Hostname: page-component-8448b6f56d-t5pn6 Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-04-19T03:49:56.070Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Toward a National Hungarian Army: The Military Compromise of 1868 and Its Consequences

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Gunther E . Rothenberg
Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.

In discussing the Ausgleich of 1867 historians generally focus on the complex political and economic arrangements and pay little attention to the military controversy over the problem of restructuring the Habsburg army. Yet this problem almost prevented conclusion of the political agreement and greatly endangered its implementation. Count Julius Andrassy, one of the leading Hungarian negotiators, called it the “sword of Damocles suspended over our heads,” and the common war minister, Franz Baron Kuhn, believed that “the future existence of the monarchy” depended on “a successful solution of the army question”.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 31 , Issue 4 , December 1972 , pp. 805 - 816
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1972

References

1. Andrassy to Francis Joseph, July 17, 1868, Kriegsarchiv (henceforth KA), Militarkanzlei seiner Majestat (MKSM), Sonderreihe F 29 (a) 3.

2. Cited in Wagner, Walter, Geschichte des kJt. Kriegsministeriums II, 1866-1888 (Vienna, 1971), p. 48.Google Scholar

3. Kiraly, Bela K., Hungary in the Late Eighteenth Century (New York, 1969), p. 104–5.Google Scholar

4. Anton Radvanszky, “Das ungarische Ausgleichsgesetz vom Jahre 1867,” in Forschungsinstitut fur den Donauraum, Der osterreichisch-ungarische Ausgleich vom Jahre 1867 (Vienna and Munich, 1967), pp. 91–92.Google Scholar

5. Johann Christoph Allmayer-Beck, “Der Ausgleich von 1867 und die k.u.k. bewaffnete Macht,” ibid., pp. 116-17.

6. Barany, George, “The Hungarian Diet of 1839-40 and the Fate of Szechenyi's Middle Course,” Slavic Review, 22 (1963): 297–98.CrossRefGoogle Scholar

7. Rothenberg, Gunther E., “Ban Jelacid, the Croatian Military Border, and the Intervention Against Hungary,” Austrian History Yearbook, 1 (1965): 55–56.Google Scholar

8. Cited in Srbik, Heinrich v., Aus Österreichs Vergangenheit (Salzburg, 1959), p. 126.Google Scholar

9. Antonio Schmidt, “Die Armee in Osterreich von 1848-1867” (Ph.D. diss., University of Munich, 1960), 2 vols., typescript, 2: 32.

10. Žolger, Ivan, Der staatsrechtliche Ausgleich zwischen Österreich und Ungarn (Leipzig, 1911), pp. 5–13.Google Scholar

11. For the imperial order, Dec. 28, 1866, KA MKSM 1867 82-1/1-2. For Andrássy's reaction see Wertheimer, Eduard v., Graf Julius Andrássy, 3 vols. (Stuttgart, 1910–13), 1: 250 Google Scholar.

12. KA MKSM 1867 82-5/1.

13. Žolger, Der staatsrechtliche Ausgleich, pp. 34-39; Miskolczy, Julius, Ungarn in der Habsburger Monarchie (Vienna and Munich, 1959), pp. 135–36Google Scholar.

14. Žolger, Der staatsrechtliche Ausgleich, pp. 20-37.

15. The order, a circular to all commanding generals, stated further that troops should be isolated from subversive influences by strict discipline and constant surveillance. See KA Kriegsministerium Präsidial (KM Präs.) 1867 44-46. Also Glaise-Horstenau, Edmund v., Franz Josephs Weggefahrte: Das Leben des Generalstabschef Grafen Beck (Zurich and Vienna, 1930), pp. 144–45.Google Scholar

16. Anon. [Albrecht], Wie soll Oesterreichs Heer organisiert sein (Vienna, 1869), pp. 19–20.Google Scholar

17. Rogge, Walter, Oesterreich von Vildgos bis-zur Gegenwart, 3 vols. (Leipzig and Vienna, 1873), 3: 148–50.Google Scholar

18. KA MKSM 1867 82-5/1.

19. “Gegen die Zweiteilung der Armee,” Nov. 27, 1867, in KA MKSM 1868 82-3/20; MKSM Sonderreihe F 29 (a) 6, and Nachlass Beck (A 2) 143.

