No CrossRef data available.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
We use cookies to distinguish you from other users and to provide you with a better experience on our websites. Close this message to accept cookies or find out how to manage your cookie settings.
Published online by Cambridge University Press: 10 February 2009
“Our intervention in Hungary will prove to be an event which, at the present moment, will overshadow all other problems in Europe,” Russia's Chancellor Karl Robert Nesselrode noted in May, 1849,2 while the last major drama sparked by the upheavals of 1848 was being staged in Hungary's towns, undulating plains, and cholera-ridden valleys. Europe's liberals were captivated and Europe's conservatives aghast as Magyar irregulars, in mid-April, 1849, hurled the Habsburg imperial soldiery backwards from their positions encircling Buda and Pest in central Hungary to within forty miles east of Vienna. Would an independent, national Hungarian republic arise in the central Danubian basin? Would nearly six hundred years of Habsburg hegemony along the Danube be rent asunder? Such questions were decided by the clash of arms amid the alternating heat and thunderstorms of the Hungarian summer of 1849.
2 Nesselrode, to Creptovich, , St. Petersburg, May 11, 1849, de Nesselrode, Anatole (ed.), Lettres et papiers du chancelier comte de Nesselrode 1760–1856 (11 vols., Paris: A. Lahure, 1904–1912), Vol. IX, p. 237Google Scholar. All dates cited in this essay are according to the “new style” or Gregorian calendar.
3 Max, Kübeck (ed.), Tagebücher des Carl Friedrich Freiherrn Kübeck von Kübau (2 vols., Vienna: Gerold & Co., 1909), Vol. I, p. 700Google Scholar.
4 François, Fejtö (ed.), The Opening of an Era 1848. An Historical Symposium (New York: Howard Fertig, 1966), p. 394Google Scholar.
5 Fonton, to Nesselrode, , Vienna, February 15, 1848, Erzsébet Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége (Budapest: Akademiai Kiadó, 1961), pp. 196–198Google Scholar. This work is especially valuable for its rich collection of documents.
6 For the attitude of Nicholas I in 1848, see, inter alia, his manifesto of March 26, 1848, published in Geoffrey, Bruun, Revolution and Reaction 1848–1852. A Mid-Century Watershed (Princeton, N. J.: Van Nostrand, 1958), pp. 138–139Google Scholar; Nifontov, A. S., Russland im Jahre 1848 (Berlin: Rütten & Loening, 1954)Google Scholar; Theodor, Schiemann, Geschichte Russlands unter Kaiser Nikolaus I (4 vols., Berlin: Walter de Gruyter and Co., 1919), Vol. IVGoogle Scholar; and Shil'der, N. K., Imperator Nikolai I, ego zhizn' i tsarstvovaniia (2 vols., St. Petersburg: A. S. Suvorin, 1903), Vol. IIGoogle Scholar.
7 Medem, to Nesselrode, , Innsbruck, , July 24, 1848, Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 251–252Google Scholar.
8 Nicholas, I to Paskevich, , Tsarskoe, Selo, November 16, 1848, Aleksandr P. Shcherbatov, General' Fel'dmarshal' Kniaz' Paskevich', ego zhizn' i dieiatel'nost' (hereafter cited as “Shcherbatov, Paskevich”) (7 vols., St. Petersburg: V. A. Berezovski, 1888–1904), Vol. VI, pp. 261–262Google Scholar.
9 Fonton, to Nesselrode, , Hietzing, , November 6, 1848, Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 273–275Google Scholar; Nesselrode to Medem, St. Petersburg, November 10,1848, ibid., pp. 276–277.
