Depending on the factual reference, one can determine very differently where the boundary between “the East” and “the West” lies in Europe. One East-West distinction that has had a lasting effect on the cultural and political development of Europe and continues to do so today is the classic distinction between “Europa oriens” and “Europa occidens”: Starting from the dividing line that was drawn in the year 395 AD between the Eastern Roman and Western Roman Empires, the “Oriens-Occidens border” extended over the following centuries to the regions further north; in this context, the decisive demarcation criterion was the affiliation of certain countries to the East Christian or West Christian sphere. Samuel P. Huntington called the “Oriens-Occidens border” par excellence the “cultural border of Europe”; looking at Southeast Europe, Huntington also vaguely noted that the dividing line corresponds in principle to the historical border between the Habsburg and Ottoman Empires (1).

After the southern section of the “Oriens-Occidens border” had disappeared from the political map of Europe for almost two centuries as a result of the Battle of Mohács in 1526 (because the Ottomans, advancing from the Balkans, had taken large parts of Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia), the warlike clashes between the Habsburgs and the Sublime Porte in the late 17th and early 18th centuries brought a renewed rapprochement with the traditional “East-West border.” Further, after the Peace of Karlowitz in 1699, the Habsburgs snatched all areas of Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia from their adversaries except for the Banat. For a short period after the Peace of Passarowitz in 1718, the “Oriens-Occidens border” was exceeded from north to south: Beyond the Banat, the borders of the Habsburg sphere of influence were now extended to parts of the previously Ottoman Balkans, including the city of Belgrade. Finally, after the peace treaty of Belgrade in 1739, the Viennese court had to return the territories acquired in 1718 to the Ottomans, except the Banat. Since then, the militarily secured southern edge of the Habsburg lands of Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia has once again formed a permanent, politically significant border along the Danube and Sava rivers, which essentially coincided with the “Oriens-Occidens borderline.”

However, the already mentioned “warlike clashes between the Habsburgs and the Sublime Porte in the late 17th and early 18th centuries” did not only lead to a shift in political borders. At the turn of the 17th and 18th centuries, the Habsburgs settled numerous orthodox, mainly Serbian refugees from the Ottoman sphere of influence in southern Hungary, in Syrmia, and on the Austrian military border. The Orthodox Metropolitanate of Karlovci was also established in Habsburg territory. The Serbian-speaking part of the refugees above forms the demographic core of today's autonomous province of Vojvodina in the Republic of Serbia.

In the following, I would like to name four factors that could speak in favour of locating the integration of the Serbs (and, initially, other Orthodox) into the Habsburg sphere of power in the context of an “East-West encounter”: (i) As a result of the privileges that Emperor Leopold I bestowed on the Serbs in 1690, 1691 and 1695, the Serbs received a statute of personal autonomy modelled on the Ottoman Millet system (2); this statute essentially laid the foundation for the socio-political position of the Serbs in the Habsburg Empire. (ii) Cultural contacts between the Serbs living in the Habsburg sphere of influence and Russia had a lasting effect, first in the area of ​​the autonomous school system and later in the ​​general language development of the Serbs in the ecclesiastical and secular areas. (3) (iii) In the socio-cultural environment of the Habsburg Empire, the Serbs of today's Vojvodina increasingly came into contact with Western and Central European culture and were shaped by it. A particularly vivid example is the adaptation of Baroque culture in the area of ​​​​Orthodox sacral buildings. In this context, the Ukrainian painter Jov Vasiljevič, who designed the Krušedol monastery in the baroque style, stands for a phenomenon that could be described as “the east in the west.” (iv) Dimitrije Đorđević underscores the role of trade “between Central Europe and the Balkan Peninsula” in the emergence of a Serbian middle class since the mid-18th century. (4)

While the trade above played a prominent role in the context of the east-west neighbourhood between the Balkans and Central Europe, a close regional network of neighbours developed in the area of ​​today's Vojvodina between the Serbs and the “Magyars, Romanians, Germans, and Croats” living in their immediate vicinity.(5)

