first Christian (Christ-following) community. Jesus strengthened his bond with his apostles during the Last Supper, the first example of communion (or Eucharist), which is another important sacrament today. In Jerusalem, under the leadership of the apostle St. Peter, a Christian community is established, which can be called the birth of the Christian religion. For the first three centuries, Christians worked in closed, secret communities, mainly to avoid persecution.
Saint Paul, who converted after Jesus appeared to him, proclaimed that salvation had been accomplished by the death of Jesus. In addition, religion was open to the wealthier, to people of non-Jewish religion and origin. Saint Paul made it his mission to convert more and more people to Christianity.
Until the 3rd century AD, Christian communities could only function in secret because of persecutions of Christians (e.g. Nero, Diocletian). However, the Emperor Constantine (306-337 AD) saw in Christianity a new religion that could be used to the empire. In 313 AD, therefore, he granted Christians freedom of worship in the Edict of Milan.
Already under Constantine, the church began to be organised, led by several bishops in important cities, but overall it became subordinate to the emperor. The first synod (325 AD - the Council/ Synod of Nicaea) was also presided over by the emperor. It is at this council that the Trinity and the divinity (monotheism) of Jesus were made into the first dogmas (or doctrines), and those who question this are declared heretics. Already during the 4th century (380 AD), Emperor Theodosius the Great made Christianity the state religion of the Roman Empire.
5. FROM REPUBLIC TO AUTOCRACY: THE ROMAN REPUBLIC, CAESAR AND AUGUSTUS
Key data: patrician, plebeian, consul, senate, dictator, tribune, emperor, gladiator, slave, province, legion, censor, aristocratic republic, triumvirate, principate, Julius Caesar, Augustus, Pompey, Mark Antony, 753 BC the founding of Rome, 510 BC the start of the Roman Republic, 44 BC the death of Caesar, 31 BC the Battle of Actium, Italy, Rome, Roman Empire, Pannonia, Aquincum, Hispania, Gaul, Actium
Caius Julius Caesar is credited with the dismantling of the Roman Republic (an aristocratic republic founded in 510 BC) and its values by imposing open autocracy. Caesar (100 - 44 BC)
came from a patrician family of Populares who were expelled from Rome when Sulla and the Optimates came to power. Later, however, his excellent military skills, as well as the games he organised with his inherited fortune (“Panem et circenses!”), quickly brought him to the centre of Roman politics.
In the crisis that deepened after Sulla’s death and during the Spartacus slave/gladiator revolt, two prestigious generals came closest to power: Pompey, whose had a disagreement with the Senate (the patrician leaders of Rome) over settling his veterans; and Crassus, the richest man of antiquity, who defeated Spartacus, the leader of a slave gladiator revolt.
The feud between the two prominent leaders and the Senate was resolved by Caesar in 60 BC: he obtained the appointment of both of them as consuls, they confirmed their alliance by marriages, thus concluding the alliance of the three men, the first triumvirate (60-53 BC). In the triumvirate, the territories to be conquered were divided between them, as were the offices of leadership (consuls). Caesar had great success against the Celtic (Gaul) tribes in Gaul in the 50s BC, while Crassus fought the Parthians in the east and Pompey consolidated Hispania for Rome.
However, in 53, Crassus was killed by the Parthians in battle, leaving only Caesar and Pompey to compete for sole control: civil war broke out. Caesar allied himself with the Populares Party, Pompey with the Optimates. In 49 BC, Caesar led his legions across the Rubicon (“The die is cast”, he said), breaking the ancient Roman law that no army could enter Italy - an open attempt to stage a coup. In 48 Caesar defeated Pompey and was left sole leader of Rome.
During his five years, he carried out many reforms: he issued new money, reformed the calendar (Julian calendar), resettled his veterans, and increased the membership of the Senate to 900. In addition, he often organised grain distributions and huge festive games for the Roman people. However, Caesar disregarded the traditions of the Roman Republic: he accumulated offices (tribune - leader of the plebeians, consul - elected political leader, censor - in charge of the list of Senate members, pontifex maximus - high priest) and appointed himself dictator for an unlimited period in 49. This led to the Senate conspiracy in 44, led by Brutus and Cassius: Caesar was assassinated in the Senate in March 44 BC.
After Caesar’s death, his supporters and heirs organised a new triumvirate against his assassins, consisting of Octavian (later Augustus), Mark Antony and Lepidus. After defeating Caesar’s assassins at the Battle of Philippi (42 BC), they redistributed the territories of Rome among the three, but by 36 BC only Mark Antony
and Octavian were vying for power. Mark Antony had won Egypt and the support of Pharaoh Cleopatra, while Octavian had won the support of the Senate in Rome and launched a major propaganda campaign to discredit Antony. The two men’s civil war culminated in 31 BC at the Battle of Actium, where Octavian defeated Antony, who fled with Cleopatra to Egypt but later both committed suicide.
Octavian returned home shortly afterwards and was given the title of princeps (more accurately princeps civitatis, first citizen of Rome) by the Senate and began to be called Augustus, or majestic. Although he was never crowned, he is regarded as the first emperor of Rome (27 BC - 14 AD), who established the system of the principate, or disguised autocracy. Augustus maintained the institutions of the republic and the appearance of a republic: he cooperated with the Senate, he never had himself elected as dictator, he did not accumulate offices, but he was repeatedly appointed to be consul, pontifex maximus and censor, which gave him a great influence on the life of Rome.
He also had his own treasury, his own legions and his own provinces, which enabled him to build up a power independent of the Senate. His own bodyguard, the Pretorian Guard, not only protected the life of the emperor, but also served as a kind of paramilitary force in Rome. Augustus extended Rome further north and west, adding new provinces to the empire, such as Pannonia (with towns such as Aquincum and Savaria flourishing as Roman colonies) and Dalmatia, but also creating peace within the empire, called Pax Augusta. The principate established by Augustus lasted until the end of the 3rd century AD.
6. THE STEPPE STATE: THE HUNNIC EMPIRE AND ITS CONQUESTS
Key data: Attila, migration, nomadic, Huns, Italy, Hunnic Empire, 451 AD - the Battle of Catalaunum, Gaul
Despite being renowned as fearsome horseback riders from the Eurasian steppe, the Huns remain shrouded in mystery due to the scarcity of written records. While their exact origins are debated, some evidence suggests a connection between the European Huns and the Xiongnu people, who attacked the Chinese Empire from the 4th century BC onwards. This theory is supported by genetic studies, the spread of specific artifacts like sacrificial cauldrons across the steppe region, and even Chinese historical accounts; however, certainty is difficult to
attain in the matter as there is a 300 year gap in written sources about the Xiongnu and the Huns.
Emerging around 370 AD, during the Migration Period, in the Volga region, the Huns embarked on a westward migration. They overpowered the Alans and clashed with various Germanic tribes previously displaced by the Roman Empire. These tribes, seeking refuge, eventually pressured the Roman borders. The Huns, seizing the opportunity, carved out vast territories and established their empire with its center in the Carpathian Basin.
Unlike later settled, Christian empires, the Huns operated a unique nomadic steppe state model. Led by a Prince or a King, the empire functioned through a hierarchy based on military prowess. Social status directly correlated with military rank, with valor and battlefield courage being the primary avenues for advancement.
As nomadic herders, the Huns practiced seasonal migrations between winter and summer quarters. Their leaders and court followed, although settled communities, especially in winter times, and practicing agriculture also existed among them.
The fighting style of the Huns was characterized by swift and relentless tactics that struck fear into the hearts of their adversaries. Renowned for their exceptional horsemanship and proficiency in mounted archery, the Huns excelled in hit-and-run raids, feigned retreats, flaking attacks and ambushes, utilizing their mobility to outmaneuver larger, more conventional armies. Their cavalry units, armed with reflexive bows and lances, displayed remarkable agility and coordination, often encircling and overwhelming their foes with rapid-fire volleys of arrows. This nomadic warrior society prized individual valor and agility, with skilled horsemen rising to prominence within their ranks. Aiding the Huns in battles were the subjugated peoples they had met, who served as auxiliary forces at times of war.
The reign of Attila the Hun (king 445-453 AD) marked the empire’s peak. This educated and Roman-cultured king, raised at the court of Emperor Honorius, led numerous campaigns against both the Eastern and Western Roman Empires. His most famous raids include his invasion of the Balkans in 447, during which he laid waste to numerous cities along the Danube. Later, he launched a massive campaign into Gaul, which culminated in a significant confrontation, the Battle of Catalaunum (451 AD). The battle resulted in an inconclusive outcome despite involving tens of thousands of troops on both sides. Following this, Attila invaded Italy, reaching the gates of Rome before turning back, supposedly due to the intervention of Pope Leo. However, with Attila’s death in 453, the Hunnic Empire collapsed.
While their reign was short-lived, the Huns left a lasting impact, contributing to the fall of the Western Roman Empire in 476 AD and shaping the migration patterns of various European tribes.
7.THE EMERGENCE, FORMS AND ROLE OF MONEY IN ANCIENT ECONOMIES
Key data: redistribution, commodity money
The concept of money as we know it today – a universally accepted medium of exchange – took millennia to evolve. In the ancient world, various forms of “pre-money” emerged to facilitate trade and overcome the limitations of barter systems.
Early societies relied on barter, directly exchanging goods and services. However, this system proved cumbersome and inefficient, especially as economies grew and diversified. Barter meant trying to trade a basket of wheat for a pair of sandals – finding someone who needs exactly what and for how much became increasingly difficult. Also, while this system worked well in ancient city states which had so-called palace economies, where people were asked to deliver their products to the palace to be redistributed among the people, later more expansive states had to use an easier system of collecting taxes and distributing money.
One of the earliest forms of pre-money was commodity money. These were objects with intrinsic value, such as livestock, salt, or grain. Their usefulness and relative scarcity made them suitable for exchange. However, these commodities had limitations – they were bulky, perishable, and difficult to standardize in quality.
As societies progressed, metals emerged as a more practical form of pre-money. Bronze and iron were commonly used, followed by precious metals like silver and gold. These metals were durable, divisible, and relatively easy to transport and store. Their value was also widely recognized, making them more convenient for transactions.
