L'Impero asburgico. Una nuova storia

by Pieter M. Judson, Mario Mansuelli (Translator), Eleonora Antonini (Translator)

“Il nostro Impero”, così chiamavano l’Impero asburgico persone di diverse lingue, etnie e religioni dal Trentino alla Venezia Giulia, dall’Alto Adige alla Moravia, dalla Galizia alla Transilvania.

Lo storico Pieter M. Judson ci propone una magistrale rappresentazione della monarchia del Danubio e della Duplice Monarchia austro-ungarica rivedendo profondamente e in maniera innovativa l’immagine a noi familiare dell’impero multietnico.

Judson racconta le vicende di uno dei più potenti e ampi regni europei dal Settecento fino alla sua dissoluzione, al termine della Prima guerra mondiale, in una narrazione che sa far convivere splendidamente storia politica e vita quotidiana delle popolazioni che abitavano in territori molto distanti tra loro. Una rivisitazione d’insieme e pionieristica che ci dimostra perché l’Impero asburgico abbia contato così tanto e così a lungo per milioni di cittadini dell’Europa centrale e perché, anche oggi, conoscerne le vicende, le istituzioni, le idee che ne hanno animato l’evoluzione sia di grandissima attualità.

In questo saggio si va oltre le frammentarie storie nazionali per esaminare le istituzioni condivise che hanno cercato di superare contrasti e differenze, di creare stabilità e un sentire comune. Fondazione di scuole, tribunali, reti ferroviarie, sostegno al progresso scientifico, artistico ed economico così come miglioramento delle condizioni di vita e delle strutture amministrative sono solo alcuni dei tasselli dello splendido mosaico che, pagina dopo pagina, Judson assembla donandoci una lettura illuminante e una lezione per il presente.

Genres: History, Nonfiction, European History, Audiobook, Politics, Germany, 19th Century

720 pages, Paperback

First published March 28, 2016

About the author

Pieter M. Judson (born 1956, Utrecht) is professor of history. He has taught history at Swarthmore College, and is currently a professor of 19th and 20th century history at the European University Institute in Florence.

His research interests include modern European History, nationalist conflicts, revolutionary and counter revolutionary social movements, and the history of sexuality

Reviews

[Louise · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a history of the Habsburg monarchs’ administration of their empire. Author Peter Judson stays with this mission such that battles, wars and personalities are incidental. While the level of text is accessible to the general reader, sometimes the level of detail makes it a slog.

It begins with the reign of Maria Theresa whose geographically large and ethnically diverse empire was built over 500 years through battles, trade and strategic marriages. Judson shows how Maria Theresa worked to centralize authority by earning the respect of her subjects through investments in roads, bridges, schools, etc. She and her sons freed peasants and in some cases bought out their overlords. As a result, loyalty to the crown by the lower levels of society was stronger than that of the nobles and other elites.

As the crown passed from Maria Theresa to her sons and on to Francis Joseph, administration became more conservative, but sympathy for peasants and minorities continued in economic and tolerance policies. Careers in government were no longer reserved for nobles only. By the time of Francis Joseph’s reign a reasonably effective and extensive administrative bureaucracy was in place.

There are detailed descriptions of the different ways areas were run, education provided, news disseminated (and censorship invoked), religious freedom (sort of) protected, troops conscripted, labor provided (eliminating “robot” – peasants forced into free labor for former overseers; industrialization, wages, etc), social/civic/political organizations permitted etc.

The most lengthy and fundamental discussions are the descriptions of democracy in the various areas and times: how diets were discouraged (and encouraged), allowed, overseen and restrained. Each area had a different structure, voting requirements and over time, all became more participatory. Each area had its issues. For instance changing education from that provided by the Catholic Church to that provided by the state could be contentious in some areas and integrating. newly acquired territories such as Bosnia and Herzegovina was always problematic.

Language was an emotional, practical and political issue. Like democracy it is woven throughout the book in time and territory. Strife over language surfaces in educational curricula, military training and command and in public and legal administration. The situation in Hungary demonstrates the dilemma language issues posed for the monarchy. Latin was the language of Hungary’s public administration and law. The largest ethnic group, 40% of the population, demanded their language, Hungarian, be the official language. The 60% who spoke Ukrainian, Ruthenium, Romanian, Yiddish, etc. looked to the Emperor, who favored German for practical administrative reasons, to keep Latin and thereby keeping the playing field level (i.e. all would be equally disadvantaged) to protect their interests.

The Assassination of Francis Ferdinand merits a few sentences and later the administration of the war follows the very understated “as war broke out”. The war section, inclusive of the passing of Francis Joseph and the aftermath is as close as this gets to a conventional history.

You could conclude that the last generations of Habsburgs made a grand attempt to manage a just and fair empire. Judson merely refers to some foreign policy disasters (one named is the Crimean War). While there is no detail on WWI (as a blunder or otherwise) you do see the seeds of the ethnic rivalries that were unleashed following the war that were held in check in the empire years.

Yes. This is truly a “new” style history. I chose it because I’ve been gravitating to bios and fiction of this region and needed an orientation. While more on foreign policy would have helped, it gave me a good chronology and excellent (and very detailed) picture of the empire’s many internal issues. I only recommend this for those with interest in this place and time.

It is a 5 star for its achievement, not for reader friendliness.

[William2]

Fascinating in the early going here with regard to Empress Maria Theresa and her machinations once named monarch to restore provinces snatched away by greedy usurpers. How dare Austria name a woman to lead their country. Well, Maria Theresa in time regained Bohemia, Moravia and part of Silesia after hard bargaining with the Hungarians for military support. Quite a story. This is the first I've read of this monarch's exploits and its proving entertaining. Maria Theresa, or some farsighted advisors, saw the importance of crushing some feudal institutions such as the robot, which gave the nobility control over the working lives of the peasantry, and the tax-free status of the nobles themselves. So, as the authors of Why Nations Fail would say, she decreased the "extractive" burden on the peasantry, believing they and the state would be far better off if they were left to promote their own self-interests. This "began to undermine the very logic behind traditional social hierarchies," i.e. feudalism. Moreover, after the loss of her most commercially active region, Silesia, to Prussia during the War of the Austrian Succession, she made Triest, Fiume and Brody all tax-free zones as a means of spurring trade.

