² The Austrian Military Border in Croatia, 1522–1747. In Illinois Studies in the Social Sciences, Vol. XLVIII (Urbana, III.: University of Illinois Press, 1960)Google Scholar; and The Military Border in Croatia, 1740–1881: A Study of an Imperial Institution (Chicago, III.: University of Chicago Press, 1966)Google Scholar. A German edition combining the material in both of the above volumes was published in Vienna in 1970 by Herold Verlag under the title Die österreichische Militärgrenze in Kroatien 1522 bis 1881.

³ Rothenberg, Die österreichische Militärgrenze in Kroatien 1522 bis 1881. See also the bibliographical essay by Kurt, Wessely, “Zur Bibliographie der Militärgrenze,” Österreichische Osthefte, Vol. XIII, No. 3 (1971), pp. 248–259 Google Scholar; and the bibliography in the article by Mirko, Valentić entitled “Vojna Krajina” [The Military Frontier], in the Enciklopedija Jugoslavije (8 vols., Zagreb: Leksikografski zavod SFRJ, 1955–1971), Vol. VIII, p. 518 Google Scholar.

⁴ Kurt, Wessely, “Neuordnung der ungarischen Grenzen nach dem großen Tü rkenkrieg,” in Die k. k. Militärgrenze: Beiträge zu ihrer Geschichle. In Schriften des Heeresgeschichtlichen Museums (Militärwissenschaftliches Institut) in Wien, Vol. VI (Vienna: Österreichischer Bundesverlag für Unterricht, Wissenschaft und Kunst, 1973), pp. 29–93 Google Scholar; Kurt Wessely and Georg Zivkovic, “Bibliographie zur Geschichte der k. k. Militärgrenze,” ibid., pp. 291–324; Kurt, Wessely, “Supplementärbibliographie zur österreichischen Militärgrenze,” Österreichische Osthefte, Vol. XVI (1974), No. 3, pp. 280–328.Google Scholar

⁵ Ferenc Rákóczy II's famous “appeal” against Habsburg imperial rule in Hungary on May 12, 1703, triggered the Kuruc War. See Gyula, Szekfü, Magyar Történet [History of Hungary] (5 vols., Budapest: Királyi Magyar Egyetemi Nyomda, 1931–1936), Vol. IV, pp. 278 and 311.Google Scholar

⁶ The full text of the privileges is given in Jovan, Radonić and Mita, Kostić, Srpske privilegije od 1690do 1792[Serbian Privileges, 1690–1792]. In Srpska Akademija Nauka, Monograph No. 225 (Belgrade: Srpska Akademija Nauka, 1954).Google Scholar

⁷ Vucinich, Wayne W., “The Serbs in Austria-Hungary,” Austrian History Yearbook, Vol. III(1967), Pt. 2, pp. 9–10.Google Scholar

⁸ They lived “in comitatu” but not “de comitatu.” Consequently, it would have been better not to appoint any Hungarian local officials (Gespanschaftsoffiziere) at all in the areas inhabited by the Rascians. However, since the Hungarians might complain about the abolition of their rights if that were done, the government in Vienna thought that the names of the comitats could remain in use and that the Hungarian chancellery could even continue to appoint titular district chiefs (Gespanschaftsoffiziere) “saltem ad honores” in these districts. But these officials were “neither to do business with nor have any authority whatever over the Rascian people.” Instructions of the Aulic War Council to Grenzeinrichtungskommissäre Schlichting and Lamberg, May 23, 1702, Haus-, H of- und Staatsarchiv (Vienna) (hereafter cited as “Staatsarchiv[Vienna]”), Illyrico-Serbica, Fasz. I, Convolut B, Fos. 164–190.

