Talk:Austrian Empire/Archive 1

This is an archive of past discussions about Austrian Empire. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

Creation, But No Dissolution?

This article has a section upon the creation of the Austrian Empire, but nowhere does it mention its subsequent downfall. This article is in dire need of completion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.62.249.129 (talk) 04:52, 4 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the necromancing but the user is right. The Empire remained in existence after 1867 and until 1918 as a member of the Dual Monarchy. That should be acknowledged on this page as well. If only with one or two sentences and a referral to the Austria-Hungary page. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

a little addition to first section

just added a new paragraph because things are a little sparse on actual socio-geographic information in the article. I think its pretty much neccessary. VonZeppelin 22:47, 10 May 2006 (UTC)

Merging

. — OwenBlacker 12:21, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

The article certainly needs to be extended, but the Austrian Empire and Austria-Hungary were not the same. They are different with respect to the period in which they existed (Austrian Empire 1804-1867, Austria-Hungary 1867-1918), their constitution and, obviously, with respect to their official names. Gugganij 16:01, 16 Jun 2004 (UTC)

Fair enough; thanks for correcting me. :o) — OwenBlacker 16:55, Jun 16, 2004 (UTC)

While we're at it, Emperor of Austria could probably be merged in here... --Shallot 11:08, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

Well, I am not that sure. The Austrian Empire was transformed into the Austrian-Hungarian Empire in 1867. Thus, the Austrian Emperors remained their title and acted as sovereign in the Austrian part of the danube monarchy (which was officially known as The Kingdoms and Lands Represented in the Imperial Council and not as Austrian Empire anymore). The expression Austrian Empire officially ceased to exist. In my point of view Emperor of Austria and Austrian Empire do overlap to a certain degree with respect to time, but by far not completely. Therefore, I am against merging. Gugganij 13:43, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

We can explain that reasonably trivial difference in a single article, though. --Shallot 23:05, 30 Jul 2004 (UTC)

I am removeing the merge notice from this talk page. Merge notices usually go on an article. --Banana04131 04:36, 14 October 2005 (UTC)

Initially it was the Austrian Empire but with apparent success that Austrian Empire later became something much larger and thus its name changed to the Austro-Hungarian Empire. In fact (as Gordon Brook-Shepherd documents in his Book "The Austrians"), at one point the Austrian Emperor was received as "The Emperor of Europe" by the British royal court. Hopefully these two distinct naming conventions can be harmoniously merged to grant the reader a good perspective on the Historical significance, and development of Central Europe over those centuries which perhaps has an even more significant impact today.
Austrosearch 06:23, 16 Feb 2005 (UTC)

I don't think the name Austrian Empire was used initially (in 1804) in an official capacity either. The Empire existed under different names from 1804 to 1918. It became a partner in the Austro Hungarian dual monarchy in 1867.Gerard von Hebel 19:05, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

pseudo-equal

What does the author exactely mean with "pseudo-equal"? Gugganij 22:59, 6 Jul 2004 (UTC)

expanding the article

--Gerard von Hebel 20:06, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

The article needs expanding. Can I make a suggestion? Let me know what you think!

Before 1804 the Habsburg dominions, consisting of the Archduchy of Austria (in which were included the former Polish territories gained in the late 18th century, The Kingdom of Bohemia (in administrative union with Austria) and the Kingdom of Hungary were partly inside and partly outside of the Holy Roman Empire. Hungary was outside, as were those parts of Austria that had been recently ceded after the Polish divisions and the region around Venice, which Napoleon had "lent" to Austria. Austria proper and the Kingdom of Bohemia were part of the Holy Roman Empire. The Archduke of Austria, Francis I, also King and Elector of Bohemia and King of Hungary, was Holy Roman Emperor under the style Francis II.

When Napoleon, First Consul of the French Republic, a country that had already annexed the Rhineland and the Austrian Netherlands, and instigated a territorial reform of the Empire's constituent states, declared himself Emperor of the French and King of Italy in 1804, Emperor Francis II foresaw the end of the ancient and by now dysfunctional Holy Roman Empire. In order to secure the Imperial status for him and his dynasty he merged his lands of Austria, Bohemia and Hungary into a new state, that was initially called The Emperordom of Austria (Kaiserthum Österreich), rather then Empire of Austria (Kaiserreich Österreich), taking into account that the Holy Roman Empire was still in existence, and that large parts of the new "Kaiserthum" were still part of its territory. Emperor Francis II of the Holy Roman Empire thus became also Emperor Francis I of Austria, and scholars of state law were confronted with the bizarre reality of two overlapping Empires, sharing large parts of their territories as well as their Emperor. The Emperor retained the titular styles King of Hungary and Bohemia, but they were not pertaining to sovereign or suzerain states anymore. The new state that emerged was a multiethnic state "Vielvölkerstaat" in which the dominant Germans were outnumbered by other peoples, notably Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, Slovaks, Slovenes, Croatians, Roumanians, Italians, Serbs, Ruthenians and Ukrainians, thus compromising the German character of the state. The curious spectacle of the Siamese Twin Empires ended two years later, when several Princes of Holy Roman Empire states, seceded from the Empire at the instigation of Napoleon, and founded the Confederation of the Rhine. The Emperor Francis II / I abdicated as Holy Roman Emperor and dissolved the Old Empire, emerging of course as the Emperor Francis I of Austria.

After the fall of Napoleon, at the Congress of Vienna, a loose German Confederation was founded, in which Austria proper and Bohemia were included, but the former Hungarian and Polish territories were not. Austria regained also much of the former Habsburg possessions in Northern Italy, and the former Republic of Venice. These territories were not included in the German confederation, and were merged into an autonomous Lombardovenetian Kingdom, that was part of the Empire of Austria. Francis of course became its King. In 1835 Francis I died, and he was succeeded by his weak and sickly son Ferdinand I.

In the revolution year of 1848 the Empire almost disintegrated. A short lived German Empire was proclaimed with Francis' brother Archduke John, as Regent of the Realm "Reichsverweser".. The problem for the German nationalists was that Austria included vast non-German territories. This lead to the following dilemma. Including Austria in a German state, would cause huge problems with the national minorities, making the formation of a German national state very difficult. Carving up Austria was no option for the Habsburgs at that point. In the end a “small German” solution was proposed, leaving Austria, with its vast non-German territories outside of the proposed new German Empire. Also in that year the Hungarians rose and founded a short lived Republic. The Russians helped to suppress the Hungarian rising, and the revolution generally failed. Ferdinand I abdicated and was replaced by a grandson of Francis, Emperor Francis-Joseph I (1848-1916) After the Crimean war, in which France (now under Emperor Napoleon III) and the Kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont had sided with Britain against Russia, it was payback time towards Sardinia-Piedmont, a state that aspired for Italian unification. Napoleon III and Sardinia-Piedmont fought Austria and Sardinia gained Lombardy from Austria. Other Italian states ruled by Habsburg and Bourbon secondogenitures also fell and in 1861 the Kingdom of Italy was proclaimed.

After the German-Danish war of 1863 concerning the Schlesvig-Holstein question, Austria was left in charge of Holstein, while its rival Prussia occupied Schlesvig. Conflict over the future of these territories soon arose amidst the underlying conflict between the two countries over ascendancy in Germany. The Austro-Prussian war that ensued in 1866 ended in defeat for Austria and many of its traditional allies in Central and Northern Germany. Prussia annexed Schlesvig-Holstein and most of Austria's allies in Germany. The German Confederation was abolished, and Italy used the opportunity to annex Venice. The weakened Empire was now forced to seek a compromise with its most troublesome national minority, the Hungarians.

So in 1867 the Kingdom of Hungary was re-erected in a personal and political union with the Empire of Austria, in which the Empire (now reduced in size) and the Kingdom were equal partners. I must stress that the Empire of Austria continued to exist, albeit reduced in territory. It did not go up into a “new” Empire of Austria-Hungary. There never was such a thing. A re-erected Kingdom of Hungary was carved out of former Austrian territory, and formed the before mentioned union with it, in which the Emperor of Austria was always the same person as the King of Hungary. This construction was generally referred to as the Dual Monarchy. I will however henceforth refer to it as Austria-Hungary. This solution emancipated the Hungarians, but did nothing about the aspirations of the many Slav peoples within both Realms that were now looking towards Russia that supported the Pan-Slav movement that sought the national liberation of Slav peoples in Austria-Hungary and the Balkans.

It also did not reinforce the German character and outlook of the remainder of the Empire, as Prussia’s retreat from Polish territory and her gains in Western Germany had done for that country. Large parts of the remaining Empire were still inhabited by Czechs, Poles, Ukrainians and Slovenes, Croats and Serbs. Forces that strove for German unification now looked towards Prussia, and with it favoured a “small-German” solution, leaving Austria outside of a future German state, as had already been the case in 1848. A North German Confederation was formed under Prussian leadership. After the Franco-Prussian war of 1870-1871, this Confederation was joined by Bavaria, Baden, Württemberg and those parts of Hesse-Rhine, that were previously outside of the Confederation, to form the German Realm, of which the King of Prussia became German Emperor, thus formalizing the small-German solution and leaving Austria outside of the new German nation.

Austria-Hungary now gave up its interests in Germany and looked towards the Balkans and the derelict Ottoman Empire and its newly formed tributary states, for a new sphere of influence, invoking the rivalry of the Russians who supported the rising Pan-Slav movement. When a crisis over Turkey threatened in 1878, Germany’s Chancellor Bismarck invited the powers to a Congress in Berlin. The result was the formal independence of the Ottoman vassal states of Roumania, Serbia and Montenegro, and the Austrian occupation of the Ottoman provinces of Bosnia and Herzegovina. Austria-Hungary now joined Germany and Italy in a tri-partite alliance that was mainly directed at the Franco-Russian alliance. In 1908 Austria formally annexed most parts of Bosnia (leaving the Sanjak of Novibazar to the Ottomans) and Herzegovina. It remained aloof during the two Balkan wars of 1911 and 1912. Austria-Hungary had however earned the wrath of Serbia that had schemes on Bosnia-Herzegovina, with its large Serbian population, and of their Russian ally.

When Archduke Francis-Ferdinand, the heir to the Austrian and Hungarian thrones, a great-nephew of the Emperor, visited the Bosnian capital of Sarajevo with his morganatic wife, the Duchess of Hohenberg in 1914, both of them were killed by Serbian nationalists. Austria-Hungary accused the Serb government of involvement in the murders. It soon made demands upon Serbia that a sovereign state could not accept. It demanded that Serbia would allow Austro-Hungarian policing of the murders on Serbian territory. Serbia refused, and Austria-Hungary declared war on Serbia, invoking the systems of alliances in Europe to go to war with one another. Russia declared war on Austria-Hungary, in assistance of its Serbian ally. Germany mobilized in assistance of Austria-Hungary, thus provoking a war with Russia. France came to the help of Russia, and when the Germans invaded Belgium, Britain joined the war. The Central powers (Germany, Austria-Hungary, the Ottoman Empire and Bulgaria) lost World War I. And the Emperor Charles I, a great-great nephew of the Emperor Francis-Joseph I, who had succeeded him after his death in 1916, abdicated in 1918. A Republic was declared in an Austria greatly reduced in size, making and end to the Empire of Austria.

Concerning The term Emperordom or "Kaiserthum" was soon replaced by Empire or "Kaiserreich".: As far as I know "Kaiserthum" (or "Kaisertum" in current German) was never replaced by "Kaiserreich" (Empire). Gugganij 21:20, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

Gugganij, you are right. I have deleted the sentence. I have found references to "Kaiserthum" as it was spelled then from the 1890's even. --Gerard von Hebel 05:39, 4 November 2005 (UTC)

The Kingdom of Hungary was not incorporated into the Empire till 1849. Before the revolution of 1848 Hungary was a separate kingdom with her own constitution, public administration etc. Bye, Laszlo

The Empire was defined by its initial (pre 1848) constitution as the "Im Reichsrat vertretene Königreicher und Länder" or Kingdoms and Countries represented in the Realms Council. That included Hungary, even if it had an autonomous status. The Constitution of 1848 however did not mention Hungary. This was probably done to make the participation of Austria in a new German Realm easier (this was the year of the Revolutions and the Frankfurt German Parliament). Also there was a Hungarian uprising going on. The 1849 constitution mentioned Hungary again, this time as part of the "Kaiserthum Österreich".Gerard von Hebel 20:53, 21 June 2006 (UTC)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was move. —Nightst a llion (?) ^{Seen this already?} 06:38, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

Austrian Empire (1804 - 1867) → Austrian Empire … Rationale: Revert previous move from Austrian Empire that destroyed the direct linking feature from three to four hundred articles. Disambiguation from Habsburg Monarchy is possible without changing hundreds of links. — Domino theory 17:43, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Meta discussion. First of all I can't understand why the article hasn't been returned to it's original location as a speedy move. There was no support or consensus, let any discussion, for a move in the first place and it has only created disruption. It is ludicrous that we should have to argue against a bad idea based on nothing but misconceptions.

Unless anyone has fundamentally misunderstood basic concepts in language and terminology, Austrian Empire and Austrian empire are two separate concepts with separate meanings. If there are any links to Austrian Empire, which ought rather be directed to Austrian empire they should be changed.

To clarify:

The "Austrian Empire" existed as sovereign state between the years 1804 and 1867, essentially between the collapse of Holy Roman Empire and the establishment of the dual monarchy Austria-Hungary.
"Austrian empire" may refer to the entire dynastic period of the Habsburg Monarchy.

