The Habsburg Monarchy 1809-1918

by A.J.P. Taylor

s/t: A History of the Austrian Empire & Austria-Hungary
First published in 1941, The Habsburg Monarchy has become indispensable to students of nineteenth-century European history. Not only a chronological report of actions and changes, Taylor's work is a provocative exploration into the historical process of the most eventful hundred years of the Habsburg monarchy.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, European History, Politics, 19th Century, 20th Century, World War I

280 pages, Paperback

First published January 1, 1941

About the author

Alan John Percivale Taylor was an English historian of the 20th century and renowned academic who became well known to millions through his popular television lectures.

Reviews

[William2 · Rating 4 out of 5]

This severe, judgemental little book is solely about the politics -- internal and external -- of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary in the years stated. There is nothing in it about wars fought, just passing references to their having occurred. There's virtually nothing in it about cultural life. The biographies of those involved are kept slender. The focus is exclusively on the Emperors' courts at Vienna and the many permutations that the monarchy went through -- who its ministers were and what their mistakes and successes were and who they dealt with abroad -- to manage a vast, polyglot state which eventually collapsed along nationalist and cultural lines. Lacking descriptive color, it can be very dry. On the other hand, I know of no more condensed survey of all the socio-historic trends and economic pressures the state was subject to in that period. Especially recommended for those with an interest in how Austria handled the Revolution of 1848 and it's run-up to the first world war.

[Dimitri · Rating 3 out of 5]

Dry, dense and purely political. A focus on the events of 1848 that do justice to its reputation as a 'missed turning point in Germanic history', alltough an Austrian empire beyond repair doesn't sound like the most pallable alternative for Prussian hegemony. Certainly nobody brought it up again after Sadowa. Surprisingly, Habsburg paranoia contributed to the creation of the 'Yugoslav' idea under Serbian hegemony among Croat and Serb intellectuals who were originally not on speaking terms. This is a wholly different interpretation from Serbia's Great War 1914-1918 , where South Slav unity is a simple given from the start.

Taylor always has a nifty phrase to spare. I won't judge whether these are mostly opinionated expressions from an early Anglophone prophet of the thankfully discredited Sondernweg theory, but it has to show sometimes that Taylor was a leftist bad boy in his day. Occasionally, however, he just drops the ball. Consider p. 203: "The Slav immigrants in America...added the new ideal of promoting national self-determination and so paved the way for the American intervention in 1917 which determined the fate of the Habsburg Monarchy" As if the Monroe Doctrine of 1823 hadn't long validated U.S. interventionism, or, more recently, the war of 1898 hadn't show the benefits of a military-backed sphere of influence which was not geographically defined by just the Philippines.

Two things are missing:
1) Culture. If it's all about nascent nationalism through litterature & poetry, where are the writers and their works ? Orlando Figes bards the Romanov era with so much classics that you feel like a Philistine for not having read the Brothers Karamazov first.
2) Eyewitness accounts in any form. Taylor wrote a quarter century after the fall of the dynasty. Even the senior officials were only septua-or octogenarian. Granted, this was during the Cold War, but Austria itself at least was on the accessible side of the curtain; use that living memory for future generations !

Also, if the Army became the final supranational institution, why not a word on Habsburg military culture? Every work worth its salt on the WWI Eastern Front has something to say about the multilingual demands for the officer corps and the ethnic make-up of different units. Mostly with a little help from The Army of Francis Joseph
It is no doubt still a valuable book for students of 19th century Habsburg politics, but something tells me I'll see this golden oldie listed in the bibliography of The Habsburg Empire: A New History and dismiss it as coolly as Francis Joseph did his Ministers.

To end a positive note, there's a short passage that rings true today: rascist nationalism on the 'frontier lands', where a German train conductor reprimanded by a Croat superior or a German teacher passed over for a promotion in favour of a more capable Czech colleague take up the Heraus . It always starts with small personal insecurities.

[Hagar · Rating 4 out of 5]

An austere political history of Austria and Austria-Hungary from 1809-1918. By austere, I mean that it is literally just a dry history book concerned only with politics, that's it. Taylor is not concerned with wars, cultural life, or anything fun. It's a severe, old-school sort of history scholarship. Only recommended if you're really into the topic.