⁹ Szekfü, , Magyar Törteneie, Vol. V, p. 433.Google Scholar

¹⁰ Imperial rescript of December 5, 1703, Ede, Reiszig, “Bács-Bodrog vármegye története” [History of the Comitat of Bács-Bodrog], in Samu, Borovszky (ed.), Bács-Bodrog vármegye (2vols., Budapest: Országos Monografia Társaság, n.d.), Vol. II, p. 10.Google Scholar

¹¹ Rescripts of the Aulic War Council dated October 18 and 29, 1707, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Chronologischer Actenauszug über die Organisirung der k. k. Slawonischen Militär Gränze (hereafter cited as “Kriegsarchiv [Vienna], Aktenextraki”). No folio or excerpt numbers are given. This is a compilation in manuscript form of excerpts from the documents of the Aulic War Council in the Kriegsarchiv in Vienna for the years 1685–1805. Together with similar excerpts for the other Military Borders, it forms part of the collection called “Mémoires” (i. e., Rubrik XXIII, No. 91).

¹² Jovan, Radonić, Prilozi za istoriju Srba u Ugarskoj u XVI, XVII, i XVIII veku [Contributions to the History of the Serbs in Hungary in the Sixteenth, Seventeenth, and Eighteenth Centuries]. In Zbornik istorijskih dokumenata, Vol. II (Novi Sad: Matica Srpska, 1909), pp. 148–150.Google Scholar

¹³ Report of Petrasch to Aulic War Council, December 17,1718, riegsarchiv, K.(Vienna), Kanzleiarchiv, Rubrik VII, No. 197Google Scholar, Fo. 9. See also note 86. For the life of Petrasch, “Prince Eugene's favorite,” see Constantin, von Wurzbach, Biographisches Lexikon des Kaiserthums Österreich (20 vols., Vienna: Staatsdruckerei, 1856–1891), Vol. XXII, pp. 105–106.Google Scholar

¹⁴ The same policy was advocated a few decades later in a report by Aulic Chancellor Count Corfiz Anton Uhlfeld in 1743 in which he recommended the confirmation of the privileges enjoyed by the Serbs. See Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Illyrico-Serbica, Fasz. I, Konvolut D, Fo. 55.

¹⁵ In a rescript dated July 29, 1711, the Aulic War Council ordered the Inner Austrian War Council at Graz “not to permit any Rascian officer or soldier to resort to Russian military service.” During the course of the insurrectionary movement in Požega (Slavonia), which was a revolt against the labor services and taxes that were demanded, people also said that the Rascians had “an inclination to emigrate to Russia.” Rescript sent to Nehem on August 8, 1711. See Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt.

¹⁶ Popović, Duŝan J., Srbi u Vojvodini [Serbs in the Voivodina] (3 vols., Novi Sad: Matica Srpska, 1957–1963), Vol. II, p. 170 Google Scholar. See also the biographies of other Serbian leaders in the Theiß region, especially those of Monasterly and Tököoli. ibid., pp. 165–185.

¹⁷ Aulic War Council to Major General Becker, August 12, 1713, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt.

¹⁸ See especially General Count Johann Josef Huyn (the commander of the frontier fortress of S2egedin) to Aulic War Council, October 7, 1711, ibid. In this connection, it should be pointed out that, the same as in Slavonia, the Aulic Treasury again attempted to subject the Rascians to the obligation of paying taxes.

¹⁹ Intimat of the Hungarian Aulic Chancellery, October 9, 1711, ibid.

²⁰ Nehem to Aulic War Council, July 30, 1712, ibid.

²¹ Petition of the city of Arad to the Aulic Treasury, April 3, 1713, Hofkammerarchiv (Vienna), Hoffmanz Ungarn, Red Carton No. CDLXXIII, Fo. 313.

²² See Hofkammerarchiv (Vienna), Hoffmanz Ungarn, Red Carton No. CDLXXIII, April, Fo. 311; Intimat to Aulic War Council (same day), ibid., Fo. 312.

²³ Prince Eugene to Aulic War Council, September 15, 1711, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt.

²⁴ Nehem to Aulic War Council, September 7, 1711, and March 26, 1712, ibid.

²⁵ Rescripts of the Aulic War Council, March 8, 1713, and January 3 and 24, 1714, Feldzüge des Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen, 2nd ser., Vol. XVI: Ludwig, Matuschka (ed.), Der Türken-Krieg 1716–18—Feldzug 1716 (Vienna: K.u.k.Generalstab, 1891), pp. 7–13.Google Scholar

²⁶ Aulic Treasury to Aulic War Council, September 22, 1713, Hofkammerarchiv (Vienna), Hoffmanz Ungarn, Red Carton No. CDLXXVI, Fo. 402.

