ou rab ly ▁shape ▁Europe , ▁but ▁chose ▁not ▁to . ▁More ▁modern ▁crit iques , ▁such ▁as ▁that ▁included ▁in ▁the ▁work ▁of ▁A . ▁J . ▁P . ▁Taylor , ▁have ▁question ed ▁just ▁how ▁much ▁influence ▁Met tern ich ▁really ▁had . ▁O key ▁noted ▁that ▁even ▁in ▁the ▁real m ▁of ▁foreign ▁affairs ▁Met tern ich ▁" had ▁only ▁his ▁own ▁persu as iveness ▁to ▁rely ▁on ", ▁and ▁this ▁de grad ed ▁over ▁time . ▁On ▁this ▁reading , ▁he ▁stuck ▁do gg edly ▁to ▁a ▁set ▁of ▁" c um bers ome " ▁conserv ative ▁principles ▁that ▁he ▁was ▁forced ▁to ▁art ic ulate ▁in ▁long ▁and ▁detailed ▁memor anda : ▁a ▁" sm okes creen " ▁that ▁hid ▁Austria ' s ▁true ▁weak ness . ▁When ▁it ▁came ▁to ▁choosing ▁a ▁set ▁of ▁sound ▁principles , ▁wrote ▁Taylor , ▁" most ▁men ▁could ▁do ▁better ▁while ▁sh aving ". ▁The ▁result ▁was ▁that ▁Met tern ich ▁was ▁no ▁capt iv ating ▁diplom atic ▁force : ▁Taylor ▁described ▁him ▁as ▁" the ▁most ▁b oring ▁man ▁in ▁European ▁history "; ▁Met tern ich ▁himself ▁bo asted ▁he ▁could ▁" b ore ▁men ▁to ▁death ". ▁This ▁view ▁also ▁highlight s ▁Met tern ich ' s ▁ab ject ▁failure ▁to ▁live ▁up ▁to ▁his ▁h ype ▁as ▁the ▁" co ach man ▁of ▁Europe ": ▁Austria ▁did ▁not ▁defeat ▁Napoleon ; ▁Austria ▁did ▁not ▁dict ate ▁the ▁peace ▁of ▁Vienna ; ▁Austria ▁could ▁not ▁stop ▁France ▁inv ading