Russia Intervenes on Hungary's Behalf in 1848-1849

No, no and no.

From Istvan Deak's The Lawful Revolution; Louis Kossuth and thr Hungarians:

"Most Hungarian historians have condemned Lamberg's appointment as unconstitutional and counterrevolutionary. They see it as another base trick played by Vienna reactionaries. It was perhaps unconstitutional, but the appointment was also in the interest of peace and the autonomy of Hungary. When the manifestos were published on September 25, Jelačić was still moving leisurely towards Buda-Pest: it was expected that he woule take the city in a day or two. Why then the appointment of a new supreme commander with authority over both Hungarian and Croatian armies, and with the specific task of enforcing an immediate armistice? This could have stopped Jelačić. And if the aim was entirely anti-Hungarian, then why appoint a moderate Hungarian? Lamberg had participated in the Reform Diet of 1847-48 as a member of the Upper House; and as commander of the Pressburg army corps he had shown himself as patriotic as his uniform allowed him to be. His Ungarns politisches Zukunft, published anonymously in 1842, proved him a conservative reformer; Batthyány himself respected the general. The king's move represented a last effort to save the Monarchy in its old decentralised form. But Lamberg's appointment was totally misunderstood in Hungary."

Deak also points out that his appointment was pretty much decided by Archduke Stefan, Palatine of Hungary, who definitely sympathised with the Reformists and his serious attempt at protecting both the Monarchy and the gains of the Revolution threw him in exile.

I was half-wrong with my accusations, however, now that I'm re-reading. Kossuth called for Lamberg to be treated as a traitor and rebel and made sure to post the date of the General's arrival. It's the radical press in Buda-Pest that called for his head. While not directly responsible, he definitely played a role here.

Finally, you are giving way too much credit to the Court in Vienna. Vienna was heavily divided at this point. The remnants of Metternich's faction pushed for a continuation and even reformation of the Monarchy's decentralised system (as Metternich himself wanted; little known fact), while Bach's faction wanted the centralise the Empire. Of course, there were the Reactionary Neo-Absolutists that wanted to destroy the new constitution and the April Laws as well as the Liberals and Moderates sympathetic to tge Hungarian cause from the very beginning who lost their voice with Lamberg's murder. Bach and his faction won out in the end, but the bickering within the Camarilla is not to be underestimated and Bach's victory in the post-Metternich crisis was not assured at all.

I wont dispute that you have more knowledge than me in this matter. However I draw very different conclusions from the same facts:

1. Vienna didnt need to appoint Lamberg to order Jellacic to stop. If this was their goal this step was unnecessery. However we should ask what would have accomplished if the liberal hungarian government went along with this. It would have placed all the armed forces under the hungarians governments control under the control of someone who was loyal to Vienna and not to them. This Lamberg demonstrated before when he refused to place his troops under the control of the hungarian military ministry. This would have placed the new hungarian government completly at the mercy of Vienna.

2. You probably know much better than me how divided the loyalties of the 'hungarian' officer corps was. They were basically the former imperial officers who have already sworn an oath to the emperor/king. I dont think it unlikely that the military would accept Lamberg even with his unconstitutional appointment. That again would mean that the hungarian government remains without an armed force - while Jellacic is marching toward them.

3. Because of this I cant fault the hungarian leadership for not accepting this unconstitutional step, that would take away their military power and place it in the hands of their political enemy who has already demonstrated that his loyalties lie with the Emperor. In exchange of this he might order Jellasic to stop who might comply with this order...

4. Taking unconstitutional steps just after the liberals made revolution for a constitution is bound to be a bad idea.

5. Regarding Lambergs death I think it was the best solution for the hungarian liberal government. For the reasons above it was unthinkable that they would let him accomplish his mission. To stop him they could have arrested him, executed him or driven him away. However it was extremly important that the military remains under their control and for this they needed the military to still see them as the lawful government of Hungary and not rebels against the emperor. If they inprisoned or executed Lamberg they would need a legal reason and all in all it wouldnt go over too well. If they let him get away he could have gone directly to the army and tried to size control. Getting him killed by a mob and claiming no responsibility for it seems to me one of the most effective and ruthless solutions.

