Géza Pálffy

Based on fresh research, the collection of studies that was published in 2018 (A Szent Korona hazatér: A magyar korona tizenegy külföldi útja (1205–1978) [The Homecoming of the Holy Crown: The Hungarian Crown’s Eleven Trips Abroad (1205–1978)], ed. Géza Pálffy, Budapest: MTA BTK, 2018, 636 p.) presented the foreign journeys of the Hungarian coronation regalia and their homecomings from 1205 to 1978. Yet it was not only abroad that the Holy Crown went through exceptional adventures, but also within Hungary. As Hungarian historiography and Crown-research have so far paid scant attention to these, the present volume endeavours to fill in a major gap in the scholarship. Namely, after the Introduction, the major adventures of the Holy Crown in Hungary between 1301 and 2001 are presented by nine historians in ten chapters, in chronological order. „Adventures” basically refer here to rescues and various dislocations connected to wars and civil strife (altogether covering several thousands of kilometres), as well as to public displays (with increasing frequency), and, in the modern era, even to special plans regarding the regalia, and occasions when the coronation chest was broken open or buried.
Several among the newly reconstructed events (1526–1529, 1645–1646, 1805–1806, 1809, 1896, 1918–1919, 1938, 2000–2001) are presented here on the basis of systematic research for the first time. Especially noteworthy is the rescue of April 1645, when, during the Thirty Years’ War (1618–1648), the Crown was taken from Pozsony/Pressburg (today Bratislava, Slovakia) to Győr from before the Swedish troops, who wanted to unite with the Transylvanian forces of Prince George Rákóczi (1630–1648), who was leading campaigns against the Habsburgs in Hungary. This event had to be reconstructed from scratch, as it had completely escaped the attention of the national romantic approach that that dominated much of the Hungarian historiography since the middle of the nineteenth century.
While in the medieval and early modern era the ruling political elite always rescued the Crown within Hungary in order to preserve their power and legitimacy, in the modern period it had also become an outstanding means of symbolic politics and political representation. It was often put on public display in the political and ecclesiastical centres of the country, such as during the millennial festivities in June 1896, in the course of the Saint Stephen jubilee year in 1938, or in connection with the journeys at Budapest and Esztergom in 2000–2001. Thus, the new research is a considerable contribution to a better understanding of Hungarian political history, political culture, representation and propaganda as well.
The results of the volume modify in several respects the image of the Crown’s history as it lives in the minds of the general public. Firstly, it can be stated with a reasonable degree of certainty that in the Angevin period Visegrád was still not the place where the Crown was guarded; it was only transferred there from its traditional location in the basilica of Székesfehérvár in 1401, in a moment of grave political crisis under the reign of Sigismund of Luxemburg. Secondly, it was not taken to Komárom (today Komárno, Slovakia) during either the War of Austrian Succession (1740–1748) or the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763); while its rescue from Pozsony to Győr, Komárom or Buda from before the Prussian troops was seriously considered in early 1742, and then in the spring of 1758, the idea was eventually dropped. Thirdly, contrary to a common belief, the Holy Crown could not be sighted only during coronations. On the one hand, the kings of the Árpád dynasty wore it frequently on festive occasions (a practice known in scholarship as Festkrönung). On the other hand, from the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries both its inspections by the elected few and its exposition on public display became ever more frequent occasions, connected to the return journeys from both abroad and within Hungary, or to the national festivities mentioned above. Alongside the printed representations that spread from the beginning of the seventeenth century, these occasions played a key role in turning the Holy Crown, which had thus far remained almost invisible, into a visible object which, moreover, increasingly symbolized alongside the king and kingdom also Hungarian statehood, independence and history as a historical relic and a national treasure. Fourthly, there hardly exists another piece of regalia in world history which would have been preserved at so many different places as the Hungarian Holy Crown, which, in the course of its travels at home and abroad, was guarded at some 25 locations. The buildings where it was put in safety range from easily defendable castles and fortified places through village and county houses and aristocratic manors to episcopal residences and churches, and even to archives and bank safe-deposits. And finally, as indicated by the table below, the most eventful periods in the history of the Crown were without doubt the seventeenth, nineteenth and twentieth centuries. Most war rescues, transports and public displays took place during these centuries, as did most of the six breakings and four burials of the coronation chest.

The known adventures of the Hungarian Holy Crown between 1205 and 2001
(by centuries)
13th c. 14th c. 15th c. 16th c. 17th c. 18th c. 19th c. 20th c.
Taken abroad (11) 2 1 1 1 2 2 1 1
Domestic rescue and transport (17) 2 1 3 4 2 4 1
Transport to coronation city (16) 4 3+2 3 1 3
Extraordinary public display (32) on festivities on festivities 1 1 7 7 7 9
Burial (4) 2 2
Breaking of the coronation chest (6) 1 1 4
Other adventure (stealing, losing, cross twisted) (4) 1 1 1 1
Sum: 90 5 3 10 11 16 11 21 13

The table shows in a nutshell that over the almost eight centuries between its first known transport abroad (Vienna, 1205) and the last journey at home (Esztergom, 2001) the Holy Crown went through some 90 adventures. This means more than ten extraordinary events by century. In other words, the history of the Crown was intertwined with all the most important turns of Hungarian history. During practically all major wars in Central Europe (Mongol invasion, Ottoman wars, Thirty Years’ War, Napoleonic wars, World War II) the Hungarian political elite tried to put the Crown to safety, the only exception being World War I. Yet, with the exception of the regime change in 1990, all major historical turning points (1301, 1526, 1790, 1918–19) resulted in new adventures for the Crown. In the meantime, several Habsburg-Hungarian compromises (1608, 1622, 1647, 1681, 1712, 1790, 1867) as had been forged at coronation-diets were literally „crowned” by the Crown. That is to say that during its history, long even in world historical terms, the Hungarian Holy Crown almost never played a supporting cast. It can thus safely be stated that the history of the Crown, whose sheer survival after so many vicissitudes is a miracle in itself, is a true reflection of the thousand-year-long Hungarian history in general.

