Pre Habsburg Czech example essay topic

It is a common misconception that Czechoslovakia is and always has been a part of Eastern Europe. The reality exists, though, that the Czech lands are actually centrally located. With Germany, Austria, Italy, and France as near neighbors, Czechoslovakia is sometimes forgotten in important Western civilization lore. One common theory is that much tradition and cultural pride was lost due to the repeated change in ruling power that haunted the area.

The ruling family most responsible for the loss of Czech culture was the Habsburgs. It was this monarchy that established a far reaching empire that consisted of Bohemia and Moravia. Though the empire was suited for economic and military advancement, the international bureaucracy was not conducive to preserving local culture and heritage. Instead the Habsburg Monarchy was concerned with the preserving the Catholic faith.

Also, the Czech lands, which at one time were culturally unique, became uniform of a conquered European land. The empire now saw German speaking inhabitants of all nationalities bonded by the territorial crown and Catholic faith. With this forced conversion came a new pledged allegiance and a loss of nationalism for Czechs. Charles Ingrao and Derek Sayer have different perspectives on the advantages and disadvantages of the Habsburg takeover.

The Ingrao school of thought is that the Habsburg takeover was essential to the revival of the Czech lands. He saw the Habsburg monarchy as a chance for Czechoslovakians to get squared up academically and economically with the rest of Europe. Sayer concentrates on the cost of this conversion. A total loss of everything that was really Czech, he may even argue. Sayer is opposed to trading cultural identity for the economic advancement of the empire. These men, in fact, only have on thing in common and that is their fascination with Czech history.

Sayer is definitely interested in Czech history, but his interests are those of early accomplishment. It almost seems as if the only real achievement for the Czech land has to come from a local pure bred Czech. He talks about Bohemian or Moravian artists and scholars. He speaks of the best years as the time of Charles IV and his rule over the Holy Roman Empire. Sayer also describes the Hapsburg rule as a time of cultural erosion. He blames the monarchy for gradually making the Czech land part of the Austrian empire, and encouraging German influence.

To Sayer, it seems that the monarchy was exactly what was not Czech. Sayer looked at pre-Habsburg Czech and saw a land of culturally identifiable, Protestant, Czech-speaking inhabitants who were bonded by a unique imperial capital at Prague and a unique way of living in general. The exact perception of pre-Habsburg Czech is misconstrued slightly at least, though, because of the rebirth or revival that took place post "Bila Hora". The language was primarily Czech before, but now German and other languages of the West were becoming increasingly present in the Czech lands.

The church and throne became the most important aspects of Czech life. Sayer shows us a state document after the monarchy is in place and the description refers to the Czech lands as a "newborn baby", and the letter applauds a new trend towards art, science, and industry as necessary. Sayer does not applaud this move away from traditional Czech academic schools. In fact, Sayer continually talks about the types of art which the empire missed out on by promoting these new, shallow forms of employment. Sayer praises the artistic and interesting culture that was strong in Prague during pre-Habsburg Czechoslovakia. Sayer praised a magazine called Z lata Praha mainly because of it's commitment to be Czech.

He also praised the work of historian Frantisek Pala cky. He treated Czech history with a pride from the past almost forgotten, and he treated the present situation as a disruption to a much greater Czech history and future. This disregard for the Habsburg monarchy as a significant historical period is exactly what Sayer appreciates. I do think that Sayer shows an original approach to Czech history, but his lack of modernity in his approach may be cause for an incomplete understanding of Czech history. Ingrao, on the other hand, embraces the old with the new. He concentrates on the Habsburg monarchy as the catalyst for Czechoslovakia's appearance into the world's eyes.

The old way was interesting, but the Habsburg's empire was necessary. The dissolution of the feudal structure and the addition of German education was good for Czech advancement academically. The Habsburg dynasty was also successful militarily and economically, so the Czech lands were always defended adequately. The empire's dominance may have been its only real cohesion, for it is difficult to maintain nationalism with so many different nationalities uniting.

Ingrao praises the polity adopted by the Habsburg monarchy to run such a diverse empire (different cultures and languages) so effectively for so long. Ingrao contests Sayer by saying that the policy of the Habsburg monarchy did not cripple the Czech's culture and identity, but rather pave the way for the necessary Czech "rebirth". To Ingrao, the educational and economic opportunity brought to the Czech lands by Habsburg policy far outweighed the heritage lost by making changes. Ingrao even argues that the Habsburg victory in Czech, "inadvertently, set the stage for revival". Was a revival needed in a culture rich Bohemia and Moravia? Was the Habsburg monarchy the right regime to take Czechoslovakia through the western enlightened conversion?

These authors would certainly disagree. The only thing common between the two historians is their appreciation of the Czech lands as important European history.