WI: Rakoczi wins the Independence War

[Vladivostock]

When the rebellion broke out in 1703 Rakoczi had the support of the masses, and not just the Hungarians but also the Slovaks, Rusyn, some Romanians and the German Lutherans in Hungary etc. Also, his support wasn't just limited to the lower classes but extended to some of the most important Hungarian nobles.
His army, although numerous, was not trained, had no discipline and was poorly equipped. His funds were poor and he had little outside help, especially after the French defeat at Blenheim. However, he had a lot of success, conquering most of Hungary and managed to hold out until 1711.
How can Rakoczi win in the Independence War (1703-1711) and, if he can, what are the consequences?
Is Rakoczi planning on taking the crown himself or does he want a foreign prince?
Is some sort of autonomy realistic, maybe something similar to Austria-Hungary, only 150 years earlier?
What are the wider ramifications (future of the Habsburgs, relations with Ottomans...)?

 

[Vladivostock]

Bumping to front page

 

[Fehérvári]

German Lutherans in Hungary

The most important German Lutherans, the Transylvanian Saxons didn't support the rebellion though.

His army, although numerous, was not trained

I wouldn't say that, considering that much of his armies were manned by the veterans of the fort warfare, which was so rampant in Hungary until the end of the Great Turkish War. Many of them fought in Thököly's rebellion too. Sure, most of them weren't trained in the conventional European warfare of their time, and it hindered them on the open field, but they could still rely on their own tactics.

How can Rakoczi win in the Independence War (1703-1711) and, if he can, what are the consequences?

The war was lost at the Battle of Trencsén in 1708, but signs of failure were already showing by then. Transylvania was already lost for good in 1707 for example.Therefore, the only really plausible way of Kurucz "victory" is an early settlement between the two parties in 1705-'06. There are two major points of contention though: The Kurucz insistence on the restoration of the right of resistance of the Hungarian estates, which was abolished in 1687; and Rákóczi's demand of his recognition as Prince of Transylvania.

Have Rákóczi be killed around this time, buy off some of the Kurucz leaders and a peace favourable to both sides could be achieved.

This is the most you could expect from Kurucz "victory", which in fact wouldn't look much more different than the Peace of Szatmár, which historically concluded the conflict in 1711. The only real and somewhat important difference is that the war is significantly shorter, and therefore the country is spared from further destruction. This would somewhat improve the demographic standing of the Hungarian-speaking population of Hungary in the future, but that's about it.

Is Rakoczi planning on taking the crown himself or does he want a foreign prince?

He definitely wanted to remain the Prince of Transylvania, but technically he was obliged by the diet to appoint a new king. Lacking alternatives, he might have tried to appoint himself though.

Is some sort of autonomy realistic, maybe something similar to Austria-Hungary, only 150 years earlier?

What are you talking about? Autonomy from what?

 

[Vladivostock]

The most important German Lutherans, the Transylvanian Saxons didn't support the rebellion though.

I wouldn't say that, considering that much of his armies were manned by the veterans of the fort warfare, which was so rampant in Hungary until the end of the Great Turkish War. Many of them fought in Thököly's rebellion too. Sure, most of them weren't trained in the conventional European warfare of their time, and it hindered them on the open field, but they could still rely on their own tactics.

The war was lost at the Battle of Trencsén in 1708, but signs of failure were already showing by then. Transylvania was already lost for good in 1707 for example.Therefore, the only really plausible way of Kurucz "victory" is an early settlement between the two parties in 1705-'06. There are two major points of contention though: The Kurucz insistence on the restoration of the right of resistance of the Hungarian estates, which was abolished in 1687; and Rákóczi's demand of his recognition as Prince of Transylvania.

Have Rákóczi be killed around this time, buy off some of the Kurucz leaders and a peace favourable to both sides could be achieved.

This is the most you could expect from Kurucz "victory", which in fact wouldn't look much more different than the Peace of Szatmár, which historically concluded the conflict in 1711. The only real and somewhat important difference is that the war is significantly shorter, and therefore the country is spared from further destruction. This would somewhat improve the demographic standing of the Hungarian-speaking population of Hungary in the future, but that's about it.

