Wallachia and Hungary made the Sultan's best statesmen anxious
that the sovereign should, after the manner of his great
ancestors, head his troops in person, and endeavour to give an
auspicious change to the fortune of the war. … The
Imperialists, under the Archduke Maximilian and the Hungarian
Count Pfalfy, aided by the revolted princes of the Danubian
Principalities, dealt defeat and discouragement among the
Ottoman ranks, and wrung numerous fortresses and districts
from the empire. The cities of Gran, Wissgrad, and Babocsa,
had fallen; and messengers in speedy succession announced the
loss of Ibrail, Varna, Kilic, Ismail, Silistria, Rustchuk,
Bucharest, and Akerman. These tidings at last roused the
monarch in his harem. … Mahomet III. left his capital for
the frontier in the June of 1596. … The display of the
sacred standard of the Prophet, which now for the first time
was unfurled over a Turkish army, excited … the zeal of the
True Believers. … The Grand Vizier, Ibrahim Pacha, Hassan
Sokolli Pacha, and Cicala Pacha, were the principal commanders
under the Sultan. … The Archduke Maximilian, who commanded
the Imperialists, retired at first before the superior numbers
of the great Ottoman army; and the Sultan besieged and
captured Erlau. The Imperialists now having effected a
junction with the Transylvanian troops under Prince Sigismund,
advanced again, though too late to save Erlau; and on October
23rd, 1596, the two armies were in presence of each other on
the marshy plain of Cerestes, through which the waters of the
Cincia ooze towards the river Theiss. There were three days of
battle at Cerestes." Repeatedly, the effeminate Sultan wished
to order a retreat, or to betake himself to flight; but was
persuaded by his counsellors to remain on the field, though
safely removed from the conflict. On the third day the battle
was decided in favor of the Turks by a charge of their cavalry
under Cicala. "Terror and flight spread through every division
of the Imperialists; and in less than half an hour from the
time when Cicala began his charge, Maximilian and Sigismund
were flying for their lives, without a single Christian
regiment keeping their ranks, or making an endeavour to rally
and cover the retreat. 50,000 Germans and Transylvanians
perished in the marshes or beneath the Ottoman sabre. …
Mahomet III. eagerly returned after the battle to
Constantinople, to receive felicitations and adulation for his
victory, and to resume his usual life of voluptuous indolence.
The war in Hungary was prolonged for several years, until the
peace of Sitvatorok [November 11, 1606] in the reign of
Mahomet's successor. … No change of importance was made in
the territorial possessions of either party, except that the
Prince of Transylvania was admitted as party to the treaty,
and that province became to some extent, though not entirely,
independent of the Ottoman Empire."
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 12._
HUNGARY: A. D. 1606-1660.
The Pacification of Vienna.
Gabriel Bethlem of Transylvania and the Bohemian revolt.
Participation and experience in the Thirty Years War.
In 1606, the Archduke Mathias—who had lately been appointed
to the Governorship of Hungary, and who had been acknowledged,
by a secret compact among the members of the Hapsburg family as
the head of their House—arranged the terms of a peace with
Botskai. This treaty, called the "Pacification of Vienna,"
restored the religious toleration that had been practised by
Ferdinand and Maximilian; provided that Mathias should be
lieutenant-general of the kingdom; gave to Botskai the title
of Prince of Transylvania and part of Hungary; and stipulated
that on the failure of his male issue these territories should
revert to the House of Austria.
{1678}
"This treaty, at last, restored peace to Hungary, but at the
expense of her unity and independence. Some idea may be formed
of the state of weakness and lassitude to which these long
wars had reduced the country … by a statement of the
divisions into which it had been split up by the various
factions. Hungary, with Croatia, Sclavonia, and the frontiers,
was then reckoned to cover an area of 4,427 square miles, and
Transylvania one of 736. Of these 5,163 miles, Turkey
possessed 1,859; Botskai in Hungary 1,346, in Transylvania
736=2,082; [sic] and Austria only 1,222. Botskai died in 1606,
and was succeeded by Sigismond Rakoczi, who, however, soon
abdicated in favour of Gabriel Bathori." At this time the
plans of the Austrian family for taking the reins of power out
of the feeble and careless hands of the Emperor Rodolph, and
giving them to his more energetic brother, the Archduke
Mathias, came to a head.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1556-1609.
Mathias "marched into Bohemia: and Rodolph, after a feeble
resistance, found himself abandoned by all his supporters, and
compelled to resign into the hands of Mathias Hungary, Austria
and Moravia, and to guarantee to him the succession to the
crown of Bohemia; Mathias in the meantime bearing the title of
king elect of that kingdom, with the consent of the states.
Rodolph at the same time delivered up the Hungarian regalia,
which for some time past had been kept at Prague." Before his
coronation, Mathias was required by the Hungarian diet to sign
a compact, guaranteeing religious liberty; stipulating that
the Hungarian Chamber of Finances should be independent of
that of Austria, that all offices and employments should be
filled by natives, and that the Jesuits should possess no real
property in the country. The peace of the country was soon
disturbed by another revolution in Transylvania. "Gabriel
Bathori, who had succeeded Sigismond Bathori on the throne of
the principality, had suffered his licentiousness to tempt him
into insulting the wives of some of the nobles, who instantly
fell upon him and murdered him; and in his place Gabriel
Bethlem, a brave warrior and an able statesman, was
unanimously elected, with the consent and approbation of the
sultan. Under his government his dominions enjoyed a full
measure of peace and tranquillity, and began to recover from
the horrible devastations of preceding years. He did not,
however, assume his dignity without dispute. Transylvania had
been secured to the house of Austria on the death of Botskai,
by the Pacification of Vienna, and Mathias was, of course, now
anxious to enforce his rights, and he considered the present
opportunity (1617) favourable, as the Turks were engaged in
wars on the side of Asia and Poland. He therefore summoned a
diet of the empire, to the throne of which he had succeeded in
1612 by the death of Rodolph. … But the diet refused all
aid," and he was forced to conclude a peace with the sultan
for the further period of twenty years. "No mention being made
in it of Transylvania, the rights of Gabriel Bethlem were thus
tacitly recognised. Mathias died soon after, in 1619, leaving
his crown to his cousin, Ferdinand II." Then followed the
renewed attempt of an imperial bigot to crush Protestantism in
his dominions, and the Bohemian revolt (see BOHEMIA: A. D.
1611-1618) which kindled the flames of the "Thirty Years'
War." Hungary and Transylvania were in sympathy with Bohemia.
"Gabriel Bethlem entered Hungary, in answer to the call of the
Protestants of that country, at the head of a large army—took
Cassau, Tiernan, Newhasel, dispersed the imperial forces under
Homonai, sent 18,000 men to enforce Count Thurn, got
possession of Presburg by treachery, and seized upon the
regalia." The cause of the Bohemians was lost at the battle of
the White Mountain, before Prague; but "Gabriel Bethlem for a
long time supported the prestige acquired by his earlier
successes. He was proclaimed king of Hungary, and obtained
considerable advantages over two generals of ability and
reputation." But a treaty of peace was concluded at length,
according to which Gabriel surrendered the crown and royal
title, receiving the duchies of Oppelen and Ratibor in
Silesia, and seven counties of Hungary, together with Cassau,
Tokay, and other towns. Ferdinand promised complete toleration
to the Protestants, but was not faithful to his promise, and
war was soon resumed. Bethlem "collected an army of 45,000
men, joined his forces with those of Mansfeldt, the general of
the confederacy [the Protestant Union], after his victory over
the imperialists at Presburg; and at the same time the Bashaw
of Buda entered Lower Hungary at the head of a large force,
captured various fortresses in the district of Gran, and laid
siege to Novigrad. They were opposed by two able generals, the
famous Wallenstein and Swartzemberg, but without checking
their progress. Wallenstein, however, followed Mansfeldt into
Hungary, where the two armies remained for some time inactive
in the presence of one another; but famine, disease, and the
approach of winter at last brought the contest to, a close.
