the allied states to consider themselves “as if they were members of a single Christian people.” Austria, Prussia and Russia were called “three single families of branches,” and their sovereigns were called rulers, installed over them by the “autocrat of the Christian people” Jesus Christ. Art. III invited “all powers wishing... to recognize the rules set forth in the act” to join “this sacred alliance” 12. Thus, Austria, Prussia and Russia were considered by Alexander I as the basis for the future creation of a broad peaceful commonwealth of Christian European states.

Historiography has repeatedly drawn attention to the religious and mystical phraseology of the act of the Holy Alliance. Some researchers even explained this as a deliberate attempt by Alexander I to disguise the true reactionary goals of the Union 13. However, in fact, the language and style of the document were quite consistent with the spirit of the times. The victory over Napoleon was perceived by many contemporaries as the result of the action of Divine Providence, which chose Russia and its emperor as its instrument. Moreover, the end of the Napoleonic wars was seen as the beginning of a renewal of all of Europe, in which Russia was called upon to play a leading role. Alexander I himself at this time was strongly influenced by religious sentiments and actively communicated with mystics, in particular with Baroness V.Yu. Krudener, who had significant influence on him. French historian J.-B. Capefig claims that it was she who was one of the first to read the draft act and suggested that Alexander call the union he was creating sacred 14 . One way or another, Alexander really attached great importance to his idea - while working on it, he called the upcoming enterprise “great.”

Already on the day of signing the Act of the Holy Alliance, Alexander I, Frederick William III and Franz I sent a personal invitation to Prince Regent of Great Britain George, as their “first and closest ally,” to join this agreement 15 . George replied that the "forms of British government" did not allow him to formally join the Holy Alliance, but he shared its principles 16. In fact, England needed a "free hand" in Europe. In addition, she was afraid of the strengthening of the influence of Russia in the international arena, which, as the initiator of the creation of the Holy Alliance, could lay claim to the role of its head. During 1815–1817 Almost all European sovereigns joined the Holy Alliance, with the exception of the Turkish Sultan as a non-Christian, the English king and the Pope.

There is an opinion that the “mass” accession to the Holy Alliance was explained not so much by agreement with its principles, but by the lack of a clear understanding among its new members of the meaning of this document and an attitude towards it either as a simple religious and moral declaration that has no practical significance, or a desire to please Russia, as well as fear of it and its allies. Countess Edling, who was part of the inner circle of Alexander I, noted in her memoirs: “This famous act was signed, with few exceptions, by all powers, but they signed it without understanding its meaning and without taking the trouble to understand its meaning. The acquisition or cession of a village would probably have caused endless negotiations, but here it was just an idea. No one bothered about it, as if ideas had never revolutionized the world... Imbued with the consciousness of the grace that had overshadowed Russia, Alexander did not hesitate to declare with this act of faith the spirit in which Christian sovereigns should rule Christian peoples. His idea, perhaps too lofty for most sovereigns, was not understood and turned the emperor in the eyes of some into a fanatic and weak-minded, and in the eyes of others into a clever and cunning Machiavellian. I saw how some German princes, imbued with the theories of the 18th century, signed this Christian act with indignation, which, due to their weakness, they were forced to hide in the presence of the emperor” 17. It is known that Metternich was very skeptical about the act of the Holy Alliance, calling it in his memoirs “an empty and crackling document.” However, this did not prevent the Austrian Chancellor from taking an active part in the lively debate and amendments at the stage of preparation of the treaty, and then using the principles of the latter at international congresses to further Austria's interests.

