'The Habsburg Empire' by Pieter M. Judson

Hello Hivers and Book Clubbers,

High time for another book review. After posting 3 reviews in about 5 days, I quickly realized that this wouldn't be a tempo I could keep up reading-wise. So here we are, 10 days after the last one. I've done worse, let's keep it at that.

The book I'm highlighting today is fully titled 'The Habsburg Empire; A New History', written by Pieter M. Judson. First released in 2016, my copy is from an edition printed in 2018. The story proper clocks in at about 450 pages. Let's get into it.

A Jumbled Social History

Let's start with a simple statement: this book is a mess, both in the positive and negative sense of the word. Judson clearly set out to write a more of a social history than a ''classic'' one. By that I mean that it does not bother too much with geopolitics and foreign affairs, or the dynasty itself, specifically.

It focuses more on internal affairs; how did the various peoples in the Empire live, what were the issues they faced, and what was the progression in terms of social affairs, technology, industry etc. These widely differing aspects are treated one after another, without too much structure, in my view. Each chapter deals with a certain period of time in the 18th, 19th or early 20th century, but is not strictly chronological; it tends to skip back and forth somewhat, depending on the specific subject. This does not help the overall readability either.

Revisionism

Another aspect to the book structure is that Judson tries to argue for an alternative viewpoint. Now this always piques my interest; I like it when an author departs from the main road.

Judson argues for the merits of the Habsburg dynasty and their Empire in central Europe. He highlights the advances made especially in terms of infrastructure, education and the like. He also views positively the insitutions over the centuries that have tried to bridge the gaps between the nationalities. He views nationalism as a negative force, and seems to have the view that it is an artificial force as well.

I disagree with this last statement. I think it's quite natural for a people to wish the best for themselves, and to want a country where their ethnicity, language etc. are safeguarded. This wish, in the end, is what broke the mostly non-national Habsburg Empire apart in the end.

Nations within the Empire

I'll describe a quick zoomed-out view for those out of the loop, a sort of 'Habsburg Empire 101'. The peoples in question are:

1. The Germans: One of the most numerous peoples, they were also the richest overall. Conversely, this meant that they paid by far the most taxes to keep the state running. In return, they profited from the fact that the language of administration was German (at least in the Austrian half). Formed minorities in Bohemia, Slovenia, Hungary and Transylvania.

2. The Hungarians: After the Germans the most dominant group, and the most rebellious in a certain sense. After the Compromise of 1867, when the Austrian Empire became Austria-Hungary, they ruled their part almost as a nation-state, with the Habsburg Emperor as titular king of Hungary. Tried to make the minorities in their kingdom (Romanians, Serbs, Croats, Slovaks, Germans) speak their language through assimilative policies. This did not really work out.

3. The Italians: Austria ruled north-east Italy during the 19th century, before Italy was united. Italians were the dominant groups in these areas, but claimed parts of Tyrol and the eastern Adriatic as well.

4. The Poles: Austria included a slice of Poland after its partition in 1772 (other parts went to Prussia and Russia). Polish nobles tried to keep the peasants under serfdom while this institution was abolished in the rest of the Empire. They also tried to Polonize the Ruthenes in east-Galicia, with more success than the Hungarians in their efforts.

5. The Czechs: Like the Hungarians, quite a stubborn group within the Empire, but with less success overall. They did well in terms of infrastructure and industry, but received few concessions in politics and language policy over the decades.

6. The Slovaks: Unlike what more recent history might let you think, the Slovaks were historically bound to Hungary, not to the Czechs. They do not matter much in the story of the Habsburgs, as few as they were.

7. The Slovenes: Remarkably enough a very loyal group in the Empire, but they were (and are) not a very numerous people, and do not figure much in the story.

8: The Serbs: Split between two entities, the Habsburg Empire and an independent Serb state, there was always friction between the Serbs and the Habsburgs. In the end, friction with Serbia would be the spark that lit the flame of World War One.

9: The Romanians: A similar situation as the Serbs; one part of their people within the Empire, the rest in an independent state bordering the empire. Though the majority people in Transylvania, they played second fiddle there to the Hungarians and Germans until the end of WWI.

10: The Ruthenes: today you would say Ukranians, but that national identy was very poorly developed at the time. They were in a very subservient position to the Poles in Galicia.

11: The Jews: Mostly city-dwellers in the west, often rural in the East, the Jews seemed to do well in this multi-ethnic state.

12: The Roma: the Gypsies are perhaps least mentioned of all the groups, a common them with today, one might say.

13: The Croats: This list is so long I almost forgot the Croats. They were a part of the Kingdom of Hungary, but would rather be linked with the Austrian part. The Hungarians wouldn't let them, since their lands were the only route the Hungarians had to the sea.

Conclusion

Thirteen peoples, one state. It is no wonder that in a time of nationalism, the Habsburgs would have had their work cut out for them. Many of the peoples mentioned above have their independent states today, and I think that this is a preferable situation, though Judson disagrees, I think. Though it must be said that he does not explicitly wish for a return of the Empire today.

Perhaps one can argue that the Empire has a spiritual successor in the European Union today: a super-national entity that tries to rule the European nation from a central point (Brussels instead of Vienna) and tries to make the peoples work together. Nationalism again is the thing that could break such an entity.

But let's leave current affairs out of the scope of this review for now. Overall, the book is a good read, though somewhat jumbled, as mentioned in the beginning. It's a good place to start if you want to learn about life in central Europe in the 19th century. I'll be back soon with more reviews. Until then,

-Pieter Nijmeijer

(Top image: self-made photo of book cover)