[Andrew · Rating 4 out of 5]

The Habsburg Empire: A New History, by Pieter M. Judson, is a revisionist analysis of the internal sociological-cultural, political and economic aspects of the Austrian (and Austro-Hungarian) Empire from 1780-1918 (and a small bit beyond). This history examines the internal development that this multi-ethnic Empire went through, and the attempts at reform, subsequent political reactions, and ultimate collapse that ensued. Judson has done an excellent job with this revisionist work, examining a nation-state that is widely derived in modern literature, but can easily be examined in a revisionist framework for its admirable attempt to meld many different ethnic/religious/social/cultural/linguistic (etc.) groups under a political umbrella akin to many modern multi-ethnic states.

This work begins with Empress Maria Theresa of the Habsburg Empire, and her attempt to census her realms in 1780. Although the Habsburg family had been sovereign over large swathes of Central Europe, including portions or the entirety of modern Austria, Czechia, Slovenia, Slovakia, Italy, Croatia, Hungary, Romania, Poland and Germany for centuries (as well as holding lands in Switzerland, France, Belgium and Netherlands), this dynastic amalgamation was not, according to Judson, a "nation-state" by definition until Maria Theresa began her reforms. Eighteenth Century Europe was beginning to develop ideals of national sovereignty at this time, and the Habsburg domains were not immune to these changes. The Empress' reforms were largely carried out by the military, and were seen both as a force to increase taxable income by the central Habsburg state (by the aristocrats) and as a force to air legitimate concerns (by the middle/peasant classes). Even during this period, the Habsburg domains were multi-ethnic, and multi-religious, and ruled over by a German speaking elite, but seen largely in terms of dynastic legitimacy over any one linguistic or cultural framework.

Maria Theresa sought to reform her state in a number of ways. As Europe began to experiment with liberal political ideology, Austria too sought to reform her domains. Peasants were beginning to see their political concerns aired on a national stage (although in a small way, and for purely political gain) as class based ideology began to emerge. Far from being a state consisting of hostile ethnic groups (as many would attest), the Austrian Empire was an interesting case of successful integration based on political patronage that went above and beyond the modern conception of nationalist considerations. The Austrian State was so successful during this period precisely because it was able to exploit tensions between various classes, provide a stable platform for economic growth, (gradual) political change, and protection from external threats. Remember, the Austrian Empire was around in one form or another for centuries.

Even so, Empress Maria Theresa was mostly concerned with the moral and ethical well being of her state (based on Catholic principles) and did not seek to reform her state along more liberal lines. This way of thinking was adopted by her predecessors (Joseph II, Leopold II, Francis II, Ferdinand I and Franz Joseph I). Her predecessors shared a similar political style of promoting enlightened absolutism in the Austrian domains, and sought to reform the state not on ethnic lines, but on principles developed to promote the centralization of political power within the Imperial court.

This system had both positive and negative effects on the state, and on the development of liberal principles within its various ethno-cultural subjects. The development of nationalistic politics within the various states of the Austrian Empire was both progressive and regressive. At once, Austria sought to appease the more powerful cultural entities in the state (for the most part, aristocratic landowners) with the loyalty of the masses (mostly peasants). Therefore, early nationalist movements such as Polish Independence forces in Krakow/Galicia, were met with violent opposition from the Polish peasants within Galicia. This was a common theme in the earlier Habsburg Empire, as peasants played the traditional feudalistic aristocracy off against the reformist/centralist tendencies of the Austrian state. This led to interesting situations where Polish revolutionaries who marched from then independent Krakow into Galicia were massacred by Polish peasant professing their loyalty (whether through love of state, fear, or shrewd politics) to the Austrian Empire.

However, ethno-nationalist politics did begin to develop through the years. During the French Revolution, Austria was subject to massive political upheaval. Politicians in the Empire sought to appease this upheaval by fast tracking political autonomy for the more uppity regions of the Empire (namely, Lombardy and Hungary). During this period, the press was less censored, and the state was largely united in defeating the revisionist forces from France. Indeed, Austria was party to five(!) wars with Napoleonic France during this period, and was not crushed as the Prussian kingdom was during these wars. Even so, the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire by Napoleon, and Prussia's subsequent revival and defeat of Austria in the coming years, led to the separation of the Habsburg domains from the growing German Nationalist movement that came to a head in 1871. Austria instead sought to define itself as a multi-ethnic state based not on nationalist or radical politics (as Germany or France, respectively) but on loyalty to the Habsburg dynastic traditions of the the realms of Austria, Bohemia, Lombardy, Silesia, Hungary, Croatia and so on.

Judson goes into great detail to list the developments of press freedom and subsequent crackdown during various absolutist/conservative flare ups (ie. Metternich dictatorship up to 1848). Judson also examines the development of nationalist sentiments in the Habsburg domains, as Slovene, Hungarian, Czech, German (etc.) nationalists sought to increase their political power, their sovereign rights over land, and their individual freedoms, over the absolutist traditions of the Habsbug state. I could continue on into great depth over the interesting developments through this period, but I will cut off here to offer my thoughts (read the book if you want more!).

Judson has written a compelling and fascinating study of the in depth development of the Austrian state, from the 1780's to its collapse. He examines ethnographic developments of statehood within its many national communities, its economic development through the construction of railroads, port systems (ie. Trieste) and inter-regional trade regimes, and its political struggles both in terms of internal strife between classes, political groups, regions etc., and externally, through the changing political and ideological issues facing the European continent as a whole. Judson argues that the Habsburg Empire was not a state consisting of hostile ethnic groups, but rather a nation that consisted of many nationalities mutually reliant on a strong central government for support and protection. Judson examines the complex socio-cultural issues that developed during the Empire's tenure, and offers both insight into the inner political framework of the Empire, as well as the steps the Empire's rulers took to manage the complex factors within the state. Judson argues that the Austrian Empire was neither a sick man of Europe, nor an incredibly unique political structure, but rather shared many aspects of other European societies, whether it be linguistic differences amongst regions, nationalist sentiments, or what have you.