²⁷ Report of the prefect of finances (Kameralpräfekt), Alexander Johann von Kalleneckh, Essegg, September 27, 1713, ibid., Red Carton No. CDLXXVII, Fos. 178–180.

²⁸ Herberstein's report (Gränitz Project), Szegedin, April 5, 1712, can be found in Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Mémoiren, Rubrik XXIII, No. 45.

²⁹ Feldzüge des Prinzen Eugen von Savoyen, Vol. XVI, p. 85.Google Scholar

³⁰ Itemization of the captaincies and fortifications actually occupied by the military as given in Komet's report to the Aulic Treasury, Szegedin, March 2, 1715, Hofkammerarchiv (Vienna), Hoffinanz Ungarn, Red Carton No. CDLXXXV, Fo. 68.

³¹ Aulic War Council to Aulic Treasury, July 31, 1715, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt; Hofkammerarchiv (Vienna), Hoffinanz Ungarn, Red Carton No. CDLXXXIX, December, Fos. 342–347.

³² The prefect of finances of Szegedin, Josef Komet, was accused by the Aulic War Council of delaying the work through his uncooperative attitude. In actual fact, he was held up by other business. Moreover, the Aulic Treasury had never sent him instructions as to whether all fourteen villages occupied by the army were to be militarized. See Komet's report to the Aulic Treasury on March 2, 1715, Hofkammerarchiv (Vienna), Hoffinanz Ungarn, Red Carton No. CDLXXXV, Fo. 67.

³³ Herberstein to Aulic War Council, February 21, 1716, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt; Aulic War Council resolution, October 31, 1716, ibid.

³⁴ General Cosa von Raditsch to Aulic War Council, Arad, May 29, 1717, ibid.

³⁵ Report of the prefect of finances, Josef Komet, Arad, September 7, 1713, Hofkammerarchiv (Vienna), Hoffinanz Ungarn, Red Carton No. CDLXXVII, December, Fos. 171–172.

³⁶ The Aulic War Council proposed to distribute to those Theiß Grenzer who were to be assigned to companies Turkish cloth (“Abba”) which had been stored as war booty in Szegedin warehouses. Aulic Treasury to inspector of finances in Szegedin, October 23. 1715, ibid., Red Carton No. CDLXXXVI1I, October, Fo. 460.

³⁷ Josef, Kallbrunner, Das kaiserliche Banat. In Veröffenilichungen des südostdeuischen Kulturwerkes, ser. b, Vol.XI(Munich: Südostdeutsches Kulturwerk, 1958), Vol.I, p. 14.Google Scholar

³⁸ Irmgard, Kucsko, “Die Organisation der Verwaltung im Banat vom Jahre 1717–1738” (unpublished Ph. D. dissertation, University of Vienna, 1934), pp. 11–12.Google Scholar

³⁹ Kallbrunner, , Das kaiserliche Banat, Vol. I, p. 24.Google Scholar

⁴⁰ See Kriegsarchiv(Vienna), Hofkriegsrat, June, 1719, Expedit No.221, Fos. 13 and 25.

⁴¹ ibid.

⁴² Cosa von Raditsch to Aulic War Council, June 4, 1718, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt.

⁴³ Mercy believed that making an example of Grenzer who had deserted would be a useful service to the military, “because misfortune could arise from the actions of such unreliable and stubborn” soldiers. To avoid burdening the treasury, he continued to enlist hayduks for military service in the Banat. Mercy to Aulic War Counselor Werschetz, February 28, 1717, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Hofkriegsrat, March, 1717, Expedit No. 245, Fo. 1. There are also other indications that Grenzer fled from the Theiß Frontier to the Banat. On September 19, 1718, the Aulic War Council ordered them to return. See Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt.

⁴⁴ Proposal made on August 20, 1721, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt.

⁴⁵ Aulic Treasury to the prefect of finances in Szegedin, April 29, 1722, Hofkammerarchiv (Vienna), Reichsakten, Fasz. CXXXIX, Fos. 39–42. During the state crisis of 1742 it was decided to abandon the collection of taxes by force.

