Chapter XXVI: Front Matter (26)

"It is conjectured by Luden, with great probability, that the
Ripuarians were originally called the 'Eastern' people to
distinguish them from the Salian Franks who lived to the West.
But when the old home of the conquerors on the right bank of
the Rhine was united with their new settlements in Gaul, the
latter, as it would seem, were called Neustria or Neustrasia
(New Lands); while the term Austrasia came to denote the
original seats of the Franks, on what we now call the German
bank of the Rhine. The most important difference between them
(a difference so great as to lead to their permanent
separation into the kingdoms of France and Germany by the
treaty of Verdun) was this: that in Neustria the Frankish
element was quickly absorbed by the mass of Gallo-Romanism by
which it was surrounded; while in Austrasia, which included
the ancient seats of the Frankish conquerors, the German
element was wholly predominant. The import of the word
Austrasia (Austria, Austrifrancia) is very fluctuating. In its
widest sense it was used to denote all the countries
incorporated into the Frankish Empire, or even held in
subjection to it, in which the German language and population
prevailed; in this acceptation it included therefore the
territory of the Alemanni, Bavarians, Thuringians, and even
that of the Saxons and Frises. In its more common and proper
sense it meant that part of the territory of the Franks
themselves which was not included in Neustria. It was
subdivided into Upper Austrasia on the Moselle, and Lower
Austrasia on the Rhine and Meuse. Neustria (or, in the fulness
of the monkish Latinity, Neustrasia) was bounded on the north
by the ocean, on the south by the Loire, and on the southwest
[southeast?] towards Burgundy by a line which, beginning
below Gien on the Loire, ran through the rivers Loing and
Yonne, not far from their sources, and passing north of
Auxerre and south of Troyes, joined the river Aube above
Arcis."

_W. C. Perry, The Franks, chapter 3._

"The northeastern part of Gaul, along the Rhine, together with
a slice of ancient Germany, was already distinguished, as we
have seen, by the name of the Eastern Kingdom, or Oster-rike,
Latinized into Austrasia. It embraced the region first
occupied by the Ripumarian Franks, and where they still lived
the most compactly and in the greatest number. ... This was,
in the estimation of the Franks, the kingdom by eminence,
while the rest of the north of Gaul was simply not
it--'ne-oster-rike,' or Neustria. A line drawn from the mouth
of the Scheldt to Cambrai, and thence across the Marne at
Chateau-Thierry to the Aube of Bar-sur-Aube, would have
separated the one from the other, Neustria comprising all the
northwest of Gaul, between the Loire and the ocean, with the
exception of Brittany. This had been the first possession of
the Salian Franks in Gaul. ... To such an extent had they been
absorbed and influenced by the Roman elements of the
population, that the Austrasians scarcely considered them
Franks, while they, in their turn, regarded the Austrasians as
the merest untutored barbarians."

_P. Godwin, History of France: Ancient Gaul,
book 3, chapter 13, with note._

ALSO IN:
_E. A. Freeman, Historical Geography of Europe,
chapter 5, section 5._

See, also, FRANKS (MEROVINGIAN EMPIRE): A. D. 511-752. </pre> [Image: HABSBURG POSSESSIONS]

[Image: HABSBURG POSSESSIONS]

[Image: AUSTRIA-HUNGARY]

{196}

AUSTRIA: The Name.

"The name of Austria, Oesterreich--Ostrich as our forefathers
wrote it---is, naturally enough, a common name for the eastern
part of any kingdom. The Frankish kingdom of the Merwings had its
Austria; the Italian kingdom of the Lombards had its Austria
also. We are half inclined to wonder that the name was never
given in our own island either to Essex or to East-Anglia.
But, while the other Austrias have passed away, the
Oesterreich, the Austria, the Eastern mark, of the German
kingdom, its defence against the Magyar invader, has lived on
to our own times. It has not only lived on, but it has become
one of the chief European powers. And it has become so by a
process to which it would be hard to find a parallel."--

_E. A. Freeman, The Historical Geography of Europe, volume 1,
chapter 8, page 305._

AUSTRIA:
The birthplace.

"On the disputed frontier, in the zone of perpetual conflict,
were formed and developed the two states which, in turn, were
to dominate over Germany, namely, Austria and Prussia. Both
were born in the midst of the enemy. The cradle of Austria was
the Eastern march, established by Charlemagne on the Danube,
beyond Bavaria, at the very gate through which have passed so
many invaders from the Orient. ... The cradle of Prussia was
the march of Brandenburg, between the Elbe and the Oder, in
the region of the exterminated Slavs."

_E. Lavisse, General View of the Political
History of Europe, chapter 3, section 13._

AUSTRIA:
The Singularity of Austrian history.
A power which is not a national power.