6. Dont forget the base fact that it was Jellasic who attacked Hungary. He either acted with Viennas consent which means Vienna was viewing Hungary as rebbeling or was a rebel himself. By neither declaring Jellasic a rebel nor ordering to stop his attack I think Vienna made his decision. The only thing they did during the whole mess was to try to take back control of the armies under the constitutional hungarian government by an unconstitutional step.
 
Last edited:
I wont dispute that you have more knowledge than me in this matter. However I draw very different conclusions from the same facts:

1. As I tried to explain, Lamberg was a sympathiser of the Revolution (he was most definitely Hungarian, after all) and was, in fact, in a very good position to do this kind of negociation alongside the Palatine of Hungary, Archduke Stefan, whom represented the King in Hungary. However, there are some small but significant facts that you are missing: Hungarian regiments of the Austrian Army were already under the government in Buda-Pest since the April Laws. By then, thr Hungarian troops outside of those fighting in Italy had been repatriated. This also very much included Croat regiments, as they were Hungarian regiments as well. As far as I know, Lamberg never refused to put his troops to be put in Hungarian command because he WAS part of the Hungarian command and it had already been done anyways in April.

There is also the oft-forgotten fact (in both Hungary and Croatia) that Jellacic repeatedly refused orders from Vienna to stand down (Deak, in his book, is very critical of Jellacic) and retreat back to Croatia. Presumably, he believed himself righteous and refused to believe that his King would give him such orders in that case. He was... sort of right for a reason that I'll explain in a little bit.

2. Lamberg's appointment WAS meant to broker peace in what was very much a bloody civil war. His command was very much formal otherwise and he was a good candidate for the position, serving as a potentially good mediator between the Hungarians and Vienna. After all, Hungarian and Croatian armies were technically under the same Hungarian command legally and it didn't remove command from the Buda-Pest government at all. The military accepting the appointment or not wasn't the issue, it was the civilian government not doing so that was.

3,4,5. I pretty much agree with this. It WAS unconstitutional and that's why it pissed off the Hungarian government so much. The problem wasn't that the appointment was going to reduce Hungary's autonomy or legal rights over the Hungarian regiments (it didn't), but that the appointment wasn't countersigned by the Minister-President of Hungary as per law. It was very much an oversight by Vienna as the Hungarian Diet was filled with lawyers and it was very much unconsitutional despite that I agree with the fact that his appointment was a good idea. That faux-pas from Vienna was a bad thing for its reputation amongst the Hungarians and it could have been totally avoided by consulting with Batthyány.

5. Like I said before, Lamberg's appoitment wasn't meant to undermine Buda-Pest's authority over its armed forces. In fact, it would have legally assured the Croatian regiments' position under the Hungarian crown. Otherwise, you are very much correct. His death still led to Vienna believing that the Hungarians were rebels after all and they finally threw their lot to Jellacic.

6. Yeah, Jellacic was very much responsible in initiating the bloody civil war in Hungary. However, like I said, it wasn't under Vienna's consent at all. The problem was that there were Austrian Imperial officers and government workers in both the Jellacic and Hungarian camp sending conflicting reports and calling the other side rebels and traitors in the name of their King, the same person. They couldn't really makr a decision in the confusion since Vienna was divided on who to support and different members of the Camarilla had different biases towards tge belligerents.

Another issue, of course, is that the Emperor of Austria at the time was Ferdinand, whom was physically incapable of ruling because of his epilepsy problem. He couldn't personally order Jellacic to stand down because he was sidelined by the Camarilla.
 
1. As I tried to explain, Lamberg was a sympathiser of the Revolution (he was most definitely Hungarian, after all) and was, in fact, in a very good position to do this kind of negociation alongside the Palatine of Hungary, Archduke Stefan, whom represented the King in Hungary. However, there are some small but significant facts that you are missing: Hungarian regiments of the Austrian Army were already under the government in Buda-Pest since the April Laws. By then, thr Hungarian troops outside of those fighting in Italy had been repatriated. This also very much included Croat regiments, as they were Hungarian regiments as well. As far as I know, Lamberg never refused to put his troops to be put in Hungarian command because he WAS part of the Hungarian command and it had already been done anyways in April.

