Search This Blog

Monday, April 10, 2023

House of Habsburg

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/House_of_Habsburg

House of Habsburg
Haus Habsburg
Imperial, Royal, and Ducal dynasty
Top: Habsburg "ancient", coat of arms of the Counts of Habsburg: Or, a lion rampant gules crowned azure ("Lion of Habsburg"); bottom: Habsburg "modern"/Austria, arms of the House of Habsburg, Archdukes of Austria: Gules, a fess argent ("Bindenschild"); originally the arms of the House of Babenburg, Dukes of Austria and Styria

 
 
Parent houseHouse of Eticho (?)
Country

List
EtymologyHabsburg Castle
Founded11th century
FounderRadbot of Klettgau
Current headKarl von Habsburg (cognatic line)
Final rulerCharles I of Austria (cognatic line)
Titles

List
MottoA.E.I.O.U. and Viribus Unitis
Estate(s)
Cadet branchesAgnatic: (all are extinct)

Cognatic:

The House of Habsburg (/ˈhæpsbɜːrɡ/), alternatively spelled Hapsburg in English and also known as the House of Austria, is one of the most prominent and important dynasties in European history.

The house takes its name from Habsburg Castle, a fortress built in the 1020s in present-day Switzerland by Radbot of Klettgau, who named his fortress Habsburg. His grandson Otto II was the first to take the fortress name as his own, adding "Count of Habsburg" to his title. In 1273, Count Radbot's seventh-generation descendant, Rudolph of Habsburg, was elected King of the Romans. Taking advantage of the extinction of the Babenbergs and of his victory over Ottokar II of Bohemia at the battle on the Marchfeld in 1278, he appointed his sons as Dukes of Austria and moved the family's power base to Vienna, where the Habsburg dynasty gained the name of "House of Austria" and ruled until 1918.

The throne of the Holy Roman Empire was continuously occupied by the Habsburgs from 1440 until their extinction in the male line in 1740 and, after the death of Francis I, from 1765 until its dissolution in 1806. The house also produced kings of Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia, Spain, Portugal and Galicia-Lodomeria, with their respective colonies; rulers of several principalities in the Low Countries and Italy; and in the 19th century, emperors of Austria and of Austria-Hungary as well as one emperor of Mexico. The family split several times into parallel branches, most consequentially in the mid-16th century between its Spanish and Austrian branches following the abdication of Charles V. Although they ruled distinct territories, the different branches nevertheless maintained close relations and frequently intermarried.

Members of the Habsburg family oversee the Austrian branch of the Order of the Golden Fleece and the Imperial and Royal Order of Saint George. The current head of the family is Karl von Habsburg.

Name

The origins of Habsburg Castle's name are uncertain. There is disagreement on whether the name is derived from the High German Habichtsburg (hawk castle), or from the Middle High German word hab/hap meaning ford, as there is a river with a ford nearby. The first documented use of the name by the dynasty itself has been traced to the year 1108.

The Habsburg name was not continuously used by the family members, since they often emphasized their more prestigious princely titles. The dynasty was thus long known as the "House of Austria". Complementarily, in some circumstances the family members were identified by their place of birth. Charles V was known in his youth after his birthplace as Charles of Ghent. When he became king of Spain he was known as Charles of Spain, and after he was elected emperor, as Charles V (in French, Charles Quint).

In Spain, the dynasty was known as the Casa de Austria, including illegitimate sons such as John of Austria and John Joseph of Austria. The arms displayed in their simplest form were those of Austria, which the Habsburgs had made their own, at times impaled with the arms of the Duchy of Burgundy (ancient).

After Maria Theresa married Duke Francis Stephen of Lorraine, the idea of "Habsburg" as associated with ancestral Austrian rulership was used to show that the old dynasty continued as did all its inherited rights. When Francis I became Emperor of Austria, he adopted the old shield of Habsburg in his personal arms, together with Austria and Lorraine. This also reinforced the "Germanness" of the (French-speaking) Austrian Emperor and his claim to rule in Germany, not least against the Prussian Kings. Some younger sons who had no prospects of the throne were given the personal title of "count of Habsburg".

The surname of more recent members of the family such as Otto von Habsburg and Karl von Habsburg is taken to be "von Habsburg" or more completely "von Habsburg-Lothringen". Princes and members of the house use the tripartite arms adopted in the 18th century by Francis Stephen.

History

Counts of Habsburg

The Habsburg dominions around 1200 in the area of modern-day Switzerland are shown as      Habsburg, among the houses of      Savoy,      Zähringer and      Kyburg

The progenitor of the House of Habsburg may have been Guntram the Rich, a count in the Breisgau who lived in the 10th century, and forthwith farther back as the medieval Adalrich, Duke of Alsace, from the Etichonids from which Habsburg derives. His grandson Radbot of Klettgau founded the Habsburg Castle. That castle was the family seat during most of the 11th, 12th and 13th centuries. Giovanni Thomas Marnavich in his book "Regiae Sanctitatis Illyricanae Faecunditas" dedicated to Ferdinand III, wrote that the House of Habsburg is descended from the Roman emperor Constantine the Great.

In the 12th century, the Habsburgs became increasingly associated with the Staufer Emperors, participating in the imperial court and the Emperor's military expeditions; Werner II, Count of Habsburg died fighting for Emperor Frederick I Barbarossa in Italy. This association helped them to inherit many domains as the Staufers caused the extinction of many dynasties, some of which the Habsburgs were heirs to. In 1198, Rudolf II, Count of Habsburg fully dedicated the dynasty to the Staufer cause by joining the Ghibellines and funded the Staufer emperor Frederick II's war for the throne in 1211. The emperor was made godfather to his newly born grandson, the future king Rudolf.

The Habsburgs expanded their influence through arranged marriages and by gaining political privileges, especially countship rights in Zürichgau, Aargau and Thurgau. In the 13th century, the house aimed its marriage policy at families in Upper Alsace and Swabia. They were also able to gain high positions in the church hierarchy for their members. Territorially, they often profited from the extinction of other noble families such as the House of Kyburg.

Pivot to Eastern Alpine Duchies

By the second half of the 13th century, count Rudolph IV (1218–1291) had become an influential territorial lord in the area between the Vosges Mountains and Lake Constance. On 1 October 1273, he was elected as a compromise candidate as King of the Romans and received the name Rudolph I of Germany. He then led a coalition against king Ottokar II of Bohemia who had taken advantage of the Great Interregnum in order to expand southwards, taking over the respective inheritances of the Babenberg (Austria, Styria, Savinja) and of the Spanheim (Carinthia and Carniola). In 1278, Rudolph and his allies defeated and killed Ottokar at the Battle of Marchfeld, and the lands he had acquired reverted to the German crown. With the Georgenberg Pact of 1286, Rudolph secured for his family the duchies of Austria and Styria. The southern portions of Ottokar's former realm, Carinthia, Carniola, and Savinja, went to Rudolph's allies from the House of Gorizia.

Following Rudolph's death in 1291, Albert I's assassination in 1308, and Frederick the Fair's failure to secure the German/Imperial crown for himself, the Habsburgs temporarily lost their supremacy in the Empire. In the early 14th century, they also focused on the Kingdom of Bohemia. After Václav III’s death on 4 August 1306, there were no male heirs remaining in the Přemyslid dynasty. Habsburg scion Rudolph I was then elected but only lasted a year. The Bohemian kingship was an elected position, and the Habsburgs were only able to secure it on a hereditary basis much later in 1626, following their submission of the Czech lands during the Thirty Years' War. After 1307, subsequent Habsburg attempts to gain the Bohemian crown were frustrated first by Henry of Bohemia (a member of the House of Gorizia) and then by the House of Luxembourg.

Instead, they were able to expand southwards: in 1311, they took over Savinja; after the death of Henry in 1335, they assumed power in Carniola and Carinthia; and in 1369, they succeeded his daughter Margaret in Tyrol. After the death of Albert III of Gorizia in 1374, they gained a foothold at Pazin in central Istria, followed by Trieste in 1382. Meanwhile, the original home territories of the Habsburgs in what is now Switzerland, including the Aargau with Habsburg Castle, were lost in the 14th century to the expanding Swiss Confederacy after the battles of Morgarten (1315) and Sempach (1386). Habsburg Castle itself was finally lost to the Swiss in 1415.