The next significant development was the emergence of coinage. Around the 6th century BC, Lydia in Asia Minor minted the first known gold and silver coins with standardized weight and purity. This innovation ensured the value of each coin and facilitated trade significantly. Coinage gradually spread throughout the ancient world, becoming the dominant form of money in many regions.
The role of money in ancient economies was multifaceted. It facilitated trade as money enabled efficient exchange of goods and services, overcoming the limitations of barter. It also enabled taxation
and public works as governments could collect taxes in the form of money, allowing them to fund public projects and infrastructure development. It was also used to store valuea as precious metals like gold served as a long-term store of value, protecting wealth from inflation and political instability.
The development of money had a profound impact on the evolution of ancient economies. It fostered economic growth, specialization, and the rise of complex societies.
The development of writing in the ancient world marks a significant milestone in human civilization, progressing through various stages from pictographic to alphabetic scripts. Initially, ancient civilizations relied on pictographic systems, where symbols or images represented objects, concepts, or ideas. These early forms of writing emerged independently in different regions such as Mesopotamia, Egypt, and China, around 3000 BCE. Pictographic scripts provided a rudimentary means of communication, facilitating record-keeping, trade, and administration.
Over time, the need for more efficient communication led to the evolution of logosyllabic scripts, combining elements of both logographic (symbolic) and syllabic (sound-based) writing. Examples include Sumerian cuneiform and Egyptian hieroglyphs, which incorporated a mix of pictorial symbols and phonetic elements to convey meaning. Logosyllabic scripts allowed for greater flexibility and expression in written language, enabling the recording of complex ideas, literature, and historical records.
The culmination of this process came with the development of alphabetic writing systems, where symbols represent individual sounds or phonemes. The Phoenician alphabet, dating back to the 2nd millennium BCE, served as the precursor to modern alphabets used worldwide. Alphabetic scripts revolutionized written communication by simplifying the writing process and making literacy more accessible to a broader population. This innovation laid the foundation for the flourishing of literature, philosophy, and science in ancient Greece and Rome, shaping the cultural heritage of Western civilization.
The 5th and 4th centuries BC in Greece witnessed a flourishing of philosophy, with several key figures shaping the Western intellectual landscape. The Sophists, a diverse group of educators, emphasized rhetoric, critical thinking, and the importance of individual experience. They challenged traditional beliefs and questioned the existence of absolute truth, sparking debates that laid the groundwork for further philosophical inquiry.
Socrates, a pivotal figure, is known for his “Socratic method” of questioning. He engaged in dialogues, probing his interlocutors to reach deeper understanding and expose inconsistencies in their thinking. While he didn’t leave written works, his ideas were preserved by his students, most notably Plato.
Plato, Socrates’ most famous student, founded the Academy in Athens, a center for philosophical learning. He believed in the existence of a realm of perfect Forms, representing the ideal essence of things, and that our physical world is merely a shadow of these perfect Forms. He explored various philosophical themes, including ethics, politics, and epistemology, laying the foundation for Western philosophical thought for centuries to come.
Aristotle, Plato’s student, established the Lyceum, another influential school for philosohy. He differed from Plato in his emphasis on the empirical world and the importance of observation and reason in acquiring knowledge. He made significant contributions to logic, ethics, politics, metaphysics, and natural science, leaving a lasting legacy on various fields of intellectual inquiry. These Greek philosophers, despite their diverse perspectives, collectively laid the groundwork for centuries of philosophical exploration, shaping Western thought and influencing various disciplines even today.
8c. PRINCIPLES OF ROMAN LAW
Key data: Justinian
Roman law, renowned for its structure and influence on legal systems worldwide, was built on several key principles. The foundation rested on the concepts of fas, mos, and jus. Fas represented divine law, mos embodied societal customs and traditions, and jus referred to codified law established by the state. These three elements were intertwined, shaping the legal landscape.
A pivotal development came in the 5th century BC with the creation of the Twelve Tables. This set of written laws aimed to address social inequalities and provide a clear framework for legal proceedings. It covered various aspects, including property rights, family law, criminal offenses, and legal procedures. The Tables marked a significant step towards a more formalized and accessible legal system.
Centuries later, Emperor Justinian I undertook a monumental task in the 6th century AD. He commissioned the compilation of existing legal texts, judgments, and scholarly writings into a comprehensive legal code known as the Corpus Juris Civilis. This vast collection codified Roman law and established a foundation for legal scholarship for centuries to come.
Roman law also established crucial legal principles that continue to resonate today. Sine lege nullum crimen, meaning “no crime without a law,” emphasizes the need for codified laws to define offenses and prevent arbitrary punishments. Similarly, ignorantia juris non excusat, translating to “ignorance of the law is no excuse,” highlights the individual’s responsibility to be aware of established laws. Early codified forms of the right to appeal to a higher court, or the presumption of innocence were found in the Roman legal code.These principles, along with the broader framework of Roman law, continue to influence legal systems across the globe, serving as a testament to the enduring legacy of Roman jurisprudence.
Polytheism played a vital role in shaping the religious and political organization of the ancient East, in civilizations such as Mesopotamia, Egypt, and the many cultures of the Indian subcontinent. Across these regions, people worshipped numerous gods and deities who controlled every aspect of life, from fertility, weather and harvest (both connected to ancient irrigation agricultures) to death and the afterlife.
In Mesopotamia, each city-state worshipped a (patron) god or goddess, and monumental temples were constructed to honor these deities. Babylon, one of Mesopotamia’s most famous cities, was home to Marduk, a powerful god believed as the source of justice and all creation. The inhabitants of Mesopotamian cities
thought that they coexist with a group of gods that included gods like Enlil and Ishtar, who influenced everything from daily survival to the rise and fall of kings.
Meanwhile, in Egypt, the belief in numerous gods was deeply intertwined with the annual flooding of the Nile, a life-giving force that enabled robust irrigation agriculture and ensured prosperous harvests. The Egyptians attributed this natural cycle to the benevolence of the gods, believing their deities actively shaped the physical world and human destiny. At the heart of Egypt’s religious structure stood the pharaoh, considered a living mediator between humans and the gods. The pharaoh’s secular and divine power was reflected in grand constructions, including the iconic pyramids that dominated the landscape. Perhaps the most famous of these buildings is the Great Pyramid of Giza, built during the Fourth Dynasty for the pharaoh Khufu. Their burial practices, which involved embalming to preserve bodies as mummies for their journey beyond death. Central to these beliefs were gods such as Ra, the sun god associated with creation, and the divine couple Isis and Osiris, whose mythic stories focused on themes of death, mourning, and rebirth. Osiris, once a king on earth, was killed by his brother Set, mourned by Isis, and resurrected, thereby becoming lord of the Underworld. This narrative highlights the Egyptian belief that life continued beyond mortal existence.
In parallel with these ancient Near Eastern traditions, the Indian subcontinent gave rise to Brahmanism—later evolving into Hinduism—and Buddhism, both of which embraced the concept of transmigration of souls, or reincarnation. According to these beliefs, individuals are bound in a continuous cycle of birth, death, and rebirth determined by karma, which is the sum of one’s actions in past lives. Brahmanism taught that a universal cosmic principle, known as Brahman controlled all existence. Over time, Brahmanism developed into Hinduism, which placed greater emphasis on the three identities (Trimurti) of this transcendental power: Brahma the creator, Vishnu the preserver, and Shiva the destroyer. The rituals, philosophical texts, and practices of Hinduism further developed the idea of a cycle shaped by each individual’s karma. In contrast, Buddhism emerged as a spiritual movement under the guidance of Siddhartha Gautama (the Buddha), who tried to end suffering by understanding the nature of desire. While sharing the concept of reincarnation, Buddhism proposed different paths to achieve liberation (Nirvana) from the cycle of rebirth.
In the same period, new religious practices emerged in China as well. Taoism, based on the teachings of Laozi in the Tao Te Ching, emphasizes living in harmony with the Tao, or “the Way,” the principle of all existence. Although there is some worship of spirits in Taoist practice, Taoism itself is not a polytheistic religion, and many consider it more of life philosophy. Instead of worshipping multiple gods, it focuses on cultivating inner balance and alignment with the natural order (the Tao), encouraging virtues such as simplicity, compassion, and humility.
in the south (e.g. the Battle of Breadfield - 1479) consumed a lot of money, although Matthias’ main aim with the Turks was to maintain peace.
In addition, a certain part of Matthias’ revenues went to the Renaissance court. Renaissance art and humanist thought were brought to Hungary by Matthias’s second wife, Beatrix of Aragon (from Naples), and her entourage. Matthias rebuilt the royal palace in the Renaissance style in Buda and Visegrád, and was a patron of artists, historians, scholars. His library, the Bibliotheca Corviniana was home to more than 2,000 books, so-called corvinas, one of the largest collections of the region at the time.
13. THE LIMITS OF ROYAL POWER (FEUDALISM, ESTATES, AND THE ESTATE MONARCHY)
Key data: estate, pope, bishop, knight, privilege, nobles, feudalism, feudal chain, king, right of resistance, estates monarchy, feudal lord, vassal, Magna Carta Libertatum, Pope Gregory VII
Throughout the Middle Ages, kings (or other monarchs) in Europe held important positions of leadership, but their power was not absolute. Their authority was shaped by feudalism, religious forces, and the social structure of various “estates of the realm”. The pope and local bishop also held great influence, making sure that no monarch could govern alone.
One major factor constraining kings was the feudal chain. In this system, each feudal lord granted land to a vassal in exchange for loyalty and service. The king sat at the top of this chaine as lord paramount (or supreme lord), but the landowning nobles below him also had their own domains, armies, and resources. These nobles, in turn, supported and commanded knights who protected their lands. Under feudalism, the king depended on the nobles for military help and sometimes funds. If a ruler tried to bypass the nobles, take away their rights or just failed to serve their interest, the nobles could resist the king or openly rebel, as they controlled the local forces. Feudalism, therefore, both strengthened and restrained the crown, because it relied on cooperation and mutual obligations.
