Emperor Ferdinand I

Although he may not have been what the world would consider a “successful” monarch, I have always had a soft spot for the Austrian Emperor Ferdinand I. He was, undoubtedly, handicapped but probably not so disabled as most people think and he was a very kind man, a devoutly religious man and a monarch who did the best he could for as long as he could. He was born on April 19, 1793, the first son of the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II and his consort Maria Theresa of Naples and Sicily. Unfortunately, because the two were so closely related (being double first cousins), Ferdinand was born with some severe disabilities. The Emperor was overjoyed with the birth of his little boy, looking with his heart rather than his head, and hurriedly announced the arrival of a “healthy” baby which was certainly not the case. Medical staff had to work hard to keep him alive and it was evident from his unusually large head that he had severe problems. Among his ailments were water on the brain, soft bones and severe epilepsy, causing him to have as many as twenty seizures a day. There were also other neurological problems that became evident as he grew older. He was, for example, very slow in learning to talk and when he did, suffered from a considerable speech impediment.

His health was always fragile and, unlike most Hapsburg heirs, his formative years were spent only with feminine attendants, being six years old before he was given a male tutor. Because of his disabilities, learning was difficult but not impossible, though it often seemed his education was not appropriate to his position. Still, he enjoyed studying heraldry and was fascinated with new technologies and farming. His mother had always kept him rather hidden from public view but things changed following her death (when Ferdinand was only 14) when he was given a new stepmother in the person of Maria Ludovika of Modena. She dismissed his old tutors, considering their regimen unhealthy, and appointed a new staff that would push him toward a more “normal” life. He became more independent, was taught how to read and write, how to ride a horse, to dance, fence and was even given piano lessons. He enjoyed drawing and the Empress encouraged this but after a problem with his tutor, his education was declared sufficient and he was moved on to study military theory, science and the like. Despite being handicapped, he kept a regular diary and was capable of making good sense, even becoming known for his sharp eye and witty remarks. By the time he was 36-years old in 1829 he was sitting in on State Council meetings to prepare him for his future role as emperor.

The following year, in 1830, at the insistence of his father, the heir was formally crowned King Ferdinand V of Hungary on September 28 in Pressburg. The Hungarian elite presented him with a gift of 50,000 ducats which he donated to the poor of Hungary. As this marked Ferdinand coming more into his own, it was necessary for him to marry and, as usual for the time, the Imperial Family and government took up the matter with Ferdinand having little say. The choice they agreed on was Princess Maria Anna of Savoy, daughter of King Victor Emanuel I. Obviously, the disabled crown prince was not the sort of man a young girl dreams of marrying and the Italian princess reportedly burst into tears when told of her fate. However, with the selfless dedication of so many daughters of her house, she carried on and did her duty. The two were married and, happily, became a touchingly devoted couple. Despite his repeated best efforts, Ferdinand’s seizures made it impossible for him to ever consummate their marriage but he loved his wife and she took great care of her rather infirm husband throughout his life with never a word of complaint. She looked beyond his disabilities to see the sweet natured, good man underneath. Of course, not everyone displayed such a Christian attitude and not long after the crown prince narrowly survived an assassination attempt in 1832, an occupational hazard the House of Hapsburg was all too familiar with. The good nature of Ferdinand was displayed again at his wedding when he donated his wedding gifts to built a new waterworks for the city of Vienna.

On March 2, 1835 Emperor Francis passed away and his son succeeded him as Emperor Ferdinand I of Austria, as well as, of course, King of Hungary and Croatia, King of Bohemia and King of Lombardy-Venetia among his long list of titles. Emperor Ferdinand was, in fact, the last to be crowned King of Bohemia and the last to be crowned with the sacred Iron Crown of Lombardy (he would be crowned King of Lombardy-Venetia in 1838 and crowned King of Bohemia with the Crown of St Wenceslas in 1836). Obviously, because of his disabilities, public appearances could be problematic and the new Emperor needed a great deal of assistance in governing the Austrian Empire. Because of that, the effective running of the multi-nation state was left to a three-man regency council led by the veteran statesman Prince Metternich. However, it must be remembered (though all too often it is not) that Emperor Ferdinand was never declared to be incapacitated, he was able to perform many physical activities from riding to fencing to shooting, was conversant in five languages and could play two musical instruments. The idea that he was some sort of mental vegetable is completely untrue and unfounded.

It was during the reign of Emperor Ferdinand that industrialization took off with great speed in the Austrian Empire and his time on the throne was particularly known for the boom in railroad construction. He also saw the establishment of the Austrian Academy of Sciences and the Emperor took a great interest in all of these areas. It is also untrue that, despite the popular perception, Emperor Ferdinand I never had to deal with any major problems and folded at the first crisis to come along. There was, for example, a rebellion in Poland in 1846 which was put down by Austrian troops and paved the way for the annexation of Cracow to the Austrian Empire. However, undoubtedly, Emperor Ferdinand was a peaceful man who preferred compassion to military confrontation. Some felt he was often too kind such as when, in the aftermath of his coronation as King of Lombardy-Venetia, he granted a general amnesty that released many Italian nationalists and revolutionaries who would continue on with their goal to see the Austrians driven out of Italy. Still, his disabilities, while they should not be exaggerated, certainly cannot be ignored. It is, however, unfortunate that all many people seem to remember about Emperor Ferdinand is the story of his supposedly only coherent command  being, “I am the Emperor and I want dumplings!”

Emperor Ferdinand was not helpless nor an imbecile as he is so often portrayed. In fact, he should be credited for having the intelligence to know his own limitations and those limitations were reached with the outbreak of the Revolutions of 1848. In seemed to take no time at all for nearly the whole of Europe to be thrown into rebellion and turmoil. It was a monumental crisis and Emperor Ferdinand realized as much as anyone that he was simply not up to the job. Even the formidable Prince Metternich fled the country as riots broke out in Vienna. When viewing the mob from a palace window, the benign and somewhat perplexed Emperor turned to an attendant to ask, “But, are they allowed to do that?” The Imperial court was forced to leave Vienna for the safety of Innsbruck and there began to plan the counter-revolution to take back the capital and restore order to the empire. To command this campaign, a younger, healthy monarch was needed and Archduchess Sophie, a formidable woman without question, was quick to point to her son Francis Joseph (her husband being both less capable and less willing to assume the throne). Emperor Ferdinand could easily see that this was the best course of action, he had the advice of the able statesman Prince Felix von Schwarzenberg, and abdicated in favor of his nephew, handing power over to him and pledging his own allegiance.

When the 18-year old new monarch thanked his former emperor, Ferdinand replied, “Don’t mention it, Franzl, it was a real pleasure”. During his reign (especially in Bohemia) he had been known as “Ferdinand the Good” but after his abdication the wittier members of the rebellious mob dubbed him “Goodinand the Finished”. No doubt they were less glib after a taste of the determination of the new monarch and the fire of marshals Radetzky and Windisch-Graetz. For his part, Emperor Ferdinand, who referred to his change in status as a ‘transfer of government’ rather than an abdication, retired with his beloved wife to Prague Castle. He and his wife devoted much time to the Church, both being devoutly religious people, and (to the surprise of the misinformed) he actually showed himself to be a quite competent businessman, dealing in local Bohemian goods, increasing the trade and profits of the region, in the process amassing a considerable fortune for himself which made up much of the wealth of Emperor Francis Joseph following the death of his uncle. Emperor Ferdinand I died in Prague on June 29, 1875 at the age of 82 and was buried in the Imperial Crypt in Vienna with his predecessors.