Albertinian / Leopoldian split and Imperial elections

Map showing the constituent lands of the Archduchy of Austria: the Duchy of Austria, comprising Upper Austria centered on Linz, and Lower Austria centered on Vienna; Inner Austria, centered on Graz, comprising the duchies of Styria, Carinthia and Carniola, and the lands of the Austrian Littoral; and Further Austria, comprising mostly the Sundgau territory with the town of Belfort in southern Alsace, the adjacent Breisgau region east of the Rhine, and usually the County of Tyrol. The area between Further Austria and the Duchy of Austria was the Archbishopric of Salzburg.

Rudolf IV's brothers Albert III and Leopold III ignored his efforts to preserve the integrity of the family domains, and enacted the separation of the so-called Albertinian and Leopoldian family lines on 25 September 1379 by the Treaty of Neuberg. The former would maintain Austria proper (then called Niederösterreich but comprising modern Lower Austria and most of Upper Austria), while the latter would rule over lands then labeled Oberösterreich, namely Inner Austria (Innerösterreich) comprising Styria, Carinthia and Carniola, and Further Austria (Vorderösterreich) consisting of Tyrol and the western Habsburg lands in Alsace and Swabia.

By marrying Elisabeth of Luxembourg, the daughter of Emperor Sigismund in 1437, Duke Albert V of the Albertine line (1397–1439) became the ruler of Bohemia and Hungary, again expanding the family's political horizons. The next year, Albert was crowned as King of the Romans, known as such as Albert II. Following his early death in a battle against the Ottomans in 1439 and that of his son Ladislaus Postumus in 1457, the Habsburgs lost Bohemia once more as well as Hungary, for several decades. However, with the extinction of the House of Celje in 1456 and the House of Wallsee-Enns in 1466/1483, they managed to absorb significant secular enclaves within their territories, and create a contiguous domain stretching from the border with Bohemia to the Adriatic sea.

After the death of Leopold's eldest son William in 1406, the Leopoldian line was further split among his brothers into the Inner Austrian territory under Ernest the Iron and a Tyrolean/Further Austrian line under Frederick of the Empty Pockets. In 1440, Ernest's son Frederick III was chosen by the electoral college to succeed Albert II as the king. Several Habsburg kings had attempted to gain the imperial dignity over the years, but success finally arrived on 19 March 1452, when Pope Nicholas V crowned Frederick III as the Holy Roman Emperor in a grand ceremony held in Rome. In Frederick III, the Pope found an important political ally with whose help he was able to counter the conciliar movement.

While in Rome, Frederick III married Eleanor of Portugal, enabling him to build a network of connections with dynasties in the west and southeast of Europe. Frederick was rather distant to his family; Eleanor, by contrast, had a great influence on the raising and education of Frederick's children and therefore played an important role in the family's rise to prominence. After Frederick III's coronation, the Habsburgs were able to hold the imperial throne almost continuously until 1806.

Archdukes

Through the forged document called privilegium maius (1358/59), Duke Rudolf IV (1339–1365) introduced the title of Archduke to place the Habsburgs on a par with the Prince-electors of the Empire, since Emperor Charles IV had omitted to give them the electoral dignity in his Golden Bull of 1356. Charles, however, refused to recognize the title, as did his immediate successors.

Duke Ernest the Iron and his descendants unilaterally assumed the title "archduke". That title was only officially recognized in 1453 by Emperor Frederick III, himself a Habsburg. Frederick himself used just "Duke of Austria", never Archduke, until his death in 1493. The title was first granted to Frederick's younger brother, Albert VI of Austria (died 1463), who used it at least from 1458. In 1477, Frederick granted the title archduke to his first cousin Sigismund of Austria, ruler of Further Austria. Frederick's son and heir, the future Emperor Maximilian I, apparently only started to use the title after the death of his wife Mary of Burgundy in 1482, as Archduke never appears in documents issued jointly by Maximilian and Mary as rulers in the Low Countries (where Maximilian is still titled "Duke of Austria"). The title appears first in documents issued under the joint rule of Maximilian and Philip (his under-age son) in the Low Countries.

Archduke was initially borne by those dynasts who ruled a Habsburg territory, i.e., only by males and their consorts, appanages being commonly distributed to cadets. These "junior" archdukes did not thereby become independent hereditary rulers, since all territories remained vested in the Austrian crown. Occasionally a territory might be combined with a separate gubernatorial mandate ruled by an archducal cadet. From the 16th century onward, archduke and its female form, archduchess, came to be used by all the members of the House of Habsburg (e.g., Queen Marie Antoinette of France was born Archduchess Maria Antonia of Austria).

Re-unification and expansion

Habsburg lands (in green), following the Battle of Mühlberg in 1547; excludes Holy Roman Empire, and the Spanish colonial empire

In 1457 Duke Frederick V of Inner Austria also gained the Austrian archduchy after his Albertine cousin Ladislaus the Posthumous had died without issue. 1490 saw the reunification of all Habsburg lines when Archduke Sigismund of Further Austria and Tyrol resigned in favor of Frederick's son Maximilian I.

As emperor, Frederick III took a leading role inside the family and positioned himself as the judge over the family's internal conflicts, often making use of the privilegium maius. He was able to restore the unity of the house's Austrian lands, as the Albertinian line was now extinct. Territorial integrity was also strengthened by the extinction of the Tyrolean branch of the Leopoldian line. Frederick's aim was to make Austria a united country, stretching from the Rhine to the Mur and Leitha.

On the external front, one of Frederick's main achievements was the Siege of Neuss (1474–75), in which he coerced Charles the Bold of Burgundy to give his daughter Mary of Burgundy as wife to Frederick's son Maximilian. The wedding took place on the evening of 16 August 1477 and ultimately resulted in the Habsburgs acquiring control of the Low Countries. After Mary's early death in 1482, Maximilian attempted to secure the Burgundian heritance to one of his and Mary's children Philip the Handsome. Charles VIII of France contested this, using both military and dynastic means, but the Burgundian succession was finally ruled in favor of Philip in the Treaty of Senlis in 1493.

After the death of his father in 1493, Maximilian was proclaimed the new King of the Romans, receiving the name Maximilian I. Maximilian was initially unable to travel to Rome to receive the Imperial title from the Pope, due to opposition from Venice and from the French who were occupying Milan, as well a refusal from the Pope due to enemy forces being present on his territory. In 1508, Maximilian proclaimed himself as the "chosen Emperor," and this was also recognized by the Pope due to changes in political alliances. This had a historical consequence in that, in the future, the Roman King would also automatically become Emperor, without needing the Pope's consent. Emperor Charles V would be the last to be crowned by the Pope himself, at Bologna in 1530.

Maximilian's rule (1493–1519) was a time of dramatic expansion for the Habsburgs. In 1497, Maximilian's son Philip, known as the Handsome or the Fair, married Joanna of Castile, also known as Joan the Mad, heiress of the Castile. Phillip and Joan had six children, the eldest of whom became Emperor Charles V and ruled the kingdoms of Castile and Aragon (including their colonies in the New World), Southern Italy, Austria, and the Low Countries in 1516, with his mother and nominal co-ruler Joanna, who was kept under confinement.

The foundations for the later empire of Austria-Hungary were laid in 1515 by the means of a double wedding between Louis, only son of Vladislaus II, King of Bohemia and Hungary, and Maximilian's granddaughter Mary; and between her brother Archduke Ferdinand and Louis's sister Anna. The wedding was celebrated in grand style on 22 July 1515. All these children were still minors, so the wedding was formally completed in 1521. Vladislaus died on 13 March 1516, and Maximilian died on 12 January 1519, but the latter's designs were ultimately successful: upon Louis's death in battle in 1526, Ferdinand became king of Bohemia and Hungary.

The Habsburg dynasty achieved its highest position when Charles V was elected Holy Roman Emperor. Much of Charles's reign was dedicated to the fight against Protestantism, which led to its eradication throughout vast areas under Habsburg control.

Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs

The Iberian Union in 1598, under Philip II, King of Spain and Portugal
 
The Spanish and Austrian Habsburg European lands, ca 1700

Charles formally became the sole monarch of Spain upon the death of his imprisoned mother Queen Joan in 1555.

