Why was Austria and Bohemia economically less important than Hungary in the 16th century?

Truth555

Banned
The Austrian branch of Habsburg monarchs needed the economic power of Hungary for the Ottoman wars. During the Ottoman wars the territory of the former Kingdom of Hungary shrunk by around 70%. Despite these enormous territorial and demographic losses, the smaller, heavily war-torn Royal Hungary had remained economically more important than Austria or Kingdom of Bohemia even at the end of the 16th century.[8] Out of all his countries, the depleted Kingdom of Hungary was, at that time, Ferdinand’s largest source of revenue.[9]

Sources: Robert Evans, Peter Wilson (2012). The Holy Roman Empire, 1495-1806: A European Perspective Volume 1 van Brill's Companions to European History. BRILL. p. 263. ISBN 9789004206830.

Dr. István Kenyeres: The Financial Administrative Reforms and Revenues of Ferdinand I in Hungary, English summary at page 92 Link1: https://archive.org/details/061092Kenyeres1
 
Clicking on the first source linked to google books brings up the source. And it shows that wikipedia is misquoting. It shows that the Erblande produce as much or more revenue compared to Hungary in 1600. Bohemia is slightly behind, but if I had to guess I'd assume that that's related to differences in taxation.

The second source, link again, gives an answer related to Ferdinand's personal income. I know at the time that's kinda the same as state income but still. Ferdinand had extensive personal posessions in Hungary, something that allowed him to collect money without clashing with the Stände.
 
Top