Another powerful limit on royal authority came from the
Church. During this time, most people in Europe saw spiritual power as crucial to everyday life. The pope stood as the Church’s highest leader, and his approval could legitimize a monarch’s reign. Local bishops, who often held large estates, also had much influence. Monarchs needed good relations with the Church, since the clergy had moral authority and wealth. Controversies over who had the right to appoint bishops, known as nvestiture, showed how kings had to share power. If the monarchs clashed with the Church, they could risk excommunication (as in the case of Pope Gregory VII against HRE Henry IV) and thereby losing support from both the clergy and the faithful masses. Thus, even the most powerful kings could not rule without respect for the Church.
The concept of estates (or estates of the realm) further limited monarchy. Society was usually divided into three main groups: the First Estate (the clergy, or the oratores = prayers), the Second Estate (the nobles, or the bellatores = fighters), and the Third Estate (commoners, or the laboratores = workers). These groups held specific rights and privileges, and tried to represent their own interests in opposition to the king and other estates. Over time, rulers found they had to call on representatives from each estate to approve new taxes or laws, leading to the idea of an estates monarchy. In an estates monarchy, the king shared decisions with various assemblies or councils formed by these groups. While the king still led the country, he relied on the estates for support, and they expected him to recognize their traditional rights.
Two famous examples of estates monarchies appeared in France and England. In France, the monarch (first Philip IV in 1302) summoned the Estates-General, an assembly that included members of the First, Second, and Third Estates. The French king needed their backing for raising revenue, especially as he was in conflict with the pope and led campaigns in Flanders. But the Estates-General could also resist royal plans if they believed those plans hurt their interests. Although French kings gradually increased their power, they still had to work with the estates to pass important measures.
In England, the power of the nobility was clearly seen in the Magna Carta Libertatum of 1215. King John’s (r. 1199-1216) attempts to collect heavy taxes for leading wars for lost territories, his reforms of the legal system and his excommunication by the pope all upset the barons (the powerful nobles), who then forced him to sign this document. The Magna Carta required the king to
respect certain rights, such as fair trials and limits on taxation without consent from the nobility. It also hinted that the monarch must also obey the law; it stipulated that if the monarch does not respect the law, the nobility has the right to resist him (right of resistance). Over time, the English Parliament developed from these principles, with a bicameral system: the House of Lords - representing the Lords, the high nobility of England (lords temporal) and the high clergy (lords spiritual); and the House of Commons - representing the commoners of the counties). As Parliament evolved, it exerted growing influence over matters of taxation, succession, and policy, ensuring that English kings had to negotiate and compromise with a broad range of political actors.
14. ECCLESIASTICAL AND CHIVALRIC CULTURE; MEDIEVAL UNIVERSITIES IN EUROPE AND HUNGARY
Key data: pope, bishop, monk, Benedictine Order, Franciscan Order, mendicant order, monastery, university, Catholic, saint, codex, scholasticism, Charlemagne, St. Benedict, St. Francis of Assisi, Thomas Aquinas, Frankish Empire, Oxford, Bologna, Pécs, Óbuda
During the early Middle Ages, the Carolingian Renaissance under Frankish ruler Charlemagne (r. 768–814) laid the groundwork for Europe’s later cultural flourishing. Through the promotion of classical learning, the adoption of a standardized writing system, and the preservation of ancient texts, the Carolingian rulers set a precedent for the cultural development in subsequent centuries. Building on these foundations, the High and Late Middle Ages (1000-1500) witnessed a vibrant cultural development, shaped significantly by ecclesiastical (i.e. church) institutions.
Monasteries, cathedral schools, and bishops’ courts served not only as spiritual centers but also as key places for transmitting knowledge. In their scriptoria, monks of the Benedictine Order (founded by St. Benedict in 529) copied and illuminated (i.e. decorated) books called codices in Latin, thus safeguarding both classical sources and newly composed writings. The mendicant Franciscan Order, founded by St. Francis of Assisi, transmitted knowledge not only through founding schools and teaching at emerging universities, but also by actively preaching and
educating laypeople in urban centers. Latin, which functioned as the Catholic Church’s universal tongue, provided a shared language across Europe, enabling scholars and clerics from different regions to engage in debate and collaboration.
With the Church’s patronage (financial help), the arts attained remarkable achievements. Romanesque (10-12th centuries) architecture, with its rounded arches, heavy walls, and sturdy pillars, emerged first. Later the Gothic (12-15th centuries) style with its decorated arches, soaring spires and colorful stainedglass windows reflected the deep devotion and ambition of the age. At the same time, an emphasis on literacy in the church trained a large group of learned people who wrote chronicles, theological works, and early historical works.
Alongside these spiritual movements, a separate chivalric culture arose among nobles. Knights and noblemen upheld ideals of honor, bravery, responsibility, and courtly love, often taking inspiration from legends such as those of King Arthur. Troubadours and poets celebrated noble deeds and virtues, giving rise to a shared idea of what it means to be noble. Although separate from the Catholic Church, the chivalric culture was deeply rooted in religion.
The period’s key intellectual development was Scholasticism, which tried to merge the newly rediscovered works of Aristotle with Christian doctrine. Scholars like Thomas Aquinas worked to prove that faith and reason were complementary rather than conflicting. His renowned Summa Theologica used Aristotelian methods of logic to answer theological and philosophical questions, like whether or not God exists. This renewed interest in ancient learning—passed down through Arabic translations—led to fresh perspectives on science and philosophy.
Another major development was the rise of medieval universities, often granted approval by the pope. These institutions emerged amid growing urbanization and a heightened need for educated administrators and clerics. Students attending these universities studied the septem artes liberales—the seven liberal arts, divided into the trivium (grammar, rhetoric, logic) and the quadrivium (arithmetic, geometry, music, astronomy). Pioneering centers like Bologna (1088), noted for law, and Oxford (1096), celebrated for theology and philosophy, soon gained fame. These universities gained a level of autonomy and formed guild-like structures wherein teachers and students controlled some aspects of campus life. Funding often relied on tuition or
fees paid by students, but sometimes cities intervened to foot the bills. These cities often competed to attract renowned masters, with which they aimed to boost their prestige.
The Kingdom of Hungary also joined this broader academic movement. Under Louis the Great (r. 1342–1382), the University of Pécs was founded in 1367, signaling royal interest in fostering advanced learning and efficient governance. It can also be viewed as an attempt to spread Hungarian influence over the Balkans through religion and learning. Despite its promising beginning, the institution faced economic obstacles that led to its decline. King Sigismund (r. 1387–1437) later established a university in Óbuda, near Buda, seeking to enhance Hungary’s reputation in the European cultural sphere. Yet this university likewise struggled, unable to match the enduring status of places like Bologna or Oxford.
15. THE GREAT SCHISM AND THE DIFFERENCES BETWEEN WESTERN AND EASTERN CHRISTIANITY
Key data: pope, bishop, Benedictine Order, monastery (monasticism), Catholic, Orthodox, Crusades, patriarch, 325 the Council of Nicaea, 476 the Fall of the Western Roman Empire, 1054 the Great Schism, Charlemagne, Constantinople, Byzantine Empire, Frankish Empire, Papal States
In 325 AD, the Council of Nicaea laid a critical foundation for Christian unity by clarifying core theological questions. Emperor Constantine convened the council with the aim of unifying an expanding religion that was divided over disputes about Christ’s nature. The resulting dogma—the so-called Nicene Creed— declared that Jesus Christ was of the same essence as the Father (God)—a defining principle that would remain central to Christian theology. However, while this council represented an early attempt to consolidate belief across the Roman Empire, cultural and political differences gradually formed distinct identities in the eastern and western parts of the Church.
Over the following centuries, the collapse of the Western Roman Empire (476 AD) and the survival of the Eastern or Byzantine Empire in Constantinople further strengthened this difference. Also, due to the expansion of the Islamic caliphates, only Rome and Constantinople remained as important religious centers, as Alexandria, Jerusalem and Antioch became part
of the Islamic world. The two centers, however, held a sharp disagreement over hierarchy: Eastern Christianity had long held that the Bishop of Rome (the pope) was only “first among equals” ( primus inter pares), but did not hold ultimate authortity; naturally, the popes, leading the Western Christians, wanted to assert their dominance over all Christianity.
In the West, the papacy in Rome gained increasing prominence as a force of stability in a fragmented, divided Europe. Kings and nobles frequently asked for the pope’s approval for legitimacy, which elevated the pope’s spiritual authority into a political influence. The independence and influence of the pope was further strengthened when with the help of the Frankish Empire, a separate sovereign state, the Papal States, was created in the middle of the Italian peninsula. Meanwhile, in the East, the emperors in Constantinople worked in close cooperation with patriarchs and bishops. However, this arrangement allowed the Byzantine emperor considerable influence in ecclesiastical matters e.g. he appointed the Patriarch of Consantinple and the bishops, leading to a more state-influenced religious structure, called caesaropapism.
In terms of the religious doctrines, the East and West shared belief in the Nicene Creed, but nuances in interpretation gradually developed. The most controversial addition was the Filioque clause (“and the Son”) inserted into the Creed by Western churches, declaring that the Holy Spirit proceeded from the Father “and the Son.” Eastern theologians disputed this view, arguing that it distorted the Creed’s original wording. This disagreement highlighted deeper tensions about ecclesiastical authority: the West insisted on the pope’s primacy to clarify the doctrine, whereas the East maintained that doctrinal changes required a council to be convened.
Liturgical and cultural differences also became more pronounced. While Latin evolved into the primary liturgical and scholarly language in the West, Greek remained dominant in the East. Such linguistic divergence made theological dialogue and cooperation difficult. Similarly, artistic styles diverged: Western churches came to emphasize sculptures and carved decorations, whereas Eastern churches favored icons and mosaic representations. Beyond aesthetics, rules about fasting, doctrines about the Purgatory, further fragmenting a
once-shared religious heritage. Also, in the Eastern tradition, married men can be ordained as priests, whereas in the Western Church, clerical celibacy is generally compulsory for all priests. Furthermore, in terms of monasticism, Western monasticism is traditionally characterized by communal life governed by standardized rules (such as the rule of Benedictine Order), while Eastern monasticism places greater emphasis on ascetic practices, silent prayer, and personal spirituality.