Of course, the treaty in question had significant political and practical significance. This is supported, in particular, by its active discussion in the international arena, during which a variety of interpretations were born, as well as accusations against Russia. For example, Turkey immediately expressed its fears that the alliance would be directed against it, since it was, in principle, excluded from its possible members as a non-Christian power. To stop false rumors, on March 25, 1816, Alexander I in a circular note was forced to officially explain the purpose of the Holy Alliance: “The sole and exclusive purpose of the union” is “only to maintain peace and to agree on all the moral interests of peoples, placed by the will of Divine Providence under the shadow of cross." The Holy Alliance is intended to “promote the internal welfare of each state and the common good of all, which should flow from the friendship between their sovereigns, which is the more inviolable, the more it does not depend on chance.” “If you look in this act only for what it contains ... then the aggressive thoughts attributed to the union will turn out to be simply chimeras. The Union does not threaten anyone and no one is forced to join it. The unshakable foundations of European peace and general well-being should only rest on it” 18. Three months earlier, on December 25, 1815, Alexander also explained the meaning of the Holy Alliance to his people. In the Highest Manifesto, which ordered that the act of its conclusion be read in all churches Russian Empire, in particular, it was said that the monarchs of Russia, Austria and Prussia pledged this union for the sake of achieving “peace and prosperity of peoples” to be guided “both among themselves and in relation” to their subjects by the teachings of Jesus Christ, “who preaches to people to live... not in enmity and anger, but in peace and love" 19. On October 27, 1817, Alexander approved the proposal of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod to read the manifesto and the act of the Holy Alliance in all urban and rural churches annually on September 14, 20.

On November 8 (20), 1815, Russia, Austria, Great Britain and Prussia entered into an agreement, formalized in the form of bilateral agreements identical in content and which, in essence, became a renewal of the Quadruple Alliance. Let us recall that the latter was created on February 17 (March 1), 1814, when the allies signed the Chaumont Defensive Treaty, aimed at overthrowing Napoleon Bonaparte. With Napoleon's abdication of power, the treaty of alliance lost force, but on March 13 (25), 1815, after Bonaparte's unexpected victorious return from Elba Island to Paris, it was renewed. The conclusion of the November treaty of alliance took place on the day of the signing of the Second Treaty of Paris, when the four monarchs were faced with the problem of carrying out a military occupation of the French state. The main content of the treaty concerned the position of France and was supposed to guarantee its implementation of the provisions of the Second Peace of Paris. The last, sixth, article was of a more general nature; it talked about holding periodic meetings with the participation of monarchs (or ministers authorized to do so) “to discuss the benefits of common and to consider measures” aimed at preserving peace in Europe 21 . Subsequent international congresses were guided by the principles of the Holy Alliance, and therefore were perceived by contemporaries and researchers as its congresses. Domestic historiography has firmly linked the act of the Holy Alliance and the treaty of November 8 (20), 1815, deciding that the content of the latter made up for the “uncertainty of the formulas” of the first, however, in our opinion, there is no direct connection between these two documents, as well as between two unions - the Sacred and the Quadruple - do not exist.

Soon, within the framework of the Quadruple Alliance, an active rapprochement between England and Austria began in order to limit Russia’s influence in the international arena. Therefore, during the preparation of the Aachen Congress, Russian diplomacy drew up a project for the creation of a “general union” of European states based on the Act of the Holy Alliance. A “general union” would make it possible to protect small countries from the selfish policies of strong powers, stop the development of revolutionary sentiments and give Europe real guarantees of maintaining peace and tranquility 22 . England, Austria and Prussia, on the contrary, advocated maintaining the Quadruple Alliance in its unchanged form. They viewed the upcoming meeting in Aachen as a congress of members of the Quadruple Alliance, opposing the participation of other European countries in it. They proposed to invite France, whose problems were to become the main subject of discussion, to the meeting as an unequal participant. Alexander I agreed to limit the number of participants in the congress only on the condition that only French question. All other European problems, in the opinion of the Russian emperor, should have been discussed with the direct participation of all interested powers.

At the Congress of Aachen (September - November 1818), the issue of the withdrawal of all occupation troops from France by November 18 (30), 1818, and the procedure for payment by the French government of an indemnity in the amount of 265 million francs was resolved 23 . Quite heated debates erupted over the future status of France in the international arena. Russia decisively rejected the Anglo-Austrian proposal to renew the Quadruple Alliance in its original form; the Russian counter-project to create a “general union of monarchs” also did not pass. As a result, the decision of the congress became a compromise: France was admitted to the Quadruple Alliance as an equal member, but at the same time the allies signed a special secret protocol that renewed their obligations in accordance with the Treaty of Chaumont in the event of revolutionary or military uprisings in France 24 .

Despite the failure of his main proposal, Alexander did not immediately give up the hope of realizing it in the future: he initially considered the new, Quintuple Alliance as a possible basis for a “general union” of European states.