"It is by no means an easy task to tell the story of the
various lands which have at different times come under the
dominion of Austrian princes, the story of each land by
itself, and the story of them all in relation to the common
power. A continuous narrative is impossible. ... Much mischief
has been done by one small fashion of modern speech. It has
within my memory become usual to personify nations and powers
on the smallest occasions in a way which was formerly done
only in language more or less solemn, rhetorical or poetical.
We now talk every moment of England, France, Germany, Russia,
Italy, as if they were persons. And as long as it is only
England, France, Germany, Russia, or Italy of which we talk in
this way, no practical harm is done; the thing is a mere
question of style. For those are all national powers. ... But
when we go on to talk in this way of 'Austria,' of 'Turkey,'
direct harm is done; thought is confused, and facts are
misrepresented. ... I have seen the words 'Austrian national
honour;' I have come across people who believed that 'Austria'
was one land inhabited by 'Austrians,' and that 'Austrians'
spoke the 'Austrian' language. All such phrases are
misapplied. It is to be presumed that in all of them 'Austria'
means something more than the true Austria, the archduchy; what
is commonly meant by them is the whole dominions of the
sovereign of Austria. People fancy that the inhabitants of
those dominions have a common being, a common interest, like
that of the people of England, France, or Italy. ... There is
no Austrian language, no Austrian nation; therefore there can
be no such thing as 'Austrian national honour.' Nor can there
be an 'Austrian policy' in the same sense in which there is an
English or a French policy, that is, a policy in which the
English or French government carries out the will of the
English or French nation. ... Such phrases as 'Austrian
interests,' 'Austrian policy,' and the like, do not mean the
interests or the policy of any land or nation at all. They
simply mean the interests and policy of a particular ruling
family, which may often be the same as the interests and
wishes of particular parts of their dominions, but which can
never represent any common interest or common wish on the part
of the whole. ... We must ever remember that the dominions of the
House of Austria are simply a collection of kingdoms, duchies,
etc., brought together by various accidental causes, but which
have nothing really in common, no common speech, no common
feeling, no common interest. In one case only, that of the
Magyars in Hungary, does the House of Austria rule over a
whole nation; the other kingdoms, duchies, etc., are only
parts of nations, having no tie to one another, but having the
closest ties to other parts of their several nations which lie
close to them, but which are under other governments. The only
bond among them all is that a series of marriages, wars,
treaties, and so forth, have given them a common sovereign.
The same person is king of Hungary, Archduke of Austria, Count
of Tyrol, Lord of Trieste, and a hundred other things. That is
all. ... The growth and the abiding dominion of the House of
Austria is one of the most remarkable phænomena in European
history. Powers of the same kind have arisen twice before; but
in both cases they were very short-lived, while the power of
the House of Austria has lasted for several centuries. The
power of the House of Anjou in the twelfth century, the power
of the House of Burgundy in the fifteenth century, were powers
of exactly the same kind. They too were collections of scraps,
with no natural connexion, brought together by the accidents of
warfare, marriage, of diplomacy. Now why is it that both these
powers broke in pieces almost at once, after the reigns of two
princes in each case, while the power of the House of Austria
has lasted so long? Two causes suggest themselves. One is the
long connexion between the House of Austria and the Roman
Empire and kingdom of Germany. So many Austrian princes were
elected Emperors as to make the Austrian House seem something
great and imperial in itself. I believe that this cause has
done a good deal towards the result; but I believe that
another cause has done yet more. This is that, though the
Austrian power is not a national power, there is, as has been
already noticed, a nation within it. While it contains only
scraps of other nations, it contains the whole of the Magyar
nation. It thus gets something of the strength of a national
power. ... The kingdom of Hungary is an ancient kingdom, with
known boundaries which have changed singularly little for
several centuries; and its connexion with the archduchy of
Austria and the kingdom of Bohemia is now of long standing.
Anything beyond this is modern and shifting. The so-called
'empire of Austria' dates only from the year 1804. This is one
of the simplest matters in the world, but one which is
constantly forgotten. ... A smaller point on which confusion
also prevails is this.
{197}
All the members of the House of Austria are commonly spoken of
as archdukes and archduchesses. I feel sure that many people,
if asked the meaning of the word archduke, would say that it
was the title of the children of the 'Emperor of Austria,' as
grand-duke is used in Russia, and prince in most countries. In
truth, archduke is the title of the sovereign of Austria. He
has not given it up; for he calls himself Archduke of Austria
still, though he calls himself 'Emperor of Austria' as well.
But by German custom, the children of a duke or count are all
called dukes and counts for ever and ever. In this way the
Prince of Wales is called 'Duke of Saxony,' and in the same
way all the children of an Archduke of Austria are archdukes
and archduchesses. Formally and historically then, the taking
of an hereditary imperial title by the Archduke of Austria in
1804, and the keeping of it after the prince who took it had
ceased in 1806 to be King of Germany and Roman Emperor-elect,
was a sheer and shameless imposture. But it is an imposture
which has thoroughly well served its ends."

_E. A. Freeman, Preface to Leger's History of
Austria-Hungary_.

"Medieval History is a history of rights and wrongs; modern
History as contrasted with medieval divides itself into two
portions; the first a history of powers, forces, and
dynasties; the second, a history in which ideas take the place
of both rights and forces. ... Austria may be regarded as
representing the more ancient form of right. ... The middle
ages proper, the centuries from the year 1000 to the year
1500, from the Emperor Henry II. to the Emperor Maximilian,
were ages of legal growth, ages in which the idea of right, as
embodied in law, was the leading idea of statesmen, and the idea
of rights justified or justifiable by the letter of law, was a
profound influence with politicians. ... The house of Austria
... lays thus the foundation of that empire which is to be one
of the great forces of the next age; not by fraud, not by
violence, but here by a politic marriage, here by a well
advocated inheritance, here by a claim on an imperial fief
forfeited or escheated: honestly where the letter of the law
is in her favour, by chicanery it may be here and there, but
that a chicanery that wears a specious garb of right. The
imperial idea was but a small influence compared with the
super-structure of right, inheritance, and suzerainty, that
legal instincts and a general acquiescence in legal forms had
raised upon it."

_William Stubbs, Seventeen Lectures on the Study of Medieval
and Modern History, pages 209-215._

[Image]

ETHNOGRAPHICAL MAP OF AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

NOTE: The shaded parts denote the distribution of the Germans.

AUSTRIA:
The Races.

"The ethnical elements of the population are as follows (1890
for Austria and 1880 for Hungary) on the basis of language;--
Austria (1890):
German 8,461,580;
Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 5,472,871;
Polish 3,719,232;
Ruthenian 3,105,221;
Slovene 1,176,672;
Servian and Croatian 644,926;
Italian and Latin 675,305;
Roumanian 209,110;
Magyar 8,139.

Hungary (1880):
German 1,972,115;
Bohemian, Moravian and Slovak 1,892,806;
Ruthenian 360,051;
Slovene 86,401;
Servian and Croatian 2,359,708;
Roumanian 2,423,387;
Magyar 6,478,711;
Gipsies 82,256;
Others 83,940,"

_Statesman's Year-Book, 1893; edited by J. S, Keltie._

----------AUSTRIA: End----------

A Logical Outline of Austrian History

In Which The Dominant Conditions And Influences Are Distinguished By Colors.