By the 9th and 10th centuries, conflicts frequently erupted over interpretation of the doctrines, jurisdiction of the pope/ patriarch, and missionary activity. The Eastern priests’ work in Slavic territories sometimes overlapped with Latin missionaries, creating friction over which leader—the Pope in Rome or the Patriarch of Constantinople —held authority over newly converted communities. The crowning of the Frankish ruler, Charlemagne as “Emperor of the Romans” by Pope Leo III in 800 particularly outraged Constantinople, which still called itself the “Roman Empire”. The papacy’s claim to the right of granting imperial titles showed Rome’s motivation for jurisdiction over all Christianity. This also sharpened disputes over who truly inherited the mantle of the Christian Roman Empire.
These long-simmering tensions came to a head in 1054 in what is traditionally described as the Great Schism. The ambassadors of Pope Leo IX travelled to Constantinople to resolve disputes but ended up placing a bull of excommunication on the altar of the Hagia Sophia, the central church of Eastern Christianity. Patriarch Michael I Cerularius retaliated by excommunicating the ambassadors. While this dramatic event is often cited as the Schism’s definitive moment, it was part of a lengthy process. The differences in theology, language, and governance had grown far too great for the two traditions to remain unified.
In the aftermath, the Western Church, recognized as the Roman Catholic Church, increasingly emphasized papal authority and, while the Eastern Church, recognized as the Eastern Orthodox Church, preserved its liturgical traditions and emphasis on the role of the councils. These differences consolidated over the following centuries. Later events—particularly the (Western) Fourth Crusade’s sack of Constantinople in 1204—ensured that the schism became permanent.
16. QUESTIONS REGARDING THE HUNGARIANS’ ORIGIN; THE HUNGARIANS IN ETELKÖZ
Key data: Finno-Ugric, tribe, prince, blood pact, Avars, the Conquest, runic script, Grand Principality of Hungary, Álmos, Árpád, House of Árpád, 895 the Conquest, Magna Hungaria, Carpathian Basin, Etelköz, Byzantine Empire
According to tradition, elements of prehistoric mythological, historical, and cultural memory were preserved by medieval chroniclers. Central to these were the legends of the csodaszarvas (Miracle Stag), the turul, and the vérszerződés (blood pact). These myths underpin the Hungarians’ narrative of origin, associating them with both divine guidance and communal agreements. Also, ethnographic studies revealed that these myths show parallels with various nomadic people (Sycthians, Turkic peoples) with who the Hungarians mingled with on the Eurasian Steppe for centuries.
Archeogenetics and anthropology have provided insights into the physical characteristics of early Hungarians. By analyzing skeletal remains, these sciences can reconstruct aspects such as height, body structure and hair color. Genetic studies can compare ancient DNA samples (mitochondrial DNA) with modern populations, revealing patterns of connections in the genetic makeup of the inhabitants of the Carpathian Basin and other peoples in Central Asia. While bones and artifacts cannot reveal an individual’s cultural identity, they show evidence of migration and intermixing.
Historical records from foreign sources enrich this narrative. Byzantine emperors and Islamic travellers wrote about the Hungarians, portraying them as a people of nomadic lifestyle and associated them with the many Turkic people on the Steppe. Indeed, linguistic studies reveal that the Hungarian language, classified under the Finno-Ugric family, diverged from its relatives in complex interactions with Turkic-speaking peoples during the migrations from the Ural region to the Carpathian Basin.
Archaeological finds provide material insights into early Hungarian life. Burial sites reveal a nomadic culture with distinctive weaponry, artifacts showing the centrality of horse-based warfare, and ornamental designs, reflecting their steppe heritage. Among the most frequent finds were sabretache plates, belt ornaments, sabres, and horse ornaments. These discoveries also highlight interactions with neighboring cultures, particularly in trade and
warfare. Despite these advancements, no significant written records written in the Hungarians runic script survive from this era.
Linguistic evidence also contributes to understanding Hungarian origins. Although classified as an Finno-Ugric language, the influence of Turkic, Slavic, and later Latin and Germanic languages is undeniable. The shared grammar and vocabulary connect Hungarian to distant relatives such as Finnish and Estonian. However, as the Hungarians moved westward into the multiethnic steppe regions, their language absorbed words related to governance, warfare, and nomadic lifestyle from Turkic tongues.
The origins of the Hungarians have been traced back to Magna Hungaria, located near the Volga River, where Friar Julian (Juliánus barát) discovered Hungarian-speaking communities in the 1230s. These groups were likely descendants of those who separated from the main Hungarian groups earlier. Magna Hungaria, often associated with Bashkiria, is believed to have been the ancestral home (urheimat) of the Hungarians before their westward migration. Following their departure, the Hungarians moved into Levedia, situated between the Don and Dnieper Rivers, closely aligned with the Khazar Khaganate in the 7th to 9th centuries. Living a semi-nomadic lifestyle, they practiced seasonal pastoralism influenced by Turkic culture, which was also reflected in their language and customs. This era also saw the tribal confederacy (an alliance of the Seven Tribes) take shape under the dual leadership system, with the kende as a sacral leader and the gyula as the military commander.
Around 830, Etelköz—located between the Dnieper and the Lower Danube—became the new homeland of the Hungarians. Here, the tribal confederacy evolved into a centralized political entity under the leadership of Prince Álmos and then later his son, Prince Árpád. This development marked the emergence of the Hungarian steppe state or the Grand Principality of Hungary, led by the House of Árpád. The blood pact (vérszerződés), a probably Scythian-inspired steppe tradition, symbolized the tribes’ unity under a single ruler.
In Etelköz, the Hungarians perfected their semi-nomadic lifestyle, characterized by mobile yurts and herding practices. Their reputation as formidable warriors made them sought-after mercenaries, serving in conflicts involving the Byzantines and Moravians. The addition of the Kabar tribe, composed of defectors from the Khazars, strengthened their military and political structure. This period laid the foundation for the conquest of the Carpathian Basin in 895.
17. THE CONSOLIDATION OF FEUDAL HUNGARIAN STATE: THE LAWS OF LADISLAUS AND COLOMAN
Key data: king, diocese (bishopric), (Saint) Ladislaus I (r. 10771095), Coloman the Learned, primogeniture, cathedral chapter, personal union
The reigns of Saint Ladislaus (1077–1095) and his nephew Coloman the Learned (1095–1116) marked a transitional period in Hungarian history, as these kings consolidated the feudal order and strengthened the Christian foundation of the kingdom. However, their path to power show that the rule of primogeniture (the firstborn son inheriting power) had not been consolidated: Ladislaus’ brother Géza’s sons were passed over in favour of Ladislaus as they were too young, while Coloman overtook his older borther Álmos in the line of succession.
Both Saint Ladislaus and Coloman introduced strict legal frameworks to stabilize the realm after decades of internal strife following the death of King Stephen I. Saint Ladislaus, known as an “Athleta Christi” (“Soldier of Christ”) took the first steps in establishing a strong feudal system by emphasizing the protection of private property. His laws imposed severe punishments for theft: any theft above the value of a hen (10 denarii) was punishable by death. This harsh stance showed the sanctity of private ownership and discouraged theft. Coloman, known as “the Bookish” for his scholarly background, slightly softened these laws. He adjusted the threshold for capital punishment, applying it to thefts over the value of a cow (20 denarii). Both kings recognized that a stable system of private property was essential for a functional feudal hierarchy, where the landowning aristocracy’s wealth (and loyalty) depended on clearly defined ownership of land and property.
Another critical aspect of their legal reforms was addressing vagrancy, which was seen as a destabilizing force in feudal society. Both rulers issued laws to combat this issue, which forced the settlement of vagrants in given places. By rooting the population in specific villaegs, the kings tried to ensure a steady supply of labor for the nobility and a steady income of taxes, and to integrate wandering groups into the feudal system.
The consolidation of Christianity was another key element
of Ladislaus and Coloman’s reigns, building on the work of St. Stephen. Despite the laws of St. Stephen, pagan customs persisted, showing that half a century was not nearly enough to completely convert Hungarian society. Ladislaus’ policies targeted remaining pagan practices, with laws forbidding sacrifices at wells, trees, fountains, or stones. Offenders faced significant penalties, such as offering an ox to the Christian church for their sins. Regular church attendance was also compulsory, and those who failed to comply faced corporal punishment. These measures were instrumental in consolidating Christianity as the cultural and moral basis of feudal Hungarian society.
Under their reign, new dioceses (bishoprics) were established, including one in Zagreb and another one in Nyitra. Middle-level church officials, such as deans (esperesek), were appointed to supervise the lower clergy, ensuring that Christian teachings were uniform in all levels of the clergy and lay society. Cathedral chapters played a crucial role in assisting bishops with administrative duties and served as trusted centers for issuing official documents (i.e. places of authentication, “hiteleshely”).
Saint Ladislaus and Coloman also extended Hungary’s borders, particularly in Croatia. In 1091, Ladislaus used a vacancy on the Croatian throne to assert control over the region. He soon appointed his nephew Álmos to administer the territory, and founded the Diocese of Zagreb to exert Hungarian influence. However, the Hungarian royals were soon pushed out of Croatia.
Coloman, however, continued the campaign for Croatia. In 1097, he defeated the troops of the Croatian nobility, and negotiated an agreement between himself and the nobles of the land. He was crowned King of Croatia and Dalmatia in 1102. In 1105, even the largest and most powerful Dalmatian cities, Spalato (today Split), Trau (today Trogir), and Zara (today Zadar) accepted Coloman’s rule. From this point on, the HungarianCroatian relationship developed as a sort of unequal personal union; with the Croatian nobility retaining its autonomy and their assembly the Sabor, but at the same time, their leader, the bán (governor/viceroy) was appointed by and responsible to the King of Hungary alone. This conquest also introduced a source of persistent conflict with Venice and Byzantium, as the three powers struggled for control over the trade routes and strategic cities in the Adriatic region.