There is also the oft-forgotten fact (in both Hungary and Croatia) that Jellacic repeatedly refused orders from Vienna to stand down (Deak, in his book, is very critical of Jellacic) and retreat back to Croatia. Presumably, he believed himself righteous and refused to believe that his King would give him such orders in that case. He was... sort of right for a reason that I'll explain in a little bit.

2. Lamberg's appointment WAS meant to broker peace in what was very much a bloody civil war. His command was very much formal otherwise and he was a good candidate for the position, serving as a potentially good mediator between the Hungarians and Vienna. After all, Hungarian and Croatian armies were technically under the same Hungarian command legally and it didn't remove command from the Buda-Pest government at all. The military accepting the appointment or not wasn't the issue, it was the civilian government not doing so that was.

3,4,5. I pretty much agree with this. It WAS unconstitutional and that's why it pissed off the Hungarian government so much. The problem wasn't that the appointment was going to reduce Hungary's autonomy or legal rights over the Hungarian regiments (it didn't), but that the appointment wasn't countersigned by the Minister-President of Hungary as per law. It was very much an oversight by Vienna as the Hungarian Diet was filled with lawyers and it was very much unconsitutional despite that I agree with the fact that his appointment was a good idea. That faux-pas from Vienna was a bad thing for its reputation amongst the Hungarians and it could have been totally avoided by consulting with Batthyány.

5. Like I said before, Lamberg's appoitment wasn't meant to undermine Buda-Pest's authority over its armed forces. In fact, it would have legally assured the Croatian regiments' position under the Hungarian crown. Otherwise, you are very much correct. His death still led to Vienna believing that the Hungarians were rebels after all and they finally threw their lot to Jellacic.

6. Yeah, Jellacic was very much responsible in initiating the bloody civil war in Hungary. However, like I said, it wasn't under Vienna's consent at all. The problem was that there were Austrian Imperial officers and government workers in both the Jellacic and Hungarian camp sending conflicting reports and calling the other side rebels and traitors in the name of their King, the same person. They couldn't really makr a decision in the confusion since Vienna was divided on who to support and different members of the Camarilla had different biases towards tge belligerents.

Another issue, of course, is that the Emperor of Austria at the time was Ferdinand, whom was physically incapable of ruling because of his epilepsy problem. He couldn't personally order Jellacic to stand down because he was sidelined by the Camarilla.

As I see it the point is that we see Lamberg very differently and because of this we come to very different conclusion regarding his appointment.

As I already acknowledges numerous times the 1848-49 revolution isnt my area of expertise. I simply looked up Lamberg on his hungarian wiki page. There was the information regarding his refusement to support the liberal hungarian government giving Lázár Mészáros, the military minister of Hungary at the time as the source.

Him being a hungarian and a conservative - even if a reformist conservative doesnt necesserily make him a good mediatory. That means that before the revolutions he was a political enemy of the liberals. I dont know his personal views but the reformist conservatives were very moderate in the reforms they supported especially compared to the liberals.

He accepted his unconstitutional appointment thats for sure. And if he was or at least viewed by the hungarian government as someone loyal to Vienna - which if we accept Mészáros's claim is very likely - I still remain by my previous conclusion.

This whole is prooving much more interesting than I initially thought it would be so I think I will take the time in the furture to read up on it. However right now im far too busy with work to do that.
 
As I see it the point is that we see Lamberg very differently and because of this we come to very different conclusion regarding his appointment.

As I already acknowledges numerous times the 1848-49 revolution isnt my area of expertise. I simply looked up Lamberg on his hungarian wiki page. There was the information regarding his refusement to support the liberal hungarian government giving Lázár Mészáros, the military minister of Hungary at the time as the source.

Him being a hungarian and a conservative - even if a reformist conservative doesnt necesserily make him a good mediatory. That means that before the revolutions he was a political enemy of the liberals. I dont know his personal views but the reformist conservatives were very moderate in the reforms they supported especially compared to the liberals.

He accepted his unconstitutional appointment thats for sure. And if he was or at least viewed by the hungarian government as someone loyal to Vienna - which if we accept Mészáros's claim is very likely - I still remain by my previous conclusion.