If there is need for a disambiguation page it should be located at Austrian empire, or possibly Austrian empire (disambiguation). Neither of these pages even exists today! A working disambiguation is not accomplished by crowding out and stealing the place of a properly working article with hundreds of links. — Domino theory 11:42, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

The original move should have indeed been discussed first. Gryffindor 19:34, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Support move back to original location as per Gryffindor. Olessi 22:11, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
Support. I also don't understand the explanation on the disambiguation page. Kusma (討論) 02:43, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Strongly oppose. I have created the disambiguation page, because the term "Austrian empire" is used in English history books primarily to denote Austrian monarchy during its whole existence, whereas this is an article dealing only with the period 1804-1867. And I do not undestand the proposal of Domino theory. How do you know which meaning of "Austrian Empire" of the links in the hundreds of articles is intended??? This is exactly what disambiguation pages are for - to prevent wrong links.Juro 05:10, 3 April 2006 (UTC)
~~Comment:~~ Domino's proposal is to make the Habsburg Empire a list of names, with links to Austria-Hungary, this article, and histories of ths Austrian states before 1806; ~~I'm sure we have one. I am neutral on this, until I can see how many of those links actually refer to Rudolph II or Kaunitz.~~ Support move, see note below. Septentrionalis 05:16, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

But that does not change the problem that each article is to be seen as a separate topic, and that an average user just puts double-brackets around the words "Austrian Empire" and does not care for the rest. And the argument against a disambiguation cannot be that "now we have to correct the hundreds of old links", as long as the disambiguation is justified. I made the disambiguation, because I had been wrongly redirected from an article. Juro 05:27, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

That's what disambiguation headers are for; you could also have fixed the link, instead of moving the article. There are still a few links to Austrian Empire which do not mean the nineteenth century state: Double-headed eagle, Louis XV, Marengo...; but not very many. Septentrionalis 14:18, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Ah? And what are disambiguation pages for then ???? For fun?? I cannot change links in other articles because this is a frequent link and new articles will arise in the future and nobody will fix them. Secondly, it would be of course possible to replace a disambiguation page by a header in this article , but NOT in the current form . The point is to say to the reader that the second meaning of "Austrian empire" is "Austrian monarchy", but the current header does not do that - it only says "if you want to know this additional information, see this" and that's what headers are not for. Thirdly, a header is always only a substitute for a disambiguation if there is a clear main meaning which is definitely not the case here!Juro 01:46, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

Usually I would support your argument. In this case, however, there are exactly two meanings, which are closely related. The issue is not as with Georgia, where linking this to either Georgia (state) or Georgia (country) would create massive amounts of totally wrong links. Instead, the reader is lead to a closely related topic, from which he sometimes has to click through one extra link, which can be acceptable. Links to pages like Austrian Empire are also rather nontrivial to disambiguate for people from the disambiguation project at WP:DPL because they are so closely related. The header of Austrian Empire (1804 - 1867) should be fixed, though. Kusma (討論) 02:35, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The problem is that I see two very different meanings here: Austrian empire # 1 is just another expression for the "big Austrian state" from the middle ages up to 1867/1918 (covering centuries), while Austrian Empire # 2 describes a form of state , i.e. it is "the Austrian state when ruled by a person with the title Austrian Emperor" (covering only 60 years). So, I consider this a huge difference. But if - despite this explanation - you consider this a "small" difference, then of course we can make a header, although I guess that meaning 1 is even much more frequent in English texts. Juro 03:16, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

Italy

The status of Venice before 1815, and the Austrian possessions south of Lombardy, require more (some) discussion. I do not know enough to do this, and have other things to research, but put it on the list for expansion. Septentrionalis 15:03, 3 April 2006 (UTC)

Infobox

Shouldn't there be an infobox for the Austrian Empire? There's one for Austria-Hungary. I'm only asking for someone else to do it because I don't know how to make infoboxes. -Alex The Gonz 21:55, 10 September 2006 (UTC)

I'll have one up soon - 52 Pickup 16:30, 30 October 2006 (UTC)

No need, pickup. All that is necessary now is for a map and the flags to be added, and other minor info. The main things for an infobox are there (I think). The Gonz 03:59, 9 January 2007 (UTC)

Library of Congress

Public domain information from the Library of Congress Country Studies:[1]

AUSTRIA IN THE AGE OF METTERNICH International Developments, 1815-48

Clemens von Metternich was initially successful in maintaining a European consensus favorable to Austrian interests. He used the example of liberal revolutions in Spain and Naples and revolutionary activity in Germany to demonstrate the universal menace posed by liberalism and thus won Austria the support of Prussia and Russia. Britain also supported Austria because the two countries had common interests favoring a strong Austrian presence in Germany, limited French influence in Italy, and the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire to prevent Russian advances in the Balkans.

The support from the other great powers dissipated, however, in the mid- and late-1820s. Russia became more assertive in the Balkans, and British policy increasingly reflected that nation's liberal popular opinion. But Metternich was able to regain Russian and Prussian support in the early 1830s, following another round of liberal uprisings in Europe. Even Britain returned to close cooperation with the other powers to block French interests in Egypt. Nevertheless, Metternich failed to respond effectively to Prussia's formation of a German customs union in 1834. The customs union excluded Austria and promoted the economic integration of the other German states, thus facilitating German political unification under Prussian leadership later in the century.

International Developments, 1815-48 Clemens von Metternich was initially successful in maintaining a European consensus favorable to Austrian interests. He used the example of liberal revolutions in Spain and Naples and revolutionary activity in Germany to demonstrate the universal menace posed by liberalism and thus won Austria the support of Prussia and Russia. Britain also supported Austria because the two countries had common interests favoring a strong Austrian presence in Germany, limited French influence in Italy, and the maintenance of the Ottoman Empire to prevent Russian advances in the Balkans.

The support from the other great powers dissipated, however, in the mid- and late-1820s. Russia became more assertive in the Balkans, and British policy increasingly reflected that nation's liberal popular opinion. But Metternich was able to regain Russian and Prussian support in the early 1830s, following another round of liberal uprisings in Europe. Even Britain returned to close cooperation with the other powers to block French interests in Egypt. Nevertheless, Metternich failed to respond effectively to Prussia's formation of a German customs union in 1834. The customs union excluded Austria and promoted the economic integration of the other German states, thus facilitating German political unification under Prussian leadership later in the century.

Domestic Policies Despite Metternich's high profile, it was the emperor's conservative outlook and hostility toward the values and ideas of the French Revolution that set the parameters for Austrian policy. This was especially true of domestic policy, which Franz I retained under his direct personal control until his death in 1835. The composition of the state council that Franz selected to rule in the name of his mentally incompetent son Ferdinand I ensured the continuance of his policies until revolution shook the foundations of Habsburg rule in 1848.

Franz's aim was to provide his subjects with good laws and material well-being. To accomplish the first, he issued a new penal code in 1803 and a new civil code in 1811. He expected that the second--material well-being--would evolve naturally with the reestablishment of peace, and he considered additional measures unnecessary. Political and cultural life was kept under careful scrutiny, however, to prevent the spread of nationalism and liberalism. These two movements were a common threat to Franz's conservative regime because his political opponents looked to the establishment of a unified German nation-state incorporating Austria as a means for realizing the liberal reforms impossible in the framework of the Habsburg state.

Political stagnation, however, did not prevent broader socioeconomic changes in Austria. By 1843 the population had risen to 37.5 million, an increase of 40 percent from 1792. The urban population was rising quickly, and Vienna counted nearly 400,000 inhabitants. Economically, a degree of stability was reached, and the massive wartime deficits gave way to almost balanced budgets. This was made possible by cutting state expenditures to a level near actual revenues, and not by instituting fiscal reforms to increase tax revenues. Austria's ability to protect its interests abroad or carry out domestic programs thus continued to be severely restrained by lack of revenue.

THE REVOLUTION OF 1848 AND NEOABSOLUTISM Revolutionary Rise and Fall

In 1848 liberal and nationalist ideologies sparked revolutions across Europe. In late February, the proclamation of the revolutionary Second Republic in France shook conservative Austria. Popular expectations of war caused a financial panic in the Habsburg Empire that worked to the advantage of the revolutionaries. By early March, events throughout the empire were accelerating faster than the government could control them. As a symbol of conservative government, Metternich was an early casualty of the revolution. His resignation and flight in mid-March only led to greater demands. By mid-April the court had sanctioned sweeping liberal reforms passed by the Hungarian diet. In May the government was forced to announce plans for a popularly elected constituent assembly for the Habsburg lands. This assembly, the first parliament in Austrian history, opened in July 1848.

As part of the German Confederation, the German-speaking Habsburg lands were also caught up in the revolutionary events in Germany. German nationalists and liberals convened an assembly in Frankfurt in May 1848 that suspended the diet of the German Confederation and took tentative steps toward German unification. However, the close association of nationalism and liberalism in Germany belied the growing conflict between these two ideologies. Although ethnic Germans from Bohemia were participating in the Frankfurt assembly, Czech nationalists and liberals rejected Bohemian participation in the German nation being born in Frankfurt. They envisioned a reconstituted Habsburg Empire in which the Slavic nations of central and southern Europe would assume equality with the German and Hungarian components of the empire and avoid absorption by either Germany or Russia. The government gave concessions that appeared to endorse this plan, and the Czechs convened an Austro-Slavic congress in Prague in June as a counterpart to the Frankfurt assembly.

As conservative political authority gave way before the revolutionary forces, two bold military commanders began to reassert control over the situation, often ignoring or contravening timid orders from the court. General Alfred Windischgrไtz routed the revolutionaries from Prague and Vienna and reestablished order by military force. South of the Alps, General Joseph Radetzky reestablished Austrian control of Lombardy-Venetia by August.

Although only Hungary remained in the hands of the revolutionaries, the Austrian government began to reorganize in the fall of 1848. A team of ministers associated with constitutionalism was presented to the constituent assembly in November. The minister-president not only committed the government to popular liberties and constitutional institutions but also to the unity of the empire. To cap the reorganization, the mentally incompetent Ferdinand formally abdicated on December 2, 1848, and his eighteen-year-old nephew was crowned Emperor Franz Joseph I (r. 1848-1916). The young emperor faced three pressing tasks: establishing effective political authority in the empire, crushing the rebellion in Hungary, and reasserting Austrian leadership in Germany.

To accomplish the first, the government promulgated a secretly prepared constitution in March 1849, thus undercutting the constituent assembly. This constitution contained guarantees of individual liberties and equality under the law, but its greatest significance lay in provisions that established a centralized government based on unitary political, legal, and economic institutions for the entire empire.

The new constitution exacerbated the revolutionary situation in Hungary. The Hungarian diet deposed the Habsburg Dynasty and declared Hungarian independence. Although Austria could have eventually restored order on its own, the need to deal simultaneously with events in Germany prompted Emperor Franz Joseph to ask for and get Russian military assistance, thus accomplishing his second objective. The rebellion was effectively, if brutally, ended by September 1849.

Austria's decision to organize itself as a unitary state also set the terms for dealing with the German nationalists and liberals sitting in Frankfurt: Austria would enter a unified Germany with all of its territories, not merely the German and Bohemian portions. This contradicted an earlier decision of the assembly, so the assembly turned from the grossdeutsch (large German) model of a united Germany that included Austria to the kleindeutsch (small German) model that excluded Austria. The assembly offered a hereditary crown of a united Germany to the Prussian king. The conditions under which the offer was made, however, caused the Prussian king to decline in early April 1849. Combined with the withdrawal of the Austrian representatives, his rejection effectively ended the Frankfurt assembly. The German Confederation was restored, and Franz Joseph's tasks were completed. However, Austria and Prussia continued to jockey for influence and leadership in Germany.

The Failure of Neoabsolutism Initially, the new Austrian government apparently intended to implement the constitutional political structures promised in March 1849. But on December 31, 1851, Franz Joseph formally revoked the constitution, leaving in place only those provisions that established the equality of citizens before the law and the emancipation of the peasants. Popular representation was eliminated from all government institutions. In order to solidify a political base supporting neoabsolutist rule, the government also eliminated the Josephist religious regulations that had been the source of continuing conflict with the church. In 1855 the government signed a concordat with the Vatican that recognized the institutional church as an autonomous and active participant in public life. The agreement signaled a new era of cooperation between throne and altar.

Neoabsolutism, with its aim of creating a unified, supranational state, however, ran counter to the prevailing European trend. The empire's peoples could not be isolated from the larger nationalist struggles of the German, Italian, and Slavic peoples. In Hungary active resistance to the Austrian government declined, but passive resistance grew. During the Crimean War (1853-56), the situation in Hungary made Austria vulnerable to economic and political pressure from Britain and France, the allies of Turkey against Russia. Thus, when Russia asked for Austria's support, Austria initially sought to mediate the conflict but then joined the western allies against Russia. By failing to repay Russia for its help in Hungary in 1849, Austria lost critical Russian support for its position in Germany and Italy.

France took advantage of the estrangement between Austria and Russia to set up a military confrontation between Austrian and Italian nationalist forces. This opened the door to French military intervention in support of the Italians in 1859. Because Franz Joseph was unwilling to make the concessions that were Prussia's price for assistance from the German Confederation and because he feared the French might stir up trouble in Hungary, Franz Joseph surrendered Lombardy in July 1859.

These failures did not bode well for the anticipated conflict with Prussia over German unification, so the emperor began to abandon absolutism and create a more viable political base. He experimented with various arrangements designed to attract the support of the military, the Roman Catholic Church, German liberals, Hungarians, Slavs, and Jews, who were assuming a strong presence in the economic and political life of the empire. Urgently needing to resolve the tensions with the Hungarians, the government opened secret negotiations with them in 1862. The outline of a dual monarchy was already taking shape by 1865, but negotiations were deadlocked on the eve of the war with Prussia. Loss of Leadership in Germany Through the early 1860s, Austria maintained hope of retaining leadership in Germany because the smaller states preferred weak Austrian leadership to Prussian domination. Nonetheless, by mid-1864 Franz Joseph realized that war was inevitable if Austrian leadership was to be preserved.

The immediate cause of the Seven Weeks' War between Austria and Prussia in 1866 was Prussia's desire to annex the Duchy of Holstein. Austria and Prussia had together fought a brief war against Denmark in 1864 to secure the predominantly German duchies of Schleswig and Holstein for Germany. Pending final decision on their future, Prussia took control of Schleswig, and Austria took control of Holstein. In April 1866, however, Prussia plotted with Italy to wage a two-front war against Austria that would enable Prussia to gain Holstein and Italy to gain Venetia. Although Austria tried to keep Italy out of the war through a last-minute offer to surrender Venetia to it, Italy joined the war with Prussia. Austria won key victories over Italy but lost the decisive Battle of K๖niggrไtz (Hradec Krแlov้ in the presentday Czech Republic) to Prussia in July 1866. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Olessi (talk • contribs) 18:56, 23 January 2007 (UTC).