[Lance Carney · Rating 3 out of 5]

I purchased this book in order to research Hungarian history for my book that included Bela Lugosi. I got all that and more (much, much more--snore). I hoped it would give me interesting facts; instead, it was a well involved history more for PhD students doing their thesis on nineteenth-century history of the region. I did give it 3 stars instead of 2 because I found a couple of tidbits. So it was worth it. Just don't give me a test on what I read. ("You failed, dude!")

[Connor · Rating 5 out of 5]

I have an edition from 1948 of this book, which is quite cool. This is a fascinating summary of the late Habsburg realm and it’s many conflicts and internal strifes. AJP Taylor as always delivers a fascinating historical analysis of the events that he covers in his many historical works.

[John E · Rating 4 out of 5]

Excellent history (as are all of AJP Taylor's works. This books makes you work, but at the end you really understand the Habsburgs, the interplay of nationality and class, and this thing called "Austria-Hungary." Taylor's cutting insights and take-no-prisoner style is refreshing and sometimes downright hilarious. I especially loved his last line in the bibliographic essay where he states, "This list does not exhaust the books I have consulted, some with profit, most without."

[Kate Ward · Rating 5 out of 5]

Sometimes I am sad I decided not to get a PhD in history and try to become a professional historian. But then I read books like this one by A.J.P. Taylor that show me I could never be as comprehensive, articulate, thoughtful and (at times) funny (some good burns about Franz Joseph) about such a complex period in time. So best that I stayed an amateur, and just read history books.
Thanks to my brother for buying me this because the Hapsburg Monarchy is not a historical topic that I often gravitate towards. But this book was so sweeping and yet condensed that I got very immersed. Obviously given the length of the book (only about 300 pages) the author has to be fairly high level but the amount of detail he manages to pack is in astounding. Definitely makes me want to go back and revisit some of this period - do some more reading. Just as a history book should!

[David Nichols · Rating 2 out of 5]

It's difficult to wade through the sea of names and institutional reforms that Taylor considers the building blocks of good history, but the author's occasional acerbic asides nearly make the task worthwhile. If nothing else, this book provides one important reason why the Austro-Hungarian Empire collapsed: the expense of bribing every nationality's elite with bureaucratic appointments (250,000 Magyar gentry had state jobs, for example) left little money for a modern army when the final war came.

[Cedoleban · Rating 3 out of 5]

AJP Taylor was a clever thinker, but a poor historian. This is history told with few characters, frequent generalizations and with more than a little editorializing.

[Alex Stannard · Rating 3 out of 5]

A brief history of the habsburg monarchy over a century. It was often difficult to keep up with the cast of characters and therefore to follow what was going on. Best when talking about general aspects of the history of the habsburgs rather than detailing the minutiae of specific incidents.

[Frumenty · Rating 3 out of 5]

Here is a book about a topic about which I knew almost nothing when I started to read it, and with which I am now convinced I will never be really conversant. I find the apparent depth and breadth of Taylor's knowledge of the history of the Austro-Hungarian Empire frankly quite astounding. There is so much to know: so many ethnicities (Germans, Slavs, Magyars, Slovaks, Czechs, Poles, Italians, et al), so many classes (aristocracy, Church, gentry, urban intelligentsia, capitalists, peasants, state bureaucrats), so many short-lived administrations both at the Imperial level and the regional, so many makeshift state ideologies, so much struggle for hegemony, national independence, or mere survival. Whenever the state appeases one group, it alienates another, which it can afford to do only for a while until circumstances change and that posture becomes untenable. A metaphor that recurs throughout the book is that of a monarchy walking on a tightrope, and my impression is that a simple explanation of its eventual collapse may be stated in a single word: entropy. The monarchy simply ran out of workable options to save itself.

A remarkable thing about the story which Taylor tells is that this great balancing act was maintained not by men endowed with extraordinary gifts but by men of very little talent: "Francis Joseph was an emperor without ideas; this was his strength and enabled him to survive." (p189). Pithy observations such as this, about Emperors, statesmen, policies, even whole peoples, may be found on nearly every page of this book. I have no way of knowing which are just and which may perhaps be unfair (what do I know of the wisdom of a particular Slovak politician of the mid-19th century?), but Taylor's self-confidence in making them is beyond doubt. There has been much written about the origins of the World Wars of the 20th century. If this history is as sound as it appears to be, then it is an important contribution to that literature and one which approaches the matter from an unaccustomed direction. In my ignorance, I'm obliged to be non-committal, but I will say I'd be disappointed to learn that this is not a very significant book.