[Red] Physical or material. [Blue] Ethnological. [Green] Social and political. [Brown] Intellectual, moral and religious. [Black] Foreign.

The history of Austria, so far as it has importance, is unique in being the history of a Family and not the history of a State,-- the history of a Dynastic and not of a National Power. Territorially, the name was attached, until 1806, to an inconsiderable arch-duchy, on the Danube, in that corner of Teutonic Europe where the Germans of the Middle Ages fought back the Turanian races and the Slaves. Dynastically, it became connected, in the 13th century, with a House, then insignificant, in Alsace, and to the future remarkable fortunes of that House the territory so named contributed little more than a strong central position and a capital town.

Rodolph, Count of Hapsburg, with whom the importance of Austrian history begins, was elected Emperor in 1272, for the reason that his possessions were small and the resoluteness of his character was unknown. He disappointed the Electors by increasing the weight and reviving the power of the Imperial office, which they had not at all desired, and he used its power vigorously for the benefit of himself and his own. The King of Bohemia resisted him and was defeated and slain; and a part of the dominions which the Bohemian king had acquired, including Austria (then a duchy), Carniola and Styria, was appropriated by Rodolph, for his sons. The House of Hapsburg thus became the House of Austria, and its history is what bears the name of Austrian history from that time until 1806. The Hapsburg family has never produced men of the higher intellectual powers, or the higher qualities of any kind; but a remarkable vitality has been proved in it, and a politic self-seeking capability, which has never, perhaps, persisted through so many generations in any other line. It owes to these qualities the acquisition, again and again, of the elective Imperial crown, until that crown settled, at last, upon the heirs of the House, in practically hereditary succession, despite the wish of the princes of Germany to keep it shifting among the weaker members of their order, and despite the rivalry of greater houses with ambitions like its own. The prestige of the splendid Imperial title, and the influence derived from the theoretical functions of the Emperor--small as the actual powers that he held might be--were instruments of policy which the Austrian princes knew how to use with enormous effect. Austrian marriages and Austrian diplomacy, often alluded to as examples of luck and craft in political affairs, show, rather, it may be, the consistent calculation and sagacity with which the House of Austria has pursued its aims.

By marriages, by diplomacy, and by pressures brought to bear from the headship of the Empire, the family plucked, one by one, the coronets of Tyrol and Carinthia (1363), Franche-Comté and Flanders, with the Low Countries entire (1477), and the crowns of Spain, Naples, Sicily and Sardinia (1516), Bohemia (including Moravia), and Hungary (1526). Its many diadems were never moulded into one, but have been, from first to last, the carefully distinguished emblems of so many separate sovereignties, united in no way but by homage to a common prince.

The one most fortunate acquisition of the House, which has given most stability to the heterogeneous structure of it power, in the judgement of the ablest among modern historians is the Hungarian crown. Its Burgundian and Spanish marriages, which brought to it the rich Netherlands and the vast realm of Ferdinand and Isabella, brought also a division the Family, and the rooting of s second stem in Spain; and while its grandeur among the dynasties of Europe was augmented, the real gain of the House in its older seat was small. But the Kingdom on Hungary has been a mass of very concrete political power in its hands, and has supplied in some degree the weight of nationality that was otherwise wanting in the dominions of the House.

The mixture of races under the Austrian sovereigns is the most extraordinary in Europe. Their possessions exactly cover that part of the continent in which its earlier and later invaders fought longest and most; where the struggle between them was final, and where they mingled their settlements together. The Slavic peoples are predominant in numbers; the Germans are scarcely more than one-fourth of the whole; and yet, until recent years, the Austrian power figured chiefly as a German power in European politics, and took leadership in Germany itself. This position accrued to it through the persisting, potent influence of the Imperial title which the Archdukes of Austria bore, with mediæval fictions from Rome and from Germany woven together and clinging around it; and through the broken and divided condition of the German land, where petty courts and princelings disputed precedence with one another, and none could lead. When time raised up one strong and purely German kingdom, to rally and encourage a German sentiment of nationality, then Austria--expelled by it from the Teutonic circle--first found her true place in the politics of Europe.

For Germany the relationship was never a fortunate one. Alien interests came constantly between the Emperors and the Empire-- the proper subject of their care,--and they were drawn to alien sympathies by their connection with Spain. They imbibed the hateful temper of the Spanish Church, and fought the large majority of their German lieges, on the questions of the Reformation, for a century and a half. Among the combatants of the frightful "Thirty Years War" they were chiefly responsible for the death and ruin spread over the face of Germanic Europe. At no time did Germany find leading or strength in her nominal Emperors, nor in the states making up the hereditary possessions of their House. In the dark days when the sword of Napoleon threatened every neighbor of France, they deserted their station of command. It was the time which the head of the House of Austria chose for abdicating the crown of the Holy Roman Empire--that lingering fiction of history,--and yet assuming to be an Emperor still--the Emperor of an Empire which rested on the small duchy of Austria for its name.

The renunciation was timely; for now, when Germany rose to break the yoke of Napoleon, she found leadership within her own family of states. Then began the transformation in Germanic Europe which extinguished, after half a century, the last remains of the false relations to it of the Austrian House. Prussia opened her eyes to the new conditions of the age; set the schoolmaster at work among her children; made herself an example and a stimulus to all her neighbors. The Family which called itself Austria did otherwise. It was blind, and it preferred blindness. It read lessons in nothing but the Holy Alliance and the Treaty of Vienna. It listened to no teacher but Metternich. It made itself the resurrectionist of a dead Past in all the graveyards of Feudal Europe, and was heard for half a century as the supporter and champion of every hateful thing in government. It had won Lombardy and Venice by its double traffic with Napoleon and with those who cast Napoleon down; and it enraged the whole civilized world by the cold brutality of its oppressions there.