The king of Denmark had been defeated, and Gabriel Bethlem
began to fear that the whole force of the Austrians would now
be directed against him, and concluded a truce. The bashaw of
Buda feared the winter, and followed his example; and
Mansfeldt, finding himself thus abandoned, disbanded his
soldiers.
See GERMANY: A. D. 1624-1626.
… The treaty of peace was again renewed, the truce with the
Turks prolonged." Gabriel Bethlem, or Bethlem Gabor, died in
1629. "The Transylvanians elected George Rakotski to fill his
place, and during nearly four years Hungary and Transylvania
enjoyed the blessings of peace." Then they were again
disturbed by attempts of Ferdinand to reduce Transylvania to
the state of an Austrian province, and by hostile measures
against the Protestants. The latter continued after the death
of Ferdinand II. (1637), and under his son Ferdinand III.
Rakotski inspired an insurrection of the Hungarians which
became formidable, and which, joining in alliance with the
Swedes, then warring in Germany, extorted from the emperor a
very favorable treaty of peace (1647). "At the same time
Ferdinand caused his son of the same name, and elder brother
of Leopold, to be elected and crowned king. During his short
reign, the country was tranquil; but in 1654 he died, leaving
his rights to Leopold. The reign of Leopold [1655-1697] was a
period which witnessed events more important to Hungary than
any which preceded it, or have followed it, save only the
revolutionary years, 1848 and 1849.
{1679}
No monarch of the house of Austria had ever made so determined
attacks upon Hungarian liberty, and to none did the Hungarians
oppose a braver and more strenuous resistance. Nothing was
left untried on the one side to overthrow the constitution;
nothing was left untried on the other to uphold and defend
it."
_E. L. Godkin,
History of Hungary,
chapters 15-17._
HUNGARY: A. D. 1660-1664.
Turkish attacks on Upper Hungary.
The battle of St. Gothard.
Liberation of Transylvania.
A twenty years truce.
"Hostilities had recommenced, in 1660, between the Ottoman
empire and Austria, on account of Transylvania. The Turk was
suzerain of Transylvania, and directly held Buda and the part
of Hungary on the west and south of the Danube, projecting
like a wedge between Upper Hungary, Styria, and Vienna. George
Rakoczi, Prince of Transylvania, having perished in combat
against the Sultan, his suzerain, the Turks had pursued the
House of Rakoczi into the domains which it possessed in Upper
Hungary. The Rakoczis, and the new prince elected by the
Transvlvanians, Kemeni, invoked the aid of the emperor. The
Italian, Montecuculi, the greatest military chieftain in the
service of the House of Austria, expelled the Turks from a
part of Transylvania, but could not maintain himself there;
Kemeni was killed in a skirmish. The Turks installed their
protégé, Michael Abaffi, in his place, and renewed their
attacks against Upper Hungary (1661-1662). The secret of these
alternations lay in the state of feeling of the Hungarians and
Transylvanians, who, continually divided between two
oppressors, the Turk and the Austrian, and too weak to rid
themselves of either, always preferred the absent to the
present master. … Religious distrust also complicated
political distrust; Protestantism, crushed in Bohemia,
remained powerful and irritated in Hungary. The emperor
demanded the assistance of the Germanic Diet and all the
Christian states against the enemy of Christianity. … Louis
XIV., at the first request of Leopold, supported by the Pope,
replied by offers so magnificent that they appalled the
Emperor. Louis proposed not less than 60,000 auxiliaries, half
to be furnished by France, half by the Alliance of the Rhine;
that is, by the confederates of France in Germany. … The
Emperor … would have gladly been able to dispense with the
aid of France and his confederates; but the more pressing
danger prevailed over the more remote. The Turks had made a
great effort during the summer of 1663. The second of the
Kiouprouglis, the Vizier Achmet, taking Austrian Hungary in
the rear, had crossed the Danube at Buda with 100,000 fighting
men, invaded the country between the Danube and the
Carpathians, and hurled his Tartars to the doors of Presburg
and Olmütz. Montecuculi had with great difficulty been able to
maintain himself on the island of Schütt, a species of vast
intrenched camp formed by nature in front of Presburg and
Vienna. The fortified towns of Upper Hungary fell one after
another, and the Germanic Diet, which Leopold had gone to
Ratisbon to meet, replied with maddening dilatoriness to the
urgent entreaties of the head of the Empire. The Diet voted no
effective aid until February, 1664; but the Alliance of the
Rhine, in particular, had already accorded 6,500 soldiers, on
condition that the Diet should decide, before separating,
certain questions relative to the interpretation of the Treaty
of Westphalia. The Pope, Spain, and the Italian States
furnished subsidies. Louis persisted in offering nothing but
soldiers, and Leopold resigned himself to accept 6,000
Frenchmen. He had no reason to repent it. … When the
junction was effected [July, 1664], the position of the
Imperialists was one of great peril. They had resumed the
offensive on the south of the Danube in the beginning of the
year; but this diversion, contrary to the advice of
Montecuculi, had succeeded ill. The Grand Vizier had repulsed
them, and, after carrying back his principal forces to the
right bank of the Danube, threatened to force the passage of
the Raab and invade Styria and Austria. The Confederate army
was in a condition to stand the shock just at the decisive
moment. An attempt of the Turks to cross the Raab at the
bridge of Kerment was repulsed by Coligni [commanding the
French], July 26, 1664. The Grand Vizier reascended the Raab
to St. Gothard, where were the headquarters of the
Confederates, and, on August 1, the attack was made by all the
Mussulman forces. The janizaries and spahis crossed the river
and overthrew the troops of the Diet and a part of the
Imperial regiments; the Germans rallied, but the Turks were
continually reinforced, and the whole Mussulman army was soon
found united on the other side of the Raab. The battle seemed
lost, when the French moved. It is said that Achmet
Kiouprougli, on seeing the young noblemen pour forth, with
their uniforms decked with ribbons, and their blond perukes,
asked, 'Who are these maidens?' The 'maidens' broke the
terrible janizaries at the first shock; the mass of the
Turkish army paused and recoiled on itself; the Confederate
army, reanimated by the example of the French, rushed forward
and charged on the whole line; the Turks fell back, at first
slowly, their faces towards the enemy, then lost footing and
fled precipitately to the river to recross it under the fire
of the Christians; they filled it with their corpses. The
fatigue of the troops, the night that supervened, the waters
of the Raab, swelled the next day by a storm, and above all
the lack of harmony among the generals, prevented the
immediate pursuit of the Turks, who had rallied on the
opposite bank of the river and had preserved the best part of
their cavalry. It was expected, nevertheless, to see them
expelled from all Hungary, when it was learned with
astonishment that Leopold had hastened to treat, without the
approbation of the Hungarian Diet, on conditions such that he
seemed the conquered rather than the conqueror. A twenty
years' truce was signed, August 10, in the camp of the Grand
Vizier. Transylvania became again independent under its
elective princes, but the protégé of the Turks, Abaffi, kept
his principality; the Turks retained the two chief towns which
they had conquered in Upper Hungary, and the Emperor made the
Sultan a 'present,' that is, he paid him 200,000 florins
tribute."