10 Nicholas I to Metternich, St. Petersburg, April 6, 1848, ibid., p. 224.
11 For more information regarding Felix Schwarzenberg, see, inter alia, Adolph, Berger, Felix Fürst zu Schwarzenberg. Ein biographisches Denkmal (Leipzig: Otto Spamer, 1853)Google Scholar; Eduard, Heller, Fürst Felix zu Schwarzenberg, Mitteleuropaa Vorkämpfer (Vienna: Militär Wissenschaftlicher Verlag, 1933)Google Scholar; Rudolph, Kiszling, Fürst Felix zu Schwarzenberg, der Erzieher Kaiser Franz Josephs (Graz: H. Böhlaus Nachf., 1952)Google Scholar; Adolf, Schwarzenberg, Prince Felix zu Schwarzenberg (New York: Columbia University Press, 1946)Google Scholar; and von Zeissberg, Heinrich, “Fürst Felix zu Schwarzenberg,” Allgemeine Deutsche Biographie, Vol. XXXIII (1891), pp. 266–290Google Scholar. Heinrich, Friedjung, Österreich von 1848 bis 1860 (2 vols., Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta, 1908–1912)Google Scholar; Josef, Redlich, Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria (New York: Macmillan, 1929)Google Scholar; and Joseph, Redlich, Das österreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem (2 vols., Leipzig: P. Reinhold, 1920–1926) provide important informationGoogle Scholar. See also the unpublished doctoral dissertation by Kenneth, Rock, Reaction Triumphant: The Diplomacy of Felix Schwarzenberg and Nicholas I in Mastering the Hungarian Insurrection 1848–1850 (Stanford University, 1969)Google Scholar.
12 Schwarzenberg, to Radetzky, , Olmütz, October 22, 1848, Haus-, Hofund Staatsarchiv (Vienna) (hereafter cited as “Staatsarchiv [Vienna]”), Kabinettearchiv, Geheimakten, “Nachlass Schwarzenberg,” Karton IX, Fasz. II, No. 59Google Scholar.
13 Taylor, A. J. P., The Habsburg Monarchy, 1809–1918 (London: Hamish Hamilton, 1948), p. 77Google Scholar.
14 On Schwarzenberg's Italian policy, see in particular Taylor, A. J. P., The Italian Problem in European Diplomacy, 1847–1849 (Manchester: Manchester University Press, 1934)Google Scholar.
15 On Windischgrätz's relationship with tsarist authorities in 1848–1849, see Erzsébet, Andics, Das Bündnis Habsburg-Romanow. Vorgeschichte der Zaristischen Intervention in Ungarn im Jahre 1849 (Budapest: Akadémiai Kiadó, 1963)Google Scholar; Hugo, Kerchnawe, “Feldmarschall Alfred Fürst Windisch-Graetz und die Russenhilfe 1849,” Mitteilungen dea ö'sterreichischen Instituts für Geschichtsforschung, Vol. XLIII (1929), pp. 325–375Google Scholar; and Paul, Müller, Feldmarschall Fürat Windischgrätz. Revolution und Gegenrevolution in Österreich (Vienna: Wilhelm Braumüller, 1934)Google Scholar.
16 Ministerrat protocol, April 21, 1849, Kerchnawe, “Feldmarschall Alfred Fürst Windisch-Graetz und die Russenhilfe,” pp. 367–370.
17 Cited in Müller, Windischgrätz, p. 227 n.
18 Friedjung, Österreich von 1848 bis 1860, Vol. II, p. 211.
19 Schwarzenberg, to Buol, (private), Olmütz, December 31, 1848, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X (Russland), Karton 27Google Scholar.
20 Schwarzenberg's cabinet was composed of bourgeois reformers and liberal aristocrats rather than of arch-conservative nobles sharing the opinions of Windischgrätz and the Russian minister. In his first speech before the Austrian constituent assembly at Kremsier (Kroměříž) on November 27, 1848, Schwarzenberg pledged that his government would “place itself at the head” of the popular, constitutional movement. Highly alarmed, Nicholas I ordered his envoy to “restrain yourself in your conversations with Prince Schwarzenberg,” to encourage him to return to the “centuries-old condition of things,” and to terminate the use of such phrases as the “sovereignty of the people.” Until the “form of government” of the Austrian empire had been regulated and the “perpetual fermentation” terminated, especially in Galicia, Russia would remain a benevolent, but neutral, observer of Austrian developments. Nicholas, I to Paskevich, , Tsarskoe, Selo, November 16, 1848, Shcherbatov, Paskevieh, Vol. VI, pp. 261–262Google Scholar; Nesselrode to Medem, St. Petersburg, November 22, 1848, Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövtésige, pp. 283–284. See also Schwarzenberg, Prince Felix zu Schwarzenberg, pp. 31–32; and Kraehe, Enno E., “Foreign Policy and the Nationality Problem in the Habsburg Monarchy, 1800–1867,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. III, Pt. 3 (1967), p. 25Google Scholar.