After the abdication of Charles V in 1556, the Habsburg dynasty split into the branch of the Austrian (or German) Habsburgs, led by Ferdinand, and the branch of the Spanish Habsburgs, initially led by Charles's son Philip. Ferdinand I, King of Bohemia, Hungary, and archduke of Austria in the name of his brother Charles V became suo jure monarch as well as the Habsburg Holy Roman Emperor (designated as successor already in 1531). Philip became King of Spain and its colonial empire as Philip II, and ruler of the Habsburg domains in Italy and the Low Countries. The Spanish Habsburgs also ruled Portugal for a time, known there as the Philippine dynasty (1580–1640).

The Seventeen Provinces and the Duchy of Milan were in personal union under the King of Spain, but remained part of the Holy Roman Empire. Furthermore, the Spanish king had claims on Hungary and Bohemia. In the secret Oñate treaty of 29 July 1617, the Spanish and Austrian Habsburgs settled their mutual claims.

Habsburg inbreeding and extinction of the male lines

Profile portrait of Leopold I highlighting his "Habsburg jaw", Deutsches Historisches Museum

The Habsburgs sought to consolidate their power by frequent consanguineous marriages, resulting in a cumulatively deleterious effect on their gene pool. Health impairments due to inbreeding included epilepsy, insanity, and early death. A study of 3,000 family members over 16 generations by the University of Santiago de Compostela suggests inbreeding may have played a role in their extinction. Numerous members of the family showed specific facial deformities: an enlarged lower jaw with an extended chin known as mandibular prognathism or "Habsburg jaw", a large nose with hump and hanging tip ("Habsburg nose"), and an everted lower lip ("Habsburg lip"). The latter two are signs of maxillary deficiency. A 2019 study found that the degree of mandibular prognathism in the Habsburg family shows a statistically significant correlation with the degree of inbreeding. A correlation between maxillary deficiency and degree of inbreeding was also present but was not statistically significant. Other scientific studies, however, dispute the ideas of any linkage between fertility and consanguinity.

The gene pool eventually became so small that the last of the Spanish line, Charles II, who was severely disabled from birth (perhaps by genetic disorders) possessed a genome comparable to that of a child born to a brother and sister, as did his father, probably because of "remote inbreeding".

The death of Charles II of Spain in 1700 led to the War of the Spanish Succession, and that of Emperor Charles VI in 1740 led to the War of the Austrian Succession. In the former, the House of Bourbon won the conflict and put a final end to the Habsburg rule in Spain. The latter, however, was won by Maria Theresa and led to the succession of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine (German: Haus Habsburg-Lothringen) becoming the new main branch of the dynasty, in the person of Maria Theresa's son, Joseph II. This new House was created by the marriage between Maria Theresa of Habsburg and Francis Stephan, Duke of Lorraine (both of them were great-grandchildren of Habsburg emperor Ferdinand III, but from different empresses) this new House being a cadet branch of the female line of the House of Habsburg and the male line of the House of Lorraine. It is thought that extensive intra-family marriages within Spanish and Austrian lines contributed to the extinction of the main line.

House of Habsburg-Lorraine

Austria-Hungary in 1915
Austria-Hungary map new.svg
Kingdoms and countries of Austria-Hungary:
Cisleithania (Empire of Austria): 1. Bohemia, 2. Bukovina, 3. Carinthia, 4. Carniola, 5. Dalmatia, 6. Galicia, 7. Küstenland, 8. Lower Austria, 9. Moravia, 10. Salzburg, 11. Silesia, 12. Styria, 13. Tirol, 14. Upper Austria, 15. Vorarlberg;
Transleithania (Kingdom of Hungary): 16. Hungary proper 17. Croatia-Slavonia; 18. Bosnia and Herzegovina (Austro-Hungarian condominium)

On 6 August 1806, Emperor Francis I dissolved the Holy Roman Empire under pressure from Napoleon's reorganization of Germany. In anticipation of the loss of his title of Holy Roman Emperor, Francis had declared himself hereditary Emperor of Austria (as Francis I) on 11 August 1804, three months after Napoleon had declared himself Emperor of the French on 18 May 1804.

Emperor Francis I of Austria used the official full list of titles: "We, Francis the First, by the grace of God, Emperor of Austria; King of Jerusalem, Hungary, Bohemia, Dalmatia, Croatia, Slavonia, Galicia and Lodomeria; Archduke of Austria; Duke of Lorraine, Salzburg, Würzburg, Franconia, Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola; Grand Duke of Cracow; Grand Prince of Transylvania; Margrave of Moravia; Duke of Sandomir, Masovia, Lublin, Upper and Lower Silesia, Auschwitz and Zator, Teschen, and Friule; Prince of Berchtesgaden and Mergentheim; Princely Count of Habsburg, Gorizia, and Gradisca and of the Tyrol; and Margrave of Upper and Lower Lusatia and Istria".

The Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 created a real union, whereby the Kingdom of Hungary was granted co-equality with the Empire of Austria, that henceforth didn't include the Kingdom of Hungary as a crownland anymore. The Austrian and the Hungarian lands became independent entities enjoying equal status. Under this arrangement, the Hungarians referred to their ruler as king and never emperor (see k. u. k.). This prevailed until the Habsburgs' deposition from both Austria and Hungary in 1918 following defeat in World War I.

An ethno-linguistic map of Austria–Hungary, 1910

On 11 November 1918, with his empire collapsing around him, the last Habsburg ruler, Charles I of Austria (who also reigned as Charles IV of Hungary) issued a proclamation recognizing Austria's right to determine the future of the state and renouncing any role in state affairs. Two days later, he issued a separate proclamation for Hungary. Even though he did not officially abdicate, this is considered the end of the Habsburg dynasty.

In 1919, the new republican Austrian government subsequently passed a law banishing the Habsburgs from Austrian territory until they renounced all intentions of regaining the throne and accepted the status of private citizens. Charles made several attempts to regain the throne of Hungary, and in 1921 the Hungarian government passed a law that revoked Charles' rights and dethroned the Habsburgs. The Habsburgs did not formally abandon all hope of returning to power until Otto von Habsburg, the eldest son of Charles I, on 31 May 1961 renounced all claims to the throne.

In the interwar period, the House of Habsburg was a vehement opponent of National Socialism and Communism. In Germany, Adolf Hitler diametrically opposed the centuries-old Habsburg principles of largely allowing local communities under their rule to maintain traditional ethnic, religious and language practices, and he bristled with hatred against the Habsburg family. During the Second World War there was a strong Habsburg resistance movement in Central Europe, which was radically persecuted by the Nazis and the Gestapo. The unofficial leader of these groups was Otto von Habsburg, who campaigned against the Nazis and for a free Central Europe in France and the United States. Most of the resistance fighters, such as Heinrich Maier, who successfully passed on production sites and plans for V-2 rockets, Tiger tanks and aircraft to the Allies, were executed. The Habsburg family played a leading role in the fall of the Iron Curtain and the collapse of the Communist Eastern Bloc.

Multilingualism

"PLUS OULTRE", motto of Charles V in French, on a ceiling of the Palace of Charles V in Granada

As they accumulated crowns and titles, the Habsburgs developed a unique family tradition of multilingualism that evolved over the centuries. The Holy Roman Empire had been multilingual from the start, even though most of its emperors were native German speakers. The language issue within the Empire became gradually more salient as the non-religious use of Latin declined and that of national languages gained prominence during the High Middle Ages. Emperor Charles IV of Luxembourg was known to be fluent in Czech, French, German, Italian and Latin.

The last section of his Golden Bull of 1356 specifies that the Empire's secular prince-electors "should be instructed in the varieties of the different dialects and languages" and that "since they are expected in all likelihood to have naturally acquired the German language, and to have been taught it from their infancy, [they] shall be instructed in the grammar of the Italian and Slavic tongues, beginning with the seventh year of their age so that, before the fourteenth year of their age, they may be learned in the same". In the early 15th century, Strasbourg-based chronicler Jakob Twinger von Königshofen asserted that Charlemagne had mastered six languages, even though he had a preference for German.