Title

The title should be Empire of Austria if we are translating Kaisertum Österreich. "Austrian Empire" is Österreichische Kaisertum. john k 04:54, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If the reasoning is translation, isn't Kaisertum Oesterreich equal to Emperordom of Austria? I am a bit undecided as to if this should be moved or not because to me it almost seems as if there was no exact Empire of Austria as there was an empire which was "Austrian" and which included the Archduchy of Austria. Charles 02:41, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

That is not true. The Archduchy was dissolved with the foundation of the Empire, so in my opinion the name "Empire of Austria" would be a little better. The "Kaisertum" instead of "Kaiserreich" was just used to avoid the use of the word "Reich" twice. NsMn (talk) 10:31, 3 November 2010 (UTC)

I agree. See way below. Although the Archduchy wasn't desolved until 1918. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:09, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

loser

It says that austria-hungary was one of the "losers". Is this term appropriate for an encyclopedia?

To call a country a loser in the context of a war or treaty is perfectly acceptable and even people in the context of a duel or battle.

Sioraf (talk) 02:17, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating

This article was automatically assessed because at least one WikiProject had rated the article as start, and the rating on other projects was brought up to start class. BetacommandBot 17:02, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Missing the area

I was looking at various historical "empires" in the area and comparing their land areas. This one is missing that information.

BenJackson (talk) 01:24, 27 March 2008 (UTC)

Well, that's probably why the article is called Austrian Empire and not Empire of Austria. It wasn't so well defined. Charles 23:14, 28 March 2008 (UTC)

Map is wrong!

The little map thingy in the infobox is blatantly wrong. Greece is portrayed as being separate from the Ottoman empire. This may or may not be correct, depending on the period it purports to represent. It would be the case in 1867, but not at all in 1804. A clarification would be useful.

Far more significantly, however, Greece appears to include Thessalonika and all of Aegean Macedonia. In fact, Greece would not reach that extent until after the Second Balkan War in 1913 (whereas this map purports to portray the situation up to, maximally, 1867).

Even if one assumes the map portrays the Austro-Hungarian monarchy that succeeded the Austrian Empire, it is muchly mistaken. For in 1913 (the earliest date Greece could be occupying the above territories), Serbia, Montenegro, Bulgaria and Albania were also independent nations. They are no where to be found on this map though. Ergo, the map is wrong. I have no intention of removing it (since it at least shows the Empire's general location, and is therefore better than nothing) but I suggest correcting it, or at least, noting the inconsistencies in a caption (or at the very least, the image summary). Druworos (talk) 16:23, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Hungary

I'm now removing the part about Hungary not being part of the Empire until 1849. The declaration of 1804 concerned all the posessions of the Habsburg primogeniture including Hungary. Hungary remained a Kingdom with it's own parliament and constitution, but nevertheless was a part of the Austrian Imperial state. The revolutionary "Pillersdorf Constitution" (A provisional constitution for a few weeks in 1848) had excluded Hungary as a crown land as it had declared independence in that year. The 1849 Constitution (the first real Constitution the Empire had) reverted that. Hungary lost many of its seperate institutions as a consequence of the episode. See also http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pillersdorfsche_Verfassung Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:36, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

No, you are not right, the Kingdom of Hungary wasn't the part of the Austrian Empire until 1849. Hungary was incorporated after the defeat of the Hungarian Revolution in 1849. Otherwise what you mentioned, the 1849 Constitution was never valid in Hungary, since there was a Revolution at this time. After the Austrians regained power in Hungary with massive Russian help, Franz Joseph introduced neoabsolutism, the 1849 Constitution wasn't valid. Toroko (talk) 19:17, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

The Imperial proclamation of 1804 (see [2]) encompassed all (sämmtliche) territories under Habsburg's dominion (which includes Hungary). Since this proclamation was not meant to effect a change in the constitutional relationships of the kingdoms and states under Habsburgs rule but merely the assumption of the personal title Emperor (hence Kaisertum - emperordom - and not Kaiserreich - empire) it did not change Hungary's special status. Gugganij (talk) 20:52, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, can somebody, more erudite in this topic than me, correct the section "Status of Hungary"? As you can see, it was added by user:Balkony identified as a sock-puppet of user:Stubes99 who had a lot of other puppets, many of them indicating hungarian affiliations. So I guess, that this section, which effectively reverts the changes mentioned by user:Hebel on June 30, 2009, expresses some kind of nationalistic history-rewriting. Bohusz (talk) 13:55, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I think it's best to remove that section entirely. Hungary was up till 1867 one of the Crown lands of the Empire. That it had more autonomy than some of the others (until 1849) is not the point. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:02, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

I will make it so. I will also reintroduce the text I added back in 2009, with some modifications. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:17, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

User:KIENGIR Has reintroduced the section mentioned while there was consensus on this page and on others (notably the page Ausgleich) that the section was to be removed and that the argumentation in it is contradictive and can either not be found in the sources provided, or is about another period (1526-1804) than covered in this article. See also Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867), where the Laszlo source is being used to establish that the K.oH was part of the Empire (albeit with great autonomy on paper) in the years after 1804. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:10, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

I also note that in the past this content has been added and repeatedly re added by sockpuppets of Stubes99 [3], which worries me enough to invoke WP:deny if necessary. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:48, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, there is no consensus on this, the Laszlo source speaks tell only "formally", not legally. Every larned person knows Austria could not any any means put, occupy, attach etc. Hungary legally as part, simple crownland or similar to it's Empire, they hold only the crown and ever further step resulted in an uprising. You want to remove some content proving this! I will revert you edit and heavily patrol also the Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) article, if it is needed, we will take it to the ANI board and also include Wikiproject Hungary to the subject. It is very important since urban legends about "Hungary ceased to exist", "part of the Austrian Empire" made clear mistakes on more wiki pages and introduces a huge controversion. Anyway, I was the one who introduced to remove and correct those false contents in Wikipedia claiming and Austro-Hungarian citizenship, that never exsited (also such mistakes could happen because of such unclear and blurry infromation). Hungary was not just a "crownland with more autonomy", it was a separate state.(KIENGIR (talk) 22:05, 13 December 2015 (UTC))

We've heard all this before. I suppose you should learn what "foarmally" and "legally" mean. I revert because of the reasons stated above an on the talkpage of Ausgleich and deny access because the text you restore was originally introduced by sockpuppets. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:55, 13 December 2015 (UTC)

Your editing is highly dubious. The "Status of the Kingdom of Hungary" section is well sourced, all sources are academic. Jozsef Zachar is a well-known expert in the topic, you can't just remove his opinion from the article. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:20, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Note: An editor has expressed a concern that Fakirbakir (talk • contribs) has been canvassed to this discussion. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:28, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Nobody is denying what Zachar said. His findings (about the Emperor's declaration to the Hungarian diet) are still in the article, although the reference itself may not be. Laszlo says the same thing and that reference is presently in the article, quoting chapter and verse. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:32, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Your editing is called "vandalism". Fakirbakir (talk) 12:34, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Yeah, an editor told me that somebody has been doing outrageous editing recently. Vandalism is vandalism dear Hebel. Fakirbakir (talk) 12:35, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Moreover, dear Hebel, did you realize that the anon user is a banned sockpuppet-master? Fakirbakir (talk) 12:40, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I have semi-protected the article for one week per the request for page protection; however, I should also note that I have not seen any edits that I would class as vandalism (ie: deliberate and malicious attempts to make Wikipedia worse), and that Fakirbakir in particular is one edit away from violating the three revert rule, which can result in a block. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 12:41, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

I am going to revert the article back to the previous, stable version in a week, Ritchie333 you have no idea who is the anon user... Fakirbakir (talk) 12:45, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Just to be clear, nobody is saying that the Kingdom of Hungary ceased to exist as a state in 1804, or that it lost the autonomy that it previously had as a part of the Habsburg monarchy. Just that it became a part of the entity created in 1804 by Francis II/I. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 13:16, 14 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, I am a professional ragarding historical questions to know what is the difference between "formally" and "legally". Anyway, the one source you put all of your argumentation on, tells us about "assumption" and "formal" things, nothing legal. So I repeat, Hungary did no have "autonomy", it was a separate state, the only common was with the Austrian Empire's leader was also the King of Hungary. I really don't now on what reason a Nederlandish user wants to rewrite history in such a "near aggressive" manner. I checked the "Ausgleich" article, and I did not found any "consensus", you debated with someone, but you did not trial regarding this. You acts are heavily ad hoc and one-sided! The article not any means can remain like this!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:46, 14 December 2015 (UTC))

User:KIENGIR, any useful description of the situation after 1804 must a) acknowledge that as Laszlo writes: "In 1804 Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of the Empire of Austria." and must b) be not be contradictive in itself as the text you prompote is. A situation cannot be formally X and legally emphatically NOT X. That doesn't make sense. I also don't read 'well it really doesn't matter' when I read the word "formally" or as the Balkony text says "just formally" (note that Laszlo doesn't use "just"). That would go agaist the facts on the ground and against all generally accepted historiography. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:10, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, there are known "formalities" history, as also there are "assumptions" and there are a third category also: FACTS. Laszlo argumentated on a prespective on the Austrian Emperor's ASSUMPTION, and Laszlo speaks about FORMALITY. If author can seem contradictive, it is a thing, but the historical FACTS are different. So long such official and legal document/decision/historical evidence does not exist - a since more hundred years, Austrians and Hungarians does not know about this, and anyway, it is not in the ancient and blurry early ages - such an ad hoc interpretation of one source cannot change a recognized fact on such an important thing if a country is legal part of of an other country/entity, or it is legally separated. So please, accept his. I propose - because consensus is not a thing you remove a whole section that was there since a long time and you finish this important question with ca. 4 lines - let the status of the Kingdom of Hungary section there - where anyway your addition was added with little fixes, and if you want we can completely put Laszlo's interpretation on it. I think you should be satisfied on this and then you don't spare the reader of all important POW's as you wish him to know, but the legal status of Hungary is NOT negotiable in such terms!(KIENGIR (talk) 00:25, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

Your command of the English language is leaving you here. To assume the title of Emperor doesn't mean that he just assumes he's an Emperor. Also the talk page on Ausgleich gave a numerical consensus that's clear enough. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:36, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, we can debate on the command of English language regarding any parties, but I did not speak about if he assumes himself to be an Emperor, but on what is included in his Empire. Since he was the king of Hungary also, he could assume Hungary is also part of his Empire, but not any legal terms. I don't agree, I don't see any relevant consensus in the "Ausgleich" article with such a low number of participants. You should openly tell to the Wikipedia community, why you put so much struggle to be accepted something that is totally a legal nonsense and way of your speculation and ad hoc interpretation? So long you cannot present evidence with proof, this discussion has no ground to continue. My argumentation is totally factual with a clear and logic deduction, with a mathematical beauty. No violation of the laws in even "in my command of English languge"(KIENGIR (talk) 00:47, 15 December 2015 (UTC))

We work preferably with secondary sources on Wikipedia. Have you read what Laszlo wrote? He wrote: “In 1804 Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of the Empire of Austria”. This is the bottom line and this is what I'm on about on these pages. He says it rather well. It's good secondary source. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:50, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Sorry for my edit, I just see the problem now. This topic and several others are always invaded by Romanian and Hungarian sockpuppets (usually mostly User:Iaaasi and User:Stubes99, I know both of them). I hope we can reach a consensus because the debated section contains several citations - contrary to the rest of the article. --Norden1990 (talk) 02:08, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I have full-protected this article (and the related Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)) for 24 hours in the hope that we can come up with an obvious consensus, and dropped a note on WP:ANI for more experienced editors to come and have a look. I appreciate the contentious content is sourced; but for political / national history articles that generally isn't enough; we need to report what the most widely respected historians say. Ritchie333 ^(talk) ^(cont) 09:24, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

There is a debate about the same issue, here : Talk:Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867)#Austrian Empire 1804-1867 Fakirbakir (talk) 09:59, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

I'll probably be gone for most of the day but there is one thing. I've noticed that the term "autonomy" rubs the wrong way. After the words "including Hungary", we could include something like: "which retained considerable residual sovereign rights." Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:03, 15 December 2015 (UTC)

Hebel, don't play with us, I read eveything and you repeat everything like a robot without thinking! You cite the same sentence again and again, but it does not change the facts I told. What the Emperor assumed and any conlusion of the author's remark does not change history back in time, beucase before this source was even written, it is well-known Hungary was a Regnum Independens, a separate country. If we would rely only any secondary source, than Wikipedia would barely represent the facts, it would - as it is partly - the battleground of some lobby interest groups how to hunt a secondary source that is complying with Wikipedia rules. That's why with good faith those sources and references should be used, that mostly represent the historical facts and the truth. This should be ever editor's highly responsibility! Anyway the source you push heavily and you cite it in a twisted, improper way, and there are other valid sources totally proving the opposite! Your logic is the ignore everything, and change a country's history based on one blurry pharagraph were not even it is clearly stated what you want to take out from this. You have no source Hungary would be any legal means the part of the Austrian Empire, and that's all. Moreover, not just "autonomy" rubs in a wrong way, but also the "including Hungary", because you cannot state something on any "assumption", and also the "which retained considerable residual sovereign rights." is a deterioration of the fact that Hungary was a separate state. Everything should be removed from there, even the reference and just "the Austrian Empire was created" to leave. And to restore the status of Kingdom of Hungary section and there you can add anything more about "assumptions" and "formailities" and other considerations, next to the legal facts! Why are you so much interested on twisting Hungary's history?(KIENGIR (talk) 00:40, 16 December 2015 (UTC))

I proposed a concrete consensus, presented in the Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) article, talk section "Austrian Empire 1804-1867", where a solution is presented considering both articles. It is highly recommended to read that before any conversation ongoing here. Thanks (KIENGIR (talk) 02:23, 16 December 2015 (UTC))

Although I would indeed recommend reading it, the problems concerning the two articles are, although related, not the same and they should be solved separately. I would welcome ongoing conversation on both pages. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:32, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

To finish where I left off yesterday. My proposal would be:

After the words "including Hungary", add: "which retained considerable residual sovereign rights."