18. NEW DIRECTIONS IN DOMESTIC AND FOREIGN POLICY UNDER BÉLA III
Key data: chancery, patriarchal cross, Béla III (r. 1172-1196), Anonymus, Byzantine Empire, Holy Land, Halych (Galicia)
King Béla III (r. 1172–1196) stands out as a key figure in medieval Hungarian history, who managed to implement administrative modernization in his kingdom.
Béla III implemented a comprehensive reform of Hungary’s administration. Inspired by his time in the Byzantine court, where he was raised by Emperor Manuel I as a potential heir, Béla introduced elements of Byzantine bureaucracy to Hungary. The establishment of a royal chancery was one of his significant reforms. This institution was tasked with recording legal and administrative matters discussed before the king, ensuring transparency and accountability. A notary was hired to prepare drafts of documents, and scribes meticulously created final copies. Famously, in 1181, he issued a law ordering in a charter (document) was to be issued for all transactions happening in his presence. This emphasis on written records was showed a move towards institutionalized administration, independent of the control of the church. Béla also supported the education of his clerks, encouraging studies abroad. One of his most famous clerks (allegedly) was Anonymus, the mysterious chronicler of the Gesta Hungarorum, whose work remains an important source on Hungarian history.
Béla III’s adoption of the patriarchal cross, also known as the Greek double cross, on his soldiers’ shields showed the dual influence of Byzantine and Catholic worlds. By using this symbol, Béla allegedly tried to show that he was the equal of the great Byzantine Emperor, Manuel. The patriarchal cross later became used by several kings and cities in Hungary, and eventually was adopted as part of Hungary’s coat of arms.
Béla III’s foreign policy was characterized by both territorial ambitions and strategic marriages. His time involved in Byzantine politics shaped his diplomatic knowledge. Marriage alliances played a central role in his international strategy. His second marriage to Margaret Capet, the sister of King Philip II of France, created ties with Western Europe. At the same time, his daughter Margaret’s marriage to Byzantine Emperor Isaac II cemented relations with the Eastern Empire. He also strove to have a good
relationship with the pope: in 1192, he achieved the canonization (sainthood) of his role model, St. Ladislaus, and promised that he would lead a Crusade to the Holy Land—a promise that was inherited by his son, the later King Andrew II. These alliances and connections not only enhanced Hungary’s prestige but showed it to be a bridge between East and West.
Béla pursued an active expansionary foreign policy, as well. In 1188, he conquered the wealthy Halych (Galicia) region and made his son Andrew prince there; however, their hold over the territory was only temporary. He also reclaimed territories from the declining Byzantine Empire, particularly in Croatia, Serbia, and Bosnia, extending Hungary’s influence in the Balkans.
Lastly, Béla’s reign was marked by financial stability and prosperity. His revenue, estimated at 240,000 marks annually, rivaled that of contemporary Western European monarchs. This wealth was derived from both demesne (domanial) revenues, such as crops and taxes, and regale rights, including tariffs, salt monopolies, and minting. Béla’s financial policies strengthened the monarchy’s economic base, enabling ambitious foreign ventures and administrative reforms.
19. THE FOREIGN POLICY OF LOUIS THE GREAT AND
THE LAWS OF 1351
Key data: law of entailment, manor court, fundamental rights of the nobility, high and common noble, personal union, Naples, Krakow, Moldavia, Wallachia, Bosnia, Dalmatia, 1342-1382 the reign of Louis the Great, 1351 the laws of Louis, 1370 personal union of Hungary and Poland
Louis the Great (r. 1342–1382) is remembered as a major monarch of the Angevin (Anjou) houes in Hungary and as a successful successor of his father Charles.
Louis’s foreign policy focused on securing Hungary’s borders and expanding influence across Europe, which was especially important in light of the Ottoman expansion in the 14th century. His campaigns against Naples were driven by dynastic claims. While he achieved some temporary successes (occupying Naples), his efforts ultimately failed to secure the throne for Hungary.
In 1370, following the death of Casimir III of Poland, Louis ascended to the Polish throne, creating a personal union between Hungary and Poland. This union meant that separate governments
were maintained for both kingdoms. The Polish crown, of course, brought prestige and allowed Louis to influence Central European politics.
Louis successfully expanded Hungarian influence in the south: over Wallachia and Moldavia, turning them into vassal states that paid a tribute to Hungary. His campaigns consolidated Hungary’s dominance over these regions, strengthening the kingdom’s southeastern defenses. Similarly, his efforts against Bosnia brought the region under Hungary’s sphere of influence. To the west, Louis fought against Venice to maintain control over Dalmatia, an area of strategic importance on the Adriatic coast. His victories against Venice secured Hungary’s access to the sea.
Domestically, Louis is best remembered for his Laws of 1351. The laws represent a cornerstone of Hungarian medieval governance. These laws reaffirmed and expanded the Golden Bull (1222), the foundational document of nobles’ rights in Hungary. Among the significant reforms was the introduction of entailment, which declared noble lands inalienable. This meant that noble estates could not be sold or given away and had to remain within the family, reverting to the crown if the family line ended. This law ensured the stability of noble estates and prevented the decline of noble wealth through sale, inheritance disputes or coercion.
The laws also codified the fundamental rights of the nobility, ensuring their legal equality under the principle of “one and the same freedom.” This created a unified class of nobles, regardless of their wealth or status. High nobles (magnates / barons), who often held significant lands and titles, and common nobles, who had smaller estates shared the same legal privileges. Still, in the Hungarian feudal familarity system, high nobles held influence over the common nobility, employing them as dependent familiars for pay.
Louis introduced the manor court system, empowering landlords to act as judges over legal disputes on their estates. This strengthened the authority of the nobility. Nobles were also granted total tax exemption, reinforcing their independence from royal taxation.
PRE-PUBLICATION
One of the most impactful economic reforms was the introduction of the ninth, a tax paid by serfs to their landlords. This law standardized obligations across estates, ensuring nobles had a steady income while maintaining a clear social hierarchy. This also prevented richer nobles from attracting serfs from others’ estates by offering a lower cut of the taxes.
official language of the Habsburg Empire. This provoked opposition from the nobility and later a movement to modernise the Hungarian language (e.g. by Ferenc Kazinczy).
Probably his most important decree was the Patent of Toleration in 1781, in which he ended religious conflicts in Hungary and his empire. He allowed Lutheran, Calvinist and Orthodox people to take offices as civil servants. The decree also allowed these groups to establish “clandestine churches” (churches with no bell, tower and street-facing door), where they could practice their faith. Joseph later also gave religious rights to Jewish people.
Joseph’s Decree on Serfs (1785) gave serfs throughout the empire the rights to move, to study, to inherit freely and to marry. However, this still did not mean freedom to serfs. He also planned to abolish the privileges of the Hungarian nobility and started a census of the Hungarian population to collect data on the number of people and the size of lands they own, but his plan never materialised.
Famously, he also increased his influence over the Church: he closed down monastic orders not involved in education or health care and confiscated their property, and took away the Church’s right to censorship. Pope Pius VI tried to protest against this, but to no avail. Nevertheless, he spent a great deal of money on training priests and increasing the number of parishes, so that he included the lower clergy in the reforms.
Joseph’s reforms met with resistance from the Hungarian estates and the Catholic Church, but some Hungarians (the so-called Josephinists) considered the reforms timely and important. Joseph died in 1790 and, on his deathbed, revoked all his decrees except those on religious tolerance and serfs (the so-called ‘notable stroke of the pen’).
12. COLONIZATION IN THE 16-17TH CENTURIES AND THE DEVELOPMENT OF GLOBAL TRADE
Key data: colony, global trade, capitalism, bank, joint stock company, Spain, London, New York, 1492 discovery of America
The discovery of America in 1492 opened up a completely new world for European powers. Early on, Spanish explorers like Cortés and Pizarro led the way into the newly discovered territories that had long been home to advanced pre-Columbian societies. When Hernán Cortés arrived in what is now Mexico, he encountered the
powerful Aztec Empire, a civilization noted for its impressive capital city, Tenochtitlan, and a complex society with a rich culture, which ultimately declined as a result of the Spanish arrival. Similarly, Francisco Pizarro’s expeditions led to the fall of the Inca Empire in South America, a vast and organized state that was home to an intricate network of roads and developed agriculture. (It has to be said that these pre-Colombian societies were altogether at the technological level of the Bronze Age.) These encounters were the beginning of European colonization, which drastically transformed the global landscape and created a new economic world based on global trade.
The Spanish (and Portuguese) conquest the Mayan, Inca and Aztec empires not only resulted in the collapse of these long-established civilizations but also in the creation of new colonial system geared towards extracting wealth for the benefit of European monarchies. The Spanish established systems to exploit the natural resources of the conquered lands. Gold and silver mined from these territories, usually using indigenous forced labourers, flowed back to Europe, fueling the early stages of global trade and contributing to the rise of capitalism. Also, this influx of gold and silver satisfied the European need for precious metals, which emerged because of a growing negative trade balance with Asia.
At the same time, the trade networks that had developed during the colonization process would eventually form part of a much larger system known as the triangular trade. This triangular trading system linked America, Europe, and Africa in a cycle of exchange that had a profound impact on each continent. European ships left home ports loaded with manufactured goods, which they traded in Africa for enslaved people. These enslaved individuals were then transported across the Atlantic under brutal conditions to work on plantations in the Americas. The raw materials produced on these plantations— sugar, tobacco, cotton, and other goods—were shipped back to Europe, completing the triangle and generating enormous profits for European merchants and investors.
The growing wealth from these colonial ventures led to significant changes in European economic practices. The expansion of global trade necessitated new forms of financial organization. Banks became central in financing these long and risky voyages by providing the necessary capital to fund expeditions. Also, joint stock companies emerged so that multiple investors could pool their capital into one trading company. Companies such as the English East India Company and the Dutch East India Company were among the first to operate on a multinational scale, allowing a larger group
of people to share the risks and rewards of overseas trade. Many of these companies’ stocks were available to sell and buy on stock exchanges, a new features of the era.