Shorter English Version: https://www.academia.edu/966274/The_Kingdom_of_Hungary_and_the_Habsburg_Monarchy_in_the_Sixteenth_Century._Translated_from_the_Hungarian_by_Thomas_J._and_Helen_D._DeKornfeld_Boulder_Colorado_Social_Science_Monographs_Wayne_New_Jersey_Center_for_Hungarian_Studies_and_Publications_Inc._New_York_Distributed_by_Columbia_University_Press_2009._East_European_Monographs_DCCXXXV._CHSP_Hungarian_Studies_Series_18._xviii_410_p

Hungary between Two Empires 1526–1711 (Bloomington: Indiana University Press, 2021, 318 Pages, 7.00 x 10.00 in, 49 b&w illus., 15 maps, 3 b&w tables) can be ordered through the CAP site:
https://www.combinedacademic.co.uk/9780253054654/hungary-between-two-empires-15261711/
and in USA and Canada:
https://iupress.org/9780253054654/hungary-between-two-empires-15261711/

This scholarly but popular book summarizes the most recent research on the Holy Crown of Hungary and the history of Hungarian coronations from the founding of the kingdom (St Stephen, 1000–38) to the end of the monarchy (Charles IV, 1916–18). It starts with the issue of succession to the throne, discusses the ecclesiastical and secular ceremonials of accession, their locations and the coronation jewels, and especially the origin of the Holy Crown and its history from the thirteenth to the twenty-first century. It includes as well often overlooked paraphernalia, such as flags and coins. The authors address an intelligent lay readership, but believe that foreign historians and art historians would also peruse the volume with profit. No similar overview of all aspects of the subject has hitherto been published in English.
Price: 15.00 Euro + postage - to order it: terjesztes@btk.mta.hu

A Szent Korona államiságunk és történelmünk legfontosabb szimbóluma, különleges eszmeiségű nemzeti ereklyénk. Mindezek ellenére külföldi tartózkodásait még nem tárta fel szisztematikusan a magyar történetírás és koronakutatás. Az elmúlt esztendők legfrissebb vizsgálatai alapján e kötetben a Magyar Tudományos Akadémia "Lendület" Szent Korona Kutatócsoportjának munkatársai koronánk összes-1205 és 1978 közötti-külföldi útját mutatják be. Hányszor és hova, milyen okokból és körülmények közepette szállították koronánkat idegen földre, majd miként tért haza, és mindez hogyan befolyásolta Magyarország mindenkori históriáját? Ezekre az izgalmas kérdésekre nem-csak új kutatások, hanem közel két-száz illusztráció és színes térkép segítségével kaphat választ az olvasó. E tanulmánykötet minden magyar állampolgár figyelmébe ajánlható, aki érdeklődik a Szent Korona történetének újdonságai és páratlan kalandjai iránt.

Kurzfassung in englischer, ungarischer, kroatischer, serbischer und slowakischer Sprache:
p. 135–141.: The Coronation Flags in the Esterházy Treasure Chamber;
p. 143–150.: Koronázási zászlók a fraknói Esterházy-kincstárban;
p. 152–159.: Krunidbene zastave u riznici obitelji Esterházy;
p. 161–168.: Крунидбене заставе у ризници породице Естерхази;
p. 172–179.: Korunovačné krajinské zástavy v pokladnici Esterházy

English, Spanish, Russian, Romanian, Slovak, Croatian, and Hungarian subtitles. Voices: German and Hungarian.
The Holy Crown is the ultimate symbol of Hungarian statehood, the most important treasure and relic of the nation. The fate of the Crown and the nation have been bound together for more than a thousand years. Besides struggles for the throne, wars of conquest, diplomatic bargaining and intrigue, numerous legends are attached to the Holy Crown of Hungary. This documentary film is based on the findings of the research group of the Hungarian Academy of Sciences, set up in Budapest in July 2012, and invites the viewers to discover the adventurous history of the Hungarian Crown and coronations. It addresses a wide range of questions: How did the Crown get into the hands of Sultan Süleyman the Magnificent? When did the cross get tilted? Why was the Crown buried after the Hungarian War of Independence in 1848-49? For the first time the film presents recently uncovered, unique coronation treasures and guides the viewers through each of the five Hungarian coronation cities (Esztergom, Székesfehérvár, Pozsony/Pressburg/Bratislava, Sopron, and Budapest).