Events in due time brought the two "systems" of domestic polity-- the Prussian and the Austrian--to account, and weighed them together. As a consequence, it happens to-day that the House of Austria has neither place nor voice in the political organization of Germany; has no footing in Italy; has no dungeons of tyranny in its dominions; has no disciples of Metternich among its statesmen. Its face and its feet are now turned quite away from the paths of ambition and of policy which it trod so long. It has learned, and is learning, so fast that it may yet be a teacher in the school of liberal politics which it entered so late. It has set Hungary by the side of Austria, treading the one great nation of its subjects no longer under foot. It sees its interests and recognizes its duties in that quarter of Europe to which History and Geography have been pointing from Vienna and Buda-Pesth since the days of Charlemagne. Its mission in Europe is to command the precarious future of the southeastern states, so far as may be, and to guard them against the dangerous Muscovite, until they grow in civilization and strength and are united as one Power. In this mission it is the ally and the colleague of both Germany and Italy, and the three Powers are united by stronger bonds than were possible before each stood free.

[Right Margin]

9th Century. The March.

A. D. 1272. Rodolph of Hapsburg. Emperor.

A. D. 1282. The House in possession.

A. D. 1438. The Imperial Crown.

A. D. 1363-1526. Gathering of crowns and coronets.

The mixture of races.

A. D. 1521-1531. The Reformation.

A. D. 1618-1648. Thirty Years War.

A. D. 1806. End of the Holy Roman Empire.

A. D. 1815-1866. Policy of Metternich. vs. policy of Stein.

A. D. 1859. Loss of Lombardy.

A. D. 1866. Seven Weeks War. Loss of Venice.

A. D. 1867. Austro-Hungarian Empire.

A. D. 1882. The Triple Alliance.

-----End of "A Logical Outline..."-----

{198}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 805-1246.
The Rise of the Margraviate, and the creation of the Duchy,
under the Babenbergs.
Changing relations to Bavaria.
End of the Babenberg Dynasty.

"Austria, as is well known, is but the Latin form of the
German Oesterreich, the kingdom of the east [see above:
AUSTRASIA]. This celebrated historical name appears for the
first time in 996. in a document signed by the emperor Otto
III. ('in regione vulgari nomine Osterrichi'). The land to
which it is there applied was created a march after the
destruction of the Avar empire [805], and was governed like
all the other German marches. Politically it was divided into
two margraviates; that of Friuli, including Friuli properly so
called, Lower Pannonia to the south of the Drave, Carinthia,
Istria, and the interior of Dalmatia--the sea-coast having
been ceded to the Eastern emperor;--the eastern margraviate
comprising Lower Pannonia to the north of the Drave, Upper
Pannonia, and the Ostmark properly so called. The Ostmark
included the Traungau to the east of the Enns, which was
completely German, and the Grunzvittigau. ... The early
history of these countries lacks the unity of interest which
the fate of a dynasty or a nation gives to those of the Magyar
and the Chekh. They form but a portion of the German kingdom,
and have no strongly marked life of their own. The march, with
its varying frontier, had not even a geographical unity. In
876, it was enlarged by the addition of Bavaria; in 890, it
lost Pannonia, which was given to Bracislav, the Croat prince,
in return for his help against the Magyars, and in 937, it was
destroyed and absorbed by the Magyars, who extended their
frontier to the river Enns. After the battle of Lechfeld or
Augsburg (955), Germany and Italy being no longer exposed to
Hungarian invasions, the march was re-constituted and granted
to the margrave Burkhard, the brother-in-law of Henry of
Bavaria. Leopold of Babenberg succeeded him (973), and with
him begins the dynasty of Babenberg, which ruled the country
during the time of the Premyslides [in Bohemia] and the house
of Arpad [in Hungary]. The Babenbergs derived their name from
the castle of Babenberg, built by Henry, margrave of Nordgau,
in honor of his wife, Baba, sister of Henry the Fowler. It
reappears in the name of the town of Bamberg, which now forms
part of the kingdom of Bavaria. ... Though not of right an
hereditary office, the margraviate soon became so, and
remained in the family of the Babenbergs; the march was so
important a part of the empire that no doubt the emperor was
glad to make the defence of this exposed district the especial
interest of one family. ... The marriages of the Babenbergs
were fortunate; in 1138 the brother of Leopold [Fourth of that
name in the Margraviate] Conrad of Hohenstaufen, Duke of
Franconia, was made emperor. It was now that the struggle
began between the house of Hohenstaufen and the great house of
Welf [or Guelf: See GUELFS AND GHIBELINES] whose
representative was Henry the Proud, Duke of Saxony and
Bavaria. Henry was defeated in the unequal strife, and was
placed under the ban of the Empire, while the duchy of Saxony
was awarded to Albert the Bear of Brandenburg, and the duchy
of Bavaria fell to the share of Leopold IV. (1138). Henry the
Proud died in the following year, leaving behind him a son
under age, who was known later on as Henry the Lion. His uncle
Welf would not submit to the forfeiture by his house of their
old dominions, and marched against Leopold to reconquer
Bavaria, but he was defeated by Conrad at the battle of
Weinsberg (1140). Leopold died shortly after this victory, and
was succeeded both in the duchy of Bavaria and in the
margraviate of Austria by his brother, Henry II." Henry II.
endeavored to strengthen himself in Bavaria by marrying the
widow of Henry the Proud, and by extorting from her son, Henry
the Lion, a renunciation of the latter's rights. But Henry the
Lion afterwards repudiated his renunciation, and in 1156 the
German diet decided that Bavaria should be restored to him.
Henry of Austria was wisely persuaded to yield to the
decision, and Bavaria was given up. "He lost nothing by this
unwilling act of disinterestedness, for he secured from the
emperor considerable compensation. From this time forward,
Austria, which had been largely increased by the addition of
the greater part of the lands lying between the Enns and the
Inn, was removed from its almost nominal subjection to Bavaria
and became a separate duchy [Henry II. being the first
hereditary Duke of Austria]. An imperial edict, dated the 21st
of September, 1156, declares the new duchy hereditary even in
the female line, and authorizes the dukes to absent themselves
from all diets except those which were held in Bavarian
territory. It also permits them, in case of a threatened
extinction of their dynasty, to propose a successor. ... Henry
II. was one of the founders of Vienna. He constructed a
fortress there, and, in order to civilize the surrounding
country, sent for some Scotch monks, of whom there were many
at this time in Germany." In 1177 Henry II. was succeeded by
Leopold V., called the Virtuous. "In his reign the duchy of
Austria gained Styria, an important addition to its territory.
This province was inhabited by Slovenes and Germans, and took
its name from the castle of Steyer, built in 980 by Otokar
III., count of the Trungau. In 1056, it was created a
margraviate, and in 1150 it was enlarged by the addition of
the counties of Maribor (Marburg) and Cilly. In 1180, Otokar
VI. of Styria (1164-1102) obtained the hereditary title of
duke from the Emperor in return for his help against Henry the
Lion." Dying without children, Otokar made Leopold of Austria
his heir. "Styria was annexed to Austria in 1192, and has
remained so ever since. ... Leopold V. is the first of the
Austrian princes whose name is known in Western Europe. He
joined the third crusade," and quarrelled with Richard Coeur
de Lion at the siege of St. Jean d' Acre. Afterwards, when
Richard, returning home by the Adriatic, attempted to pass
through Austrian territory incognito, Leopold revenged himself
by seizing and imprisoning the English king, finally selling
his royal captive to a still meaner Emperor for 20,000 marks.
Leopold VI. who succeeded to the Austrian duchy in 1198, did
much for the commerce of his country. "He made Vienna the
staple town, and lent a sum of 30,000 marks of silver to the
city to enable it to increase its trade. He adorned it with
many new buildings, among them the Neue Burg." His son, called
Frederick the Fighter (1230-1246) was the last of the
Babenberg dynasty. His hand was against all his neighbors,
including the Emperor Frederick II., and their hands were
against him. He perished in June, 1246, on the banks of the
Leitha, while at war with the Hungarians.