21 Medem to Nesselrode, November 12, 1848, Andics, Das Bündnis Habsburg-Romanow, p. 97 n.
23 Medem to Nesselrode, Olmütz, December 17, 1848, ibid., pp. 295–296.
24 Nicholas I to Francis Joseph I, St. Petersburg, December 18, 1848, ibid., pp. 297–298.
25 Francis Joseph I to Nicholas I, Olmütz, December 28, 1848, ibid., p. 304.
26 Kiszling, Fürst Felix zu Schwarzenberg, p. 77.
27 Schwarzenberg, to Buol, , Vienna, March 13, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 27Google Scholar. See also the reports of the United States minister to Austria, William H. Stiles, to Buchanan, Vienna, December 12, 1848, Stiles, William H., Austria in 1848–49. Being a History of the Late Political Movements in Vienna, Milan, Venice, and Prague; with Details of the Campaigns of Lombardy and Novara; a Full Account of the Revolution in Hungary; and Historical Sketches of the Austrian Government and the Provinces of the Empire (2 vols., New York: Harper & Brothers, 1852), Vol. II, pp. 402–404Google Scholar; and Stiles to Kossuth, Vienna, December 3, 1848, ibid., pp. 404–405.
28 Andics, Das Bündnis Habsburg-Romanow, p. 113. See also Friedjung, Österreich von 1848 bis 1860, Vol. I, p. 131.
29 Nesselrode, to Creptovich, , St. Petersburg, January 15, 1849, Lettres et papiers du chancelier comte de Nesselrode, Vol. IX, pp. 212–213Google Scholar.
30 The Schwarzenberg cabinet dissolved the Kremsier Assembly on March 6, 1849, but simultaneously proclaimed its own imperial constitution. See Friedjung, , Österreich von 1848 bis 1860, Vol. I, pp. 135–150Google Scholar; Redlich, , Das ö'sterreichische Staats- und Reichsproblem, Vol. I, pp. 78–172 and 323–459Google Scholar; Institut für Österreichkunde (ed.), Die Entwicklung der Verfassung Österreichs vom Mittelalter bis zur Gegenwart (Graz: Stiasny Verlag, 1963), pp. 69–85; and Friedrich, Walter, Die ö'sterreichische Zentralverwaltung, Pt. 3, Vol. I (Vienna: Adolf Holzhausens Nachf., 1964), pp. 290–330 and 420–435Google Scholar.
31 Nesselrode, to Medem, , St. Petersburg, January 20, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 28Google Scholar.
32 Schwarzenberg to Hammerstein, Olmütz, January 12, 1849, ibid., Karton 29.
33 Hammerstein to Malkowsky, Lemberg, January 19, 1849, ibid.
34 Puchner, an able veteran of the Napoleonic campaigns, was ill, approaching seventy, and provided with only 7,500 poorly-equipped soldiers to contain Bern's Magyar-Szekler-Romanian-Polish force estimated at nearly 30,000.
35 Şaguna to Puchner, Hermannstadt, December 30, 1848, Andics, A Hababurgok és Romanovok szövetsége, p. 305.
36 Schwarzenberg, to Windischgrätz, , Vienna, January 18, 1849, Staats-archiv (Vienna), Kabinettsarchiv, Sect. 12, Fasz. VII, ad. No. 460Google Scholar.
37 Schwarzenberg to Windischgrätz, Olmütz, January 20, 1849, ibid., No. 463.
38 Schwarzenberg to Windischgrätz, Olmütz, January 20, 1849, ibid., No. 462. Although misnumbered, this was the second of two dispatches sent by Schwarzenberg to Windischgrätz on January 20.
39 Schwarzenberg, to Buol, , Olmütz, January 25, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Botschaftsarchiv, Sect. X (St. Petersburg), Karton 161, Fasz. IGoogle Scholar. These instructions were in response to a query from Buol, who had been approached by Nesselrode about the possibility of tsarist assistance. Buol ruled out a civilian request and sanctioned Russian aid only if the Habsburg military commander in Transylvania “personally requested it.” Buol, to Schwarzenberg, , St. Petersburg, January 16, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 28Google Scholar.
40 Schwarzenberg to Puchner, Olmütz, January 20, 1849, ibid., Karton 29. See also Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 312–313. This message was delivered by Schwarzenberg's personal courier, and Puchner was invited to give “full trust to his communications.” “Should Your Excellency, contrary to suppositions and yielding to the pressures of the moment, take any step contrary to the present instructions, Your Excellency is herewith charged, first to file a report immediately to me; second, to inform the commander-in-chief of the Russian troops in Moldavia that on your own responsibility and without orders from His Majesty's Government Your Excellency has sought Russian aid; and thirdly, [to expect] that the All Highest Ministry, guided by the conceivable appreciation of the assistance rendered so willingly, shall immediately enter into diplomatic negotiations with the cabinet of St. Petersburg to regulate the evacuation of Russian troops from Transylvanian territory.”