It is unfortunate that all too often Emperor Ferdinand I is remembered only for odd sayings and portrayed as someone who barely comprehended the world around him. He is the sort, rare though such cases are, upheld by revolutionaries as an example of the “danger” of monarchy and hereditary authority. The truth, of course, is that Emperor Ferdinand, while certainly disabled (through no fault of his own) was much more capable than he is usually given credit for. He was a good man, a devoted husband and a faithful and pious son of the Church. Slightly slow, perhaps, but still more intelligent than a great many perfectly healthy people and he was a man who knew his own limitations. His abdication (or “transfer of government”) was based on his sense of duty to the Austrian Empire and that sense of duty had guided his life. Despite his limitations, he worked hard to do the best job he could for his countries and all his peoples. Far from being an example of the “danger” of monarchy, the case of Emperor Ferdinand shows that just because a monarch is handicapped, things do not fall apart. The outbreak of revolution in Austria cannot be attributed to his disabilities as such unrest broke out in France and Germany with perfectly healthy rulers. When it was realized that he was not up to the challenge, Ferdinand I accepted that the best thing for his house and his empire was to step down in favor of another. It was all handled “in house”, quickly, smoothly and to the benefit of all. That is how Emperor Ferdinand should be remembered; as a good, faithful man and monarch who persisted in spite of adversity to do the best for his empire.

A World Without the Hapsburgs

For most countries, when monarchy comes to an end there may be some wider repercussions but, for the most part, the impact is felt by the individual country in question alone. When it comes to the fall of the House of Hapsburg and the dissolution of that entity formerly known as Austria-Hungary, the absence of the monarchy has impacted numerous countries to the present time. Leaving aside the large or small pieces incorporated into other neighboring countries, there is still the Czech Republic, Austria, Slovenia, Croatia, Bosnia-Herzegovina, Hungary and Slovakia that, in their entirety, were formerly part of the Dual-Monarchy of the House of Hapsburg. How have these lands progressed on their own without the monarchy that once bound them together? The short answer, obviously, would be, ‘not very well’. Whereas the Empire of Austria-Hungary, that last bastion of old Europe, while not a major world power, was certainly on the top tier on the world stage and a force to be taken seriously; separately, each of these powers is today barely known to most people around the world. This was something that most realized even at the time of the fall of Austria-Hungary or at least in the immediate aftermath.

Infant of Prague

This can be seen most clearly in our first case; Czechoslovakia. The first, most obvious thing that stands out about Czechoslovakia is that it was exactly what critics had previously dismissed Austria-Hungary for being, only worse; an inorganic state (which most of Austria-Hungary was not) that lumped together two major and various minor nationalities into one political unit. This was undeniably a weakness for the Austrian Empire, later Austria-Hungary, but it survived as long as it did because it was never based on nationality and never pretended to be. It was based on loyalty to a shared monarch which, obviously, Czechoslovakia lacked and in due time it broke up into the Czech and Slovak republics which exist today. Even then, however, it broke apart much sooner but was artificially put back together after World War II with the imposed unity that came with communist military force. Czechoslovakia was beset by problems between the Czechs and Slovaks from the very beginning (though this is often overlooked) but it also contained other minorities which proved to be problematic and in the same way that certain minorities were a problem for Austria-Hungary. This was the case when it came to ethnic minorities that did not lack a state but which existed outside a neighboring nation-state.

What is perhaps most ridiculous about this is that it was so clearly recognizable at the time and of course the minority that would prove most problematic would be the German minority, right next door to an increasingly racialist nation-state after the Nazis came to power in Germany. This was obviously going to be a problem as can be seen in the case of Italy for example. When the Allies, rather than taking away from the spoils promised to Serbia, handed Italy the Trentino-Alto Adige many Italian leaders, civil and military, were less than overjoyed, specifically because they feared that a concentrated German-speaking population would mean nothing but trouble in the future (and all the while there were Italian-populated areas that went to the new Yugoslavia). So no one can claim that, in the aftermath of the Great War, no one could foresee such difficulties might arise as certainly did arise for Czechoslovakia regarding the Sudeten Germans. The only hope Czechoslovakia had for her survival was in collective security, trusting to foreign alliances to keep them from being taken apart bit by bit at the expense of their neighbors. Allied leaders may, perhaps, have had a problem explaining why this was superior to the collective security that had previously been provided by the union of Czechs, Slovaks, Germans, Magyars, Slovenes, and Croats etc under the banner of Austria-Hungary. Czechoslovakia was, essentially, simply a smaller and weaker version of Austria-Hungary which lacked the strengthening forces of shared history and the Hapsburg monarchy.

Czech Crown

Under the House of Hapsburg, everyone at least had one monarch in common but, in republican Czechoslovakia, what did the Germans, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Ukrainians and Hungarians have in common? Moreover, whereas Emperor Charles I of Austria-Hungary had been prepared to federalize his empire, granting all groups equal status, in Czechoslovakia, despite what promises existed on paper, minorities were often treated badly. It may not be popular to say today in light of later events but the German population was really not treated terribly well and even the supposedly equal Slovaks were often frustrated by the fact that they came to hold a noticeably secondary status to the larger Czech community. The country eventually fell apart because of Nazi Germany, yet, the leadership of Czechoslovakia had always been more worried about the Hungarians and the “Little Entente” of Czechoslovakia, Romania and Yugoslavia was primarily aimed at Hungary. In one way this might be understandable as Hungary certainly had cause to be resentful as the Hungarians lost more than just about anyone in the post-war carve-up, but that is also partly why it did not work, because Yugoslavia and certainly Romania (at least when it came to Hungary) had more to lose than Czechoslovakia if war ever broke out with a Hungary intent on re-taking their lost territories.

So, in the end, Czechoslovakia fell apart. The Czech half fell under the domination of Hitler as the Protectorate of Bohemia and Moravia, Hungary and Poland took a slice and Slovakia only remained independent, essentially as a German protectorate, because Hitler, in so many words, told them that if they did not cooperate with him, he would let the Hungarians have at them. After World War II, Czechoslovakia was reestablished by Allied agreement, though with the Soviet Union taking a slice of territory in the east and they brought decades of oppression, murder and an ever higher rate of poverty to a country that had previously been fairly prosperous. They also, contrary to the very Catholic Hapsburg monarchy, imposed a campaign of atheism on the country that proved horribly effective. Particularly in the Czech Republic, religious belief has declined rapidly to the point that the republic is, today, one of the least religious countries in the world. It is bad. If things continue at the rate they are going, one of these days they will be putting the Infant of Prague up for adoption. And, of course, as mentioned earlier, on the first day of 1993 the Czech and Slovak peoples divorced and have since joined the European Union -another multi-national collection of countries with little to nothing in common. The more things change right?

Croat troops in World War I

Much the same could be said for Croatia, Slovenia and Bosnia which were all more or less ceded to Serbia after World War I to create what eventually became the Kingdom of Yugoslavia but which was effectively the “Greater Serbia” that Serb nationalists had been longing for. In some ways things were better, but in others ways Yugoslavia was even more problematic than Czechoslovakia. One benefit was that the new created state was a monarchy, and even during the darkest days of World War II the monarchy was still able to unite many people, but it was the Serbian monarchy and an Orthodox monarchy and so was not as liable to be accepted by the great number of people who were not Serbian or Orthodox. True, the Hapsburg empire contained people of many different religious beliefs with Catholics, Protestants, Orthodox, Jews and Muslims but, outside of Bosnia perhaps, the largest majority of people in Bohemia, Moravia, Slovakia, Slovenia, Croatia, Austria and Hungary were Catholic just like their Imperial-Royal Family. And again, before, during and after World War I there was a renewed emphasis on nationalism and even without the religious differences there were bound to be problems between Serbs, Bosnians, Croats and Slovenes as well as other minority groups in Yugoslavia.

King Alexander I of Yugoslavia did his best to hold things together, outlawing political parties, regional distinctions (flags and such symbols), renaming things and centralizing power. How that may have worked in the long-run we will never know but in the short term it only embittered the nationalities further, though the King did have the good sense to ban the communist party which is always a smart move. The King was finally assassinated by a Bulgarian terrorist from a group that opposed Macedonia being part of Yugoslavia. He was succeeded by the young King Peter II, acted for by Prince-Regent Paul who was eventually forced into cooperating with the Rome-Berlin Axis. Ironically, the leaders of Yugoslavia, just like the last Emperor of Austria-Hungary, finally determined that the only solution would be to federalize their country but they were prevented by the outbreak of World War II. Prince Paul was overthrown in a coup, King Peter II broke with the Axis and embraced the Allies which prompted the German and Italian invasion of Yugoslavia. The country was divided up again and there was horrific violence and cruelty as a civil war was basically fought throughout Yugoslavia in conjunction with World War II. The bitterness and desire for revenge would last for many decades to come.

