What do you think?
Rate this book
The Will to Survive: A History of Hungary
A history of Hungary from 1000 to the present day by the former British Ambassador to Hungary.
606 pages, Paperback
First published January 1, 2006
19 people are currently reading
431 people want to read
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews
June 17, 2017
Every now and then, a comprehensive history of a single nation achieves the scope of a work like Norman Davies' Europe, encompassing thousands of years and a cast of hundreds. Bryan Cartledge's history of Hungary is just such a book. It only stays constrained to 500 pages because of its very small typeface - published in a typical 11- or 12-point font, the book might well stretch to 800 pages or so. All for a relatively small country like Hungary? When the country in concern has been a controversial crossroads for the Roman Empire, Byzantine Empire, Ottoman Empire, Habsburg Empire, Nazi Third Reich and Soviet Warsaw Treaty Organization, the answer is an emphatic yes. The only limitation to this book is that even the later editions, as late as 2011, end with Viktor Orban's first election to office in 1998. For Hungary in the 21st century, the reader will have to refer to more recent works.
Historical reviews of this quality often come from British writers, because they offer a certain droll and nuanced way of examining controversial topics that is often too subtle for even the best American writers to match. No doubt there are several Hungarian historical writers who have done a better job with the home country than Cartledge, but for English-speakers, it's hard to imagine a better source.
Cartledge addresses the topic with a light-touch conservatism, hardly surprising, as he served as ambassador to Hungary during the Thatcher years. Thankfully, he only inserts himself as a character into the book in the last 50 pages, and in a very understated fashion. Equally thankfully, he doesn't let anti-communist rhetoric get overblown when describing the 1950 show trial of Laszlo Rajk, or the 1956-57 betrayal of Imre Nagy following the Hungarian Revolution. There's no foaming at the mouth about "Soviet butchers" here, only an observation that one can scarcely trust a devious ideologue going on and on about the dictatorship of the proletariat. It isn't that Stalin or Malenkov were bad apples, it's that Leninism is made that way. Cartledge is equally calm yet insistent regarding the utter wasteland Hungary becomes under Ottoman dominance in the 17th century and Habsburg dominance in the centuries to follow.
Anyone who's stood in Heroes' Square (Hosok Tere) in Pest, surrounded by statues of Hungary's best and brightest, knows that knocking all those heroes off their pedestals would be quite a task, but Cartledge attempts to do so ever so gently, not because he would deny Hungary heroes, but because (like me) he thinks pedestals are always unhealthy things, and that people are better off knowing historical figures with all their warts intact. This hero deflating goes all the way back to Almos and Arpad of the Magyars at the end of the ninth century. The Magyars didn't so much conquer Hungary as occupy certain areas opportunistically, in a manner similar to steppe warriors like the Huns.
The book provides some interesting tales of St. Stephen, and his constant struggles against the Byzantines and the Holy Roman Empire in the late 900s and early 1000s. St. Stephen's crown was the source of legitimacy in Hungary for centuries, and its temporary storage in Fort Knox until 1978 gives Hungary and the U.S. continued odd and partially-obscured ties.
The agricultural nature of the nation and the remoteness of landed estates means that Hungary remained an aristocratic nation of feudal barons well into the 19th century. While peasant uprisings erupted from time to time, the barons managed to stifle universal suffrage and peasant rights almost up to World War I. Consequently, when the short-lived communist regime of Bela Kun took power in 1919, it had a lot of land-reform to accomplish, leaving the Hungarian people with a bad taste for socialism lasting to the present day. Because so much of the action of the Holy Roman Empire years takes place in Transylvania in general and Timisoara in particular, we can see why the later handoff of Transylvania to Romania caused bad blood between the two countries that continues through today - and was also a key factor in bringing down Ceausescu in Romania in 1989.