41 Buol to Schwarzenberg, St. Petersburg, February 5, 1849 (which contains a copy of Duhammel to Nesselrode, Bucharest, January 22, 1849), Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 28. See also the relevant documents in Eugene, Horváth (ed.), “Origins ofthe Crimean War. The Russian Intervention in Transylvania. Anglo-Hungarian Documents relative to the First Russian Intervention in Hungary, 1848–49,” South Eastern Affairs, Vol. V (1935), pp. 23–30Google Scholar.
42 Puchner, to Schwarzenberg, , Maros, Szasvaros, February 8, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 29Google Scholar.
43 Medem, to Nesselrode, , Olmütz, February 16, 1849, Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsege, p. 317Google Scholar.
44 Schwarzenberg, to Buol, , Vienna, February 21, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 28Google Scholar. The Wiener Zeitung of February 21, 1849, stated that fear of pillage had motivated the Russian entry into Kronstadt and Hermannstadt. The Journal of St. Petersburg reprinted this “official” version on March 4, 1849.
45 Circular, St. Petersburg, February 21, 1849, enclosed in Buol, to Schwarzenberg, , St. Petersburg, February 22, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 28Google Scholar.
46 Colquhoun to Stratford Canning (private), Bucharest, April 6, 1849, Horváth, “Origins of the Crimean War,” Vol. VI, p. 109.
47 Ministerrat protocol, Olmütz, March 23, 1849, Kerchnawe, “Feldmarsehall Alfred Fürst Windisch-Graetz und die Russenhilfe,” pp. 352–354.
48 Ibid.
49 Medem, to Nesselrode, , Olmütz, March 25, 1849, Andics, A Hdbeburgok is Romanovok szövetsége, p. 330Google Scholar.
50 Hübner, Joseph Alexander, Une année de ma vie 1868–1869 (Paris: Librairie Hachette, 1891), p. 561Google Scholar.
51 Schwarzenberg, to Buol, , Olmütz, March 25, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 28Google Scholar.
52 Schwarzenberg, to Buol, (private), Olmütz, March 28, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Botschaftsarchiv, Sect. X, Karton 161, Fasz. IGoogle Scholar.
53 Medem, to Nesselrode, , Olmütz, March 28, 1849, Andics, A Habsburgok is Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 334–335Google Scholar.
54 Hammerstein, to Schwarzenberg, , Lemberg, March 28, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 29Google Scholar. See also Schwarzenberg to Hammerstein (private and secret), Olmütz, March 28, 1849, ibid.
55 Müller, Windischgrätz, p. 226. See also Ministerrat protocol, Vienna, March 29, 1849, Kerchnawe, “Feldmarschall Alfred Fürst Windisch-Graetz und die Russenhilfe,” pp. 355–357.
56 Ministerrat protocol, Vienna, March 29, 1849, Kerchnawe, “Feldmarschall Alfred Fürst Windisch-Graetz und die Russenhilfe,” pp. 355–357.
57 Ibid.
58 Ministerrat protocols, Vienna, March 31, and Olmütz, April 3, 1849, ibid., pp. 357–361.
59 Ibid. The italics are in the original.
60 Medem, to Nesselrode, , Olmütz, April 4, 1849, Rebekka Averbukh, “Nikolai I i evropeiskaia reaktaiia 1848–49 gg.,” Krasnyii Arkhiv, Vol. XLVIII (1931), pp. 32–33Google Scholar.
61 Schwarzenberg, to Buol, , Vienna, April 6, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Botschaftsarchiv, Sect. X, Karton 161, Fasz. I. See also Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 337–338Google Scholar.
62 Ibid.
63 Ibid.
64 Ibid.
65 Buol, to Schwarzenberg, , St. Petersburg, April 6, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 28Google Scholar. See also Nesselrode to Medem, St. Petersburg, April 6, 1849, ibid. The latter letter is also in Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 339–340.
66 Nicholas I to Paskevich, St. Petersburg, April 5, 1849, Shcherbatov, Paskevich, Vol. VI, pp. 277–279.
67 Nicholas I to Paskevich, Moscow, April 13, 1849, ibid., pp. 279–281.
68 Ministerrat protocol, Vienna, April 13, 1849, Kerchnawe, “Feldmarschall Alfred Fürst Windisch-Graetz und die Russenhilfe,” pp. 366–367.