In the early years of the family's ascendancy, neither Rudolf I nor Albert I appear to have spoken French. By contrast, Charles V of Habsburg is well known some having been fluent in several languages. He was native in French and also knew Dutch from his youth in Flanders. He later added some Castilian Spanish, which he was required to learn by the Castilian Cortes Generales. He could also speak some Basque, acquired by the influence of the Basque secretaries serving in the royal court. He gained a decent command of German following the Imperial election of 1519, though he never spoke it as well as French. A witticism sometimes attributed to Charles was: "I speak Spanish/Latin [depending on the source] to God, Italian to women, French to men and German to my horse."

Latin was the administrative language of the Empire until the aggressive promotion of German by Joseph II in the late 18th century, which was partly reversed by his successors. From the 16th century, most if not all Habsburgs spoke French as well as German, and many also spoke Italian. Ferdinand I, Maximilian II and Rudolf II addressed the Bohemian Assembly in Czech, even though it is not clear that they were fluent. By contrast, there is little evidence that later Habsburgs in the 17th and 18th centuries spoke Czech, with the probable exception of Ferdinand III who made several stays in Bohemia and appears to have spoken Czech while there. In the 19th century, Francis I had notions of Czech, and Ferdinand I spoke it decently.

Franz Joseph received a bilingual early education in French and German, then added Czech and Hungarian and later Italian and Polish. He also learned Latin and Greek. After the end of the Habsburg Monarchy, Otto von Habsburg was fluent in English, French, German, Hungarian, Italian, Spanish and Portuguese.

Burials

List of Habsburg rulers

The Habsburgs' monarchical positions included:

Ancestors

  • Guntram the Rich (ca. 930–985 / 990) Father of: The chronology of the Muri Abbey, burial place of the early Habsburgs, written in the 11th century, states that Guntramnus Dives (Guntram the Rich), was the ancestor of the House of Habsburg. Many historians believe this indeed makes Guntram the progenitor of the House of Habsburg. However, this account was 200 years after the fact, and much about him and the origins of the Habsburgs is uncertain. If true, as Guntram was a member of the Etichonider family, it would link the Habsburg lineage to this family.
  • Lanzelin of Altenburg (died 991). Besides Radbot, below, he had sons named Rudolph I, Wernher, and Landolf.

Before the Albertine/Leopoldine division

Counts

Arms of the Counts of Habsburgs. The Habsburgs all but abandoned this for the arms of Austria. It only reappeared in their triarch family arms in 1805.

Before Rudolph rose to German king, the Habsburgs were Counts of Baden in what is today southwestern Germany and Switzerland.

Kings of the Romans

  • Rudolph I, emperor 1273–1291 (never crowned) Emperor Rudolf I Arms.svg
  • Albert I, emperor 1298–1308 (never crowned) Armoiries empereur Albert Ier.svg

King of Bohemia

Dukes/Archdukes of Austria

  • Rudolph II, son of Rudolph I, duke of Austria and Styria together with his brother 1282–1283, was dispossessed by his brother, who eventually would be murdered by one of Rudolph's sons.
  • Albert I (Albrecht I), son of Rudolph I and brother of the above, duke from 1282 to 1308; was Holy Roman Emperor from 1298 to 1308. See also below.
  • Rudolph III, the oldest son of Albert I, designated duke of Austria and Styria 1298–1307
  • Frederick the Handsome (Friedrich der Schöne), brother of Rudolph III. Duke of Austria and Styria (with his brother Leopold I) from 1308 to 1330; officially co-regent of the emperor Louis IV since 1325, but never ruled.
  • Leopold I, brother of the above, duke of Austria and Styria from 1308 to 1326.
  • Albert II (Albrecht II), brother of the above, duke of Further Austria from 1326 to 1358, duke of Austria and Styria 1330–1358, duke of Carinthia after 1335.
  • Otto the Jolly (der Fröhliche), brother of the above, duke of Austria and Styria 1330–1339 (together with his brother), duke of Carinthia after 1335.
  • Rudolph IV the Founder (der Stifter), oldest son of Albert II. Duke of Austria and Styria 1358–1365, Duke of Tirol after 1363.

Division of Albertinian and Leopoldian lines

After the death of Rudolph IV, his brothers Albert III and Leopold III ruled the Habsburg possessions together from 1365 until 1379, when they split the territories in the Treaty of Neuberg, Albert keeping the Duchy of Austria and Leopold ruling over Styria, Carinthia, Carniola, the Windic March, Tirol, and Further Austria.

Kings of the Romans and Holy Roman Emperors (Albertinian line)

Kings of Hungary and Bohemia (Albertinian line)

Dukes of Austria (Albertinian line)

  • Albert III (Albrecht III), duke of Austria until 1395, from 1386 (after the death of Leopold) until 1395 also ruled over the latter's possessions.
  • Albert IV (Albrecht IV), duke of Austria 1395–1404, in conflict with Leopold IV.
  • Albert V (Albrecht V), duke of Austria 1404–1439, Holy Roman Emperor from 1438 to 1439 as Albert II. See also below.
  • Ladislaus Posthumus, son of the above, duke of Austria 1440–1457.

Dukes of Styria, Carinthia, Tyrol / Inner Austria (Leopoldian line)

  • Leopold III, duke of Styria, Carinthia, Tyrol, and Further Austria until 1386, when he was killed in the Battle of Sempach.
  • William (Wilhelm), son of the above, 1386–1406 duke in Inner Austria (Carinthia, Styria)
  • Leopold IV, son of Leopold III, 1391 regent of Further Austria, 1395–1402 duke of Tyrol, after 1404 also duke of Austria, 1406–1411 duke of Inner Austria
Leopoldian-Inner Austrian sub-line
Leopoldian-Tyrol sub-line
  • Frederick IV (Friedrich), brother of Ernst, 1402–1439 duke of Tyrol and Further Austria
  • Sigismund, also spelled Siegmund or Sigmund, 1439–1446 under the tutelage of the Frederick V above, then duke of Tyrol, and after the death of Albrecht VI in 1463 also duke of Further Austria.

Reunited Habsburgs until extinction of agnatic lines

Sigismund had no children and adopted Maximilian I, son of Emperor Frederick III. Under Maximilian, the possessions of the Habsburgs would be united again under one ruler, after he had re-conquered the Duchy of Austria after the death of Matthias Corvinus, who resided in Vienna and styled himself duke of Austria from 1485 to 1490.

Holy Roman Emperors, Archdukes of Austria

The abdications of Charles V in 1556 ended his formal authority over Ferdinand and made him suo jure ruler in Austria, Bohemia, Hungary, as well as Holy Roman Emperor.

Ferdinand's inheritance had been split in 1564 among his children, with Maximilian taking the Imperial crown and his younger brother Archduke Charles II ruling over Inner Austria (i.e. the Duchy of Styria, the Duchy of Carniola with March of Istria, the Duchy of Carinthia, the Princely County of Gorizia and Gradisca, and the Imperial City of Trieste, ruled from Graz). Charles's son and successor Ferdinand II in 1619 became Archduke of Austria and Holy Roman Emperor as well as King of Bohemia and Hungary in 1620. The Further Austrian/Tyrolean line of Ferdinand's brother Archduke Leopold V survived until the death of his son Sigismund Francis in 1665, whereafter their territories ultimately returned to common control with the other Austrian Habsburg lands. Inner Austrian stadtholders went on to rule until the days of Empress Maria Theresa in the 18th century.

Kings of Spain, Kings of Portugal (Spanish Habsburgs)

Habsburg Spain was a personal union between the Crowns of Castile and Aragon; Aragon was itself divided into the Kingdoms of Aragon, Catalonia, Valencia, Majorca, Naples, Sicily, Malta and Sardinia. From 1581, they were kings of Portugal until they renounced this title in the 1668 Treaty of Lisbon. They were also Dukes of Milan, Lord of the Americas, and holder of multiple titles from territories within the Habsburg Netherlands. A full listing can be seen here.

The War of the Spanish Succession took place after the extinction of the Spanish Habsburg line, to determine the inheritance of Charles II.

Kings of Hungary (Austrian Habsburgs)

Kings of Bohemia (Austrian Habsburgs)

Titular Dukes of Burgundy, Lords of the Netherlands

Charles the Bold controlled not only Burgundy (both dukedom and county) but also Flanders and the broader Burgundian Netherlands. Frederick III managed to secure the marriage of Charles's only daughter, Mary of Burgundy, to his son Maximilian. The wedding took place on the evening of 16 August 1477, after the death of Charles. Mary and the Habsburgs lost the Duchy of Burgundy to France, but managed to defend and hold onto the rest what became the 17 provinces of the Habsburg Netherlands. After Mary's death in 1482, Maximilian acted as regent for his son Philip the Handsome.