Change: “The Empire had a centralist structure, although Hungary enjoyed considerable autonomy which was ruled by its own Diet”

To: “The Empire had a centralist structure, although until 1849 Hungary retained considerable residual sovereign rights which were administered by its own Diet”. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 12:02, 16 December 2015 (UTC)

As per agreement, I will present here the proposal exclusively for this article, for the other already had been clarified as Hebel asked. Anyway I recommend everybody to read that conclusion in the Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1867 article/Austrian Empire 1804-1867 section, since the cause of mistake has been found, and I proved the validity of my argumentation within the corresponding source's flawless interpretation, as Hebel misinterpreted and assumed a chronology in the corresponding pharagraph by mistake! That is the root cause of debate also regarding this article!

So obviously your first proposal is denied, since since it is totally misleading the reader and tell us distracted information -> Hungary was still Regnum Independens, a separate country who's Kings is also the monarch, NOT just a "considerable residual sovereign rights", like real incorporated crownlands or similar. No "retain" if neither laws or constitution were affected.

Obviously for the same reason the second proposal has to be denied.

My proposal for consensus, fully complying with the sources, historical facts and also by the LASZLO source's flawless interpretation (Please note the citations for connotation reasons are ignored, only those sources are higlighted affecting the main change, on the rest the former sources are considered to have):

FOUNDATION section change to (initial sentence):

"The Austrian Empire was founded by the Habsburg monarch Holy Roman Emperor Francis II (who became Emperor Francis I of Austria), as a state comprising his personal lands within and outside of the Holy Roman Empire."

CREATION PERIOD section change to (from "The Empire had...until the end of the pharagraph):

- The Empire had a centralist structure, although Hungary's status was different like the other lands.

RESTORATION OF THE "STATUS OF KINGDOM OF HUNGARY SECTION" -> REVISED CONTENT (please note the initial pharagraph holds relevant changes, as per coherence the version introduced in the Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1867 article. Thus any repetitions of the affected late pharagraph's content has been removed. Moreover the Hungary related addition at the end of the Creation period pharagraph's end - which removal was demonstrated in the former point - was worked in this section at the end, following the chronological order, bugfixed)

"In 1804 the Austrian Empire was created. This Empire came to comprise all Habsburg lands ruled by Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of the Empire of Austria.[LASZLO SOURCE] After the cessation of the Holy Roman Empire (Kingdom of Hungary was not part of it) the new title of the Habsburg rulers (Emperor of Austria) did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary according to the Hungarian Diet and the proclamation of Francis I in a rescript[ZACHAR SOURCE] Hungary was regnum independens, a separate Land as Article X of 1790 stipulated, thus the country was part of the other Lands of the empire largely through the monarch. The Imperial matters - foreign policy, defense and state finance - were handled by the monarch as reservata exercised him as the King of Hungary.[LASZLO SOURCE]

According to the Constitutional law and public law, the Empire of Austria has never lawfully included the Kingdom of Hungary.

The administration and government of the Kingdom of Hungary were not united with the common administrative and governmental structure of the Austrian Empire. The central governmental structures remained well separated from the imperial government, and they were linked largerly by the person of the common monarch. The country was governed by the Council of Lieutenancy of Hungary (the Gubernium) - located in Pressburg and later in Pest - and by the Hungarian Royal Court Chancellery in Vienna

The Empire of Austria and Kingdom of Hungary have always maintained separate parliaments. Legally, except for the Pragmatic Sanction of 1713, common laws have never existed in the Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary.

The division was so marked between Austria and Hungary that there was no common citizenship: a person was either an Austrian or a Hungarian citizen, and no one was allowed to hold dual citizenship The difference in citizenship also meant that there were always separate Austrian and Hungarian passports, never a common one.

From 1527 (the creation of the monarchic personal union) to 1851 the Kingdom of Hungary maintained its own customs borders which separated her from the other parts of the Habsburg-ruled territories.

After the failed revolution of 1848 / 1849, the Kingdom of Hungary formally lost much of its separate institutions, that it had kept after the proclamation of the Austrian Empire in 1804. Much controversy ensued, including Hungarian efforts to obtain constitutional reform by declining to crown the new Emperor Francis Joseph as King of Hungary. After Austria was defeated in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, and left the German Confederation, the Austrian Empire joined with Hungary, to form Austria-Hungary by the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, which granted Hungary and the Hungarian lands equal status to the Austrian Empire."

This is the most proper, historically accurate, flawless interpretation of everything.(KIENGIR (talk) 02:19, 17 December 2015 (UTC))

This is confusing text, badly written and stuffed with OR an unnecessary editorialising. The order of Laszlo's text has been reversed to make a point that is for now also clearly OR. It’s also still contradictory. The sentence: “This Empire came to comprise all Habsburg lands ruled by Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of the Empire of Austria” can obviously not be in the same article that also includes the sentence: “According to the Constitutional law and public law, the Empire of Austria has never lawfully included the Kingdom of Hungary”. A sentence that is by the way, unadulterated OR and wishful interpretation that is not unambiguously part of the quoted text. This is just playing with language to make wishful thinking a reality. I’m going to read up again in Laszlo and other works and will be back, but this is obviously not a solution. We also do not need a wall of text to describe something that can be laid out in three of four sentences. I will once again see what can be changed and come up with text that is based on the sources without trying to interpret or second guess said sources or making assumptions without knowledge. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 03:02, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

I would like to propose these changes to the present text:

Under the heading Foundation:

"The Austrian Empire was founded by the Habsburg monarch Holy Roman Emperor Francis II (who became Emperor Francis I of Austria), as a state in which the lands he ruled within and outside of the Holy Roman Empire were all included but did not lose their status and existence. This included Hungary which became part of the Empire, although it did not affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary, which in Art. X declared that Hungary was a separate land, ruled by it's own Constitution."

And then follows the Lsazlo reference

And in the section Creation Period:

"The Empire had a centralist structure, although until 1849 Hungary retained considerable sovereign rights which were administered by its own Diet."

This would include Art. X without being accompanied by interpretative discourse and OR. Also we should avoid using text that is derived from the source verbatim. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 08:17, 17 December 2015 (UTC)

First I will react to your answer. I do not agree, the text has no confusion, it is not badly written and it does not have any unnecessary editorialising. The "reversal" of Laszlo text has only formal reason, because the story start with the creation of the Austrian Empire, and only after we clarify the total situation. It was Laszlo's personal choice to start with the post perspectives and after only refer to the beginning!

Of course the referred two sentences can be even in the same pharagraph, since formal inclusion never meant legal/lawful inclusion! Sorry, as I still experience on the other article, you are playing with words and you want to hinder Hungary's legal status and shorten and get rid of all important imformation that helps the average reader not to be confused! The quoted text is NOT a "wishful thinking", this was the legal de jure situation! I feel your "wishful thinking" is to incorporate Hungary to the Austrian Empire but you still did not told why is it so important for you since it not corresponding nor the historical facts, nor any de jure situation! I still disagree about shortening, let the reader have full information, if we have more source, we have to add them, not removing them, this is against the good faith objectivity! You made assumptions without clear knowledge by misinterpreting a source!

What you propose for the foundation is again TOTALLY INACCEPTABLE!

- the first sentence immediately starting with a horrible confusion, since if a new state were created and all lands were included as you write, then it is impossible that all land would keep it's status, since then Hungary would not been a separate state, Regnum Independens!!!

- the second sentence makes broader this heavy mistake, since you again spare the most inportant thing, the FORMAL inclusion of Hungary, that's why only FORMAL inclusion was possible since LEGALLY it was a Regnum Independens, a separate state!

- Please note again, in this case, state inside state is NOT existing, or country in a country! Regarding this situation - unlike some Anglo-Saxon models - state = country! There was the Austrian Empire as a state/country which included legally Austria and other crownlands, and there was a another state/country - Kingdom of Hungary - that had a common ruler, as the Emperor ruled the Austrian Empire and at the same time he was the King of Hungary! How many times should I explain to understand this?? This is the reason - as an ASSUMPTION or a way of speech - of Hungary strictly FORMAL inclusion, since the Emperor of Austria also is the King of Hungary! In 1867, Austria-Hungary was a closer step, but still in was a joint union of two separate states, i.e. there were the common ruler, some joint institutions, but the two countries remained inside separate == outside to the rest of the world the appared as Austria-Hungary, immediately even entering the i.e. embassy people had to chose they deal with Austria or Hungary! Moreover please note, since the two countries had always a different citizenship, never a common one - as a PROOF again being separate countries - this also excludes that Hungary would any mean member of an other state/country, although without this information it is also obvious - unfortunately not for you...

- The text you proposed in the creation period is also heavily inacceptable, since not just "retained considerable sovereign rights" but it was a SEPARATE COUNTRY.

The Regnum Independens cannot be misunderstood, since if it's INDEPENDENT, it cannot be a member of any other state/country! The own pharapraph for the "Status of Kingdom of Hungary" cannot be spared by any means, since this pharagraph is meant to explain why is only an assumed formal membership, a not a DE JURE, LAWFUL, LEGAL ONE!

You cannot force or hinder this information into dubious and shortened sentences where all that really matters is hindered! My proposal remains, as it was, since it put's the source you are referring all the time, with the correspondent sentence you want to turn out from it's real meaning, uncut, so you have no reason to complain! We let the assumptions and formalities also to be represented, by the de jure, legal manners cannot be overriden, just because it is long and complicated, how many similar situation in history was, it deserves an own section! Croatia also was never part of Kingdom of Hungary, regardless this from of speech is refernced or used, or even Croatia is not shown in old maps, although only it was a personal union, almost totally equal situation like before or after 1804 regarding Austria and Hungary! Also When the Hungarian King became the King of Poland, it did not mean that the two states/lands became part of the "Anjou-Empire". Also when Habsburg Albert became the King of Hungary - 1438 - Hungary did not became the member of any Habsburg Empire, the ignorant urban legends are developed only after the Hungary was teared apart to three parts....It is impossible me to believe you still would not understand! Please, do not attempt to falsify Hungary's history! The fact you achieved a consensus earlier - Jesus, where the hell I was, I never thought such can happen to hinder and change the most important information - was also the mistake and ignorance of other's who agreed, anyway this is already abolished! Please try to accept legal terms, and there is not any contradiction! That's why also LASZLO is using the world "formal"! If it would be as you say, the Austrian history would have advertised this happening happily that after more hundred years the finally succeeded legally to incorporate Hungary to their Empire, at the same time the Hungarian history would emphasize this day as one of the greatest turning points of history since after 804 years, they legally independent kingdom, country and statehood would be first broken to exist! And please do not repeat again and play with the word land/state or similar, since your proposals make to appear Hungary as a simple incorporated crownland like Bohemia or Galica and Lodomeria, the difference is you "allow" us a little more rights with constution and diet...like a simple province! Historically inaccurate, false and inacceptable! Against all that Wikipedia should meant to be with good faith!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:00, 18 December 2015 (UTC))

On Wikipedia we follow what the sources say, but we don’t get to add interpretations about what that means or doesn’t mean if the source doesn’t clearly and literally lead us there. Now, the texts you have been proposing are mostly verbatim out of the source. Which is also a problem, because I don’t think we’re supposed to do that for reasons that pertain to copyright and stuff like that. I had included in my proposal, text about Art. X pertaining to the situation after 1804, since it was clearly still on the books. We do not get to decide what that text means however. Not versus the Anglo-Saxon or whatever other models, since Laszlo doesn’t speak about it clearly and literally. We get to read the text and get to conclude that Laszlo clearly and literally includes the Kingdom of Hungary in the Austrian Imperial State. He also clearly and literally states that this didn’t affect the Hungarian constitution and laws. He described what’s in there in an earlier paragraph and that’s added as well and then we as editors are done! Especially in somewhat ambiguous situations. Also this article is not about the Constitution. We don’t need language about the reserve rights of the King. And we don’t need language about the HRE. They’re beside the point (unless it’s somehow a point we’re not supposed to make, but I really have no idea why you would want that in there) Your remarks about Formally and Assumption are honestly beyond my grasp. Also beyond my grasp is how a sentence like "formal inclusion never meant legal/lawful inclusion" makes any sense whatsoever. How can something be formal if it's not legal? And in that light, again, we don't get to interpret what the wider consequences of Art. X's contents are. We're editors, not lawyers. We just get to describe what actually happened if the sources lead us there, but we are not judges about the question whether what actually happened is against some law or not. Further I object to adding “formally” to the article text for other reasons, because (as the recent history of this article has shown) it’s ambiguous even in Laszlo’s text. According to you (if I interpret you right) it means that the whole thing was 'just' a formality. (And I say it again, even then a formality cannot be formal unless it's legal). I think he could very well have meant that the already existing facts on the ground (Habsburg Monarchy as it was until 1804) was now also formalized by the erection of new institutions, but he doesn't say one way or the other, so we don't get to judge that. Remember how someone made that "only formally"? Better left out then. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 05:10, 18 December 2015 (UTC)

I think, in Wikipedia we cannot be robots and just copy-pasting from a source, we are more than machines, we have to interpret, summarize, deduct and have coherence. You were told pretty much good examples when if you'd just copy paste from the sources, INVALID information would be presented in the page, but here you even want to spare the most important word that is in the original source, "FORMALLY" that is the key!!!

You tell in one sentence what is "clearly still on the books". We do not get to decide what that text means however.", a bit later you make your conclusion from the written text....Don't you feel you are contradicting yourself? Laszlo clearly tell's us about the situation!

Your conclusion is wrong since Laszlo clearly and literally tell us the Austrian Imperial State DOES NOT and CAN NOT include Kingdom of Hungary LEGALLY, since no laws changed and the Regnum Independes - separate country article also remained in action, moreover it is stated by the Diet nothing changed, just the monarch/King remained the same of both countries, thus he used the world "FORMALLY" = IN A SYMBOLIC WAY, because this is the appearance, there is one boss he rules what he has....but still he has two different titles, if it would be as you conclude, the King of Hungary title would not exist anymore, because the Emperor of Austria would be enough! Anyway, with a jurisdictional and mathematical precisity I proved you wrong, more times, with an undebatable right logic that you not any case want to accept and this is very disturbing, since Wikipedia cannot be a false propaganda site. And every exprienced, well-educated person knows clearly what means "formally" in any context, regarding which language you use. It NEVER meant legal or lawful in such context, where the LEGAL TERMS ARE REASSURED OFFICIALLY TO REMAIN IN ACTION THE SAME SOURCE YOU ARE REFERRING, THUS FORMALLY IN THIS CONTEXT CAN NEVER MEAN LEGALLY BECAUSE IF IT WOULD BE LIKE SO LASZLO WOULD NOT NEED TO USE THIS EXPRESSION THAT IS REALLY AN "EUPHEMISM". Laszlo is not stupid, clearly refers on the Austrian desires that never came to reality! There is not any serious event or historical things were "formally" would mean something legal or lawful. Facts are facts. When in 1944 German occupied Hungary, you could say the Germans ruled formally, but legally not, since admiral Horthy's signature and the government official operation was needed i.e. to appoint Szálasi, and Hungary officially/legally still remained a separate, sovereign country. Not any historical context such thing can be misunderstood, since always that counts that is official! It is such an evidential thing, like in Wikipedia you do no reference that "the sun is shining". What is legal or lawful, that is the fact, the official, and that's that. Formailites are other concepts, but interesting additions to discuss.

