Habsburg Empire, Essay Example
- Compare and contrast the centralisation policies of Josef II and Metternich.
Considerably, the two leaders (Joseph II and Metternich), were among those leaders who had an influence in the region they reigned (he ruled both in Holy Roman Empire, and in Habsburg lands, and the house was called Lorreine). Driven by human nature, they both had some similarities and differences in their governing policies. As to Joseph II, the highest purpose that he ruled was the state to the extend that every acquired right was to be sacrificed. According to him, each special interest to classes and princes were to bow to a common interest. This is because, he wanted to ensure that both the people and the prince to equally serve the state. From this perception, he committed himself in serving the emperor entirely to the well-being of the whole, centrally absolutist; he erected envisioning adequately and further made the bureaucracy to encompass all parts of the country.
Notably, he also had in mind the fusion and unification of several lands into a state that he saw better to centralize. Uniquely, he did not consider inherited connections, traditions, ethnic peculations or even the geographical facts, however he tried to execute his reforms from the top. Among the many reforms that he made during his govern-ship, one of his outstanding policies was to make the German language a governmental language. This was to bring a unified language for easy communication.
On the other hand, Metternich (who was the councilor of Australia as a whole, before later on ruling Italy, though he was forced to resign as a Vienna emperor), is presented to successive generation of people as a man of no value. According to historians, they argued that Metternich was an obstacle to the progress. They sturdy him as one of the most despised individual in the field of history. He is perfectly known to strive in maintaining the interests of upper class. He formulated a European social order by tactically maintaining the 1815 settlement. He ensured that a repressive alliance of Monarchy states, whose external and internal security were to be preserved by the co-operation and military as well as the bureaucracy and efficient rule existed. In doing this, he ensured that he actively maintained the status quo by exercising the threat of revolution. Generally, this is what painted him as one of those lowly valued leaders.
It is evidence as per the above information that the two rulers had a wider line of difference. During the reign of Joseph, it is evident that the whole nation enjoyed his reigned equally, and that any form of individual interest called for a sacrifice. However, Metternich portrayed a sense of discrimination, where he favored aristocracy. It is for this reason that many people were against his rule.
- How nationalised was art in the Monarchy after the Ausgleich?
It is Ausgleich that came up with the Austro-Hungary state, which according to the experts, it is was a multi-national empire (this took place in Germany). Before the year 1867, the kingdom saw the dominance of the Australian Germans. This was after the seven-week war defeat, which made the Germans to share forcefully the power, with other outstanding groups in the empire. The Ausgleich, had no other option other than placing the Hungarian on the same foot as the Germans and so, they actually shared power equally. Amusedly, it is noted that each a half of the kingdom had its own structure of government, and so, they independent controlled their internal affairs, in that territory. The only common ministries available in the two halves were the finance, foreign relations and war. At that time, these ministries were highly valued.
This is what was called the Dual Monarchy, where the king of Hungary, was also the emperor of Australia. With that, he operated the art nationally, and that the two halves shared the arts conversely. This brought above understand and a certain degree of togetherness, since at least they were sharing the same art. This arrangement of the Dual Monarchy worked perfectly well until 1918. As much as people saw it working well, the obvious issue is that there was some low-levelled tension. For instance, from the year 1903 to 1906, there was a row over Hungary that demanded for the increased manipulation or rather control, over the army of the Hungary. With this, they wanted to replace Germany in these segments as a language of command.
- Were social cleavages more important than national cleavages in the Habsburg Empire?
Generally, in any society or community, social impact is an issue that should be put into consideration with the highest degree. This is because; these factors determine how far a country or a community can develop. With that in mind, the Habsburg Empire is not an exception. It had both the nation and social cleavages that did add value to the country. The cleavages can be categorized into two. First of the cleavages coming from the democratic transition, and this is an example of a nation cleavage; (as to in the Vienna emperior). and two, the pertinence of informal interpersonal association over moiré structured and formal association.
