2:20 To oversimplify: between 1804 and 1848, the Empire of Austria was created to unify all the domains of the Habsburgs (which had previously been run as separate political entities rules by the same person, in what is called a "composite monarchy: the Habsburg ruler concentrated titles like Holy Roman Emperor, Archduke of Austria King of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia etc...). The Austrian Empire was meant to centralise and streamline that process. However, the empire's constituent lands (including Hungary) felt they had too few rights as nations (with the influence of nationhood and self-determination brought on by the French Revolution and Napoleon). So the goal of the 1848 revolution was to declare Hungary an autonomous nation with its own Constitution, legislature and government, but they still wanted (or had) to keep Emperor Ferdinand as their king, because I suppose finding a new ruler would've been a hassle, and republics weren't really in style then. It's the same scenario as Britain in the 17th century: between the Union of the Crowns, in 1603, when James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, and 1707, with the Act of Union that fused the kingdoms of Scotland and England into the kingdom of Great Britain, the two countries were ruled by the same monarch but with separate Parliaments, laws, budgets and even some aspects of foreign policy.
Essentially the union(personal union) between the crowns of Austria, Bohemia and Hungary was an old one, dating as far back as the 13th century with the Austrian House of Habsburg ruling the three nations from time to time. Sometimes losing the crowns to local magnates or foreign kings who had claims to the thrones but they established their firm control in the 15th-16th century as Archduke Ferdinand of Austria inherited Hungary and Bohemia from his brother in law King Louis II(through treaty that if King Louis died without an heir the throne passes to Habsburgs of Austria who had a strong claim to the throne) who died at the Battle of Mohacs against the Ottomans who took control of most of Hungary after the war. Ferdinand retained parts of the north and took the titles of King of Hungary and Bohemia and later on his older brother King Charles V of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor on his abdication confirmed him as his heir in Austria and King of the Romans(heir to the Holy Roman Empire) . The Kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary maintained a semi-autonomous stance with their own way of doing things, the only thing that united them was the Habsburg dynasty. Thus the union of 1867 solidified the personal union into a political union. Ps.- To see the territorial changes in the Balkans look at the Ottomans series by Knowlegia, History Marche or Kings and Generals
Great Video I have Subscribed. To your question, yes bosnia was part of the Ottoman empire The Ottomans Ruled the Balkans for like 400years including Hungary at some point ,you can still see the influnce that the empire has left For example Bosnia and albania Are Muslim majority Countrys while also having a lot of Turkish words in their language same with other Balkan Countrys.
It feels like the allies did not give any ##### to Austria-Hungary which is probably why the Balkan country's can't get along like imagine waking up from a nap and hearing that the town you live in is now Romania
2:20 To oversimplify: between 1804 and 1848, the Empire of Austria was created to unify all the domains of the Habsburgs (which had previously been run as separate political entities rules by the same person, in what is called a "composite monarchy: the Habsburg ruler concentrated titles like Holy Roman Emperor, Archduke of Austria King of Hungary, Bohemia, Croatia etc...). The Austrian Empire was meant to centralise and streamline that process.
However, the empire's constituent lands (including Hungary) felt they had too few rights as nations (with the influence of nationhood and self-determination brought on by the French Revolution and Napoleon). So the goal of the 1848 revolution was to declare Hungary an autonomous nation with its own Constitution, legislature and government, but they still wanted (or had) to keep Emperor Ferdinand as their king, because I suppose finding a new ruler would've been a hassle, and republics weren't really in style then.
It's the same scenario as Britain in the 17th century: between the Union of the Crowns, in 1603, when James VI of Scotland became King James I of England, and 1707, with the Act of Union that fused the kingdoms of Scotland and England into the kingdom of Great Britain, the two countries were ruled by the same monarch but with separate Parliaments, laws, budgets and even some aspects of foreign policy.
It was a good attempt to pronounce my nickname at least. Love your channel, keep it up!
Thanks man 👍 I'll try🤘
Essentially the union(personal union) between the crowns of Austria, Bohemia and Hungary was an old one, dating as far back as the 13th century with the Austrian House of Habsburg ruling the three nations from time to time. Sometimes losing the crowns to local magnates or foreign kings who had claims to the thrones but they established their firm control in the 15th-16th century as Archduke Ferdinand of Austria inherited Hungary and Bohemia from his brother in law King Louis II(through treaty that if King Louis died without an heir the throne passes to Habsburgs of Austria who had a strong claim to the throne) who died at the Battle of Mohacs against the Ottomans who took control of most of Hungary after the war. Ferdinand retained parts of the north and took the titles of King of Hungary and Bohemia and later on his older brother King Charles V of Spain and Holy Roman Emperor on his abdication confirmed him as his heir in Austria and King of the Romans(heir to the Holy Roman Empire) . The Kingdoms of Bohemia and Hungary maintained a semi-autonomous stance with their own way of doing things, the only thing that united them was the Habsburg dynasty. Thus the union of 1867 solidified the personal union into a political union.
Ps.- To see the territorial changes in the Balkans look at the Ottomans series by Knowlegia, History Marche or Kings and Generals
Thank you dude! Love the long comments that fill in some of the knowledge that the video left out or that I might have missed!
Great Video I have Subscribed. To your question, yes bosnia was part of the Ottoman empire The Ottomans Ruled the Balkans for like 400years including Hungary at some point ,you can still see the influnce that the empire has left For example Bosnia and albania Are Muslim majority Countrys while also having a lot of Turkish words in their language same with other Balkan Countrys.
"Archduke Franz Ferdinand was assassinated."
It feels like the allies did not give any ##### to Austria-Hungary which is probably why the Balkan country's can't get along like imagine waking up from a nap and hearing that the town you live in is now Romania
It all happened WW1 in my town Sarajevo
yep true. the austro-hungarian empire isn't very old, the austrian empire alone is indeed.
Nice video, but Austria and Hungary have respective history on their own, more than 1000 years
Maybe react to Canadian revolution by history matter
That... That's a thing?
lol jk ill check it out
React to what if the us join the axis by zvallid plz
Hello there, got here 16 minutes late.
Almost ! 😂😁