_H. Martin,
History of France: Age of Louis XIV.,
volume 1, chapter 4._
ALSO IN:
_W. Coxe,
History of the House of Austria,
chapter 62 (volume 2)._
{1680}
HUNGARY: A. D. 1668-1683.
Increased religious persecution and Austrian oppression.
Tekeli's revolt.
The Turks again called in.
Kara Mustapha's great invasion and siege of Vienna.
Deliverance of the city by John Sobieski.
In Hungary, "the discontent caused by the oppressive
Government and the fanatical persecution of Protestantism by
the Austrian Cabinet had gone on increasing. At length, the
Austrian domination had rendered itself thoroughly odious to
the Hungarians. To hinder the progress of Protestantism, the
Emperor Leopold, in the excess of his Catholic zeal, sent to
the galleys a great number of preachers and ministers; and to
all the evils of religious persecution were added the violence
and devastations of the generals and the German
administrators, who treated Hungary as a conquered province.
The Hungarians in vain invoked the charters which consecrated
their national liberties. To their most legitimate complaints
Leopold replied by the infliction of punishments; he spared
not even the families of the most illustrious; several
magnates perished by the hands of the executioner. Such
oppression was certain to bring about a revolt. In 1668 a
conspiracy had been formed against Leopold by certain
Hungarian leaders, which, however, was discovered and
frustrated; and it was not till 1677, when the young Count
Emmerich Tekeli, having escaped from prison, placed himself at
the head of the malcontents, that these disturbances assumed
any formidable importance. … Tekeli, who possessed much
military talent, and was an uncompromising enemy of the House
of Austria, having entered Upper Hungary with 12,000 men,
defeated the Imperial forces, captured several towns, occupied
the whole district of the Carpathian Mountains, and compelled
the Austrian generals, Counts Wurmb and Leslie, to accept the
truce he offered." In 1681 the Emperor made some concessions,
which weakened the party of independence, while, at the same
time, the Peace of Nimeguen, with France, allowed the House of
Austria to employ all its forces against the rebels. "In this
conjuncture Tekeli turned for aid towards the Turks, making an
appeal to Mahomet IV.; and after the conclusion of the Turkish
and Russian war in 1681, Kara Mustapha [the Grand Vizier]
determined to assist the insurgents openly, their leader
offering, in exchange, to acknowledge the suzerainty of the
Porte. Tekeli sought also succour from France. Louis XIV. gave
him subsidies, solicited the Sultan to send an army into
Hungary, and caused an alliance between the Hungarians,
Transylvanians, and Wallachians to be concluded against
Austria (1682). The truce concluded in 1665 between Austria
and Turkey had not yet expired," but the Sultan was persuaded
to break it. "The Governor of Buda received orders to support
Tekeli, who took the title of King. … Early in the spring of
1683 Sultan Mahomet marched forth from his capital with a
large army, which at Belgrade he transferred to the command of
Kara Mustapha. Tekeli formed a junction with the Turks at Essek."
_S. Menzies,
Turkey, Old and New,
book 2, chapter 9, section 3 (volume 1)._
"The strength of the regular forces, which Kara Mustapha led
to Vienna, is known from the muster-roll which was found in
his tent after the siege. It amounted to 275,000 men. The
attendants and camp-followers cannot be reckoned; nor can any
but an approximate speculation be made as to the number of the
Tartar and other irregular troops that joined the Vizier. It
is probable that not less than half a million of men were set
in motion in this last great aggressive effort of the Ottomans
against Christendom. The Emperor Leopold had neither men nor
money sufficient to enable him to confront such a deluge of
invasion; and, after many abject entreaties, he obtained a
promise of help from King Sobieski of Poland, whom he had
previously treated with contumely and neglect. … The Turkish
army proceeded along the western side of the Danube from
Belgrade, and reached Vienna without experiencing any serious
check, though a gallant resistance was made by some of the
strong places which it besieged during its advance. The city
of Vienna was garrisoned by 11,000 men under Count
Stahremberg, who proved himself a worthy successor of the
Count Salm, who had fulfilled the same duty when the city was
besieged by Sultan Solyman. The second siege of Vienna lasted
from the 15th July to the 12th September, 1683, during which
the most devoted heroism was displayed by both the garrison
and the inhabitants. … The garrison was gradually wasted by
the numerous assaults which it was called on to repulse, and
in the frequent sorties, by which the Austrian commander
sought to impede the progress of the besiegers. Kara Mustapha,
at the end of August, had it in his power to carry the city by
storm, if he had thought fit to employ his vast forces in a
general assault, and to continue it from day to day, as
Amurath IV. had done when Bagdad fell. But the Vizier kept the
Turkish troops back out of avarice, in the hope that the city
would come into his power by capitulation; in which case he
would himself be enriched by the wealth of Vienna, which, if
the city were taken by storm, would become the booty of the
soldiery. … Sobieski had been unable to assemble his troops
before the end of August; and, even then, they only amounted
to 20,000 men. But he was joined by the Duke of Lorraine and
some of the German commanders, who were at the head of a
considerable army, and the Polish King crossed the Danube at
Tulm, above Vienna, with about 70,000 men. He then wheeled
round behind the Kalemberg Mountains to the north-west of
Vienna, with the design of taking the besiegers in the rear.
The Vizier took no heed of him; nor was any opposition made to
the progress of the relieving army through the difficult
country which it was obliged to traverse. On the 11th of
September the Poles were on the summit of the Mount
Kalemberg," overlooking the vast encampment of the besiegers.
Sobieski "saw instantly the Vizier's want of military skill,
and the exposure of the long lines of the Ottoman camp to a
sudden and fatal attack. 'This man,' said he, 'is badly
encamped: he knows nothing of war; we shall certainly beat
him.' … The ground through which Sobieski had to move down
from the Kalemberg was broken by ravines; and was so difficult
for the passage of the troops that Kara Mustapha might, by an
able disposition of part of his forces, have long kept the
Poles in check, especially as Sobieski, in his hasty march,
had brought but a small part of his artillery to the scene of
action. But the Vizier displayed the same infatuation and
imbecility that had marked his conduct throughout the
campaign. … Unwilling to resign Vienna, Mustapha left the
chief part of his Janissary force in the trenches before the
city, and led the rest of his army towards the hills, down
which Sobieski and his troops were advancing.