The national cleavages bring out an inequity and so it can be less trusted. According to experts, it is argued that those cleavages were developed under communist one-party state. It follows that from the above-mentioned issue, the cleavages was less connected to the system of the party as expected. Due to that, the national cleavages did not have the same function of mobilization as they did in Western Europe. With this in mind, some experts alludes that, national cleavages in Habsburg is did not have major influence as the social one. Countering the above, the social cleavages had both the value and impact in the Monarchy (seen in Roma, and Habsburg lands, where Emperor Joseph II ruled). This is because, according to researchers, social cleavages were developed from the development of transition to democracy. This formed a free-market economic system, which bared greater pertinence of trust.
Generally, from a nonprofessional’s point of view, it is wise to illustrate that for a cleavage to be more effective, the phenomenon of trust should be established. The most important thing for these cleavages to function properly is trust, and so, it is as if the national cleavages had a limited scope of trust to the natives, while at the same time, the natives had trust on social cleavages. Therefore, to curb it all, it is evident that the social cleavages had an important role in the Habsburg Empire, as opposed to national cleavages.
- Was the Monarchy economically backward?
The economic status of the Monarchy was not backward as such, since at first, there was a rapid positive feedback of economic tabulation, after which the situation changed to down fall (the economy, hit the whole of Habsburg region). To begin with, as stated by scholars, it is pertinent to note that the economy changed drastically during the period of Dual Monarchy. The change was because of technological change, which entirely accelerated both the urbanization and industrialization. Come the beginning of 1841, the country witnessed an increased annual per capital of almost 3.6 percent. This was revelry of the neighboring county (Germany). The only challenge that this country faced was that as much as the economic growth by this time was an amazing, it was unfortunate to the leaders since, it was not sustained.
Unfortunately, after hey days of economic advancement, the stagnation came into existence in this empire while at the same time, other European countries experienced a continued economic steady growth. This decline is accreditation for the time of ongoing war, which commenced in the year 1848 and ended in the year 1886, with Prussia being superior to Habsburg. Although the empire was industrialized, the fact is that this war, made budget deficit to mount, hence interrupted with the resources that the private industry and company tried to assemble. In other words, Habsburg’s involvement in war, discouraged industrialization because budget deficit was ever mounting, and so it forced the private industrial sector to cheap in and facilitate the situation. In so doing, they were discouraged and came back to the ground. In the years 1855 and beyond, the above-mentioned phenomenon forced the earlier own witnessed economy to come to a halt.
Consequently, the above information reflects the fact that the economy growth in Habsburg Empire, in the mid 19th century was considered a backward experience. The worst thing they did is that as other European countries economic growth was admirable that is in 1850s, the Habsburg’s economy had shrunk. This was because, Habsburg had continued in wars and at the same time, the Eastern European Nations continued in neutrality. With that, it is agreeable that the economy of this empire was a backward.
- Was a democratic Monarchy an impossibility
According to research, it is noted that democracy is the fairness of rule, where people are given the responsibility of electing their leader. Further, they should understand how they are being controlled in their own country with connection to the governance of the state. In other words, they participate in the process of ruling that is employed by the leader they chose, (Joseph II, tried to employ democracy in his Lorreine house, in Italian state). It is equally important to understand its governmental structure. It is noted that its governmental structure was as follows. One, the distinct element that ruled this empire were, first the Hungarian government, below it were the Cisleithanian government and then lastly the unified administration, which was under the Monarch.
As much as the leader or rather the president was brought to power through people, although election has not been perfectly mentioned, it is clear that, the natives themselves are the ones who appointed the leader. Unfortunately, the leading criterion was reversed as opposed to democracy. The government was lead from the above where people had a say on how the matters of the government were run. They were ruled accordingly, and that is why, leaders such as Joseph II, gained fame and was so much liked, due to how he used to rule. In his rule, he ensured that everyone gets the benefit of his power. Therefore, he ruled with universe equality. On the other hand, a leader such as Metternich was not liked with people. This is because; he subjected his rule, according to his own interest. Those who benefitted from his rule were the classy people, and that is why, up to this time he is still being referred to as “valueless leader”. Generally, with that information, it is clear that the Monarchy was not democratic. A democratic country will not in anyway make its natives to suffer; however, it will give its native the whole mandate of enjoying where they reside. The person who tried to demonstrate democracy was Joseph II. It is sad to note that people suffered under most of the leaders of the Monarch.
- What was the extent of Franz Joseph’s power?
