Networks of Interests at the Westphalian Peace Congress

The current international situation clearly shows how difficult it is to make peace. This is, however, hardly a modern phenomenon. The 17th century is especially known for its wars of religion and state- building and dynastic struggles, as well as its attempts to make peace. With regard to modern debates, especially about the Middle East parallels are drawn between the conflict in Syria and the Thirty Years War , early modern peacemaking gets new attention: Here the peace congress in Münster and Osnabrück (16431649) features particularly prominent, as it was not only the first multilateral peace conference of envoys, but it also had to solve many very different and interlinked conflicts. This makes the Westphalian Peace Congress an excellent case study for analysing the social, cultural, economic and political conditions that helped and hindered peacemaking. The project Networks of Interest at the Westphalian Peace Congress conducted by Dr Lena Oetzel approaches this topic by examining the interests of the diplomats on-site: How did they not only pursue their masters interests but also their own personal interests? Which role did these personal interests e.g. financial difficulties, health issues and family problems play within the process of the negotiations? What did the diplomats do in cases of conflicting interests, namely, their own versus their masters interest? Focussing on a selection of Imperial diplomats and diplomats representing the Imperial Estates the main focus lies on the Principal Imperial ambassador Maximilian Graf von Trauttmansdorff and Dr Johann Leuber, delegate of the elector of Saxony the project wants to examine their webs of interest and how they balanced them. Therefore, the project touches critical questions that are currently discussed within research on early modern diplomacy and on the Westphalian Peace Congress, such as the agency of early modern diplomats, their clientele relationships and the role of their personal networks. The concept of interest helps us connect actor and society, diplomat and master, and the daily life of peace negotiations and the big politics of 17th century Europe.

The current world political situation clearly shows how difficult it is to make peace. This is not a phenomenon of the modern age. The 17th century in particular is known for its warlike character, but also for its manifold efforts to make peace. The peace congress of Westphalia (1643-1649) has a special position here as the first international congress of envoys. Thus, it is particularly well suited - also due to the excellent source material - to examine the social, cultural, political and economic conditions of peace-making. The project "Interests at the Peace Congress of Westphalia", conducted by Dr. Lena Oetzel, approaches this topic by examining the interests of the envoys on site: What significance did their personal interests have for the negotiations in the first place, such as financial difficulties, health problems, family obligations, etc.? How did they behave in the case of conflicts of interest? What priorities did they set? The focus is on the principal Imperial ambassador Maximilian Count and the envoy of the elector of Saxony, Dr. Johann Leuber, who are repeatedly compared with their Imperial and European colleagues. In this way, it is possible to trace a complex network of interests with the diplomats' at its center. The extent to which a diplomat was able to assert his own interests as well as those of his master depended greatly on his scope of action and his position at the congress. The focus on interests helps to connect actor and society, diplomat and ruler as well as everyday diplomatic life with the "big" politics of the 17th century. Interest is not an objective, fixed concept, but serves to describe relationships and is closely linked to the respective normative and value concepts of the actors. In the end, it becomes clear that making peace was not only associated with risks and uncertainties from the perspective of the rulers, but was also a constant challenge for the negotiating diplomats on site, often pushing them to their limits.