So not any means I can agree about leaving out "formally" and I explained and proved so many times, as also in this recent asnwer. That is the catch, and if any legal inclusion would occur, neither the Austrian, nor the Hungarian history writing would silence about it, and we would have also a contemporary originals source. I do not explain again why formally cannot mean legally, since I proved it in this case regarding all facts, variables, etc. Similar to a conrete mathematics equation-solution, that uses that clear and fair logic every intelligent person understand, regardless they are lawyers or not. I think you also understand for sure, but for a reason it is very important for you incorporate Hungary into Austria thas was never the case, you want to hinder even the most important word and all other sources that prove the same. If no laws or any change were affected - CLEARLY WRITTEN THEN Regnum Independens - separate country is still valid - AND it is CLEARLY WRITTEN the new title did not change the relation THEN the common monarch (that you also don't like and treat like an "euphemism") is the relation between them AS IT WAS. -> HUNGARY LAWFULLY/LEGALLY remained a separate state as it was! CLEAR, like the sun is shining. Moreover, since 2011, when Laszlo wrote his book or before even Wikipedia came to exist, we know the Habsburgs/Austrian could never legally incporporate Hungary to their empire, since all original and contemporary documents are researchable! We also know, the average, not-expert public knowledge or opinion is SUPERFICIAL, so the primitive conclusion also for earlier times the "Habsburg Lands" or similar would be a super-state or a common country where the King/Emperor is the boss...they do not care on legalties, and that's why such clear mistakes arisen in Wikipedia even from learned persons that "Austro-Hungarian citizenship" -> NEVER EXISTED, Michael the Brave united the the three principalities -> NEVER EXISTED, but the latter is so much mistaken that the majority of sources contain this information and in spread all over the world in the secondary sources by a nationalistic view's by production in the 19th-20th century. Although there are original documents, even more other sources/evidence it cannot be true, even we have original native sources by high level historians who clearly tell us the truth, despite this mistake happened. That's why we are more than robot-editors, and we idetify such infromation that is VALID, TRUTHFUL and COHERENT. The GOOD FAITH behavior by editing is an essential expectation in Wikipedia. Thus "formally" cannot be ignored, because then a clearly false and fake information would be highlighted, and there is a great responsibility since Wikipedia is the 5th(?) more viewed site by the humanity! We are responsible for valid and truthful content, if this is not the goal, then everything is lost!

Please mind this, since our debate will be never ending, since I proved the point by all manners (logic,validity,legalty,lawfullness,Wikipedia goals and good faith over simple rules), but still try to debate those things that cannot be debated.

"An average passenger car uses formally 5 wheels for proper operation, but 4 is legally used as they are designed"

"The Austrian Emperor holds also the title of King of Hungary, so FORMALLY the Austrian Emperor rules also Hungary, but LEGALLY the Hungarian King rules Hungary - it's an interesting thing, happened many times in history. NO CONTRADICTION IN THIS CONTEXT! That's why Laszlo used the word "formally", since he could not use "legally"!

"Edmund Veesenmayer by the occupying German army formally ruled Hungary in 1944, but legally still Admiral Horthy remained the Governor of Hungary and his command and signature represented the legal terms since Hungary's independent state status did not change"

The word/expression "formally" could have several meaning is different contexts, it's better near to de facto than de jure! In history, de jure counts!

Hebel, since a long while nobody had real problems of the original content, you had your interpretation, you reached a consensus in the absence of experts, it could never happen otherwise, and just because some sockpuppets reinstated the old content, now we are where we are! Please do not make a personal "ego" or similar in this case. You had an interpreation you believed to be valid, but it is not in the case. You think I do not seek consensus? That's why I agreed to spare (..."through the common monarch"...) just for your personal wish! But the rest for obvoius reasons we cannot, becase it would not be fair, valid, without contradiction!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:53, 19 December 2015 (UTC))

I paste my reaction I gave earlier on the Kingdom of Hungary (1526–1867) here as well.

Again, if a source clearly states something to be the case, we don’t get to rationalise, with legalistic arguments and opinions or otherwise, about how it wouldn’t be. If Laszlo says the K. of Hungary was included in the structure of the Empire of Austria, which is clearly his conclusion, then that’s it. Of course Wikipedia isn’t written by robots, but in matters that are particularly contentious we tread with extreme care and follow the guidelines that are laid out. We don’t get to judge what Laszlo means when he uses the term “formal”. You talk about the “primitive conclusion also for earlier times the "Habsburg Lands" or similar would be a super-state or a common country where the King/Emperor is the boss...they do not care on legalties.” Well, facts on the ground are that in the pre and post 1804 situation the King Emperor for the most part was the boss, and had very different feelings about the consequences of the legalities than some of his subjects had. You yourself mentioned an “Anglo-Saxon model” of interpreting what’s going on in this situation, thereby implying that different thought about the consequences of the legalities is at least possible. That you or I may not agree with this or that interpretation is another matter altogether, but then we tread into the murky realm of OR, so that’s better left at home. Especially in a case like this. Laszlo speaks of art. X but he doesn’t anywhere clearly and literally conclude that therefore Hungary wasn’t included in the Imperial state of 1804. Any rationalisations from our part about how that must be so, doesn’t make it so and doesn’t stand up to scrutiny if we would argue that Laszlo clearly and literally does. To answer your final question; No I don’t agree with your text. If you want you’re welcome to try again and I will read it and comment but quite frankly I don’t think we’re getting anywhere. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:12, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

One more thing. About the word formal(ly) and it’s meaning in this context. I have been looking for a bit and found equivalents pertaining to law situations like : accepted, affected, approved, ceremonial, confirmed, fixed, and some other. I also found that “while formally X, in practice other stuff also happens” is a way to use that word. I didn’t find any meaning of the word that meant “not really so”, which is basically what KIENGIR seems to want it to mean. I’ve already explained why I don’t like the term in this context, but I also think we’re not at power to use the word “formally” in the Hungarian situation and leave it out in, let’s say, the Bohemian one. I also wonder how art. X prevented Hungary from being a participant in the Imperial State, while it was apparently no impediment to becoming a part of a Real Union (Austro-Hungarian Monarchy) with Austria.Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:40, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

No Hebel that was never Laszlo's conclusion, it's conclusion is strictly formal membership on the Emperor's assumption that has no legal ground! And regardless of Wikipedia guidelines, well-known fact cannot be corrupted in such a manner, i.e. if I have a source, I cannot highlight that i.e. "Netherlands became the part of Mars" or "after this wonderful match formally Ruud Van Nistelrooy became the Emperor of Netherlands", and after spare "formally"...you even want to corrupt the original source! It is clear in Laszlo's conclusion since no laws changed or were affected, Hungary remained a separate country as it was! I do not have to try again anything, since all the time, nevertheless more times I proved you clearly wrong!

No, you turn everything from your viewpoint, it is obvious what means formally, but as I see since 2009 your goal is coup these articles with your claim. You are the only one who sees formally different as it is obvius I proved also why. Also in Hungarian, or a Hungarian author written in English there is no doubt of the meaning of the word. It's not about liking or not liking, for this I already agreed to leave "through the common monarch", you want to corrupt the original source and distort it! Jesus Christ, Bohemia was incorporated as a cronwland in the Austrian Empire, legally! How to mix this case here? Seems you read but you do not want to get, that is obvious for everybody, how many times I explained, it's impossible still not understanding the case! I explained also more times Austria-Hungary, but you still do not get that also by Austria-Hungary Hungary still remained a separate state as before always! As also Austria was a separate state, with his own citizenship, Diet, laws, constitution, etc. Nothing common between them! Only the Kaiser und König are the same, there are some joint ministries, but that's all, officially they are Austria-Hungary, a union of two states by the Emperor brought on more ties as before, but still remaining separate states. The difference was the Austrians allegedly regarded Hungarians as equal part with lawful joint personal union where the two countries remained separate. So article X was not harmed. The only plus was some joint ministries for international affairs. That's why there was never an Austro-Hungarian citizenship, and never even a dual citizenship between the two countries. It was not a union like West-Germany or East-Germany to join in in one country, but the two countries formed an union where they act together for international affairs but still they remain separate. Croatia or Hungary had also never common citizenship, two separate countries on personal union! It is useless to continue since everything is crystal clear, but for a reason you pretend not to understand, and I am very much sorry for that. Let's wait for what user:Fakirbakir has to say, as you said a few days earlier, and after we will go on!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:58, 20 December 2015 (UTC))

The interpretative legalistic approach won’t make miracles either. You can’t put history on trial to make sure that, in hindsight, it never really happened. Were Austria and Hungary fully sovereign when they had a joint foreign and defence policy and departments? Well. Hungary joined Austria-Hungary of it's own free will but it didn't launch protests in 1804 either. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 04:51, 20 December 2015 (UTC)

What is sure in history, the contemporary documents, and the lawful ang legal matters and affairs. This should be highlighted at once, after other approches "de facto" or "formally" can be put. Only that is official, counts at the first place, but I am tired to repeat. If you raise the question like so, I could ask also, is any NATO member country sovereign fully? Or EU member? The independent state status is ceased then? No. In 1804 no protest were made, but only because article X remained in action as all legal matters. 1867 was a deal. Hungary and Asutria remained separate states, but they tied relations with joint institutions, moreover they had the common Kaiser/König. Regardless there are repetitions, just to be fair I ask again if user:Fakirbakir has a special opinion that would differ from that one he just posted on the other page?(KIENGIR (talk) 23:37, 20 December 2015 (UTC))

What's the difference between the pre-1867 and the post-1867 status of the K. of Hungary? According to the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 article:

"The Compromise re-established partially the sovereignty of the Kingdom of Hungary, separate from, and no longer subject to the Austrian Empire. Under the Compromise, the lands of the House of Habsburg were reorganized as a real union between the Austrian Empire and the Kingdom of Hungary. The Cisleithanian (Austrian) and Transleithanian (Hungarian) regions of the state were governed by separate parliaments and prime ministers. Unity was maintained through rule of a single head of state, reigning as both the Emperor of Austria and King of Hungary, and common monarchy-wide ministries of foreign affairs, defence and finance under his direct authority. The armed forces were combined with the Emperor-King as commander-in-chief."

What had Hungary gained through this Compromise? 95.141.32.160 (talk) 09:50, 21 December 2015 (UTC)

I found an interesting material referring to the status of Hungary in that times. I recomend you to read these chapters:

Hi, now the subject is the pre and post 1804 affiliations, although thanks for the sources, it may contain also useful imformation regarding that! On the second pharagraph, you cite an unreferenced content, but "being the subject to" can be interpreted in many ways, not harming any argumentation. I agree with rendered "real union", that was an alleged one in contrast to just owning the Hungarian Crown, from a personal union with many disputes.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:35, 22 December 2015 (UTC))

After some thinking I would like to make one more proposal. First for this article:

Under the heading Foundation:

"The Empire of Austria was founded by the Habsburg monarch Holy Roman Emperor Francis II (who became Emperor Francis I of Austria), as a state in which the lands he ruled within and outside of the Holy Roman Empire were officially all included, but did not lose their former status and existence. For Hungary this meant that it formally became part of an overarching Empire of Austria, but that this did not affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary, which in Art. X declared that Hungary was a separate land, ruled by it's own King and Constitution. The institutions of the Empire were therefore not involved in determining Hungarian matters until 1849."

And then follows the Lsazlo reference

And in the section Creation Period:

"The Empire had a centralist structure, although until 1849 Hungary retained full control over it’s own matters which were administered by its King and Diet."

We could later add some clarifying text about what the nature of the Empire exactly was.

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 06:56, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Thank you 95.141.32.16 for letting us see this very interesting material. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 07:36, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

It is an interesting text indeed, User:Hebel. In the statement of Emperor Francis Joseph it is declared that "the assertion that the relation between Our Kingdom of Hungary and Our other Provinces is only a simple Personal Union is clearly contradicted by the political position of Hungary developed by the Laws and by the events of her history". So the Emperor denies that Hungary is related to the other provinces only by " a simple Personal Union". 95.141.47.70 (talk) 09:04, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Yes indeed 95.141.47.70. It's a rather insightful image of what was going on and how Art X. pertains to that I think. We are of course dealing with the development from a personal union to a composite monarchy to a situation where an official overarching structure was formed (The Empire of Austria), although the workings of that structure at first did not differ all that much from the former 'informal' composite monarchy, but in name. It basically put a formal face on the composite monarchy of before 1804. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:14, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

I have a question from User:KIENGIR: according to your text, "The administration and government of the Kingdom of Hungary were not united with the common administrative and governmental structure of the Austrian Empire.". I checked the List of Prime Ministers of Hungary and doesn't Hungary seem to have had any Prime Minister in that times. Are you sure that Hungary really had a government before 1867? 95.141.36.119 (talk) 08:24, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

Basically, in the period between 1849 and 1867, Hungarian self rule and it's constitution were wholly or partially abolished. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:03, 22 December 2015 (UTC)

First answer to Hebel:

The proposal is denied, becuase:

-you call the Austrian Empire as "state", that is inproper (I explained many times)

-"were officially all included" -> not true Hungary was not officially/legally included, just formally <-> "but did not lose their former status and existence" CONTRADICTION, IMPOSSIBLE! Regnum Independens, separate state or not separate state! Please note the Emperor may have assumptions and they advertised Hungary as a member, but it had no legal support!