The next three international congresses in Russian historiography are called the congresses of the Holy Alliance, since the main subject of discussion at them was the organization of counteraction to revolutionary movements. In the early 1820s, a wave of bourgeois revolutions swept across Europe. In January 1820, the revolution began in Spain, in July of the same year - in Naples, in August - in Portugal. The possibility of spreading revolutionary uprisings to other European countries could affect the strength of the entire “Viennese system” of international relations. According to the Russian Foreign Ministry, in the current conditions, the Holy Alliance had to demonstrate to the world its importance in protecting legitimate foundations. Austrian diplomacy, interested in further strengthening Austria's position on the Apennine Peninsula, tried to obtain the consent of Alexander I to suppress the Neapolitan revolution by Austrian troops without discussing this issue with partners in the Holy Alliance, but the Russian emperor insisted on convening a congress.

It should be noted that at first Alexander advocated a diplomatic settlement of the problem (for “joint moral action”) through the recognition of moderate constitutional reforms in the states affected by the revolution. However, at the congress of the five leading powers (Austria, England, Russia, Prussia and France), which opened in October 1820 in Troppau, Alexander gradually leaned towards Metternich’s position.

On November 7 (19), 1820, Russia, Austria and Prussia signed a Preliminary Protocol, which proclaimed the right of armed intervention in the internal affairs of other states (without the consent or request of their governments) in order to suppress them revolutionary movements 25. Representatives of England and Austria, who received limited powers from their governments, did not sign the above-mentioned document, but recognized the right of the Allies to intervene in Neapolitan affairs. As for the revolution in Spain, due to the clash of interests of a number of allied states in this region, this issue was removed from the agenda at the congress in Troppau.

In January 1821, in order to finally resolve the Neapolitan issue, the meetings of the congress were moved to the city of Laibach, located near the border of the Italian states. There was still hope to resolve the problem peacefully, but King Ferdinand I of the Two Sicilies, who arrived in Laibach at the invitation of the congress participants, immediately advocated the armed suppression of the revolution. As a result, Congress authorized the entry of Austrian troops into the Kingdom of Naples. In March 1821, the revolution in Naples was suppressed, and a month later its fate was shared by the rebel Piedmont.

The further development of the Spanish revolution soon forced the allies to come to grips with this issue. In October–November 1822, the next international congress was held in the Italian city of Verona, at which four powers (Russia, Austria, Prussia and France) decided to organize a French intervention in Spain to restore full royal power there 26 . England, fearing the strengthening of France's position in the Iberian Peninsula, took a position of non-intervention. In April 1823 french army entered Spain, and six months later the revolution was suppressed.

This was the last agreed upon decision of the Holy Alliance. Subsequently, the Allies' own state interests strengthened the contradictions that existed between them and undermined the monolithic nature of the Union. The first crack in its edifice, apart from disagreements over the recognition of the independence of the Spanish colonies in South America as having only indirect significance for Europe, was the question of the attitude towards the Greek national liberation uprising of 1821–1829. The uprising began in the Danube principalities and then spread to the Peloponnese. Leader of the rebels, Major General Russian army, Greek by nationality, A.K. Ypsilanti turned to Alexander I with a request for help, but was refused and was excluded from the list. Russian generals. The principles of 1815 did not allow the emperor to openly support the rebels. However, Russia's interests in the Balkans positive attitude to the Greek uprising of Russian society, as well as the hostile policy of the Sultan, despite Russia’s official statement of non-interference in Greek affairs, who declared a “holy war” on all infidels and imposed a ban on the entry of Russian merchant ships into the Black Sea, soon forced Alexander I to violate his neutrality .

July 6 (18), 1821, Russian envoy to Constantinople G.A. Stroganov, on behalf of his government, handed over a note to the Sultan, which contained demands to stop the brutal extermination of Orthodox Christians, withdraw troops from the Danube principalities and restore the previous Russian-Turkish treaties 27. After rejecting the note, Russia broke off diplomatic relations with Turkey. For several years, Russian diplomacy tried to persuade its partners in the Holy Alliance to collectively intervene in the Greco-Turkish struggle or to obtain authorization for Russian troops on behalf of the Union to restore order in the Balkans. However, the “policy of delays” consistently pursued by the Western European powers led to the fact that Alexander I began to lean towards an independent solution to the eastern issue.