69 Medem, to Nesselrode, , Vienna, April 13, 1849, Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 344–346Google Scholar.
70 Schwarzenberg, to Buol, , Vienna, April 14, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Botschaftsarchiv, Sect. X, Karton 161, Fasz. IGoogle Scholar. See also Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 346–347.
71 Francis, Joseph I to Nicholas, I, Olmütz, April 15, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 27Google Scholar.
72 Schwarzenberg to Hammerstein, Olmütz, April 19, 1849, ibid., Karton 29. See also Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, p. 354.
73 Memorandum from Nicholas, I to Chernyshev, , n. d., but referred to in Buol to Schwarzenberg, St. Petersburg, April 20, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politiachea Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 29Google Scholar; and published in Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 355–356. Andics believes that the memorandum was composed in Moscow on April 18, 1849. See her Das Bündnis Habsburg-Romanow, p. 146 n.
74 Buol, to Schwarzenberg, , St. Petersburg, April 20, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Earton 29Google Scholar.
75 Welden, to Schwarzenberg, , Gran, April 20, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Kabinettsarchiv, Karton 12, Fasz. VI, No. 379Google Scholar. See also Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 358–359.
76 Ministerrat protocol, Vienna, April 21, 1849, Kerchnawe, “Feldmarschall Alfred Fürst Windisch-Graetz und die Russenhilfe,” pp. 367–370. The italics are in the original.
77 Ibid. See also Schwarzenberg, to Welden, , Vienna, April 21, 1849, Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, p. 360Google Scholar. The italics are in the original.
78 Ministerrat protocol, Olmütz, April 24, 1849, Kerchnawe, “Feldmarschall Alfred Fürst Windisch-Graetz und die Russenhilfe,” p. 375.
79 Schwarzenberg, to Medem, , Vienna, April 21, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Botschaftsarchiv, Sect. X, Karton 161, Fasz. IGoogle Scholar. See also Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, p. 361.
80 Schwarzenberg, to Buol, , Vienna, April 21, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Botschaftsarchiv, Sect. X, Karton 161, Fasz. IGoogle Scholar. See also Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, p. 362.
81 Medem, to Nesselrode, , Vienna, April 21, 1849, Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 363–364Google Scholar.
82 Nicholas, I to Paskevich, , Moscow, April 20, 1849, Shcherbatov, Paskevich, Vol. VI, pp. 281–282Google Scholar.
83 Nicholas I to Paskevich, St. Petersburg, April 30, 1849, ibid., pp. 286–287.
84 Paskevich, to Nicholas, I, May 1, 1849, as cited in Andics, Das Bündnis Habsburg-Romanow, p. 154Google Scholar.
85 Medem, to Nesselrode, , Vienna, April 26 and 27, 1849, Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 368–371Google Scholar.
86 Francis, Joseph I to Nicholas, I, Olmütz, May 1, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 27Google Scholar. See also Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 373–374; and Redlich, Emperor Francis Joseph of Austria, p. 58.
87 Nicholas, I to Francis, Joseph I, St. Petersburg, May 10, 1849, Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 388–389Google Scholar.
88 For the feeling of alarm in Vienna during the first week of May, 1849, see, inter alia, Friedrich, Walter (ed.), Aus dem Nachlass des Freiherrn Carl Friedrich Kübeck von Kübau. Tagebücher, Briefe, Aktenstücke 1841–1855 (Graz: H. Böhlaus Nachf., 1960), pp. 26–28Google Scholar; von Eckstädt, Carl Friedrich Vitzthum, Berlin und Wien in den Jahren 1845–1852 (Stuttgart: J. G. Cotta, 1886), pp. 223–227Google Scholar; Mayr, Josef Karl (ed.), Das Tagebuch des Polizeiministers Kempen von 1848 bis 1859 (Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag, 1931), pp. 132–135Google Scholar; and Walter, Rogge, Oesterreich von Világos bis zur Gegenwart (2 vols., Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus, 1872), Vol. I, pp. 123–125Google Scholar.
89 Welden, to Schwarzenberg, , Carlburg GHQ, 6.15 A.M., May 3, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Kabinettsarchiv, Karton 12, Fasz. VI, No. 384Google Scholar. See also the letters from Welden to Schwarzenberg, Carlburg, April 28 and 30 and May 1 and 2, ibid., Nos. 380, 381, 382, and 383.