[CasaJB · Rating 5 out of 5]

Some quotes in the final pages of the book relating to Austria (as related to [Greater] Germany) during/after the dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy:

"The Germany members of the Reichsrat turned themselves into a German National Assembly and on October 30 proclaimed the state of "German-Austria"* - a state without boundaries or definition, which should embrace all German subjects of the Habsburgs.

FN: This was the official name of the new state, and the only one which represents its character. The Allies insisted on the meaningless name "Austria"; they hoped to prevent the German-Austrians being German by forbidding themselves to call themselves so, truly and "invention" of Austria which would have surprised Palacký."


"The seven provinces [footnote omitted] which inherited the name of "Austria" composed a German national state, and, if they had had real self-determination, would have merged into Germany."


"The Austrian Social Democrats never forgot their German Nationalism: they regarded the German republic with exaggerated sympathy and Czechoslovakia with exaggerated suspicion. Separation from Germany was always a grievance for them, never a principle."


"Yet Hitler's occupation of Vienna in March, 1938, was an act of national liberation for the inhabitants of "Austria"; it freed them from the last relics of the Habsburgs and united them with their national state. Hitler was merely Austria's greatest gift to the German people: he was the triumph of Austrian policy and Austria's revenge for the defeat of 1866. Prussia became the prisoner of Vienna; and the best elements in Prussian society died at the hands of Hitler's hangmen after July 20, 1944. Hitler had learnt everything he knew in Austria - his nationalism from Schönerer, his anti-Semitism and appeal to the "little man" from Lueger. He brought into German politics a demagogy[^] peculiarly Viennese. The Reich which he created to last for a thousand years was nothing more than the "Empire of seventy millions" projected by Bruck in 1850, and warded off by Bismark in 1866. It would have been unreasonable, indeed, to expect to find in "Austria" a barrier against domestic and foreign policies which were entirely "Austrian" in origin and in spirit.*

[^ My note: I dispute the word "demagogy" because although Hitler did appeal to desires of ordinary people, I don't believe it was at the expense of or contrary to rational argument and I don't think the ordinary people were prejudiced in standard use of the term, i.e., having their views without reason or experience.]

*FN: Thus, Srbik, biographer of Metternich, and Glaise-Horstenau, historian of Austria-Hungary's military defeat, both began as "Great Austrians" and ended as National Socialists. Hitler offered the rule of force which they had demanded in vain, from the Habsburgs."

[Liam · Rating 5 out of 5]

"Hungary never ceased to demand her constitutional Diet. One way of pretending to satisfy this demand was to give Diets to all the provinces, including Hungary; the other was to give the Empire a constitution, with a central parliament at Vienna. The first was the way of conservatism, of the pseudo-historic nobility; the second was the way of liberalism, of the middle-class German bureaucracy. Neither satisfied Hungary; she rejected both an Imperial parliament and provincial Diets, and demanded the unique position to which her unique history entitled her." (99)

"Even on the racial frontiers unbridled nationalism was the policy of a minority, and usually of a discreditable minority: the school teacher who was passed over for a Czech with a better degree, the signalman who caused an accident and was reprimanded by his Czech superior, the lawyer who lost his case before a Slovene judge -- these were standard-bearers of their race." (161)

"In another way, too, the Austrian state suffered from its strength: it had never had its range of activity cut down during a successful period of laissez-faire, and there fore the openings for national conflict were far greater. There were no private schools or hospitals, no independent universities; and the state, in its infinite paternalism, performed a variety of services from veterinary surgery to the inspecting of buildings. The appointment of every school teacher, of every railway porter, of every hospital doctor, of every tax-collector, was a signal for national struggle." (173)

"Thus, all the schemes of the pre-war era postulated the impossible. If only the Monarchy had not been defeated in 1866; if only the Magyars would accept Slavs as equals; if only the Germans would not look to the German Empire; if only the peoples of the Empire would begome again illiterate peasants and return to the unquestioning dynastic loyalty of the days of the Counter-Reformation; if only the Habsburgs would promote trade unions and agrarian reform; then the problem would be solved, for, indeed, it would not exist. So, standing around a deathbed, the mourners might say: 'If only the dead man would breathe, he would be quite all right.'" (225)