20. At this point Beck conceived the national guards as a militia on the Tyrolean pattern, constituted from men over thirty years of age released from the reserves, and employed primarily on internal security duties. Only in times of war was this force to act with the army, and then merely as an auxiliary. See KA Nachlass Beck (A 2) 143 and MKSM 1868-3/20. In the final disposition, of course, the Honvedseg was rather different from the force envisaged by Beck.

21. KA MKSM Sonderreihe F 76 36 and Nachlass Beck (A 2) 144.

22. Albrecht to War Minister Baron von John, December 1867, KA Nachlass John B 138-22.

23. Protocols and position papers, KA KM Präs. 29-1/1-8. Kuhn's report to Francis Joseph, Mar. 27, 1868, ibid., 3/1.

24. KA MKSM Sonderreihe F 29 (a) 2-5e.

25. Ibid., 3.

26. Kuhn to Francis Joseph, telegram, ibid., 6. Cf. Srbik, Aus Österreichs Vetrgangenheit, p. 184.

27. Wertheimer, Graf Julius Andrássy, 1: 361-63.

28. Ibid., p. 355.

29. The view of an old Habsburg loyalist of liberal views, Joseph Redlich, Emperoi Francis Joseph of Austria (New York, 1929), pp. 352-53.

30. The order was most carefully phrased; there exist no less than five different drafts. KA MKSM 82-3/14.

31. Nauendorff, Heinrich v., Die Kriegsmacht Oesterreichs, 2nd ed., 3 vols. (Vienna, 1875–76), 1: 16–39.Google Scholar

32. “Ausbau der Landwehr,” KA MKSM 1914 82-1/1-1. See also the annual ”Schlagfertigskeitberichte, “ a unique feature of the Austro-Hungarian armed forces.

33. Appointment, Dec. 5, 1868, KA MKSM 82-3/17.

34. Ludwig Jedlicka, “Vom Kaiserthum Österreich zur Doppelmonarchie Österreich- Ungarn,” in Wolfgang v. Groote and Ursula v. Gersdorff, eds., Entscheidung, 1866 (Stuttgart, 1966), p. 269. Also consult the figures in the annual Militärstotistische Jahrbϋcher, which show an almost double intake of recruits for the Honvédség compared with the Landwehr.

35. KA MKSM 1870 1/4S. The Gatling batteries were dissolved only in 1875 when they had proved not practical. Cf. Wrede, Alphons, Geschichte der k.u.k. Wehrmacht, 5 vols. (Vienna, 1898–1905), 5: 557 Google Scholar. See also Haus-, Hof- und Staatsarchiv, Politisches Archiv, Militaria, Box 560-12, “Einführung der Gatling-Kanonen für die ungarische Armee.”

36. See the report “Schlagfertigheit der k. ung. Landwehr,” Apr. 28, 1881, KA MKSM 1881 64-4/1.

37. Kriegsgeschichtliche Abteilung des k.u.k. Kriegsarchivs, , Sechsig Jahre Wehrmacht, 1848-1908 (Vienna, 1908), p. 152–53.Google Scholar

38. Rotlienberg, Gunther E., The Military Border in Croatia, 1740-1881 (Chicago, 1966)Google Scholar, and The Austrian Military Border in Croatia, 1522-1747 (Urbana, 1960).

39. Seton-Watson, Robert W., The Southern Slav Question and the Habsburg Monarchy (London, 1911), p. 372.Google Scholar

40. Wertheimer, Graf Julius Andrássy, and Andrássy's statements in the Ministerrat fur gemeinsame Angelegenheiten, May 26, 1869, cited in Rothenberg, Military Border, p. 170.

