I understand the basis of it- the reason, to reconstruct and stablize Europe after Napoleon I's reign, but I feel like I need a better understanding. Please help. Thanks.
199019
The Concert of Europe was essentially a system of international order starting in 1815 among four of Europe's leading powers: Britain, Austria, Russia, and Prussia.  You are correct that it was intended to stabilize europe after the French Revolution and also to prevent similar revolutions which threatened the monarchical governments of those four powers.  It also is sometimes thought of as an early "balance of power" arrangement designed to check France's power.
306993
He wanted to conquer and rule Europe...that's not really like a tyrant...that's more along the lines of an Emperor who is expanding his empire.  He was not a great leader of France...he was a military conqueror.  (See George W Bush)
42132
I’m getting too old, I can’t believe anyone would need to ask such a question.\nWorld War I, 1914–18, also known as the Great War, conflict, chiefly in Europe, among most of the great Western powers. It was the largest war the world had yet seen.Causes \nWorld War I was immediately precipitated by the assassination of Archduke Francis Ferdinand of Austria-Hungary by a Serbian nationalist in 1914. There were, however, many factors that had led toward war. Prominent causes were the imperialistic, territorial, and economic rivalries that had been intensifying from the late 19th cent., particularly among Germany, France, Great Britain, Russia, and Austria-Hungary.\nOf equal importance was the rampant spirit of nationalism, especially unsettling in the empire of Austria-Hungary and perhaps also in France. Nationalism had brought the unification of Germany by blood and iron, and France, deprived of Alsace and Lorraine by the Franco-Prussian War of 1870–71, had been left with its own nationalistic cult seeking revenge against Germany. While French nationalists were hostile to Germany, which sought to maintain its gains by militarism and alliances, nationalism was creating violent tensions in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy; there the large Slavic national groups had grown increasingly restive, and Serbia as well as Russia fanned Slavic hopes for freedom and Pan-Slavism.\nImperialist rivalry had grown more intense with the new imperialism of the late 19th and early 20th cent. The great powers had come into conflict over spheres of influence in China and over territories in Africa, and the Eastern Question, created by the decline of the Ottoman Empire, had produced several disturbing controversies. Particularly unsettling was the policy of Germany. It embarked late but aggressively on colonial expansion under Emperor William II, came into conflict with France over Morocco, and seemed to threaten Great Britain by its rapid naval expansion.\nThese issues, imperialist and nationalist, resulted in a hardening of alliance systems in the Triple Alliance and Triple Entente and in a general armaments race. Nonetheless, a false optimism regarding peace prevailed almost until the onset of the war, an optimism stimulated by the long period during which major wars had been avoided, by the close dynastic ties and cultural intercourse in Europe, and by the advance of industrialization and economic prosperity. Many Europeans counted on the deterrent of war's destructiveness to preserve the peace.\nWar's Outbreak \nThe Austrian annexation (1908) of Bosnia and Hercegovina created an international crisis, but war was avoided. The Balkan Wars (1912–13) remained localized but increased Austria's concern for its territorial integrity, while the solidification of the Triple Alliance made Germany more yielding to the demands of Austria, now its one close ally. The assassination (June 28, 1914) of Archduke Francis Ferdinand at Sarajevo set in motion the diplomatic maneuvers that ended in war.\nThe Austrian military party, headed by Count Berchtold, won over the government to a punitive policy toward Serbia. On July 23, Serbia was given a nearly unacceptable ultimatum. With Russian support assured by Sergei Sazonov, Serbia accepted some of the terms but hedged on others and rejected those infringing upon its sovereignty. Austria-Hungary, supported by Germany, rejected the British proposal of Sir Edward Grey (later Lord Grey of Fallodon) and declared war (July 28) on Serbia.\nRussian mobilization precipitated a German ultimatum (July 31) that, when unanswered, was followed by a German declaration of war on Russia (Aug. 1). Convinced that France was about to attack its western frontier, Germany declared war (Aug. 3) on France and sent troops against France through Belgium and Luxembourg. Germany had hoped for British neutrality, but German violation of Belgian neutrality gave the British government the pretext and popular support necessary fo
367276
sounds like the american Revolution?  \n\nYou need to find out all the things that are good about England and being part of british empire.   Talk about loyalty to king....talk ahat bout how the "patriots" are traitors that will be hung for their treason.  (you have to embrace and see it from the perspective of the loyalists)
256205
This sounds too much like someone's homework!\n\nThe period is far to wide to narrow down any of the categories you want info in.  Perhaps you should actually look it up in some books - you know, actually do some research!
558014
I see your logic and there is some truth to what you are saying.  The patterns are there, but i would HIGHLY recommend you read the Book "Guns, Germs, and Steel" by geographer Jared Diamond.  It is incredible and discusses these topics and more.  Like why were Europeans able to conquer the new world and colonize Africa, and the biological reasons, such as introduced species.  Its a thick read, but i believe it will offer you a solid base to draw some conclusions to your statements above.  Best of luck!\n\nAnd by the way these countries are now at war because they were colonies (google the berlin conference of 1834 , thats when they drew up arbitrary lines in africa and divided it up amonst eupean countries) and when the imperial powers gave them independence all infrastructure and government was removed and that has left these people in a power struggle ever since. The last colonie in africa gained independence in 1984.  these are recent struggles.  Apartheid just ended in S.Africa.