[Edvinas Palujanskas · Rating 5 out of 5]

Puiki knyga apie Habsburgų monarchijos ypatybes nuo 1809 metų iki jos žlugimo. Kodėl ji buvo tokia, o ne kitokia? Kodėl Ji apskritai egzistavo?
Knyga puikiai tik visiems, kurie nori sužinoti apie Romantizmo epochos Habsburgų monarchijos tautas. Joje pasakojama apie dominuojančią vokiečių kalbos įtaką ir apie tai, kaip kiekviena tauta stengėsi nusikratyti valdančiosios Vienos įtakos. Habsburgų monarchija buvo tautų katilas, kurių kiekviena stengėsi turėti kuo didesnė įtaką kuo didesnėje teritorijoje. Kiekvienos jų kelias į tautinį sąmoningumą buvo skirtingas, vienas tautinis judėjimas neretai slopindavo kitą. Šioje knygoje pamatysite, kaip skyrėsi vengrų, kroatų, slovėnų, slovakų ir kitų tautų keliai link nepriklausomybės.
Pirmojo pasaulinio karo laikotarpiu, kai visi suprato, kad imperija žlugs, kiekviena valstybė žinojo, kas yra tikrieji ir, realiai, įsisenėję jos priešai:
"Lenkams grėsmę kėlė vokiečiai ir carizmas;kroatams - vengrai, serbai ir italai; slovėnams -italai ir vokiečiai; mažarusiams - vengrai ir lenkai; serbams - vengrai, kroatai ir bulgarai, o netiesiogiai - dar ir turkai. Čekai pavojų jautė tik iš vokiečių: jie turėjo daug ko bijoti, jei vokiečiai laimėtų karą, ir neturėjo ko prarasti - jei pralaimėtų"(P.309)

Tautybė, nacionalizmas, etniškumas ir kiti panašūs terminai, kurie nurodo žmonių identitetą, buvo labai komlikuoti, ką jau kalbėti apie pačius tautinius judėjimus.

Čia išskirsiu tam tikras vietas apie Habsburgų tautas:

1. Vengrija. Apie šių dienų vieną didžiausių Vengrijos nacionalinių didvyrių:

P.68-69. "Lajosas Kossuthas politiniame gyvenime aktyviai reiškėsi tik dešimtį metų, bet Vidurio Europoje paliko gilesnį pėdsaką nei kuris kitas paskiras veikėjas. Nors kilęs iš smulkiųjų bajorų, bet bežemis; iš profesijos žurnalistas ir, prastai susiklosčius aplinkybėms, visai neturėjo ką prarasti. Jis buvo tik atsivertęs į "madjarizmą", iš tikrųjų slovakas; jo motina slovakė net nekalbėjo vengriškai. Slaviška kilmė lėmė begalinį Kossutho pasitikėjimą savimi, tokį nebūdingą apdairiems ir realybės jausmą turintiems vengrams. Būdamas bežemis ir slavas, Kossuthas troško, kad jį laikytų vengrų ponu; atkakliai tvirtino, kad būtent tautinė savimonė, o ne žemės nuosavybė turi būti tikrasis skiriamasis vengro bruožas...smulkiąją bajoriją jis patraukė įtikinėdamas, kad būtent ji, o ne miestai, yra vengrų tautos širdis".

2. Slovakija.

P.150. "Pirmasis slovakų bendrinės kalbos variantas buvo sąmoningai paremtas vakarų Slovakijos tarmėmis, kaip artimesnėmis čekų kalbai; tačiau tų tarmių formos buvo nepažįstamos didžiajai daliai slovakų valstiečių, ir kad jie nesuvengrėtų, slovakų šviesuoliai septintajame dešimtmetyje bendrinei kalbai pritaikė vidurio Slovakijos tarmę Taigi siekdami kaip nors atsilaikyti prieš vengrus, slovakai buvo prispirti tapti atskira tauta; ir kuo tvirtesnės darėsi Vengrijos sienos, tuo aiškiau savo atskirą erdvę tarp jų brėžėsi slovakai".