_L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, chapter 9._

ALSO IN:
_E. F. Henderson, Select History Documents of the
Middle Ages, book 2, number 7._

{199}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1246-1282.
Rodolph of Hapsburg and the acquisition of the Duchy for his family.

"The House of Austria owes its origin and power to Rhodolph of
Hapsburgh, son of Albert IV. count of Hapsburgh. The Austrian
genealogists, who have taken indefatigable but ineffectual
pains to trace his illustrious descent from the Romans, carry
it with great probability to Ethico, duke of Alsace, in the
seventh century, and unquestionably to Guntram the Rich, count
of Alsace and Brisgau, who flourished in the tenth." A grandson
of Guntram, Werner by name, "became bishop of Strasburgh, and
on an eminence above Windiisch, built the castle of Hapsburgh
['Habichtsburg' 'the castle of vultures'], which became the
residence of the future counts, and gave a new title to the
descendants of Guntram. ... The successors of Werner increased
their family inheritance by marriages, donations from the
Emperors, and by becoming prefects, advocates, or
administrators of the neighbouring abbeys, towns, or
districts, and his great grandson, Albert III., was possessor
of no inconsiderable territories in Suabia, Alsace, and that
part of Switzerland which is now called the Argau, and held
the landgraviate of Upper Alsace. His son, Rhodolph, received
from the Emperor, in addition to his paternal inheritance, the
town and district of Lauffenburgh, an imperial city on the
Rhine. He acquired also a considerable accession of territory
by obtaining the advocacy of Uri, Schweitz, and Underwalden,
whose natives laid the foundation of the Helvetic Confederacy,
by their union against the oppressions of feudal tyranny."

_W. Coxe, History of the House of Austria, chapter 1_.

