Habsburg Central Europe: Dynasty, Territoriality, and Governance, 1790–1867

As he lay on his deathbed in late January 1790, Joseph II wrote to his brother and successor, Leopold II, summing up his restless, striving life: “I am unfortunate in everything I undertake, the appalling ingratitudewithwhich my good arrangements are viewed and I am treated … all this fills me with doubt” (Derek Beales, Joseph II: Against the World, 1780–1790 [Cambridge, 2009], 628). Joseph’s reforming zeal and personalized rule left a difficult and ambiguous legacy. Formany, Joseph and his reign represented a model and template for progressive, interventionist government and the possibilities of public-spirited reform. Yet, upon Leopold’s ascension, there was widespread discontent at the rapid pace of Joseph’s drive for rationalization and improvement, including a military uprising in Austrian Netherlands (roughly present-day Belgium) and serious unrest in Hungary. Together with an expensive, interminable war against the Ottoman Empire (which posed the possibility of Prussian support against Austria) and ongoing financial problems, the monarchy was facing a moment of crisis. To some extent, Joseph’s rule had shown not only the possibilities but also the limitations of direct personal rule by fiat, however well-intentioned.