The Netherlands were frequently governed directly by a regent or governor-general, who was a collateral member of the Habsburgs. By the Pragmatic Sanction of 1549 Charles V combined the Netherlands into one administrative unit, to be inherited by his son Philip II. Charles effectively united the Netherlands as one entity. The Habsburgs controlled the 17 Provinces of the Netherlands until the Dutch Revolt in the second half of the 16th century, when they lost the seven northern Protestant provinces. They held onto the southern Catholic part (roughly modern Belgium and Luxembourg) as the Spanish and Austrian Netherlands until they were conquered by French Revolutionary armies in 1795. The one exception to this was the period of (1601–1621), when shortly before Philip II died on 13 September 1598, he renounced his rights to the Netherlands in favor of his daughter Isabella and her fiancé, Archduke Albert of Austria, a younger son of Emperor Maximilian II. The territories reverted to Spain on the death of Albert in 1621, as the couple had no surviving offspring, and Isabella acted as regent-governor until her death in 1633:

Habsburg-Lorraine

The War of the Austrian Succession took place after the extinction of the male line of the Austrian Habsburg line upon the death of Charles VI. The direct Habsburg line itself became totally extinct with the death of Maria Theresa of Austria, when it was followed by the House of Habsburg-Lorraine.

Holy Roman Emperors, Kings of Hungary and Bohemia, Archdukes of Austria (House of Habsburg-Lorraine, main line)

Queen Maria Christina of Austria of Spain, great-granddaughter of Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor above. Wife of Alfonso XII of Spain and mother of Alfonso XIII of the House of Bourbon. Alfonso XIII's wife Victoria Eugenie of Battenberg was descended from King George I of Great Britain from the Habsburg Leopold Line {above}.

The House of Habsburg-Lorraine retained Austria and attached possessions after the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire; see below.

A son of Leopold II was Archduke Rainer of Austria whose wife was from the House of Savoy; a daughter Adelaide, Queen of Sardina was the wife of King Victor Emmanuel II of Piedmont, Savoy, and Sardinia and King of Italy. Their Children married into the Royal Houses of Bonaparte; Saxe-Coburg and Gotha {Bragança} {Portugal}; Savoy {Spain}; and the Dukedoms of Montferrat and Chablis.

Emperors of Austria (House of Habsburg-Lorraine, main line)

  • Francis I, Emperor of Austria 1804–1835: formerly Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor Armoiries Léopold II Habsbourg Lorraine.svg Wappen Habsburg-Lothringen Schild.svg

(→Family Tree)

Kings of Hungary (Habsburg-Lorraine)

Kings of Bohemia (Habsburg-Lorraine)

Italian branches

Grand dukes of Tuscany (House of Habsburg-Lorraine)

Coat of arms of the House of Habsurg-Lorraine (Tuscany line).svg

Francis Stephen assigned the grand duchy of Tuscany to his second son Peter Leopold, who in turn assigned it to his second son upon his accession as Holy Roman Emperor. Tuscany remained the domain of this cadet branch of the family until Italian unification.

Dukes of Modena (Austria-Este branch of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine)

The duchy of Modena was assigned to a minor branch of the family by the Congress of Vienna. It was lost to Italian unification. The Dukes named their line the House of Austria-Este, as they were descended from the daughter of the last D'Este Duke of Modena.

Duchess of Parma (House of Habsburg-Lorraine)

The duchy of Parma was likewise assigned to a Habsburg, but did not stay in the House long before succumbing to Italian unification. It was granted to the second wife of Napoleon I of France, Maria Luisa Duchess of Parma, a daughter of the Francis II, Holy Roman Emperor, who was the mother of Napoleon II of France. Napoleon had divorced his wife Rose de Tascher de la Pagerie (better known to history as Josephine de Beauharnais) in her favor.

Other monarchies

King of England

Empress consort of Brazil and Queen consort of Portugal (House of Habsburg-Lorraine)

Dona Maria Leopoldina of Austria (22 January 1797 – 11 December 1826) was an archduchess of Austria, Empress consort of Brazil and Queen consort of Portugal.

Empress consort of France (House of Habsburg-Lorraine)

  • Marie Louise of Austria 1810–1814

Emperor of Mexico (House of Habsburg-Lorraine)

Coat of Arms of the Mexican Empire adopted by Maximilian I in 1864

Maximilian, the adventurous second son of Archduke Franz Karl, was invited as part of Napoleon III's manipulations to take the throne of Mexico, becoming Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico. The conservative Mexican nobility, as well as the clergy, supported this Second Mexican Empire. His consort, Charlotte of Belgium, a daughter of King Leopold I of Belgium and a princess of the House of Saxe-Coburg Gotha, encouraged her husband's acceptance of the Mexican crown and accompanied him as Empress Carlota of Mexico. The adventure did not end well. Maximilian was shot in Cerro de las Campanas, Querétaro, in 1867 by the republican forces of Benito Juárez.

List of post-monarchical Habsburgs

Main Habsburg-Lorraine line

Charles I was expelled from his domains after World War I and the empire was abolished.

Current personal arms of the head of the house of Habsburg, claiming only the personal title of Archduke

House of Habsburg-Tuscany

House of Habsburg-Este

Military dictatorship

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

A military dictatorship is a type of dictatorship in which power is held by one or more military officers acting on behalf of the military. Military dictatorships are led by either a single military dictator, known as a strongman, or by a council of military officers known as a military junta. They are most often formed by military coups or the empowerment of the military through a popular uprising in times of domestic unrest or instability. The military nominally seeks power to restore order or fight corruption, but the personal motivations of military officers may include greater funding for the military or a decrease in civilian control of the military.

The balance of power in a military dictatorship depends on the dictator's ability to maintain the approval of the military through concessions and appeasement while using force to repress opposition. Military strongmen may seek to consolidate power independently of the military, effectively creating personalist dictatorships. Military dictators are under constant threat of removal by their fellow military officers, and counter-coups are common against military regimes that fail to maintain support. Politicization of the military can also cause factionalism, and the military is often willing to give up power voluntarily rather than have the military destabilized. Military dictatorships are often less involved in political affairs than other regimes, with their policy mainly directed toward benefiting the military as an institution. Military rule is maintained by force more so than in other regimes, though military dictators often create separate security forces to maintain political control independently from the military.

Early military dictatorships existed in post-classical Asia, including military leaders in Korea and Japan. Modern military dictatorship developed in Latin America during the 19th century, and it further developed in Europe during the early-20th century. Military dictatorship saw a resurgence during the Cold War with new military dictatorships being established in Africa, Asia, and Latin America in the 1960s. The number of military dictatorships declined in the 1970s and 1980s, and the end of the Cold War saw the dissolution of most military dictatorships. Few military dictatorships exist in the 21st century, and they are virtually nonexistent outside of Africa and Southeast Asia.

Formation

Formation process

A general walks in military uniform flanked by other officers
Polish dictator Józef Piłsudski and fellow military officers during the May Coup in 1926

Most military dictatorships are formed after a coup d'état has overthrown the previous government. These coups typically take place when there is a perceived threat to the military or its interests as an institution, including cuts to military funding or civilian interference in military affairs. Military officers have a vested interest in having increased pay and benefits while preventing political intervention in promotions, and failure to address these issues may cause interest in military regime change. These coups are most common in the developing world, where a lack of democracy often necessitates such events for changes in leadership.

Not all dictatorships taken through military force are military dictatorships, for in many cases a civilian dictator will take power following a coup and relegate military officers. In some cases, the military may be invested with dictatorial powers during a popular uprising. The military is well-equipped to seek and maintain political power, as it is often more modernized than other institutions in a given country, with access to resources and training not available to civil leaders.

A regime can also be formed by an insurgency, or an informal group of militants that attempt to seize power in a government. When insurgents form a dictatorship, they are not constrained by formal military procedures, but their lack of organization can increase the likelihood of opposing factions developing within the group. Insurgencies sometimes grant military titles to their leaders, but they do not adopt the structure of a true military. Regimes created by insurgencies may or may not be recognized as military dictatorships.