346752
The assasination of the Austrian prince would be great for an essay - but a very long one. The assasination was more of a trigger on a gun, rather than the bullet, gun powder, and gun itself (as well as who was pointing it at whom) since there were a large variety of factors already staged for the beginning of World War I when this happened. The more I read about it, the more I realize what an expert one needs to be to explain it!\n\nHistorical questions are always complex, so I would shoot for something that appears as simple as possible - since it won't turn out that way, anyway. One example might be how slavery in our country caused the civil rights movement of the 1960's. Because of the distance of time between the events, the cause and effects are actually more sweeping and therefore, easier to see.
369382
No I cannot explain. but you could make a wikipedia search!!!\n\nhttp://www.wikipedia.com
381133
110% agreement about your conclusion concerning France. Spain has already, for all intents and purposes, been defeated. \n\nLet me try and put this in context for the brain dead liberals:\n\nWhen the people in a country have been given the opportunity to form a government that answers to the people instead of the other way around, a government with leaders elected by the people with guaranteed rights and freedoms - and a small minority of Islamic radicals fights to prevent this, using terror tactics and the killing of thousands of innocent men, women and children - how can you possibly call these demented dirt bags, "freedom fighters?" \nJust what the hell is your definition of "freedom?"
539400
The first European country with democratic idea(l)s was France. During the French Revolution from 1789 to 1799 the values "liberte" ((personal) freedom), "egalite" (equality) and "fraternite" (brotherhood) were the leading ideals in French society. Back then monarchy was brought to its fall and a new, democratic government was built. Unfortunately, one of the revolutions leaders, Robespierre, saw the only solution to bring the revolution to success in executing any possible "enemy" of it during his Reign of Terror. In the end, he was executed himself, the revolution failed, France ended up in monarchy again. The main problem was the extreme poverty among the people, the poor hoped through the revolution there would be less hunger and poverty, because the noblemen were killed and their properties taken, but with time passing they had to face the fact that they cannot make bread out of blood (I hope you know what I mean?)\nThe U.S.A. was the first country to successfully adopt the democratic ideals of the French Revolution and that, by the way, is the reason why France gave the Statue of Liberty with the torch of enlightenment to the U.S., the same torch is located in Paris as wyell. I hope I could help you a little... sorry for my English, I hope I used the right historical terms (I translated them literally from the German terms I know)
209656
Here:\n\nhttp://www.google.com/search?hl=en&q=Napoleon+in+his+study+by+David&btnG=Google+Search
677220
It has a little to do with religion, but more to do with politics.  The Greeks were the originators of Orthodox Catholicism.  The Russians adopted it later and everyone was happy for a while.  Then the Greeks declined and Russia ascended in power.  When Byzantium collapsed, the Russians essentially took over as leaders and protectors of the Orthodox religion.  Of course they made certain changes that the Greeks didn't agree with and you see your first big split.  All's cool again for a while until Russian Orthodoxy decides to make a few reforms.  Nothing major, but trying to correct some corrupted texts, slightly change a few traditions, that sort of thing.  Unfortunately, the Russian method of encouraging change has always been rather...forceful.  Whoever wouldn't change was excomunicated.  The big problem with this was that it seemed to say that all the people and saints who had gone before and practiced Orthodoxy by the old ways were irredeemably wrong.  Certain traditional Russians couldn't accept such this, and the second big split occurred.  Then you have Russia's imperial ambitions.  Russia thought of itself as the defender of the faith, with Moscow being like a '3rd Rome.' It wished to be a hegemon in Eastern Europe and used this religious mandate as justification.  The other countries would have been more or less willing to let Russia have it's way - it's nice having big friends, after all - except that as the best and the biggest, Russia expected these other countries to become like mini-Russias.  Russia thus tried to impose its language, government, religion, etc. on them.  Eventually these countries had enough and wanted to split.  Now keep in mind that religion at this time is inherently linked to power and to government.  To split from Russia but keep its religious leaders as the head of your religion is not to split from Russia at all.  So you end up seeing a lot of nationally divided splinter groups.  I'm not saying there aren't also legitimate theological differences, but they were probbly  initiated and exaggerated by political factors.
9300
I read the book myself about 5 years ago at school. Its all metaphors and political commentary. The link below will provide all the information you could need.\n\nAs to the above answer "do a google", you will find the 95% of the questions on here coud be solved quicker are more effectivly with a google search by the user.
543828
haha im in advanced history \nfederalist favored the constitution\nbasicaly they were the first political party  \nso  c\nbecause they wanted a new constitution
270474
I don't think you have to know the history.  I think as long as long as you understand the concept, you get it.  I mean, for instance, look at government.  I bet no one knows the absolute, complete history of government, and still multiple brilliant minds work just fine.
467822
Basically, its about Great Britain. At least that's what this site says......\n\n"AN ACT for the better securing the dependency of his Majesty's dominions in America upon the crown and parliament of Great Britain......"\n\nHope this helps. Good luck with the project!
428842
Right now? It's defined by all sorts of clauses and such, it SHOULD be defined by a constitution, but since that hasn't been ratified, I really can't tell you exactly how it works.\n\nHowever, I think what is practiced now, is identical to what is in the constitution, so you could read up on that (don't worry, it is an easy read). I can't remember, and I think it in practice is useful for voicing Europe-Wide views in different political alignment separate from "national" interests.