Tito

In the end, as with most of the other successor-states of Austria-Hungary, it was the communists who emerged as the victors and Yugoslavia was forcibly put back together under the dictatorship of “Tito” and was even almost merged with Bulgaria in what would have been an even bigger witch’s supper but Stalin nixed that idea. For some reason which eludes me, some people romanticize Tito’s dictatorship but, while certainly not as bad as Albania or Cambodia, it was a communist tyranny with all of the injustice, cruelty and suffering that goes with that. Today, amazingly, many people view Tito as some sort of romantic, revolutionary figure or the “good” communist dictator, for seemingly no other reason than that he wanted to be a dictator and not simply the stooge of Stalin in Moscow. This is a dangerous mistake. Just because Communist Yugoslavia was not as bad as Pol Pot’s Cambodia does not mean it was a picnic and the member states have still not recovered from the impact of communist rule even today. Additionally, as we all know, when Tito died in 1980 the country began to fragment in the absence of the dictator and within ten years bitter and brutal civil war engulfed the region as the former Yugoslavia broke up.

The break-up of Austria-Hungary was certainly traumatic but it was nothing compared to the horror of the conflict that accompanied the break-up of Yugoslavia with massacres, reprisals and accusations of ethnic cleansing from both sides. This revealed that the unity of the old Yugoslavia had always been a complete fabrication and as soon as the iron grip of tyranny slipped for an instant the long-smoldering rage between the member ethnicities erupted into a conflagration which finally took outside intervention to restore some semblance of peace and order. The immediate question, of course, is whether the Hapsburg monarchy could have made any difference in preventing this tragedy. No one can ever say definitively what ‘might have been’ but the most probably answer is clearly “yes”. Much of the conflict (certainly not all) was between Croats and Serbs and with Croatia inside Austria-Hungary and Serbia outside of it, these two could have brought their full force to bear against each other. Further, we have the historical record to show that in all the years of Hapsburg rule such a bloodletting never took place. It may not satisfy idealists, but one practical reason for this was that minorities were sufficiently divided between the Austrian and Hungarian halves of the Dual-Monarchy that no one group could come together in sufficient strength to cause much trouble.

Mary, Queen of Croatia

It is also worth noting that most of the bitterness seen in the civil wars can be traced back to some extent with the creation of Yugoslavia itself but even more so events in World War II rather than to Austria-Hungary. After World War I there was some, for lack of a better word, “bullying” by the victors against their defeated foes. This was not uncommon; the Poles were sometimes unkind toward the Germans in their country, though in light of subsequent events they attract little sympathy. Then, during World War II, the tables were turned and horrible reprisals were meted out, often with the backing of the Axis powers, and then after the Axis defeat there were reprisals of the reprisals and hatred grew and grew. It is beyond the realm of possibility that this could have happened under Emperor Charles I or a potential “Emperor Otto”. A Hapsburg Emperor, and this is certainly in keeping with the character of Archduke Otto, would have discouraged nationalism and ethnic hatred and with his combined forces could have restrained such radicals were that to become necessary.

The Imperial Family

And what of the two primary partners of the Dual-Monarchy? In the case of Hungary, it is hard to imagine there being a more unjust outcome than the peace following the Great War as it affected the Hungarians. No other European power was as horribly butchered as Hungary who were certainly no more guilty than any other major participant in the war. When it was over, Hungary lost 70% of its territory and roughly a third of its entire population to the post-war carve-up. And all of this in spite of the fact that the Hungarian prime minister had tried to avoid the march to war in 1914. Istvan Tisza, Prime Minister of Hungary, was reluctant to the last to link the assassination in Bosnia with the Serbian government, only supporting the war once the ultimatum to Belgrade had been sent and the ties between the government and the “Black Hand” were concretely proven. He was worried (correctly as it turned out) that while troops were fighting the Russians and Serbs that Romania would enter the war and attack Hungary. He also opposed the planned-for annexation of a conquered Serbia even though this was quite popular with many military leaders in Vienna at the time. Painted as a villain after the war, even those who were most in agreement with the Allies ended up suffering along with the rest.

People starved, froze and leading republican traitors in Hungary enabled this by actually disbanding the Hungarian military. In the chaos that followed, the communist dictator Bela Kun seized power and was only overthrown by the humiliation of a Romanian army occupying Budapest. Brutal civil war raged between “red” and “white” factions and while a somewhat better state of affairs eventually prevailed the (entirely nominal) Kingdom of Hungary was left in such a weakened state that it had little choice but to stay on good terms with Nazi Germany, and Hungary did briefly regain some territory in World War II but it all ended with Hungary coming under Soviet occupation and being forced to submit to a communist dictatorship that was a puppet-state for Moscow. The Hungarian people were brutalized, the economy was in near absolute ruin and they had only decades of Soviet slavery to look forward to. Many tens of thousands of people were killed in the rebellions against communist rule before the collapse of the USSR finally brought an end to that era. There likely would have been even more conflicts, as seen in other areas, but Hungary had been left in such a weakened state that there was very little it could do as the people were brutalized by a succession of enemies.

Dollfuss

Finally, there is the case of Austria itself. The Austrians, deprived of their empire, were naturally inclined, originally, to unite with Germany simply for the sake of security and economic recovery. The Allies refused to allow this and civil war, again, broke out between communist and non-communist forces with real stability only being restored by the establishment of the so-called “Austrofascist” regime of Engelbert Dollfuss. Ignore the labels, Dollfuss was a good man and a man who began setting the stage for the restoration of the Hapsburg monarchy and the wider world, certainly Europe, should be more aware of Dollfuss and inter-war Austrian history because it was the one, great opportunity for the European community to have stopped Hitler in his tracks. Because Dollfuss was a proud, Austrian patriot he was the number one enemy of the Austrian Nazi Party which wanted union with the “Third Reich” and the key moment came when the Nazis assassinated Dollfuss in 1934. Benito Mussolini, thoroughly outraged, ordered a partial mobilization and rushed Italian troops to the border, threatening war with Germany if Hitler took one step into Austria to take advantage of the situation. At that stage, Italy could have potentially defeated the Germans and Hitler backed off.

Unfortunately, the other Allied powers did nothing to support Italy during the crisis at a time when Hitler was militarily weak and diplomatically isolated without a single major power supporting him. But no action was taken and what Allied unity there was soon broke up over, of all things, Ethiopia. France and Britain imposed economic sanctions on Italy after Mussolini went to war with Ethiopia and so the Duce finally dropped all pretense of friendship with the Allies and accepted the outstretched hand of Germany. That sealed the fate of Austria and any possibility of stopping Hitler and Nazism when it would have been the least difficult. Schuschnigg, Dollfuss’ successor, secretly agreed to restore the monarchy within a year when Hitler decided to move against him, having obtained the assurance of Mussolini that he would do nothing to stop him. And it was in large part specifically to stop a return of the House of Hapsburg that Hitler moved on Austria because he was afraid that the restored monarchy would be a beacon for unity to neighboring countries and that Hungary and Czechoslovakia might reunite and therefore pose a threat to Nazi Germany (which was still far from her full military potential).

The Hapsburg heirs

When the Nazis occupied and annexed Austria it really was a turning point in European history. Before that, Germany was weak and surrounded by unfriendly powers. Afterwards, the military build-up continued, Italy was an ally, German strength was brought to the frontiers of Yugoslavia and Hungary, intimidating them into taking a more cooperative stance with Germany, isolating Czechoslovakia and so on. When the Allies finally decided to draw the line at Poland it was against a much stronger Germany with a network of support and in support of a country they could do nothing to directly assist. If they had earlier drawn the line at Austria there might have been no war in Europe at all. Germany was still weak, isolated and Austria could have been supported by the Allies via northern Italy and Hitler would have, in all likelihood been either contained or defeated outright and possibly overthrown by elements inside Germany itself. Like other countries, Austria went through civil war, foreign war, devastation and occupation which were all directly traceable to the fall of the monarchy but, more so than in others, the misfortune of Austria was the misfortune of Europe and much of the world. It is no exaggeration, it is a fact backed up by the evidence of history that the fall of the House of Hapsburg was a disaster, both for her member states and for people all around the world.