The rise of new centers of trade along the Atlantic coast was another crucial development during the 16th and 17th centuries. Cities like London, Lisbon, Seville, Amsterdam, and Antwerp evolved into trade hubs where goods from across the globe were exchanged. All of this meant a decline for the Levantine trade network that gave the backbone of Europen trade in the middle ages. Many more European nations, including Britain (Virginia Colony), the Netherlands and France (e.g. the Mississippi valley, Canada), established colonies that became integral parts of a growing global economy. Later, new cities emerged on the Atlantic coast of America, such as New York, a settlement originally built by Dutch settlers. Alongside these developments, a European division of labor emerged, with different regions specializing in the production of distinct goods. The richer countries in the west invested into the production of industrial goods, which they exchanged for agricultural products that were in the focus of Eastern European economies that were not directly connected to the world trade.
The Age of Discovery also had a significant impact on European politics, too. Monarchs in Western Europe could rely on more taxes from the bourgeois middle class (e.g. merchants, bankers) and on incomes from royal monopolies on trading. This allowed them to push the local nobility into the background and keep them away from power. From the increased incomes, the monarchs maintained a system of highly trained administrators and a large mercenary army, both of which became the backbone of absolutism (absolute monarchy)a system of more or less unconstrained monarchical power.
13. HUNGARY’S ECONOMY IN THE 16-17TH C. EUROPEAN DIVISION OF LABOUR
PRE-PUBLICATION
Key data: second serfdom, Gábor Bethlen (1613-1629), Principality of Transylvania, Royal Hungary Ottoman Hungary, Vienna, mercantlisim, hajdú
In the 16th and 17th centuries, Hungary’s economy was closely linked to European trade, but its development was shaped by its own local conditions and the political split of the region. During this period, Hungary was divided into three parts: Royal Hungary under Habsburg rule, Ottoman Hungary under Turkish control, and the
semi-independent Principality of Transylvania. This division affected political, military, and economic relations and set the stage for how Hungary participated in European trade.
Hungary entered European trade as part of Eastern Europe, a region known more for farming than industry. The economy was mainly based on agriculture, with large areas of land used for growing crops and raising animals. Hungarian noble landowners focused on producing goods like cattle, wine, and leather to be sold on foreign markets. Cattle breeding was especially important, with Hungarian cattle, known for their hardiness, being bred extensively and exported to Western markets in Austria, Bohemia, Italy, and German lands. These cattle, which were driven by cattle herders, the hajdús, were in high demand in the West, helping Hungary secure a steady role in European trade.
At the same time, Hungary experienced the effects of European division of labour. After the Dózsa uprising, the Hungarian nobility enforced a set of punitive laws on the serfs, creating the Hungarian system of second serfdom, which meant even fewer rights for serfs than before (e.g. lack of mobility. This system gave landlords a great deal of power over the serfs, who were tied to the land and had little freedom. Landlords made large profits by controlling the work of these serfs and extracting as much value as possible from the land. While Hungarian farmers grew crops such as wheat—which was sold in nearby markets like Vienna and Bohemia—the system of serfdom meant that the vast majority of the benefits went to the landowners rather than the serfs. This imbalance reinforced social divisions and limited the chances for economic progress among the common people.
PRE-PUBLICATION
Despite the strong agricultural base, Hungary did not see much industrial development during this time. There were very few large towns and markets, which slowed the growth of industries. The few towns that existed were small and lacked the necessary infrastructure for big industrial projects. Instead, local production relied on small-scale, guild-based industries. These guilds, which were especially active in the Saxon cities of Transylvania, helped maintain traditional crafts and skills. However, they were not enough to drive a major industrial revolution in Hungary.
When it came to natural resources, Hungary did not mine precious metals like gold or silver. Instead, the region focused on copper mining. While copper was exported to European markets, it did not bring the same level of wealth as precious metals might have. In this challenging environment, the Principality of Transylvania
under Gábor Bethlen (1613-1629) stood out. Bethlen followed a policy similar to mercantilism, which means he tried to boost the economy by increasing exports and controlling key industries. He encouraged the settlement of miners and artisans in Transylvania and maintained a government monopoly on important exports such as cattle. This policy helped Transylvania become more competitive in European trade.
14. CONFLICTS BETWEEN THE ABSOLUTE MONARCHS AND THE ESTATES (BOCSKAI, BETHLEN, ZRÍNYI)
Key data: absolutism, estates diet, hajdú freedom, recatholicization, Counter-Reformation, Principality of Transylvania, István Bocskai, Gábor Bethlen (1613-1629), Miklós Zrínyi, 1606 Treaty of Vienna, 1648 Peace of Westphalia, 1664 Winter Campaign, 1664 Treaty of Vasvár
The conflicts between Habsburg absolute monarchs and the Hungarian estates in the 17th century were rooted in two problems: the monarchs’ attempts to marginalize the nobility by disrespecting their traditional rights (e.g. convening of diets), and their attempts to re-Catholicize the largely Protestant Hungarian nobility.
The first larger conflict started with the outbreak of the “Long Turkish War” or “Fifteen Years’ War” (1591-1606) between the Habsburgs and the Ottomans. During the early years of the Long Turkish War, the Habsburgs received assistance from Transylvanian Prince Zsigmond Báthory, yet they were unable to expel the Ottomans from Hungary. At the Battle of Mezőkeresztes (1596), the Christian forces nearly secured a decisive victory but were unexpectedly defeated by a reinvigorated Ottoman army.
The prolonged war caused destruction o the Hungarian lands, leading to significant depopulation and steep tax increases by the Habsburgs to support the military effort. The conflict also saw several Habsburg-led atrocities against the Hungarian people. Un/underpaid Austrian mercenaries frequently raided towns and villages to compensate for the lack of salary, while the Habsburg court enacted laws targeting the Protestant population. Protestant Hungarian nobles were accused of treason—often on charges of lèse-majesté (offences against the king)—and had their properties confiscated during trials.
In response to these repressive measures, the Calvinist nobleman István Bocskai launched a resistance against King Rudolf’s policies. Bocskai recruited the hajdús, irregular soldiers known for their military effectiveness, and gained support from dissatisfied Protestant nobles. This opposition culminated in the Bocskai Uprising (1604–1606), which aimed to safeguard the traditional rights of the Hungarian nobility and resist the Habsburg-led CounterReformation. Bocskai’s forces quickly secured victories, capturing eastern Upper Hungary, the Partium, and Transylvania. In 1605, the Transylvanian diet elected him Prince of Transylvania, while 22 counties in Upper Hungary elected him Prince of Hungary. Though his authority was not recognized in the Western counties, Bocskai aspired to reunite Hungary and even received a crown from the Ottoman Pasha, which he accepted merely as a gift.
The resulting Treaty of Vienna (1606) restored religious freedom for Protestant nobles and secured their traditional rights. In exchange for renouncing his title as Prince of Hungary, Bocskai retained his Transylvanian title. He also rewarded around 9,000 hajdús with collective nobility (hajdú freedom) and settled them in his own estates—these territories later became the Hajdú towns. He also helped mediate peace between the Habsburgs and Ottomans before his death later that year.
Bocskai’s success also meant that the Principality of Transylvania became a sort of fortress against Counter-Reformation and absolutist policies. This role was continued by Prince Gábor Bethlen (1613-1629) who used his power to resist the centralizing and re-catholicizing tendencies of the Habsburgs and represent the interests of the Hungarian nobility. These tendencies led to the Thirty Years’ War, which broke out due to Bohemian resistance to the Habsburgs in 1618.
During the Thirty Years’ War, the Protestant Bohemians invited the Calvinist Bethlen to help them oppose the Habsburgs. Bethlen saw that a Habsburg victory could lead to even harsher repression in Hungarian lands, so in 1619, he initiated a campaign in Royal Hungary. By 1620 he had captured most of its lands, leading the Hungarian Diet of Besztercebánya to elect him King of Hungary. However, Bethlen declined the crown, wary that the removing the Habsburgs might expose Hungary to increased Ottoman oppression. This cautious approach proved wise as Habsburg King Ferdinand II counterattacked following his victory against the Bohemians at the Battle of White Mountain in 1620. Capitalizing on his strong position, Bethlen negotiated the Peace of Nikolsburg in 1621. The treaty
secured free religious practice for Hungarian Protestants, upheld the Treaty of Vienna (1606), and expanded Transylvania with seven new counties (until his death). Transylvania’s participation later continued under György I Rákóczi, who successfully challenged the Habsburgs.
Miklós Zrínyi, a central figure in mid-17th century Hungary, was a Hungarian-Croatian general, statesman, and poet, as well as the great-grandson of the celebrated hero of Szigetvár. Zrínyi is best remembered for his literary contributions, most notably his epic poem, the Peril of Sziget (Szigeti veszedelem), though his political and military writings—such as Deliberations on the Life of King Matthias and An Antidote to the Turkish Poison—also played a significant role in promoting his vision for Hungary. His works advocated for a national army, a national leader (potentially György Rákóczi), and national unity, reflecting his deep-seated desire to see Hungary free from both Ottoman and Habsburg domination.
His military career saw him rise to prominence when he was appointed captain (general) and bán of Croatia. In this role, he constructed a fortress on his own lands (Új-Zrínyivár) to serve as a defensive bulwark. Although a supporter of the Habsburgs, Zrínyi harbored aspirations for a national monarch to assume the Hungarian throne and believed that the Hungarian nobility should establish its own army to oust the Ottomans and counteract Habsburg control. Despite these ambitions, the Habsburgs remained wary, ultimately did not endorse his plans.
Zrínyi’s military reputation was cemented during the 1664 Winter Campaign. With the Habsburg general Montecuccoli unable to halt Ottoman advances that had captured strategic locations like Párkány and Érsekújvár, the Hungarian nobles rallied behind him, and so the was appointed commander-in-chief of the Hungarian armies by King Leopold I. In the campaign, Zrínyi led his troops deep into Ottoman territory and destroyed the Bridge of Eszék (Osijek), thereby hindering Turkish movement and reinforcements for several months. However, his subsequent liberation of the castle of Kanizsa was not supported by Montecuccoli, who even allowed the Ottomans to seize and raze his fortress at Új-Zrínyivár.