Factors

The military's purpose in a given country may affect whether it attempts to seize power. When international opponents prompt stronger national defense, a military is more likely to comply with a civilian government, as the civilian government is likely to provide for the military. Neighboring countries that present territorial threats have the effect of harming democracy and incentivizing the creation of a stronger military, which both increase the likelihood of a military dictatorship. All of these factors are aggravated in countries with significant natural resources, as these provide an additional incentive for the military to seize power. Military dictatorships almost universally form in peacetime, with Turkey under Mustafa Kemal Atatürk being the only notable exception by 1980.

The nature of the preceding government is also a factor in whether a military dictatorship forms. Democracies are most at risk of becoming military dictatorships shortly after their formation. When a new democracy is formed, the government's institutions are fragile and civil government may not have organized its control over the military. Oligarchies prevent military dictatorships by maintaining an equilibrium, keeping the military strong enough to maintain the oligarchy while providing incentives to encourage loyalty.

The risk assessment process for military officers considering dictatorial rule is distinct from that of other potential dictators. Military officers engaging in a coup face lower risks compared to other attempts to establish dictatorships, as most officers are often allowed to retain their positions if the dictatorship does not survive, with only the military dictator and the highest ranking officers facing significant risk. Instead, officers in professionalized militaries will consider the risk to the military in its entirety rather than their individual risk, as institutional risk is much higher.

Some factors can mitigate the change of a military dictatorship forming, and these may be implemented in regions where military dictatorships are common. Constitutional provisions may be enacted to enforce penalties for military officers involved in coups, alternate military bodies may be created that do not answer to the army, military officers may be given positions in civil government, or the military may be reduced in size and resources. Such measures have had mixed success.

Justification

To establish legitimacy, a military dictatorship will often present itself as saving the nation from the corrupt or myopic civilian politicians, justifying its position as "neutral" arbiters on the basis of their membership within the armed forces, which in many countries are nominally expected to be apolitical institutions. Military rulers will often justify their intervention as acting on behalf of politically repressed citizens or as a response to economic failure.

Several justifications may be offered by military leadership for seizing power, including improper behavior of the civilian government, a threat of communist takeover, or disorder in politics. These justifications are often given for any formation of military rule, even if the personal motivations of the officers involve greed, ambition, factionalism, or ethnic conflict. An increase of the military budget is a common goal across regimes. In some cases, a military dictatorship may be seen as a measure of last resort, in which an active or former military officer will be asked to seize power to end the rule of a worse government, though it is not necessarily the case that a military dictatorship brings about the promised improvement and stability.

Stability

Duration

Georgios Papadopoulos stands in military uniform, flanked by two other men in uniform
Military dictator Georgios Papadopoulos of the Greek junta with two of his fellow military officers

The duration and stability of military dictatorships vary considerably, even within a single region, and military dictatorships are generally less stable than other regimes. The average military dictatorship lasts only five years, and the average military dictator is only in power for three years. Military dictatorships struggle to build support through mass political participation or a partisan apparatus, which limits the ability for a regime to establish a stable long-term government. When military dictators are toppled, they are often succeeded by further military coups and new military dictators seizing power within the dictatorship. An example of this was the series of coups and counter-coup attempts witnessed in Syria following the 1963 coup d'etat by the Military Committe of Arab Socialist Ba'ath Party that continued until the 1970 coup by General Hafez al-Assad. The most immediate threats to military dictators are the military officers that they depend on, making long term stability difficult.

Individual military dictators become more secure as they spend more time in office, as they are able to shift power away from military institutions by creating civilian and paramilitary forces to keep them in check. Dictators that do not create these institutions are often removed more quickly. Highly professional militaries with coherence and discipline benefit from sharing power between military officers, while less professional militaries often find it necessary to build support among the civilian government. Less professional militaries are less stable, meaning they are more prone to corruption and more likely to consolidate power.

Causes of dissolution

Jean-Bédel Bokassa stands saluting in military uniform
Military dictator Jean-Bédel Bokassa of the Central African Empire was overthrown by a French military invasion.

Military dictatorships are unique among regime types in that those in power often do not wish to remain so. Many military officers will choose to end the military's involvement in politics if it appears to be having a negative effect on the military's cohesion, its legitimacy, or its interests. When politicization leads to factionalism, in can weaken the military's hold on power and discourage leaders from further political involvement. Military rulers are more likely to negotiate and relinquish power willingly than other dictators, as no opposing armed group exists to take power by force, and they typically have the option to return to military life and would rather preserve the military as an institution than risk its destruction in civil conflict. The legitimacy of a military dictatorship is often contingent on the promise to step down once conditions have been established for a civilian government, and resistance can form against a regime that holds power beyond this point. A prosperous military dictatorship will see increasing calls to restore civilian government as the economy improves.

Military dictatorships are most commonly dissolved following a poor performance in the opinion of elites, causing them to revoke their support for the regime. Civilian demonstrations and strikes rarely have a significant effect on military rule, and any effect they do have is often indirect. Civilian use of force through armed insurgency can destabilize a military dictatorship, though these are rare. Foreign influence is a common means to end military dictatorship, and powerful countries can often end a military regime by exerting diplomatic and economic pressure. This often takes place when it takes actions that harm the foreign government or engages in widespread human rights abuses. Foreign countries may also resort to military invasion to end the rule of a military dictator.

Democratization

A crowd of thousands stands in a plaza. Many carry large banners.
A crowd during the end of the civic-military dictatorship of Uruguay in 1983

As authoritarian regimes, military dictatorships depend on the restriction of democracy to retain power. The centralization of power and the restriction of liberties such as freedom of speech and due process prevent democratic institutions from developing. Despite these restrictions, military dictatorships are more likely to democratize than other forms of dictatorship, particularly if power has not consolidated in the hands of a single officer. Public support for democracy is taken more seriously by military dictatorships than in other regimes, and public unrest may prompt a military dictatorship to initiate democratization. Human development is correlated with a society's capacity and desire for democracy, and in turn, with a military regime's willingness to relinquish power. Urbanization and industrialization support the creation of a middle class that is better equipped for civic engagement. Democratization in regions with lower human development often result in joint civilian-military governance.

The implementation of civilian government does not necessarily lead to democracy, as the military may continue to exert influence and rule in tandem with civilian leadership. Following democratization, a civilian government is immediately faced with the issue of military regulation and to establish civilian control of the military. Such policies must be implemented in a way that does not threaten the military or make the government appear unstable so as to avoid provoking further military intervention. The militarization of police can create long term stability issues after democratization, as military and civilian policing are not immediately compatible. The abolition of military police creates separate issues as it effectively creates mass unemployment of individuals trained in violence. Democracies borne from military dictatorships typically have higher homicide rates than those of other democracies.

Structure

Government positions

Augusto Pinochet stands in front of several other men
Chilean military dictator Augusto Pinochet and his Government Junta

The organization of power in a military dictatorship is heavily influenced by the chain of command used in militaries. The dictator in a military dictatorship is typically the highest ranking officer among those involved in a coup, and the hierarchical structure of a military lends itself to efficient control in a dictatorship led by military officers. The military dictator often holds strong control over the regional leaders that they appoint, as they are subject to the dictator's orders under the chain of command. Junior officers sometimes take power through a military coup, often when factionalism has broken down the traditional command structure, and most coups led by junior officers defer to senior officers after seizing power.

The inner circle that carries out the dictator's orders in a military dictatorship is made up of other military officers. These officers are responsible for representing the forces under their command in the government and maintaining their loyalty to the regime. Military dictators are often limited in choosing their inner circle, as they are expected to comply with standard procedure for military promotion. As these officers have control over large numbers of soldiers and weapons, dictators have strong incentive to appease them, and they can serve as a constraining force on the dictator. In some cases, military officers may be pressured to retire from the military upon taking power, limiting their ability to control military promotions and postings while ruling as dictator. The need to consider the wishes of soldiers and officers causes policy in a military dictatorship to heavily favor the military, including increased military spending and other benefits for enlisted members.