Holy Roman Emperor Charles V

Emperor Charles V is an historical figure somewhat difficult to approach. His background was so diverse; a Spanish King and German Emperor born in Belgium of an Austrian family with Swiss roots and one could go on. He is a colossal figure in European history and a man with a rather colorful life story. Charles V was reflective of the Renaissance in his knowledge and tastes, he could discuss religion or art with the best of them. Charles V had several mistresses and a few illegitimate children, yet is still seen today as the Catholic champion of Europe. Hailed ever after as the most ardent defender of Christendom, he nonetheless made peace with the Protestants and waged war against the Pope. His was the first empire upon which it was said that “the sun never set”. In World War II he was featured on a special postage stamp by the Nazi SS as a German historical figure who dominated so much of the world and yet, at the end of his life, he willingly gave up his power and saw to it that no one member of the House of Hapsburg would hold such vast territories again. Charles V is a fascinating individual, probably not as well known in the English-speaking world as he should be, but throughout most of his lifetime practically every major event in Europe happened because of or in reaction to him. Emperor Charles V was, and is, a giant figure on the pages of history.

He was the son of Philip the Handsome and Joanna the Mad, born on February 24, 1500 in Ghent, Belgium and, given the rather tragic fate of his parents, he was brought up in the “Low Countries” to a large extent, looked after by his aunt Margaret in Burgundy. It was only 1506 when he inherited the Burgundian lands of his father and this, combined with the upbringing of his aunt, impressed upon him the terrible responsibilities of power. Throughout his life, especially for a man of the Renaissance, he would have a very Medieval view of government and monarchy with limitations on power, important decisions made by councils and keeping power on the local level where possible. He had to grow up very fast as he was still only a youth when he began to inherit his most lofty crowns. On January 23, 1516 he became King of Spain and on June 28 1519 he became Holy Roman Emperor of the German nation. He had his German coronation at Aachen on October 26, 1520; was crowned King of Italy on February 22, 1530 in Bologna and on February 24, 1530 was crowned Emperor of the Romans by the Pope making him the last German Emperor to be crowned by the Pope and thus officially “Holy Roman Emperor” rather than “Holy Roman Emperor-Elect” as most actually were.

Charles V confronts Martin Luther

Religious matters would dominate a great deal of his reign and one of the first problems he had to address was the growing controversy over a certain man named Martin Luther. At the famous Diet of Worms the Emperor met Luther face to face and listened to him make his case. Needless to say, the Emperor was not impressed and gave a quote eloquent response based on history and tradition, saying, “For it is certain that a single monk must err if he stands against the opinion of all Christendom. Otherwise Christendom itself would have erred for more than a thousand years”. Luther, we now know, did not actually say, “Here I stand, I can do no other” but, in any event, he refused to recant his beliefs and the Emperor refused to break his word and have him arrested on the spot. So, Luther was free to go and continued to spread his new religious ideas, which would ultimately lead to the creation of the Lutheran church, the Protestant movement and the further splitting of Christendom. This was, obviously, a major concern for Charles V who, as Emperor, saw himself as the chief guardian of Christendom and while he did not try to rule everyone directly, he would take swift action against any threat to his authority. The spread of Protestantism was definitely such a threat and he wanted the Church to do something about it.

The problem with that was that the Catholic Church, which had been around for a while, had seen or thought they had seen people like Martin Luther before. They would rise up, preaching some novelty but eventually fade away and be forgotten. But Luther could point to very real problems and corruptions in the Church with simony, absentee bishops, the selling of indulgences and so on which were having a real impact. This was particularly true in Germany where nationalism was a useful tool as well. It was often easy to convince people to support a German church founded by a German man rather than to pay tithes to an Italian prince far away in Rome. To head-off this problem, Emperor Charles V wanted the Pope to call a council to sort these problems out. Today it seems obvious, especially in light of what happened later at the Council of Trent, and the Popes seem criminally uncaring or lazy not to heed the advice of the King of Spain and German Emperor. However, to be fair to the Pontiffs, history is always close at hand in Rome and throughout the history of the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation, when an Emperor started calling for a council of bishops it was usually intended to end in the forced removal of the Pope in favor of a more pliable candidate. After this happened several times, the Popes became rather reluctant to call councils together, especially when a German Emperor was the one pushing for it. It was certainly a mistake for the Catholic Church overall that the Emperor was not listened to but one can see why the Popes would have been inclined to put him off and wait for Lutheranism to fade away.

The Emperor and King Francis I

In 1522 pro-Lutheran nobles rose up in the Knights’ War which Charles V had to put down, followed by the even nastier Peasants’ Revolt in 1524 which even Luther was horrified by. To make matters worse, as far as the Emperor was concerned anyway, while Protestant rebellions were becoming a major problem in Germany, the Catholic south was coming under renewed attack by the Ottoman Turks who were never more effective than at that time under the skilled leadership of Sultan Suleiman the Magnificent. In 1522 they launched a massive attack on the island of Rhodes, defended by the Knights of St John. The island fell and Emperor Charles allowed the Knights to relocate to Malta. On land, by 1526 the Turkish armies had penetrated far into Europe, wiping out the Hungarian army and killing King Louis of Hungary at the battle of Mohacs. And if that was not enough bad news for Charles V, German possessions in northern Italy were attacked by the French under King Francis I in 1524. The Emperor moved to meet this threat in person, aware of the fact that Pope Clement VII had allied with the King of France in an effort to prevent the German domination of Italy. The result was the battle of Pavia which was a smashing success for Emperor Charles V who totally defeated the French army and took Francis I prisoner. He gave up claims to imperial territories while in captivity but, after being released, said he was not bound by agreements signed while he was a prisoner and renewed his campaign against Charles V in alliance with the Pope.

In 1526 Charles married Isabella of Portugal, daughter of King Manuel I, whom he loved and adored and had many children with. He was not a flawless man when it came to women but the illegitimate children he had were born before his marriage or after the death of Isabella who passed away after giving birth to their sixth child. The birth of Don John of Austria notwithstanding, Charles V was greatly saddened by her death and wore black for the rest of his life thereafter. However, all of that would come later. In 1527, only a year after his marriage, Charles V launched the invasion that would result in what must be the one really shameful mark on his reign, a horror almost unsurpassed in history. Gathering a motley force of Spanish and German troops (many of whom were Lutheran Protestants), Charles V launched an invasion of Italy aimed at destroying the alliance arranged by Pope Clement VII and bringing papal Rome firmly under his control. The Pope had counted on the King of France to come to his rescue but that did not happen and soon his other allies abandoned him as well. On the other side, because of the seemingly endless wars and the many rebellions in Germany, the Emperor was cash-strapped and when his troops approached Rome they were tired, hungry, impoverished and angry.

A beaten Pope crowns Charles Emperor of the Romans

The result was the horrific “sack of Rome” in which the Swiss Guard were wiped out, fighting to the last man to defend the Pope, who was himself nearly killed. Clement VII barricaded himself inside Castel Sant Angelo with as many Roman refugees as could be fit in while the imperial troops went on the rampage, committing acts of destruction, pillage, murder and sacrilege that are truly too terrible to repeat. It was worse than anything the barbarian invaders of Imperial Rome had ever done and a witness who was a veteran of the wars against the Muslims remarked that no Muslim was ever so cruel or vicious toward an enemy as the imperial troops were toward the helpless Romans. It was sadism and bloodlust run rampant. Now, to be fair, it must be said that Charles V could not have known that such an infamy would have happened, he certainly did not order it and he was horrified in the aftermath when he learned of the details. However, as it was he who sent the army to conquer Rome in the first place, he must accept the ultimate and theoretic responsibility for that. Still, he was aghast at what happened but still enough of a man of the world to use it to his advantage and in the aftermath of such an atrocity Pope Clement VII agreed to all of his demands and was then released from captivity by the end of the year. His power was unquestioned but, that being so, he was able to be magnanimous and restored the Papal States to Clement VII and Florence to the Medici family. Some may say it was largely symbolic but it was something a vindictive man would never have done and something he did not have to do in light of his victory.