So what did I think of the book? Judson has offered a compelling analysis of the Habsburg Empire that goes far beyond cut and dry history. Instead, Judson offers a unique internal examination of the Empire's successes and failures leading up to its partition after WWI, and a brief analysis of the Imperial ambitions of its successors. This book was extremely deep, interesting and enlightening as a revisionist history of an Empire that is often derived for being a "sick man of Europe." As flaws go, the one true complaint I can offer is the lack of background Judson offers. This book expects the reader to have at least a basic understanding of European history from 1780-1918, and offers little background knowledge into wider events outside of Austria. Instead, this book is wholly focused on internal Habsburg issues, and rarely goes beyond the Empire's borders. However, the insight into the Imperial state, and the incredibly detailed and fascinating accounts of the Habsburg Empire, make Judson's book a compelling read for anyone interested in this time and place, as well as a detailed account of ethnic, nationalist and centralist political considerations. Truly an interesting read, and one that can easily be recommended for those interested in politics and history.

[Babbs · Rating 2 out of 5]

While full of interesting tidbits of history about the Habsburg empire and the history of Austria, the reading pace and flow were difficult. The author seems to assume a higher level of base knowledge than I obviously have, which made some points disjointed and harder to follow as a continuous timeline. The level of detail was also so great it often disrupted the flow of the events the author was trying to describe and the descriptions themselves became repetitive and distracting. An edit would have improved this for the casual reader.

If you already have read several other books on the topic, you'll likely be able to follow the narrative more easily than I did, and therefore enjoy the book more.

[Brett C · Rating 4 out of 5]

This was a well-written account of the Habsburg Empire. Pieter Judson did an excellent job of compiling his extensive research into a readable and information product. This narrative explored the diplomacy, power & marriage consolidations, and alliances drove the empires advancement yet acted as self-preservation motive. This was not an exhaustive history of the Habsburg Monarchy but explored developing cultural and transnationalism.

It also explored how countless local societies across central Europe engaged with the Habsburg dynasty's efforts to build a unified and unifying imperial state from the eighteen century until the First World War. It investigates how imperial institutions, administrative practices, and cultural programs helped to shape local society until the first decades of the twentieth century.

I was interested in the give and take in regards to the regional, cultural, linguistic, religious, and ethnic differences yet there was centralization & unification to maintain state-building without internal strife nor violence. Judson explored hos this was attributed to common imperial citizenship, lingua franca, and unified nationhood with internal stability. It was clearly explained how "WWI destroyed the empire over time by eroding any sense of mutual obligation between people and state; popular and dynastic patriotism withered away, calling into question the very raison d'être of empire." (pg 441)

I learned quite a good deal on this topic point amd I would highly recommend this to anyone interested in European history. Thanks!

[Steven Peterson · Rating 4 out of 5]

A lengthy and detailed tome on the Habsburg Empire or Habsburg Monarchy (also referred to as the Austrian Empire, the Austro-Hungarian Empire, or Austria-Hungary). This book takes an overarching view of the Empire, its history, and its end. Its life ran from 1700-1918, when--at the end of World War I--it collapsed. There were transformations over time, such as the semi-separation between Hungary and Austria in 1867 (when the state became known as Austria-Hungary).

The Empire seems to have been a bit rickety over its lifetime, with many centrifugal forces. It was a milticultural, multiethnic empire, which created tensions never fully satisfied. The book examines various cultural expressions of this, from literature to media. However, despite the forces pulling against unity, if the author is correct, there was some sense of people being apart of a greater political entity. Thus, the strains were managed, not necessarily well--but well enough.

The Empire itself sometimes made tentative gestures addressing the economic inequalities and the accompanying power of large landowners, nobility, and so on. Many wars were fought during the period covered. The Empire sometimes did well--other times not. The country was not as wealthy as some of its neighbors, so later on, the armed forces tended to be less well supplied than Prussia/Germany, for example.

When the end came, as World War I was closing, Austria-Hungary came apart. In the place of one multiethnic, multilinguistic country came many (such as Yugoslavia, Czechoslovakia, Poland, and so on). The tensions within the Empire continued with the countries emerging after World War I.

Sometimes, the writing is not so felicitous, but this is not an issue. There are maps that help understand the geography. All in all, a good work on an empire that, in one form or another, lasted many years.

[John · Rating 4 out of 5]

Written by Pieter Judson, a historian who teaches in Florence, "The Habsburg Empire: A New History" is a difficult book to review. On the one hand, the book is a dazzling work of scholarship that provides a new interpretation of the history of what was once one of the largest empires in Europe. On the other hand, the book, while often fascinating, is a very dry, very slow read. The book therefore probably should only be read by people with a keen interest in the topic. Such readers likely will find the book's intellectual rewards worth the effort, while general readers likely will not.

Personally, I belong to the first camp, as my grandfather was born in the Habsburg Empire in 1909 (he left for the United States in the early 1920s) and because I have had many opportunities to travel within many of the countries that once belonged to the empire. That said, it took me almost six months of on-and-off reading to make it through the book's almost 600 pages.

Judson's major accomplishment is to provide a fresh, English language, one-volume history of the multilingual and multi-ethnic empire that was a major actor in European affairs from the 1700s until its dissolution after the First World War. To that end, Judson synthesizes an impressive amount of scholarly, literary, and popular materials written in any number of the languages spoken within the Habsburg Empire and its successor states.

Judson offer a new interpretation of the empire's history. A conventional, if dated, view of the Habsburg Empire holds that, by the 19th Century, a weak imperial state gradually was undercut by the rapid growth of various forms of nationalism and the political demands made by these new national identities. In contrast, Judson argues that the central imperial state was stronger than commonly claimed and that concepts of nationhood and empire were deeply intertwined. Put differently, neither one could exist without the other--a fact that has been ignored due to both the dissolution of the empire and the disappearance of imperial defenders following World War I and a convenient forgetfulness among the leaders of the varied successor sates.

The bulk of the book marshals evidence in support of Judson's interpretation, with most of the book focusing on the years spanning 1815 to 1914. Judson devotes considerable attention to both high politics and developments in civil society, including the very development of the idea of a civil society. Over that period, imperial leaders incorporated and co-opted elements of civil society to help create a sense of imperial identity among inhabitants, while leaders in civil society used imperial structures (e.g., transportation networks, school systems, military service) to foster new civic and national identities.

Although Judson's book is by and large accessible to a general reader, it can be tedious to read given the sheer amount of detail provided to support the overarching interpretation. When combined with the author's generally dry writing style, the details are apt to overwhelm a casual reader and lead him or her to abandon the book.