{1691}
In some parts of the field, where the Turks had partially
intrenched the roads, their resistance to the Christians was
obstinate; but Sobieski led on his best troops in person in a
direct line for the Ottoman centre, where the Vizier's tent
was conspicuous; and the terrible presence of the victor of
Khoczim was soon recognised. 'By Allah! the King is really
among us,' exclaimed the Khan of the Crimea, Selim Ghirai; and
turned his horse's head for flight. The mass of the Ottoman
army broke and fled in hopeless rout, hurrying Kara Mustapha
with them from the field. The Janissaries, who had been left
in the trenches before the city, were now attacked both by the
garrison and the Poles and were cut to pieces. The camp, the
whole artillery, and the military stores of the Ottomans
became the spoil of the conquerors; and never was there a
victory more complete, or signalised by more splendid
trophies. The Turks continued their panic flight as far as
Raab. … The great destruction of the Turks before Vienna was
rapturously hailed throughout Christendom as the announcement
of the approaching downfall of the Mahometan Empire in
Europe."
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 16._
"It was cold comfort to the inhabitants of Vienna, or to the
King of Poland, to know that even if St. Stephen's had shared
the fate of St. Sophia and become a mosque of Allah, and if
the Polish standards had been borne in triumph to the
Bosphorus, yet that, nevertheless, the undisciplined Ottomans
would infallibly have been scattered by French, German and
Swedish armies on the fields of Bavaria or of Saxony. Vienna
would have been sacked; Poland would have been a prey to
internal anarchy and to Tartar invasion. The ultimate triumph
of their cause would have consoled few for their individual
destruction. … So cool and experienced a diplomatist as Sir
William Temple did indeed believe, at the time, that the fall
of Vienna would have been followed by a great and permanent
increase of Turkish power. Putting this aside, however, there
were other results likely to spring from Turkish success. The
Turks constantly made a powerful diversion in favour of France
and her ambitious designs. Turkish victories upon the one side
of Germany meant successful French aggressions upon the other,
and Turkish schemes were promoted with that object by the
French. … 'If France would but stand neutral, the
controversy between Turks and Christians might soon be
decided,' says the Duke of Lorraine. But France would not
stand neutral."
_H. E. Malden,
Vienna, 1683,
chapter 1._
ALSO IN:
_G. B. Malleson,
The Battle-Fields of Germany,
chapter 9._
HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1687.
End of the insurrection of Tekeli.
Bloody vengeance of the Austrian.
The crown made hereditary in the House of Hapsburg.
The defeat of the Turks was likewise a defeat for the
insurgent Tekeli, or Tököli, "whom they called the king of the
Kurucz, and after it he found himself reduced to guerilla
warfare. The victory over the Turks was followed by the
capture of some of the chief Magyar towns … and in the end
[1686] Buda itself, which was at last recovered after so long
an occupation. … Kara Mustapha attributed his defeat to
Tököli, and had his former ally arrested and imprisoned in
Belgrade. His captivity put an end to the party of the king of
the Kurucz. … An amnesty was proclaimed and immediately
afterwards violated, the Italian general, Caraffa, becoming
the merciless executioner of imperial vengeance. He
established a court at Éperjes, and the horrors of this
tribunal recall the most atrocious deeds of the Spaniards in
the Low Countries. … After having terrorized Hungary,
Leopold thought he had the right to expect every sort of
concession. Notwithstanding persecution, up to this date the
monarchy had remained elective. He was determined it should
now become hereditary; and the diet of 1687, in conformity
with the wishes of the sovereign, made the crown hereditary in
the male line of the house of Habsburg."
_L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
chapter 20._
HUNGARY: A. D. 1683-1699.
Expulsion of the Turks.
Battle of Zenta.
Peace of Carlowitz.
After the great defeat of the Turks before Vienna, their
expulsion from Hungary was only a question of time. It began
the same autumn, in October, by the taking of Gran. In 1684,
the Imperialists under the Duke of Lorraine captured Visegrad
and Waitzen, but failed in a siege of Ofen, although they
defeated a Turkish army sent to its relief in July. In 1685
they took Neuhäusel by storm, and drove the Turks from Gran,
which these latter had undertaken to recover. Next year they
laid siege again to Ofen, investing the city on the 21st of
June and carrying it by a final assault on the 2d of
September. "Ofen, after having been held by the Porte, and
regarded as the third city in the Ottoman Empire, for 145
years, was restored to the sway of the Habsburgs." Before the
year closed the Austrians had acquired Szegedin, and several
lesser towns. The great event of the campaign of 1687 was a
battle on the field of Mohacs, where, in 1526, the Turks
became actual masters of Hungary, for the most part, while the
House of Austria acquired nominally the right to its crown. On
this occasion the fortune of 1526 was reversed. "The defeat
became a rout as decisive against the Turks as the earlier
battle on the same spot had proved to the Jagellons."
Transylvania and Slavonia were occupied as the consequence,
and Erlau surrendered before the close of the year. In 1688,
what seemed the crowning achievement of these campaigns was
reached in the recovery of Belgrade, after a siege of less
than a month. A Turkish army in Bosnia was destroyed; another
was defeated near Nissa, and that city occupied; and at the
end of 1689 the Turks held nothing north of the Danube except
Temeswar and Grosswardein (Great Waradein); while the
Austrians had made extensive advances, on the south of the
river, into Bosnia and Servia. Then occurred a great rally of
Ottoman energies, under an able Grand Vizier. In 1690, both
Nissa and Belgrade were retaken, and the Austrians were
expelled from Servia. But next year fortune favored the
Austrians once more and the Turks were severely beaten, by
Louis of Baden, on the field of Salankament. They still held
Belgrade, however, and the Austrians suffered heavily in
another attempt to regain that stronghold. For several years
little progress in the war was made on either side; until
Prince Eugene of Savoy received the command, in 1697, and
wrought a speedy change in the military situation.
{1682}
The Sultan, Mustapha II., had taken the Turkish command in
person, "with the finest army the Osmanli had raised since
their defeat at Mohacs." Prince Eugene attacked him, September
11, at Zenta, on the Theiss, and destroyed his army almost
literally. "When the battle ceased about 20,000 Osmanli lay on
the ground; some 10,000 had been drowned; scarcely 1,000 had
reached the opposite bank. There were but few prisoners.
Amongst the slain were the Grand Vizier and four other
Viziers. … By 10 o'clock at night not a single living
Osmanli remained on the right bank of the Theiss. … The
booty found in the camp surpassed all … expectations.
Everything had been left by the terror-stricken Sultan. There
was the treasury-chest, containing 3,000,000 piastres. … The
cost of these spoils had been to the victors only 300 killed
and 200 wounded. … The battle of Zenta, … regarded as part
of the warfare which had raged for 200 years between the
Osmanli and the Imperialists, … was the last, the most
telling, the decisive blow." It was followed by a period of
inaction, during which England and Holland undertook to
mediate between the Porte and its several Christian enemies.
Their mediation resulted in the meeting of a Congress at
Carlowitz, or Karlowitz, on the Danube, which was attended by
representatives of the Sultan, the Emperor, the Czar of
Russia, the King of Poland, and the republic of Venice. "Here,
after much negotiation, lasting seventy-two days, was
concluded, the 26th January, 1699, the famous Peace of
Carlowitz. The condition that each party should possess the
territories occupied by each at the moment of the meeting of
the congress formed its basis. By the treaty, then, the
frontier of Hungary, which, when the war broke out, extended
only to within a short distance of the then Turkish towns of
Gran and Neuhäusel, was pushed forward to within a short
distance of Temeswar and Belgrade. Transylvania and the
country of Bacska, between the Danube and the Theiss, were
yielded to the Emperor. To Poland were restored Kaminietz,
Podolia, and the supremacy over the lands watered by the
Ukraine, the Porte receiving from her in exchange, Soczava,
Nemos, and Soroka; to Venice, who renounced the conquests she
had made in the gulfs of Corinth and Ægina, part of the Morea,
and almost all Dalmatia, including the towns of Castelnuovo
and Cattaro; to Russia, the fortress and sea of Azof." By the
Peace of Carlowitz "the Ottoman Power lost nearly one-half of
its European dominions, and ceased to be dangerous to
Christendom. Never more would the discontented magnates of
Hungary be able to find a solid supporter in the sultan."