⁴⁶ It should be noted, however, that this contribution was actually in the form of a lump sum payment rather than in actual corvée service.

⁴⁷ István, Iványi, “A Tiszai Határörvidék(1685–1750)”[The Tisza Border District(1685–1750)], Hazánk, Vol. III (1884), p. 145.Google Scholar As the numerically strongest militia occupying the largest landholdings, the Szabadka militia paid one-fourth of all the taxes on the Theiß Frontier.

⁴⁸ Aulic War Council to Commandant at Arad, August 29,1722, Kriegsarchiv(Vienna), Aktenextrakt.

⁴⁹ See Popović, , Srbi u Vojvodini, Vol. II, pp. 105–112 Google Scholar; and JovanRadonić, , “Gradja za istoriju bune Pere Segedinca” [Sources for the History of the Pero Segedinac Rebellion], Spomenik Srpske Kraljevske Akademije, Vol. LIX, 2nd section, Vol. L (1923), pp. 5–59 Google Scholar. Pero Segedinac (Peter of Szeged) had been a captain at Preĉka, near Arad (on the Marosch Border) since 1703. After long years of loyal service to the emperor, in 1734 he resumed old contacts with mutinous Hungarian peasants in comitats adjacent to Preĉka. The unrest also spread to the Theiß and Marosch Border. Fearing that the unruly peasants had some kind of connection with Rákóoczy and overestimating Pero's role in the revolt, the Austrian authorities had him tortured and then executed him at Ofen in 1736. This incident is of interest because it is one of the rare instances when there were definite ties between the South Slav Grenzer and Magyar serfs.

⁵⁰ Aulic War Council resolution, May 11, 1737, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt.

⁵¹ Aulic War Council resolution, November 8, 1741, ibid.

⁵² Aulic War Council resolution, August 11, 1742, ibid.

⁵³ Aulic War Council orders of February 15 and October 24,1736, and February 23 and October 9,1737, ibid.; report of the commanders at Szegedin and Arad on July 13 and 21, 1737, ibid.; report of the commander at Szegedin to Aulic War Council, March 26,1738, ibid.

⁵⁴ Iványi, “A Tiszai Hatarörvidék (1686–1750),” p. 147.

⁵⁵ Report of Brigadier General Wolf Volbrecht Riedesel, April 23, 1738, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt.

⁵⁶ FrVaniček, , Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze. Aus Originalquellen und Quellenwerken geschöpft (4 vols., Vienna: K. k. Oesterreichische Staatsdruckerei, 1875), Vol. I, p. 361 Google Scholar. This was also true with the Warasdin Grenzer.

⁵⁷ Aulic War Council order, February 28, 1737, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenexlrakt.

⁵⁸ The pandours were Croatian troops that had originally been organized as a local militia.

⁵⁹ “All assistance is to be given to Major Trenck… in enlisting a corps of 1,000 Slavonians, but no coercion is to be used.” Aulic War Council order, April 5, 1741, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aklenexlrakt.

⁶⁰ Österreichische Mililärische Zeitschrift, 1829, Vol. III, pp. 145 and 281 Google Scholar; 1830, Vol.I, p. 4; and Vol. IV, p. 229.

⁶¹ By now it had become customary to use the German word “Schanze” rather than the Turkish term “palanka” (fortified place) to designate the military villages in both Hungary and Serbia, even though these places were not actually “fortified” but were at the most protected only by palisades. “Even though they” were “called ‘Schanzen,’” they had “no ramparts or other defense works” and were just “unkempt villages.” “Projectum de universali Reincorporatione Locorum Militarium et Banatus Temesiensis,” n. d., Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Mémoires, Rubrik XXIII, No. 27.

⁶² For the complaints about this sent by the comitat of Bács to the diet in 1727–1728 and to the Hungarian governing council (Statthaltereirat) in 1731, see Iványi, “A Tiszai Határörvidék (1686–1750),” p. 143. By 1718, when the Frontier institutions were stabilized, Count Herberstein had dismissed 102 Grenzer in Szegedin, thereby reducing their number to 297. Stefan D. Djurdjević, “Srbi u Segedinu” [Serbs at Szegedin], Spomenik Srpske akademije nauke, Vol. CVIII (Social Science Section, new sen, No. 10), p. 101.

