Hostname: page-component-cd9895bd7-7cvxr Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-12-28T17:19:39.904Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

The Struggle Over the Dissolution of the Croatian Military Border, 1850-1871

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  27 January 2017

Gunther E. Rothenberg
Get access Rights & Permissions [Opens in a new window]

Extract

Historians have differed in their evaluation of the nationality problem in the Habsburg Empire, but they have generally agreed that the Military Border maintained along the southern boundaries of Hungary and Croatia constituted a traditional element of dynastic strength. “There arose,” Oscar Jászi wrote, “a proverbial Habsburg patriotism, perhaps the only real one which the Habsburgs were capable of fomenting in their realm.“ The dissolution of the Military Border in Croatia-Slavonia, which took place soon after the celebrated Ausgleich of 1867, has been considered a serious blow to the military posture and the stability of the monarchy. Yet such appraisals need a critical reassessment. After the middle of the nineteenth century, South Slav national tendencies profoundly altered; and the Border became a blunted and much less “reliable” instrument of imperial policy.

Type
Articles
Information
Slavic Review , Volume 23 , Issue 1 , March 1964 , pp. 63 - 78
Copyright
Copyright © Association for Slavic, East European, and Eurasian Studies. 1963

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

1 Jászi, Oscar, The Dissolution of the Habsburg Monarchy (Chicago, 1929), p. 57 Google Scholar.

2 Most recently by Kiszling, Rudolf, Die Kroaten (Graz and Cologne, 1956), p. Cologne Google Scholar, and by Wessely, Kurt, Die österreichische Militärgrenze (Ritzingen, 1953), p. 21 Google Scholar.

3 For the development of this institution see Rothenberg, Gunther E., The Austrian Military Border in Croatia, 1522-1747 (Urbana, 1960)Google Scholar. A discussion of the special privileges in Branko P. Sučević, “Razvitak ‘Vlaskih prava’ u Varaždinskom generalatu,” Historijski zbornik, VI (1953), 33-70.

4 Duke Joseph Friedrich zu Sachsen-Hildburghausen in his 1737 report on the Border, Kriegsarchiv, Vienna (hereafter cited as KA), Kanzlei-Archiv, VII-349.

5 Hietzinger, Carl B., Statistik der Militärgrenze des österreichischen Kaiserthums (3 vols.; Vienna, 1817-23), II, 52 Google Scholar, tabulated more than thirty major reorganizations between 1703 and 1807. A French military observer commented: “Le gouvernment, loin de chercher á augmenter le bien-ětre et la richesse des habitant des frontières, craint plutÔt que trop á d'aisance n'enlève quelque chose de leur qualités militaires; il veut des soldats avant tout.” M. de Terrason, “Essai sur l'organisation des Frontières Militaires et Régiments Frontières de l'Autriche,” Archives Historiques de la Guerre, Paris, Reconaissances, carton 1599.

6 Quintenbach, Carl Frhr. v. Pidoll zu, Einige Worte über die russischen Militair-Kolonien im Vergleiche mit der k.k. österreichischen MilitairGr änze (Vienna, 1847), p. 27 Google Scholar.

7 Rothenberg, op. cit., passim.

8 Reports on the unsatisfactory conditions of the Border include orders issued by the Hofkriegsrat to stop the mistreatment of the Grenzer, KA, HKR 1820, B-l/55, and the reporcs KA, Mem. 22-84, of Oct., 1830, and KA, Mem. 23-74 of Nov., 1832. Tkalać, Cf. Emmerich I.v., Jugenderinnerungen aus Kroatien (Leipzig, 1894), pp. 315–16, 324-29; Ognieslav M. Utiešenović, Die Militärgrenze und die Verfassung (Vienna, 1861), pp. 48–49 Google Scholar, and Pidoll zu Quintenbach, op. cit., pp. 74-75.

9 As a report to Count Josef Sedlnitzky, the police minister, put it: “Denn der Grenzer als Lehnsmann Sr. Maj. des Kaisers, achtet sich höher als ein Untertan im Provinzial.“ Zagreb, Apr. 17, 1847, in Miskolczy, Gyula, ed., A horvát kérdés története és irományai a rendi állam korában (2 vols.; Budapest, 1927-28), II, 542 Google Scholar.