According to the figurative expression of V.V. Degoev, “fate saved” Alexander from the risk of losing such a flattering reputation for him as “a peacemaker and the founding father of the European concert.” “He never gave the order to open military operations against Turkey,” leaving “as a legacy to his successor the unresolved eastern crisis and the freedom to choose solutions” 28 . Nicholas I relied on an independent foreign policy arising from the geopolitical interests of Russia. He remained faithful to this course until the end of his reign, and Alexander I’s “favorite cause” - the Holy Alliance - began to gradually fade away.

As noted above, in domestic and foreign historiography, Alexander I is often called an idealist, and his idea of ​​the Holy Alliance is utopian. Undoubtedly, at the beginning of the nineteenth century. the political concept of a united Europe was ahead of its time, since it was not supported, and could not then be supported by the economic interest of states in such a unification. Nevertheless, this first attempt in history to implement the “European idea” as a whole cannot be called unsuccessful. Thanks to the program of peaceful coexistence and joint resolution of major international problems developed by Alexander I, European states managed not only to cope with the revolutionary wave of the first half of the 1820s, but then to avoid major wars. Finally, the peacekeeping and integration project of Alexander I created the preconditions for the modern implementation of the “European idea” into reality.

NOTES

1 Nadler V.K. Emperor Alexander I and the idea of ​​the Holy Alliance. Riga, 1886. T. I. P. 3.

2 See for example: Bernhardi T. Geschichte Russlands und der europäischen Politik in den Jahren 1814 bis 1831. Leipzig, 1863–1877. T. I–III.

3 See: Gervinus G.G. Geschichte des XIX Jahrhunderts seit den wiener verträgen. Leipzig, 1855–1866. T. I–VIII.

4 Nadler V.K. Emperor Alexander I and the idea of ​​the Holy Alliance. In 5 volumes. Riga, 1886–1892.

5 Nadler V.K. Decree. op. T. I. P. 3.

6 History of diplomacy. M., 1959. T. I. P. 526. See also: Zach L.A. Monarchs against peoples. M., 1966; Debidur A. Diplomatic history of Europe: From the Vienna to the Berlin Congress (1814–1878): Translated from French. T. 1: Holy Alliance. M., 1947.

7 See: Chubaryan A.O. The European idea in history: Problems of war and peace. M., 1987; Orlik O.V. Russia in international relations, 1815–1829: From the Congress of Vienna to the Peace of Adrianople. M., 1998.

8 Foreign policy of Russia in the 19th and early 20th centuries: Documents of Russia. Ministry of Foreign Affairs (hereinafter referred to as MFA). Ser. 1: 1801–1815 M., 1972. T. VIII. Doc. 231. P. 518.

9 Ibid.

10 Ibid. Doc. 225. P. 504.

11 Orlik O.V. Decree. op. P. 19.

12 VPR. T. VIII. Doc. 231. P. 518.

13 See for example: Lozinsky S.G. Holy Alliance // Patriotic War and Russian society, 1812–1912: Jubilee. ed. / Ed. A.K. Dzhivelegova et al. M., 1912. T. 7. P. 25.

14 See: Capefigue J.-B. La baronne de Krudener, ľempereur Alexandre I au Congrès de Vienne et les traités de 1815. P., 1866.

15 VPR. T. VIII. Doc. 232. P. 519.

16 Ibid. Note 277. P. 697.

17 Quoted. By: Nadler V.K. Decree. op. T. V. Riga, 1892. P. 637.

18 Martens F.F. A collection of treatises and conventions concluded by Russia with foreign powers. St. Petersburg, 1878. T. 4, part I. P. 4.

19 PSZ-I. T. 33. No. 26045.

20 Ibid. T. 34. No. 27114.

21 VPR. T. VIII. Doc. 273. P. 614.

22 See: Report of the Ministry of Foreign Affairs to Alexander I dated June 24 (July 6), 1818 “On the meeting in Aachen” // VPR. Ser. 2: 1815–1830 M., 1976. Doc. 127. T. II (X). pp. 409–433.

24 Ibid. pp. 311–318.

25 VPR. M., 1979. Doc. 186. T. III (XI). pp. 589–593.

26 See: M., 1980. VPR. T. IV (XII). Doc. 206. pp. 590–591; History of Russian foreign policy, First half of the 19th century. (From Russia's wars against Napoleon to the Peace of Paris in 1856). M., 1995. pp. 172–174.