⁶³ In 1727 the right of the captains to name the officers was abolished on the Danube Frontier, and officers who had already been appointed were subjected to taxation. But this measure hardly put an end to improper practices, for the captains now appointed vicecaptains. As a consequence, after 1727, as the officials of the Bács comitat complained, nearly every corporal became a vice-captain and was thus again tax exempt.

⁶⁴ Iványi, “A Tiszai Határörvidék (1686–1750),” p. 200.

⁶⁵ There were supposedly 162 villages in the Sava Frontier area, but hamlets were probably included among them. See list of the military villages on the Sava River sent to the Aulic War Council probably by General Petrasch, then commander ad interim of the Slavonian Border, and considered by the Aulic War Council on July 21, 1721, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt.

⁶⁶ In a memorandum of the comitat of Bács dated 1734, the captains were bluntly referred to as robber chiefs and the Grenzer as robbers, and it was pointed out that their number was continually increasing, since refugees from the comitats were welcomed in the frontier area. Steltzer, Geschichte der Bácska, p. 69.

⁶⁷ Aulic War Council to the SlavonianGeneralatsverwalter(Petrasch), August30,1721, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt.

⁶⁸ Aulic War Council rescript, October 15, 1721, von Hauer, Leopold Edler, Kurze Übersicht sämtlicher für die Militärgrenzen erlassenen Systemalverordnungen Vol. I, Fo. 34Google Scholar. Like the Chronologischer Aktenextrakt, this collection of excerpts from documents is in the Kriegsarchiv in Vienna. A second volume was planned but was never completed.

⁶⁹ Rescript of April 29, 1722, Hauer, , Kurze Übersicht sämtlicher für die Militärgrenzen erlassenen Systemalverordnungen, Vol. I, Fo. 34Google Scholar; reports by General William Oduyer, Essegg, September 22, 1725, and August, 1726, ibid., Fo. 35.

⁷⁰ Aulic War Council proposal (to the Aulic Treasury?) on May 21,1721, to modify the military villages on the Danube, Theiß, and Marosch Frontiers, to partially abolish military service in them, and eventually to tax them, Kriegsarchiv(Vienna), Aktenexlrakt.

⁷¹ Secret information reports of the Aulic War Council to the commander of the Slavonian Border(Oduyer) in regard to projected changes in the Military Frontier, May 5, 1728, and the determination of the planned strength of the militia, May 26, 1728, Kriegsarchiv(Vienna), Aktenextrakt. In 1721 the Sava militia reportedly had a numerical strength similar to that in 1716—i. e., 12 companies of hussars and 24 companies of hayduks, or approximately 3,000 men rather than the 2,450 originally planned. It had the same strength in 1727. See Vanićek, , Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze, Vol. I, p. 236.Google Scholar

⁷² See Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Illyrico-Serbica, Fasz. I, Convolut C, Fos. 94–101. An account that in many ways is different from the above is given in Vaniček, Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze, pp. 236–237.

⁷³ For the purpose of providing labor for constructing fortifications, workers were simply mobilized. These mobilized workers were entitled to the same privileges as the Grenzer.

⁷⁴ Wilhelm, Erben, Ursprung und Entwicklung der deutschen Kriegsartikel. In Mitteilungen des Institutes für österreichische Geschichtsforschung, Ergänzungsband VI (Innsbruck, 1901), p. 56. n. 3.Google Scholar

⁷⁵ Vaniček, , Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze, Vol. I, pp. 241–242 Google Scholar; Hauer, Kurze Übersicht sämtlicher für die Militärgrenzen erlassenen Systemalverordnungen, Fos. 32–35.

