How fitting to have a concise and perceptive reevaluation of the often belittled Congress of Vienna during the celebration of its bicentennial. Who is better equipped to write such a volume than Wolf D. Gruner, a distinguished student of modern German and European history and recent author of Der Deutsche Bund 1815–1855 (2012)? Gruner brings to his analysis of the Congress of Vienna keen insights from his research and publications on Great Britain's vibrant interest in the future of the German Confederation; the middle-sized German states of Hannover, Bavaria, Württemberg, and Baden; and city-states such as Hamburg. Statesmen from each of these entities were important actors at the Congress, along with Britain's major conferees and sometime rivals from Austria, France, Prussia, and Russia.

Gruner calls for a reevaluation of the Congress of Vienna and a discarding of inaccurate stereotypes concerning reaction and restoration. The situation facing the European powers after the defeat of Napoleon was completely new, and few considered any futile attempt to recreate a pre-Napoleonic world. That being said, Gruner argues persuasively that the Congress of Vienna was “much better, more effective, interesting, and forward-looking than its reputation” (11). To prove this, he traces the successful course of the difficult negotiations by the statesmen in Vienna, including the issue of the future of Poland and Saxony, which nearly led to a war between the major European powers. Regarding the pursuit of a suitably stable political settlement for German-speaking Central Europe, Gruner does not try to rehash the complexities elaborated in majestic detail by Enno Kraehe in Metternich's German Policy, Vol. II: The Congress of Vienna (Princeton University Press, 1983). He does, however, do an admirable job explaining the difficulties of creating the new federative polity, the German Confederation. He elucidates well the concerns and obstacles thrown up by sovereignty-protecting, second-tier German states like Bavaria, Württemberg, and Hannover, as well as by prestige-seeking great powers, Russia and Prussia. In this story, it is Henry Robert Stewart, Viscount Castlereagh of Britain, and Clemens von Metternich of Austria who emerge, as in Henry Kissinger's A World Restored: Metternich, Castlereagh and the Problems of Peace, 1812–1822 (1957), as the pragmatic seekers of long-term European peace and stability. They were the chief architects of what Matthias Schulz in Normen und Praxis: Das Europäische Konzert der Grossmächte als Sicherheitsrat 1815–1860 (Oldenbourg, 2006) has called Europe's new “security council.” They were the statesmen whom Gruner, quoting David King's Vienna 1814: How the Conquerors of Napoleon Made Love, War, and Peace at the Congress of Vienna (Harmony Books, 2008), credits with creating a spirit of cooperation among the great powers, “which in many respects has not yet ended. No other peace conference in history can claim such a success” (240).

Although Gruner's main focus is on the Congress's new multipolar approach to peace settlement, peacekeeping, and international crisis management, one of his most interesting and important assertions is that the period of European peace and stability made possible by the Congress had a major impact on the political, economic, and social developments of the European world. This, he asserts, was particularly true in regard to making possible German Central Europe's industrialization, increasing her economic trade and agricultural development, and introducing constitutional reforms that led to “the transition from a society of subjects to a society of citizens” (212). The Congress of Vienna had a very important “catalytic function” that has been barely noticed by past historians. Unfortunately, Gruner does little more than make these assertions in this brief survey. There remains more to be said about that important story.

Finally, it should be noted that though the publisher allowed only a limited bibliography and omitted footnotes, Gruner's list of abbreviations includes notable archival sources. He also marks with a star bibliographical literature of particular use to those seeking additional archival and literature sources. We are indebted to Gruner for his review of the literature, evaluation of evolving interpretations, and perceptive insights. Most of all, his work should be appreciated for his attention to the unique historical context and concerns of a period very different from our own.