41. For a detailed discussion see Rothenberg, , “The Struggle Over the Dissolution of the Croatian Military Border,” Slavic Review, 23 (1964): 63–78 CrossRefGoogle Scholar. For the dissolution of the remaining border districts see the memoirs of Mollinary, Anton Freiherr V., Sechsundvierzig Jahre im österreichisch-ungarischen Heere, 1833–1879, 2 vols. (Zurich, 1905), 2: 203–12, 215–21, 272–78.Google Scholar

42. Sosnosky, Theodor V., Die Politik im Habsbwgerreiche, 2 vols. (Berlin, 1912), 2: 167–71Google Scholar, and Péter Hanák, “Hungary in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy: Preponderancy or Dependency?” Austrian History Yearbook, 3, pt. 1 (1967): 296-97.

43. Miskolczy, Ungarn in der Habsburger Monarchie, p. 162, and Hanak, “Hungary in the Austro-Hungarian Monarchy,” p. 298.

44. Die Einheit der österreichisch-ungarischen Armee: Rede des Grajen Julius Andrássy gehalten im Ausschuss des ungarischen Magnatenhauses am 5. April 1889 (Vienna, 1889), pp. 18–19.

45. Jenks, William A., Austria Under the Iron Ring, 1879-1893 (Charlottesville, 1965), pp. 245–46Google Scholar. On the intentions of the Magyars to use the language of command question to pave the way for a national army see the documents in Kemény, Gábor G., Iratok a nemsetiségi kérdés történeténes Magyaroszágon a dualizmus korában, 4 vols. (Budapest, 1952–66), 4: 395, 301, 305–6.Google Scholar

45. Jenks, William A., Austria Under the Iron Ring, 1879-1893 (Charlottesville, 1965), pp. 245–46Google Scholar. On the intentions of the Magyars to use the language of command question to pave the way for a national army see the documents in Kemény, Gábor G., Iratok a nemsetiségi kérdés történeténes Magyaroszágon a dualizmus korában, 4 vols. (Budapest, 1952–66), 4: 395, 301, 305–6.Google Scholar

45. Jenks, William A., Austria Under the Iron Ring, 1879-1893 (Charlottesville, 1965), pp. 245–46Google Scholar. On the intentions of the Magyars to use the language of command question to pave the way for a national army see the documents in Kemény, Gábor G., Iratok a nemsetiségi kérdés történeténes Magyaroszágon a dualizmus korában, 4 vols. (Budapest, 1952–66), 4: 395, 301, 305-6.Google Scholar

46. Landesverteidigung, Bundesministerium f., Österreich-Ungarns Letzter Krieg, 7 vols. (Vienna, 1930–38), 1: 27–29.Google Scholar

47. Conte Corti, Egon C. and Sokol, Hans, Der alte Kaiser Franz Joseph I (Vienna, Graz, and Cologne, 19SS), p. 72.Google Scholar

48. A detailed analysis together with pertinent documents is given by Peball, Kurt and Rothenberg, Gunther E., “Der Fall ‘U’: Die geplante Besetzung Ungarns durch die k.u.k. Armee im Herbst 1905,” Schriften des Heeresgeschichtlichen Museums in Wien, 4 (1969): 85–126.Google Scholar

49. Regele, Oskar, Feldmarschall Conrad: Auftrag und Erfüllung, 1906 bis 1918 (Vienna and Munich, 1956), pp. 161–64, 184.Google Scholar

50. Spitzmiiller-Harmersbach, Alexander, Der letste österreichisch-ungarische Ausgleich und der Zusammenbruch der Monarchie (Berlin, 1929), pp. 79–83 Google Scholar. Cf. Regele, Feldmarschall Conrad, pp. 439-41. Documents include the protocol of the crown council, Dec. 4, 1917, KA MKSM 1918 38-2/1, 2, and projects for the implementation of this proposal dated as late as Sept 12, 1918, ibid.

51. See, for instance, the judgment by an English scholar: "The weakness of the Habsburg army in 1914 stemmed not from the disaffection of its soldiers but from the intransigence of politicians in Hungary." Norman Stone, "Army and Society in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1900-1914," Past and Present, no. 33 (1966): 103.