Introduction
The aim of my research is to present the Congress of Ljubljana (1821), which can sometimes be overlooked at least when compared to its more well-known counterpart, the 1815 Vienna Congress. It is worth mentioning that in the past years- Dr. Raphaël Cahen’s extensive work comes to mind- there has been more research conducted about the said congress and its broader role in the Holy Alliance’s politics, especially in honour of the congress’ 200th anniversary.
In the very short span of time I have somehow ambitiously set myself on to answer some of the budding questions: Was the Congress of Ljubljana merely a marginal diplomatic gathering of the great European powers? In what ways did inequalities among its participants become evident? And how was the congress represented in contemporary media? Due to a bit of an unsuccess in regarding the research with primary sources and shorter time span compared to the previous EUTopia Collected Learning Communitiy cycles, my contribution is smaller in size as to what it has been intended as at the start. Thus I focused on the historical background and covered the main points of the Congress’ diplomatic discussions, where I have heavily relied on Dr. Vladimir Šenk’s 1944 doctoral dissertation. As for the primary sources Henry Costa’s diary written during the European diplomats and politicians’ residing in Ljubljana, was also a helpful source.
Historical background
In the nineteenth century, Europe was shaken by numerous conflicts caused by Napoleon’s expansionist policies. Establishing peace after years of warfare is never an easy feast. Diplomatic negotiations and peace treaties concluded by the Great Powers, which held decisive influence at the end of a war, were often temporary or unstable. The period following Napoleon’s defeat was no exception. His fall made way for political negotiations that reshaped the map of Europe and significantly influenced the continent’s future for decades to come.
The Holy Alliance stood at the center of European diplomacy during this period. Founded on 26 September 1815 by Austria, Prussia, and Russia, the alliance was based on the principles of Christian solidarity among monarchs, the preservation of the balance of power in Europe, and the idea of justice. In reality, however, it soon became a system through which the great powers supervised both the foreign and domestic affairs of European states. This system operated largely under the leadership of Clemens von Metternich, one of the most prominent and diplomatically skillful political figures of nineteenth-century Europe (Šenk, Vladimir, “Kongres Svete alianse v Ljubljani“, 15 – 20).
It is worth mentioning the famous Treaty of Chaumont, signed in March 1814, which helped shape the nature and framework of the “European Concert“, which stated in Article 5, that the Great European Powers have
also determined to enter, without delay, into defensive engagements for the Protection of their respective States in Europe against every attempt /…/ to infringe the order of things resulting from such Pacification
and in article 6
that in the event of one of the High Contracting Parties being threatened with an Attack on the part of France, the others shall employ their most strenuous efforts to prevent it, by friendly interposition.
Two key principles of Restoration policy clearly demonstrate how the Alliance functioned: the principle of legitimacy and the right to military intervention.The conservative Restoration policy, which aimed to suppress revolutionary tendencies across the continent, faced its first significant challenge in the Spanish Revolution of 1820. In March of that year, the movement forced the Spanish king to reintroduce the Spanish Constitution of 1812. This constitution established an assembly of representatives, affirmed the sovereignty of the nation over that of the monarch, and allowed for the removal of the ruler in the case of his incapacity. Owing to the disapproval of the British and French governments, the Holy Alliance ultimately refrained from military intervention. This decision emboldened revolutionaries in Naples, who succeeded in persuading King Ferdinand IV to introduce, in July 1820, a constitution modeled on the Spanish example (Ibid., 21 – 23).
An important factor in the subsequent course of events was a secret agreement concluded in 1815 between King Ferdinand IV and the Austrian Emperor Francis I. In this agreement, Ferdinand pledged not to introduce internal political changes that might conflict with established monarchical constitutions and principles; in return, Austria promised to provide 80,000 troops in the event of rebellion. Despite Ferdinand’s breach of this agreement, Austria, due to its geographical proximity to Naples, felt compelled to respond swiftly. Austria was determined to intervene against the Italian revolutionaries without delay. Metternich, however, sought prior approval from the Holy Alliance, anticipating the support of Tsar Alexander I, who himself favored intervention in Spain. The Tsar insisted that the matter be discussed at a congress in Troppau (Opava) (Ibid., 24 – 26). There, the Holy Alliance expressed its support for intervention and simultaneously invited King Ferdinand to attend a subsequent meeting in Ljubljana (Ibid., 29).