_G. B. Malleson,
Prince Eugene of Savoy,
chapters 2 and 4._
ALSO IN:
_Sir E. S. Creasy,
History of the Ottoman Turks,
chapter 17._
See, also, on the "Holy War," or "War of the "Holy League"
against the Turks, of which the war in Hungary formed only
a part, the TURKS: A. D. 1684—1696.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1699-1718.
The revolt of Rakoczy and its suppression.
The Treaty of Szathmar.
Recovery of Belgrade and final expulsion of the Turks.
Peace of Passarowitz.
"The peace of Carlowitz, which disposed of the Hungarian
territory without the will or knowledge of the Hungarian
States, in utter contempt of repeatedly confirmed laws, was in
itself a deep source of new discontent,—which was
considerably increased by the general policy continually
pursued by the Court of Vienna. Even after the coronation of
Joseph I., a prince who; if left to himself, might have
perhaps followed a less provoking line of conduct, Leopold,
the real master of Hungary, did not relinquish his design of
entirely demolishing its institutions. … The high clergy
were ready to second any measure of the government, provided
they were allowed full scope in their persecutions of the
Protestants. … Scarcely had three years passed since the
peace of Carlowitz was signed, when Leopold, just embarking in
the war of the Spanish succession, saw the Hungarians suddenly
rise up as one man in arms. … The head and soul of this new
struggle in Hungary was Francis Rakoczy II., the son of Helen
Zriny, by her first husband, after the death of whom she
became the wife of Tököli." Rakoczy entered the country from
Poland, with a few hundred men, in 1703, and issued a
proclamation which brought large numbers to his support. The
Austrian forces had been mostly drawn away, by the war of the
Spanish succession, into Italy and to the Rhine, and during
the first year of the insurrection the Hungarian patriot
became master of the greater part of the country. Then there
occurred a suspension of hostilities, while the English
government made a fruitless effort at mediation. On the
reopening of warfare, the Austrians were better prepared and
more encouraged by the circumstances of the larger contest in
which they were engaged; while the Hungarians were
correspondingly discouraged. They had promises of help from
France, and France failed them; they had expectations from
Russia, but nothing came of them. "The fortune of war
decidedly turned in favour of the imperialists, in consequence
of which numerous families, to escape their fury, left their
abodes to seek shelter in the national camp; a circumstance
which, besides clogging the military movements, contributed to
discourage the army and spread general consternation." In 1710
Rakoczy went to Poland, where he was long absent, soliciting
help which he did not get. "Before his departure, the chief
command of the troops was entrusted to Karoly, who, tired of
Rakoczy's prolonged and useless absence in Poland, assembled
the nobles at Szathmar, and concluded, in 1711, a peace known
as the Treaty of Szathmar. By this treaty the emperor engaged
to redress all grievances, civil and religious, promising,
besides, amnesty to all the adherents of Rakoczy, as well as
the restitution of many properties illegally confiscated.
Rakoczy protested from Poland against the peace concluded by
Karoly; but of what effect could be the censure and
remonstrance of a leader who, in the most critical emergency,
had left the scene of action in quest of foreign assistance,
which, he might have foreseen, would never be accorded. …
After the peace of Szathmar, Hungarian history assumes a quite
different character." Revolts are at an end for more than a
century, and "Hungary, without producing a single man of note,
lay in a state of deep lethargy." In 1714, the Emperor Charles
VI. (who, as King of Hungary, was Charles III.) began a new
war against the Porte, with Prince Eugene again commanding in
Hungary. "The sultan Achmet III., anticipating the design of
the imperial general [to concentrate his troops on the
Danube], marched his army across the Save, and, as will be
seen, to his own destruction.
{1683}
After a small success gained by Palfy, Eugene routed the Turks
at Petervardein [August 13, 1716], and captured besides nearly
all their artillery. Profiting by the general consternation of
the Turks, Eugene sent Palfy and the Prince of Wurtemberg to
lay siege to the fortress of Temesvar, which commands the
whole Banat, and which was surrendered by the Turks after a
heavy siege. By these repeated disasters the Mussulmans lost
all confidence in the success of their arms; and in the year
1717 they opened the gates of Belgrade to the imperial army.
The present campaign paved the way for the peace of
Passarowitz, a little town in Servia,—a peace concluded
between the Porte and the Emperor in 1718. In virtue of the
provisions of this treaty, the Porte abandoned the Banat, the
fortress of Belgrade, and a part of Bosnia, on the hither side
of the Unna, promising besides the free navigation of the
Danube to the people of the Austrian empire."
_E. Szabad,
Hungary, Past and Present,
part 2, chapter 5-6._
ALSO in:
_L. Felbermann,
Hungary and its People,
chapter 4._
See, also,
TURKS: A. D. 1714-1718.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1739:
Belgrade restored to the Turks.
See RUSSIA: A. D. 1725-1739.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1740.
The question of the Austrian Succession.
The Pragmatic Sanction.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1718-1738; and 1740.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1740-1741.
Beginning of the War of the Austrian Succession:
Faithlessness of Frederick the Great.
His seizure of Silesia.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1740-1741.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1741.
The War of the Austrian Succession:
Maria Theresa's appeal and the Magyar response.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1741 (JUNE-SEPTEMBER).
HUNGARY: A. D. 1780-1790.
Irritations of the reign of Joseph II.
Illiberality of the Hungarian nobles.
"The reign of Joseph II. is described by the historians of
Hungary and Bohemia as a disastrous time for the two
countries. Directly he ascended the throne he began to carry
out a series of measures which deeply irritated the Magyars.
With his philosophical ideas, the crown of Hungary was to him
nothing more than a Gothic bauble, and the privileges of the
nation only the miserable remains of an age of barbarism; the
political opinions of the Hungarians were as distasteful to
him as their customs, and he amused himself with ridiculing
the long beards and the soft boots of the great nobles. He
never would be crowned. He annoyed the bishops by his laws
against convents, while his tyrannical tolerance never
succeeded in contenting the Protestants. … On the 7th of
April, 1784, he ordered that the holy crown should be brought
to him in Vienna and placed in the imperial treasury. To
confiscate this symbol of Hungarian independence was, in the
eyes of the Magyars, an attempt at the suppression of the
nation itself, and the affront was deeply resented. Up to this
time the official language of the kingdom had been Latin, a
neutral tongue among the many languages in use in the various
parts of Hungary. Joseph believed he was proving his liberal
principles in substituting German, and that language took the
place of Latin. … Joseph II. soon learned that it is not
wise to attack the dearest prejudices of a nation. The edict
which introduced a foreign language was the signal for the new
birth of Magyar. … At the time of the death of Joseph II.