Cartledge gives the reader enough of a history of Islamic battles in Serbia and Croatia in the 1300s and 1400s to understand why the Ottoman occupation of Buda in 1526 was such a huge deal. Cartledge provides maps and stories of daily life to explain how Hungary was split in three - an independent Transylvania, a southern Hungary occupied by the Turks, and a northwestern corner occupied by the Habsburgs. The Ottoman Turks were perhaps most guilty of letting the land go to ruin in their part of Hungary, though they provided the Hungarians partial religious freedom, while the Habsburgs imposed Catholic fascism. In any event, Hungary was only freed through the infamous Treaty of Westphalia - though it tied the nation's fate closer to the Habsburgs. It goes without saying that Cartledge gives the reader a rogues' gallery of truly awful emperors and archdukes ruling over Hungary from 1700 t0 1900, because there was little in the Austro-Hungarian Empire that wasn't truly awful. By the time we get to Sarajevo and the start of World War I, the reader is practically cheering for the anarchist that kills Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
First, however, Cartledge takes us through the brief renaissance period of "Young Hungary," and the heroes like Kossuth and Petofi that made the country an independent nation for a brief period around 1848. Cartledge maybe doesn't make the point strong enough that every "Young" movement of the 1840s - Young Italy, Young Ireland, Young Turks, Young Greece, Young America - was as much a failure as the Hungarian Revolution, due to the determined nature of European royalty to join together and crush the 1848 revolts. He also makes only brief mention of the Young movement's reliance on Romanticist writers like Rousseau and Byron, who led the movement toward quasi-fascist populism. The Young America movement under Franklin Pierce collapsed by being associated with slavery and manifest destiny, for example. In the best of circumstances, Kossuth and Petofi would have failed.
And this is the mode Cartledge uses to talk about the White Terror period that followed the Bela Kun regime, the territorial losses of the Treaty of Trianon after World War I, the dalliance with Hitler in the pre-WW2 years, the regency of Admiral Horthy trying half-heartedly to keep Jews alive as they are slaughtered over the rest of Europe, and the horror-filled days of the Arrow Cross coup in the waning days of WW2. Hungarians were always beautiful losers, as Leonard Cohen might say.
Cartledge provides an interesting insiders' account of struggles between Moscow communists and home communists in the 1950s, and he suggests that other Eastern European countries were far more insistent in taking a hard line than Moscow often was itself. This was true in Sept. 1947, when a secret meeting was held in Poland to respond to the Marshall Plan; it was true in 1956 when other countries wanted to see the Hungarian Revolution punished; and it was true in 1968, when other Eastern Europeans (Hungary being an exception) wanted to see Dubcek in Czechoslovakia dealt a military blow. Nothing like a co-prisoner to recommend the harshest sentence to other prisoners. What Cartledge does not bring up in coverage of the Rajk show trials is the role of the CIA in planting false documents with Stalin to suggest that Rajk and others were colluding with an American named Noel Field. There are still some secrets of the Cold War that remain largely secret, even 70 years later.
Cartledge judges Stalinist leader Matyas Rakosi to be the biggest villain of all, but brings out some harsh judgment for Janos Kadar, both for his 1950 betrayal of Rajk, and for his agreement to participate in the 1956 crackdown following the revolution. Imre Nagy, seen as the hero of 1956, gets a passing grade from Cartledge, though he reminds us Nagy remained true to the principles of communist styles of leadership, and ultimately believed too much in the party. What made Nagy heroic is that he refused to commit himself to show trials, or tell lies for the sake of the party. Kadar did precisely those things and was thus a pitiful character, though Cartledge admits Kadar helped bring the nation together in the 1960s and 1970s.
The 1989 revolution goes by in a whirlwind, and given the animosity between Hungary and Romania, it would have been nice to see more about the brutal rebellion against Ceausescu, and what role Hungarians played. We get only a slight sense of the 1990s in Hungary, and no sense of how and why Viktor Orban turned the Fidesz party into such a paranoid right wing vehicle, one that tries (and fails) to control Hungary today. But those limits can't distract from this book's deserving five stars - with a few exclamation points added for emphasis.
Historical reviews of this quality often come from British writers, because they offer a certain droll and nuanced way of examining controversial topics that is often too subtle for even the best American writers to match. No doubt there are several Hungarian historical writers who have done a better job with the home country than Cartledge, but for English-speakers, it's hard to imagine a better source.