The Congress of Ljubljana
The Neapolitan crisis constituted the first major subject at the Congress of Ljubljana, which followed the Congress of Troppau. Between January and May 1821, the capital of the Duchy of Carniola became a center of European political activity, hosting approximately 630 guests. Among the participants were King Ferdinand of the Two Sicilies, Tsar Alexander I of Russia, Emperor Francis I of Austria, Duke Francis IV of Modena, and, in place of the Prussian king, Chancellor Karl August von Hardenberg. French and British delegates were also present, as were rulers from all the Italian states. Despite the considerable number of representatives, the most important decisions were taken by the members of the Holy Alliance. The Austrian military intervention in Naples proceeded swiftly and without significant losses on the Austrian side.
By mid-March, news had already arrived of unrest in Piedmont and later in Wallachia and Moldavia. These uprisings formed the second major focus of negotiations in Ljubljana. For Austria, Piedmont, due to its geographical proximity and its position among the Italian states posed a greater threat than the revolt in Naples. With the firm support of Tsar Alexander, Metternich ordered immediate military intervention, justifying the action on the grounds that Piedmont had effectively attacked Austria, which therefore possessed the right of self-defense. The other participants were informed of Austria’s decision at a minor conference, where Metternich merely announced conclusions that had already been reached. The intervention proved even more successful than in Naples, as the rebellion was suppressed in a single battle in April 1821.
The uprisings in Wallachia and Moldavia, territories under Ottoman rule, presented a particular dilemma for Metternich’s loyal ally, Tsar Alexander. According to the principles of the alliance, the Tsar was expected to defend Christian populations against Muslim oppression; at the same time, the doctrine of legitimacy required respect for the authority of the Ottoman Empire. Ultimately, Alexander yielded to Metternich’s influence and chose to support Ottoman authority. The question of the Moldavian and Wallachian revolts was addressed and resolved in a single extraordinary session (Eva Holz, Ljubljanski kongres: 1821, 8).
The inequality of power within the alliance was also evident in the informal character of the proceedings: conferences were conducted without formal protocols. Although Friedrich Gentz (1764-1832) had been appointed secretary, he only later began compiling records of earlier sessions. In practice, every major decision required agreement between Austria and Russia (Šenk, “Kongres“, 56, 59).
In essence, the Congress of Ljubljana was a continuation of the Congress of Troppau and served as the political stage for the final resolution of the Neapolitan crisis. Yet it would be misleading to regard it merely as a lesser successor to its predecessors, including the Congress of Vienna. The Ljubljana Congress represented the culmination of Clemens von Metternich’s diplomatic achievements, as he skillfully used the meetings of the Holy Alliance to advance Austrian interests (Ibid., 67). The issues addressed in Ljubljana were of considerable importance: the Neapolitan crisis logically followed the successful Spanish Revolution, which had constituted the first significant challenge to post-Napoleonic order. With the defeat of the Neapolitan revolutionaries and the effective implementation of military intervention, the Congress of Ljubljana marked an important milestone in the diplomatic practice of the Holy Alliance.
The portrayal of Ljubljana Congress in contemporary media
The question remains how the congress was portrayed in contemporary media. I will focus on three pieces of media: the diary of Henry Costa and the Laibacher Zeitung newspaper. Henry Costa’s diary entries offer a glimpse into what Ljubljana looked like during the Congress. While one would expect lengthy reports on policital stage, the diary disappoints, with author finding the musings on weather and temperature changes with occasional reports on guests’ arrivals and departures, their engaging in dance and concerts, attending mass and other social events more appealing (Boštjan Udovič, Tanja Žigon, Petra Kramberger, „Diplomatic ceremonial events at the 1821 Congress of Ljubljana“, 649 – 651).