3. Rumunija. Situacija po Krymo karo:

P.120. "Rumunija tapo niekieno žeme, neutralia Dunojaus žiočių savininke, todėl kur kas pakančiau nusiteikusia abiejų - Ir Austrijos, ir Rusijos - atžvilgiu, negu jei būtų buvusi kurios vienos valdoma. Per vėlesnes aštuntojo ir devintojo dešimtmečių krizes Rusija nesikėsino į Rumunijos nepriklausomybę, tad jas pavyko įveikti vien diplomatijos išgalėmis. Tačiau vos tik Rusija, o su ja ir Rumunija, liovėsi paisyti 1856-aisiais nustatytų principų, Habsburgų monarchijos egzistencija pakibo ant plauko; to ženklas buvo caro Nikolajaus II vizitas 1914-ųjų birželį į Konstancą pas Rumunijos karalių".

4. Slovėnija.

P.221. "Štirijos provincijos, kurioje buvo Celė, gyventojų daugumą sudarė vokiečiai; šiaurėje tai būta išimtinai vokiško krašto, pietuose vokiškus turgaus miestelius supo slovėnų gyvenamas kaimas. Tačiau kadangi gyventojų migracija iš kaimo į miestus vis didėjo, tai ir tie miesteliai pamažu darėsi slovėniškesni. Slovėnai pradėjo reikalauti, kad miestai patenkintų jų kultūrines reikmes, ypač kad valstybinėse mokyklose, šalia dėstomosios vokiečių kalbos, būtų mokoma ir slovėniškai. Štirijos seimas kategoriškai atmetė šį reikalavimą; slovėnams neliko nieko kito kaip kreiptis į Reichsratą, ir čia juos palaikė čekai. 1888 metais Taaffe buvo įsteigęs slovėniškas klases bendrojo lavinimo mokyklose Maribore, didžiausiame pietinės Štirijos mieste. Tatai padrąsino slovėnus toliau reikalauti klasių gimtąja kalba Celėje, mažesniame ir toliau į slovėnų gyvenamas sritis įsiterpusiame mieste, kuriame kažin ar bebuvo vokiečių persvara".

5.Kroatija

P.38-39. "Smulkiosios bajorijos būta ir Kroatijoje, savo ruožtu nuo Vengrijos Karūnos priklausomoje karalystėje. Kroatijos bajorija taip pat neturėjo jokių tautinių požymių, arba, tiksliau, po jos nacionalizmu irgi slėpėsi klasiniai interesai. Tarp vengrų ir kroatų bajorų ruseno priešiškumas. Tiesą sakant, kroatai už savo privilegijas turėjo būti dėkingi tik sąjungai su Vengrija; izoliavęsi kroatų bajorai būtų patyrę čekų likimą.1790 metais, pačiame kovos su Juozapu II įkarštyje, Kroatijos seimas įgaliojo už save dėl mokesčių derėtis Vengrijos seimą - kaip stipresnį ir kur kas pajėgesnį priešintis; kartu jis priėmė nutarimą, kad Kroatijos vietinė valdžia turi būti pavaldi Vengrijos valdžiai Budapešpe, užuot buvusi pavaldi imperatoriaus skiriamam Kroatijos valdytojui. Net ir XIX amžiuje Kroatijos bajorija vis dar manė, kad artimesni saitai su Vengrija yra saugiausias kelias jų kraštui. 1827 metais Kroatijos seimas nusprendė, kad kroatiškose mokyklose turi būti mokoma vengrų kalba, ir 1830 metais mokėti vengrų kalbą pareikalavo iš visų Kroatijos valdininkų. Ir tik tada, kai vartoti vengrų kalbą, vietoj lotynų, buvo pareikalauta iš jų pačių, kroatų bajorai ėmė "keisti kursą" ir pajuto, kad jų tautiniai interesai nebesutampa su klasiniais. Vengrų nacionalizmas pastūmėjo kroatų bajorus į Habsburgų glėbį".

Žinoma, viena knyga visko neišaiškins, tačiau bus puiki pradžia tolesnio domėjimosi kelyje. Apie kiekvieną tautą būtų galima papasakoti daug plačiau, o šioje knygoje daugiausiai susikoncentruojama į politinius įvykius bei tautinius judėjimas. Apie šių šalių kultūras teks skaityti atskirą knygą.