Hebel, please note I treat this like playing with words....please mind me or user:Fakirbakir may have around 130 IQ or more, we are not easy or cheap propagandists, I asked also an involvement of an editor with PhD degree who dealt with many Hungary related article, but unfortunately he seems inactive a while. Anyway as I see, you continue to edit the page, although Me or Fakirbakir did not made any change since the administartor's involvement, it's a matter you revert new edits or make some changes not directly related to the current debate, but better a deal should made and after final version introduced since the form now the page has cannot remain, better to edit later the final form.

Answer to 95.141.47.70:

I can cite also from the source very interesting details such as:

Section 18 I offer to read - please note the Pragmatica Sanction was only valid for Hungary, because the Hungarian Diet accepted it by it's OWN WILL and at the same time he asked again to to be declared and guaranteed the the same right's and status'quo AS BEFORE. So it was not a thing Austria/Habsburg put on force all lands they ruled! An important qutoe: ""Of a closer bond, of a real union, there is not the slightest trace to be found in our laws ; nay the Acts above mentioned establish beyond a doubt not only between us and them a real union never existed, but that Hungary never had the intention of bringing such union about."

Or 19: "If we take into consideration the political relations of Hungary and the Hereditary States the same conclusion necessarily follows."

21: "This very essential difference constitutes a striking proof of the assertion that between Hungary and the Hereditary States no real Union has ever existed."

Or 22...

24: "Later, at the fall of the Romano-Germanic Empire, Francis I. asumed the hereditary title of Emperor of Austria; but in his Manifesto of the 17th of August of the year he gave Hungary solemn assurance that he had not the slightest intention of curtailing her rights, laws, and Constitution by the adoption of his title, but that the political situation of Hungary should remain precisely as before."

It is crystal clear...it is a thing what is Francis Joseph's personal opinion or assumption of any "Francis", legal term matters at first after, every theories, views may be represented!

The direct answer to your question: I did not state such a thing that Hungary had a government/prime minister or not. These institutions are newer forms of rule introduced different times in many countries. You could ask also if i.e. in the 14th century would Hungary have a prime or not, not this will decide this debate. In some countries there were only one ruler with full power, but it still would not mean ceasing an independent state in legal matters.(KIENGIR (talk) 01:20, 23 December 2015 (UTC))

User:KIENGIR, you write: "CONTRADICTION, IMPOSSIBLE! Regnum Independens, separate state or not separate state! Please note the Emperor may have assumptions and they advertised Hungary as a member, but it had no legal support!" This is not a puzzle or a syllogism. We do not get to judge the consistency. If the sources say that Hungary is a part of the Empire, we don't get to interpret laws about how that would not be so. Not even with PhD's, masters degrees and what have you. That is WP:SYNTH and WP:OR. The thing is KIENGIR, matters like this are, just like the world we live in, seldom wholly consistent. There will always be contradictive elements, and history / historiography provides us with an outcome including generally accepted interpretation of the legal matters involved (when necessary) does the rest. We do not make these interpretations ourselves. You don't seem to understand that. What you also don't seem to understand is that generally accepted historiography is not on your side in this matter. Which is a pity because the text could use at least some improvement.

For instance:

Franz Zeilner, Verfassung, Verfassungsrecht und Lehre des Öffentlichen Rechts in Österreich bis 1848: Eine Darstellung der materiellen und formellen Verfassungssituation und der Lehre des öffentlichen Rechts, Lang, Frankfurt am Main [u. a.] 2008, ISBN 978-3-631-57765-3 p.45

"Grundlegendes

Vor dem Jahr 1848 is das Kaisertum Österreich verfassungsrechtlich als ein monarchischer Einheitsstaat auf differenziert föderalistischer Grundlage zu sehen, wobei die besondere Stelung Ungarns im Rahmen dieses Gesamtstaates stets offenkundig war. Eine weitere Differenzierung der föderalistischen Grundlage erfolgte ab 1815 durch die Zugehörigkeit eines teiles des Kaisertums zum Deutschen Bund."

Also, open ANY historical atlas with maps from the period and you can clearly see where historiography leads us.

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:04, 23 December 2015 (UTC)

Liebsten Herr Hebel!

Erstmal, Ich wünsche Dir Frohe Weihnachten! Ich muss Dir ganz ehrlich sagen:

You have right on many things what you say, but some legal terms or affiliations are UNDEBATED. I understand everything that's why our POW does not struggle to hide the "formal membership of the Austrian Empire" or whatsoever, and also there is no debate about what the historical atlases contain! Also it is well known how this relationship is treated! Ok, you have a source, so what we have to do? We add more sources, and you do not want to hide the important content of them in a one sided way! Accept my proposal presented, it has no contradiction and does hide the important content of the sources. After you can add this German text and after we can add the Hungarian interpretation and viewpoint, so the reader have all information! I just repeat and detail the most important things:

1. Foundation: "The Austrian Empire was founded by the Habsburg monarch Holy Roman Emperor Francis II (who became Emperor Francis I of Austria), as a state comprising his personal lands within and outside of the Holy Roman Empire." -> No contradiction

2. Creation period: "The Empire had a centralist structure, although Hungary's status was different like the other lands." -> no contradiction

3. In the restored Status of the Kingdom of Hungary section:

In 1804 the Austrian Empire was created. This Empire came to comprise all Habsburg lands ruled by Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor. Emperor Franz assumed the title of Emperor of Austria for all the Erblande of the dynasty and for the other Lands, including Hungary. Thus Hungary formally became part of the Empire of Austria.(LASZLO) After the cessation of the Holy Roman Empire (Kingdom of Hungary was not part of it) the new title of the Habsburg rulers (Emperor of Austria) did not in any sense affect the laws and the constitution of Hungary according to the Hungarian Diet and the proclamation of Francis I in a rescript(ZACHAR) Hungary was regnum independens, a separate Land as Article X of 1790 stipulated. The Imperial matters - foreign policy, defense and state finance - were handled by the monarch as reservata exercised him as the King of Hungary.(LASZLO)

The Empire was not a unified state but a monarchic union of Lands in which the ország (= Kingdom of Hungary) was part of the empire but also separate from it(LASZLO). Before 1848, the Empire of Austria is constitutionally seen as a monarchic unitary state on a federally differentiated basis, the special status of Hungary has always been obvious.(GERMAN SOURCE)

This dual prepective was a permanent source of debate between the Austrian Empire and Hungary, a few examples of special status opposing to other cronwlands:

According to the Constitutional law and public law....(FROM HERE TO THE END ALL THE SAME)

After the failed revolution of 1848 / 1849, the Kingdom of Hungary formally lost much of its separate institutions, that it had kept after the proclamation of the Austrian Empire in 1804. Much controversy ensued, including Hungarian efforts to obtain constitutional reform by declining to crown the new Emperor Francis Joseph as King of Hungary. After Austria was defeated in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, and left the German Confederation, the Austrian Empire joined with Hungary, to form Austria-Hungary by the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, which granted Hungary and the Hungarian lands equal status to the Austrian Empire.

Can you accept this?? This is the most professional and flawless demonstration!(KIENGIR (talk) 01:57, 24 December 2015 (UTC))

I think it has been perfectly clear al along from the history of this dispute that text from the former "Status of Hungary" section, even as it stands now, cannot be reintroduced into the article because it explicitly contradicts the other text based on secondary sourced material, and I'm surprised it has been reintroduced in your proposals. We cannot let the article say that Hungary was included in the Empire and then one paragraph further that somehow it wasn't. Certainly not on the basis of a primary source that is basically unverifiable. Also mind WP:COPYVIO, although that can be fixed more easily.

2. "different like the other lands". That's slightly awkward English.

3. The first paragraph under 3 is too WP:COPYVIO and also contains some elements that were pre 1804.

and the second paragraph under 3 (at least the Laszlo part) is too interpretative, which is basically OR. The second half is WP:COPYVIO if I'm not mistaken.

Happy Christmas all!Gerard von Hebel (talk) 08:42, 24 December 2015 (UTC)

No, the status of the Kingdom of Hungary section does not contradict anything I am sorry you still do not understand and I am very much surprised about this...improve your logical approach and education on advanced logics, satisfiability, etc. in an acedemic level. Those are facts, and does not conradict anything, becuase of them was Hungary's status different like other crownlands of the Austrian Empire. It does not contradict also any formal membership. The inference goes on Austrian POW and declaration -> unharmed legal status, Kings rights -> The Austrian Empire's sturcture's observation in the special scope of Hungary -> Dual perpective -> Details why Hungary's status was different unlike the former incorporated crownland's status. -> after in chronology the evolvation to 1849.

You wan't to desperately to remove the details, you invent any rule the cease them, and this desperation is very suspicious, does not show a real aim for consensus. Primary sources are not unverifiable. Lawful inclusion would be if article X would be ceased. There are/were many similar situation in world history, then in i.e. in a Taiwan article we cannot mention the China officially does not recognize the separation, so it cannot be lawful? And at the same time many country recognize Taiwan as a separate state? It is not the best example, but there are plenty, like territorial arragements in WW2 where not the both sides recognized something, and clearly we can state what was lawful to be regarded from which direction, even if they are contradictive, but we have a clear sight on de facto and de jure or more overlapping. These interesting and important details, the versatility you want to be hindered for an unkown, suspicious reason! Similar issues could be told also i.e. on the Israel-Palestine conflict, or he Kuril-islands dispute between Russia and Japan. Not ever in Wikipedia may be possible just to show one POW it it's not totally lawful or despite there are still valid lawful affiliations that even make a little bit special and contradictive the situation! The reader has to have all important information for a clear evaluation!

2. Ok, then let's say: "....Hungary's status was special compared to other crownlands." It is good enough (in English)?

3/1. Don't joke with me, if we do not cite clearly, everything has an altered meaning, but if you cite leaving out definitve and important words, it is not anymore copyvio? :)) If we may not cite clearly just even one sentence, Wikipedia would fall, since many cases we cannot finish it with just a few words, in many articles entire sections are cited to represent colorful and important situations. May I have your sorry, it would be very childish and unprofessional to reference on this to support unacceptable alteration of the original meaning! What is before 1804? I don't see anything...

3/2. if it is too interpretative, the let's shorten it like so: "The Empire was not a unified state but a monarchic union of Lands"(LASZLO) and after the German quotation, I don't see any copyvio also here!(KIENGIR (talk) 02:02, 25 December 2015 (UTC))

There are basically four things bothering me about this question

a)That words like “formally”, “lawful” and “legal” are used in a way that strangely indicate things that are not in the dictionaries for them.

b)That, as a consequence of a) the article, according to USER:KIENGIR is supposed to say in one paragraph that Hungary is a part of the Empire of Austria (as the sources indeed clearly indicate), while some paragraphs later the exact opposite is stated. Which is inconsistent and OR, because it is based on editor interpretation of legal text

c)That some sourced text for the situation describing the composite monarchy (pre 1804), keeps cropping up in descriptions of the post 1804 situation.

d)Copyvio issues.

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:21, 26 December 2015 (UTC)

a) No way, everything is clearly explained in the talk pages

b) No way, this has been many times clarified, only you are the one who does not understand, how dare you to mislead Katie? I never said "Hungary is part of Empire of Austria" (as the sources clearly indicate it is just a formal membership by assumption), in other pharagraphs the lawful affiliations are mentioned, later the details while Hungary's famous status was different like other Crownland's. It is not inconsistent, not more than 90 IQ is enough to understand my professional coherent argumentation. It is based on the source's text.

c) No way, since no relations changed between Austria and Hungary after 1804, so everything is valid, anyway the corresponding source speaks clearly after 1804. The section with detailed information of course contains some earlier descriptions to demonstrate the special status, but they remained still valid after, so they are not outdated information.

d) No way, just another casus belli to avoid detailed and professional information on a bit complex situation, that is average in Wikipedia is similar cases/relations.

It is highly scandalous you dare to open such "concerns" since the cessation of these can be directly read earlier your post :) Maybe this was to most easy to again run away from consensus. Moreover, if your version would be used, than more hundred pages of Wikipedia would have been deleted/modified/affected since i.e. "Slovak Republic (1939–45)" or Taiwan, Kuril-Islands, Israel/Palestine, India-Pakistan and whole sections of WW2 because of "inconsistency" :) To say nothing of the the disputed rocks between Morocco/Algeria and Spain, or even the Cyprus article I could mention :) (KIENGIR (talk) 02:17, 27 December 2015 (UTC))

Expanding the Post-Napoleonic Sections of the Article

The article does a good job at discussing the history of the Austrian Empire up until the fall of Napoleon yet fails to address other policy matters following 1815. The Concert of Europe, established by Metternich and of which Austria was a major player, should I believe be discussed to the extent that it affected the Austrian domestic situation: the Revolutions of 1848, for example. Furthermore, I believe more should be included as to the losses of territory Austria incurred following the wars of 1859 and 1866, as well as its loss of leadership in the German Confederation and the process by which it became Austria-Hungary. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Chrisco123 (talk • contribs) 12:02, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

There Is No "Now Part Of" section in the infoboz

174.124.9.5 (talk) 16:46, 5 May 2011 (UTC)

Austria-Hungary

This was a mistake of James Ciment, the term "Austria-Hungary" was invented in 1867. See: Ngram Viewer. --Otberg (talk) 20:39, 25 October 2012 (UTC)

Ethnographic map

Even at full resolution, it's impossible to decipher the key to the ethnographic map (left) — which in any case is in German. Surely other, more clear versions of this often-reproduced historic guide are available.

Map at right doesn't include the Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia, and purports to show a proposed "Greater Austria," but at least the key is legible and in English. Sca (talk) 17:20, 30 July 2014 (UTC)

I've added a map in English without the proposed borders, but with the actual ones between Austria and Hungary. That would imo be a better choice. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:03, 19 December 2015 (UTC)

Austrian Empire

How does "Kaisertum Österreich" or "Kaiserreich Österreich" translate into "Austrian Empire". Empire of Austria would be more correct. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:23, 17 April 2015 (UTC)

The article starts with this remark: "This article is about the realms of the Habsburgs between 1804 and 1867". I still favour a move to "Empire of Austria". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:05, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

The entire sentence is actually:"This article is about the realms of the Habsburgs between 1804 and 1867. For the Habsburg realms more generally, see Habsburg Monarchy. For the Austrian Empire after the compromise of 1867, see Austria-Hungary." The Empire of Austria however existed from 1804 to 1918. In 1867 it became a partner in Austria-Hungary. Therefore that union can't be equated to "Austrian Empire". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:08, 12 December 2015 (UTC)

Proposal for language about Hungary 1804-1848

Since the previous discussion has turned into a discouraging wall of text, I started a new section.