While the news of Piedmont uprising have already reached Ljubljana by March 1821, no diary entry offers even a glimpse suggesting that such a groundbreaking event even occurred. For example, the entry on 14th March 1821 reports
Beautiful day, thermometer showcases 8 degrees
followed by the next day’s entry
It was raining throughout the night and the entirety of morning until the midday, we can only hope for a better forecast. Today it was 7 degrees outside.
One of the rare entries even suggesting that there was a political uprising taking place not that far from Ljubljana, is the entry on the 20th March 1821:
…It is said that the good news from Naples have reached us, first reported to the Kaiser Franz by Tsar Alexander. Because of that news the entirety of court gathered at mass …“.
(Holz, Ljubljana Congress, 60,61)
The most prominent newspaper reporting on the event was the German-language Laibacher Zeitung, whose censor was Gentz himself. Its articles largely focused on the arrivals and departures of distinguished guests, social events, and general military and political news. It appears that local readers showed limited interest in the diplomatic negotiations and in the decisions determining the fate of revolutionary movements in neighboring Italy. Rather than engaging with substantive political issues, they were presented with reports on theatrical performances attended by crowned heads, official audiences, and visits to notable institutions. However, any apparent lack of public engagement with political developments in their own city must be considered in light of strict censorship. As editor, Gentz exercised rigorous control over the German-language press, and prior to the congress the governor of Ljubljana received instructions from Vienna to emphasize, in both public and private discourse, the legitimacy of the old order and to oppose firmly any notions of popular sovereignty or constitutionalism. It is therefore worth considering whether media coverage might have differed had Slovenian-language newspapers already been in circulation at the time (Udovič et al., “Diplomatic events“, 658 – 661).
…It is said that the good news from Naples have reached us, first reported to the Kaiser Franz by Tsar Alexander. Because of that news the entirety of court gathered at mass …
The most prominent newspaper reporting on the event was the German-language Laibacher Zeitung, whose censor was Gentz himself. Its articles largely focused on the arrivals and departures of distinguished guests, social events, and general military and political news. It appears that local readers showed limited interest in the diplomatic negotiations and in the decisions determining the fate of revolutionary movements in neighboring Italy. Rather than engaging with substantive political issues, they were presented with reports on theatrical performances attended by crowned heads, official audiences, and visits to notable institutions. However, any apparent lack of public engagement with political developments in their own city must be considered in light of strict censorship. As editor, Gentz exercised rigorous control over the German-language press, and prior to the congress the governor of Ljubljana received instructions from Vienna to emphasize, in both public and private discourse, the legitimacy of the old order and to oppose firmly any notions of popular sovereignty or constitutionalism. It is therefore worth considering whether media coverage might have differed had Slovenian-language newspapers already been in circulation at the time (Udovič et al., “Diplomatic events“, 658 – 661).
Conclusion
It is without a doubt that the Congress of Ljubljana played an important role in shaping the practical functioning of the post-Napoleonic order. The suppression of the revolutions in Naples and Piedmont demonstrated that military intervention had become an accepted instrument for preserving monarchical legitimacy and containing revolutionary movements. At the same time, the events in Ljubljana clearly revealed the inequalities among the participants. Despite the presence of numerous rulers and delegates, real power rested almost exclusively in the hands of Austria, Russia and Prussia. Smaller states and even other great powers such as Britain and France played only a limited role in shaping outcomes. The congress thus exemplified how European diplomacy of the Restoration era operated through concentrated power rather than collective deliberation.
Nives Košnjek
The Ljubljana students worked under a common thematic umbrella in 2025-2026 (From a state of war to a state of peace via (new) communication technologies and media: the establishing of authorities, institutions, laws and the reframing of constitutional values).
Sources and Bibliography
Literature
Primary Sources
National Archives of the Republic of Slovenia: Henry Costa’s personal fond SI AS 845
Comments
Post a Comment