After the Habsburgs signed the Peace of Vasvár (1664) with the Ottomans after a clear victory at Szentgotthárd, Zrínyi was deeply disillusioned. Despite the victory the Habsburgs gave back all the reclaimed lands and agreed on a 20-year truce with the Ottomans— this led Zrínyi to begin to plot against Habsburg rule. He intended to join a conspiracy, later known as the Wesselényi conspiracy, aimed at ending Habsburg domination over Hungary. This plot, which
involved several prominent figures including his own brother Péter, was set in motion in 1666–67. However, Zrínyi’s untimely death in a hunting accident in November 1664 prevented his participation, and the conspiracy eventually unraveled, leading to the arrest and execution of its key members.
15.
THE
ADMINISTRATION
OF THE PRINCIPALITY OF TRANSYLVANIA
Key data: Principality of Transylvania, János Szapolyai, György Fráter, István Báthory, Treaty of Speyer (1570), Transylvania, Partium, Gyulafehérvár
Created in the aftermath of the Ottoman conquest and tripartition of Hungary, the Principality of Transylvania was established as a semi-autonomous state in the 16th century. The Hungarian aristocrat János Szapolyai leveraged the power vacuum created by the decline of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary, and established their rule over the Eastern part of the kingdom as a legally crowned Hungarian king. After his death, his son János Zsigmond— and during his infancy György Fráter—controlled the Eastern part of the kingdom, also as a crowned monarch. In 1570, János Zsigmond and Habsburg King Maximilian II signed the Treaty of Speyer (1570), in which János Zsigmond gave up his claim to the throne of Hungary, but in exchange he was recognized as the Prince of Transylvania and the Partium (parts of Hungary). This was the birth of the Principality of Transylvania. The treaty clearly stated that Transylvania is a part of Hungary, but it is ruled separately.
Transylvania never achieved full independence as it became an Ottoman vassal when János Szapolyai sought Sultan Suleiman’s help against the Habsburgs. Although the Ottomans did not control its internal politics, they influenced Transylvania in three ways: approving new princes, collecting an annual tax, and restricting the prince’s foreign actions. The Ottomans also used Transylvania for their aims; they supported Transylvanian Prince István Báthory’s bid for the Polish throne, fearing that rivals might claim it instead. Báthory’s taking of the Polish throne also shows that at some points Transylvania could gain more autonomy.
Transylvania was an elective estates monarchy where the nobility chose their Prince. However, this choice was limited. Only members of the wealthiest families (such as the Báthorys and Rákóczis) were considered, and the Ottoman Sultan had to approve the election.
Additionally, Transylvania was an estates-based monarchy in which the three nations—Hungarians, Székelys, and Saxons—were represented in the unicameral diets, mainly held in Gyulafehérvár or Torda. Nonetheless, the Prince of Transylvania held broad—but not absolute—powers over the estates, based on their income from extensive estates and monopolies (e.g. Bethlen’s monopoly over exports). This wealth allowed him to rule largely independently from the noble diets, shaping policy on his own terms.
16. THE EXPULSION OF THE OTTOMANS
Key data: Leopold I, Louis XIV, Eugene of Savoy, Charles of Lorraine, 1686 the retaking of Buda, 1697 the Battle of Zenta, 1699 the Treaty of Karlóca, Holy League, Vienna, Temesköz/Bánság
A major turning point came in Habsburg-Ottoman relations in 1683 when Pasha Kara Mustafa led a large-scale attack against Vienna, laying siege to the imperial city. Despite the fact that the Viennese garrison was heavily outnumbered, a coalition of PolishLithuanian and Habsburg forces, under the command of King John Sobieski of Poland, intervened. His decisive assault resulted in heavy losses for the Ottomans, including the death of Kara Mustafa, forcing the Ottoman army to retreat into Hungary.
In the wake of the Vienna victory, Pope Innocent XI played a crucial diplomatic role. He negotiated peace between Austria and France and provided substantial financial support to Holy Roman Emperor Leopold I (1658–1705) to sustain the campaign against the Ottomans. Additionally, in 1684, the Pope helped establish the Holy League—a military alliance consisting of the Holy Roman Empire, Poland-Lithuania, and the Tsardom of Russia. This alliance was formed with the clear goal of pushing the Ottomans out of Europe.
PRE-PUBLICATION
The formation of the Holy League and the success at Vienna set the stage for the Great Turkish War (1683–1699). Early in the conflict, Christian forces recaptured key territories in Hungary: Esztergom and Párkány were taken back in 1683, followed by the strategic town of Érsekújvár in 1685. One of the most notable events during this period was the retaking of the castle of Buda (1686). After a two-month-long siege led by Charles of Lorraine and Maximilian Emanuel of Bavaria, the Christian forces, which included around 15,000 Hungarian soldiers, succeeded in retaking Buda. Following this victory, the Habsburgs focused on pushing the Ottomans out
of western Hungary, achieving another significant win at the Battle of Nagyharsány in 1687, often called “the second battle of Mohács.” This battle took place near the meeting point of the Duna and Dráva rivers.
The Christian forces soon moved south and east. They successfully recaptured important cities such as Belgrade and, without bloodshed, gained control over Transylvania, which initially fought on the side of the Ottomans. Also, Thököly’s kuruc principality in the Northeast was also swept away by the wars, and he sought refuge with the Ottomans. By 1690, it appeared that the war was nearing its end. However, the situation shifted when French King Louis XIV, alarmed by Leopold I’s victories, broke his peace promise and initiated a war to expand his influence in the Rhineland. This forced some of the Habsburg troops to be redeployed against the French, delaying the final expulsion of the Ottomans.
Under new leadership by Köprülü Mustafa, the Ottomans managed to reclaim some territories from the Habsburgs. The renewed conflict once again devastated Hungary. Eventually, after the conclusion of the war with France, Prince Eugene of Savoy led a decisive victory over the Turks at the battle of Zenta in 1697. Exhausted by continuous fighting, the Ottomans sought peace, and the Treaty of Karlóca (Karlowitz) in 1699 officially ended nearly 150 years of Ottoman rule in Hungary, except for the Temesköz area, which was only reclaimed in 1717 and later attached to Hungary as the Bánság.
17. HUNGARY IN THE HABSBURG EMPIRE
Key data: Vienna, Aulic War Council, Hungarian Chancery, Lieutenancy Council, diet, Upper Table, Lower Table, Leopold I, Charles III, Maria Theresa, 1687 Diet of Pozsony, 1711 the Peace of Szatmár, 1723 the Pragmatic Sanction
In the Habsburg Empire, Hungary was subject to strong centralization as the rulers sought to control their vast and diverse territories. The Habsburgs reformed Hungary’s administration, managing it directly from Vienna through a number of government institutions. For instance, although there was a separate financial institution for Hungary—the Hungarian Chamber (Magyar Kamara)— it was controlled by Vienna’s Court Chamber (Udvari Kamara). Similarly, military matters were handled by the Aulic War Council (Udvari Haditanács), which reorganized Hungary into captaincies centered around major castles, further tightening imperial control.
The most important institution was the Hungarian Chancery (Magyar Udvari Kamara), which served as the highest institution responsible for organizing Hungary, cooperating the work of of the institutions, and communicating directly with the monarch.
The Habsburgs aimed to establish an early form of absolutism in Hungary, reducing the power of the Hungarian nobility in favor of more efficient taxation and centralized governance. However, because Hungarian tax revenues and troops were crucial for the empire’s defense, the Habsburg rulers maintained a cautious balance with local interests.
During the later stages of the 17th century, especially the time of the Great Turkish War, the relationship between Hungarians and the Habsburgs turned bitter. Leopold I felt - possibly justifiably - that the Hungarians owed him for getting rid of the Ottoman rule. Thus, he could strengthen his positions at the 1687 Diet of Pozsony: the Hungarian nobility renounced their traditional right of resistance and their right of electing the king - effectively this made the Habsburgs hereditary kings of Hungary. Leopold’s absolutism culminated in Rákóczi’s war of independence. After the Peace of Szatmár (1711), Hungary’s relationship with Austria shifted significantly. The new king, Charles III (1711-1740) promised to respect the traditional privileges of the nobility and to convene the estates diet instead of ruling as an absolute monarch. Altogether, delicate balance was created between the monarch and the nobility, which helped in preserving Hungarian identity and local self-governance.
Local institutions still played an important role in Hungary. The Hungarian diets, which were assemblies representing (mainly) the nation’s nobility, provided a forum for the traditional elites to voice their concerns and negotiate with the court. The Hungarian diet was bicameral, with an Upper Table consisting of personally invited members of the high nobility and high clergy, and Lower Table made up of the representatives of the common nobility, free royal towns, special districts, and the lower clergy.
PRE-PUBLICATION
Alongside the diets, the Lieutenancy Council (Helytartótanács), seated in Pozsony and later in Buda, was created in 1722. It functioned as a key administrative body that acted as a mediator between the imperial authorities and local Hungarian society. In effect, it functioned mostly as an “interior ministry” and was always chaired by the palatine (nádor). Both these institutions ensured that, despite the push for centralized and absolute rule, the established Hungarian elite retained some influence over the country’s affairs, tempering the imposition of Habsburg authority while preserving
essential local interests.
This cooperation between Charles and the Hungarians is best represented in the Pragmatic Sanction of 1723. It was a pivotal law that defined Hungary’s status within the Habsburg Monarchy. Its primary purpose was to secure the female succession of the Habsburg dynasty, so that Charles’ firstborn daughter, Maria Theresa could succeed him on the throne. The Hungarian nobility agreed to the law in exchange for Charles, once again, recognizing their rights and the need for cooperation. Under the sanction, Hungary was recognized as a distinct legal entity with its own laws, estates, and diets, but Hungary also legally became an “inseparable and indivisible” part of the empire. The Pragmatic Sanction thus struck a balance between maintaining Hungary’s medieval constitutional framework and integrating it into the modern Habsburg state. While it was intended to stabilize relations, it also sowed the seeds for future conflicts over centralization versus local autonomy. Ultimately, the sanction shaped Hungary’s long-term political evolution.