Hungary was in a state of violent disturbance. The 'comitat'
of Pesth proclaimed that the rule of the Hapsburgs was at an
end, and others threatened to do the same unless the national
liberties were restored by the new sovereign. All united in
demanding the convocation of the diet in order that the
long-suppressed wishes of the people might be heard. The
revolutionary wind which had passed over France had been felt
even by the Magyars, but there was this great difference in
its effect upon France and Hungary—in France, ideas of
equality had guided the revolution; in Hungary, the great
nobles and the squirearchy who formed the only political
element claimed, under the name of liberties, privileges which
were for the most part absolutely opposed to the ideas of the
Revolution of 1789. … Among the late reforms only one had
found favour in the eyes of the Magyars, and that was
toleration towards Protestants, and the reason of this was to
be found in the fact that the small landowners of Hungary were
themselves to a large extent Protestant; yet a democratic
party was gradually coming into existence which appealed to
the masses. … When France declared war against Francis II.
the Magyar nobles showed themselves quite ready to support
their sovereign; they asked for nothing better than to fight
the revolutionary democrats of Paris. Francis was crowned very
soon after his accession, and was able to obtain both men and
money from the diet; but before long, the reactionary measures
carried by Thugut his minister, lost him all the popularity
which had greeted him at the beginning of his reign. The
censorship of the press, the employment of spies, and the
persecution of the Protestants—a persecution, however, in
which the Hungarian Catholics themselves took an active
part—all helped to create discontent."
_L. Leger,
History of Austro-Hungary,
chapters 23 and 28._
HUNGARY: A. D. 1787-1791.
War with the Turks.
Treaty of Sistova.
See TURKS: A. D. 1776-1792.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1815-1844.
The wakening of the national spirit.
Patriotic labors of Szechenyi and Kossuth.
"The battle of Waterloo, in 1815, put an end to the terrible
struggle by which every country in Europe had for twenty years
been agitated. The sovereigns of the continent now breathed
freely … and their first act was to enter into a league
against their deliverers, to revoke all their concessions, and
break all their promises. … The most audacious of all those
who joined in framing the Holy Alliance was the emperor of
Austria. The Hungarians reminded him, in 1815, of his repeated
promises to redress their grievances, while they were voting
him men and money to defend his capital against the assaults
of Napoleon. He could not deny the promises, but he
emphatically declined to fulfil them. They asked him to
convoke the diet, but he … determined to dispense with it
for the future. … At last the popular ferment reached such a
pitch, that the government found it absolutely necessary to
yield the point in dispute. In 1825, Francis I. convoked the
diet, and from that moment the old struggle, which the wars
with France had suspended, was renewed. … The session was
… rendered for ever memorable by an incident, in itself of
trifling importance, but of vast significance when viewed in
connexion with subsequent events.
{1684}
It was in it that Count Stephen Szechenyi made his first
speech in the Magyar language. The life of this extraordinary
man is more remarkable as an instance of what may be achieved
by well-directed energy, labouring in obedience to the
dictates of patriotism, than for any brilliant triumphs of
eloquence or diplomacy. … He was no great orator; so that
his influence over the Magyars—an influence such as no
private individual has ever acquired over a people, except,
perhaps, Kossuth and O'Connell—must be looked upon rather as
the triumph of practical good sense and good intentions than
of rhetorical appeals to prejudices or passion. … The first
object to which his attention was directed was the restoration
of the Magyar language, which, under the Germanizing efforts
of Austria, had fallen into almost total disuse amongst the
higher classes. He knew how intimately the use of the national
language is connected with the feeling of nationality. … But
the Magyar was now totally neglected by the Magyar gentlemen.
Latin was the language of the diet, and of all legal and
official documents, and German and French were alone used in
good society. Szechenyi, as the first step in his scheme of
reformation, set about rescuing it from the degradation and
disuse into which it had fallen; and as the best of all ways
to induce others to do a thing is to do it oneself first, he
rose in the diet of 1825, and, contrary to previous usage,
made a speech in Magyar. His colleagues were surprised; the
magnates were shocked; the nation was electrified. … The
diet sat for two years, and during the whole of that period
Szechenyi continued his use of the native language, in which
he strenuously opposed the designs of the court, and was soon
considered the leader of the opposition or liberal party,
which speedily grew up around him. His efforts were so
successful, that before the close of the session, Francis was
compelled to acknowledge the illegality of his previous acts,
formally to recognize the independence of the country, and
promise to convoke the diet at least once in every three
years. … He [Szechenyi] soon had the satisfaction of seeing
the Hungarian language growing to general use, but he was
still vexed to see the total want of unity, co-operation, and
communion which prevailed amongst the nobles, owing to the
want of a newspaper press, or of any place of re-union where
political subjects could be discussed amongst men of the same
party with freedom and confidence. This he remedied by the
establishment of the casino, at Pesth, upon the plan of the
London clubs. He next turned his attention to the
establishment of steam navigation on the Danube. … He …
rigged out a boat, sailed down the Danube right to the Black
Sea, explored it thoroughly, found it navigable in every part,
went over to England, studied the principles of the
steam-engine as applied to navigation, brought back English
engineers, formed a company, and at last confounded the
multitude of sceptics, who scoffed at his efforts, by the
sight of a steam-boat on the river in full work. This feat was
accomplished in October, 1830. … In the interval which
followed the dissolution of the diet, Szechenyi still followed
up his plan of reform with unwearied diligence, and owing to
his exertions, a party was now formed which sought not merely
the strict observance of the existing laws, but the reform of
them, the abolition of the unjust privileges of the nobles,
the emancipation of the peasantry, the establishment of a
system of education, the equal distribution of the taxes, the
equality of all religious sects, the improvement of the
commercial code and of internal communication, and though
last, not least, the freedom of the press. These projects were
all strenuously debated, but on this occasion without any
practical result. The next meeting was for a long time
delayed, upon one pretext or another. At last it was convened
in 1832, and proved in many respects one of the most important
that had ever assembled. … The man who in future struggles
was destined to play so prominent a part, during the whole of
these … proceedings, was merely an intent and diligent
looker-on. … He was a gentleman of noble origin, of course,
but his whole fortune lay in his talents, which at that period
were devoted to journalism—a profession which the Hungarians
had not yet learned to estimate at its full value. He was
still but thirty years of age, and within the diet he was
known as a promising young man, although, amongst the world
without, his name—the name of Louis Kossuth, which has since
become a household word in two hemispheres—had never yet been
heard. … Whether from the jealousy of the government or the
apathy of the Magyars, no printed reports of the parliamentary
proceedings had ever yet been published. … To supply this
defect, Kossuth resolved to devote the time, which would
otherwise have been wasted in idle listening, to carefully
reporting everything that took place, and circulated it all
over the country on a small printed sheet. The importance of
the proceedings which then occupied the attention of the diet
caused it to be read with extraordinary eagerness, and Kossuth
rendered it still more attractive by amplifying, and often
even embellishing, the speeches. The cabinet, however, soon
took the alarm, and although the censorship was unknown to the
Hungarian law, prohibited the printing and publication of the
reports. This was a heavy blow, but Kossuth was not baffled.
