What traits of Habsburg Austria made it capable of sustaining a multi-ethnic empire for so long?

[alexmilman]

As I said the Prussian army was a beast and had one of the finest commanders in history, comparing an army's quality against that (especially when commanded by a bumbling idiot like Charles of Lorraine) is hardly a fair comparison.

That's fine but the Russian army of the 7YW was badly organized, had rather mediocre commanders and generally ill-educated officers. Still, it won all battles except for Zorndorf (which was an extremely hard fought battle without a decisive Prussian victory even by Schliffen's estimate).

Austrian troops being decisive in winning at Kunersdorf

Because they did not participate in action until the Prussians had been defeated. Attack of Laudon's cavalry happened after the last Prussian attempt, a massive cavalry attack uphill against powerful artillery and stable infantry, failed with the big Prussian losses.

As for your argument on the Miracle of Brandenburg, I disagree with you on that,

Your agreement or disagreement does not matter. After Kunersdorf the Russian-Austrian relations kept soured preventing any serious joined action capable to destroy Fritz. Buturlin, appointed by Elizabeth after Saltykov got ill, simply refused to move anywhere but even prior to this Saltykov was vocally unhappy about von Daun.

Last but not least, you use example of Austrian defeats to say their army and leadership was bad (and I agree that the leadership was far from perfect) but both von Daun and Laudon were somewhat competent commanders, von Daun more so than you give him credit for.

Von Daun was very competent but he lacked an aggressiveness and, in this strategy he was supported by Maria Theresa who ordered to make a medal honoring him with a text "keep winning by procrastinating". Quite obviously the Austrian goal of reconquering Silesia hardly could be achieved by procrastination.

OTOH, Laudon (also very competent and talented general) was often blamed for an excessive aggressiveness which more than once got him into a trouble.

Additionally, you can't judge the Austrian army's performance without comparing it to the the French (supposedly the greatest land power in Europe) and Russian performances against the same opponents.

French army at the time of the 7YW was probably at its worst condition and its performance was pathetic. What can be said about an army in which an officer could just leave the field and go to Paris without a risk of being punished?

Russian performance is an interesting issue. As I said, the army organization was clumsy, the tactics was obsolete, its ability to maneuver was not very good, its officers corps was generally ill-educated and they did not even have competent top leadership (Apraxin was mostly a political animal, Fermor did not have previous experience of the independent command, Saltykov - the same, and the only good thing the contemporaries said about Buturlin was that he was handsome). The army had advanced field howitzers, "unicorns" (not to be confused with less effective "secret guns" of the same name), and that's probably was the only advanced thing. However, they managed to occupy Eastern Prussia and Pomerania, occupy Berlin (together with the Austrians), win the field battles against Prussian generals and in the direct confrontations with Fritz not to lose decisively in one battle and to win decisively in another.

Perhaps the best explanation "why" was given by a Frenchman who served as a volunteer in the Russian army during the 2 Ottoman war of Catherine II. He was comparing the Russian and Austrian armies trying to explain why a much smaller Ottoman force defeated the Austrians while with the reversed numeric odds the Russian troops would always beat the Ottomans. In his opinion the main thing was a "perception". The Austrians had better educated officers and better drilled troops but they did not have a "perception of winning" and treated the Ottomans as an equal enemy. As a result, when facing them, the Austrians would get engaged in a complicated maneuvering and lose. OTOH, the ill-educated Russians "knew" that under no circumstances they would be defeated by the Ottomans so at the sight of an enemy they'd just arrange their troops into the square formations and attack. With the adjustments to the tactical issues the principle probably applies to the 7YW as well. OTOH, when acting under command of the energetic general like Suvorov, Austrians were winning battles both during the Ottoman War (and the same Prince Coburg was defeated when acting alone) and in Italy so it is not unreasonable to assume that the issue was not as much quality of the troops but rather attitudes of their commanders. I'd risk to add: and the tendency to over-complicate the war (look at the general plan of campaign of 1805 and Weyrother's plan for Austerlitz).