Frenz Joseph stepped onto the throne, the time when the “great power”, of the European was in decline. Frenze was a King of Hungary, as well as Australian Emperor; and was born in Vienna). Firstly, it is worth noting what made the Australia to decline. One, it betrayed Russian in the Crimean war, that took place from the year 1853 to 1856. This damaged their relationship so much. Secondly, the empire got a threat from Italy, after their unification. This made the Australia to lose all of its Italian possession. Thirdly, the Australia’s lose of Prussian and at the same time the dominance of Prussian over Germany. Primarily, these are few of the major causes of the Australian decline.
Joseph, decide to make a dual monarchy incorporating Hungary. It is noted that after the jointing of the two countries, the Hungary was independent concerning internal affairs however, the two countries were equal in foreign affairs. Joseph Franz and Elizabeth were crowned a king and a queen. Due to this, Joseph wanted to grand some of self-governance to Australia slaves however; Magyer and Germany opposed the sharing of power. After him, the only hair (Rudolf), committed suicide, after which his wife Elizabeth was assassinated by anarchist who was an Italian. After that, Karl Ludwig died from drinking bad water. Notably, he is one of those emperors whose reign faced a doom, and then it disappeared as easy as that. Therefore, his reigned or power ended in mystery as that. He actually ruled for almost 41 years, and his reigned came to an end. As much as he tried to stabilize Australia, it is unfortunate to note that his reign did not hit the mark as expected, although his legacy is still a hit in the history.
- “The situation was critical but never serious”: the greatest failure of the Monarchy was that the political elite did not recognize the challenges facing the Monarchy and so treated politics as a game. Discuss.
It is true that the greatest failure of the Monarchy was that however much there were challenges in the empire, the political elite did not take these challenges seriously. Therefore, they decide to treat politics lightly, without considering the repercussions. First, it is wise to note that as much as the situation of governance grew to worst and seriously nearly doom, no one seamed to understand that this is an alarming issue and it has to be taken into consideration. There are several reason why the Monarch came to an end (this was witnessed in all the rulers of the Monarchy, in Australia and Hungary, as well as Europe).
One of the challenges that faced this emperor was that Hapsburg suffered an inbreeding fate. This is seen when the last Habsburg king by the name Charles II, died without providing a male that could be his hair. Therefore, as much as the empire suffered genetically, the leaders did not seat down to consider the above. They only played politics until they ruined the entire Monarch. This also affected Spain since; it raised the issue of Spanish succession, which at the end weakened Spain’s power.
The second notable thing is that the dual system of governance, which comprised the Australian and Hungary, was a veritable family of eleven. Considering this empire, it is notable that the reign on Joseph was doomed since, his hair “Rudolf”, committed suicide. The above are some of the reasons that led to the death of the empire. Now, although politicians possessed the mandate and ability to control the controllable situations, some of the kingdom leaders continued steadfastly, to enjoy their own interests. This ignorance is what caused the empire to collapse.
- Was Bosnia the Achilles heel of the Monarchy?
To start with, according to scholars, it is noted that the strong base of Australia when it comes to navy is the Curzola, Meleda, Lissa, Lesina, Arbe, and Pago. It is important to note that Bosnia is among the provinces that were anciently governed by the Monarchy. It is adjacent to Herzegovina, they also borders the servia and Dalmanta. Its history is related, and so, it is better to recognize it as the heel of the Monarchy.
- Reform and change in the Monarchy were only born out of crisis and short-term necessity. Discuss.
It is true according to statistics that change and reform in the Monarchy was as a result of short-term and crisis necessities. For instance, in most cases the leaders came into existence just because the need for replacing their fathers was vital ( witnessed in Italy, where Joseph II ruled, as well as Vienna emperor) . Moreover, it is not because the hair has the potential of governing and protecting his territory. That is why they did not find the underlying cause of what they wanted, (that is a proper governing criterion). The Monarchy tried to rescue themselves from the offenders by war, and this made them fall in line of being the disadvantaged. For instance, they fought Prussia, and this made them, fall drastically in terms of economy.