He instantly gathered round him a great number of young men to
act as secretaries, who wrote out a great number of copies of
the journal, which were then circulated in manuscript
throughout Hungary. The government was completely foiled, and
new ardour was infused into the liberal party. When the
session was at an end he resolved to follow up his plan by
reporting the meetings of the county assemblies, which were
then the scenes of fiery debates. … The government stopped
his journal in the post-office. He then established a staff of
messengers and carriers, who circulated it from village to
village. The enthusiasm of the people was fast rising to a
flame. A crisis was imminent. It was resolved to arrest
Kossuth. … He was seized, and shut up in the Neuhaus, a
prison built at Pesth by Joseph II. He was, however, not
brought to trial till 1839, and was then sentenced to four
years' imprisonment. The charge brought against him was, that
he had circulated false and inaccurate reports; but the real
ground of offence was, as everyone knew, that he had
circulated any reports at all. … Kossuth, after his
liberation from prison, had taken up his abode for a short
period at a watering place called Parad, for the purpose of
recruiting his shattered health, and for a time wholly
abstained from taking any part in public affairs.
{1685}
On the first of January, 1841, however, a printer in Pesth,
named Landerer, obtained permission to publish a journal
entitled 'Pesthi Hirlap,' or the Pesth Gazette. He offered the
editorship to Kossuth, who accepted it, but only on condition
that he should be perfectly untrammelled in the expression of
his opinions. … Kossuth … soon raised the circulation of
his paper to 10,000 copies—an immense number in a country
where the newspaper press had hitherto hardly had a footing.
He made vigorous onslaughts upon the privileges of the
noblesse, and pleaded the cause of the middle and lower
classes unanswerably. … In 1844, owing to a change of
ministry which threw the liberals out of office, he lost the
editorship of the Gazette; but he had kindled a flame which
now blazed fiercely enough of itself."
_E. L. Godkin,
History of Hungary,
chapter 21._
HUNGARY: A. D. 1847-1849.
The struggle for National Independence and its failure.
"A strong spirit of nationality had been growing up for many
years, greatly fostered by Louis Kossuth, a newspaper editor.
The old Magyar language, which had been treated as barbarous,
was cultivated. Books and papers were printed in the tongue,
all with the spirit of independence as a country and a race
apart from that of the Austrians. In November, 1847, Ferdinand
V. had opened the Diet in person, and proposed reforms in the
Constitution were put before him. Count Batthyani, Prince
Esterhazy, Kossuth, and others, drew up a scheme which was
laid before the Emperor in the April of 1848, amid the crash
of revolutions, and was assented to by him. But the other
tribes within the kingdom of Hungary, the Rascians and Croats,
began to make separate demands, and to show themselves
stronger than the Magyars and Germans scattered among them. It
was strongly suspected that they were encouraged by the
Austrian powers in order to break down the new Hungarian
constitution. The Hungarian council applied to have their
national troops recalled from Lombardy, where, under Radetzky,
they were preserving the Emperor's power; but this could not
be granted, and only a few foreign regiments, whom they
distrusted, were sent them. Disturbances broke out, and at the
same time the Wallachians in Transylvania rose, and committed
ravages on the property of Hungarians. The confusion was
great, for these insurgents called the constitutional
government of Hungary rebels, and professed to be upholding
the rights of the Emperor, and, on the other hand, the
Hungarian government viewed them as rebels. … Meantime a
high-spirited Croatian officer, Baron Jellachich, had been
appointed Ban of Croatia, and collected forces from among his
wild countrymen to put down the Hungarian rule. … Jellachich
advanced upon Pesth, and thus showed the Government there that
in Ferdinand's eyes they were the rebels. Batthyani resigned,
and Kossuth set himself to raise the people. Jellachich was
defeated, and entered the Austrian states, appearing to menace
Vienna. The effect of this was a tremendous insurrection of
the Viennese, who seized Latour, the minister at war, savagely
murdered him, and hung his body, stripped naked, to a
lamp-post. The Viennese, under the command of the Polish
General Bern, now prepared for a siege, while Windischgrätz
and Jellachich collected a large army of Austrians and
Croatians, besieged the city, stormed it on the 30th of
October, and made an entrance, when all the ringleaders of the
rebellion were treated with great severity. Jellachich then
prepared to lead his Croats into Hungary, which was a very
different matter, since the constitutional government there
had been formed under the sanction and encouragement of
Ferdinand. Kossuth and the rest of the ministry therefore
thought themselves justified in naming a committee of public
safety, and voting the raising of an army of 200,000 men.
Ferdinand V., now an old man, felt himself no longer capable
of coping with all the discordant forces of the empire; a
family council was held at Olmütz, whither the Court had
retired, and it was decided that he should abdicate, and that
his next brother, Francis Charles, should waive his right in
favour of his son, Francis Joseph, a promising and amiable
young man of twenty, who, it was hoped, would conciliate
matters. On December 2d, 1848, the change was made, and the
new Emperor put forth a proclamation, promising constitutional
government, liberty of the press, and all that could conduce
to true freedom, but called on all faithful subjects to
repress the rebellions that were raging in the provinces. Both
in Lombardy and in Hungary this was taken as defiance; indeed,
the Magyars considered that neither the abdication of
Ferdinand, nor the accession of Francis Joseph to their
throne, was valid without the consent of the Diet. Prince
Windischgrätz was sent to reduce them with a considerable
army, while Kossuth showed remarkable ability in getting
together supplies for the Hungarian force, which was commanded
by Generals Bem and Görgei. The difficulties of passing the
mountains in the winter told much against the Austrians,
though a corps of Russians was sent to their assistance. Five
considerable battles were fought in the early spring of 1849,
and in April Windischgrätz was fairly driven across the Danube
out of the country."
_C. M. Yonge,
Landmarks of Recent History,
chapter 3, part 5._
"On the 4th of March [1849] a new Imperial Charter was
promulgated at Olmütz, containing many excellent provisions,
but having this fatal defect, that in it Hungary was merged
completely in the Austrian Empire, and all its ancient
institutions obliterated. On the 14th of April the Imperial
Decree was answered by the Declaration of Independence, in
which the Hapsburg dynasty was proclaimed to have forfeited
all right to the Hungarian throne, and to be banished for ever
from the country. Kossuth was appointed Governor, and a new
Ministry was chosen, under the Premiership of M. Szemere, the
late Minister for Home Affairs in the Batthyány Government.
For a while the national army was victorious. … But the
despotic princes of Europe were now recovering from the panic
that had demoralised them and their principles in 1848; the
time had come for absolutism to rally its forces and reassert
itself after the old fashion. Acting on the maxim that 'La
raison du plus fort est toujours la meilleure,' the Emperor of
Austria, after previous arrangement with his imperial brother
in St. Petersburg, felt at liberty to disavow and ignore the
arguments for constitutional government which had seemed so
cogent to his predecessor. … In July the Czar's troops a
second time entered Hungary, this time with no disavowal of
political motives, but on the ground that His majesty, having
always reserved to himself entire freedom of action whenever
revolutions in neighboring States should place his own in
danger, was now convinced that the internal security of his
empire was menaced by what was passing and preparing in
Hungary.'