⁷⁶ Hauer, Kurze Übersicht sämtlicher für die Militärgrenzen erlassenen Systemalverordnungen. Fo. 36. Obviously influenced by the regulations enacted for the Slavonian Frontier, the Aulic War Council deliberated about reorganization of the Marosch Frontier militia, as suggested by the military command in Szegedin. On October 29, 1718, the Aulic War Council asked the commander at Arad and the Aulic Treasury to make proposals in regard to how to improve economic conditions and how to relieve the oppressed Grenzer from the payment of all taxes. Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt. The outbreak of war, however, prevented any changes.

⁷⁷ The protocols of the Slavonian provincial deputation, which, however, had little to do with the frontier institutions as such, were published by Ivo, Mažuran (ed.) in his Rješena zemaljske uprave za Slavoniju 1738–1742 [Decisions of the Slavonian Provincial Deputation, 1738–1742]. In Gradja za historiju Osijeka i Slavonije [Sources on the History of Osijek and Slavonia], Vol. III (Osijek: Historijski arhiv u Osijeku, 1970).Google Scholar

⁷⁸ “FML. Graf Khevenhüller's Wehrsystem (1740). Aus den Mémoires des k. k. Kriegsarchivs,” Mitteilungen des k. k. Kriegsarchivs, 1881, p. 364.Google Scholar

⁷⁹ The regulations for the Slavonian Frontier issued by Khevenhüller on June 26,1747, were also printed in German, Croatian, and Slaveno-Serbian (under the title of Regulament' serbskom vojnikom'). See Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Militärimpressen des Kriegsarchivs, No. 243.

⁸⁰ Vaniček, Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze, p. 192.

⁸¹ Kallbrunner, Das kaiserliche Banat, p. 90.

⁸² See post, p. 108.

⁸³ Popović, , Srbi u Vojvodini, Vol. II, pp. 130–138 Google Scholar; Felix, Milleker, Die Besiedlung der Banater Militärgrenze (Vršac: Artistische Anstalt J. W. Kirchners Witwe, 1920).Google Scholar

⁸⁴ Popović, Srbi u Vopodini. p. 136.

⁸⁵ The Uskok district was named after the Turkish refugees who settled there.

⁸⁶ See Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Kanzleiarchiv, Rubrik VII, No. 197.

⁸⁷ Petrasch was right. He has perhaps offered us an important clue to understanding the attitude of the Balkan peoples: they wanted under all circumstances to remain under military rule, even when the advantages of such a government were fictitious.rather than real and even when the military authorities treated them as badly as the Treasury officials did. The Slavonian Frontier offers striking examples of this attitude. See, for instance, the instructions to the Slavonian fortress commanders of 1724, as printed in Vaniček, , Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze, Vol. 1, p. 191 Google Scholar; and the description of payments exacted from the Grenzer by their commanders which Vaniček records.

⁸⁸ After the Turkish War of 1716–1718 the Ministerial Conference occupied itself as early as April 30,1718, with a proposal of the Aulic Treasury to remove the Slavonian Grenzer to another area. Petrasch's report was no doubt discussed at the same time. Still later the Aulic War Council considered a plan to move the Grenzer to the south side of the Sava in exchange for various taxes and the settlement of the Uskoks on the opposite side of the river. See protocols of the Aulic War Council meetings of September 18 and December 16, 1726, and May 25, 1729, Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Aktenextrakt. The term “Uskoks” was especially used to refer to refugees from Turkey, and for this reason the part of Carniola absorbed by the Warasdin generalcy was also called the Uskok district.

⁸⁹ Vaniček, , Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze, Vol. 1, p. 476.Google Scholar

⁹⁰ Report of Provisor Johann Benatzky, December 16, 1729, Hofkammer Arctiv (Vienna), Hoffmanz Ungarn, Red Carton No.DCXXIX.Fos. 1066–1068. See also S´ndor, Takáts, A magyar gyalogság megalakulása [Development of the Hungarian Infantry] (Budapest, 1885), p. 145.Google Scholar

⁹¹ See Johann, Langer, “Serbien unter kaiserlicher Regierung 1717–1739,” Milteilungen des k. k. Kriegsarchivs, new ser., Vol. III (1889), pp. 155–248.Google Scholar

