Körmöczi Katalin szerk.: Historical Exhibition of the Hungarian National Museum 3 - From the End of the Turkish Wars to the Millennium - The history of Hungary in the 18th and 19th centuries (Budapest, 2001)

ROOM 9. The Rákóczi War of Independence and the Anti -Turkish Wars at the Beginning of the 18th Century (Gábor Németh)

nature of the new state's social base soon came to light, as did its ever-increasing economic difficulties. A part of the nobility (the so-called labanc) remained loyal to the emperor throughout. The prince was forced to impose taxes, and copper coins were introduced as a means of debasing the currency. Right up until the very end, Rákóczi 's state and army were divided by the landlordserf antagonism. Poorly equipped and of inferior fighting value, the kuruc armies were less and less able tojóin battle with the imperial troops redeploying to the Hungarian theatre of war. Unable to exploit their victories, they suffered defeat after defeat from 1707 onwards and were forced back to the country's northeastern periphery. In Rákóczi 's absence, the Peace of Szatmár (Satu Mare) was signed. Concluded in the spirit of compromise, this confirmed the prerogatives of the Hungarian Estates, including those of the nobility. Ferenc Rákóczi II did not accept the peace settlement; after some years in France, he died in exile in Turkey attended by a few loyal associates. Visitors can see a map relating to the Rákóczi war of independence, and, beside it, weapons used by the two sides in the struggle. Symbolically, on either side of a cuirass and helmet which once belonged to the emperor-king Joseph I (1705-11) there are weapons typically used by the imperial and the kuruc troops, respectively (Fig. 2). The helmet, of a type which can be traced back to Hungarian hussar headgear, was made to go with the cavalry cuirass, which has etched ornamentation. Of the two contending sides, the professional imperial troops represented developed military technology and striking power of the most modern kind. For their part, the insurgents mostly relied on light cavalry and the tactics associated with it. Rákóczi devoted the greatest attention to the organization and training of his army, and followed the principles worked out by the general and military theorist Miklós Zrínyi. He issued army regulations and set up a bodyguard regiment, but at the same time saw his army's deficiencies clearly. Its striking power was reduced not only by difficulties of supply and reinforcement, but also by the lack of discipline and lack of training among the noble officer corps. Effectiveness was further undermined by social antagonisms, which became ever more apparent with time, and by fluctuating numbers. In the military history of the independence war, short-lived victories and increasingly serious defents followed each other. The military endeavours of the first years were crowned with success. In autumn 1703, the kuruc armies drove the Imperialists out of Upper Hungary. Against János Bottyán's victory at Érsekújvár (Nővé Zámky) (1704), his conquest of Transdanubia (1705) and the successes in Transylvania must be weighed the kuruc defeats at Nagyszombat (Trnava) (1704) and Zsibó (Jibou) (1706). In 1707 the area of territory under Rákóczi

's authority reached its greatest extent. From this year onwards defeat followed defeat. On August 3, 1708, General Heister 's army, which had arrived to relieve Lipótvár, inflicted a crushing defeat on the kuruc forces at Trencsén (Trencin). Later successes were unable to compensate for this. Transdanubia was gradually evacuated by the prince's