10 Documents in Aleks Ivić, ed., Spisi bečkih arhiva o prvom srpskom ustanku, Vols. VII, IX, X, XI and XIV, 2nd ser. of Zbornik za istoriju, jezik i knjizevnost srpskog naroda (Belgrade and Subotica, 1935-39), passim.

11 Correspondence between the Court War Council and the authorities in Croatia concerning Gaj, the Illyrian movement, and the attitudes of the Grenzer, Miskolczy, op. cit., I, 590-93, 603-10; II, 21-43, 283-40, and 540-42.

12 Report of Ignaz Count Hardegg, President of the Court War Council to the Staatskonferenz, Vienna, Feb. 13, 1843, ibid., II, 39-40.

13 Memorandum by Franz Count Hartig, Vienna, Nov. 17, 1843, ibid., pp. 72-74, and the report concerning the attitude of the Grenzer, KA Hofkriegsrat Präsidial 1846, 626.

14 Normally each regiment comprised two active infantry battalions, about 2, 750 men, and a third reserve battalion. In addition there was the armed Landsturm or populace, which could be formed into field units and double the strength of the Border. By 1847 the regiments were grouped under two headquarters, the Banal-Warasdiner-Karlstädter Generalkommando in Zagreb with eight regiments, and the Slawonisches-Syrmisches Generalkommando in Peterwardein with three regiments. Alexius v. Fényes, Statistik des Königreiches Ungarn (2 vols.; Pest, 1843-44), II, 205-12. Stopfer, Matthias, Erläuterungen über die Militär-Gränz Verwaltung des österreichischen Kaiserthums (Vienna, 1838)Google Scholar, has complete tables of organization following p. 273.

15 Resolution in KA , HKR 1848, B-99/25, and in Kukuljević, Joannes, ed., Jura regni Croatiae, Dalmatiae, et Slavoniae (3 vols, in 2; Zagreb, 1861-62), II, 335–44Google Scholar. Discussion of events in Horvat, J., Politička povijest Hruatske (Zagreb, 1936), pp. 183–92 Google Scholar; Seton-Watson, Robert W., The Southern Slav Question and the Habsburg Monarchy (London, 1911), pp. 350–56 Google Scholar, and Springer, Anton, Geschichte Österreichs seit dem Wiener Frieden 1809 (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1869)Google Scholar, II, 442-56. See also the important Marxist account in Bogdanov, Vaso, Društvene i političke borbe u Hrvatskoj, 1848-49 (Zagreb, 1949), pp. 101–243 Google Scholar.

16 Order to suppress all agitation for the incorporation of the Border, Zagreb, July 9, 1848, in Arhiv Jugoslavenske Akademije Znanosti i Umjetnosti, Zagreb (hereafter cited as Arhiv JAZU), Ostavština Bana Jelačića, C-VI-13; also Kiszling, Rudolf, Die Revolution im Kaisertum Österreich 1848-1849 (2 vols.; Vienna, 1948), I, 165 Google Scholar, and Springer, op. cit., II, 455-56.

17 Printed in Utiešenović op. cit., pp. 53-54.

18 Emperor Franz Joseph to Jelačića Mar. 31, 1849, in ibid., pp. 151-52, and the correspondence between Jela£i£ and Baron Kulmer in KreSimir Nemeth, “Nekoliko neobjavljenih pisama iz korespondencije Kulmer-Jelačića 19.III-5.V. 1849,” Arhivski vjesnik, II (1958), 333-65.

19 The complete ordinance and a discussion of its regulations appears in the official handbook by Krainz, Leopold, Die k.k. Militärgrenze und deren Grundgesetz (Vienna, 1866), pp. 66–205 Google Scholar.

20 Opinion of Bartels v. Bartberg, colonel in the Austrian General Staff, cited in Emil Daniels, Geschichte der Kriegskunst im Rahmen der politischen Geschichte, Vol. V of Delbrück, Hans et al, Geschichte der Kriegskunst … (7 vols.; Berlin, 1900-37), pp. 352–53Google Scholar

21 Mollinary, Anton Frhr. v., Sechsundvierzig Jahre im Österreichisch-Ungarischen Heere 1833-1879 (2 vols.; Zurich, 1905), II, 206 Google Scholar.