This whole is prooving much more interesting than I initially thought it would be so I think I will take the time in the furture to read up on it. However right now im far too busy with work to do that.
I can definitely see where you're coming from now. Istvan Deak's book is really my primary source on the events since I, despite my name, have very, very limited knowledge in the Magyar language and I live far away from Hungary, so Hungarian sources are out of my reach. I'll need to check more on Lamberg.

Do beware, though: the 1848 Revolution has been used and abused by nationalists ever since the war ended and I feel that it's incredibly difficult to find older material that isn't ridiculously biased and heavily outdated. After all, Hungarian nationalists have quite the reputation. Even within Hungary from the few Hungarians that I've spoken to.
 
I can definitely see where you're coming from now. Istvan Deak's book is really my primary source on the events since I, despite my name, have very, very limited knowledge in the Magyar language and I live far away from Hungary, so Hungarian sources are out of my reach. I'll need to check more on Lamberg.

Do beware, though: the 1848 Revolution has been used and abused by nationalists ever since the war ended and I feel that it's incredibly difficult to find older material that isn't ridiculously biased and heavily outdated. After all, Hungarian nationalists have quite the reputation. Even within Hungary from the few Hungarians that I've spoken to.

I think I too will check out Deák's book as well with a few others. Nationalism is a problem but as long as I am cautious I dont think it will be an issue. Another problem however is that both Kossuth and Széchenyi have relevance in todays politics as well.

A bit more through quich check on the net on Lambert gave the following results:
Most - all that say anything in the regard of his views - agree that he was a monarchist and more loyal to the emperor than to the hungarian government. Most cite Mészáros as a source for this. Some mention that he was on Pest when he was murdered in order to get the hungarian military ministry to sign his appointment to make it legal. Some say that the Hungarian government would have refused this while others claim Batthyány was ready to go along with it. This also tend to blame Kossuth. I found claims that Lambergs opinion was that even if he ordered Jellacic to stop he would most likely ignore it.

Every source I found condemned the murder of course. I also have found no mention of my assumption that this was about the control of the armed forces.
 
I think I too will check out Deák's book as well with a few others. Nationalism is a problem but as long as I am cautious I dont think it will be an issue. Another problem however is that both Kossuth and Széchenyi have relevance in todays politics as well.

A bit more through quich check on the net on Lambert gave the following results:
Most - all that say anything in the regard of his views - agree that he was a monarchist and more loyal to the emperor than to the hungarian government. Most cite Mészáros as a source for this. Some mention that he was on Pest when he was murdered in order to get the hungarian military ministry to sign his appointment to make it legal. Some say that the Hungarian government would have refused this while others claim Batthyány was ready to go along with it. This also tend to blame Kossuth. I found claims that Lambergs opinion was that even if he ordered Jellacic to stop he would most likely ignore it.

Every source I found condemned the murder of course. I also have found no mention of my assumption that this was about the control of the armed forces.
I think what I like the most about Deák's book is that it's a nice reevaluation of Kossuth- it's rather critical, yet still rather positive. It's definitely a lot better than Hungarian nationalists' obsession over him to the point that he was untouchable. It really made me rethink my opinions on Kossuth (I used to really dislike him). Also, despite being a descendent of Ferenc Deák (or maybe because of that fact!), he's hilariously blunt about Ferenc Deák's notorious laziness.

Mészáros: my only issue with his assessment is that, while I don't remember his political position from the top of my head, he was the one that could lose the most from Lamberg's appointment. He had a lot to gain from his murder and might try to secure his by saying that Lamberg wasn't loyal to the Hungarian government in the first place. Also, are the sources from Mészáros taken from his memoirs? Memoirs are really tricky as historical sources, after all.

Conspiract theories aside, I find it unlikely that Lamberg was going to undermine Buda-Pest's authority. As a Hungarian and a conservative reformer, he was much more likely to be in favour of maintaining Hungary's autonomy. However conservative he was, Hungary's autonomy was deemed ancient and unviolable to the vast majority of Hungarians.

But yeah, considering Jellacic repeatedly refused orders from Vienna to retreat back to Croatia, it's safe to assume he would refuse Lamberg's orders. However, him refusing orders from the King's appointee would have seriously undermined his position and legitimacy in the eyes of his supporters and own troops.
 
Top