A Szent Korona és koronázási kincseink nyomában című, 65 perces ismeretterjesztő film a magyarság legfőbb nemzeti ereklyéje, koronázási jelvényeink és királykoronázásaink eddig ismeretlen történeteinek felfedezésére hívja a nézőt. A Szent Korona több mint ezer év alatt Magyarország államiságának legfőbb szimbólumává vált. Ennek ellenére kalandos históriájának számos fejezetét napjainkig homály fedi. A 2012 óta működő Szent Korona Kutatócsoport ezeket a fehér foltokat igyekszik feltárni. Hogyan került koronánk a világhódító Szülejmán szultán kezébe? Mikor ferdülhetett el keresztje? Fejére tette-e Bethlen Gábor vagy Szemere Bertalan? Mit üzen a 21. század emberének a Szent Korona és a koronázási jelvények különleges együttese? A Bárány testvérek egyedülálló módon mind az öt magyar koronázóvárosba (Esztergom, Székesfehérvár, Pozsony, Sopron és Budapest) és nemzeti ereklyénk legfontosabb őrzési helyeire, közel húsz helyszínre kísérték el a szakértőket. A film elsőként mutat be eddig ismeretlen, páratlan értékű nemzeti és koronázási kincseket, úgymint a legkorábbi szent koronás magyar címerrel díszített országzászlót (1618), a legrégebbi Horvátország-zászlót (1647), a magyar királyi udvarmester gyémántokkal ékesített pálcáját az első budai koronázásról (1792), egy elveszettnek hitt koronázási jelvényt (az uralkodó koronázási cipőjét) vagy éppen koronánk legkorábbi hiteles, részletes és színes ábrázolását az 1550-es évek közepéről.

This monograph, based on sources from Hungarian and Viennese archives, examines one of the most important periods in the life of Miklós Zrínyi (Nikola Zrinski Čakovečki), ban (viceroy) of Croatia and Slavonia (1648–1664), military theorist and the first Hungarian general in the Habsburg army (Generalfeldwachtmeister, 1646–1664). By reconstructing a particular inspection of arms (Latin lustratio, German Musterung, Hungarian mustra) in the Transdanubian camp of the Hungarian nobility’s insurrectionary armies, it sheds light on Zrínyi’s role in the general insurrection (generalis seu personalis insurrectio) in 1663, and more generally on the defence efforts against the Ottomans. The related literature has been divided on the date of the inspection, its location and even the exact office Zrínyi held in the autumn of 1663. Revising the many contradictory standpoints, the author proposes the following:

The inspection or roll-call was held in the morning of Monday September 17, 1663, on the left bank of the River Marcal, on the fields near Vat (today Mersevát) in Vas County. This location was an established camping ground in Transdanubia between 1593 and 1809, the year of the Hungarian nobility’s last insurrection. On this occasion, Zrínyi inspected an army of about 8,500, comprising the banderia of Transdanubian landlords, county troops and Hungarian soldiers from the border fortresses, in the presence of Palatine (palatinus) Ferenc Wesselényi and several Hungarian aristocrats. However, contrary to previous Hungarian ideas, he did this not as “commander-in-chief of Hungary” (that is, as Raimondo Montecuccoli’s superior) nor as “commander-in-chief of all Hungarian troops”. He was instead invested with the military authority of the palatine as captain-general (authoritate palatini supremus et generalis capitaneus in partibus Transdanubianis) commanding the insurrectionary troops of Transdanubia. This office he attained partly due to the illness of Palatine Wesselényi but primarily as a result of a personal conflict between two Transdanubian aristocrats, Ferenc Nádasdy, Chief Justice (iudex curiae) and Kristóf Batthyány, District Captain-General of Transdanubia (partium regni Hungariae Transdanubianarum supremus capitaneus) who had clashing interpretations of their own respective military authority. After the roll-call, Zrínyi was to lead the nobility’s increasingly outdated insurrection of which he had already held a negative opinion and which he constantly scourged in his military theoretical works written, uniquely for his time, in Hungarian.

Finally, the book concludes that Zrínyi was one of those leading aristocrats and privy councillors (geheimer Rat) who attempted simultaneously to promote the interests of the wider Habsburg Monarchy, his own country as well as his own personal interests. Contrary to previous Hungarian interpretations, the author is of the opinion that this multifaceted endeavour was a realistic political alternative in the early modern age.