{1686}
… In August, Gorgei, the commander-in-chief of the national
army, who had been nominated Dictator in the place of Kossuth,
was invested with full powers to treat for a peace, and
instructed to act according to the best of his ability to save
the national existence of Hungary. At Vilagós, on the 13th of
August, the Hungarian army, by order of the new Dictator, laid
down their arms, and surrendered—not to the Austrians, but to
the Russian general Rudiger. Thanks to the united efforts of
300,000 of the flower of the Austrian and Russian troops, the
Hungarian rebellion was at an end. … General Haynau presided
over the Bloody Assizes of Pesth and Arad, and the long roll
of Hungarian patriots condemned to death at the hands of the
Austrian hangman was headed by such names as Count Batthyány
and General Damyanics, the wounded leader of the 'Redcaps,'
the famous student brigade. Those who escaped death found a
refuge in England, America, or Turkey, whither they carried
with them bitter memories of wrong and suffering inflicted,
and an undying 'love for the country of their birth. Those
bitter memories have happily died away, under the healing
influence of time, and still more of that great work of
reconciliation which a wise generosity on both sides has
effected between the two countries."
_Francis Deak,
Hungarian Statesman: a memoir,
chapter 14._
See, also,
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1849.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1850.
Contemplated recognition of the revolutionary government by
the United States.
The Hülsemann Letter of Daniel Webster.
See UNITED STATES OF AMERICA: A. D. 1850-1851.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1849-1859.
Completed Emancipation of the peasantry.
Restoration of pure absolutism.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1848-1859.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1856-1868.
Recovery of nationality.
Formation of the dual Austro-Hungarian empire.
In 1856, the Emperor, Francis Joseph, "proclaimed an amnesty
against the political offenders, and in the following year he
decreed the restoration of their estates, and further steps
were taken to study the wishes of the Hungarians. In 1859
other concessions were made, notably as to provincial
Governments in Hungary, and they were given free
administration as to their educational and religious rites in
the Magyar tongue. In 1860 the 'Curia Regia' were reinstated,
and finally, in 1861, the whole Constitution was restored to
Hungary and its dependencies, Transylvania, Croatia, and
Slavonia. The Hungarian Parliament, which had been closed for
so many years, reopened its gates. These concessions, however,
did not satisfy the Magyars, who wanted perfect autonomy for
their country. … The Hungarians refused to pay taxes, which
therefore had to be collected by military aid. In 1865 the
Hungarian Parliament was opened by the Emperor in person, who
gave his assent to the Self-Government of Hungary, but further
details had still to be arranged, and the war which broke out
between Austria, Prussia and Italy in 1866 prevented these
from being carried out. On the strength of the Emperor's
promise to accede to the wishes of his Hungarian subjects, the
Hungarians fought most bravely in Germany and in Italy for the
Austrian cause, but the disorganized system that then existed
in the Austrian army was the cause of their defeat, and the
dissolution of the German confederation, over which Austria
presided for so many years. The final result of this was that
a perfect autonomy for Hungary was reinstated in 1867, and the
Dual System was introduced, by which Hungary received perfect
freedom and independence as to the administration of its
affairs without any interference from Austria, and became, so
to say, a partner in the newly-formed Austro-Hungarian
Monarchy. The Austro-Hungarian Dual Monarchy, as also
described in the able 'Memoir' on Francis Deák, to which Sir
Mountstuart E. Grant-Duff wrote a preface, is constituted as
follows:
I. The Common Ministry for the Austro-Hungarian monarchy
consists of a Minister for Foreign Affairs, for War, and for
Finance.
II. In each half of the monarchy there is a separate Ministry
of Worship, of Finance, Commerce, Justice, Agriculture, and
National Defence, headed respectively by a Minister-President
of the Council.
III. The Lower House in the Austrian Reichsrath consists of
353 members, in the Hungarian Diet of 444, now chosen in both
cases by direct election.
IV. The Delegations, composed respectively of sixty members
from each half of the monarchy, are elected annually from
amongst their parliamentary representatives of the majority in
each province by the members of the two Houses of the Austrian
and Hungarian Legislatures.
V. The two Delegations, who meet alternately at Vienna and
Budapest, deliberate separately, their discussions being
confined strictly to affairs of common interest, with regard
to which the Delegations have the right to interpellate the
Common Minister and to propose laws or amendments. In case of
disagreement between the two Delegations the question of
policy at issue is discussed by an interchange of written
messages; drawn up in the official language—German or
Hungarian—of the Delegation sending the message, and
accompanied by an authorized translation in the language of
the Delegation to which it is addressed.
VI. If, after the interchange of three successive notes, an
agreement between the two bodies is not arrived at, the
question is put to the vote by ballot without further debate.
The Delegates, of whom in a plenary session there must be an
equal number present from each Delegation, vote individually,
the Emperor-King having the casting vote.
VII. By virtue of the present definition of common affairs,
the cost of the diplomatic service and the army, except the
Honvéds (militia), is defrayed out of the Imperial revenues,
to which Hungary contributes a proportion of 30 per 100.
VIII. With reference to the former, it is stipulated that all
international treaties be submitted to the two Legislatures by
their respective Ministries; with reference to the latter,
that whilst the appointment to the military command of the
whole army, as also to that of the national force of Hungary,
is in the hands of the Sovereign, the settlement of matters
affecting the recruiting, length of service, mobilization, and
pay of the Honvéd army (the militia) remains with the
Hungarian Legislature.
{1687}
IX. Those matters which it is desirable should be subject to
the same legislation, such as customs, indirect taxation,
currency, etc., etc., are regulated by means of treaties,
subject to the approval of the two Legislatures. In cases
where the two parties are unable to come to an agreement, each
retains the right to decide such questions in accordance with
their own special interests.
X. In common affairs, the decisions arrived at by the
Delegations (within the scope of their powers), and sanctioned
by the Sovereign, become thenceforth fundamental laws; each
Ministry is bound to announce them to its respective National
Legislature, and is responsible for their execution.
It should be here mentioned that the late great and lamented
Hungarian statesman, Deák, and also the late Count Beust, have
by their personal efforts contributed a great deal to these
concessions being granted. The Hungarian Parliament was
reopened in 1867, and the late Count Julius Andrássy, … who
escaped to England from the noose of the hangman, became its
Prime Minister. … In 1868 the Emperor and Empress entered in
great state the town of Buda, and were crowned with the
greatest pomp with the Apostolic crown of St. Stephen."
_L. Felbermann,
Hungary and its People,
chapter 5._
ALSO IN:
_Francis Deak: a memoir,
chapters 26-31._
_Count von Beust,
Memoirs,
volume 2, chapter 38._
See, also,
AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1867,
and FEDERAL GOVERNMENTS: MODERN FEDERATIONS.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1866-1887.
Difficulties and promises of the Austro-Hungarian empire.
Its ambitions in southeastern Europe.
See AUSTRIA: A. D. 1866-1887.
HUNGARY: A. D. 1894.
Death of Kossuth.
Louis Kossuth, the leader of the revolutionary movement of
1848, died at Turin on the 20th of March, 1894, aged
ninety-two years. He had refused to the end of his life to be
reconciled to the Austro-Hungarian government, or to
countenance the acceptance by the Hungarians of the dual
nationality established by the constitution of 1867, and
remained an exile in Italy. After his death his remains were
brought to Budapest, and their burial, which took place on
Sunday, April 1st, was made the occasion of a great national
demonstration of respect.
----------HUNGARY: End--------