Cartledge addresses the topic with a light-touch conservatism, hardly surprising, as he served as ambassador to Hungary during the Thatcher years. Thankfully, he only inserts himself as a character into the book in the last 50 pages, and in a very understated fashion. Equally thankfully, he doesn't let anti-communist rhetoric get overblown when describing the 1950 show trial of Laszlo Rajk, or the 1956-57 betrayal of Imre Nagy following the Hungarian Revolution. There's no foaming at the mouth about "Soviet butchers" here, only an observation that one can scarcely trust a devious ideologue going on and on about the dictatorship of the proletariat. It isn't that Stalin or Malenkov were bad apples, it's that Leninism is made that way. Cartledge is equally calm yet insistent regarding the utter wasteland Hungary becomes under Ottoman dominance in the 17th century and Habsburg dominance in the centuries to follow.
Anyone who's stood in Heroes' Square (Hosok Tere) in Pest, surrounded by statues of Hungary's best and brightest, knows that knocking all those heroes off their pedestals would be quite a task, but Cartledge attempts to do so ever so gently, not because he would deny Hungary heroes, but because (like me) he thinks pedestals are always unhealthy things, and that people are better off knowing historical figures with all their warts intact. This hero deflating goes all the way back to Almos and Arpad of the Magyars at the end of the ninth century. The Magyars didn't so much conquer Hungary as occupy certain areas opportunistically, in a manner similar to steppe warriors like the Huns.
The book provides some interesting tales of St. Stephen, and his constant struggles against the Byzantines and the Holy Roman Empire in the late 900s and early 1000s. St. Stephen's crown was the source of legitimacy in Hungary for centuries, and its temporary storage in Fort Knox until 1978 gives Hungary and the U.S. continued odd and partially-obscured ties.
The agricultural nature of the nation and the remoteness of landed estates means that Hungary remained an aristocratic nation of feudal barons well into the 19th century. While peasant uprisings erupted from time to time, the barons managed to stifle universal suffrage and peasant rights almost up to World War I. Consequently, when the short-lived communist regime of Bela Kun took power in 1919, it had a lot of land-reform to accomplish, leaving the Hungarian people with a bad taste for socialism lasting to the present day. Because so much of the action of the Holy Roman Empire years takes place in Transylvania in general and Timisoara in particular, we can see why the later handoff of Transylvania to Romania caused bad blood between the two countries that continues through today - and was also a key factor in bringing down Ceausescu in Romania in 1989.
Cartledge gives the reader enough of a history of Islamic battles in Serbia and Croatia in the 1300s and 1400s to understand why the Ottoman occupation of Buda in 1526 was such a huge deal. Cartledge provides maps and stories of daily life to explain how Hungary was split in three - an independent Transylvania, a southern Hungary occupied by the Turks, and a northwestern corner occupied by the Habsburgs. The Ottoman Turks were perhaps most guilty of letting the land go to ruin in their part of Hungary, though they provided the Hungarians partial religious freedom, while the Habsburgs imposed Catholic fascism. In any event, Hungary was only freed through the infamous Treaty of Westphalia - though it tied the nation's fate closer to the Habsburgs. It goes without saying that Cartledge gives the reader a rogues' gallery of truly awful emperors and archdukes ruling over Hungary from 1700 t0 1900, because there was little in the Austro-Hungarian Empire that wasn't truly awful. By the time we get to Sarajevo and the start of World War I, the reader is practically cheering for the anarchist that kills Archduke Franz Ferdinand.
First, however, Cartledge takes us through the brief renaissance period of "Young Hungary," and the heroes like Kossuth and Petofi that made the country an independent nation for a brief period around 1848. Cartledge maybe doesn't make the point strong enough that every "Young" movement of the 1840s - Young Italy, Young Ireland, Young Turks, Young Greece, Young America - was as much a failure as the Hungarian Revolution, due to the determined nature of European royalty to join together and crush the 1848 revolts. He also makes only brief mention of the Young movement's reliance on Romanticist writers like Rousseau and Byron, who led the movement toward quasi-fascist populism. The Young America movement under Franklin Pierce collapsed by being associated with slavery and manifest destiny, for example. In the best of circumstances, Kossuth and Petofi would have failed.
And this is the mode Cartledge uses to talk about the White Terror period that followed the Bela Kun regime, the territorial losses of the Treaty of Trianon after World War I, the dalliance with Hitler in the pre-WW2 years, the regency of Admiral Horthy trying half-heartedly to keep Jews alive as they are slaughtered over the rest of Europe, and the horror-filled days of the Arrow Cross coup in the waning days of WW2. Hungarians were always beautiful losers, as Leonard Cohen might say.