For its intellectual accomplishments, "The Habsburg Empire: A New History" clearly is deserving of the highest possible reviews. At the same time, the book really only should be recommended to people who already have a keen interest in the subject matter for one reason or another.

[Adelino Jose Rodrigues Soares de Mello · Rating 3 out of 5]

It's a learned and well-researched book. It follows thus the first requirement to be an excellent History book.
Unfortunately, it is also very prolix, a most un-Dutch characteristic.
And boring.
The latter two make any History book a task to perform, not a pleasure to read.
The peculiar thing is that this doesn't tally with the happy smile of the author in his photos around the internet.
I'm afraid for me it's a three-star review. It could easily have been a five star one

[Liviu · Rating 4 out of 5]

It's a fairly informative book following mostly the later part of the Empire from the 1780's until the dissolution. The main drawback was the somewhat monotonic style that lacked the page-turning qualities of the best popular history books around

[Shrike58 · Rating 3 out of 5]

Since this work was published in 2016, I've picked it up and put it down several times. Due either to being over-booked, or feeling a lack of background knowledge to truly appreciate it.

Having finally made the time I'm here to tell you that I found this to be a mixed bag. Still, Judson is successful in disabusing the reader of the notion that the Habsburg regime was some sort of doomed enterprise, and that there was no alternative to the nation-state project and dismemberment, and all the dysfunction came in its wake.

Going back to the reign of Maria Theresa, Judson charts a struggle between Vienna, and the constituent elites of the Habsburg lands, for the allegiance and control of the general population. The House of Austria, at its best, seeking to improve the general condition of the people so as to generate more economic and military power, usually in the face of the higher nobility seeking to maintain its privileges.

Had there been a sustained push post-1814, maybe some sort of federal system could have been established, one capable of making rational choices in public finance and higher strategy. But the concerted effort ended after a few years of the installation of Francis Joseph as emperor. Still, there is no denying that when war came in 1914 people did generally answer the call, though war wound up breaking the Habsburg amalgam, and the rest, as they say, is history.

That I persevered with this book is a commentary on my grandparents having emigrated from the Empire when there was the chance, and my sustained interest in the lives they might have led, because this is a very meandering sort of book, saturated in political science and sociology. Also, Judson is not given to editorializing about the scions of the House of Habsburg that held the throne post-1814, nor is he given to speculating about what these men might otherwise have done.

What this means for me is that there is a big hole in this book shaped like Franz Ferdinand; there were many ways to federalize the Habsburg lands, and the archduke's hard-knuckled version was the most likely in the 1910s. Considering the poor performance of Franz Ferdinand's choices of military commanders for the Austro-Hungarian military, both in the field and in civil affairs (which Judson, to his credit, does not gloss over), my expectation is that there would have only been another form of military and political disaster.

Moderately recommended.

Actual rating: 3.5.

[Schoon · Rating 3 out of 5]

3.5 / 5

[Bob H · Rating 5 out of 5]

This is a new and well-researched history of the Habsburg (Austro-Hungarian) empire, focusing on its main period, from the mid-1700s to its demise at the end of World War I. (To its credit, the book says it can't put a date on the empire's demise, only that it fell apart at the end in muddled chaos).

It's an internal history, with little discussion of its wars and foreign (Great Power) policy. The book reviews the empire's evolution in administration, education, economic policy, parliamentary elections, engineering and infrastructure. Austro-Hungarian culture and cultural controversies take up much of the book, a central part of the narrative in every way. The book devotes considerable, and instructive, discussion to the distinct evolution of the Kingdom of Hungary.

In all, an important new look at what was a European empire, central in every way in its time. It's more of a history of a society and a government rather than a nation, but Austria-Hungary, as a whole of many ethnic parts, merits this kind of discussion. Highly recommend.

[David · Rating 4 out of 5]

A fascinating piece of revisionists historiography regarding the Austro-Hungarian Empire, challenging the understanding that a region-based nationalism led to an inevitable breakup of the empire. It is rare that a largely non-political or non-Marxist text spurs to me to rethink fundamental Marxist concepts like the national question (at least in the historical context), but Judson has done so. Makes me want to pick up those translation of Austro-Marxist texts that Brill did in the Historical Materialism series a while back.

[Paddy Devlin · Rating 2 out of 5]

Gave up after reading about a third. An incredibly annoying book. Tries too hard to refute the existing historical consensus on the Hapsburg empire, by being selective and biased in his sources. Wish I hadn't bought it. I just wanted a readable overview of the Hapsburg Empire, this is not it.

[Daniel · Rating 2 out of 5]

This books yearns for an editor. Not just very verbose, but it keeps repeating whole sentences. Also full of annoying typos. Do you know a reasonable book on this topic? Please reach out to me.

[Frank Stein · Rating 5 out of 5]

This book does a marvelous job of resuscitating our image of what was long thought to be a tottering dinosaur or a "prison of peoples." In fact, as Pieter Judson shows, the Habsburg empire was in many ways a multiethnic model of the 19th and early 20th century, one that managed to keep a diverse array of nations together and spur both political and economic development.

One thing Judson demonstrates is that the supposed nationalisms that brought down the empire often meant different things to different people. For the diets of Hungary or Galicia (southern Poland), nationalism usually meant the ability to keep aristocratic nobles in charge while ignoring the pleas for suffrage and freedom from the vast majority of serfs, who often looked to the empire itself for support. Emperor Franz Joseph, who ruled from 1848 to 1916, often threatened to expand suffrage or eliminate serfdom in these areas unless the local parliaments and counties did what he wanted, and this was often enough to force them to heel. Time and again, in fact, it was liberally minded empire groups that fought with reactionary nationalists. It was the General Civil Code of 1811, proclaimed from Vienna, that stated that "Every human being has innate rights, which are already obvious according to reason." Some serfs took this as formal liberation from their local aristocrats, though this did not come until the revolutionary imperial parliament of 1848 officially abolished "Robot" or unpaid labor. Universal male suffrage for the Austrian part of the Empire came in 1897 and 1907, while nationalistic Hungary, thanks to its semi-independent status from 1867, retained its limited franchise until the end.