In the aftermath, things continued to go well for Charles V. He worked to make peace with the Protestants in Germany, ending finally in 1532 with the Peace of Nurnberg that granted freedom of religion to the Protestants. In 1535 the Emperor led an attack on the Muslim forces in North Africa, capturing Tunis and the following year defeating French forces in Italy and repelling a French attack on the Low Countries. And, in the meantime, the Emperor reformed the legal system, financed Ferdinand Magellan in his voyage to circumnavigate the globe and saw the Spanish empire in the Americas continue to expand. However, the religious divide in Germany continued to be a problem with war flaring up again in 1547. The Emperor was again victorious but allowed the Protestants to keep what lands they had gained and to continue their religious practices in the peace that followed. It was a short-lived peace though as rebellion broke out again under the leadership of Maurice of Saxony. After more fighting Charles V decided the best way to restore order would be to enact a new law called the Peace of Augsburg which stated that the land and people would adopt the religion of their local noble lord. If he were Catholic, his people would be Catholic and if Protestant the people would be Protestant.

The abdication of Emperor Charles V

With peace again secured in Germany in 1555, by the following year Charles V was weary of his crowns and decided to abdicate. However, rather than leave everything to his heir to carry on as he had done, Charles V decided to divide the responsibilities and left his German crown to his brother Ferdinand and his Spanish crown (including the Low Countries) to his son Philip. In giving up power, he advised his son to trust God, maintain the Catholic faith and to respect the rights of his subjects. That done, the most powerful man in the western world walked away from it all and retired to a palace-monastery in Spain, devoting himself to prayer and reflection, where he lived the rest of his life, passing away a few years later in 1558. To his son and heir King Philip II, he apologized for not being able to do better and handing him a Europe that was torn by division, however, were it not for his stamina and determination, Europe would have looked considerably different. He had faced constant threats on almost every side and while not always totally successfully (especially in Germany) he could at least say that he had never been totally defeated. Through victory on the battlefield or negotiated concessions, he had maintained all he had inherited, even expanded it a little and left behind a Spain that was riding high, expanding in the New World, allied to England and a Germany that, while divided, was still at peace, dominant in Italy and which had seen the Turkish threat driven back from the gates of Vienna. Truly, Emperor Charles V had left a mark on the pages of history that few others, before or since, could hope to match.

Struggle for Monarchy on the U.S.-Mexican Border

Throughout most of the 1860’s war was raging on both sides of the U.S.-Mexican border. North of the Rio Grande American fought American and south of the Rio Grande Mexican fought Mexican with outside assistance for each. It was inevitable that the two would overlap but few today are aware of the struggle between republicans and monarchists that was going on right in the backyard of Texas. At the end of the American Civil War roughly eight to ten thousand Confederates fled to Mexico (then the [second] Mexican Empire) rather than live under Union rule. The Mexicans called them los Confederados and some of the more notable ones included Texas governors Edward Clark and Pendleton Murrah as well as generals such as Edmund Kirby Smith, Sterling Price, John B. Magruder and Joseph O. Shelby. For some, the war in Mexico was quick to greet them such as when Missouri General Mosley Monroe Parsons along with his officers and their families were robbed and then massacred by republican bandits. Others made the trip safely and offered their support to the embattled Emperor Maximilian.

The welcome given to the Confederates in Mexico did not help the already tense relations between the United States and the Empire of Mexico. General Tomas Mejia of the Imperial Mexican Army was wary of the increasing number of U.S. troops being sent to the south Texas border. The U.S. had been openly antagonistic about the French intervention in Mexico and never recognized the government of Emperor Maximilian. The largely African-American force of U.S. soldiers on the border were sympathetic to the fugitive Mexican president, Benito Juarez, with only some of the more devoutly Catholic Irish-American U.S. soldiers speaking favorably of Maximilian because of his greater respect for the Church compared to the notoriously anti-clerical Juarez. In time, both the Mexican imperial and republican armies on the border would come to include former U.S. and Confederate soldiers. The Confederates naturally took the side of Emperor Maximilian for the most part, due to his closeness with Imperial France which had been somewhat friendly toward the Confederacy. Most of the Union soldiers sided with Juarez and the republicans. Some still serving with the U.S. Army were allowed and even encouraged to “desert”, cross the border and join the forces of Benito Juarez. Despite orders from Washington to the contrary, Union officers provided large amounts of supplies, uniforms, guns and ammunition to the Juaristas.

As always, the conflict on the border had a style all its own. On one side was General Mejia with 3,000 imperial troops, including about 300 French and Austrian soldiers. Their army was harassed constantly by the regular and bandit forces of Benito Juarez as well as the bandits of the local border chieftain Juan Cortina who switched allegiances several times. In the summer of 1865 General Mejia embarked on an offensive toward Camargo that cleared out the republican bandits and Juaristas. Consolidation was able to take place and the city of Matamoros was cleaned up and work even got underway by a Belgian company to build an opera house in anticipation of a visit by the Emperor and Empress.

Juan Cortina

The bandit-chief Cortina continued to be very problematic though. On May 1, 1865 he joined with Juarista General Miguel Negrete for a three-day attack on Matamoros. The Imperial Army of General Mejia defeated them and sent the Juaristas packing but Cortina stayed behind. U.S. forces even allowed the Cortinistas to recruit new men in Brownsville, Texas across the river, to use U.S. Army camps on the Texas side of the border and to buy U.S. guns and ammunition. The French, naturally, protested this blatant violation of American neutrality but the U.S. effectively ignored them. Cortina was even employed in trying to track down the Confederates entering Mexico but with little effectiveness.

Eventually, Cortina drove the imperialistas out of Camargo but he was in turn dealt severe defeats in an attempted raid on an imperial supply train and an imperialista attack on his own encampment. The situation soon degenerated into a no-holds-barred guerilla war. The French and Mexican imperialists decided to fight fire with fire and turned to the flamboyant and vicious Colonel Charles Dupin, leader of the contra-guerillas who struck the republican forces with such ferocity and cruelty that he was nicknamed the “hyena of Tamaulipas” and his men, the “Red Devils”. However, both sides were equally brutal no doubt about it.

Tomas Mejia

The primary goal of the republican forces on the border was to drive the Imperialistas out of Matamoros. Toward this goal, U.S. General Lew Wallace (future author of “Ben-Hur”) and Mexican rebel Jose Maria Jesus Carbajal collected men, money and weapons for an ‘Army of the North’ to attack the city. The effort began in October of 1865 with an attack by Juarista General Mariano Escobedo. General Mejia met the challenge bravely, at one point personally leading a charge with five hundred cavalry to drive out Juaristas who had broken through his defenses. Supporting fire came from the French gunboat “Paisano” on the Rio Grande which shelled the Juaristas from the river. Another French gunboat, the “Antonia”, was actually openly fired upon by U.S. troops on the Texas side of the river. In fact, Escobedo’s republican army included many U.S. soldiers on “leaves of absence” to participate in the battle and help ensure a Juarista victory. Cortina’s men were also involved and harassed the French marines from the safety of U.S. soil. Of course, General Mejia and the local French naval commander in the Gulf of Mexico protested such blatant violations of American neutrality and, of course, it did them no good whatsoever.

The attack on Matamoros went on for sixteen days until an imperial cavalry patrol discovered that the Juaristas had abandoned their lines and retreated on November 9. Total losses for the Juaristas amounted to five hundred dead or wounded and fifty-eight taken prisoner while General Mejia had lost fewer than twelve. Yet, as long as the republicans remained in the area the fight went on with Juarista raiders attacking French and Imperialista detachments. In December, General Escobedo even managed to take Monterrey though it was quickly taken back by only seven hundred imperial cavalry. The town of Bagdad also came under attack, first by American land pirates and again in January of 1866 by forces allied with the scheming U.S. General Lew Wallace. Lt. Colonel J.D. Davis commanding the 118th Colored Troops (the official designation for African-Americans serving in the U.S. Army at the time) at Clarksville, Texas also allowed the invaders to pass and many of his troops even joined the expedition. The raiders overcame the guards at Bagdad on January 5, surprised and captured the guard commander and murdered the imperialist mayor. The town was seized and plundered by the American forces.