Of course, the known pro-Prussian sympathies of the "Young Court" and deteriorating health of Empress Elizabeth had been an additional strategic factor. Also one needs to keep in mind that for Russians (unlike Austrians) this was a completely cabinet war.

 

[alexmilman]

If beating up on Napoleon's underlings counts as above average

General Mareau hardly was Napoleon's underling and the same goes for others. We are talking about the Revolutionary Wars. As for the rest of your "program", your are probably the only one who managed to declare Alvinci a victor of Napoleon and AFAIK even the Austrians are not considering Schwarzenberg to be on the same level as Charles. But please feel free to stick to your opinion.

 

[Gwrtheyrn Annwn]

@alexmilman
You make some good points and you might well be right, though its not entirely clear what you're actually arguing other than just disagreeing with almost everything I'm saying, but you need to work on how you right it because your current style comes across as slightly condescending. Littering your answers with smiley faces feels at worst condescending and at best out of place. And telling people that their "agreement or disagreement does not matter" is hardly conducive to discussion, nor does an arrogance that your completely right or, for that matter, seemingly ignoring points that you can't attack.

I'm not sure why you're doing this, if I wanted to be cynical I would say you're almost trolling people but at the very least you do seem have some kind of attitude problem for actually engaging in discussion.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

General Mareau hardly was Napoleon's underling and the same goes for others. We are talking about the Revolutionary Wars.

Semantics at best.

your are probably the only one who managed to declare Alvinci a victor of Napoleon

I can assure you that's not the case.

and AFAIK even the Austrians are not considering Schwarzenberg to be on the same level as Charles.

I don't either. I don't think Charles was above average. Merely "above average" would be an insult to him. I think he was great, genius even. If Napoleon is a 100, he'd be no less than a 90. All I'm doing is pointing out the mental gymnastics you're resorting to in order to place Schwarzenberg and Alvinci at a 50 or lower.

also

As for the rest of your "program", ... But please feel free to stick to your opinion.

I think this is what Gwrtheyrn Annwn is referring to.

 

[alexmilman]

@alexmilman
You make some good points and you might well be right, though its not entirely clear what you're actually arguing other than just disagreeing with almost everything I'm saying, but you need to work on how you right it because your current style comes across as slightly condescending. Littering your answers with smiley faces feels at worst condescending and at best out of place.

Smiley implies a joke or an irony, not a condescend and reflects my attitude to what I'm writing. We are not engaged in a serious scientific discussion and I'm under no obligation to be 100% serious or to completely submit to your views on what the writing style should be.

And telling people that their "agreement or disagreement does not matter" is hardly conducive to discussion, nor does an arrogance that your completely right or, for that matter, seemingly ignoring points that you can't attack.

In the case of the "Miracle of the House of Brandenburg" you keep repeating the same thing completely ignoring what I'm saying on the subject so I gave up on this issue. If you stuck with your opinion, keep it but don't expect me to share it because it contradicts to what I know about the Russian history. I did not see you bringing up anything that would contradict to what I keep saying about the souring Austro-Russian relations after Kunersdorf (plenty had been written on this specific subject by the Russian historians) which made destruction of Prussia impossible well before Empress Elizabeth died so who is ignoring what is a big question.

I'm not sure why you're doing this, if I wanted to be cynical I would say you're almost trolling people

Please be careful with what you are saying.

 

[alexmilman]

I don't either. I don't think Charles was above average. Merely "above average" would be an insult to him. I think he was great, genius even.

Ah, so we had a genuine misunderstanding because I also consider Charles to be a great general (I generally tend to be rather cautious with "genius").

 

[dandan_noodles]

Schwarzenberg was a joke appointed due to the political consideration. Alexander was complaining that he got grey hairs trying to force him to advance. And József Alvinczi surely qualifies as a military genius for failing to relieve Mantua and being defeated at Arcoli and Rivoli.

Schwarzenberg appointed Radetzky his chief of staff, who went on to formulate the war plan that made Napoleon beatable, and then on 13 September, Schwarzenberg made the key decision of the campaign, seeking a junction of Allied forces at Leipzig for a decisive battle with Napoleon's main force. Because of this decision, Napoleon was brought to battle in an inferior position with inferior forces, utterly defeated, and driven from Germany. I don't content he was a Great strategist, and he was a pretty poor tactitian, but on balance, he'd definitely be in the top half of Napoleonic era commanders. If you want to disprove this, find an 'average' general in the Napoleonic Wars and give an example of when they achieved something greater.