World War I, however, brought an end to this multiethnic development. It was the ham-handed price controls and censorship and refugee policies and conscription, instituted by imperial but reactionary army officers, that focused the ire of the people on the empire as a whole. National revolutionary parliaments stepped into the breach, and declared and fought for their own territory in 1918 and '19. Although often painted as a liberation, these new "nation-states" often contained about 1/3 non-majority national populations, and often claimed more land based on "defensive," not national, needs. And instead of the mere language-based "nations" that had constituted the empire, nationalism now took a more racial hew. After the war, 75,000 German-speaking Jews from Poland and elsewhere were denied the right to use the "Options Clause" of the Versailles Treaty to come to German Austria, since the new Supreme Court said they were not "racially" German. Elsewhere, Yugoslavia put all those with Slavic last names into Slavic language schools, because of their racial background, no matter their actual language. These successor states' "nations" were much more rigid than their predecessor.

So the Habsburg Empire, for all its faults, might have provided a better model for the future than the so-called nation-states which came after. Judson tells this worthwhile and memorable story with the brie it deserves.

[Johannes · Rating 2 out of 5]

2,5

First I must start by acknolewdging a good book that actually covers the whole Habsburg empire (Judson chose to start his narration with Empress Maria Theresa) is yet to be written, and this issue has pretty much defeated every author trying as much.

It is, in a sense, a bit funny that is being advertised as "a new history" when there is little of that. The book is divided on topics, and those got treated in random fashion through most of the book. Other readers are right in pointing out that those without any prior knowledge of the empire would struggle with names, places, and the lack of a proper timeline Judson constantly avoids to provide.

And while I understand his decision to focus on topics while setting aside the individuals that fueled, and governed, the empire it didn't make for a) an either easy or interesting reading or b) a cohesive one.

[Marley Ogden · Rating 4 out of 5]

Great analysis on how an empire functions, in both positive and negative ways. The struggle to make laws that adequately govern people of different languages, cultures, education, and economic standing was very interesting. While the empire wasn’t perfect, the author has presented the changes on an upward trajectory that show the improvements with each development in the government. Well written and enjoyable to read

[Son Tung · Rating 3 out of 5]

It filled up what i did not know about this empire. However, it also centers a lot on administrative practice, reforms from Maria Theresa to her successors. Surprisingly, this is the 1st time i encounter the topic of nationalism in such a diverse community in the Hapsburg empire.

[Quash · Rating 5 out of 5]

Really enjoyed this. Anyone who has argued with my husband about Austria-Hungary should read

[Benjamin · Rating 4 out of 5]

A masterful, if slightly thematically scattered story of the Austro-Hungarian empire, from the beginning of the formation of the Austrian and Hungarian state under Maria Theresa to the dissolving of the empire in 1918.

An impressive piece of scholarship that, in my opinion, didn't manage to hold together in a clear narrative, but DID manage to be a highly entertaining read nonetheless.

[Garrett Lewis · Rating 3 out of 5]

Any near-comprehensive history of the Habsburgs is an ambitious project and this work was definitely up for the task. In general, however, the argument of this book led to (as is the case in all academic monographs) clear picking and choosing of factors to include as evidence. While, in principle, there’s nothing inherently wrong with this, it led to awkward moments while reading. One specific example was his remarkably underhanded reading of the 1848-49 revolutions throughout the empire. I found it odd how despite devoting an entire 40-odd page chapter to these two years of Habsburg history, Judson somehow underplayed the impact and importance of the revolutions to the general history of the empire. I also felt as though this was a top-down history that kept trying to include evidence of behaviors and actions from below that felt awkward in terms of the whole narrative. Regardless of these critiques, I feel that this is a useful general history of the empire that pushes a particular angle that may be relatively underplayed in the general historiography of the empire.

[Nate Stender · Rating 4 out of 5]

This book was remarkably interesting. It doesn't take National identity as a given, it explores post feudal Austria as a state united by Habsburg institutions, and not by the romantic notion that Germanic languages were sowing the seeds of nationhood for thousands of years. The book addresses the fall of the Holy Roman Empire and the rise of Germany and Austria as I've never seen it in a book before.

Granted, there is a lot of dry facts and few interesting events in Austria's (and even Germany's) history between French occupation and the formation of the Eastern front. The individual Hapsburg's become a little less interesting during the Industrial Revolution. Still, this is not to say that central and eastern central Europe don't have a story to tell in the 19th century. Quite the opposite, in fact, The economic development sown by the final Hapsburgs was the kindling that led to World War I.


In a world where historical nonfiction books about the Tudors and WWII are a dime a dozen, I sincerely hope to get my hands on more books like the Habsburg Empire. You might not know all the big names, the events might blend into the background, and your understanding of the German language might be nonexistent, but we all owe it to ourselves to see the entire picture of what Europe looked like in the 19th century.

[Larry · Rating 2 out of 5]

Sociology and history. More analysis than history

Specialized history. This volume was recommended by a reviewer as a series of insights of the empires that collapsed at WWI. I Read it with the intention of understanding the consequences of the war ending negotiations. Instead what I found is a semi-sociological study of the development or not of beliefs and identity of nationalism. The author has a point of view that is somewhat scary. That empires are made of strong leaders and not of the participating citizens. Now that this thesis and evidence are presented, it needs further analysis using constructs created by real sociologists, not hacks. Hard reading. One of the most dull books ever read. But the final chapter was worth waiting for. Almost (the other chapters were a difficult slog). The author could have helped with more reminders of the state of affairs at a particular time in the narrative. Headings, dates, historically known events, appointments, dates of leaders, all this would have helped this reader follow the analysis that seemed abstract and disconnected from life. It was a reflection by a well read and studied professor. Not an essay for future reference.

[Jan Chlapowski Söderlund · Rating 4 out of 5]

* * * * - I liked this book overall. It was written in a sadly dusty style, but its factual contents are worth 4*.

"The Habsburg Empire: A New History" by Pieter M. Judson is a book I have been waiting for! In-depth analysis of the Austro-Hungarian Empire without the negative bias I seem to feel in most other narratives. P.J. portrays the Habsburg empire in a positive light, almost too apologetic sometimes, although not so much that it hurt.

There are several interesting theses and viewpoints P.J. introduces.
Nations based on ethnicity and common language are not things in the world, they are perceptions on the world. In fact, nationalists turned to broad cultural nationalist arguments in part to attempt to unify voters from different social classes.