90 Schwarzenberg to Bernstorff, Vienna, May 1, 1849, Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, p. 378; Brandenburg to Bernstorff, Berlin, May 3, 1849, ibid., pp. 378–379; and Bernstorff to Schwarzenberg, Vienna, May 5, 1849, ibid., p. 379. For Prussia's attitude towards Vienna and Hungary in 1849, see, inter alia, Andics, Das Bündnis Habsburg-Romanow, p. 162; Friedjung, Österreieh von 1848 bis 1860, Vol. I, pp. 215–216; Heinrich, Friedjung, “Furst Felix Schwarzenberg und Graf Albrecht Bernstorff,” Historisches Zeitschrift, Vol. CVII (1911), pp. 540–579Google Scholar; and von Srbik, Heinrich, Deutsche Einheit. Idee und Wirklichkeit vom Heiligen Reich bis Königgrdtz (4 vols., Munich: F. Bruckmann, 1935), Vol. II, pp. 14–15Google Scholar.
91 Schwarzenberg, to Paskevich, , Vienna, May 1, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 28Google Scholar; Schwarzenberg to Caboga, Vienna, May 4,1849, ibid., Karton 29. See also Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 375–376 and 380–381.
92 Medem, to Nesselrode, , Vienna, May 5, 1849, Andics, A Habsburgok es Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 382–383Google Scholar.
93 Radetzky likened Haynau to a “razor blade.” The third imperial commander's reputed remark when he was ordered to Hungary (“My name alone is worth an army there.”) goes far to explain Schwarzenberg's subsequent support of this ruthless but talented Habsburg-true general. See Rogge, Oesterreich von Világos bis zur Gegenwart, Vol. I, pp. 135–136.
94 Word of Kossuth's actions reached Vienna only on May 2 and was not published by the newspapers before May 3. Medem, to Nesselrode, , Vienna, May 3, 1849, Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, p. 380Google Scholar. Neither the Habsburg nor Romanov governments knew of the Debrecen declaration of independence or the dethroning of the Habsburg dynasty before the negotiations for Russian military assistance in Hungary had been concluded. Nicholas I apparently did not comment on Kossuth's April 14 actions in his correspondence. See Schiemann, Geschichte Russlands unter Kaiser Nikolaus I, Vol. IV, p. 191 n. In Austria, Francis Joseph's reaction was typical of that of his government: “So much the better” (“Tant mieux”), he wrote his mother on May 15, 1849. As cited in Andics, Das Bündnis Habsburg-Romanow, p. 185.
95 Medem, to Nesselrode, , Vienna, May 9, 1849, Andics, A Habsburgok es Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 386–387Google Scholar; Forgách to Miskolczy, Holitch, May 10, 1849, ibid., pp. 387–388.
96 Lobkowitz, to Schwarzenberg, , St. Petersburg, May 9, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 29Google Scholar. See also Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 385–386.
97 Buol, to Schwarzenberg, , St. Petersburg, May 1, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 28Google Scholar. See also Andics, A Habsburgok és Romanovok szövetsége, pp. 376–377. It was agreed at Warsaw on May 22–23, 1849, that Nicholas I would provide 240,000 men, of whom 140,000 would enter Hungary, 60,000 would occupy Galicia, and 40,000 would remain in the Danubian Principalities as reserves. In return, Austria pledged herself to furnish the Russian army with foodstuffs, forage, baggage equipment, and medical care. See the documents dated Warsaw, May 22 and 23 and June 1 and the “convention” (Warsaw) dated June 10, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 28. The convention is published in Martens, Fëdor Fëdorovich, Recueil des traités et conventions conclus par la russie avec les puissances étrangères (15 vols., St. Petersburg: A. Devrient, 1874–1909), Vol. IV, pp. 580–601Google Scholar. See also Potemkin, Fedor V. and Molok, Aleksandr I. (eds.), Revoliutsii 1848–1849 (2 vols., Moscow: Akademiia Nauk, 1952), Vol. II, p. 120Google Scholar.
98 Walter, Aus dem Nachlaβ des Freiherrn Carl Friedrich Kübeck von Kübau, p. 27.
99 Schwarzenberg, to Buol, , Vienna, March 13, 1849, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Politisches Archiv, Sect. X, Karton 27Google Scholar. The italics are mine.