Über die früheste authentische Darstellung der Stephanskrone – anders: Heilige Krone Ungarns oder ungarische Krone – entstanden in den vergangenen dreieinhalb Jahrzehnten in Ungarn eine Reihe von Theorien. Im Rahmen der Monographie gelingt es, mit Hilfe einer systematischen, interdisziplinären Forschung (Geschichte – Kunstgeschichte) die Bedingungen ihrer Entstehung auf einleuchtende Weise zu klären. Die farbige Darstellung der Stephanskrone blieb in einer Geschichte der Habsburgerdynastie, im sog. Ehrenspiegel des Hauses Österreich (anders Habsburgisches Ehrenwerk), erhalten, welche vom berühmten Geschichtsschreiber der Stadt Augsburg, dem Genealogen und Heraldiker Clemens Jäger (um 1500–1561), in den Jahren zwischen 1540–1550 verfasst wurde. Anhand einer in der Handschriftensammlung der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek in Wien entdeckten Petition Jägers, mit der er – sich auf das Werk Rerum Ungaricarum decades des italienischen Geschichtsschreibers des ungarischen Königs Matthias Corvinus, Antonio Bonfini (um 1427–1502), beziehend – die porträtähnliche Darstellung der ungarischen Krone am Wiener Hof Ferdinands I. von Habsburg zu erlangen suchte, ist es mit Sicherheit feststellbar, dass die früheste authentische Darstellung der Stephanskrone zwischen April 1553 und November 1561, vermutlich zwischen 1555–1556, in Augsburg entstand. Deren Vorbild war das ungarische Hoheitszeichen selbst, sie entstand nämlich sehr wahrscheinlich als Arbeit des Kupferstechers Hans Sebald Lautensack, der seit August 1554 als „Antiquitetabconterfetter“ in Wien arbeitete. Lautensack wurde vermutlich vom Wiener Hofhistoriographen Wolfgang Lazius (1514–1565) mit dieser herausragenden Aufgabe betraut. Das Zustandekommen der frühesten Darstellung der Stephanskrone war daher Resultat eines bisher unbekannten außerordentlichen Zusammenwirkens von Augsburger und Wiener Historikern, Genealogen, Wappenkennern und Kupfer-stechern.
Die Erforschung der frühesten authentischen Darstellung der ungarischen Krone ermöglichte auch die Rekonstruktion von Gelehrten- und Künstlerbeziehungen, die in der Mitte des 16. Jahrhunderts nicht nur auf der Achse Wien–Augsburg bestanden, sondern auch noch Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts zwischen München und Innsbruck existierten, ja sogar bis in die Mitte des 17. Jahrhunderts hineinreichten und Wien und Nürnberg miteinander verbanden. Um die Chronologie der ältesten Darstellung der Stephanskrone klären zu können, war es notwendig, sowohl jene Quellen zu untersuchen, welche die Entstehungsgeschichte der Ende des 16. Jahrhunderts entstandenen Abschriften des Habsburgischen Ehrenspiegels dokumentieren, als auch die Illustrationen der drei (in der Österreichischen Nationalbibliothek in Wien bzw. in der Staats- und Universitätsbibliothek Dresden) erhalten gebliebenen illuminierten Exemplare gemeinsam zu analysieren. Anhand dieser präsentiert der Band ein ganz neues Forschungsresultat, nämlich eine neue Filiation der zwischen 1589 und 1612 am österreichischen erzherzoglichen Hof in Innsbruck kopierten drei illuminierten Abschriften des heute in der Bayerischen Staatsbibliothek in München aufbewahrten Originalexemplars. Es werden darüber hinaus erstmals farbige Abbildungen aus allen vier Exemplaren des Ehrenwerks publiziert, auch aus dem im Zweiten Weltkrieg stark beschädigten Dresdner Exemplar. Schließlich untersuchen die Autoren die Rezeption und das Nachleben der Kronendarstellung in der Überarbeitung des Ehrenspiegels von Sigmund von Birken im Jahr 1668, die in der Nürnberger Officina Endteriana veröffentlicht wurde.

Shorter English Version: https://www.academia.edu/966274/The_Kingdom_of_Hungary_and_the_Habsburg_Monarchy_in_the_Sixteenth_Century._Translated_from_the_Hungarian_by_Thomas_J._and_Helen_D._DeKornfeld_Boulder_Colorado_Social_Science_Monographs_Wayne_New_Jersey_Center_for_Hungarian_Studies_and_Publications_Inc._New_York_Distributed_by_Columbia_University_Press_2009._East_European_Monographs_DCCXXXV._CHSP_Hungarian_Studies_Series_18._xviii_410_p

Miklós Zrínyi’s (1620–1664) Memorable Day
The Inspection of Hungarian Troops on the Fields near Vat,
Vas County on September 17, 1663

This monograph, based on sources from Hungarian and Viennese archives, examines one of the most important periods in the life of Mik¬lós Zrínyi (Nikola Zrinski Čakovečki), ban (viceroy) of Croatia and Slavonia (1648–1664), military theorist and the first Hungarian general in the Habsburg army (Ge-ne¬ral¬feld¬wacht¬meister, 1646–1664). By reconstructing a particular inspection of arms (Latin lustratio, German Musterung, Hungarian mustra) in the Transda¬nu¬bian camp of the Hungarian nobility’s insurrectionary armies, it sheds light on Zrí¬nyi’s role in the general insurrection (ge¬ne¬ra¬lis seu personalis insurrectio) in 1663, and more generally on the defence efforts aga¬inst the Ottomans. The related literature has been divided on the date of the inspection, its location and even the exact office Zrínyi held in the autumn of 1663. Revising the many contradictory standpoints, the author proposes the following:

The inspection or roll-call was held in the morning of Monday September 17, 1663, on the left bank of the River Marcal, on the fields near Vat (today Mersevát) in Vas County. This location was an established camping ground in Transdanubia between 1593 and 1809, the year of the Hun¬garian nobility’s last insurrection. On this occasion, Zrínyi inspected an army of about 8,500, comprising the banderia of Trans¬danubian land¬lords, county troops and Hungarian soldiers from the border fortresses, in the presence of Palatine (palatinus) Ferenc Wesselényi and several Hungarian aristocrats. However, contrary to previous Hungarian ideas, he did this not as “commander-in-chief of Hungary” (that is, as Raimondo Monte¬cuc¬coli’s superior) nor as “commander-in-chief of all Hungarian troops”. He was instead invested with the military authority of the palatine as captain-general (authoritate palatini supremus et generalis capitaneus in par¬tibus Transdanubianis) commanding the insurrectio¬nary troops of Trans¬danubia. This office he attained partly due to the illness of Palatine Wesselényi but primarily as a result of a personal conflict between two Transdanubian aristocrats, Ferenc Nádas¬dy, Chief Justice (iudex curiae) and Kristóf Batthyány, District Captain-General of Transdanubia (partium regni Hungariae Transdanu¬bi¬anarum supremus capitaneus) who had clashing interpretations of their own respective military authority. After the roll-call, Zrínyi was to lead the nobility’s increasingly outdated insurrection of which he had already held a negative opinion and which he constantly scourged in his military theoretical works written, uniquely for his time, in Hungarian.