P.J. explains that other historians draw a causal relationship between the existence of deep cultural differences and the political conflicts they allegedly cause. He on the other hand, claims such conflicts are political in nature - thus they are conflicting politics, not conflicting cultures in themselves. Therefore the political conflicts in themselves are not a product of the multilingual nature of society. He makes the distinction "nationalists' conflicts, rather than nationalities conflict". Claimed cultural differences were not necessarily experienced as problems in local society, but they gained meaning when they became basis for political agendas.

As an argument for this view-point, J.P. points to the paradoxical critical importance of nationalism in some public situations, and its irrelevance in other. People's nationalist commitment was simply not reliable. A person might vote for a nationalist candidate after a hard-fought election campaign but vote against the same in next election. The same person also hire a domestic servant speaking another language or might send his children on an exchange with another family to perfect their knowledge of another regional language. Both actions committed nationalists opposed.
For members of some families, identifying oneself in terms of a single language made in fact little practical sense. Some people used diverse languages every day in different situations. Family versus commerce. Bilingualism for children for social mobility. Moving from place to place.
Nationalists fought vigorously to convince people to report the “correct” language at the decennial census; using every means possible to convince people, including rallies and pamphlets.
Nonetheless, nationalists never satisfactorily solved the problem of how to keep people at a constant state of excitement about nationhood. When a particular burning nationalist-related question was current, nationalists could stir up quite a following. In between such opportunities, interest in nationalists organisation waned, measured for instance in memberships of nationalists organisations.

It was only a pivotal and comparably “sudden” change in the political climate that made the nationalist agenda more attractive than Empire: the Great War. During the war, the empire failed to keep its own people on its own side. The reasons were unnecessary harsh military dictatorial practices, bad handling of shortages, a public-relations mistake with welfare-distribution, a refugee crisis.

Summary
The Austro-Hungarian Empire was in flux - just as the rest of Europe in this time. Records show according to J.P. that Empire was a genuine part of its citizens lives, with a multitude of current and future plans projected upon it. Empire and dynasty symbolised a reassuring constancy in times of bewildering change. All the while, nationalist agendas existed without fully convincing people. A formidable catalyst was provided in the form of the Great War. Several factors combined during these “short” warring years to make the nationalist agenda attractive; unnecessarily harsh dictatorial practices, exceptionally bad handling of shortages, a public-relations mistake with welfare-distribution and a refugee crisis. The empire lost one of the most crucial battles of the war: it failed to hold the minds and hearts of thousands of ordinary women and men. Just as today's (2017) multiethnic European society crumbles in the face of economically ungood times, so did the Austro-Hungarian Empire that time.

A historical timeline

Whole 1800s :
Linguistic and ethnic diversity is the norm in all of Europe, Austro-Hungarian Empire not in an exceptional situation. The difference is the legal and administrative structures that developed to manage questions of linguistic and religious difference.
When studying nationalism during this period; avoid seeing people as belonging consistently to one nation or another. Various events or situations influenced people to identify themselves with one national group or another, which could easily change from one period in one’s life to another. Instead, particular practices were rather the basis for feelings of loyalty or commitment, rather than decided identities of people.

1800s, but rather 1850-1900 :
Increasing mobility and development - industrialisation, urbanisation, litteracy, bureaucratic specialisation, internal migration, social mobility. Secondary to these changes - social conflict, caused by the large amount of newly arrived people on the political arena.

1848 : the notion of ethnicity and use of a common language as the basis for nations is mainly an urban concept.

1850s :
Imperial dictatorship.

1860s :
Various tentative definitions of the concept of "nations". Old or conservative view among nobility - historic territorial entity within the empire defined by a privileged elite who periodically bargained with the king over division and exercise of local power. New or progressive view - group of people who share cultural traits, common language being most important.

1876 :
Settlement agreement between Austria and Hungary, forming the dual monarchy.

1880s-1914 :
All over Europe, people travel more than ever - far beyond their accustomed horizons, both physically and mentally.
In Austro-Hungary, all citizens of the empire (Austrians and Hungarians alike) are increasingly engaged in an empire that more than ever is expected to meet their needs. The citizens are no longer mere onlookers, they claimed an explicit stake in their empire. If these were the empire’s twilight years (as has been claimed later), then most of the citizens did not know it. The empire had just emerged from previous crises. People were getting engaged in politics, leading to violence at elections - people knew the importance of the decisions being made: the future direction of the empire was being decided.
The centre of power was changing from the old elites to business owners, artisans and peasants. On one hand, a kind of willingness was felt among the elites to develop more flexible models for power sharing. On the other, the aristocratic elites were increasingly pessimistic about their own role in the developing empire, and therefore also pessimistic about the empire as a whole. The aristocrats recorded their pessimism, records which have survived for posterity and are one of the sources of the “doomed empire-view”. The aristocrats still occupied most of the leading positions in the establishment, but were themselves slowly being phased out by the many liberal reforms overtaking the country. They had a correct feeling their power was waning. This made their view on the future prospects of the empire as a whole very dark, which is not an entirely correct assumption. Their own diminished relevance in the emerging “modern” society, did not by any means have to mean that the relevance of the empire as a whole was waning. One example of this dark outlook is Konrad Von Herzendorf, who saw a war in the Balkans as the last opportunity to turn back the clock on the political democratisation of preceding years.
State commitments expanded which lead to expansion of the bureaucracy, which in turn made the state a more immediate and present actor in people's lives. This late 1800s expansion of bureaucracy was largely driven by local and marginal (fringes of empire) initiatives, rather than central commands.
Competence of the institutions to produce the desired outcomes, became critical to maintaining political legitimacy. For instance legal standards of workplace safety, healthcare and transportation were developed.
Amid stunning social and technical transformation, faith in the virtues of the common empire stabilised and coordinated desires and needs of Austrian-Hungarians. Empire and dynasty came to symbolise a reassuring constancy in times of bewildering change. Empire remained the institution on which many activists projected their visions of the future, even on a local level. Even socialists were influenced by the empire - a branch became known as the austro-marxists, who envisioned a continuation of the empire, although on more democratic principles.

1900s :
Analyses of Austria-Hungary by legal scholars did not count the empire as doomed, instead they debated vigorously about the future direction of the Austro-Hungarian Empire. If anything, they compared the problems Austro-Hungary faced with overseas colonies of Alsace-Lorraine. Nationalism was not destroying the state, but its influence shaped reform efforts by devolving more power to the level of the crown lands.