27 VPR. T. IV (XII). Doc. 78. pp. 203–210.

28 Degoev V.V. Russian foreign policy and international systems, 1700–1918 M., 2004. P. 198.

Act of the Holy Alliance October 14 (26), 1815

The Treaty establishing the Holy Alliance was signed in Paris. He confirmed the formation and defined the goals of the so-called Holy Alliance consisting of three European monarchies - Russia, Austria and Prussia. The main task of the newly created union was to jointly preserve the European borders established by the Congress of Vienna and to fight against any manifestations of revolutions and revolutionary movements aimed at overthrowing the old monarchical dynasties. It must be admitted that for two decades the Union has served to stabilize the international situation in Europe.

In the name of the most holy and indivisible Trinity.

Their Majesties the Emperor of Austria, the King of Prussia and the Emperor of Russia due to the great events that marked the course of three recent years, solemnly declare that the subject of this act is to reveal to the universe their unshakable determination, both in the management of the states entrusted to them, and in political relations with all other governments, to be guided by no other rules than the commandments of this holy faith, the commandments of love, truth and peace, which... must... directly govern the will of the kings and guide all their actions...

On this basis their Majesties agreed in the following articles:

Art. 1. According to the words of the sacred scriptures, which command all men to be brothers, there are three dogas. The monarchs will remain united by the bonds of real and inextricable brotherhood and, considering themselves as fellow-countrymen, they will, in any case and in every place, begin to give each other assistance, reinforcement and help; in relation to their subjects and troops, they, like fathers of families, will govern them in the same spirit of brotherhood with which they are animated to preserve faith, peace and truth.

Art. 2. Therefore, let there be one prevailing rule both between the mentioned authorities and their subjects: to provide services to each other, to show mutual goodwill and love, to consider everyone to be members of a single Christian people, since the three allied sovereigns consider themselves to have been decreed by Providence for the management of three single branches of the family, namely Austria, Prussia and Russia, thus confessing that the autocrat of the Christian people, of which they and their subjects form part, is truly none other than the one to whom the power actually belongs, since in him alone they are found endless treasures of love, knowledge and wisdom, that is, God, our divine savior, Jesus Christ, the word of the Most High, the word of life. Accordingly, their Majesties, with the most tender care, urge their subjects to strengthen themselves from day to day in the rules and active fulfillment of the duties in which the divine Savior instructed people, as the only means of enjoying peace, which flows from a good conscience and which alone is lasting.

Art. 3. All powers who wish to solemnly recognize the sacred rules set forth in this act and who feel how much it is necessary for the happiness of kingdoms that have been shaken for a long time, so that these truths will henceforth contribute to the good of human destinies, can all be willingly and lovingly accepted into this sacred union.

(Signed) Francis,

(Signed) Friedrich Wilhelm,

(Signed) Alexander.

Reprinted from: Klyuchnikov Yu.V., Sabanin A.K. International politics of modern times in treaties, notes and declarations. Part 1. M., 1925.

print version

Parameter name	Meaning
Article topic:	Holy Alliance.
Rubric (thematic category)	Story

In 1814 ᴦ. A congress was convened in Vienna to decide the post-war system. The main roles at the congress were played by Russia, England and Austria. The territory of France was restored to its pre-revolutionary borders. A significant part of Poland, along with Warsaw, became part of Russia.

At the end of the Congress of Vienna, at the suggestion of Alexander I, the Holy Alliance was created to jointly fight the revolutionary movement in Europe. Initially, it included Russia, Prussia and Austria, and later many European states joined them.

Holy Alliance- a conservative union of Russia, Prussia and Austria, created with the aim of maintaining the international order established at the Congress of Vienna (1815). The declaration of mutual assistance of all Christian sovereigns, signed on September 14 (26), 1815, was subsequently gradually joined by all the monarchs of continental Europe, except the Pope and the Turkish Sultan. 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 “close-knit organization with a sharply defined clerical-monarchist ideology, created on the basis of the suppression of revolutionary sentiments, wherever they neither showed up.