Finally, the book concludes that Zrínyi was one of those leading aristocrats and privy councillors (geheimer Rat) who attempted simultaneously to promote the interests of the wider Habsburg Monarchy, his own country as well as his own personal interests. Contrary to previous Hungarian interpretations, the author is of the opinion that this multi-faceted endeavour was a realistic political alternative in the early modern age.

GÉZA PÁLFFY’s book examines the difficult and complex relationship between the Kingdom of Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy in the sixteenth century. It analyses the process of Hungary’s integration into the Habsburg’s Central European composite state after the catastrophic defeat at the hands of the Ottomans at the Battle of Mohács in 1526. It highlights how, despite a degree of integration in military, finances and economy, Hungary managed to retain a unique position within the wider Habsburg conglomeration ruled from Vienna and Prague. Based on extensive research in the Austrian, Hungarian, Slovakian and Croatian archives, this monograph affords new insights into several contentious issues. It ranges widely, encompassing an analysis of why the Hungarian political elite and the aristocracy found it difficult to integrate into the Habsburg court in Vienna and Prague, a detailed survey of the new military defense system developed in Hungary and Croatia against the Ottomans, and the role the Hungarian kingdom played in Central Europe. By focusing on institutions and symbols of sovereignty, it demonstrates how it was possible for Hungary to both integrate into a larger monarchy whilst nonetheless preserving its sovereignty and the power of its estates to a considerable degree. The book thereby challenges the traditional perception of early-modern Hungarian history as a history of resistance and rebellions against the Habsburgs.

Das Buch von Géza Pálffy untersucht ein Thema, das bisher kaum systematisch erforscht worden war: das vielschichtige und komplexe Beziehungssystem zwischen dem Königreich Ungarn und der mitteleuropäischen Habsburgermonarchie im 16. Jahrhundert. Die Monographie analysiert vor allem den Vorgang, wie sich der Rest des spätmittelalterlichen ungarischen Staates, der nach der Niederlage bei Mohács 1526 wegen des osmanischen Aufmarsches übrig geblieben war, in den aus österreichischen, deutschen, ungarischen und böhmischen Territorien entstandenen zusammengesetzten Monarchie der österreichischen Linie der Familie Habsburg integrierte. Der Band erschließt, wie das Königreich Ungarn seine Sonderstellung - ungeachtet der starken militärischen, finanziellen und wirtschaftlichen Zentralisation und Integration - in der zunächst aus Wien, dann am Ende des Jahrhunderts aus Prag geführten mitteleuropäischen Staatskonglomeration bewahren konnte.
Gestützt auf seine eigenen Forschungen in ungarischen, österreichischen, slowakischen und kroatischen Archiven fördert der Verfasser auf zahlreichen Gebieten bedeutende Neuigkeiten zu Tage bzw. trägt zu einer Nuancierung der bisherigen Kenntnissen der internationalen und der ungarischen Geschichtsforschung bei. Er skizziert die Integrationsschwierigkeiten (aber auch die Vorteile) der ungarischen politischen Elite und der Aristokratie an den Höfen in Wien und Prag. Er stellt detailliert die neue Türkenabwehr vor, die auf den Gebieten Ungarns und Kroatiens gegen die Osmanen ausgebaut worden war, und beschäftigt sich in separaten Kapiteln mit der mehrschichtigen, militärischen, finanziellen und wirtschaftlichen Rolle des Königreiches Ungarn in Mitteleuropa. Der Band richtet seine besondere Aufmerksamkeit auf die Institutionen und Symbole der Souveränität: bedeutungsvoll erklärt er, wie die Souveränität des Königreiches Ungarn und der Einfluss der ungarischen Stände - trotz der starken Zentralisation auf mehreren Gebieten - in erheblichem Maße bewahrt werden konnte. Mit seiner komplexen Betrachtungsweise bricht die Monographie insgesamt mit der traditionellen Auffassung, der zufolge die ungarische Geschichte der Frühen Neuzeit vor allem als eine Reihe von gegen die Habsburger gerichteten Unabhängigkeitskämpfen vorgestellt wird.

This article explores the financial and military transformation within the new Habsburg composite state in central Europe after the fateful Battle of Mohács 1526. As an answer to the Ottoman challenge, the Habsburg ruler together with his own lands and those of the wider Reich established an extended border defence system in Hungary and Croatia. During the Long Turkish War (1591/93–1606) all the crucial factors of an early military and fiscal revolution are clearly visible. Thus, the expansion of the Ottoman Empire catalysed the development of a central European defence and financial system. The rudiments of a fiscal-military state can be observed particularly in connection with the Hungarian military border and its operations. The resulting changes laid the basis for a common financial and military framework that also helps explain the ensuing evolution towards a fiscal-military state in the Thirty Years War and beyond.