Cartledge provides an interesting insiders' account of struggles between Moscow communists and home communists in the 1950s, and he suggests that other Eastern European countries were far more insistent in taking a hard line than Moscow often was itself. This was true in Sept. 1947, when a secret meeting was held in Poland to respond to the Marshall Plan; it was true in 1956 when other countries wanted to see the Hungarian Revolution punished; and it was true in 1968, when other Eastern Europeans (Hungary being an exception) wanted to see Dubcek in Czechoslovakia dealt a military blow. Nothing like a co-prisoner to recommend the harshest sentence to other prisoners. What Cartledge does not bring up in coverage of the Rajk show trials is the role of the CIA in planting false documents with Stalin to suggest that Rajk and others were colluding with an American named Noel Field. There are still some secrets of the Cold War that remain largely secret, even 70 years later.
Cartledge judges Stalinist leader Matyas Rakosi to be the biggest villain of all, but brings out some harsh judgment for Janos Kadar, both for his 1950 betrayal of Rajk, and for his agreement to participate in the 1956 crackdown following the revolution. Imre Nagy, seen as the hero of 1956, gets a passing grade from Cartledge, though he reminds us Nagy remained true to the principles of communist styles of leadership, and ultimately believed too much in the party. What made Nagy heroic is that he refused to commit himself to show trials, or tell lies for the sake of the party. Kadar did precisely those things and was thus a pitiful character, though Cartledge admits Kadar helped bring the nation together in the 1960s and 1970s.
The 1989 revolution goes by in a whirlwind, and given the animosity between Hungary and Romania, it would have been nice to see more about the brutal rebellion against Ceausescu, and what role Hungarians played. We get only a slight sense of the 1990s in Hungary, and no sense of how and why Viktor Orban turned the Fidesz party into such a paranoid right wing vehicle, one that tries (and fails) to control Hungary today. But those limits can't distract from this book's deserving five stars - with a few exclamation points added for emphasis.
July 25, 2014
This is a daunting book in terms of size yet at the conclusion of it, I feel its in depth detail and full historical coverage make it a definitive volume of those interested in the country of Hungary and its environs. I travelled through Hungary in 2005 and spent some tie in Budapest and was quite surprised by the capital's affluent nature despite it being my first glimpse behind the Iron Curtain. The author was a British ambassador to Hungary in the early 1980s, at the dawn of the modern political era. If I had any criticism of this work it is that it sometimes gets a little overbearing politically with less emphasis on general history. I found the ancient history amazing and was fully intrigued by the Habsburg monarchy. The twentieth century brought a new angle on bot World Wars and the subsequent peaces. I was surprised at the impact Trianon has on Hungary and the key revolution in 1956 exposed some of the feelings of true life behind the Iron Curtain. I think that Hungary's history as a central European nation has been troubled due to its geography yet the continuation of the Hungarian people and language demonstrates that this struggle has succeeded. I feel that Hungary invokes romantic notions in how it is generally perceived in the West. That is despite, allying itself with the losing side in both World Wars, its location on the Danube at where East meets West, means that it has a unique position in terms of world heritage. After reading this book I feel more enlightened about Eastern Europe and feel that I would like to further my study on the region by visiting it once more.
August 5, 2024
This history of Hungary is written from a very sympathetic perspective and should prove useful to someone who already has a bit of background in Hungarian history and can appreciate its (sometimes excruciating) attention to detail. I don't feel qualified enough to argue its academical merits, but it should perhaps be mentioned that the author seems to feel more at home in modern times. The passages on early Hungarian history seemed rushed and might have needed a critical eye trained in (early) medieval history. The rest of the book, however, added immensely to my factual knowledge of events and persons, although it did rather often raise an eyebrow in regard to which arguments, points of view or simple facts took up a lot of space and which felt shoehorned into the text at the last minute or were exiled to footnotes. It's of course legit to take a certain perspective, it's just that sometimes I'd have put the focus elsewhere or followed a different train of thought. Anyway, I felt reassured by the last pages in the book in my own assessment of the Hungarian psyche (so to speak, it sounds so silly) I took from my own brief time living in the country.
To use an Orban quote as the very last words in your book on Hungarian history though .... very awkward in hindsight.
To use an Orban quote as the very last words in your book on Hungarian history though .... very awkward in hindsight.