22 Jászi, op. cit., p. 101, and Redlich, Josef, Das österreichische Staats und Reichsproblem (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1920-26), II, 2, 4-15Google Scholar.

23 Kiszling, , Kroaten, pp. 57–58Google Scholar, and KA, Schriftgut Militärgrenze, fasc. 28. 24Vaso Bogdanov, “Uloga Vojne Krajine i njenih zastupnika u Hrv. Saboru 1861,” Zbornik Historijskog Instituta Jugoslavenske Akademije, III (1960), 59-214, is the most complete account based on the journals of the assembly. Polić, Cf. Martin, Parlamentarna povjest kraljevine Hrvatske, Slavonije, i Dalmacije (2 vols.; Zagreb, 1899-1900), I, 93–106Google Scholar.

25 Messages exchanged between Vienna and Zagreb, including code telegrams, in KA, Kriegsministerium Präsidial (hereafter cited as KM Präs) 1861, 2248, and KA, Militärkanzlei SM des Kaisers und Königs (hereafter cited as MKSM) 1861, 1692 and 1842.

26 On the question of the delegation see Sokčevićic's message, Zagreb, July 20, KA, KM Präs 1861, 3337, and the telegram from Vienna, July 27, ibid., 3401.

27 Sokčević's report, Zagreb, Aug. 6, 1861, ibid., 3566.

28 KA, KM Präs 1862, 2100 and 1842.

29 Col. Mayerhoffer's report from Belgrade, Jan. 26, 1845, in Miskolczy, op cit., II, 266- 67. Zwitter, Cf. Fran et al., Les problèmes nationaux dans la monarchic des Habsbourgs (Belgrade, 1960), pp. 48–49 Google Scholar.

30 Sokčevićic's, report of Feb. 11, 1862, KA, KM Präs 1862, 592. See also Wendel, Hermann, Bismarck und Serbien im Jahre 1866 (Berlin, 1927), pp. 19–27, 58Google Scholar, and Reiswitz, Johann A. V., Belgrad-Berlin, Berlin-Belgrad, 1866-71 (Munich, 1936), pp. 64–65 Google Scholar. For Orešković see KA, Konduitenliste 1861, G.I.R. 11, and the article by Belić, V., Narodna enciklopedija srpsko-hrvatsko-slovenacka (4 vols.; Zagreb, 1925-29), III, 213 Google Scholar.

31 Sokčevićic's report of Feb. 15, 1863, KA, KM Präs 1863, 537, and Kienast, Andreas, Die Legion Klapka (Vienna, 1900), pp. 50–51 Google Scholar.

32 The competence of the Border deputies had again been limited by imperial order. KA, Schriftgut Militärgrenze, fasc. 57, no. 13.

33 Kienast, op. cit., pp. 60-61, 85-86; Wendel, op. cit., pp. 36-37, 74-77.

34 Ibid., pp. 44-47; Reiswitz, op. cit., pp. 65-68.

35 Count Usedom, Prussian envoy in Florence to Bismarck, Apr. 28, 1866, ibid., pp. 57, n. 17, and 215; Wendel, op. cit., pp. 38-40, 92-93.

36 Paragraph 65 of the nagoda in Seton-Watson, op. cit., p. 372.

37 Haus-, Hof-, und Staatsarchiv, Vienna (hereafter cited as HHStA), KZ 322, Ministerrat of Feb. 11, 1867.

38 Wertheimer, Eduard v., Graf Julius Andrássy: Sein Leben und seine Zeit (3 vols.; Stuttgart, 1910-13), I, 393 Google Scholar.

39 KA, KM Präs 1867, 21-9/8, and 1868, 21-8/2.

40 Wertheimer, op. cit., I, 335-40, 366-68, and the account in Glaise-Horstenau, Edmund v., Franz Josephs Weggefährte: Das Leben des Generalstabschefs Grafen Beck (Vienna, 1930), pp. 146–52 Google Scholar.

