The author states that the historiography of the empire has changed significantly in the last thirty years. Instead of focusing on the national divisions within the empire, there is a new appreciation of the institutions of empire. This book "investigates how shared imperial institutions, administrative practices, and cultural programs helped to shape local society in every region of the empire, from the late eighteenth century until the first decades of the twentieth century."
In the mid-1700's, the Empress Maria Theresa realized that a state needed to be forged from the Hapsburg lands that had been haphazardly accumulated over the preceding five hundred years. She initiated and implemented a massive reformation of society with a focus on the peasants, reducing their feudal obligations and mandating public education. She centralized the state, established a standing army, reigned in the R.C. church, established a system of taxation and created a sense of nationhood and citizenship that she bequeathed in 1780 to her son, Joseph II. This led to "a radical transformation of the individual...to a citizen whose legal relationship to the state was the sole determinant of his legal position..." Reform culminated in the 1804 declaration by Francis I of the Austrian Empire and the 1811 laws that transformed all of the empire's subjects into equal citizens before the law. The empire survived the quarter-century of war caused by the French Revolution; however the Emperor, Francis I, and his principal advisor, Count Metternich, ruled conservatively, in fear of revolution erupting on their watch. Instead, "Austrian society itself took up the challenges of creating social and economic change.." In essence, the body politic replaced the cautious, frugal state as the prime agent of change. The revolutions that swept Europe in 1848 were manifestly different in the various parts of the empire. The Hungarian nobility wished to further separate themselves from the German-speaking Austrians. Elsewhere, civic elites sought a greater voice in their own governance, peasants desired to throw off the last vestiges of feudal obligations, and disposing of Metternich was foremost on many minds. The Emperor Ferdinand capitulated to Hungarian demands for self-governance within the empire, the royal family ran Metternich out-of-town and a new constitution was promised. How the state would move forward from the tumultuous year would be left to the new Emperor, the eighteen-year-old Franz-Joseph I. He propelled a liberal agenda forward by centralized and autocratic means. Eventually, the weight of foreign policy failures, highlighted by an expensive mobilization during the Crimean War, and defeat at the hands of France and then Prussia, put an end to his dreams. After losing the war with Prussia, the Emperor acceded to the dual monarchy, the Austro-Hungarian Empire in 1867. The dichotomy between the Austrians and Hungarians would dominate the dialogue of managing increasing social mobilization and conflict in the last half-century of the empire. Also, language as the defining concept of nationhood took center stage. Nationalists used it to promote their goals of independence; the empire used it to point out the advantages of diversity in one empire. The state modernized throughout the last decades of the century. Infrastructure projects, railroads, universal military service, education, hospitals and other avenues of progress were all implemented by the centralized state. Universal manhood suffrage finally came in 1907. On the eve of war, only the conservative elites despaired for the empire's future, and, when war broke out, they envisioned it as an opportunity to turn back the clock. However, the empire failed in it's responsibilities to its people. Militarily, the empire suffered astronomical casualties. And on the home front, it could not sustain and feed its people. "The war was not the proverbial final straw that broke a failing empire's back. It did not accelerate an inevitable collapse. It did, however, create heretofore unimaginable new conditions in Austria-Hungary that in a few years time made collapse not only possible but also likely. A state that could not ameliorate its people's intense and dramatic suffering imperiled its popular legitimacy." "With its resources strained to the extreme after four long years, the empire's capacity to inspire hope for a different future - let alone guarantee physical survival in the present - finally collapsed."
The 18th century reformers (Maria Theresa, Joseph II and Leopold II) were very progressive rulers. They appear to have taken up the ideas of the Enlightenment with more enthusiasm than anyone else in Europe. However, the costs of fighting the French hamstrung the empire for decades, and fear of revolution burgeoning at home meant that the 19th century ruler's turned their back on 'enlightened' governance. Whether or not a progressive approach to all the challenges of nationalism the empire faced would have kept the multi-ethnic and multi-lingual empire in some semblance of cohesion in the face of war is a matter of conjecture.
Whether or not the author achieves his stated goals is beyond my skill level. I thought I had a reasonably good understanding of the era. However, after completing this very informative, but incredibly detailed narrative, I do not feel particularly enlightened.
No comments:
Post a Comment