18. THE JACOBIN REIGN OF TERROR
Key data: Robespierre, 1789 French Revolution, 1793-94 Reign of Terror, dictatorship, revolution, Jacobin, Paris
The Jacobin Reign of Terror (1793-1794) was a defining phase during the French Revolution (starting in 1789), marking a shift from hope to extreme measures in the pursuit of revolutionary ideals. In the years leading up to the Reign of Terror, France had struggled under the constraints of a weak constitutional monarchy. Political conflicts over whether France should remain a monarchy or transition to a republic intensified. Diplomatic problems such as the European monarchs’ threats further complicated the situation, as they viewed the ongoing revolution as a threat to King Louis XVI and Europe itself. In 1792, the War of the First Coalition pitted revolutionary France against a host of European enemies (Prussia, Austria, Britain) determined to suppress the uprising. After the battle of Valmy in September 1792, the French revolutionaries declared France to be a republic, and months later they executed former King Louis for treason. The first months of the Republic were dominated by the Girondins—a moderate faction influential in the revolutionary government—but in May 1793, the more radical Jacobins staged an insurrection against them. Many of their leaders were executed, while the Jacobins centralized power in their own hands.
The Jacobin club, a political group made up of radical revolutionaries, came to symbolize this new era. Key leaders included Robespierre, Saint-Just, and Danton, among others, who believed that drastic measures were necessary to defend the revolution. Operating mainly from Paris, the heart of the revolution, the Jacobins sought to implement policies that would secure the nascent republic from both internal and external threats, even if it meant resorting to authoritarian practices. Their influence eventually led to a form of dictatorship, where centralized control became paramount, and individual rights were sacrificed for the security of the state.
Although there was an assembly—the National Convention— most power was effectively centralized in the hands of the Committee of Public Safety. This body, composed of leading Jacobins such as Robespierre, held near-absolute power over military, political, and judicial affairs. The Committee became the engine of the Terror, creating policies that ensured the survival of the revolution.
Security measures were a cornerstone of Jacobin policy. With the fear of counter-revolutionaries hiding in every corner, martial law was declared in many areas, and the government was given far-reaching powers to maintain order. The Law of Suspects further broadened the definition of treason, allowing for the arrest and execution of those suspected of undermining the revolution, often without evidence. These policies created an atmosphere of constant fear and suspicion, where anyone seeming disloyal could quickly fall victim to the guillotine.
Among the most significant decisions made by the Jacobins was the implementation of conscription. As France waged war on multiple fronts, mass mobilization of the population became essential. In terms of the economy, a key policy was the selling of noble and church estates, which not only redistributed wealth but also provided the government with much-needed funds. To combat inflation and ensure that the citizens could afford basic necessities, the government imposed strict price caps on essential goods.
PRE-PUBLICATION
The revolution, once a movement for liberty and equality, had morphed into a dictatorship under the banner of radical change. The Jacobins believed that the extreme measures they imposed were essential to protect the revolution from internal enemies and foreign invaders. However, the consequences were far-reaching: thousands of citizens were executed, and fear became “the order of the day.” On 26 July 1794, Robespierre announced a new list of suspicious people to be purged, which alarmed even his Jacobin allies, who then chose to arrest and execute him the next day, ending the Reign of Terror.
19. THE NAPOLEONIC WARS AND THE CONGRESS OF VIENNA
Key data: Napoleon Bonaparte, Emperor between 1804-1814/1815, Battle of Austerlitz 1805, continental blockade, Moscow, Borodino, 1813 Battle of Leipzig, 1815 Battle of Waterloo
Napoleon Bonaparte emerged from the chaos of the French Revolution, rapidly climbing the military ranks with his brilliant strategic mind and daring leadership. His early military successes in Italy and Egypt solidified his reputation as a master tactician. In 1799, returning from Egypt, he started a coup and became the First Consul of France, effectively an autocrat in the young republic. By 1804, supported by his growing influence and military victories, he declared himself Emperor of the French (1804-1814/1815), marking a dramatic shift from revolutionary ideals to authoritarian rule. Famously, he had reconciled with the Catholic Church and invited the pope to his coronation (as a spectator).
The Napoleonic Wars (1799-1815), an extension of the revolutionary wars, were characterized by relentless military campaigns that reshaped Europe. Under Napoleon’s leadership, the French army employed innovative tactics, rapid maneuvering, and decisive engagements. One of the most celebrated victories was the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805, where his forces decisively defeated the combined armies of Austria and Russia. His success on the battlefield was closely linked to his personal qualities—charismatic leadership, relentless ambition, and an ability to inspire his troops.
As Emperor between 1804-1814/1815, Napoleon’s conquests expanded French influence across Europe. His most important victory is probably the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805, in which he defeated the combined forces of Austria and Russia, defeating two emperors at the same time. As Napoleon managed to take most of the German lands, Austrian Emperor Francis dissolved the Holy Roman Empire in 1806. Napoleon, however, could not achieve dominance on the seas, as in the same year, his fleet was destroyed in the Battle of Trafalgar by British admiral Nelson.
His military campaigns reconfigured borders, dissolved ancient dynasties, and spread revolutionary ideas through annexation and client states (e.g. Batavia - Netherlands, Helvetia - Switzerland. The introduction of reforms such as the Napoleonic Code further standardized legal practices across conquered territories. Thus,
his ambitions were not confined solely to military victories; he also sought to reshape European society along the lines of rational and enlightened governance.
Napoleon’s triumphs stemmed from revolutionary military strategies and innovations. Mass conscription created large, loyal armies while daring infantry charges and decisive artillery strikes overwhelmed enemies. A spy network across Europe provided critical intelligence, and rapid, agile movements enabled tactical flexibility on the battlefield. These combined factors, rooted in revolutionary passion and strategic brilliance, allowed Napoleon to dominate European warfare.
Despite his early triumphs, Napoleon’s fortunes began to decline due to a series of strategic miscalculations and mounting resistance from other European powers. One of the critical errors was the imposition of the Continental Blockade, designed to cripple Britain’s economy by barring trade with the continent. This policy, however, backfired by straining France’s own economy and alienating many of its allies. The turning point came with the disastrous Russian campaign, which he started to punish Tsar Alexander of Russia for not complying with the blockade system. The Russians famously used scorched earth tactics, destroying crops and livestock to make it impossible for Napoleon’s army to live off the Russian land. Although Napoleon achieved a tactical victory in the Battle of Borodino in 1812, his lengthy stay in Moscow and his catastrophic return to France during the harsh Russian winter decimated his army.
The collapse of the Russian campaign weakened Napoleon’s grip on power, and by 1813, the coalition forces united against him, culminating in the defeat at the Battle of Leipzig (“the Battle of the Nations”). Facing overwhelming opposition, Napoleon was forced to abdicate and was exiled to the island of Elba. Yet, his ambition and the loyalty of many of his soldiers led to a dramatic return for a brief period known as the Hundred Days. His final stand came at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815, where his forces were decisively defeated by a joint British-Prussian army. This defeat marked the end of his military and political career, and he was exiled to St. Helena, where he spent his final years in isolation until his death in 1821.
Following Napoleon’s downfall, European leaders convened at the Congress of Vienna in 1814–1815 to restore stability and reestablish balance on the continent. The congress aimed to redraw national boundaries and create a framework that would prevent future large-scale conflicts. However, in order to appease the French, it was decided that France would only lose the territories gained
This diplomatic effort was supported by the formation of the Holy Alliance—a coalition of conservative powers committed to preserving the monarchical order and suppressing revolutionary movements. The discussions at Vienna set the stage for nearly a century of relative peace in Europe, as the major powers sought to balance ambition with stability.
20. CHANGES IN EUROPEAN WORLDVIEW
Key data: Copernicus, Newton
The 16th and 17th centuries saw a profound transformation in the European worldview, marked by revolutionary shifts in understanding science, religion, and politics. The era of the Scientific Revolution redefined humanity’s understanding of the natural world. Pioneers such as Copernicus, Galileo, and later Newton challenged longstanding geocentric models and mystical explanations of the cosmos. Copernicus’s heliocentric theory challenged the belief that Earth was the universe’s center, while Galileo’s telescopic observations provided critical evidence supporting this new model. Newton’s formulation of the laws of motion and universal gravitation in his book Principia further strengthened the idea that natural phenomena could be explained by mathematical principles, laying the foundation for modern physics and demonstrating that the universe operated according to predictable, discoverable laws and not through miracles or divine intervention.
As scientific inquiry advanced, traditional religious views gradually began to lose their unchallenged authority. The slow decline in strictly religious thinking became evident as the mechanistic models of the universe replaced divine intervention and creationist narratives. Criticism of the church grew as intellectuals (e.g. Voltaire) began to question the infallibility of religious doctrine. Calls for religious freedom and tolerance emerged, sparked by the realization that society could benefit from pluralistic views rather than adherence to a single interpretation of God. This shift was not a rejection of faith but rather a change in understanding that allowed for a separation between religious belief and empirical investigation.
At the same time, attempts at discovering the laws of nature by Napoleon and nothing else. Altogether, Britain emerged as the leading power of Europe, especially as it achieved total hegemony over the seas.
became increasingly systematic. Rationalism, the belief in reason as the primary source of knowledge, gained momentum. Thinkers like René Descartes argued for the cultivation of reason and logic as essential tools for uncovering the truths of the natural world. Descartes’ methodological skepticism—doubting all that could be doubted until arriving at an unquestionable foundation— revolutionized philosophical thought. Again, it is important to highlight that this idea does not deny the importance of faith— Descartes and other rationalist thinkers argued that humans were acutally given reason by God.
Immanuel Kant, however, also used reason to argue that moral systems do not have to be based on divine authority. He proposed the categorical imperative as a universal moral law applicable to all rational beings: people should act in ways that they believe could be applied as a universal law for the whole of society.
At the same time, the quest to understand the laws governing human society also started. Intellectuals and philosophers began to critically assess existing social hierarchies and political systems, e.g. the divine order of society or the divine right of kings. The concept of a “state of nature” emerged as a thought experiment to explore the origins of society and the legitimacy of governmental authority. English philosopher John Locke is probably most well known in this discourse; his writings argued that natural rights—life, liberty, and property—were unalienable and inherent to all individuals and that governments were formed by social contracts to protect these rights. Locke’s ideas provided a theoretical framework that not only questioned the divine right of kings but also laid the groundwork for modern democratic ideas.