41 Wertheimer, op. cit., I, 355, and Srbik, Heinrich v., Aus Österreichs Vergangenheit (Sakburg, 1949), pp. 111–13 Google Scholar.

42 HHStA, KZ 479, Ministerrat f. gem. Angelegenheiten, Feb. 27, 1869. For the lengthy negotiations on this issue see KA, Schriftum Militärgrenze, fasc. 28, “Verhandlungen betreffend Holzverwertung in der Militärgrenze.“

43 Beust, Friedrich Graf v., Aus drei Vierteljahrhunderten: Erinnerungen und Aufzeichnungen (2 vols.; Stuttgart, 1887), II, 257 Google Scholar.

44 Glaise-Horstenau, op. cit., pp. 227-28.

45 HHStA, KZ 479, Ministerrat f. gem. Angelegenheiten, May 26, 1869.

46 Wertheimer, op. cit., I, 398.

47 HHStA, KZ 1937, Ministerrat f. gem. Angelegenheiten, July 1, 1869.

48 An exposition of the Croatian nationalist grievances in Südland, L. V., Die Südslaivische Frage und der Weltkrieg (1st ed.; Vienna, 1918), pp. 443–46Google Scholar.

40 Polić, op. cit., II, 7-8, and Maur, Gilbert in der, Die Jugoslawen einst und jetzt (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1936), I, 50–51Google Scholar. For the Grenzer attitudes see Reiswitz, op. cit., p. 167; Wertheimer, op. cit., I, 412, and the reports KA, MKSM 1869, 49-5/3, and KA, KM 1869, 10A-28/4.

50 Published in 1869 in Vienna by O. Utiešenović, a dismissed official of the Croatian-Slavonian Chancellery. See also Grivc, (pseud.), Gegenwart und Zukunft der h.k. Militärgrenze (Vienna, 1869), pp. 1–3 Google Scholar.

51 KA, KM Präs 1870, 15-11/2.

52 For a general discussion of Austro-Hungarian apprehensions about Pan-Slavism and Russia see May, Arthur J., The Hapsburg Monarchy 1867-1913 (Cambridge, Mass., 1951), pp. 98–101Google Scholar; Sosnosky, Theodor v., Die Balkanpolitik Österreich-Ungarns seit 1866 (2 vols.; Stuttgart, 1913), I, 77–92Google Scholar; and Sumner, B. H., Russia and the Balkans (Oxford, 1937), pp. 126–32 Google Scholar. On the suspicions regarding Russian influence on the revolt in Southern Dalmatia see Reiswitz, op. cit., pp. 175-77, 236-37. Concerning apprehensions about Russian activities on the Military Border and Russian influences on the Orthodox Church in Croatia- Slavonia sec the report by Col. König, KA, KM Präs 1869, 35-12/7.

53 KA, MKSM 1869, 49-2/9.

54 Wertheimer, op. cit., I, 395-97, and Rogge, Walter, Österreich von Világos bis zur Gegenwart (2 vols.; Leipzig, 1872), II, 242 Google Scholar.

55 HHStA, KZ 2581, Ministerrat f. gem. Angelegenheiten, Aug. 11, 1869. so Wertheimer, op. cit., I, 398-400.

57 HHStA, KZ 2583, Ministerrat f. gem. Angelegenheiten, Aug. 13, 1869.

58 Letter to Kuhn, Ischl, Aug. 19, 1869, in KA, KM Präs 1869, 35-17/1. Copies in KA, MKSM 1869, 49-1/4.

59 Wertheimer, op. cit., I, 401-3; Rogge, op. cit., II, 243.

60 Especially the editorials in the morning editions of the Neue Freie Presse (Vienna), Aug. 19, 20, 21 and 24, 1869. A year later Austrian Prime Minister Potocki observed that “the dissolution of the Border had not been popular in Cisleithania.” HHStA, KZ 2872, Ministerrat f. gem. Angelegenheiten, Aug. 4, 1870.