"On the death of Rodolph in 1232 his estates were divided
between his sons Albert IV. and Rodolph II.; the former
receiving the landgraviate of Upper Alsace, and the county of
Hapsburg, together with the patrimonial castle; the latter,
the counties Rheinfelden and Lauffenburg, and some other
territories. Albert espoused Hedwige, daughter of Ulric, count
of Kyburg; and from this union sprang the great Rodolph, who
was born on the 1st of May 1218, and was presented at the
baptismal font by the Emperor Frederic II. On the death of his
father Albert in 1240, Rodolph succeeded to his estates; but
the greater portion of these were in the hands of his paternal
uncle, Rodolph of Lauffenburg; and all he could call his own
lay within sight of the great hall of his castle. ... His
disposition was wayward and restless, and drew him into
repeated contests with his neighbours and relations. ... In a
quarrel with the Bishop of Basel, Rodolph led his troops
against that city, and burnt a convent in the suburbs, for
which he was excommunicated by Pope Innocent IV. He then
entered the service of Ottocar II. King of Bohemia, under whom
he served, in company with the Teutonic Knights, in his wars
against the Prussian pagans; and afterwards against Bela IV.
King of Hungary." The surprising election, in 1272, of this
little known count of Hapsburg, to be King of the Romans, with
the substance if not the title of the imperial dignity which
that election carried with it, was due to a singular
friendship which he had acquired some fourteen years before.
When Archbishop Werner, Elector of Mentz, was on his way to
Rome in 1259, to receive the pallium, he "was escorted across
the Alps by Rodolph of Hapsburg, and under his protection
secured from the robbers who beset the passes. Charmed with
the affability and frankness of his protector, the Archbishop
conceived a strong regard for Rodolph;" and when, in 1272,
after the Great Interregnum [see GERMANY: A. D. 1250-1272],
the Germanic Electors found difficulty in choosing an Emperor,
the Elector of Mentz recommended his friend of Hapsburg as a
candidate. "The Electors are described by a contemporary as
desiring an Emperor but detesting his power. The comparative
lowliness of the Count of Hapsburg recommended him as one from
whom their authority stood in little jeopardy; but the claims
of the King of Bohemia were vigorously urged; and it was at
length agreed to decide the election by the voice of the Duke
of Bavaria. Lewis without hesitation nominated Rodolph. ...
The early days of Rodolph's reign were disturbed by the
contumacy of Ottocar, King of Bohemia. That Prince ...
persisted in refusing to acknowledge the Count of Hapsburg as
his sovereign. Possessed of the dutchies of Austria, Styria,
Carniola and Carinthia, he might rely upon his own resources;
and he was fortified in his resistance by the alliance of
Henry, Duke of Lower Bavaria. But the very possession of these
four great fiefs was sufficient to draw down the envy and
distrust of the other German Princes. To all these
territories, indeed, the title of Ottocar was sufficiently
disputable. On the death of Frederic II. fifth duke of Austria
[and last of the Babenberg dynasty] in 1246, that dutchy,
together with Styria and Carniola, was claimed by his niece
Gertrude and his sister Margaret. By a marriage with the
latter, and a victory over Bela IV. King of Hungary, whose
uncle married Gertrude, Ottocar obtained possession of Austria
and Styria; and in virtue of a purchase from Ulric, Duke of
Carinthia and Carniola, he possessed himself of those dutchies
on Ulric's death in 1269, in defiance of the claims of Philip,
brother of the late Duke. Against so powerful a rival the
Princes assembled at Augsburg readily voted succours to
Rodolph; and Ottocar having refused to surrender the Austrian
dominions, and even hanged the heralds who were sent to
pronounce the consequent sentence of proscription, Rodolph
with his accustomed promptitude took the field [1276], and
confounded his enemy by a rapid march upon Austria. In his way
he surprised and vanquished the rebel Duke of Bavaria, whom he
compelled to join his forces; he besieged and reduced to the
last extremity the city of Vienna; and had already prepared a
bridge of boats to cross the Danube and invade Bohemia, when
Ottocar arrested his progress by a message of submission. The
terms agreed upon were severely humiliating to the proud soul
of Ottocar," and he was soon in revolt again, with the support
of the Duke of Bavaria. Rodolph marched against him, and a
desperate battle was fought at Marschfeld, August 26, 1278, in
which Ottocar, deserted at a critical moment by the Moravian
troops, was defeated and slain. "The total loss of the
Bohemians on that fatal day amounted to more than 14,000 men.
In the first moments of his triumph, Rodolph designed to
appropriate the dominions of his deceased enemy.
{200}
But his avidity was restrained by the Princes of the
Empire, who interposed on behalf of the son of Ottocar; and
Wenceslaus was permitted to retain Bohemia and Moravia. The
projected union of the two families was now renewed: Judith of
Hapsburg was affianced to the young King of Bohemia; whose
sister Agnes was married to Rodolph, youngest son of the King
of the Romans." In 1282, Rodolph, "after satisfying the
several claimants to those territories by various cessions of
lands .... obtained the consent of a Diet held at Augsburg to
the settlement of Austria, Styria, and Carniola, upon his two
surviving sons; who were accordingly jointly invested with
those dutchies with great pomp and solemnity; and they are at
this hour enjoyed by the descendants of Rodolph of Hapsburg."

_Sir R. Comyn, History of the Western Empire, chapter 14._

ALSO IN:
_J. Planta, History of the Helvetic Confederacy.
book 1. chapter 5 (volume 1)._

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1282-1315.
Relations of the House of Hapsburg to the Swiss Forest Cantons.
The Tell Legend.
The Battle of Morgarten.

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1290.
Beginning of Hapsburg designs upon the crown of Hungary.

See HUNGARY: A. D. 1114-1301.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1291-1349.
Loss and recovery of the imperial crown.
Liberation of Switzerland.
Conflict between Frederick and Lewis of Bavaria.
The imperial crown lost once more.

Rudolf of Hapsburg desired the title of King of the Romans for
his son. "But the electors already found that the new house of
Austria was becoming too powerful, and they refused. On his
death, in fact, in 1291, a prince from another family, poor
and obscure, Adolf of Nassau, was elected after an interregnum
of ten months. His reign of six years is marked by two events;
he sold himself to Edward I. in 1291, against Philip the Fair,
for 100,000 pounds sterling, and used the money in an attempt
to obtain in Thuringia a principality for his family as Rudolf
had done in Austria. The electors were displeased and chose
Albert of Austria to succeed him, who conquered and killed his
adversary at Göllheim, near Worms (1298). The ten years reign
of the new king of the Romans showed that he was very
ambitious for his family, which he wished to establish on the
throne of Bohemia, where the Slavonic dynasty had lately died
out, and also in Thuringia and Meissen, where he lost a
battle. He was also bent upon extending his rights, even
unjustly--in Alsace and Switzerland--and it proved an
unfortunate venture for him. For, on the one hand, he roused
the three Swiss cantons of Uri, Schweitz, and Unterwalden to
revolt; on the other hand, he roused the wrath of his nephew
John of Swabia, whom he defrauded of his inheritance (domains
in Switzerland. Swabia, and Alsace). As he was crossing the
Reuss, John thrust him through with his sword (1308). The
assassin escaped. One of Albert's daughters, Agnes, dowager
queen of Hungary, had more than a thousand innocent people
killed to avenge the death of her father. The greater part of
the present Switzerland had been originally included in the
Kingdom of Burgundy, and was ceded to the empire, together
with that kingdom, in 1033. A feudal nobility, lay and
ecclesiastic, had gained a firm footing there. Nevertheless,
by the 12th century the cities had risen to some importance.
Zurich, Basel, Bern, and Freiburg had an extensive commerce
and obtained municipal privileges. Three little cantons, far
in the heart of the Swiss mountains, preserved more than all
the others their indomitable spirit of independence. When
Albert of Austria became Emperor [King?] he arrogantly tried
to encroach upon their independence. Three heroic
mountaineers, Werner Stauffacher, Arnold of Melchthal, and
Walter Fürst, each with ten chosen friends, conspired together
at Rütli, to throw off the yoke. The tyranny of the Austrian
bailiff Gessler, and William Tell's well-aimed arrow, if
tradition is to be believed, gave the signal for the
insurrection."