Imperial Mexican troops

With all sides taken by surprise, soldiers of the 2nd U.S. Colored Troops entered Mexico and took possession of Bagdad. Pressure from local merchants and leading citizens of the area forced a U.S. investigation but naturally no American officers were punished for what amounted to an unauthorized (presumably) U.S. invasion of a foreign country with which the U.S. was not at war. The Americans naturally allowed the republicans to take over, but these forces evacuated on the 24th and monarchist rule was restored though it took threats of a French blockade of Brazos de Santiago to see even a fraction of what was looted returned to Mexico. In the end, it was of little consequence because, with the U.S. again in control of the Texas side of the border, the Mexican Imperial forces could not hold out for long. Already the U.S. had applied diplomatic pressure to stop Austria-Hungary sending reinforcements to their volunteers in Mexico and equal pressure was being put on Napoleon III to get the French out before a massive American army invaded to push them out. With republican bandits to their south and unfriendly U.S. forces across the river to the north, supplies soon grew scarce for the imperialistas in Matamoros.

Emperor Maximilian

As spring turned to summer in 1866 the tide of war began to turn irreversibly against the forces of Emperor Maximilian on the northern frontier of Mexico. Throughout the summer of 1866 republican forces re-took Chihuahua, Guadalajara, Tampico, Acapulco, Monterrey, Saltillo and even Matamoros as the French pulled out of Mexico and U.S. aid to the republicans, in men and materials, increased. On the border, Matamoros was the key position and Mejia and his imperial forces were in a precarious position. As a change in the wind was felt by all, Mexican units formerly loyal to the Emperor began to waver and the key battle came on June 14, 1866. A large imperialista column, already brought near to ruin by thirst and lack of supplies, was ambushed by a massive republican army at the battle of Santa Gertrudis, known thereafter as the ‘Waterloo of the Mexican Empire’. During the grueling fight the equivalent of two whole battalions of Mexican troops deserted to the Juarista side, leaving their former comrades to their fate. Much of the cavalry abandoned the fight to save themselves while the Austrian contingent decided to go out in a blaze of glory, fixed their bayonets and launched a last, suicidal charge into the republican lines. The most unfortunate were the contra-guerillas who, whether armed or not, wounded or not, were immediately shot by the republicans. Millions of dollars worth of supplies, equipment and war materials were captured and in the aftermath, after learning of the disaster, General Mejia had no choice but to abandon Matamoros and retreat south. It marked the end of the conflict on the border and the beginning of the end for the cause of the noble Emperor Maximilian.

Story of Monarchy: Austria-Hungary

The story of the monarchy lastly known as Austria-Hungary, previously known as the Austrian Empire, has its roots in that entity known as the Holy Roman Empire or the Holy Roman Empire of the German Nation. The Austrian Empire was the primary successor state of what had long been the Holy Roman Empire, that entity perhaps best remembered today from that line by the perpetually smug and smirking “Enlightenment” writer Voltaire who said, “This agglomeration which was called and which still calls itself the Holy Roman Empire was neither holy, nor Roman, nor an empire”. The intention of Voltaire (with whom The Mad Monarchist is certainly not in sympathy) was, of course, to simply pour scorn on a traditional European institution as pouring scorn was the one thing he did best, however, he was, in a sense, correct. Partly because of people like himself. The “Holy” aspect had fallen considerably after the advent of religious divisions within the empire and the so-called “Enlightenment” later, of which Voltaire was a part. The “Roman” aspect had almost always been an empty title, the Empire was German and not Roman or Italian. It was the Popes who actually ruled in Rome and who could be counted on to fiercely resist efforts by the Emperor to control that city. As for being an “Empire” it was more often than not hardly how people today would define one. At times strong monarchs would arise and dominate and centralize things but, for the most part, it was more a confederation of minor states than a united empire.

Truth be told, for quite some time before the Holy Roman Empire was formally abolished, certainly by the time that Prussia claimed royal status and began to rise as a power, what most people meant when they spoke of the Holy Roman Empire (or simply “The Empire”) was actually what would become the Austrian Empire. It was that considerable territory ruled by the House of Hapsburg, later the House of Hapsburg-Lorraine, which had long held the first place in the Holy Roman Empire and which would continue to reign over the Austrian Empire and the subsequent “Dual Monarchy” of Austria-Hungary. The Austrian Empire came into being as a result of the victor of Napoleon of France over the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, resulting in the Treaty of Pressburg in 1805. Most of the German-speaking world then fell under the control or influence of Napoleonic France with the creation of the Confederation of the Rhine. In 1804 Napoleon had already crowned himself Emperor of the French and Francis II suspected that, as there had traditionally been only one emperor in the west and one in the east, that Napoleon was planning on becoming the next Holy Roman Emperor whether in fact or in name. To avoid such an occurrence, in 1806 Francis II abdicated his position (officially that of Emperor-Elect) and dissolved the Holy Roman Empire to become instead Emperor Francis I of Austria.

This did not end Austrian involvement with the rest of the German states, as some might have expected before the downfall of Napoleon, but it did move Austria in that direction. Previous Holy Roman Emperors had tried to solidify Austrian leadership in the German-speaking world; most recently with Emperor Joseph II (who Francis I greatly admired) but he was blocked by the Prussian King Frederick the Great. With the creation of the new Austrian Empire, while Austria joined in subsequent loose unions of the German states, most of the Hapsburg territories (of which Hungary was the largest part) remained on the outside. It was also during this period that the Hapsburg realm became even more diverse which inevitably weakened the position of the German-speaking Austrians. When making peace with Napoleon, Austria lost a sizeable amount of territory (such as Belgium) but was also ceded territory in Italy such as about half of all that remained of the old Republic of Venice. By the time it was all over, much of northern Italy fell under Austrian control as the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, ironically thanks to the success of Napoleon and revolutionary France (the First Republic).

In the end, the Austrian Empire emerged from the Napoleonic Wars in what seemed to be a very strong position. Distant territories that were very hard to defend were renounced but new territory was gained so that the Empire of Austria was easily one of the major European powers. Austria was blessed with a monarch like Emperor Francis I who was strong, practical and a man capable of making tough decisions as well as an “elder statesman” in the person of Prince Metternich who helped re-draw the map of Europe to maintain a balance of powers and to encourage traditional monarchial bloc to guard against revolutionary republicanism that, aside from being an inherently bad idea, would disrupt the balance and could plunge the continent into war again. Austria also maintained a leadership position in the new German Confederation with the Austrian Emperor holding the position of President of the Confederation. Initially, with strong leadership in Vienna, allies abroad and a little simple luck, the Austrian Empire had relatively smooth sailing. However, although critics like to pretend Austria was a totally absolute monarchy, the Austrian Empire was a constitutional monarchy and government control of the budget proved to be a dangerous problem. This was primarily felt in terms of the military. With so many ethnic minorities all wanting more political power, a strong imperial army was essential but, all too often, the military was neglected when it came to funding.

These ethnic tensions combined with militant liberalism to boil over in 1848 when revolutions broke out all over Europe. Emperor Francis I was gone and Emperor Ferdinand I, though a perfectly wonderful man, was simply not up to the challenge. It was a moment of terrible crisis with riots in Vienna, rebellions in Italy and in Hungary. This could have very easily been the end of the Austrian Empire with northern Italy and Hungary engulfed in rebellion there was really only enough military strength to suppress one or the other but not both. There were also other uprisings in almost every minority group such as the Slovaks, the Serbs, the Poles and the Czechs. In the end, a new monarch came to the throne, Emperor Francis Joseph I, and the rebellions in Austrian territory were suppressed. In Hungary, the new Emperor asked Tsar Nicholas I of Russia for help and in a show of monarchial solidarity he sent a Russian army into Hungary to aid the Austrians in putting down the rebellion. Even then, the Hungarian rebels might have done better had it not been for the rebellion of minority ethnic groups in their own territory. This caused some to draw back and renew their support for the Hapsburgs, reasoning that they were stronger together than they would be apart and that an independent Hungary might lose considerable territories to ethnic rebellions of their own.

