Abstract
One of the consequences of the Austrian government’s decision to reject the April Laws was the ending of the union between Hungary and Transylvania which the Emperor had ratified in June. The Austrian change in attitude towards Hungary only served to increase the confusion in a province where the diversity of races, languages and religions was one of the greatest in the Habsburg empire. Out of a population of about two million, more than half were Rumanians, the majority of whom were peasants under an obligation to work on the estates of their Hungarian landlords and who had no political rights. The Hungarians, who were the second largest group, were closely identified with their fellow Hungarian speakers, the Széklers, who were, however, of a different racial origin. The third largest group were the German-speaking Saxons whose settlements dated back to the fourteenth century. The Rumanians were Greek Orthodox or Uniate, but their church did not receive the same official recognition as the churches of the Catholic Hungarians, Lutheran Saxons and Calvinist or Unitarian Széklers. It was therefore hardly surprising that the Rumanians had bitterly opposed the union with Hungary and had made every effort to persuade the Emperor Ferdinand to grant them a measure of political freedom.
Access this chapter
Tax calculation will be finalised at checkout
Purchases are for personal use only
Preview
Unable to display preview. Download preview PDF.
Notes
K. Hitchins, The Rumanian National Movement in Transylvania, 1780–1849 ( Cambridge, Mass., 1969 ) pp. 244–7.
I. Lupaş, ‘Un Martyr Transylvain: Le Pasteur Stefan L. Roth’, Revue de Transylvanie, vol. v (1939) 224–30.
J. Gyalokay, Báró Puchner Antal altabornagy jelentése az erdélyi állapatokról’, Levéltári Közlemények, vol. 1 (1923) 334–41.
F. Pulszy, Meine Zeit, Mein Leben, vol. 2 (Pressburg/Leipzig, 1881 ) pp. 266–8.
E. Kovacs, ‘Bern József és a Magyar Szabadságharc’, Századok, vol. 84 (1950) 12.
J. Czetz, Bems Feldzug in Siebenbürgen in den Jahren 1848 und 1849 (Hamburg, 1850) pp. 96, 365–70.
A. A. Nepokoychitsky, Opisanie voennykh deystviy v Transilvanii v 1849 godu (Saint Petersburg, 1866 ) pp. 7–8.
P. Mueller, Feldmarschall Fürst Windischgraetz (Vienna, 1938) p. 224.
J. Gyalokay, ‘Az első, orosz megszállás Erdélyben (1849 jan 31-márcz 28)’, Századok vol. 51 (Budapest, 1922) pp. 637–9.
E. Hurmuzaki, Documente privitoare la Istoria Românilor vol. 18 (Bucharest, 1916) pp. 106–7; Horváth, op. cit., pp. 27–30, 32–3.
D. I. Daragan, Zapiski o voyne v Transilvanii v 1849 godu (Saint Petersburg, 1859 ) p. 25.
J. Mezei, ‘Visszaemlékezések a szabadságharcra’, Vasárnapi Újság, no. 18 (1880) 287.
J. Horváth, ‘Bern Tabornok és a Bukaresti külképviseletek, 1849 március–juniusban’. Hadtörténelmi Közlemények, vol. 28 (1927) 375–86.
B. E. No’lde, Yuriy Samarin i ego vremya (Paris, 1926 ) pp. 47–9.
Author information
Authors and Affiliations
Copyright information
© 1991 Ian W. Roberts
About this chapter
Cite this chapter
Roberts, I.W. (1991). The Russian Intervention in Transylvania and its Consequences. In: Nicholas I and the Russian Intervention in Hungary. Studies in Russia and East Europe. Palgrave Macmillan, London. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21195-1_5
Download citation
DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-349-21195-1_5
Publisher Name: Palgrave Macmillan, London
Print ISBN: 978-1-349-21197-5
Online ISBN: 978-1-349-21195-1
eBook Packages: Palgrave History CollectionHistory (R0)