61 GI KA, KM 1869, 10A-128/6, and Zukunft (Vienna), Oct. 2, 1869.

62 Glaise-Horstenau, op. cit., p. 144; Wertheimer, op. cit., I, 408-11. Complaints about these activities by Rajner, Hungarian minister of the interior to Kuhn, Nov. 5 and 10, 1869, in KA, KM Präs 1869, 35-19/1. König's answer of Nov. 24, in ibid. Demands for a Grenz Landtag in König's memorandum of Jan., 1870, filed in KA, MKSM 1871, 49-2/29, and in General Mollinary's report, Agram, KA, KM Präs 1870, 15-20/6.

63 KA, KM Präs 1870, 35-4/1, and KA, MKSM 1870, 49-1/1. Also Wertheimer, op. tit., I, 410-11. On Kuhn's change of position see Srbik, op. tit., pp. 210-11. Personal differences between Archduke Albrecht, conservative and dynastic, and Kuhn, a brash German liberal centralist, may also have been a factor. Ibid., pp. 173-75.

64 Mollinary, op. tit., II, 203-12.

65 ibid., pp. 215-20, and KA, KM Präs 1870, 15-20/6.

66 Mollinary to Kuhn, Zagreb, Mar. 1, 1870, KA, KM Präs 1870, 35-9/2.

67 KA, KM Präs 1870, 15-20/6, of June 30, 1870.

68 Ibid., and Mollinary, op. cit., II, 223-25.

69 Ibid., and KA, MKSM 1870, 49-1/3; Kuhn's memorandum of June 11, 1870, KA, KM Präs 1870, 35-4/1, and Kuhn to Andrássy, Vienna, June 29, 1870, ibid., 35-13/3.

70 Srbik, op. cit., pp. 67-98, sorts out the conflicting accounts of Andrássy, Beust, and Kuhn. Engel-Janosi, Cf. Friedrich, “Austria in the Summer of 1870,” Journal of Central European Affairs, V (1945-46), 335–53Google Scholar.

71 Copy of editorial in KA, KM Präs 1870, 59-1/7. According to Kuhn, Mollinary believed that the Grenzer would resist mobilization. KA, MKSM 1870, 49-1/6. Mollinary later expressed the belief that Kuhn had exaggerated the discontent on the Border. Mollinary, op. cit., II, 233. See also his letter concerning the suppression of the Zatočnik, KA, KM Präs 1870, 59-1/7.

72 HHStA, KZ 2782, Ministerrat f. gem. Angelegenheiten, Aug. 4, 1870.

73 May, op. cit., pp. 58-62, and Zwitter et al., op. cit., pp. 103-12.

74 Mollinary's report, Zagreb, Dec. 31, 1870, and Jan. 3, 1871, KA, KM Präs 1871, 59-2/1 and 59-2/2.

75 On Kuhn's militant German nationalism and his dislike for Slavs see Srbik, op. cit., p. 170; Glaise-Horstenau, op. cit., p. 239, n. 1.

76 Mollinary, op. cit., II, 225; conference protocols in KA, MKSM 1871, 49-2/29.

77 KA, MKSM 1871, 49-2/25.

78 Südland, op. cit., p. 447.

79 May, op. cit., pp. 60-61.

80 so Documents on the revolt in KA, KM Präs 1871, 52-16/1-39. Court-martial proceedings and reports of the investigating commission in Državni Arhiv, Zagreb, Rakovicka buna, fasc. 1-9. See also the pamphlet by SiSic, Ferdo, Kvaternik (Zagreb, 1926), pp. 1–48 Google Scholar, which somewhat exaggerates the importance of the rising.

81 Wertheimer, op. cit., I, 583-84; Mollinary's report on the alleged connections with the Bohemian political developments, Nov. 6, 1871, KA, KM Präs 1871, 52-16/38, and the telegram concerning the involvement of a “French international conspiracy,” Oct. 15, 1871, ibid., 52-16/15.

82 Beust, op. cit., II, 497-513; Srbik, op. cit., p. 210; In der Maur, op. cit., p. 52.

83 Mollinary's report, Zagreb, Nov. 1, 1871, KA, KM Präs 1871, 52-16/39.

84 Mollinary, op. cit., II, 274. Documents in KA, MKSM, Sep. fasc. 81/42.

85 Daniels, op. cit., V, 425.