See SWITZERLAND: THE THREE FOREST CANTONS.

"Albert's violent death left to Leopold, his successor in the
duchy of Austria, the care of repressing the rebellion. He
failed and was completely defeated at Mortgarten (1315). That
was Switzerland's field of Marathon. ... When Rudolf of
Hapsburg was chosen by the electors, it was because of his
poverty and weakness. At his death accordingly they did not
give their votes for his son Albert. ... Albert, however,
succeeded in overthrowing his rival. But on his death they
were firm in their decision not to give the crown for a third
time to the new and ambitions house of Hapsburg. They likewise
refused, for similar reasons, to accept Charles of Valois,
brother of Philip the Fair, whom the latter tried to place on
the imperial throne, in order that he might indirectly rule
over Germany. They supported the Count of Luxemburg, who
became Henry VII. By choosing emperors [kings?] who were
poor, the electors placed them under the temptation of
enriching themselves at the expense of the empire. Adolf
failed, it is true, in Thuringia, but Rudolf gained Austria by
victory; Henry succeeded in Bohemia by means of marriage, and
Bohemia was worth more than Austria at that time because,
besides Moravia, it was made to cover Silesia and a part of
Lusatia (Oberlausitz). Henry's son, John of Luxemburg, married
the heiress to that royal crown. As for Henry himself he
remained as poor as before. He had a vigorous, restless
spirit, and went to try his fortunes on his own account beyond
the Alps. ... He was seriously threatening Naples, when he
died either from some sickness or from being poisoned by a
Dominican in partaking of the host (1313). A year's
interregnum followed; then two emperors [kings?] at once:
Lewis of Bavaria and Frederick the Fair, son of the Emperor
Albert. After eight years of war, Lewis gained his point by
the victory of Mühldorf (1322), which delivered Frederick into
his hands. He kept him in captivity for three years, and at
the end of that time became reconciled with him, and they were
on such good terms that both bore the title of King and
governed in common. The fear inspired in Lewis by France and
the Holy See dictated this singular agreement. Henry VII. had
revived the policy of interference by the German emperors in
the affairs of Italy, and had kindled again the quarrel with
the Papacy which had long appeared extinguished. Lewis IV. did
the same. ... While Boniface VIII. was making war on Philip
the Fair, Albert allied himself with him; when, on the other
hand, the Papacy was reduced to the state of a servile
auxiliary to France, the Emperor returned to his former
hostility.
{201}
When ex-communicated by Pope John XXII., who
wished to give the empire to the king of France, Charles IV.,
Lewis IV. made use of the same weapons. . . . Tired of a crown
loaded with anxieties, Lewis of Bavaria was finally about to
submit to the Pope and abdicate, when the electors perceived
the necessity of supporting their Emperor and of formally
releasing the supreme power from foreign dependency which
brought the whole nation to shame. That was the object of the
Pragmatic Sanction of Frankfort, pronounced in 1338 by the
Diet, on the report of the electors. . . . The king of France
and Pope Clement VI., whose claims were directly affected by
this declaration, set up against Lewis IV. Charles of
Luxemburg, son of John the Blind, who became king of Bohemia
in 1346, when his father had been killed fighting on the
French side at the battle of Crécy. Lewis died the following
year. He had gained possession of Brandenburg and the Tyrol
for his house, but it was unable to retain possession of them.
The latter county reverted to the house of Austria in 1363.
The electors most hostile to the French party tried to put up,
as a rival candidate to Charles of Luxemburg, Edward III.,
king of England, who refused the empire; then they offered it
to a brave knight, Gunther of Schwarzburg, who died, perhaps
poisoned, after a few months (1349). The king of Bohemia then
became Emperor as Charles IV. by a second election."

_V. Duruy, The History of the Middle Ages, book 9, chapter 30._

See, also, Germany: A. D. 1314-1347.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1330-1364.
Forged charters of Duke Rudolf.
The Privilegium Majus.
His assumption of the Archducal title.
Acquisition of Tyrol.
Treaties of inheritance with Bohemia and Hungary.