Perhaps we should get away from some of the language we're now stuck in. Just a thought. Nothing chiseled in stone and not final yet but just an attempt to make text that can work:

"In 1804 the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, who was also the ruler of the dynastic lands of the Habsburg dynasty within and outside the Holy Roman Empire founded the Empire of Austria in which all his dynastic lands were included. He did so because he foresaw either the end of the Holy Roman Empire, or the eventual accession as Holy Roman Emperor of Napoleon, who had earlier that year adopted the title of an Emperor of the French. To safeguard his dynasty’s Imperial status he adopted the additional hereditary title of an Emperor of Austria. In doing so he created a formal overarching structure for the Habsburg Monarchy, that had functioned as a composite monarchy for about three hundred years before. The workings of the overarching structure and the status of the new “Kaiserthum’s” component lands at first stayed much as they had been under the composite monarchy that existed before 1804. This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, whose affairs remained to be administered by it’s own institutions (King and Diet) as they had been under the composite monarchy, in which they had always been considered a separate Realm. In the new situation there were therefore no Imperial institutions involved in it’s internal government." Gerard von Hebel (talk) 11:19, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

The non-English "Kaiserthum" should be changed or defined. Also "its internal government" should be instead of it’s internal government". 64.62.219.158 (talk) 12:05, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

Thanks, user:64.62.219.158 I used the term "Kaiserthum", perhaps that was unfortunate. I'll be thinking about alternate language for that. I used "they" instead of it's somewhere. Not sure about the apostrophe, but that can be easily resolved. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:01, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Alteration to the proposal: ""In 1804 the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, who was also ruler of the other dynastic lands of the Habsburg dynasty, founded the Empire of Austria in which Hungary and all his other dynastic lands were included. In doing so he created a formal overarching structure for the Habsburg Monarchy, that had functioned as a composite monarchy for about three hundred years before. He did so because he foresaw either the end of the Holy Roman Empire, or the eventual accession as Holy Roman Emperor of Napoleon, who had earlier that year adopted the title of an Emperor of the French. To safeguard his dynasty’s Imperial status he adopted the additional hereditary title of an Emperor of Austria. Apart from now being included in a new “Kaiserthum”, the workings of the overarching structure and the status of its component lands at first stayed much the same as they had been under the composite monarchy that existed before 1804. This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, whose affairs remained to be administered by it’s own institutions (King and Diet) as they had been under the composite monarchy, in which it had always been considered a separate Realm. Article X of 1790, that was added to Hungary's constitution during the phase of the composite monarchy uses the Latin phrase "Regnum Independens". In the new situation therefore, no Imperial institutions were involved in its internal government." Gerard von Hebel (talk) 10:40, 2 January 2016 (UTC)

And I would like to commend this text to the attention of anyone interested, including the editors User:KIENGIR and User:Fakirbakir, who have shown an interest in this discussion previously, so it can be resolved Gerard von Hebel (talk) 15:16, 3 January 2016 (UTC)

I did some little modifications: "In 1804 the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, who was also ruler of the other dynastic lands of the Habsburgs, founded the Empire of Austria in which Hungary and all his other dynastic dominions were included. In doing so he created a formal overarching structure for the Habsburg Monarchy, that had functioned as a compound realm for about three hundred years before. He did so because he foresaw either the end of the Holy Roman Empire, or the eventual accession as Holy Roman Emperor of Napoleon, who had earlier that year adopted the title of an Emperor of the French. To safeguard his dynasty’s imperial status he adopted the additional hereditary title of an Emperor of Austria. Apart from now being included in a new “Kaiserthum”, the workings of the overarching structure and the status of its component lands at first stayed much the same as they had been under the composite monarchy that existed before 1804. This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, a country which had always been considered a separate realm. Its affairs remained to be administered by it’s own institutions (King and Diet) as they had been beforehand. As Article X of 1790 stipulates, which was added to Hungary's constitution during the phase of the composite monarchy, the kingdom was "Regnum Independens". In the new situation therefore, no Imperial institutions were involved in its internal government." Fakirbakir (talk) 11:33, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Fakirbakir. Thank you! About your modifications. The term composite monarchy is actually the title of an article on Wikipedia so it can be linked as it is on the Hungary page. I think we should use the term "Regnum Independens" merely as a mention of the language used in the Article, as we did on the Hungarian article. The term is primary source language and the secondary source (Laszlo) makes it "separate realm". So should we I think because we shouldn't throw a Latin primary source phrase in the text without explanation. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 14:01, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Fakirbakir, I'm not planning to make a very big fuss about this, but I'll be back with some adaptions to your adaptions, for your and others' consideration. Thanks for your reaction and please give me some time to think and write. Greetings. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2016 (UTC)

Hello Fakirbakir. I don’t think we need to be repetitive in the text we make when it concernes Article X. And we probably should avoid making decrarations, using primary source text from the 18th century that may or may not mean what we think it should mean now. Specially when it comes to complicated matters like situations within composite or compound monarchies or other overarching structures that existed back then, and specially when they’re in a language that is not English. That is for secondary sources. Laszlo provides that for us when he uses the term "separate realm". I agree we should mention the term “Regnum Independens” in the context of Article X however. Consider this:

"In 1804 the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, who was also ruler of the other dynastic lands of the Habsburgs, founded the Empire of Austria in which Hungary and all his other dynastic dominions were included. In doing so he created a formal overarching structure for the Habsburg Monarchy, that had functioned as a composite monarchy for about three hundred years before. He did so because he foresaw either the end of the Holy Roman Empire, or the eventual accession as Holy Roman Emperor of Napoleon, who had earlier that year adopted the title of an Emperor of the French. To safeguard his dynasty’s imperial status he adopted the additional hereditary title of an Emperor of Austria. Apart from now being included in a new “Kaiserthum”, the workings of the overarching structure and the status of its component lands at first stayed much the same as they had been under the composite monarchy that existed before 1804. This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, a country which had always been considered a separate realm, a status that was affirmed by Article X that was added to Hungary’s constitution in 1790 during the phase of the composite monarchy and described the state as a “Regnum Independens”. Its affairs remained to be administered by it’s own institutions (King and Diet) as they had been beforehand. In the new situation therefore, no Imperial institutions were involved in its internal government."

Thank you! Of course the references should be added as they were on the Hungarian article.

Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:06, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

By the way, if you prefer "compound realm", I will make no objections as long as it's linked to the "composite monarchy" article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 18:11, 5 January 2016 (UTC)

If Fakirbakir says yes for this, I will say also. Referring on the consensus in Kingdom of Hungary 1526-1867 may be a ground but all the articles should be resolved separately in scope of the actual current article and not to be used that consensus or text as "chiseled in stone". Anyway, this proposal's final version should replace the text in foundation section or if not than it should be replaced with text earlier proposed (The Austrian Empire was founded by the Habsburg monarch Holy Roman Emperor Francis II (who became Emperor Francis I of Austria), as a state comprising his personal lands within and outside of the Holy Roman Empire.) and present this in the Status of kingdom of Hungary section. Also the text in the creation period should be altered and/or attached into the wanted own Hungary section, so all information could be found there in a separate pharapraph as a "separate realm" deserves.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:16, 5 January 2016 (UTC))

I suggest to write This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, which had always been considered a separate realm. instead of This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, a country which had always been considered a separate realm., I think it is not necessary to include "a country". 123Steller (talk) 12:06, 6 January 2016 (UTC)

I disagree with 123Steller, "a country" is very necessary since Hungary was a country, what would be any reason to hide it? To be more clear is against any later misunderstanding.(KIENGIR (talk) 06:49, 7 January 2016 (UTC))

In that phrase Hungary is already described as a "kingdom", which is "a country that has a king or queen as its ruler". What new information is added by the word "country"? 123Steller (talk) 10:14, 7 January 2016 (UTC)

Maybe it is more clear, since there were many Kingdoms or better to say "Königreich" entity that had no necessarily a separate country status, so in a way the term country could emphasize this. But let's wait what is Fakirbakir's opinion also.(KIENGIR (talk) 10:15, 8 January 2016 (UTC))

The formula "separate realm" is clear enough. We just burden the text with no finality if we also add the word "country", which is a general word that does not imply the sovereignty. For instance colonialism can be described as "the control or governing influence of a nation over a dependent country, territory, or people." => non-independent polities can also be called "countries". 123Steller (talk) 12:31, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

I really have no preference one way or the other. I haven't added the word country to imply anything, so its not a loaded word to me and I don't think it bothers the flow of the sentence. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 16:48, 8 January 2016 (UTC)

123Steller, I don't agree anything would be "burden", precise expressions never burden anything, also I don't see why there would be no "finality". If so about "country", then why are you disturbed using it? I have no problem with it, Hebel does not have a problem with it, let's wait for Fakirbakir's opinion.(KIENGIR (talk) 07:54, 9 January 2016 (UTC))

Hebel has "no preference", so please don't count him as being on your side. It makes no sense to repeat something n times using synonyms just to be sure that the reader gets it. To say something once is enough. 123Steller (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2016 (UTC)

123Steller, it seems your "good-faith" is manifesting again, congratulations! Let's see what I have written: "Hebel does not have a problem with it". It does not contradict "Hebel has "no preference"", since if he'd have a preference then he could have any problem with any version :), and I did not count anyone "on my side", I just listed the opinions about the subject (or are you disturbed he is neutral and not on your side, maybe?). I should not have repeat anything, if you would not accuse me again of something fake! Just professional English and necessary logic is needed, the we can avoid such kind of problems!(KIENGIR (talk) 10:51, 10 January 2016 (UTC))

You explicitly included you and Hebel in the same category (of the users who "have no problem with it"), so please don't try to victimize youself. I am acting with the utmost good faith towards you. When I said that "it makes no sense to repeat something n times", I was referring to the use of both separate realm and country when classifying Hungary. 123Steller (talk) 12:27, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

I see, logic fails! "Users who have no problem with it" = A is a broader set then "Users who support" = B. Hebel and Me is member of A, I am member of A & B. B is a subset of A. Since Hebel was not put in set B, both of your statement fails. That's why I was a victim again of a mistake.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:52, 11 January 2016 (UTC))

And I see we're not getting anywhere with this! Gerard von Hebel (talk) 09:49, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

If we're going to have a section called "Status of the Kingdom of Hungary", why wouldn't we also have a section named "Status of the Kingdom of Bohemia"? Bohemia, as well as Hungary, was a distinct kingdom, and limited monarchy, but under the immediate government of the emperor. 123Steller (talk) 11:17, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I don't think we need a section called "Status of the Kingdom of Hungary". Gerard von Hebel (talk) 22:38, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

That's what I had understood. Where is the proposed text intented to be inserted then? 123Steller (talk) 23:31, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

As I understood, according to KIENGIR the proposed text should either be in the foundation section (which I think is ok) or in a separate "Status of KoH" section which I don't think is necessary. Then there is the creation section which could contain some doublures. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 02:43, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

If the text is not particularly about the status of the KoH inside the AE, what's the reason for emphasizing Hungary in this phrase: "In 1804 the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, who was also ruler of the other dynastic lands of the Habsburgs, founded the Empire of Austria in which Hungary and all his other dynastic dominions were included."? In my opinion, it would be suggested that Hungary was the principal land of the new AE. 123Steller (talk) 08:35, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

123Steller, you must be joking again, Jesus Christ....when you were joining this discussion on the other article, you asked also such questions that for answers were already present in the talk pages or the sources that were mentioned. How the hell you could raise such a question regarding Bohemia??? And you have the utmost good aim, yes?? If you still did not get why Bohemia and Hungary's status is INCOMPARABLE, please read through again all the affected three articles's talk pages, including with all the mentioned sources! (better, because you do not want me to repeat things, yes?) The text in the quoted phrase emphasizes Hungary's different status unlike other cronwlands, as it should be clear for you after almost one month of discussion!

Gerard von Hebel, according to the little clash above, not I was the initiator, I just proved 123Steller's false accusation, I don't seek trouble on my own when it is not necessarry, anyway flawless logic is needed here very much at is has been demonstrated many times! My proposal is still regarding this text that it should be inside and onw section for Hungary along with other information that shows the special relation between the two entities unlike the other incorporated crownlands. Thus the foundation section would have that short sentence that I already proposed above, and also the pharagraph from the creation period about Hungary would be rephrased and put in the The status of Kingdom of Hungary section.(KIENGIR (talk) 18:46, 12 January 2016 (UTC))

This text wasn't proposed or written for a "Kingdom of Hungary" section, but for the purpose of describing the foundation of the Empire. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:25, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

To emphasise which, the lead sentence should be made this: "In 1804 the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, who was also ruler of the lands of the Habsburg Monarchy, founded the Empire of Austria in which all his lands were included." Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:39, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

Which would make the first paragraph of the foundation section such: "In 1804 the Holy Roman Emperor Francis II, who was also ruler of the lands of the Habsburg Monarchy, founded the Empire of Austria in which all his lands were included. In doing so he created a formal overarching structure for the Habsburg Monarchy, that had functioned as a composite monarchy for about three hundred years before. He did so because he foresaw either the end of the Holy Roman Empire, or the eventual accession as Holy Roman Emperor of Napoleon, who had earlier that year adopted the title of an Emperor of the French. To safeguard his dynasty’s imperial status he adopted the additional hereditary title of an Emperor of Austria. Apart from now being included in a new “Kaiserthum”, the workings of the overarching structure and the status of its component lands at first stayed much the same as they had been under the composite monarchy that existed before 1804. This was especially demonstrated by the status of the Kingdom of Hungary, a country which had always been considered a separate realm. A status that was affirmed by Article X, that was added to Hungary’s constitution in 1790 during the phase of the composite monarchy and described the state as a “Regnum Independens”. Hungary's affairs remained to be administered by it’s own institutions (King and Diet) as they had been beforehand. In the new situation therefore, no Imperial institutions were involved in its internal government." followed by the ref block. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:51, 12 January 2016 (UTC)

There is no further debate from my side regarding this text, wherever will be put and also - since a while - I'm expecting also for Fakirbakir's opinion also about this, and regarding the own section proposal made by me.(KIENGIR (talk) 08:28, 14 January 2016 (UTC))

The proposed text is quite neutral, I am also fine with it. Fakirbakir (talk) 19:04, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks, I made it so. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:25, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

I think it is redundant to have a section called "Foundation" and one called "Creation period", both treating the process of establishing the Austrian Empire. In my opinion the two sections should be merged. 123Steller (talk) 08:08, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Please change this sentence in the Creation period: "After Austria was defeated in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, and left the German Confederation, the Austrian Empire joined with Hungary, now formally separated from it, to form Austria-Hungary by the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, which granted Hungary and the Hungarian lands equal status to the Austrian Empire." ->

"After Austria was defeated in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866, and left the German Confederation, the Austrian Empire joined with Hungary to form Austria-Hungary by the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, which granted Hungary and the Hungarian lands equal status to the Austrian Empire."