After the overthrow of Napoleon and the restoration of all-European peace, among the powers that considered themselves completely satisfied with the distribution of “rewards” at the Congress of Vienna, the desire to preserve the established international order arose and strengthened, and the means for this were the permanent union of European sovereigns and the periodic convening of international congresses. But since the achievement of this was contradicted by the national and revolutionary movements of peoples seeking freer forms of political existence, such aspiration quickly acquired a reactionary character.

The initiator of the Holy Alliance was Russian Emperor Alexander I, although when drawing up the act of the Holy Alliance, he still considered it possible to patronize liberalism and grant a constitution to the Kingdom of Poland. The idea of ​​a Union arose in him, on the one hand, under the influence of the idea of ​​becoming a peacemaker in Europe by creating a Union that would eliminate even the possibility of military clashes between states, and on the other hand, under the influence of the mystical mood that took possession of him. The latter also explains the strangeness of the very wording of the union treaty, which was not similar either in form or in content to international treatises, which forced many specialists international law to see in it only a simple declaration of the monarchs who signed it.

Signed September 14 (26), 1815. three monarchs - Emperor Francis I of Austria, King Frederick William III of Prussia and Emperor Alexander I, at first in the first two he did not arouse anything other than a hostile attitude towards himself.

The content of this act was highest degree vague and flexible, and the most varied practical conclusions could be drawn from it, but its general spirit did not contradict, but rather favored, the reactionary mood of the then governments. Not to mention the confusion of ideas belonging to completely different categories, in it religion and morality completely displace law and politics from the areas that undoubtedly belong to the latter. Built on the legitimate basis of the divine origin of monarchical power, it establishes a patriarchal relationship between sovereigns and peoples, and the former are charged with the obligation to rule in the spirit of “love, truth and peace,” and the latter must only obey: the document does not speak at all about the rights of the people in relation to power mentions.

Finally, obliging sovereigns to always ʼʼ give each other allowance, reinforcement and help", the act does not say anything about exactly in what cases and in what form this obligation should be carried out, which made it possible to interpret it in the sense that assistance is obligatory in all those cases when subjects show disobedience to their “legitimate” sovereigns.

This is exactly what happened - the very Christian character of the Holy Alliance disappeared and only the suppression of the revolution, whatever its origin, was meant. All this explains the success of the Holy Alliance: soon all other European sovereigns and governments joined it, not excluding Switzerland and the German free cities; Only the English Prince Regent and the Pope did not sign to it, which did not prevent them from being guided by the same principles in their policies; only the Turkish Sultan was not accepted into the Holy Alliance as a non-Christian sovereign.

Signifying the character of the era, the Holy Alliance was the main organ of the pan-European reaction against liberal aspirations. Practical significance it 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.

74. Foreign policy of the Russian Empire in 1814–1853.

Option 1. In the first half of the 19th century. Russia had significant capabilities to effectively solve its foreign policy problems. Οʜᴎ included the protection of their own borders and expansion of territory in accordance with the geopolitical, military-strategic and economic interests of the country. This implied the folding of the territory of the Russian Empire within its natural borders along the seas and mountain ranges and, in connection with this, the voluntary entry or forced annexation of many neighboring peoples. The Russian diplomatic service was well-established, and its intelligence service was extensive. The army numbered about 500 thousand people, was well equipped and trained. Russia's military-technical lag behind Western Europe was not noticeable until the early 50s. This allowed Russia to play an important and sometimes decisive role in the European concert.

After 1815 ᴦ. The main task of Russian foreign policy in Europe was to maintain the old monarchical regimes and fight the revolutionary movement. Alexander I and Nicholas I were guided by the most conservative forces and most often relied on alliances with Austria and Prussia. In 1848 ᴦ. Nicholas helped the Austrian emperor suppress the revolution that broke out in Hungary and strangled revolutionary protests in the Danube principalities.

In the south, very difficult relations developed with the Ottoman Empire and Iran. Türkiye could not come to terms with the Russian conquest in late XVIII V. Black Sea coast and, first of all, with the annexation of Crimea to Russia. Access to the Black Sea was of particular economic, defensive and strategic importance for Russia. The most important problem was to ensure the most favorable regime for the Black Sea straits - the Bosporus and Dardanelles. The free passage of Russian merchant ships through them contributed to economic development and the prosperity of the vast southern regions of the state. Preventing foreign military vessels from entering the Black Sea was also one of the tasks of Russian diplomacy. An important means of Russia's intervention in the internal affairs of the Turks was the right it received (under the Kuchuk-Kainardzhi and Yassy treaties) to protect Christian subjects of the Ottoman Empire. Russia actively used this right, especially since the peoples of the Balkans saw in it their only protector and savior.