Liberation or Occupation? Military, Financial and Civil Administration in Recaptured Hungary during the Great Turkish War, 1683–1699

Due to European diplomatic and military cooperation, the Great Turkish War, lasting from 1683 to 1699, resulted in the nearly complete recapture of Hungary from Ottoman rule. Only Banat remained in Ottoman hands until 1718. Although the events of the long war are known in detail, little research has been dedicated to what hardships and conflicts the recaptured territories encountered during the organisation of the military and financial, followed by the civil and ecclesiastical administration. The present study aims to focus on these issues by synthesising the research results of the past decades. It presents the challenges of the reconstruction that began during the war, as well as the conflicts among the military, financial, and civil authorities. During the Great Turkish War, the fate of Hungary was determined primarily by the interests of the Habsburg standing army, the Aulic Chamber (Hofkammer), and the Viennese court. This was also reflected by the fact that Leopold I convened the Hungarian diet only once, at the end of 1687. During the war, the Hungarian political elite, therefore, had very little say in the shaping of events and the new administration of the country. For this reason, the revival of civil and ecclesiastical institutions could only commence very slowly and in the face of great difficulties in the liberated areas, which were under close control from military and financial aspects. Consequently, a part of the country’s population often regarded the liberation as occupation by the imperial generals, war commissioners, and chamber officials, and even as a series of devastations caused by the Habsburg forces. The recapture of the historical state of Hungary was, therefore, not without fierce political, social, and religious debates. Paradoxically enough, the Great Turkish War fundamentally contributed to the outbreak of the first independence movement in the history of Hungary, the War of Independence (1703–1711) led by Francis II Rákóczi.

Omne regnum in se ipsum divisum desolabitur 1712: The Inscription on Michael’s Gate in Pozsony/Bratislava and its Representational Role in the Early Modern Period

Michael’s Gate in the town of Pozsony (today Bratislava, Slovakia) is decorated by a unique Latin inscription: “OMNE REGNVM IN SE IPSVM DIVISVM DESOLABITVR 1712”. Although the citation from the Bible (Mt 12,25; Mk 3,24; Lk 11,17) has been a special sight of the town for centuries, neither the Hungarian, nor the Slovakian urban, representation or inscription history research has investigated it so far. The study intends to fill in this deficiency of the research from several viewpoints. On the one hand, it examines when the inscription was recorded on the best-preserved gate of Pozsony. On the other, it analyses its role in the political discourse of the Hungarian Estates in the Modern era. Finally, the study explores what role the inscriptions, that can be found in the Hungarian Kingdom’s capital in the early Modern period, played in the symbolical political communication of the estates.
Based on my systematic research, the following can be stated. Although the date on the gilded plaque is 1712, the words of Jesus could have been read on the outer side of the gate from the late Middle Ages. Certainly, the citation has been there since 1646, because it was described in the German travelogue of Martin Zeiller (Newe Beschreibung deß Königreichs Ungarn… Ulm 1646), which is the first mention of it according to present knowledge. Originally, the inscription was painted in gold script on the Brückentor of the gate’s barbican and it was cast into metal following the coronation of Charles III as king of Hungary on 22 May 1712. This ceremony “crowned” a significant political compromise between the Habsburg court and the Hungarian estates. The gilded plaque was already placed on the town-gate on 11 June.
The inscription, which was originally made upon the order of the free royal town, almost immediately became a frequently referenced element of the estates’ political discourse, primarily because – following the words of Jesus to the Pharisees – it called on the respective politicians to seek concordia (concord) instead of divisio (division). Among others, it was quoted during the 1712, 1741, 1833, 1840 and 1844 Diets of Pozsony, including the 1833 speech of delegate Ferenc Kölcsey, the author of the Hungarian Anthem. It is noteworthy that the inscription was frequently mentioned together with another Latin maxim of similar content (Nam concordia parvae res crescunt, discordia maximae dilabuntur), quoted from Bellum Iugurthinum (Jug 10,6), the work of the Roman historian, Caius Sallustius Crispus (86–35 B.C.) The latter text could also be read in a public place in Pozsony in the early Modern period, on the house of the Auers, a burgher family. Their house, which stood on the main square, provided accommodation for members of the Habsburg dynasty (1526/27: Queen Mária; 1637/38: King Ferdinánd III) several times. Moreover, in the middle of December 1637, the most prominent leader of the estates, Palatine Miklós Esterházy (1625–1645) ordered the delegates, who had been arguing for too long, to go and read the inscription and learn from it. Thanks to the inscriptions in Pozsony, the saying of Jesus and the maxim of Sallustius became integral parts of the political communication of the Hungarian
estates for a long time.

Due to European diplomatic and military cooperation, the Great Turkish War, lasting from 1683 to 1699, resulted in the nearly complete recapture of Hungary from Ottoman rule. Only Banat remained in Ottoman hands until 1718. Although the events of the long war are known in detail, little research has been dedicated to what hardships and conflicts the recaptured territories encountered during the organisation of the military and financial, followed by the civil and ecclesiastical administration. The present study aims to focus on these issues by synthesising the research results of the past decades. It presents the challenges of the reconstruction that began during the war, as well as the conflicts among the military, financial, and civil authorities. During the Great Turkish War, the fate of Hungary was determined primarily by the interests of the Habsburg standing army, the Aulic Chamber (Hofkammer), and the Viennese court. This was also reflected by the fact that Leopold I convened the Hungarian diet only once, at the end of 1687. During the war, the Hungarian political elite, therefore, had very little say in the shaping of events and the new administration of the country. For this reason, the revival of civil and ecclesiastical institutions could only commence very slowly and in the face of great difficulties in the liberated areas, which were under close control from military and financial aspects. Consequently, a part of the country’s population often regarded the liberation as occupation by the imperial generals, war commissioners, and chamber officials, and even as a series of devastations caused by the Habsburg forces. The recapture of the historical state of Hungary was, therefore, not without fierce political, social, and religious debates. Paradoxically enough, the Great Turkish War fundamentally contributed to the outbreak of the first independence movement in the history of Hungary, the War of Independence (1703–1711) led by Francis II Rákóczi.