Between the Austrians, Russians and others the rebellion in Hungary was finally crushed. The situation was restored to the way things had been before 1848 but the House of Hapsburg would never be able to sleep quite so peacefully again. They had come dangerously close to the brink and had only narrowly avoided disaster. Dealing with the competing demands of the numerous ethnic groups of the empire would come to dominate almost every national discussion. The situation became even more acute following the Crimean War which resulted in Austria being further isolated on the European stage. After the help Tsar Nicholas I had given Francis Joseph I in Hungary, he expected the Austrians to come to his aid in that conflict and when he did not it helped ensure a lasting enmity between Austria and Russia. The Austrian Empire was thus almost surrounded by hostile or at least unfriendly powers on almost every side save their border with the German states and even there a rivalry was already growing between the Austrians and the most powerful of the German states, the Kingdom of Prussia. While minority groups remained problematic and Hungarian loyalty (because of how close to success the rebellion there had been) became more and more a matter of negotiation, Imperial Austria was also threatened by an alliance between the Second French Empire and the emerging Kingdom of Italy.

In 1859 an ill-advised ultimatum to Piedmont-Sardinia sparked the Second Italian War for Independence between Austria on one side and France and Piedmont-Sardinia on the other. Emperor Francis Joseph I took the field himself and met Emperor Napoleon III in battle but it was a bloody disaster, fairly ruinous for both sides but resulting in Austria losing Lombardy. Frustrated in the south, the Austrian Empire looked north and fought in the coalition against Denmark with Prussia and the rest of the German Confederation but Prussia was soon determined to supplant Austria as the preeminent German-speaking power. In 1866 Prussia (and Italy) went to war against Austria which was totally isolated. Again, due to penny-pinching with the military, Austria was swiftly and decisively defeated, losing her place in the community of German states to Prussia and losing Venice to Italy. However, as long as actual German unification did not take place, there was still hope that Austria might regain her place and it was toward that end that Emperor Francis Joseph finally gave in to the demands for Hungarian autonomy as to be able to focus on the Prussian rival without worrying about another rebellion in Hungary. So it was that the Compromise of 1867 came about, creating the “Dual Monarchy” of Austria-Hungary which saw separate but equal parliaments and prime ministers for both halves of the Hapsburg realm; one in Vienna for the Empire of Austria and one in Budapest for the Kingdom of Hungary.

This put an end, at least for the moment, to Hungarian demands for separation that had arisen during the crisis with Prussia but in later years it had the detrimental side-effect of encouraging other ethnicities (in both Austria and Hungary) to demand the same concessions. However, if the goal was to stop the Prussian ascendancy, it would prove a futile gesture, though not because of any action on the part of Austria-Hungary. An alliance against Prussia was proposed between French Emperor Napoleon III, King Victor Emmanuel II of Italy and Emperor Francis Joseph I of Austria-Hungary. Had this come about, European history might have unfolded quite differently. However, the proposed alliance fell apart over the presence of French troops in Rome which Bonaparte refused to withdraw for fear of losing Catholic support at home. The Italians would not agree to any alliance with France while French troops remained on the Italian peninsula and Austria-Hungary would not agree to an alliance that did not include Italy (for fear that in any conflict, Italy would come in on the other side against them). In the end, nothing was done, France remained alone, just as Austria had been and in 1870 was defeated by Prussia and her allies which resulted in the creation of the German Empire under Prussian leadership. In the aftermath, with the united Germany an established fact, Austria-Hungary could only look to the east and south for her future and would need allies against Russia which she was sure to collide with in such a move.

A “Triple Alliance” was agreed to by Germany, Italy and Austria-Hungary in 1882. For the Austro-Hungarians, the focus remained on the Balkans, particularly with the rise in pan-Slavic nationalism and the breakup of the European territories of the Ottoman Empire. By that time, Austria-Hungary had already occupied and administered the politically sensitive region of Bosnia in 1878. However, in later years, a new regime and a new dynasty came to power in Serbia which wanted to unite all the southern Slavic peoples into a “Greater Serbia”. This posed a threat to Austria-Hungary (given the large Serbian minority in the south) and was a potential block to Austro-Hungarian aspirations for expansions southward. Russia backed Serbia and Germany backed Austria-Hungary but was certainly not enthusiastic about the prospect of going to war on behalf of Austria-Hungary because of a crisis in the Balkans.

Although it might not have seemed so at the time, the countdown to the First World War began in 1908 when the Austrian Foreign Minister, Alois Aehrenthal, succeeded in outmaneuvering Russia and annexing Bosnia outright to Austria-Hungary. There was no immediate crisis over it but the action enraged the Serbians, embarrassed the Russians and caused Britain and France to take a more unfriendly view toward Austria-Hungary. Italy too was upset as, according to their treaty with Austria-Hungary, they were promised the return of Italian populated territories if Austria-Hungary ever made territorial gains elsewhere but these provisions were ignored. Germany remained supportive but was less than pleased with the development. However, they had little choice as worsening relations with France, Britain and Russia left Austria-Hungary as the only major continental ally Germany had. The annexation also dramatically increased the Slavic population of Austria-Hungary and this encouraged the view held by Archduke Francis Ferdinand, heir to the Hapsburg throne, that a new compromise, similar to that made with the Hungarians, should be enacted to give the southern Slavs equal status with the German Austrians and Magyar Hungarians.

This, actually, made the Archduke an even greater potential target for Serbian nationalists as did the fact that Bosnia was generally doing better under Austro-Hungarian rule than it had previously. These groups, such as the “Black Hand” wanted there to be discord and not reconciliation between the Serb/Slav minority and the government of Austria-Hungary. For that very reason the Archduke was targeted for assassination while on a visit to Sarajevo in June 1914. Austria-Hungary was outraged and, once again, an ultimatum was sent and once again it was rejected, ensuring war between Serbia and Austria-Hungary. Also, just as in the past, the military was under funded. However, most would assume that Austria-Hungary could have been victorious in a war simply between themselves and Serbia but, as we all know, that was not to be the case. Russia stood ready to fight on behalf of Serbia and mobilized against Austria-Hungary. In response, Germany mobilized against Russia and when France stood by their Russian ally, against France as well. When German troops invaded Belgium the British declared war and in August of 1914 almost the whole of Europe fell into the abyss. It was not what Emperor Francis Joseph had wanted at all. In fact, his declaration of war on Serbia came only after he was told that Serbian forces had attacked first, which was not true. In effect, the politicians had deceived their monarch into war.

Austria-Hungary mobilized a massive army for the conflict but was hampered by many difficulties. Logistical support was woefully inefficient, Russia had all the Austro-Hungarian war plans in advance and the Dual-Monarchy was almost surrounded by enemies. The initial advance in Serbia was a humiliating affair while on the Russian front there was more success but Austria-Hungary suffered horrendous losses that could not be made up. German reinforcements were increasingly necessary to maintain so many fronts. In 1915 Italy declared war on Austria-Hungary and in 1916 the Serbian army returned with French and British support to a new front in Greece. In November of that year Emperor Francis Joseph died and was succeeded by his great-nephew Emperor Charles I. With the war situation deteriorating, in 1917 the new Emperor tried to arrange a peaceful end to the war but was rejected out of hand by the French and British. This also greatly enraged the Germans who thereafter viewed Austria-Hungary with suspicion and for the remainder of the conflict many, not without justification, viewed Austria-Hungary as a prisoner of the Germans.

In 1918 the situation began to fall apart for Austria-Hungary. France and Britain were encouraging the ethnic minorities to declare independence, the United States had joined the Allies, Germany was increasingly unable to provide support and the people at home faced starvation. In late October to early November the Italians launched a massive offensive that proved to be the last straw for Austria-Hungary and the Dual-Monarchy effectively collapsed. The same day the offensive began the government of Hungary ordered its troops to cease hostilities and return home. In the days that followed various other nationalities declared their independence and Austria-Hungary ceased to exist. Emperor Charles I tried to save the situation by enacting a federal system to give all nationalities equal status in a “United States of Greater Austria” but, as with his peace efforts, no one seemed willing to listen. On the last day of October the Hungarian government declared the personal union with Austria dissolved and even in Austria itself there were German nationalists calling for an end to Hapsburg rule and union with the rest of Germany. By the time Emperor Charles bowed to the inevitable and released his ministers from their oath of loyalty, withdrawing from participation in the government (but never abdicating!) Austria-Hungary had already ceased to exist. It was truly the end of an era as it marked the first time in more than six centuries that a Hapsburg had not been ruling over Austria.

