One of the central questions in Timothy Olin’s monograph is to what extent the Banat region, as a frontier and as the scene of Habsburg colonial ambitions, can be compared to other inland-continental (Russian, German) and sea colonies. Alison Frank and Pieter Judson state that the overseas colonial experience differs from the continental one and that Habsburg Galicia and Banat cannot be compared to India or America, contrary to Andrea Komlósy’s assertion. Olin believes that Catherine the Great’s plans for the settlement of Germans on the Volga or the Prussian Frederick the Great’s resettlement policy are closer to the experiences of the Banat, as examples of internal colonization. In the case of the Banat, eastern and “savage” peoples were encountered within the empire. An important additional feature, however, is that the Banat remains not only a frontier to be populated but also a military borderland. Another question is, however, whether the Banat can be interpreted, from the perspective of posterity, as a space of multiculturalism or as the apotheosis of the German folk as “Kulturträger”—a view that caused serious damage during World War II to the people living together in the region. Was the Banat a model of modernization? Or was it a periphery due to its frontier nature, where it was necessary to “tame” the autochthonous “savage” population and substitute them with reliable elements in order to realize the Western ideals of efficiency and profit maximization during the era of the Cameralist state practices, as argued Klemens Kaps? The Habsburgs, who acquired the province in 1719, were convinced that they were to carry out a civilizing mission. Keeping the region as a chamber estate confirms the idea that they pursued the goal of transforming and Europeanizing the area, turning it from wilderness into a cultural landscape to exploit it economically. This required not only the settlement of a reliable (Catholic and German-speaking) agricultural population but, given the abundant mineral resources and borderland nature of the area, the development of mining and industry for military purposes (gunpowder factory, roads, water management). Besides agrarian settlers, this required specialized foreign experts who stayed only temporarily and well-paid administrators—who were in no way superior, either professionally or personally, to the native population they despised.The volume provides a vivid description of the function of borders and quarantine; the sources cited here are important from the aspect of the history of ideas, cultural history, and environmental history, labeling the East as the home of infections and smuggling. An important addition to the perception of nationhood is that the spoken language and nationality were not listed as distinctive features in the passports of that time, while physical appearance and clothing were. Olin believes that the ethnic attributes of the eighteenth century (Vlach, Rascian) are not identical to modern nations.Handing over the Banat to the Hungarian Crown in 1782, along with the subsequent land sales, provided a huge source of income for the Hungarian chancellery. At the same time, it changed the living conditions and service obligations of the local immigrant population. This came as a shock, especially in light of the state’s prior promises and conditions, warns Olin.The author describes in detail the push and pull factors of migration, as well as the binding factors, including prohibitions or encouragement regarding migration in the source areas, and even the preferences of the host country. Olin compares the opportunities available to those leaving for the Kingdom of Hungary with other destinations for settlers leaving the Holy Roman Empire, records the occupations of newcomers, gives an account of the designation of areas suitable for farming, attempts to quantify the frequent destruction caused by war (destroyed settlements, prisoners of war, slaves), and records benefits granted to incoming settler waves. While taking a similar thematic approach, his methodological apparatus is quite different from that of Benjamin Landais’ recent work in the French language, which is based on a historical-geographical approach of Braudel.1 For Olin, the focus is on the phenomenon, the structure, and the relationship between centers of power and individuals, while Landais’ work centers on the relationship between the landscape and the individual. As the subtitle suggests (Borderland Colonization in the Habsburg Monarchy), for Olin, the Banat is a case study to be interpreted and placed according to the typology of colonization.Olin touches on questions like security, loyalty, the ethnic and religious composition of the local and newcomer populations, and frictions between and among them. He analyzes the settlers’ culture compared to the official desires, evaluates colonization from the aspects of plans and their realization, and examines the relationship between government and local society. Altogether, three chapters deal with the topic of frontier problems and solutions or the local responses to Habsburg rule. In the last chapter, Olin follows the fate of the Germans until their expulsion.The author emphasizes that among the merits of his volume is that it finally provides a modern summary in the English language of the region. The language of the volume is simple, making it accessible to all, not only researchers. Despite the framework set out in the introduction, the numerous case studies make the volume readable and nontheoretical.
Demeter Gábor (Fri,) studied this question.