Due to its religious uniformity pursuit, against the Militant Islam and militant Protestantism and the skills they used to persuade the local elites, they managed to change institutions, although according to researchers, changing institutions did not contribute to the success they wanted in any way. The skill-full qualities gave the Monarchy the power or rather strength they needed to resist not only the French and Turkish, but also to raise their lands to the greater power. In the above statement, it is noted that this kingdom fought or solved their crisis by fighting. That is why it is true to assert that, their reforms and any given change in the government were made thorough crisis.
- How feasible was the federation of the Habsburg Empire?
The federation of the Habsburg Empire was feasible in relation to what the scholars alludes. (The whole of the Monarchy got the influence of the federation).This federation was the association of thirty-nine states, created by Vienna congress and located in the central Europe. This was created in the year 1815, with the aim of coordinating the economies of those nations that spoke Germans. After which, the federation’s intent was also to replace the Holy Roman Empire. It further represented a buffer between the states of Prussia and Australia, which proved to be so powerful by then.
Although they had many plans a head of them, some of the historians such as Lioyd, argues that the federation was inactive, and the worst of it is that it was an obstacle to the aspirations of the Germany nationalists. The rivalry from Prussia and Australia by the name German Dualism, made it to collapse. That is why, many asserts that this federation was not that active as expected.
In the year 1848, still there were a revolution made by the nationalists and liberals with the aim of unifying the Germany states. However, in the same way, they failed to clinch the mark. After dissolving the federation, it again re-established in the year 1850. They still fought to clinch the title of rules. This is why, the two principles that is the Australia and Prussia kept on struggling to get into the power, however, after the Austro-Prussia war of 1866, the federation collapsed.
The Austro-Hungarian, which was launched in the year 1867, was among the known dual structure that was strong as expected. According to research, it is evident that the numerous dramatic change occurrence of those individual who were in power throughout the Monarchy led to the untimely downfall of the empire. This brought above many changes that made the kingdom to undergo several experiences dualism being one of them. However, with the struggle to gain power, and to be in leadership, many underwent suffering, due to the personalized leadership. With that struggle for power, they did not get into the position they admired.
The only issue that brought about tension in this Monarchy was the dual leadership. This type of leadership brought about tension at times, although people think that it was carried on smoothly until 1818. Although this is the most valued Monarchy, it did not have any major influence to the present. That is why, the historians alludes that this kingdom ended prematurely. In other words, this kingdom did not rule as per considerably time-period as expected.
Brett, Daniel. A nation affirmed: the Roman national movement in transylvanis. New York: B-Wells stacks, 1999.
C.A Macartney. The house of Austria. London: London University press, 2006.
Kocka, Jurgen. Asymmetrical historical comparison: The case of the Germany sonderweg. London: Cengage Learning, 2004.
Lanmpe, John and Jackson Marvin: Balkan Economic History. Bloomington: Indian university press, 1986.
Matis, Herbert. Australia: Industrialisation in a Multi-national setting. London: Bloomington Inc, 1996.
Pynsent, Robert. Intellectuals and the future in the Habsburg Monachy 1890-1914 (an introduction). London: Cengage Learning, 1999.
 Matis, Herbert. Australia: Industrialisation in a Multi-national setting. London: Bloomington Inc, 1996, p.82.
 Kocka, Jurgen. Asymmetrical historical comparison: The case of the Germany sonderweg. London: Cengage Learning, 2004, p.200.
 Brett, Daniel. A nation affirmed: the Roman national movement in transylvanis. New York: B-Wells stacks, 1999, p.129.
 Lanmpe, John and Jackson Marvin: Balkan Economic History. Bloomington: Indian university press, 1986, p.63.
 C.A Macartney. The house of Austria. London: London University press, 2006.
 Kocka, Jurgen. Asymmetrical historical comparison: The case of the Germany sonderweg. London: Cengage Learning, 2004.
 C.A Macartney. The house of Austria. London: London University press, 2006, p.192.
 Pynsent, Robert. Intellectuals and the future in the Habsburg Monachy 1890-1914 (an introduction). London: Cengage Learning, 1999, 97.
 Lanmpe, John and Jackson Marvin: Balkan Economic History. Bloomington: Indian university press, 1986, p.99.
 Brett, Daniel. A nation affirmed: the Roman national movement in transylvanis. New York: B-Wells stacks, 1999, p.120.
Time is precious
don’t waste it!