King John, of Bohemia, had married his second son, John Henry,
at the age of eight, to the afterwards notable Margaret
Maultasche (Pouch mouth), daughter of the duke of Tyrol and
Carinthia, who was then twelve years old. He hoped by this
means to reunite those provinces to Bohemia. To thwart this
scheme, the Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, and the two Austrian
princes, Albert the Wise and Otto the Gay, came to an
understanding. "By the treaty of Hagenau (1330), it was
arranged that on the death of duke Henry, who had no male
heirs, Carinthia should become the property of Austria, Tyrol
that of the Emperor. Henry died in 1335, whereupon the
Emperor, Louis of Bavaria, declared that Margaret Maultasche
had forfeited all rights of inheritance, and proceeded to
assign the two provinces to the Austrian princes, with the
exception of some portion of the Tyrol which devolved on the
house of Wittelsbach. Carinthia alone, however, obeyed the
Emperor; the Tyrolese nobles declared for Margaret, and, with
the help of John of Bohemia, this princess was able to keep
possession of this part of her inheritance. ... Carinthia also
did Dot long remain in the undisputed possession of Austria.
Margaret was soon divorced from her very youthful husband
(1342), and shortly after married the son of the Emperor Louis
of Bavaria, who hoped to be able to invest his son, not only
with Tyrol, but also with Carinthia, and once more we find the
houses of Hapsburg and Luxemburg united by a common interest..
. ... When ... Charles IV. of Bohemia was chosen emperor, he
consented to leave Carinthia in the possession of Austria.
Albert did homage for it. ... According to the wish of their
father, the four sons of Albert reigned after him; but the
eldest, Rudolf IV., exercised executive authority in the name
of the others [1358--1365]. ... He was only 19 when he came to
the throne, but he had already married one of the daughters of
the Emperor Charles IV. Notwithstanding this family alliance,
Charles had not given Austria such a place in the Golden Bull
[see GERMANY: A. D. 1347-1492] as seemed likely to secure
either her territorial importance or a proper position for her
princes. They had not been admitted into the electoral college
of the Empire, and yet their scattered possessions stretched
from the banks of the Leitha to the Rhine. ... These
grievances were enhanced by their feeling of envy towards
Bohemia, which had attained great prosperity under Charles IV.
It was at this time that, in order to increase the importance
of his house, Rudolf, or his officers of state, had recourse
to a measure which was often employed in that age by princes,
religious bodies, and even by the Holy See. It was pretended
that there were in existence a whole series of charters which
had been granted to the house of Austria by various kings and
emperors, and which secured to their princes a position
entirely independent of both empire and Emperor. According to
these documents, and more especially the one called the
'privilegium majus,' the duke of Austria owed no kind of
service to the empire, which was, however, bound to protect
him; ... he was to appear at the diets with the title of
archduke, and was to have the first place among the electors.
... Rudolf pretended that these documents had just come to
light, and demanded their confirmation from Charles IV., who
refused it. Nevertheless on the strength of these lying
charters, he took the title of palatine archduke, without
waiting to ask the leave of Charles, and used the royal
insignia. Charles IV., who could not fail to be irritated by
these pretensions, in his turn revived the claims which he had
inherited from Premysl Otokar II. to the lands of Austria,
Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola. These claims, however, were
simply theoretical, and no attempt was made to enforce them,
and the mediation of Louis the Great, King of Hungary, finally
led to a treaty between the two princes, which satisfied the
ambition of the Habsburgs (1364). By this treaty, the houses
of Habsburg in Austria and of Luxemburg in Bohemia each
guaranteed the inheritance of their lands to the other, in
case of the extinction of either of the two families, and the
estates of Bohemia and Austria ratified this agreement. A
similar compact was concluded between Austria and Hungary, and
thus the boundaries of the future Austrian state were for the
first time marked out. Rudolf himself gained little by these
long and intricate negotiations, Tyrol being all he added to
his territory. Margaret Maultasche had married her son
Meinhard to the daughter of Albert the Wise, at the same time
declaring that, in default of heirs male to her son, Tyrol
should once more become the possession of Austria, and it did
so in 1363. Rudolf immediately set out for Botzen, and there
received the homage of the Tyrolese nobles. ...The acquisition
of Tyrol was most important to Austria. It united Austria
Proper with the old possessions of the Habsburgs in Western
Germany, and opened the way to Italy. Margaret Maultasche died
at Vienna in 1369. The memory of this restless and dissolute
princess still survives among the Tyrolese."

_L. Leger, History of Austro-Hungary, pages 143-148._

{202}

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1386-1388.
Defeats by the Swiss at Sempach and Naefels.

SEE SWITZERLAND: A. D. 1386-1388.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1437-1516.
Contests for Hungary and Bohemia.
The right of Succession to the Hungarian Crown secured.

"Europe would have had nothing to fear from the Barbarians, if
Hungary had been permanently united to Bohemia, and had held
them in check. But Hungary interfered both with the
independence and the religion of Bohemia. In this way they
weakened each other, and in the 15th century wavered between
the two Sclavonic and German powers on their borders (Poland
and Austria) [see HUNGARY: A. D. 1301-1442, and 1442-1458].
United under a German prince from 1455 to 1458, separated for
a time under national sovereigns (Bohemia until 1471, Hungary
until 1490), they were once more united under Polish princes
until 1526, at which period they passed definitively into the
hands of Austria. After the reign of Ladislas of Austria, who
won so much glory by the exploits of John Hunniades, George
Podiebrad obtained the crown of Bohemia, and Matthias
Corvinus, the son of Hunniades, was elected King of Hungary
(1458). These two princes opposed successfully the chimerical
pretensions of the Emperor Frederick III. Podiebrad protected
the Hussites and incurred the enmity of the Popes. Matthias
victoriously encountered the Turks and obtained the favour of
Paul II., who offered him the crown of Podiebrad, his
father-in-law. The latter opposed to the hostility of Matthias
the alliance of the King of Poland, whose eldest son,
Ladislas, he designated as his successor. At the same time,
Casimir, the brother of Ladislas, endeavoured to take from
Matthias the crown of Hungary. Matthias, thus pressed on all
sides, was obliged to renounce the conquest of Bohemia, and
content himself with the provinces of Moravia, Silesia, and
Lusatia, which were to return to Ladislas if Matthias died
first (1475-1478). The King of Hungary compensated himself at
the expense of Austria. On the pretext that Frederick III. had
refused to give him his daughter, he twice invaded his states
and retained them in his possession [see HUNGARY: A. D.
1471-1487]. With this great prince Christendom lost its chief
defender, Hungary her conquests and her political
preponderance (1490). The civilization which he had tried to
introduce into his kingdom was deferred for many centuries.
... Ladislas (of Poland), King of Bohemia, having been elected
King of Hungary, was attacked by his brother John Albert, and
by Maximilian of Austria, who both pretended to that crown. He
appeased his brother by the cession of Silesia (1491), and
Maximilian by vesting in the House of Austria the right of
succession to the throne of Hungary, in case he himself should
die without male issue. Under Ladislas, and under his son
Louis II., who succeeded him while still a child, in 1516
Hungary was ravaged with impunity by the Turks."

_J. Michelet, A Summary of Modern History, chapter 4._

See, also, BOHEMIA: A. D. 1458-1471.

AUSTRIA: A. D. 1438-1493.
The Imperial Crown lastingly regained.
The short reign of Albert II., and the long reign of Frederick III.