Civilians are subject to the decisions of military leadership, typically without any role in decision making, and force is used to ensure compliance. Civilian presence in the government is sometimes used to create legitimacy, though this varies between regimes. The military may rule through a civilian government, or there may be no civilian presence in the government at all. Military dictators may also attempt to shift power toward a civilian or party-controlled government over which they have more personal control. A stable civilian bureaucracy is necessary for long term success of a military dictatorship, as military officers often lack the political skills necessary to maintain a government. Skilled civilians may be given significant positions in an otherwise military-controlled government, but they are subject to the wishes of the military. Some military dictatorships appoint representatives that nominally serve as the civilian voice in government, but these individuals are selected by the military without any input from the people.

Classification

Idi Amin stands in military uniform
Idi Amin seized power as a military strongman in Uganda by having rival military officers killed.

Different definitions and criteria may be used to determine whether a government constitutes a military dictatorship. Some scholars may classify any authoritarian regime led by a military officer as a military dictatorship, while stricter definitions may require certain standards of the military as a professionalized institution. Some dictatorships may blend elements of different classifications, allowing for military dictatorships to also be personalist or one-party dictatorships. Military dictatorships can be further classified as military juntas, in which power is shared by military officers, or as military strongmen, in which power is held by a single military dictator.

A military junta is a type of leadership structure in a military dictatorship in which a committee of military officers rules in unison. The junta typically includes the leader of each branch of the military and sometimes the state police. Many juntas present themselves as restorers of peace, adopting titles along the lines of "Committee of National Restoration", or "National Liberation Committee". Juntas often appoint one member as the head, effectively designating that person the dictator. Officers working alongside this dictator wield considerable political power. The military structure provides stability for such a government, as officers have effective control over their subordinates and can bargain on their behalf. Factionalism can threaten the junta structure, as it incentivizes lower-ranked officers to change their loyalties.

Strongmen are dictators that rule as both military dictators and personalist dictators. They seize power and rule through the military, but they do not meaningfully share their power with the military, ruling unilaterally. These dictatorships become increasingly personalist as the ruler consolidates power and subjugates rivals, eventually culminating in cults of personality. Other military officers may hold positions in the government, but they have no power to restrain the dictator or influence policy decisions. A military dictator becomes a strongman by securing control of state security forces, allowing the dictator to coerce other officers. Military dictators that seek to personalize their rule must bypass the higher-ranked officers that make up the inner circle, negotiating with the lower-ranked officers directly. Achieving direct control over the military also allows the dictator to appoint loyalists to important positions while excluding competitors. Military officers will often demand that the dictator give up their military rank upon taking power for this reason.

Politics

Military dictatorships vary greatly in how they function, what ideologies they proclaim, and what policies they enforce. The level of direct military involvement in governance depends on how the military institution is structured. In some cases, the military may be unable to have its interests heard, depending on how integrated the military is with state actors and whether power is divided among military officers. Similar to absolute monarchies, military dictatorships traditionally adhere to a classical conception of dictatorship that rejects partisan politics and allows other institutions, such as churches, to exist and hold power. This is contrasted with totalitarianism, which engages in control of all ideological and social elements within the dictatorship.

Factions are less likely to form along ideological lines among elites within military dictatorships, as military officers are more likely to be aligned in policy preferences and to prioritize military unity, allowing for more efficient implementation of policy. Military training often emphasizes unity and cohesiveness within the military. These ideas are reinforced by coordinated action through training and military operations, and factionalism is subject to increase when militaries are not actively engaged in these and there is not a clear objective. Factionalism affects most military dictatorships, particularly if the regime fails to perform adequately in the eyes of the regime's elites.

Many dictators have chosen to emphasize their strength by incorporating military tradition into their personal styles, such as including military ranks in their formal titles and wearing military uniforms. While common among military dictators, these strategies have also been used by civilian dictators. Other military dictators have avoided demonstrating their allegiance to the military by dressing in civilian clothes and removing their military ranks so as to invoke the legitimacy of a civilian government. Militarism among dictators has become less common in the 21st century as dictators have emphasized public approval over ruling through fear.

Policy development and implementation

Military dictatorships may rule directly, implementing a specific ideology and vision, or they may rule as arbitrators that see themselves as protectors of the nation and the government. These arbitrator dictatorships tend only to last until civilian government can be restored, while direct rulers seek to consolidate their own power and reject civilian rule as inferior. Policies of a military dictatorship are made through decree from military leadership and enforced by the military in its entirety, sometimes without warning or advance notice. The motivations of the military are often different than that of other rulers in dictatorships. Members of the military are typically concerned with the preservation of the military rather than seeking power for its own sake. As such, internal divisions in the military are often seen as a greater threat than external forces. Though approximately half of dictatorships hold unfair elections to consolidate power, military dictatorships are less likely to do so, with less than one quarter of military dictatorships holding elections.

Policy goals in a military dictatorship are rarely organized, preventing a regime from implementing policies and programs with a clear objective. Policy choices often differ from those of other dictatorships, particularly in areas of war and political opposition. Military regimes are generally independent from special interests and have no allegiance to any particular social class, as the military is its own institution with competing interests among its members. Military dictators have no unifying ideology, and they may enforce left-wing politics or right-wing politics.

Use of force

Several men in a line wear helmets and brandish rifles with bayonets
Military forces during the military dictatorship in Brazil

Military dictatorships rely disproportionately on force relative to other dictatorships, as the individuals running the government are more experienced in military means than political or diplomatic means. Military officers are more inclined to view foreign relations as confrontational than diplomatic for the same reason. Military activity is seen as routine, and military dictators are less likely to ascribe high cost to the use of military force. Conversely, diplomacy is seen as higher cost as it may strengthen civilian control of the military. Threats issued by military dictatorships are generally seen as more credible than those of other regimes, but they are less likely to escalate into conflict.

Military dictatorships may still be challenged by inefficient police forces, as the military structure must be repurposed for internal suppression and soldiers are often unwilling to fight unarmed civilians. Officers may also be reluctant to engage in domestic operations. Paramilitary forces and civilian police forces are often created under military dictatorships to supplement the military for these reasons. Human rights violations and state-sanctioned atrocities in military dictatorships are often carried out by these non-military security forces rather than by the military itself.

Despite the heavy influence of military tradition, however, military dictatorships are not necessarily more militaristic or more prone to external conflict. The use of military force internally restricts the ability to project it externally, and vice versa. As military dictatorships depend on internal use of the military, few military dictatorships maintain combat readiness for conflicts with other countries. The use of the military as an oppressive force reduces civilian support for militarism, resulting in fewer willing enlistments and less war effort collaboration between civilians and the military during times of conflict. The politicization of the military introduces further weakness into the military as a means of projecting power, as officers are often in political conflict with one another at the expense of the soldiers under their command. At the same time, these factors may increase the risk of civil conflict.

History

Early military dictatorships

An artwork details several leaders in traditional Japanese uniforms
A woodblock print of the rulers of the Tokugawa shogunate (Tsukioka Yoshitoshi, 19th century)

An early military dictatorship formed in Korea under the Goguryeo kingdom in 642 under military leader Yeon Gaesomun. Yeon took absolute power after having the monarch killed and placing another member of the royal family on the throne as a figurehead. Another military dictatorship developed in Korea in 1170 when the military officers of the Goryeo dynasty revolted against the expansion of civil service at the expense of the military. The monarch was again replaced with a relative to serve as a figurehead, and a series of military officers ruled over the Goryeo military regime as they sought to undermine and seize power from one another. Power was consolidated by Choe Chung-heon through a coup in 1196, and his descendants would rule until 1258.

Japan was ruled by a series of military rulers called shoguns, beginning with the formation of the Kamakura shogunate in 1185. While shoguns nominally operated under the Emperor of Japan, they served as de facto rulers of Japan and the Japanese military. Japan was ruled by shoguns until the fall of the Meiji Restoration that brought about the fall of the Tokugawa shogunate in 1868. During the Lê dynasty of Vietnam between the 16th and 18th centuries, the country was under de facto military rule by two rival military families: the Trịnh lords in the north and the Nguyễn lords in the south.

The Commonwealth of England under Oliver Cromwell, formed in 1649 after the Second English Civil War, has been described as a military dictatorship by its contemporary opponents and by some modern academics.