December 9, 2013
One of the best histories of Hungary in English. Again, valuable to see how a people managed to hang on to their identity in the midst of disaster.
July 14, 2022
A comprehensive and insightful book... Until the final chapter which offers very little. I assume the author saved those recollections/histories for another project. Would generally recommend.
March 17, 2017
Sir Bryan Cartledge is an unabashed Magyarophile. His professional association with the country stems from a three-year stint in the 1980s as the British ambassador there, but he clearly holds the country in high esteem still and apparently speaks and reads a good deal of Hungarian.
Although Sir Bryan took a very good first in Modern History at Oxford and served for some time as the Principal of Linacre College in that university, he does not approach things from the perspective of a professional history. For instance, he does not seem terribly interested in historiographical concerns or controversies.
Sir Bryan's prose is solid, although occasionally tending to the schoolboy clichés of his generation: more than once in his history, 'the banner of rebellion' is raised.
What he has written is an accessible, readable, work of popular history. Given that I previously knew almost nothing about Hungarian history, I found him a valuable guide to the basic narrative.
Although Sir Bryan took a very good first in Modern History at Oxford and served for some time as the Principal of Linacre College in that university, he does not approach things from the perspective of a professional history. For instance, he does not seem terribly interested in historiographical concerns or controversies.
Sir Bryan's prose is solid, although occasionally tending to the schoolboy clichés of his generation: more than once in his history, 'the banner of rebellion' is raised.
What he has written is an accessible, readable, work of popular history. Given that I previously knew almost nothing about Hungarian history, I found him a valuable guide to the basic narrative.
March 3, 2016
Perhaps the best one-volume history of the Hungarian people currently available in English. I hope another good writer is working on a new and similar overview -- Cartledge's dates from 2006. It would be nice to see something that addresses the more recent and very troubling political developments in Hungary since the optimism of the 1990's.
March 2, 2020
The best general history on Hungary that I have read.
The author writes extremely well and was able to bring into focus bits of Hungarian history which I had previously struggled to get my head around.
He varies the pace - slowing down to examine the key moments such as 1526, 1848, the late 19th C and the interwar period - but sensibly skipping over the 18th C which is remarkably dull.
The author writes extremely well and was able to bring into focus bits of Hungarian history which I had previously struggled to get my head around.
He varies the pace - slowing down to examine the key moments such as 1526, 1848, the late 19th C and the interwar period - but sensibly skipping over the 18th C which is remarkably dull.
September 7, 2021
I loved it. The writer showed me how people in other countries saw mine throughout the history and sometimes even gave me new information about my own country.
July 11, 2025
At 500 pages, this is a thorough treatment of Hungary from its origins in the settlement of Magyar tribes through to the election of Orbán in '98. This book skews somewhat heavily towards the 20th century (about half the book is spent on 1906-2000), which is presumably because the author served as the British ambassador to Hungary in the '80s, and so his main familiarity was with the historical/cultural context of the 20th century (Trianon, interwar years, the Communist takeover, etc.). My main critique of this book is that you could tell it was written by a diplomat - there is a heavy emphasis on treaties, negotiations, legal debates, and general political machinations. This isn't to say that Cartledge neglects the cultural/social/religious aspect of Hungarian life, but its more shaky ground for him, and he at times comes across as more of a cautious chronicler than a historian providing an interpretation. Overall though, this is a worthwhile read for anyone interested in learning more about Hungary and its unique position at the centre of Europe.
September 20, 2025
Very comprehensive history. The book drags a bit in the beginning and I got lost a bit in the names of various nobles and kings. But the second half, from the Hapsburgs and beyond, really picks up. I appreciated the authors notes from his time as ambassador and his impressions from meeting many of these Hungarian leaders.
January 23, 2020
Very thorough but the small print and dry sections made it a bit of chore to wade through. A good resource for Hungarian history.
October 13, 2021
A canceled trip to Hungary dramatically reduced my interest on what is a pretty dry book. Did not come close to finishing
September 10, 2022
Solid 2.5 stars. My ignorance of Hungarian history made this difficult. I did appreciate from 1850 to the end (which is 1990ish) and particularly the relationship in the Soviet block era.
September 22, 2024
Detailed but highlights readable history of Hungary, recommended!
September 24, 2009
Amazing how smart these Brits are.
Displaying 1 - 16 of 16 reviews