In the Caucasus, Russia's interests collided with the claims of Turkey and Iran to these territories. Here Russia tried to expand its possessions, strengthen and make stable the borders in Transcaucasia. A special role was played by Russia’s relationship with the peoples of the North Caucasus, whom it sought to completely subordinate to its influence. This was extremely important to ensure free and secure communication with newly acquired territories in Transcaucasia and the permanent inclusion of the entire Caucasian region into the Russian Empire.

To these traditional directions in the first half of the 19th century. new ones were added (Far Eastern and American), which at that time were of a peripheral nature.
Posted on ref.rf
Russia developed relations with China, with the countries of Northern and South America. In the middle of the century, the Russian government began to look closely at Central Asia.

Option 2. In September 1814 – June 1815 ᴦ. The victorious powers decided on the issue of the post-war structure of Europe. It was difficult for the allies to come to an agreement among themselves, as sharp contradictions arose, mainly over territorial issues.

The resolutions of the Congress of Vienna led to the return of old dynasties in France, Italy, Spain and other countries. The resolution of territorial disputes made it possible to redraw the map of Europe. The Kingdom of Poland was created from most of the Polish lands as part of the Russian Empire. The so-called “Viennese system” was created, which implied a change in the territorial and political map of Europe, the preservation of noble-monarchical regimes and European balance. This system was aimed at foreign policy Russia after the Congress of Vienna.

In March 1815 ᴦ. Russia, England, Austria and Prussia signed an agreement to form the Quadruple Alliance. He was aimed at implementing the decisions of the Congress of Vienna, especially as it related to France. Its territory was occupied by the troops of the victorious powers, and it had to pay a huge indemnity.

In September 1815 ᴦ. Russian Emperor Alexander I, Austrian Emperor Franz and Prussian King Frederick William III signed the Act of Formation of the Holy Alliance.

The Quadruple and Holy Alliances were created due to the fact that all European governments understood the critical importance of achieving concerted action to resolve controversial issues. At the same time, the alliances only muted, but did not remove the severity of the contradictions between the great powers. On the contrary, they deepened, as England and Austria sought to weaken the international authority and political influence of Russia, which had increased significantly after the victory over Napoleon.

In the 20s of the XIX century. The European policy of the tsarist government was associated with the desire to counteract the development of revolutionary movements and the desire to shield Russia from them. Revolutions in Spain, Portugal and a number of Italian states forced members of the Holy Alliance to consolidate their forces in the fight against them. Alexander I's attitude towards revolutionary events in Europe gradually changed from restrained wait-and-see to openly hostile. He supported the idea of ​​collective intervention of European monarchs in the internal affairs of Italy and Spain.

In the first half of the 19th century. Ottoman Empire was experiencing a severe crisis due to the rise of the national liberation movement of its constituent peoples. Alexander I, and then Nicholas I were appointed to difficult situation. On the one hand, Russia has traditionally helped its coreligionists. On the other hand, its rulers, observing the principle of preserving the existing order, had to support the Turkish Sultan as the legitimate ruler of their subjects. For this reason, Russia's policy on the eastern question was contradictory, but, ultimately, the line of solidarity with the peoples of the Balkans became dominant.

In the 20s of the XIX century. Iran, with the support of England, was actively preparing for war with Russia, wanting to return the lands it had lost in the Peace of Gulistan of 1813 and restore its influence in Transcaucasia. In 1826 ᴦ. The Iranian army invaded Karabakh. In February 1828 ᴦ. The Turkmanchay Peace Treaty was signed.
Posted on ref.rf
According to it, Erivan and Nakhichevan became part of Russia. In 1828 ᴦ. The Armenian region was formed, which marked the beginning of the unification of the Armenian people. As a result of the Russian-Turkish and Russian-Iranian wars of the late 20s of the 19th century. The second stage in the annexation of the Caucasus to Russia has ended. Georgia, Eastern Armenia, Northern Azerbaijan became part of the Russian Empire.

Holy Alliance. - concept and types. Classification and features of the category "Holy Alliance." 2017, 2018.