English version:
Hungary, Vienna and the Defence System against the Ottomans in the Age of Süleyman. In: The Battle for Central Europe: The Siege of Szigetvár and the Death of Süleyman the Magnificent and Nicholas Zrínyi (1566). Ed. Pál Fodor. Leiden–Boston–Budapest: Brill–Hungarian Academy of Sciences, Research Centre for the Humanities, 2019. 570 p., p. 321–337.

Serving Several Countries
Different Loyalties and Identities of Miklós Zrínyi/Nikola Zrinski

It was in 1664 that Miklós Zrínyi/Nikola Zrinski (1620–1664) – one of the main dignitaries and politicians of the seventeenth-century Hungarian–Croatian Kingdom, a military thinker and war-lord, poet and writer – died in a tragic hunting accident in the forest at Kuršanec near Čakovec (today in Croatia). Historical works on his manifold activities could fill a library, mainly because of the fact that the aristocrat, generally known by Hungarians as a poet and war-lord, and identified by the Croats as Nikola Zrinski Čakovečki or Ban Zrinski, became a paradigmatic figure of Hungarian and Croatian literature, history and national remembrance in the nineteenth and twentieth centuries. The image about him, however, is not a uniform one, thus it is more appropriate to speak about different Zrínyi-images of different periods and research directions.
Tracing back Zrínyiʼs loyalties and identities the paper seeks answers to the questions how it is possible that Hungarian, Croatian and even Austrian patriots have regarded Zrínyiʼs oeuvre as their own, why did Hungarian and Croatian national romantics, Hungarian revisionists and devoted communists think high of him. By outlining the given framework of states which determined Zrínyiʼs career, that is the place the Hungarian–Croatian Kingdom had in the Central European Habsburg Monarchy, and by summing the recent researches, the author claims that due to the politician, soldier, poet and writer Zrínyiʼs different loyalties and identities, positions, marriages and estates he was a highly determining member of the political-military elite of both the Hungarian–Croatian Kingdom and the Habsburg Monarchy. His career vividly demonstrates that the loyalty to the dynasty and the ruler was compatible with “patriotism” in the mid-seventeenth century, that is, the protection of the interests of the Kingdom of Hungary and those of the Hungarian and Croatian “estate nations” was compatible with the efficient service of different patrias.

A Szent Korona alig ismert kalandja. Hol volt a magyar korona az 1663–1664. évi nagy török háború idején? In: A szentgotthárdi csata és a vasvári béke. Oszmán terjeszkedés – európai összefogás. Szerk. Tóth Ferenc–Zágorhidi Czigány Balázs. Budapest : Magyar Tudományos Akadémia Bölcsészettudományi Kutatóközpont, 2017. 387 p., p. 305–318. [p. 318.: Résumé: L’aventure mal connue de la Sainte Couronne : où était la couronne hongroise pendant la guerre turque de 1663–1664?]

For centuries, the ecclesiastical and secular elite played a definitive role in the governance of the Kingdom of Hungary, as well as in the enrichment of its social and cultural life. Beyond these fields the same is true for ecclesiastical representation, which, until now, was hardly studied systematically in Hungary. From this diversified topic the present study aims to investigate the struggle for the right of coronation (ius coronandi) of kings and queen consorts during the early modern period. In the case of royal coronations the object of the most significant political and representational struggle was the placing of the Holy Crown of Hungary on the monarch’s head (impositio coronae). While in the middle age this was performed by the Archbishop of Esztergom, at the coronation of Ferdinand I Habsburg in Székesfehérvár on November 3, 1527 – as there was no archbishop – the senior consecrated prelate, Stephen Podmaniczky, the Bishop of Nyitra (today Nitra, Slovakia) was forced to perform the coronation together with the leader of the secular elite, Palatine Stephen Báthory. After this event, however, owing to the perseverance of the Archbishops of Esztergom, up until 1655, the coronation of Leopold I in Pozsony (today Bratislava, Slovakia), they performed the ritual alone every time. However, from December 9, 1687 on, the time of the coronation of Joseph I in Pozsony, every Hungarian monarch was coronated by archbishops and palatines together. It was at this time that Palatine Paul Esterházy acquired the right to participate in the coronation once and for all. This illustrates the fact that the new king of the country could only become monarch by the will of the secular elite that constituted the bulk of the estates.
At the same time the coronations of queen consorts were characterized for centuries by the struggle of two prelates, the Archbishop of Esztergom and the chancellor of the queen consort, the Bishop of Veszprém. Finally the Archbishop of Esztergom succeeded since the ceremonies held in the early modern period were always celebrated by him, he anointed the queen consorts with the chrismal and touched their right shoulder with the Holy Crown. This custom, having originated presumably in medieval times but surely alive from 1563 on, indicated that queen consorts were considered the support of monarchs in the governance of the kingdom. At the same time the right of placing the crown on the queen consort’s head (impositio coronae) remained exclusively at the Bishop of Veszprém, but this was performed with the so-called house crown (German Hauskrone, Privatkrone) instead of the Holy Crown of Hungary.
These examples clearly illustrate that at early modern Hungarian diets and coronations the conflict was not reduced to the court and the estates since there was a serious struggle between supreme leaders of the estates as well, both for the role played in the governance of the country and in the field of symbolic policy, namely at the ceremonies. It is therefore a mistake to consider the Hungarian estates a united group that fought always only against the Habsburg court in Vienna, as it is often schematically viewed. Similarly, a more nuanced attitude is needed to replace the view that in Hungary only those could be monarchs who were coronated with the Holy Crown in Székesfehérvár by the Archbishop of Esztergom. The coronation site changed several times during the modern age (in the 16th century Pozsony, then in the early 17th century Sopron, and finally at the end of the 18th century Buda also became a coronation city), while from 1687 on every Hungarian monarch was coronated by the Archbishop of Esztergom and the Palatine of Hungary together. However, this did not make the legitimacy of Hungarian kings questionable.