 

[jerseyguy]

Its greatest strength was being too diverse to ever pretend to be a nationstate. There are totally homogenous countries where ethnic conflict isn't really feasible (Iceland, Korea) and extremely unstable countries where there's a majority group, but the largest minority is at least 30% of the population and can plausibly throw its weight around to secede or cause problems (Muslims in hypothetical undivided India).
The Habsburg monarchy is kind of like modern Tanzania in the sense that the ethnicities are forced to cooperate because each one is such a small portion of the population that none can feasibly assert their rule of the others.
The Habsburg were never under the illusion that they could Germanize all their subjects in the same way that Germany and France could cohere around one language or dialect. Because of this the Habsburgs were willing to tolerate almost group in exchange for loyalty to the emperor in Vienna.
In WW1 Austria-Hungary was one of the only powers that promoted Jewish service members above the rank of officer, and even provided kosher food for Jewish soldiers. This was a universe away from Czarist Russia, but the association of empire's Jews with the Habsburg monarchy and Vienna liberalism more generally would prove disastrous in the post-Versailles nation-states.
Jews were the only nationality that just considered themselves Habsburg subjects with no sub-national loyalty, and they generally assimilated to the German-speaking imperial high culture. Because of this, some of the self-identified "Germans" in the early Czechoslovak language censuses were assimilated Jews who happened to speak German.

 

[alexmilman]

In WW1 Austria-Hungary was one of the only powers that promoted Jewish service members above the rank of officer, and even provided kosher food for Jewish soldiers. This was a universe away from Czarist Russia,

While, of course, you are correct, this is a little bit tricky because in the Russian Empire "Jew" was a strictly religious term and a converted Jew did not have any restrictions on his career all the way to the general rank. I know about two such examples: general Geyman and general Grulev. For the religious Jews accommodations did not go (AFAIK) beyond the right to attend the religious services.

But, in general, for the Jews A-H was MUCH better than Russian empire.

 

[Vuu]

Catholicism, legitimacy, appeasement, the minorities being tiny, and the fact that it was always dual, the Germans dealt with the Italians and Czechs, while the Hungarians dealt with the others

Their failure to assimilate the others became their undoing, "unity in diversity" was, is, and always will be a pipe dream

 

[jerseyguy]

While, of course, you are correct, this is a little bit tricky because in the Russian Empire "Jew" was a strictly religious term and a converted Jew did not have any restrictions on his career all the way to the general rank. I know about two such examples: general Geyman and general Grulev. For the religious Jews accommodations did not go (AFAIK) beyond the right to attend the religious services.

But, in general, for the Jews A-H was MUCH better than Russian empire.

True, some like Ludwig Von Mises could never have earned a noble family title under Czarist rule. Like everything else in the Danube Monarchy, I suspect conditions for Jews varied wildly from province to province. Its how Jews from the Hungarian Kingdom became an assimilated middle class of "Magyar speaking brothers of the Mosaic faith" but Karl Lueger could rant and rave about Jews destroying Vienna and call the Hungarian capital Jew-dapest

Jews in Galicia tended to either become Germanized, Polonized, or proto-Zionists, depending on the official language of the era.

The Empire's uneven democratization was ultimately its undoing. The Austro-Germans took a relatively hands off approach to Galicia post-1867, and they actually allowed Cisleithanian minorities like Czechs and Slovenes some degree of representation.
The Magyars, on the other hand, exploited their autonomy to maintain power through an extremely limited franchise. Because the Cisleithanians were too divided to form a united negotiating position against the Kingdom of Hungary (mostly due to Czech-German squabbles), a Magyar-speaking population that was barely 30% of the population managed to practically rule the Empire through divide and conquer tactics.

 

[alexmilman]

True, some like Ludwig Von Mises could never have earned a noble family title under Czarist rule.