Bet kokiu atveju, tai puiki knyga kiekvienam, kuris keliaus į bet kurią buvusios Habsburgų monarchijos šalį. Etniniai konfliktai ir nacionalizmas yra Romantizmo epochos bruožai, tačiau ne praeities dalykai.

[Peter Harrison · Rating 3 out of 5]

I struggled with this book more than I expected to, having been written by one of the 20th centuries most eminent British historians. Taylor assumes a degree of familiarity with the basic flow of Habsburg history and focuses strongly on the "kings and things" story of nationalities, foreign policy, and the Imperial court. Whilst readable, his narrative and analysis of much of the nineteenth century feels rather dated. Perhaps it is simply that all historians write from the perspective of their own era. Certainly, Taylor's writing seems more relevant as he approaches the First World War and the end of the Habsburg monarchy - and looks forward to the impact of the successor states on interwar politics.

That said, his emphasis on the fragmented nationalities that formed both Czechoslovakia and Yugoslavia seems prescient in the light of the more recent history of Eastern Europe. His description of the impact of a dominant Germany on central Europe also holds lessons for thinking about the modern European Union dominated by Angela Merkel.

In short, an interesting but dated book which still holds insights for modern readers.

[Carlos B. · Rating 2 out of 5]

The book was written in 1947 and I think this is a key fact to understand the author and the book. Taylor is very judgemental with many of the people and events. It amazed me his bold opinions on Francis Joseph or the Italians (both of them are pathetic). Sometimes he doesn't give much evidence to support his opinions. In any case, I'd say that this is anecdotic.

I didn't like the fact that the book focus entirely about the nationalities. In a few chapters he's just naming politicians and agreements one after another. Hence, I don't think it gives a good look of the Habsburg or the empire. You don't see anything about the cultural, social, economic or international issues. They are mentioned briefly when talking about the struggle between the "master races" ,Hungary and German, and the lesser races, Czechs, Slovaks, Poles, Little Russian, Slovenes and Serb-Croats. Sometimes he counts Jew as another race.

To sum up, there are some interesting remarks about the Habsburg and the history of the empire but it lacks a lot of elements to properly understand their history because it focused mainly on the nationalities struggles.

[Evan · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Habsburg Territories are, for me, an important comparison for analysing Britain, multinational entities forged in the medieval period and bound together by a monarchy. Where as Britain successfully modernised at the front of the Europe, the Habsburgs lagged following from their 15th-16th century heights and this book charts their final century. While mostly a political book, Taylor’s writing prevents it from being dry and conveys the evolutionary process well. Taylor’s particular taste for the tragic and the tragedy of politics really comes through as there are no heroes but doomed political actors, which makes sense considering how he was living in the violent nationalist consequences resulting from the trends he was writing on. We can probably also attribute this to his classical education and familiarity with Greek political writing and their sense for Tragedy. The book is both an excellent history and a relic of the period he was writing on.

[Richard Bolson · Rating 2 out of 5]

This book should be subtitled “A Political History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary,” because there is almost no mention of the wars, assassinations, suicides, etc. in the Empire’s history but it goes into great detail about the continual political changes and events involved. The writing is dry and academic and, although the names of nearly every ethnicity within the Empire are rendered in their native tongues (with pronunciation guides), the German names are inexplicably Anglicized (Francis Joseph, Francis Ferdinand, William II, etc.). Finally, the distinction between Germans in Germany and Germans in Austria is often muddled so that it becomes difficult to determine which group is being discussed at any given time. There are much better books about the Empire than this one.

[Ania · Rating 4 out of 5]

This is quite a tough read, purely political and not giving readers any background on what is happening in the meantime (other countries, wars, culture and society). It is focused only on the politics and governments in the Habsburg Monarchy era (mostly in Vienna and Hungary).

Hard to read, if you are the same as me: person not yet well aware of the history of that era: you will have a hard time reading this. But it's also quite interesting and leaves you with a willingness to learn more about Europe at those times and Habsburgs as such (because Taylor gives surprisingly little space to talk about this family itself). Still, definitely a good lecture about complicated times, when nationalism starts to grow amongst the societies and why so many monarchies fallen down during those times.