Explanation: this fragment "now formally separated from it" would just generate almost the same debate that is since more than a month, since separation was always present in a way.

I still wait Fakirbakir's opinion about the own section. For me it's not relevant if the Foundation or Creation period is merged or not.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:54, 18 January 2016 (UTC))

KIENGIR, this is to clarify that from 1867 onwards, the KoH was released from its ties to the Empire of Austria, to form a co-equal union with what remained of that Empire. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:24, 18 January 2016 (UTC)

Despite, I still hold it is debated since again we would start to debate about "formal separation" or "legal separation", and regardless it is alluding after 1867 hiddenly it concludes the opposite backwards, that still does not hold according our consensus. So please do not raise any objections tho this, since it has no relevance to this article, if someone is interested in Austria-Hungary there are special articles for it with detailed information. Please accept and let's move on to make consensus in the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 article - of course after Fakirbakir agreed also.(KIENGIR (talk) 13:40, 20 January 2016 (UTC))

So? any reaction?(KIENGIR (talk) 10:27, 24 January 2016 (UTC))

As far as I'm concerned, 1867 brought a significant change to Hungary's status as it was from 1849 to 1867, and also from it's status as it was from 1804 to 1848 as described in the new text in the article. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 20:56, 25 January 2016 (UTC)

Let's make this deal, because the details should be on the correspondent related articles, and this ambigous phrase won't clarify/specify anything. The article (and other's as well) already tell us from 1867 an alleged equal status was acknowledged by the Austrian side. I.e. the highlight of the 1849-1867 -> 1867- change should be discussed in the Austro-Hungarian compromise of 1867 article, and we should ignore the misunderstandable and problematic "formally, etc." phrases. Please accept this proposal. The separation were held all these periods, but the details and conditions - as you expressed - varied in the mentioned situations. The "Austrian Empire joined with Hungary to form Austria-Hungary by the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867, which granted Hungary and the Hungarian lands equal status to the Austrian Empire." shortened phrase is totally enough, as the very same is in the section "After 1859". Please be consistent. (KIENGIR (talk) 22:38, 25 January 2016 (UTC))

Any reaction? Please accept! (KIENGIR (talk) 13:18, 30 January 2016 (UTC))

I'm not in favour of changing the language concerning that episode, because it explains not only the change in status of the KoH, but also the rather significant change in the status and the domain of the Empire of Austria. After 1867 the KoH was released from it's ties to the Empire of Austria entirely. I will not insist on retaining the word "formally" as in "now formally separated from it", but I do think the rest of the wording should remain. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:51, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

How about this: "now formally separated from it" -> "now entirely separated from it"?(KIENGIR (talk) 22:41, 1 February 2016 (UTC))

I don't agree with your proposal. Your text draft is not accurate: before the Ausgleich, Hungary was a crownland of the Austrian Empire. It wasn't "partly separated" of it, to say that after 1867 it became "entirely separated". 123Steller (talk) 22:46, 1 February 2016 (UTC)

123Steller, first of all, do no act against consensus as you did right now, as follow any action in the spirit we have reached already. Since the current "formally separated" is surely not ok, I proposed something on Hebel's wordage, if you now better, propose a better one!(KIENGIR (talk) 23:41, 2 February 2016 (UTC))

I wanted to see if in the meantime you became more flexible on this subject. I will not insist on this edit (elimination of "country") as long as there is not a large support. 123Steller (talk) 12:06, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

Really if I am "more flexible"? :) Not I am the one who is not flexible, if we compare how the article was and what it became, dominantly the opposition's demands are represented still. But if I'd say the same thing about testing, all of you'd run to the administrators to complain! Please better give proposals on the current issue, about that two words Hebel does not want to leave but transform, what would be a solution that we could agree.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:28, 3 February 2016 (UTC))

The article now says: "the Austrian Empire joined with Hungary, now formally separated from it". I would suggest "the Empire of Austria joined with Hungary, that became a separate entity from the Empire altogether, .....". That would be fine with me, although I still don't understand your opposition to the word "formally". In my mind it has a stronger meaning than you seem to think it has... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 17:41, 3 February 2016 (UTC)

As I am reading the text of the article again, I see that the word "entirely" is already in the lead. So well.... Since I have a bad feeling about repetitions of words, for esthetical reasons, perhaps the word altogether is not so bad. I will make it so for the time being. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 00:57, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I reworded the phrase to make it more clear. However I don't understand why this is written in the "Creation period" section, which should cover the first years (1804-1806 or something like that). Not to say that it is unsourced.123Steller (talk) 09:17, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Ok guys, this version is accepted. If we'd remove all content unsourced, Wikipedia would became almost empty, but to be really serious, I'd leave also this since lower already there is something about this, but since it was Hebels addition/modification, the status quo ante principle had to be respected. I will add this page also to the watchlist - and anyway I'd with all since nothing has a guarantee that some contents just because of missing time are disappearing - let's move on the last disputed article, Hebel, please make a new section on the talk page and propose an offer there. Thx.(KIENGIR (talk) 16:49, 4 February 2016 (UTC))

I'm not sure if this wording is precise enough. It now seems like the Empire was split in two and new entities were created, while both entities (The Empire of Austria and the Kingdom of Hungary) were both of them pre existent. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:10, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

I've now made an adaptation to the article text. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:15, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

And another one that I missed earlier. Austria didn't leave the Confederation, the Confederation itself was dissolved. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

Well I think this rephrasing is not totally precise enough or could again cause the same problem of interpretation. You should have waited before adding it until all of us agree, the rest of the modifications are ok. I propose a rephrasing, I will modify the sentence.(KIENGIR (talk) 19:54, 5 February 2016 (UTC))

This text is OK with me... Gerard von Hebel (talk) 21:06, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

123Steller disagreed. Since so many changes is going on, I've made a reset to the original version before any of us started to modify it. Please all of us should make the proposals here and after we have a consensus only then to add. Steller, your latest version generates the same cause that I referred of before, that is my problem. Hebel accepted my latest version, what was your problem with it?(KIENGIR (talk) 21:44, 6 February 2016 (UTC))

123Steller, Gerard von Hebel please, proposals here first! Not just I have to respect wiki rules and policy yes? The latest version has the same problem that I referred in the past to replys. Inacceptable. 123Steller, pleace answer why you rejected that version that I and Hebel agreed?(KIENGIR (talk) 20:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC))

I don't understand why you say that Hungary "became a separate entity from the Empire altogether". I refer to the word "altogether". We have 2 states here: inside the Austrian Empire (as a crownland) and outside the Austrian Empire (as an equal member of the Dual Monarchy). There aren't any possible in-between states to use the word "altogether". It could't have been "a partly separate entity". 123Steller (talk) 21:42, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

To avoid any more misunderstandings, I don't think this diff was a status quo ante, if any is to be found anymore. It was a version by User:123Steller. This was a later version proposed by User:123Steller:"After Austria was defeated in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 and the German Confederation was dissolved, the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 was adopted. By this act, the Kingdom of Hungary separated from the Empire of Austria and the two entities joined together on an equal basis to form the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary". I can't see anything wrong with that and strongly suggest that we work from there. I will make it so. The present text could suggest that the Empire was split up in two entirely new entities and we wouldn't want to suggest that. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 23:51, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

123Steller that sentence starts as "By this act", and the act is about two separate entities are joining together, you want to make a reference on something on the past but anyway the wordage is not precise enough or acceptable. The sentence in it's time means the present. Anyway it is dubious your version since Hungary was in a way separate, but you wanted to avoid any grading or classification of any kind of level of separation. That's why I made my first suggestion and since Hebel noticed it is ok by the timing - present tabula rasa, two totally separate entity joines together by the act - that's why he accepted it.

Gerard von Hebel, we have a misunderstanding of status quo ante....it was overriden by your edit:

"19:13, 4 February 2016‎ Hebel (talk | contribs)‎ . . (36,690 bytes) (-11)‎ . . (→‎Creation period: I've made another adaptation)"

So this version before your modification should remain until consensus. Continous bold edits does not lead us further, if we do not return here with suggestions and as long the status quo ante version is not set back, I see the violation of WP:BRD/WP:CYCLE.

Hebel, your current version has the same problem I referred earlier...we should wait what 123Steller has with this - after my explanation it should be clear for him:

"By this act, the Kingdom of Hungary and the Empire of Austria as two separate entities joined together on an equal basis to form the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary."

This version does not violate any viewpoint or claim, it has no contradiction on earlier status quo or similar.(KIENGIR (talk) 17:43, 8 February 2016 (UTC))

This is getting rather hard to follow: "After Austria was defeated in the Austro-Prussian War of 1866 and the German Confederation was dissolved, the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 was adopted. By this act, the Kingdom of Hungary and the Empire of Austria as two separate entities joined together on an equal basis to form the Dual Monarchy of Austria-Hungary" would indeed be the last form you KIENGIR and I agreed on I think. That would be a ground to make that so again and I will make it so. If User:123Steller or others want to add something that can of course always be discussed. Gerard von Hebel (talk) 19:04, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

The above phrase is fine by me. My biggest concern is about the first two sections ("Foundation" and "Creation period"), which have almsot synonymous titles and repeat stuff (for instance the Treaty of Pressburg and the battle of Austerlitz are metioned in both of them). I propose the merge of these sections. 123Steller (talk) 22:59, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Thanks both of you, then we have a finally a consenus on Hungary's matters regarding this page. Hebel, please make a proposal for consensus on the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 page, history section second pharapraph, that was you addition (it should be similar what is here I think). 123Steller, once you already inititated this merge, but you retreated and claimed you'll do it later. I have no opposition, go on and do it, just be careful the merging process should not override any earlier consensus and be careful by the removal of repetitive data or inserting anything in a proper way of an other section's pharagraph where that information was missing. If it is not relevant or it has a more detailed explanation already earlier, I think those could be also dropped and only add in a chronological order the newer info if it is really important. New additions should be avoided until the end of the merging process.(KIENGIR (talk) 00:48, 10 February 2016 (UTC))

I merged the two sections, keeping everything except a few unnecessary things last paragraph from "Creation period". 123Steller (talk) 08:09, 10 February 2016 (UTC)

Thank you 123Steller for merging these items. Just one thing. We seem to have lost this piece of text: "The Empire had a centralist structure, although Hungary enjoyed considerable autonomy and was ruled by its own Diet." I'm not suggesting that this text should return as such, but se should express somehow that the Empire was centrally governed as it was an absolute monarchy, notwithstanding the differentiated rights of the several constituent parts of it (like Hungary). I am going to think of a way to express that issue. ::::::Gerard von Hebel (talk) 01:03, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

You're welcome. I tried to remove only the pieces of information that I found redundant; if there is someting important that I missed, feel free to make some retouches. 123Steller (talk) 08:23, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Kingdom of Croatia, Kingdom of Slavonia, Military Frontier

According to the following source, Kingdom of Croatia, Kingdom of Slavonia and Military Frontier constitute a single land, at least from 1850.

"After many pleas from Jelecic, in 1850 the King's proclamation, which was signed by all 8 Austrian ministers, was finally announced...For Military Frontier, the King decided that it will remain within its present territory. However, it will with, Croatia and Slavonia, constitute a single land with disaggregated provincial and military administration, and representation." [4] , page 157.

The section "Constituent lands" does not reflect that correctly. If no one objects, I will do some editing.141.138.55.215 (talk) 16:51, 20 June 2017 (UTC)

No one objected. Article is edited. 89.164.165.55 (talk) 21:02, 23 September 2017 (UTC)

Overlap with Holy Roman Empire

The article says in the opening that the Austrian Empire overlapped with the Holy Roman Empire. However, the letter patent creating the title Hereditary Emperor of Austria (link below) seems to indicate that originally the Austrian Empire only consisted of lands outside the HRE. This is comparable to the Kingdom of Prussia where officially only lands outside the HRE were part of Prussia, but the Hohenzollerns treated their various domains as one kingdom despite them only being de jure in a personal union. Likewise with Austria, the de jure Empire originally was only the extra-HRE lands while the Archduchy of Austria, Kingdom of Bohemia, etc. were technically part of the HRE, not the Austrian Empire, but when the HRE was dissolved Franz was able to incorporate the rest of his lands de jure into the new Austrian Empire just as the King of Prussia was able to integrate Brandenburg and other possessions into Prussia. Emperor001 (talk) 13:05, 6 September 2018 (UTC)

https://books.google.com/books?id=6bc7AQAAMAAJ&pg=PA427&lpg=PA427&dq=francis+ii+declaration+hereditary+emperor+of+austria&source=bl&ots=3MviwdiBd7&sig=0dNv_0MQRO6E3P7F6w7wVhEABNg&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj44-XgtqbdAhXict8KHe8jB8k4ChDoATADegQIBxAB#v=onepage&q=francis%20ii%20declaration%20hereditary%20emperor%20of%20austria&f=false

Foreign policy

No coverage of foreign policy after 1815, except brief mention of Metternichs downfall. Where is mention of the Crimean war, the war with Denmark 1864? Crawiki (talk) 16:00, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Austria at its height

--Theodore Ostrowicki

I believe that Austria was at its height at 1804 and when she lost the Austrian Netherlands extent in Poland was at her height