1914-1918 :
WWI was not the final straw that broke a failing empire. It did not accelerate an inevitable collapse. The Great War did create heretofore unimaginable conditions in the empire. The empire lost one of the most crucial battles of the war: it failed to hold the minds and hearts of thousands of displaced ordinary women and men. It lost its popular legitimacy during these “short” warring years. The horrific conditions of war created revolutionary forces everywhere in Europe, which in the Austro-Hungarian Empire became coupled with the state’s utter failure to handle the problems war brought with itself.
For instance, immense resentment at the imperial bureaucracy’s handling of the shortages and inadequacies of necessary living goods. The institutions were utterly unable to organise food for the people, more severe shortages than in other warring countries. On top of this, the imperial institutions relinquished the responsibility to distribute welfare by the end of the war (but imperial institutions were still the “source” of the little welfare that was to be had). The responsibility of distribution was handed over to the crown lands (which were basically nationalist in character). This gave these national institutions added popularity by making them responsible for handing out welfare and giving them the possibility to take credit for this.
Another reason was a war hysteria during the initial phase of the war, accompanied by a harsh non-military dictatorship which was imposed on the populace during the first 2 years of war. It was also harsher when compared to other contemporary states and the normal legal institutions were blatantly disregarded to a higher degree. People were imprisoned without just trials.
A refugee crisis came about when imperial subjects fled from lands occupied by enemy forces. This provoked a highly negative reaction from the undisplaced imperial citizens who regarded the refugees more as a nuisance, than fellow imperial citizens in need.

Oct 1918 : By the end of the war, malcontent with imperial handling of the populace during the war was driving the empire apart. Nationalists were often (but not always) the political actors best situated to make the argument for independence must persuasively. They had for instance the benefit of being the institution that handed out welfare. Although other actors also made their bid, for instance individual districts.
The breakup of the Austro-Hungarian Empire did not in essence change imperial institutions, practices or legal systems in the resulting independent countries. Most people's lives did not change after the breakup. And even the bureaucratic personnel was often unchanged in the new states.

[Harooon · Rating 2 out of 5]

Pieter Judson’s book challenges the supposition that Austria-Hungary’s collapse was inevitable because it comprised so many conflicting ethnicities. He traces the genesis of this idea to a need by both the Entente and the new nation-states of eastern Europe to legitimise the postwar order. His argument is that ethnic and linguistic differences did not necessarily divide the peoples of Austria-Hungary more than other factors may have united them.

The book begins with the accession of Maria Theresa. With the empire at war with its neighbours and on the verge of collapse, she enlists the help of the nobles of Hungary to fight them off. After securing her reign, she begins to apply enlightenment principles in administering her realms. The powerful lords of Hungary, seeing themselves as responsible for the empire’s survival, bitterly oppose these reforms as unjust encroachments on the laws of the ancient kingdom of Hungary. They resisted and rolled back many of them in a pattern of unrest and antagonism that would plague the empire until its collapse.

At this time the nobility of the Hungarian kingdom was the only group seen as being part of the Hungarian nation, as opposed to the nation being some common heritage of those living within the kingdom. One of Maria Theresa’s most important reforms was the Civil Law code, which established a new kind of imperial citizenship that was not attached to ethnicity or birthright, but participation in the institutions of the empire. New avenues of social mobility became available to those participating in the Austrian nation, heralding the development of an urban middle class.

Peasants were some of the most enthusiastic supporters of the empire. They saw the emperor as a liberating figure, in opposition to the cruel landlords and petty regional administrators. Successive imperial reforms gave succour against harsh conditions and feudal obligations such as the robota, a hated system under which peasants gave several days unpaid labour to their landlord each week. There was even a cult of personality surrounding emperor Joseph II; a century after his reign, Emil Pirchan painted an episode in which he took to the plow while visiting the peasants in Moravia.

https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/twAAAO...

Their loyalty was also demonstrated in 1848 at a time when revolutionaries across Europe rose up against the old empires. When Polish nationalists crossed into Galicia, the peasants, whose grandparents still remembered the appalling serfdom they suffered under the Polish-Lithuanian commonwealth, attacked them. When imperial forces finally moved in to secure law and order, they had to restrain their own side from massacring the nationalists.

In contrast to other European empires—which often promoted a single language for efficiency and cohesion—the Austro-Hungarian empire encouraged the use of local languages. In 1775, Maria Theresa began an initiative to deliver free primary schooling across the empire in local languages - though for many reasons, children often didn’t attend. The peasants often saw school as useless, as it did not teach skills relevant to their agrarian lifestyle and deprived them of essential labour. Some peasant children learned to read and write, only to forget later in life! In another example—emblematic of the empire’s tendency to over-administrate—Judson shows how the state’s regulation of minimum teaching standards and salaries (which were low because most teachers were parish priests with other sources of income) doomed the programme to failure in the poor, mountainous region of Dalmatia, where even the priests were barely literate and lived a hand-to-mouth existence.

The empire’s national identity came to be seen precisely in terms of its diversity. Love for one’s heimat (homeland) was love for the fatherland. The promotion of local culture was an expression of imperial patriotism. Judson illustrates this with an interesting account of the region of Silesia. It describes three citizens in Troppau/Opava who set out to catalogue their region’s natural beauty by founding a museum and publishing several scholarly journals. In doing so, they developed a technical vocabulary for the Czech language that would later allow it to serve as an administrative language. The account holds up their initiatives as a shining commitment to the twin principles of empire and enlightenment. It shows us that an expression of local identity did not necessarily entail a rejection of empire; often, this was how people expressed their sense of belonging.

Under Joseph II, the Austrian half of the empire made German its language of administration (replacing Latin), but it maintained an official commitment to linguistic diversity. Numerous organs of the empire were effectively multilingual. For example, after 1867, if 20% or more of a conscript regiment spoke a language, it became one of the regiment’s official languages. While this policy allowed local languages to flourish, it often meant vast inefficiencies and sprawling bureaucracies; in Bohemia (modern-day Czech republic), administrative functions were duplicated for both Czech and German speakers.

On the other hand, the Hungarian half of the empire maintained Latin as the language of administration for much longer. This was a major political issue. While Latin was nobody’s muttersprache (mother-tongue), it levelled the playing field by equally disadvantaging everyone. This was intolerable to the Hungarian nation, who increasingly identified itself through the Hungarian language. Interestingly, in 1848—when a major rebellion broke out in Hungary—only 48% of Hungarians actually spoke the language as their muttersprache. This number began to increase as Hungarian liberals adopted a policy of linguistic (and therefore national) assimilation, particularly after 1867 when Hungary gained control over its own education policy.

