Holy Roman Empire Chapter 61 - Hungary

[Previous | Table of Contents | Next]

        Successive uprisings, such as the Prague Uprising and the Galician Uprising, were quickly crushed by the Austrian government. Upon hearing of these events, the opposition in Hungary, led by Kossuth, realized that compromise with the ruling party was unlikely in the current political climate.         The Austrian government’s response was uncompromising, especially in its brutal suppression of the Galician Uprising, which sent shockwaves through the region.         Ludwig von Benedek, charged with suppressing the uprising, allowed the local populace to seek retribution against the nobility and capitalists without intervention. Tragically, the majority of the more than 20,000 casualties resulted from the actions of the people themselves.         Executing such a large number of individuals at once would have been impractical for the Austrian government, especially given Franz’s public image. To establish lasting peace in Austrian Poland, turning to the people for justice became the only viable option.         Local militias were formed, leveraging their grievances against exploitative factions to purge these abusive reactionaries.         Except for the ongoing conflict in the Italian region, almost all uprisings throughout the country had been brutally suppressed, leaving Hungary on the brink of solitary resistance.         A month earlier, Hungary’s cabinet government had not yet been formed, and there was still a chance for negotiations. Even before the Declaration of Independence on April 14, there was an opportunity for reconsideration.         Nevertheless, the Austrian government consistently refused to recognize the legitimacy of the Hungarian cabinet and repeatedly demanded the dissolution of its unauthorized government.         Kossuth had persistently advocated the separation of Hungary from Austria and the establishment of an independent Hungarian Republic. Unfortunately, this ideology had limited appeal in Hungary.         The majority of the nobility was preoccupied with security concerns after independence. After all, Hungary's union with Austria was rooted not only in the Habsburgs’ marital alliances but also in their need for Austria’s protective umbrella.         They have historically preferred to ally with Austria rather than with the Russians and Ottomans. In recent years, however, the central government in Vienna has gradually weakened and lost authority. Through a series of attempts, they learned that making noise could get attention.         In an effort to free themselves from Austrian influence and secure more favorable terms, the capitalists embraced the wave of nationalism emanating from France. Opposition forces within Austria, led by Kossuth, began to gain power.         However, this didn’t necessarily mean that Hungary was capable of breaking free from Austria and achieving independence; doubts about armed revolution persisted among many.         An anxious young man interjected, “Mr. Kossuth, a terrible situation is developing. The Austrian government has sent legal scholars to Hungary. They must be coming after us!”         Upon receiving this information, Kossuth’s complexion became noticeably pale. Why in the world would Austria send legal scholars? Could their purpose be to just provide legal education to the Hungarian people?         If Franz were present, he might argue that yes, the sending of legal scholars was really to educate the people about the law.         However, it was inevitable that they would also declare the formation of the Hungarian cabinet illegitimate. However, this could be considered a secondary concern. The primary goal was the fragmentation of the Kingdom of Hungary.         Different social classes had different interests and demands. The series of laws enacted by the Austrian government were essentially designed to appease the common people.         There was no avoiding the issue. It wasn’t that Franz didn’t want to influence the upper class; rather, it was more practical to influence the minority rather than the majority. The dilemma lay in the exorbitant nature of their demands, which were beyond the financial capacity of the government.         In March, the Hungarian delegation led by Kossuth presented a series of demands to the Austrian government. These included the establishment of an independent Hungarian government and the abolition of the feudal system.         Both sides engaged in a challenging series of negotiations, with Franz showing a willingness to consider ideas for reform. He didn’t reject the idea of reform outright but advocated more comprehensive changes.         However, they encountered a faction of idealists and advocates of bourgeois interests, emphasizing the unlikelihood of reaching a consensus on both sides.         If the Austrian government were bold enough to accept these terms, Austria would likely face its own revolutionary upheaval.         Franz firmly believed that equality should not mean privilege. While he could extend equal status to all ethnic groups, he would never allow the dominance of the Hungarian nation over others.         This brings us to the national landscape of the Kingdom of Hungary. The nation boasted a total population of over 13 million, with over 500,000 nobles, making them almost omnipresent.         The Hungarian capitalists had a double identity as nobles, which made the relationship between them and the nobility extremely complicated. Despite their small numbers, less than 2% of the population, they controlled over 95% of the society’s wealth.         During this period, the Hungarian nation effectively included these 500,000 nobles and capitalists. They enjoyed a multitude of privileges and constituted the real exploiting class of the country.         In a sense, Austria was not a pure autocracy, but rather an alliance of the nobility. The authority of the central government over the regions depended on the cooperation of the nobility.         The current wave of Hungarian nationalism was mainly instigated by the middle and lower nobility and the capitalists. They fused the concept of the nation with their own interests, camouflaging their pursuit of self-interest with a veneer of nationalism in their quest for power.         This duality was also evident in the Hungarian government under Kossuth’s leadership. While advocating reform, they simultaneously rejected the Austrian government’s proposed reforms.         Even the unanimous agreement on the abolition of serfdom, which had been reached by all parties, was not implemented in Hungary. The nobility concealed the legislation on the abolition of serfdom from the Austrian government.         It’s important to recognize, however, that Kossuth cannot shoulder all of this responsibility. As a figurehead leader, he came to power by compromise rather than by force.         This discrepancy was evident in the Hungarian elections of April 12, 1848. Despite the declaration of the intention to hold elections open to all, the reality was that the presidential election in Hungary was limited to Budapest.         In Budapest, only 16,200 people had the right to vote. Given the definition of “Hungarian nationality” at the time, this could be considered a partial implementation of universal suffrage in the city.         In the end, a total of 5,176 votes were cast, and Kossuth emerged as the winner with 1,639 votes. However, the officially reported results did not match these numbers.         These statistics made it evident that Franz’s butterfly effect had indeed manifested, as more and more individuals chose to remain observers from afar rather than actively participate, deviating from history.         “Nagy, expel them from our country immediately. Hungary has no place for their presence!” Kossuth’s face darkened as he gave the order.         As a president who had risen to power through compromise, Kossuth faced widespread skepticism from the people of the Kingdom of Hungary. To many, the Hungarian Republic appeared to be a mere charade, an impression reinforced by the widespread indifference of the electorate.         Kossuth’s frustration was justified under the circumstances. Although the Hungarian Republic had been established, Ferdinand I retained his title as King of Hungary.         The existence of the nobility depended on the continuation of the monarchy. Driven by their own interests, the Hungarian nobility vehemently opposed the abolition of the monarchy.

        Under these circumstances, Kossuth was forced to make concessions. In his role as president, he became subordinate to the king, significantly compromising his authority and eroding his power.

[Previous | Table of Contents | Next]