Emperor Charles I tried twice to regain his throne in Hungary, where the monarchy was legally restored but under a regent that proved uncooperative. He died in Portugal in 1922 and in 2004 was beatified by Pope John Paul II. Upon his death, the monarchial legacy of Austria-Hungary passed to his son, Archduke Otto, who also had hope of a restoration. Such a thing was discussed by the Federal State of Austria. Engelbert Dollfuss had repealed the ban on members of the House of Hapsburg entering Austria and he had restored the property of the Imperial Family that the first republic had seized. However, he was assassinated by the Nazis in 1934 in a failed coup attempt. His successor, Kurt von Schuschnigg, reserved for himself the right to restore the monarchy and seemed inclined to do so even sounding out Austria’s most powerful ally at the time, Benito Mussolini, on the idea which the Duce said he would not oppose. Once again though outside events worked to block the move. Adolf Hitler (a stridently anti-Hapsburg republican) moved immediately to annex Austria in an operation named “Otto”, presumably because it prevented him from regaining the throne of his father. Few people seem to realize how close this came to reality. Schuschnigg himself actually met with the Archduke (secretly) and told him the restoration would be carried out as soon as possible. Few people also seem to realize how paranoid the Nazis were about this eventuality.

A Hapsburg restoration, it was feared in Berlin, would revive Austrian pride and put them off of the idea of union with Germany. They also feared that the Czechs would embrace the Hapsburg Crown again and that, perhaps, even Hungary would renew the personal union and that these combined forces would move against Germany. But in 1938 the Nazis occupied Austria, annexed it to Germany, threw Schuschnigg in a concentration camp, renewed the anti-Hapsburg laws and forced Archduke Otto to go into exile in the United States, sentencing him to death in absentia. After the war he saw most of what he still considered “his” country, all those places that had once been Austria-Hungary, fall under Soviet control. He outlived the Soviet Union though, entered politics and became a leader in the movement for European unity. He died in 2011 at the age of 98, leaving the family legacy to his son, Archduke Charles, who has also dabbled in politics and resides in Salzburg, Austria.

Prince Eugene of Savoy, Conqueror of the Enemies of Austria

In terms of nationality, categorizing Prince Eugene of Savoy can be a little complicated. He was an Italian by blood, born in France who gained a place in history as a general for the Hapsburgs of Austria. He was born in Paris on October 18, 1663 to Olympia Mancini (a niece of Cardinal Mazarin) and Eugene Maurice, Count of Soissons, Count of Dreux and Prince of Savoy (a grandson of Duke Carlo Emanuele I of Savoy) and son of the Prince of Carignano. At the time this was a collateral branch of the House of Savoy but it would eventually become the line that would make up the Kings of Italy. Eugene was the youngest of five sons who, along with their three sisters, saw little of their parents. His father was a dutiful soldier, usually off on campaign, and his mother was wrapped up in the petty politics of the French court surrounding King Louis XIV. Prince Eugene was not very old when his father died and scandal forced his mother to flee France across the Belgian border, then the territory of the House of Hapsburg. Prince Eugene, as a younger son, was expected to have a clerical occupation but the life of a priest did not appeal to the young Prince Eugene and he applied to King Louis XIV for a commission in the French army. Unfortunately (for France at least) the King refused, being rather unfavorable towards the family of the Prince and not terribly impressed by his, perhaps, over-confident attitude.

So it was that the Kingdom of France lost the chance to have as one of their own a man who would prove to be one of the greatest military leaders in history and certainly the most renowned captain of his age. Of course, throughout his childhood, no one expected Prince Eugene to pursue a military career at all. Considered to be something of a weakling and not at all attractive, the grandmother who mostly raised him pushed toward the Church but, as time would tell, the priesthood was not his calling. He went to Austria and joined the army of the Hapsburg Emperor, rising rapidly through the ranks, establishing his reputation early in the war to liberate Hungary from the Turks and the War of the Grand Alliance. His rise was based purely on merit; he won battles and was rewarded with promotion after each success so that by the time he was thirty he had already attained the position of field marshal. One of his greatest early victories was at the battle of Zenta in 1697. A 10-hour forced march put his men into position quickly, deployed behind hills which enabled him to take the Turks by surprise as they attempted to cross the Zenta River into Transylvania. Prince Eugene launched a pincer-attack that pinned the Turks against the river and allowed his army to wipe them out. Over 20,000 Turks were killed in the battle compared to losses of less than 500 for Prince Eugene.

This also illustrates the tactics that would define the career of Prince Eugene of Savoy and win battle after battle for him; speed, mobility and clever use of the terrain to his own advantage. At these, Prince Eugene was a master and they proved a winning combination for him. During the War of the Spanish Succession he defeated the French at Carpi in 1701, joined with the British forces of the great Marlborough to defeat the French and Bavarians at Blenheim in 1704 and two years later led a victorious campaign that drove the French out of Italy. In 1708 he besieged and finally captured the French fortress at Lille, designed by the brilliant French military engineer Sebastien le Prestre de Vauban, which had previously been considered totally impregnable. That same year the Prince joined forced with Marlborough again to administer another victory over France in Flanders. Throughout his career, the Prince often made the supposedly impossible seem almost easy as he won battle after battle and campaign after campaign, rapidly gaining the reputation of one of the greatest military leaders of his time. Given that so many of his victories were over the armies of France, one cannot help but wonder if anyone in Paris cursed the seemingly inconsequential decision of King Louis XIV not to enlist the young Savoy in the French army as he had originally intended. One cannot help but wonder how history might have been changed if he had done so and if the Prince of Savoy had fought under the golden lilies instead of the double eagle.

Already a living legend in western Europe, Prince Eugene ended his career where he had first started it, fighting in the east against the Ottoman Turks. He fought his last major campaign in 1716 which saw a battle any observer would have expected to be his last. The Prince found himself totally surrounded by a massive Turkish army of 200,000 men with only a quarter as many in his own ranks. Anyone would have thought his fate was sealed. However, still true to character, the Prince kept his cool and would not even consider conceding the field and attempting to retreat. Instead, he targeted the Turkish artillery and launched a daring bayonet charge on the guns in the middle of the night, capturing the enemy position, throwing their army into confusion and snatching victory from the jaws of defeat. The entire situation was reversed and in the aftermath the Hapsburg armies marched triumphantly to liberate the city of Belgrade. After this campaign, the Prince retired from active duty in the field but continued to serve as a military advisor to Emperor Charles VI. Still, the Prince had always been drawn to the active and adventurous life of the soldier and that never went away so that he found it extremely difficult to remain behind a desk in Vienna. He could not resist joining the Austrian army in the field in the Rhine valley during the War of the Polish Succession. He died in Vienna two years later on April 21, 1736.

Still today Prince Eugene of Savoy stands as one of the most brilliant military leaders Europe has ever produced. He was a master at quick movements, assessing a situation and turning it to his advantage and he was never lacking in courage. In fact, he sustained many serious wounds throughout his career due to his habit of always leading from the front. He worked well with his allies and never seemed to have any prejudices against anyone other than the French against whom he remained quite bitter throughout his life. He abolished the custom of purchasing commissions in his army and promoted men based solely on their ability and his fondness for cavalry in scouting enemy positions and fighting in both mounted and dismounted roles would influence the Hapsburg armed forces for centuries. He also took great care to establish forward supply bases to keep his troops well fed and well equipped, proving the point that, as the old saying goes, ‘amateurs study tactics, professionals study logistics’. His campaigns were brilliant and secured the place of Austria as the dominant power in the German-speaking world. Today he might not be as well remembered as some of the other great captains of history but the Comte de Saxe, Frederick the Great and Napoleon all studied his career and adopted his innovations. It says something that Napoleon, Emperor of the French, considered Prince Eugene of Savoy one of the most gifted and influential military leaders of all time. One cannot help but wonder what the Prince would have thought of such a compliment coming from such a quarter.