⁹² Christian, Brucker, Deutsche Spuren in Belgrad. In Buchreihe der deulschen Volksgruppe im Banat undin Serbien, Vol. III (Belgrade: Ladislaus Frank, 1944), pp. 47–59.Google Scholar

⁹³ Popović, Duŝan J., “Opŝtinska uprava u Beogradu za vreme austriske vladavinef (1718–1739)” [City Administration in Belgrade during the Period of Austrian Rule], Godišnjak Muzeja grada Beograda, 1956, No. 3, pp. 125–133.Google Scholar

⁹⁴ Popović, Duŝan J., Srbija i Beograd od Pozarevaĉkog do Beogradskog mira (1718–1739) [Serbia and Belgrade from the Peace of Passarowitz to the Peace of Belgrade, 1718–1739] (Belgrade: Srpska knizevna zadruga, 1950) (hereafter cited as “Popović, Serbija i Beograd”), p. 182.Google Scholar

⁹⁵ Because of the lack of security in the area, the Aulic War Council forbade the further colonization of German peasants in the Serbian countryside for military reasons. Josef, Kallbrunner, “Deutsche Siedlung in Serbien im 18. Jahrhundert,” Deutsche Hefte für Volks- und Kulturbodenforschung, Vol. II (1931–1932), pp. 27–32.Google Scholar

⁹⁶ Langer, “Serbien unter kaiserlicher Regierung,” p. 218.

⁹⁷ See Treasury reports of the years 1724 and 1727 in ibid., p. 219.

⁹⁸ ibid., p. 219. Vaniček limits his discussion of the whole matter to a statement to the effect that a border militia was organized in Serbia in 1726. See his Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze, Vol. I, p. 202 Google Scholar. What he writes should be corrected in line with what has been said above.

⁹⁹ See Langer, “Serbien unter kaiserlicher Regierung,” pp. 244–245. Langer gives more detailed information about these villages. Instructions issued to captains in 1728 to try to induce the hayduks to exchange their Turkish clothing for native garments are noteworthy because they indicate that the hayduks either came from Turkish territory or had been in Turkish service when the Turks ruled the area.

¹⁰⁰ Vaniček, , Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze, Vol. 1, p. 203.Google Scholar

¹⁰¹ Popović, Srbija i Beograd, p. 79.

¹⁰² Patriarch Arsenije Jovanović to Franz von Lothringen, August 21, 1740, Staatsarchiv (Vienna), Illyrico-Serbica, Fasz. I, Convolut D, Fos. 23–24. According to the letter cited above, they had already performed military service for four years. Vaniček writes that they were originally composed of four companies. See his Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze, Vol. I, p. 476 Google Scholar. The Catholic archbishop Mihailo Šuma offered his services in negotiating with the Albanians. Popović, Srbija i Beograd, p. 381.

¹⁰³ Report of Count de la Cerda de Villalonga, October 17,1738, Staatsarchiv(Vienna), Illyrico-Serbica, Fasz. I, Convolut D, Fo. 237. According to Count de la Cerda, some of these men were robbers, and worse still, robbers recruited on Austrian territory.

¹⁰⁴ See the submission proposal of April 29, 1738, ibid., Fos. 206–208. See also Johann, Langer, “Nord-Albaniens und der Herzegowina Unterwerfungsanerbieten an Österreich,” Archiv für österreichische Geschichte, Vol. LXXX (1894), pp. 351–458.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁵ Popović, Srbija i Beograd, pp. 79, 384, and 386.

¹⁰⁶ In 1742 the number of Serbian emigrants who came to the Banat fell to 571 families; nevertheless, in 1744 Khevenhiiller found that 2,589 Serbian and Albanian families had settled in Syrmia. Vaniček, Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze, p. 518.

¹⁰⁷ Articles 1583,1608,1635, and 1647 of the Hungarian diet, which awarded command over the Croatian-Slavonian Frontier to the ban, were directed against this. See Aladár, Ballagi, “A Hatarörvidék és legújabb monografusa” [The Military Border and the Most Recent Writer of a Monograph about It], Századok, Vol. XVIII (1884), p. 56 Google Scholar. Beginning in 1630 the Hungarian diet repeatedly demanded the removal of all German commanders from the border fortresses and the subordination of these fortified places to the command of the palatine or ban.