The following is not a disagreement with what you said, just a further illustration of what I said about complexity of the things in Russian Empire.

I already mentioned that a converted Jew was not a subject to any restrictions. For example, during the reign of Peter I a converted Jew, Shafirov, became a baron, vice-chancellor of the Russian Empire, Senator, Chairman of the Commercial Collegium (Minister of trade and commerce), etc. Another similar personage, Anton de Viera (known in Russia as Count Anton Manuilovich Devier) became the first chief of St Petersburg Police, made count and admitted to the Senate.

Now, how about the non-converted ones? The known restrictions did not apply to the Jews who fit into certain groups: members of the merchants 1st guild (people willing to pay annually 500 - 1500 rubles for trade certificate plus 75 rubles for guild certificate), people with university diploma (specifics changed over time) and advanced degree (doctor, magister, candidate), doctors without university degree, people graduated from St-Petersburg's Institute of Technology. From 1879 the exclusions extended to all graduates of the universities, dentists, lower levels of medical personnel (like midwives, medical assistants, etc.). Then there were exclusions for tradesmen and soldiers and non-coms who entered service prior to the military reform.

As a result, there were cases like a very popular banker Lazar Polyakov who became a "civilian general" (had a honorary civilian rank equal to one of a general with a resulting "don't bother to spell 'Lazar Solomonovich', call me simply 'Your Excellency'" recorded for the posterity ) and even рецеижед a hereditary nobility (look closely at his family coat of arms). All this while remaining the leader of Moscow Jewish community. Of course, he was rather an exception than a rule but he did became a noble.

 

[jerseyguy]

The following is not a disagreement with what you said, just a further illustration of what I said about complexity of the things in Russian Empire.

I already mentioned that a converted Jew was not a subject to any restrictions. For example, during the reign of Peter I a converted Jew, Shafirov, became a baron, vice-chancellor of the Russian Empire, Senator, Chairman of the Commercial Collegium (Minister of trade and commerce), etc. Another similar personage, Anton de Viera (known in Russia as Count Anton Manuilovich Devier) became the first chief of St Petersburg Police, made count and admitted to the Senate.

Now, how about the non-converted ones? The known restrictions did not apply to the Jews who fit into certain groups: members of the merchants 1st guild (people willing to pay annually 500 - 1500 rubles for trade certificate plus 75 rubles for guild certificate), people with university diploma (specifics changed over time) and advanced degree (doctor, magister, candidate), doctors without university degree, people graduated from St-Petersburg's Institute of Technology. From 1879 the exclusions extended to all graduates of the universities, dentists, lower levels of medical personnel (like midwives, medical assistants, etc.). Then there were exclusions for tradesmen and soldiers and non-coms who entered service prior to the military reform.

As a result, there were cases like a very popular banker Lazar Polyakov who became a "civilian general" (had a honorary civilian rank equal to one of a general with a resulting "don't bother to spell 'Lazar Solomonovich', call me simply 'Your Excellency'" recorded for the posterity ) and even рецеижед a hereditary nobility (look closely at his family coat of arms). All this while remaining the leader of Moscow Jewish community. Of course, he was rather an exception than a rule but he did became a noble.

Thanks for the info! I'm taking a class on the history of Zionism right now that covers some background about unassimilated Jews in the Pale of Settlement, but very little info about converted Jews or otherwise in Russia proper.

 

[alexmilman]

Thanks for the info! I'm taking a class on the history of Zionism right now that covers some background about unassimilated Jews in the Pale of Settlement, but very little info about converted Jews or otherwise in Russia proper.

One very big category of the converted Jews in Russia of the 1st half of the XIX century were so-called "cantonists": the young Jewish children taken into the military service (mostly during the reign of Nicholas I), baptized and then educated and trained as the low ranking military cadres. With a minimal luck (not dying while still a child and not being killed in war) they could raise into the officer rank and then, in theory, sky was a limit (I don't know if Geyman was the only one who made it to lieutenant general but there were definitely numerous officers of the lower ranks). Reaching certain military rank receiving a personal nobility and moving higher could give a hereditary nobility (planks had been moving from time to time but schema remained realistic). Tracing people of this category would be close to impossible unless for a professional historian. In the later times there was a different group of which general Grulev was a well-known example. He belongs to the 2nd half of the XIX - early XX (participated in the RJW). He started his education in the usual Jewish religious school. Then when gymnasium was opened in the region he continued education in it and then went to the military school when he found that as a Jew he would have limited opportunities for a continued education and advancement. So he baptized (judging by his memoirs, his family was not excessively religious) and continued his education and military career.