19th century and World Wars

A painting of Juan Manuel de Rosas from the waist up
A depiction of Argentine military dictator Juan Manuel de Rosas (Helen Bramwell Norris, c. 1890)

Latin America was the only region of the world where military dictatorships were common in the 19th century. The Spanish American wars of independence took place in the early-19th century, creating many new Latin American governments. Many of these governments fell under the control of caudillos, or personalist dictators. Most caudillos came from a military background, and their rule was typically associated with pageantry and glamor. Caudillos were often nominally constrained by a constitution, but the caudillo had the power to draft a new constitution as he wished. Many are noted for their cruelty, while others are honored as national heroes. Dictatorships in Latin America persisted into the 20th century, and further military coups established new regimes, often in the name of nationalism.

Several military dictatorships developed in Eastern Europe during the interwar period. The rule of Józef Piłsudski in Poland developed in the style of a Latin American dictatorship with a military coup and a brief armed conflict, but it became significantly more militant than other military dictatorships due to the perceived threat from the surrounding great powers. Power was willingly transferred to the military by Carol I of Romania, establishing Ion Antonescu as a military dictator styled as a "Conducător".

Postwar military dictatorships

Widespread attention to military dictatorship as a form of government developed in the 1960s as various militaries seized power in several countries, particularly in South America. Early study focused extensively on what caused military dictatorships. The Cold War caused a surge in military dictatorships, as both the Western Bloc and the Eastern Bloc tolerated military regimes that promised stability, and both supported regime change against those that did not.

Reactionary military dictatorships were common during the Cold War, with dictators that maintained support among the middle class and upper class by implementing economic reforms and strengthening the dictatorship's stance in international economics. Prominent examples included Chile under Augusto Pinochet and Greece under the Greek junta. In Latin America, 17 of 20 countries experienced reactionary military dictatorship at some point between World War II and the end of the Cold War. Some reformist military dictatorships also existed at this time, maintaining popular support by appealing to labor groups and the working class. Argentina under Juan Perón was the most prominent of these, though other examples of reformist militarism occurred in this period, including in Egypt under Gamal Abdel Nasser and Portugal under the Armed Forces Movement.

A global reversal of military dictatorships began in the 1970s and 1980s when militaries increasingly gave up power in favor of civilian rule. At the end of the Cold War, the fall of the Eastern Bloc reduced the amount of support given to military dictatorships and gave the Western Bloc wider latitude to challenge authoritarianism in military dictatorships. Since then, the global community has taken a stronger stance against military dictatorships and other forms of undemocratic government. Military coups are virtually nonexistent outside of Africa in the 21st century, with Myanmar being the only exception between 2017 and 2022.

Africa

Military dictatorships were one of the two regime types that became common in Africa after decolonization in the 1960s through the 1980s, alongside one-party states. At the time of decolonization, no meaningful institutions or national identity existed to maintain democracy or economic growth. Due to the colonial history of African nations and the higher frequency of civil than external conflict, militaries in sub-Saharan Africa have struggled to develop as institutions, allowing military dictatorships in Africa to more easily become personalist dictatorships. Military oppression had been a common occurrence under colonial rule, and military institutions in Africa were already predisposed to internal control. Several African military dictators, such as Hamani Diori of Niger, Jean-Bédel Bokassa of the Central African Republic, and Idi Amin of Uganda, were at one point involved with colonial militaries. Ethnic conflict has also prompted military officers to carry out regime change, particularly among post-colonial nations where the military and the civilian government had different ethnic makeups.

Between 1959 and 2001, 14 African countries experienced at least three successful military coups. Nigeria was particularly affected, with six military dictators between two separate regimes. The military dictatorship in Nigeria was one of the most prominent in Africa, forming shortly after independence and persisting for most of the century thereafter. By 1975, half of African countries were subject to military rule. Many African militaries traditionally saw themselves as guardians that oversaw the nation, intervening when civilian government exerted authority over the military. Other military dictatorships in Africa sought power simply to provide advantages for its members and its political interests. African military dictators often seized power citing a failure of civilian government, banning all political activity and suspending the constitution. In many cases, former military dictators in Africa would later seek election as civilian rulers. Several African military dictators nominally adopted socialist messaging to gain support from neighboring one-party socialist dictatorships.

Public rejection of military dictatorship significantly increased in the 1980s as pro-democracy protests took place across Africa. Democratization of military dictatorships became more common by 1995, when approximately half of the countries in Africa were democracies. Several of the surviving military dictatorships in Africa also enacted measures to increase citizen participation in local governance. Instances of military dictatorships challenging democracy continued, however, with several military governments cancelling elections and overthrowing democratic governments in the 1990s. As of 2023, Africa is the only continent that sees regular military coups.

East and Southeast Asia

Suharto is sworn in, standing in front of other military officers

South Korea became a military dictatorship following the May 16 coup in 1961, following years of military buildup and involvement of the military in politics. To maintain power, the military organized the Democratic Republican Party to hold political power after nominally returning to civilian government in 1963. A series of military dictators ruled until democratization in 1987, though the military remained influential in politics thereafter.

Indonesia underwent a long military dictatorship under the New Order of Suharto from 1968 to 1999. This dictatorship introduced some liberal reforms and saw relative stability until unrest caused by the 1997 Asian financial crisis. Myanmar has become an exception among military dictatorships for its long military rule, and it has been recognized as "the most durable military regime worldwide". The military first seized power from 1958–1960 and again from 1962–2011, then maintaining indirect rule before seizing control a third time in 2021. Neighboring Thailand has seen a similar trend, where the military has ruled directly or indirectly for most years since 1932, with only four civilian governments being formed between 1932 and 2011.

Europe

In 1967, the military of Greece seized power with the stated intention of ending corruption and demagoguery. The Greek junta ruled until 1974, at which point a political crisis prompted by the Cyprus problem convinced the military to return power to the previous civilian government. In 1981, General Wojciech Jaruzelski of Poland became first secretary of the Polish United Workers' Party, the ruling party of Poland's one-party dictatorship. Two months later, he proclaimed martial law, putting the country under military rule and replacing a one-party dictatorship with a military dictatorship. Martial law ended in 1983, but Jaruzelski retained political power.

Latin America

Argentina was particularly susceptible to military dictatorship during the Cold War, with ten separate military dictators ruling across four different regimes between 1943 and 1983. Brazil and Guatemala also saw five and six separate military dictators, respectively. The military dictatorship in Brazil was unique both in that it lasted nearly 20 years and that it allowed elections with competing political parties. El Salvador became a dictatorship in 1931, becoming a rare example of a partisan military dictatorship. The country was ruled by the military-run National Pro Patria Party from 1933 to 1944, the Revolutionary Party of Democratic Unification from 1950 to 1960, and the National Conciliation Party from 1962 to 1979.

Military dictatorship resurged in Latin America in the 1960s, with unstable economic conditions allowing military juntas to take power. Between 1967 and 1991, 12 Latin American countries underwent at least one military coup, with Haiti and Honduras experiencing three and Bolivia experiencing eight. A large wave of military dictatorships occurred in the 1970s, and most of Latin America was under the rule of military dictatorships by the middle of the decade. Foreign aid to support Latin American militaries was one factor that allowed further military coups, and the political polarization of the Cold War played a role in creating the political instability that incentivized military rule.

Foreign pressure, particularly from the Carter administration in the United States, prompted the end of several military dictatorships in the region in the late 1970s. Several Latin American countries began to democratize by the early-1980s, and the number of coups declined as well. Military dictatorship had virtually disappeared in Latin America by the end of the Cold War. The Argentine Carapintadas were unable to seize power in 1990 because there was strong public opposition to military rule. By the time of the 2009 Honduran coup, such events were considered unusual in the region.

Muslim world

In the Muslim world, a form of Islamic military dictatorship developed in Libya and Pakistan. Pakistan presented an example of a dictatorship that was equally military and personalist, in which General Muhammad Zia-ul-Haq ruled as a personalist dictator but incorporated the military into civil government. Yemen was divided by military rule and one-party rule until the military-ruled Yemen Arab Republic seized control of the entire nation in the Yemeni Civil War of 1994. Several Middle Eastern countries were the subject of military coups in the 1950s and 1960s, including Iraq, Syria, North Yemen, and South Yemen. Military coups have since been rare in the Middle East with the exceptions of Iraq and Turkey.

Magnetization

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Magnetizat...