¹⁰⁸ See article 13 of Law Article 1715. For the reincorporation of the Warasdin generalcy, which had already been seriously planned before the Rákóczy rebellion (1703–1711), see article 128; for the reincorporation of Likka, Korbava, and Lower Slavonia, see article 114; and for the restoration of the Banal Authority and the payment of the Banal militia out of “Dreißiger Gelder,” see article 115. The dissolution of the Karlstadt (Karlovac) generalcy was not requested specifically, but one can assume that it was at least indirectly, since the restoration of the Banal Authority was demanded. See Dezsö, Szabó, “Az állandó hadsereg beczikkelyezésének története” [History of the Legislation for a Regular (Hungarian) Army], Hadtörténelmi közlemények, Vol. XI (1911), pp. 549–584.Google Scholar

¹⁰⁹ See article 20 of Law Article 1723. Their transfer to the jurisdiction of the comitats was promised as a means of drawing on their resources to help defray the Hungarian tax burden. Moreover, article 88 held out the prospect that the commission to supervise the reincorporation of the Warasdin generalcy would soon be appointed, although nothing was said about the other border districts. The Hungarian military towns were the citadels of Raab(Györ)and Komorn(Komárom). In 1729 the emperor promised to reincorporate the newly-conquered areas into Hungary. See article 9 of Law Article 1729. The emperor gave assurances that the districts recovered prior to the Turkish War (districtuum priore bello Turcico recuperatorum) as well as the military towns and the towns under the jurisdiction of the Treasury would soon be reincorporated.

¹¹⁰ A Hungarian view expressed in the anonymous, undated document “Pro Memoria circa votum Consilii Bellici in materia reincorporationis,”Kriegsarchiv (Vienna), Mémoires, Rubrik XXIII, No. 146.

¹¹¹ Because of the almost continual warfare, Khevenhüller's reforms could hardly have been completed in the Sava region by the time the commission arrived.

¹¹² In 1745 the stipulations regarding the regulation of the Slavonian Frontier were amended to include the abolition of the old Danubian Frontier, and, more important, of the military areas on both sides of the Danube in Syrmia and Lower Slavonia also. See rescript of July 1, 1745. Provision was to be made to take care of the Albanian Catholics in what remained of the Syrmian Frontier.

¹¹³ It should be noted that these garrisons had no close connection with the frontier troops.

¹¹⁴ See Vaniček, , Specialgeschichte der Militärgrenze, Vol. I, p. 572.Google Scholar

¹¹⁵ In 1748 Zombor and Neusatz were raised to the status of royal free cities. Szabadka, which was given the rank of a royal town(Kameral-[Mittel-]stadt) in 1743, was renamed Maria-Theresiopel and accorded the status of a royal free city in 1779.

¹¹⁶ Iványi, , “A Tiszai Határörvidék (1686–1750),” Vol. III, p. 253.Google Scholar

¹¹⁷ The Czaikisten were “a unit of rivermen formed during the Turkish wars to patrol the Sava, Danube, and Theiß with small gunboats.” Rothenberg, The Military Border in Croatia, 1740–1881, p. 43.

¹¹⁸ Undated “opinion,” probably of the Aulic Treasury, opposing the wishes of the military to retain the Theiß-Marosch Frontier, Kriegsarchiv (-Vienna), Mémoires, Rubrik XXIII, No. 147, Fo. 3. See also note 62. Completely reversing its previous standpoint, the Hungarian chancellery now began to argue for the establishment of a military frontier in the Banat. See note 110.

¹¹⁹ Jenö, Szentkl´aray, 100 év Dél-Magyarországújabb törtenéteböl[One Hundred Years of the More Recent History of Southern Hungary] (Budapest, 1879), p. 267 Google Scholar. See also Hauer, Kurze Übersicht sämtlicher für die Militärgrenzen erlassener Systemalverordnungen, chapter entitled “Tschaikistengrenze,” Fos. 254–285. This district was dissolved and joined to the comitat of Bács by article 27 of Law Article 1873.