[Dave Clark · Rating 3 out of 5]

The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918: A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary, is a detailed monograph that places the politics and foreign affairs of the Habsburg Empire from 1809 to 1918 under a microscope. The book is exclusively dedicated to the political history of the Habsburg Empire between 1809 and 1918, although the author very briefly describes earlier crucial historical events and the multinational character of the Empire in order to provide context for the reader. The late A.J.P. Taylor, who was a distinguished British historian from the Magdalen College at Oxford, argued that the fall of the Habsburg Empire was the inevitable conclusion to the pressures of both mass and intellectual nationalism that caused the subject nations to finally break from the master nations. In the first half of his book, Taylor outlined the events leading up to the eventual end of the old Austrian Empire of the Habsburgs and then he examined the making of the Dualism between Hungary and Austria, which marked the beginning of a new Austrian-Hungarian Empire. In the second half of his book, Taylor contended that the complex political landscape in the new Austrian-Hungarian Empire after the Dualism in 1867 caused the Habsburg Monarchy to be increasingly protective of its hegemony, which culminated in the hasty declaration of war against Serbia that lead to WWI and the end of the Habsburg Monarchy.

Taylor claimed that the Austrian Empire rose from the ashes of Austerlitz-- the devastating battle against Napoleon in the war of 1809-- to once again become the premier German state; however, after the Revolutions of 1848 the Austrian Empire made a series of concessions that lead to the Dualism, which resulted in the lose of both Imperial and German hegemony in the Empire. Taylor started the focus of his analysis with the appointment of Metternich as Foreign Minister for the Habsburgs in 1809, because Taylor believed that he best personified the Empire with his pliant and ingenious diplomacy that lead to Habsburg dominance and decline. Taylor used the agreement of Mnichovo Hradiste in 1833 to highlight the apex of both Meternich’s diplomacy and the Pre-March Austrian Empire. In the agreement, Metternich successfully hid Austria’s weakness and entered into a conservative alliance with Russia and later Prussia that preserved the Empire as a European necessity for stability and the prevention of revolutions throughout Europe. Taylor then illustrated the decline of Metternich and the old Austrian Empire in the Revolutions of 1848 when the doctrine of the Rights of Man challenged dynastic rule-- and thus the Habsburg Monarchy and the old Austrian Empire-- and Metternich was forced to resign. Taylor further argued that the Habsburg Monarchy survived in a battered state after the revolutions; furthermore, he contended that the Habsburgs were forced to make large concessions that lead to the Dualism and a substantial loss in their hegemony.

Taylor argued that the Habsburg Monarchy was forced to use political expedients in order to maintain its supremacy. He claimed that the declaration of war on Serbia-- which caused WWI-- was the clearest and most profound example of how the Habsburgs fought to maintain their hegemony within the new Austrian-Hungarian Empire. He contended that the war was fought with the intention of reasserting the power of the Austrian-Hungarian Empire over Serbia, which would also reinforce Habsburg authority to both the master nations of Austria and Hungary and the subject nations like Serbia. Taylor ended his analysis and argument of the Habsburg Monarchy in reflection on the war with Serbia by stating: “It ended both greatness and independence.”

The book treated the legacy of the Habsburg Monarchy and politics within the Empire with intense attention to detail and a lot of scholarly thoughtfulness, however it lacked clarity in both the chronology of events and the context in which they occurred. Taylor showed his dedication for detail and accuracy in his use of ethnically proper names of different locations and not the Germanized or Italianated names. He only used the German or other popularized names for convenience to reader and he always made the reader aware of the discrepancy. The book sacrificed clearness for detail though. The diction and sentence structure through much of the book was cumbersome. In addition, Taylor failed in including many helpful maps that might have been more effective in illustrating his points concerning the different ethnicities and the land that was gained and lost as result of treaties and wars. The book also lacked sufficient chronology. Taylor did not include enough references to dates or other events that might have better articulated the chronology.

The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809-1918: A History of the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary is geared to an audience that already has a significant understanding of the history of the Habsburg Monarchy and Central Europe. A.J.P. Taylor delivers a very thorough treatment of his subject that does not endeavor to place it into a broader context. He did not present much of a early history of the Habsburgs or Austria and because the book was written in 1948 his perspective in the book is much more limited than more current histories of the topic. However, as a whole Taylor has definitely written a well thought-out and balanced book on the Habsburg Monarchy between 1809 and 1918.