It remains to be said that, as a result of the unique regional developments of the Serbs in the former Habsburg Empire, approaches to a specific Vojvodina-Serbian cultural profile have developed. An approach to the topic concerning the terms proximity and neighbourhood clearly shows that the pair of terms mentioned are relevant to the matter in different dimensions: (1) The spatial proximity of the Habsburg Serbs to the population groups of other denominations and languages ​​settling in the immediate area can be analyzed and evaluated in just as differentiated a manner as the institutional proximity of this Serbian population group to the government and administrative apparatus of the Viennese court, the Austrian military border, Hungary or Croatia-Slavonia. (2) The relationship between the Habsburg Serbs and Russia also deserves careful consideration: This is specifically about intellectual and spiritual closeness, the activities of Russian clergymen (Maksim Suvorov, Emanuel Kozačinski), and the development of the Slavenoserbian language represent vital topics in this context. (3) The hinge function of the Habsburg Serbs in the transition area between the Western (Central European) and the Eastern (Balkan) cultural area, as indicated above, ultimately represents a third important dimension in the complex of topics considered here. Unique aspects of this dimension are the trade activities mentioned and the role of the Habsburg-Serbian elite in the context of Serbian secession in the Ottoman territories south of the Danube and Sava from the early 19th century. It is also worth pointing out that the scientific and cultural institution Matica Srpska, one of the most essential institutions in Serbian intellectual life today, was founded in Pest, Hungary, in 1826 and then moved to Novi Sad in 1864.

The Hungarian revolutionary movement of 1848 and 1849, directed against Habsburg rule, was ultimately put down militarily by the Vienna central power with Russian help. As a result, the existential conditions of the Serbs in historic southern Hungary changed significantly: After the revolution, the vast majority of their settlement area was added to a new administrative unit, “Serbian Vojvodina and Banat of Temeswar.” Although this unit remained part of the Habsburg Empire, it was utterly separated from Hungary. When the monarchy felt compelled to make new concessions to Hungary due to the military defeat of Solferino in 1859, the aforementioned administrative unit “Serbian Vojvodina and Banat of Temeswar” was again incorporated into the sphere of influence of (Inner-) Hungary and Croatia-Slavonia in 1860. (6) Since 1861, the liberal party under the leadership of Svetozar Miletić has set the tone for the political life of the southern Hungarian Serbs; this party continued its efforts to cooperate with the Hungarian Liberals even after the Habsburg Empire was converted into the Austro-Hungarian dual monarchy in 1867.(7) The previously mentioned specific cultural profile of the Vojvodina Serbs ultimately survived the collapse of the Danube Monarchy after the First World War. In addition to Croatia-Slavonia, Hungary also had to cede the predominantly Serb-populated areas of the Bács-Bodrog county and the historic Banat region to the newly created Kingdom of Serbs, Croats, and Slovenes due to the Trianon Peace Treaty signed in 1920. This kingdom, ruled by the Serbian Karađorđević dynasty and officially called Yugoslavia since 1929, collapsed in 1941 in the turmoil of World War II. After the war, Vojvodina was constituted as an autonomous province within Serbia, which, in turn, together with Croatia, formed one of the main pillars of the Yugoslav federal state founded by Josip Broz Tito until 1991. The area of ​​the autonomous province largely coincides with the main settlement areas of the Serbs in the former Kingdom of Hungary, including Croatia-Slavonia.

In the now-independent Republic of Serbia, the multi-ethnic province also forms the decisive frame of reference for the former southern Hungarian Serbs. The potential of this political unit to act as a bridge between Central and Southeastern Europe is clearly visible.

Dr. phil Marc Stefan Peters is a historian, who has taught several times at the Andrássy University Budapest. He has researched on issues pertaining to politics, culture and religion of Central and Southeastern Europe.

Read more about our commentary series on the Balkans and the challenges of democratic transformation HERE.

References    

(1) See HUNTINGTON, Samuel P.: Kampf der Kulturen. Die Neugestaltung der Weltpolitik im 21. Jahrhundert; München 200212; pp. 252-245.

 (2) See ALEKSOV, Bojan: Metropolie (Patriarchat) von Karlowitz; pp. 187-194 (187) in: Bahlcke, Joachim / Rohdewald, Stefan / Wünsch, Thomas (eds.), Religiöse Erinnerungsorte in Ostmitteleuropa. Konstitution und Konkurrenz im nationen- und epochenübergreifenden Zugriff; Berlin 2013.

 (3) See VLADA AUTONOMNE POKRAJINE VOJVODINE: Koliko se poznajemo. Iz istorije nacionalnih zajednica u Vojvodini; Novi Sad 20149; p. 39.

 (4) See DJORDJEVIĆ, Dimitrije: Die Serben; pp, 734-774 (737) in: Die Habsburgermonarchie 1848-1918; Volume III (1): Die Völker des Reiches; Vienna 2003.

 (5) See ibidem, pp. 740/741.

 (6) See ibidem pp. 747/748.

 (7) See ibidem pp. 748/749.