He definitely wanted to remain the Prince of Transylvania, but technically he was obliged by the diet to appoint a new king. Lacking alternatives, he might have tried to appoint himself though.

What are you talking about? Autonomy from what?

The autonomy I'm talking about is reducing Leopold's high handed rule in Hungary. Basically, reserving important positions in Hungary's governing for Hungarians, the right to be judged by their own country's courts, tax reduction to normal levels, establishing their own army/militia, independence of a native treasury, removal of foreign garrisons etc. I know all of these issues were discussed during the war. And they were often agreed upon at the diets during the reign of both Leopold and Charles VI only for the kings to disregard them, at least partially, later on.

Would Rakoczi's death remove the issue at hand? Or would it devastate the rebels and convince Vienna to leave the negotiating table and continue the war until they have a complete victory?

 

[Fehérvári]

The autonomy I'm talking about is reducing Leopold's high handed rule in Hungary. Basically, reserving important positions in Hungary's governing for Hungarians, the right to be judged by their own country's courts, tax reduction to normal levels, establishing their own army/militia, independence of a native treasury, removal of foreign garrisons etc. I know all of these issues were discussed during the war. And they were often agreed upon at the diets during the reign of both Leopold and Charles VI only for the kings to disregard them, at least partially, later on.

Many of these things sound rather anachronistic to me. Could you please provide some sources for me?

As a sidenote, in Hungarian context, he's Charles III, not VI.

Would Rakoczi's death remove the issue at hand? Or would it devastate the rebels and convince Vienna to leave the negotiating table and continue the war until they have a complete victory?

Still, Rákóczi is an undeniable obstacle to peace.

 

[Vladivostock]

Many of these things sound rather anachronistic to me. Could you please provide some sources for me?

As a sidenote, in Hungarian context, he's Charles III, not VI.


Still, Rákóczi is an undeniable obstacle to peace.

Yeah, I knew about the numbering, but thanks.
As for the sources it's from the book Hungary's fight for national existence by Ladislaus Hengelmuller. It's a scanned book online and I'm on my cell phone right now so I can't quote the exact passage but here's a link https://archive.org/details/hungarysfightfor00heng/page/241/mode/1up
Pages 241-242.
Would the rebellion achieve anything without Rakoczi? Could Bercsenyi pull something off alone?

 

[Fehérvári]

Yeah, I knew about the numbering, but thanks.

I guessed so, this was more of statement towards all the readers of this thread generally.

As for the sources it's from the book Hungary's fight for national existence by Ladislaus Hengelmuller. It's a scanned book online and I'm on my cell phone right now so I can't quote the exact passage but here's a link https://archive.org/details/hungarysfightfor00heng/page/241/mode/1up
Pages 241-242.

This is fascinating. I will read it thoroughly.

Would the rebellion achieve anything without Rakoczi? Could Bercsenyi pull something off alone?

External factors play a larger role in all of this, I believe. The degree of success of the rebels depend a lot on the French, imo.

 

[Kaze]

He could win. The problem would be the peace. Nine Chances out of ten - he will have to accept that people are going to meddle in his affairs:
1. Russia. Peter the Great offered him the Throne of Poland once. At the time, Peter could have sneezed and there would have been a new King of Poland.
2. Ottomans. The Ottoman's reaction would be 1. allay, 2. enemy 3. ignore them - they are an Austrian puppet state
3. Austria. Austria is not going to sit on their hands. There are several options - 1. allay. 2. Enemy. 3. ignore them - they are an Ottoman puppet state. 4. marriage prospect - Hapsburg motto of "Let others make war, Austria marries."
4. France. Ally for now. But ignored as nothing more than an Austrian puppet - it would be a troublesome allay.

 

[Vanity 6]

I agree with the comment that the result of a victory would be a compromise peace and not much different than the OTL settlement. The Hungarian political elite was largely satisfied with the reigns of Charles and then Maria Theresa. Hungary needed this period of political stasis to repopulate and rebuild.