Heraldic Representation of the Jagiellonian and Habsburg Dynasties. Coats of Arms on the Royal Oratory in Prague’s Saint Vitus Cathedral in the Central European Context.
The aim of the study is to examine a series of coats of arms of the Hungarian and Bohemian Lands on the late Gothic Royal Oratory of Saint Vitus Cathedral in Prague in the Central European context. An analysis of coats of arms from the Lands of the Hungarian Crown has resulted in three new findings. On the one hand, contrary to previous concepts, the creation of the coats of arms did not took place in the first half of the 1490s, but probably in the 1510s–1520s, perhaps resulting from the Bohemian coronation of Mary of Hungary on 6 June 1522. On the other hand, the coat of arms of Upper Lusatia, placed on the balustrade, could have replaced the similar coat of arms of the Kingdom of Croatia only during an erroneous restoration attempt at the end of the 19th century. Finally, the coats of arms of the Lands of the Hungarian Crown on the Royal Oratory were taken over from the heraldic representation of Emperor Maximilian I in Innsbruck instead of those of the Jagiellonian dynasty in Prague or Buda.

The long 17th century, extending from the Peace of Vienna in 1606 to the Treaty of Szatmár in 1711, occupies a special place within the history of the Kingdom of Hungary. Its interpretation has traditionally been determined by the independentist approach of Hungarian romantic national historiography, which was born in the second half of the 19th century. Consequently, as late as the 1950s and 1970s the 17th century was still regarded as the most decisive period of the Hungarian struggles for independence, while in the 1980s and 1990s its most salient feature was identified in the alleged attempts launched from the Principality of Transylvania at the unification of the Hungarian Kingdom. On the basis of several years of archival research, and following in the footsteps of such historians as Robert Evans from Oxford, Thomas Winkelbauer from Vienna and Jean Bérenger from Paris, the author of the present study rather examines the history of the Hungarian Kingdom in the 17th century as part of a relationship between the Central European Habsburg Monarchy and the Kingdom of Hungary, the Habsburg court of Vienna and the Hungarian political elite. Within such a framework, the history of Hungary between 1606 and 1711 can be regarded as the century of ruptures and compromises. For the course of the century was determined by five important compromise-systems (1608: Pozsony/Pressburg, 1622: Sopron/Ödenburg, 1647: Pozsony, 1681: Sopron, 1711: Szatmár), practically all of which were elaborated at the Hungarian diet, and were accompanied by ruler coronations (1608: Hungarian King Matthias II, 1622: Queen Eleonora Gonzaga, 1647: King Ferdinand IV, 1681: Queen Eleonora Magdalena Theresia of Pfalz-Neuburg, 1712: King Charles III).
Each of these compromises guaranteed the privileges and liberties of the Hungarian estates, and secured for the Hungarian political elite a decisive role in shaping the domestic politics, local administration and judicial system of Hungary. As a result, among all the constituents of the Habsburg Monarchy in the 17th and 18th centuries Hungary was one of the strongest in terms of sovereignty and estate state formation, and absolutism could not be introduced east of the Leitha river. In the light of recent research the topos which regards the Hungarians as “perennial rebels” should also be nuanced. With regard to the 17th century the term of “perennial compromise-seekers” could be applied to them as well. And, finally, the study draws attention to the fact that the history of the Kingdom of Hungary and that of the Principality of Transylvania in the 17th century, despite the manifold contacts between them, cannot be described within the framework of one and the same model or concept, for whereas the former was an important part of the Central European Habsburg Monarchy, the latter belonged to the sphere of interest of one of the strongest states of the contemporary world, namely the Ottoman Empire.

The article suggests a new approach to studying history of the Kindom of Hungary in the Habsburg Monarchy in the seventeenth century, which implies refuse from the one-sided estimation of the liberation movements of the Transylvanian princes as progressive, and treatment of political processes as confl icts and compromises with the Vienna Court and the dynasty.
В статье предлагается новый подход к изучению истории Венгерского королевства в составе Габсбургской монархии в XVII в., в основе которого отказ от односторон-ней оценки освободительных движений трансильванских князей как прогрессив-ных и трактовка политических процессов как конфликтов и компромиссов сосло-вий с венским двором и династией.