[Stephen Lockett · Rating 4 out of 5]

I was able to relate to this book a lot more as it homed in on the First World War which saw the collapse of the Habsburg Monarchy and even more so the Epilogue which summarised the successor polities after 1919. The mid 19th century I found complicated with an array of politicians from a variety of provinces and states within the Habsburg Empire being featured. However the impression the book left on me is the devastation politicians can bring upon the general population (in this case WWI and subsequently WWII) as they manoeuvre to retain or gain power.

[Brian · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Habsburg Monarchy is a thorough overview of the how the empire rose to power with Metternich following the Napoleonic wars through its demise at the end of World War I. It covers the high points of diplomacy, war and social changes occurring throughout the empire. It is very accessible if you are not an expert in this era and well written. It gives enough information on the topic without being laborious. If you are looking for a good book on Australian history this does a great job for this time period.

[Jeremiah · Rating 4 out of 5]

Good exploration of the politics of the Habsburg monarchy in its latter days. The final few chapters are particularly good and hold a god narrative pace. Taylor has great wit and brings out the humour in the constant contradictions and national foibles of the region.

[Lynn · Rating 3 out of 5]

The topic is of interest; the context was dated and the writing difficult.

[Petra Pintarić · Rating 2 out of 5]

Nije mi se svidjela knjiga jer nitko nije bio sretan za vrijeme Habsburške monarhije osim osoba koje su je osnovale.

[John Ward · Rating 5 out of 5]

Highly informative, good on politics, but also still very much written by a British man post ww2.

[Sebastian Leroy · Rating 3 out of 5]

No muy apasionante la forma de escribir.

[Jethro Tull · Rating 3 out of 5]

Korektan pregled, ne više od toga. Hrvatska vrlo slabo zastupljena.

[Данило Судин · Rating 5 out of 5]

Попри те, що перше видання книжки побачило світ ще 1941 р., вона може бути цікавою і для сучасного читача. Перш за все, в ній викладено "з висоти пташиного польоту" історію Австрійської імперії (з 1867 - Австро-Угорщини). Як не дивно, але така конспективна розповідь дозволяє побачити всі ті проблеми та трудноші, з якими стикалася династія Габсбургів в управлінні своєю державою. І єдиний рецепт, який вона могла запропонувати - не ризикувати. Загалом, після цієї книжки стають зрозумілими причини такої популярності "бабці Австрії" в центрально-європейських народів: слабка влада, яка не могла стати на бік жодної з національностей чи класів, подобалася всім. Втім, подобалася постфактум: після досвіду націоналізуючих держав міжвоєнного періоду чи подій Другої світової війни і комунізму. Але також зрозумілим стає і процес взаємодії між політичними силами та національними рухами. Фактично, А.Тейлор випереджує Р.Брубейкера на півстоліття, хоча робить це більше як історик, а не соціолог.

Але найбільше враження від книжки - це усвідомлення того, що Австрійська імперія була колосом на глиняних ногах і лише дивом проіснувала до 1918 р. Саме тому книжка має бути особливо цінною для тих, хто досі вірить в "австрійський міф": завдяки праці А.Тейлора легко побачити, що Габсбурги відрізнялися від своїх "колег" Гогенцолернів чи Романових не намірами, а лише силою. Якщо перші могли активно тиснути на своє населення і здійснювати жорстку політику, то Габсбурги не мали на це сил, а тому постійно лавірували. Але якби вони мали більше сили, то всі народи "щасливої Австрії" опинилися в тому ж становищі, що і підкорені народи Німецької чи Російської імперій.

[Richard Thomas · Rating 5 out of 5]

A good book to which I have returned several times since I first read it in 1966 for history A level. He writes well on the empire and its rulers with many Tayloresque asides - for example, his introduction to the second chapter is masterly but wry. Since it first appeared, the dual monarchy has found more supporters than existed for much of the time after its collapse in 1918. The fall of the communist successor states with the horrors of the civil wars in the Balkans, the transition to democracy and their entry into the EU have put the multi-national political entity that was the empire into a different light.