PositiveThe Times (UK)Siemann’s meticulous account of these negotiations is highly revealing of the gradations in what is usually represented as a monolithic aristocracy, and goes a long way to explain Metternich’s acute sense of order and hierarchy. No less enlightening is his coverage of Metternich’s education by remarkable tutors at the universities of Strasbourg and Mainz ... This impressive biography is welcome. It covers every aspect of Metternich’s life with a wealth of detail, and dishes up some delightful gems. A hand-drawn sketch recording where every Italian subversive had gone to ground, from Buenos Aires to Brussels, brings to life his obsession with the threat they posed ... My only quibble is that Metternich is very much the hero as well as the subject of the book, and its rather reverent tone can jar. His wisdom and judgment are unquestioned and his achievements over-praised. He is represented as the principal actor in the coalition that brought down Napoleon and the master operator at the Congress of Vienna, while other players such as Tsar Alexander, Castlereagh and Talleyrand are marginalised ... Siemann goes to great lengths to justify Metternich’s reactionary policy and his war on subversion in the 1830s and 1840s, going so far as to argue that Britain and France were just as autocratic as the Habsburg monarchy. Such special pleading does his subject no favours. Nor do his heavy-handed efforts to redeem Metternich from his reputation as a vainglorious philanderer by calling him a \'connoisseur of women\', as though they were racehorses or fine wines ... The real strength of the book lies in its coverage of the internal politics of the Habsburg Empire, Metternich’s attempts to reorganise it and the power struggles at its heart after the death of Emperor Francis I in 1835 ... Siemann’s account of this period, and of Metternich’s treatment after his fall, is sympathetic and moving, inspiring respect for a remarkable man. Yet his suggestion that Metternich was a \'surprisingly ‘modern’ figure\' is unconvincing, while at this particular moment in its history, the representation of him as the father of European unity is not quite the flattering accolade presumably intended.