Another well-known example of a converted Jew was Zalman Sverdlov (brother of Jackob Sverdlov, a well-known Bolshevik leader) who converted, became Zinovy Peshkov (being adopted by Maxim Gorky; real name Alexy Peshkov) emigrated into France, joined Foreign Legion, participated in WWI where he lost his right arm, then in WWII, joined Free France, became a general (retired as Général de corps d’armée), got grand cross of the Legion of Honor, became an ambassador, was De Gaulle's friend, etc. Of course, most of his career was NOT in the Russian service.

 

[123456789blaaa]

Catholicism, legitimacy, appeasement, the minorities being tiny, and the fact that it was always dual, the Germans dealt with the Italians and Czechs, while the Hungarians dealt with the others

Their failure to assimilate the others became their undoing, "unity in diversity" was, is, and always will be a pipe dream

Ah, this is why India immediately broke apart into hundreds upon hundreds of constantly warring mini-ethno states after independence instead of maintaining itself and becoming a relatively successful post-colonial state.

 

[jerseyguy]

Ah, this is why India immediately broke apart into hundreds upon hundreds of constantly warring mini-ethno states after independence instead of maintaining itself and becoming a relatively successful post-colonial state.

India is a 80% Hindu country, religion plays the uniting role that's filled by ethnicity alone elsewhere. A Hindu nationalist is a Hindu nationalist no matter what language they speak.

 

[123456789blaaa]

India is a 80% Hindu country, religion plays the uniting role that's filled by ethnicity alone elsewhere. A Hindu nationalist is a Hindu nationalist no matter what language they speak.

1) tell me how much of Austria-Hungary was catholic

2) Hinduism is FAR less unifying that any abrahamic religion.

There was no "christendom" or "ummah" equivalent for hinduism and it wasn't even considered a single religion until very recently under British influence. There was no figure who claimed dominion over Hindus specifically unlike Caliphs or Popes. It makes no sense to say that "unity in diversity" is a pipe dream when Hinduism is and always was FAR more diverse that even Nicene Christianity in general. In fact, the primary identifier for most indians even into the early 20th century was jati group. It's absurd to say that Austro-hungarian fatherland patriotism, something that continued to underlie all ethno-nationalist movements in austria-hungary up till the very last year of WW1, is somehow incapable of working while just accepting that Hindu nationalism can.

 

[alexmilman]

1) tell me how much of Austria-Hungary was catholic

2) Hinduism is FAR less unifying that any abrahamic religion.

There was no "christendom" or "ummah" equivalent for hinduism and it wasn't even considered a single religion until very recently under British influence. There was no figure who claimed dominion over Hindus specifically unlike Caliphs or Popes. It makes no sense to say that "unity in diversity" is a pipe dream when Hinduism is and always was FAR more diverse that even Nicene Christianity in general. In fact, the primary identifier for most indians even into the early 20th century was jati group. It's absurd to say that Austro-hungarian fatherland patriotism, something that continued to underlie all ethno-nationalist movements in austria-hungary up till the very last year of WW1, is somehow incapable of working while just accepting that Hindu nationalism can.

Well, but what is in common between post-colonial India and A-H and why any parallel applies to start with?

Of course, in A-H Catholicism was not an unifying factor because there were significant Protestant, Orthodox and even Jewish segments of population and their loyalty was seemingly (I may be wrong) based upon the real or perceived treatment of the national group. The Hungarians had been generally happy and loyal but (predominantly Catholic) Czechs much less so because the nationalists had been playing upon a diminished status of Czechia (FJI did not bother to get crowned as King of Bohemia). The Jews had been loyal because they were given the equal rights.