Between the emerging liberal middle-class, who saw national identity increasingly in terms of muttersprache, and the duplication of administrative bodies along linguistic lines, a consciousness began to develop in individuals which stressed cultural difference over imperial unity. Two big administrative problems faced the empire. One was the German question: should Austria dominate a larger unified German state (Großdeutschland) or should Prussia dominate a smaller unified German state (Kleindeutschland)? It was never clear how Austria could integrate the German states into her empire with all of its non-Germans. The other problem was what to do with the non-German, non-Hungarian parts of the empire, who wanted more autonomy. Some favoured trialism - an Austro-Hungarian-Slavic empire - while others favoured federalism - something akin to the United States, with each ethnic group having its own autonomous region. Both options were unworkable for the Hungarians, who only stood to lose influence if the empire was further divided. They vetoed any changes to the 1867 constitution.

The middle-class liberals generally saw nations as the fundamental actors of history. Austria-Hungary, as an empire of nations, was therefore oppressing them. To counter this, they widened the definition of nation and politically enfranchised as many of their own as possible. But Judson cautions us against seeing these actions as the product of some principled stand against imperialism. The best example he gives is in 1917 during World War I, when German nationalists began to spread stories that the empire was losing the Brusilov offensive because Czechs and Serbs were refusing to shoot Russians. Czech politicians angrily refuted the claims in parliament. Yet months later, when Russia suddenly exited the war, those same politicians began to claim that yes, in fact, they were subverting the war effort, because actually they had always opposed the war and had always sought Czech independence. In this way, pro-German, anti-Czech propaganda became essential to the legitimacy of both Czech nationalists and German nationalists.

There is no precise date when the empire collapsed. As the war ticked on, the military assumed control over the government, and as the military was defeated and faded away, regional parliaments refigured themselves into nation-states. Yet imperial ways of thinking continued, as in the example of the German speakers in Czernowitz (now a part of Ukraine) which telegraphed a statement of loyalty to their new administrators in Bucharest, Romania. Their statement mimicked the same statements of loyalty they once telegraphed to the imperial capital, Vienna. “Whether the imperial language was German or Romanian,” Judson says, "mattered far less to the German community than did the mutual relations of imperial obligation the community hoped to continue with its new rulers.”

So life in these nation states resembled what it had always been. For example, Czechoslovakia was, in the first instance, an unequal union with the urban Czechs dominating over the Germans and the more rural, peasant Slovaks—a situation not entirely unlike Austria-Hungary. The country also claimed sovereignty over Transcarpathia, not on nationalist grounds (for no Czechs or Slovaks lived there), but for tactical reasons. They did this using the same language the Paris Peace Conference used in establishing “mandates” throughout the Middle East.

The point Judson makes in his book is that the cultural differences within Austria-Hungary should not be seen as contradictions; we should not understand its collapse as a necessary consequence of its ruling over many peoples, because this is how they saw themselves belonging to the empire: “We have tended for many years to define and evaluate the continental empires of central and eastern Europe in terms dictated to us largely by the successor nation-states and their ideologies… Yet one could easily change the terms of discussion by redefining the self-styled nation-states simply as little empires.”

Read this review on Substack.

[Umar Farooq · Rating 5 out of 5]

A nice book about a long forgotten political entity. Austro-Hungarian Empire was a beautiful (and sometimes bloody) mosaic of many many peoples from Austria, Hungary, southern Poland, Romania, eastern Italy, Slovenia, western Ukraine, Czech Republic, Slovakia, and in its last days northern Serbia and Bosnia. The book details the political structure that the Empire followed with the Emperor (plus one nice old lady called Maria) at the center in Vienna and very decentralized local rulers who controlled the peasants. The peasants in most cases saw the Empire as their protector from the oppressive local lords and thus gave legitimacy to the Hapsburg rule. Another source of tension was the German vs regional languages and how Vienna tried to balance esp. Czech and Hungarian with German education.
The whole system broke down during the WW1 when the misery of war made many people realize the Empire could not protect them. It is a fascinating book in the sense it lists some of the issues diverse political entities like EU are facing today. It also showed how easy it is to use ethnic and linguistic differences in time of crisis to break away from a larger political entity. A nice read in understanding how different regions took different routes due to say the actions of the nobility in case of Hungary.

[Laurie · Rating 4 out of 5]

This isn't a book about the personalities and lives of the Habsburg family members but rather about how the various Habsburg Emperors went about the task of state building. Beginning with Maria Theresa, who as a woman at the head of the Empire, is surrounded by male rulers hungry to take over her loose confederations of lands, we see how each head of state further consolidated and centralized the government. For three centuries the Austro-Hungarian Empire (with the exception of Hungary) developed progressive policies from public works to freeing serfs and taxing the nobility as a means toward maintaining power and legitimacy. The author's thesis is that in the end, it was not raw nationalism itself that destroyed the Empire but rather the central state's inability to provide adequate food and social stability during the years of WWI which cost the Habsburg dynasty its legitimacy. As a career civil servant myself I was able to relate to the intricacies of the workings of government. While this book isn't an academic tome, it isn't non-fiction that reads like fiction. This is excellent material for those interested in the history of the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

[Ben Murphy · Rating 4 out of 5]

One review called this book "brilliantly revisionist," which I think sums it up. A refreshingly sober look at the formation of the Austro-Hungarian Empire out of the Habsburg holdings, and the empire's attempt to navigate the imperial state's attempt to navigate the 19th century. Judson repudiates the common crumbling empire narrative, and shows, importantly, how deleterious the First World War was.

An important reminder of how disastrous the nationalist experiment has been. The Nuremberg Laws did not appear out of thin air.

[Ratratrat · Rating 3 out of 5]

Se qualcuno vuole conoscere la storia dell’impero austroungarico senza saperne nulla, questo non è il libro che fa per lui. Se si vuole conoscere il funzionamento e di dettagli dell'impero,da Maria Teresa in poi, allora il libro è interessante, anche se abbastanza impegnativo. l'autore si concentra molto sulla parte est dell'impero, mento trattata, così sapremo tanto sulla Galizia e per dire pochissimo sul Lombardo veneto..