Not sure that anything of the kind is applicable to the situation in India.

 

[123456789blaaa]

Well, but what is in common between post-colonial India and A-H and why any parallel applies to start with?

Of course, in A-H Catholicism was not an unifying factor because there were significant Protestant, Orthodox and even Jewish segments of population and their loyalty was seemingly (I may be wrong) based upon the real or perceived treatment of the national group. The Hungarians had been generally happy and loyal but (predominantly Catholic) Czechs much less so because the nationalists had been playing upon a diminished status of Czechia (FJI did not bother to get crowned as King of Bohemia). The Jews had been loyal because they were given the equal rights.

Not sure that anything of the kind is applicable to the situation in India.

India is literally one of the most ethnically diverse places in the world. Individual jati (subcastes) in individual villages are typically two to three times more genetically different than north and south Europeans are. Furthermore, the Indian state of Uttar Pradesh alone has more Muslims than all the other Muslim majority countries except Indonesia, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Egypt, Iran and Turkey. Not only is a secular, non Hindu nationalist form of nationalism prominent (Congress was in power for decades before modern times and the driving force behind Independence) but Hindutva is even younger than Austro-Hungarian patriotism which we can see in the writings 18th c notables like jurist and novelist Joseph von Sonnenfels. If you think that "failure to assimilate" is what caused AH to die, then you need to explain why it didn't cause a far more diverse country to die. Why do you think regional and ethnic forms of nationalism in India didn't develop in the same way as AH? It's certainly there, just look at the Maratha and how they use Shivaji in their own national myths. Obviously India and AH are different in many ways but I was clearly responding to the assertions laid out by Vuu.

Not to mention that the idea that the "failure to assimilate" was the undoing of AH is ridiculous. While the conservatism and failures of the Austro-Hungarian ruling class allowed ethnonationalisms to gain prominence in AH politics, this did not mean that they were disloyal to AH as a whole. All of the national groups performed excellently in terms of patriotism and loyalty is WW1, even ones like slavs that the AH ruling class was paranoid about. Stories about Czechs being disloyal and traitorous frex are fabrications that became popular as a way to legitimize the Czechoslovak Republic after AH dissolution. The dissolution of the AH empire wasn't even considered seriously by AH citizens until the army literally dissolved and national states became necessary by virtue of the need to form governments. The idea that AH was doomed to fail bc it was multi-ethnic is not born out by the facts.

 

[alexmilman]

Not to mention that the idea that the "failure to assimilate" was the undoing of AH is ridiculous. While the conservatism and failures of the Austro-Hungarian ruling class allowed ethnonationalisms to gain prominence in AH politics, this did not mean that they were disloyal to AH as a whole. All of the national groups performed excellently in terms of patriotism and loyalty is WW1, even ones like slavs that the AH ruling class was paranoid about. Stories about Czechs being disloyal and traitorous frex are fabrications that became popular as a way to legitimize the Czechoslovak Republic after AH dissolution. The dissolution of the AH empire wasn't even considered seriously by AH citizens until the army literally dissolved and national states became necessary by virtue of the need to form governments. The idea that AH was doomed to fail bc it was multi-ethnic is not born out by the facts.

While we are in a general agreement, I don't see nationalist movements within A-H in the terms of betrayal. Specifically, there was an influential nationalist Czech movement and during the WWI size of the Czech Legion fighting on the side of Entente grew up to 100,000. If you are considering any disloyalty to the country as traitorous, then you have to declare all Polish nationalists born in the Russian empire as traitors, staring with Pilsudski (and I strongly suspect that quite a few Poles will strongly object to such a notion) and the list will go on. It is very dangerous to ignore the specific situation which existed at specific time and, starting from the late XIX the nationalist movements had been quite strong in Europe and recognition of that fact had been reflected in the (rather clumsy, IMO) border arrangements in post-WWI Europe. This applies not only to A-H but also to the Germany and former Russian empire (even if most of the "lost" territories had been returned during and after WWII they retained a formally semi-sovereign status within the Soviet Union).
However, I would not say that A-H and Russian Empire lost because of their multi-ethnicity: there were numerous other reasons.