History

Leibniz's stay in Vienna from May 1688 to January 1689 was mainly devoted to genealogical research in the Vienna archives for the history of the Guelphs. Leibniz's request to the Hanoverian ministers to grant him access to the imperial court was at first answered only hesitantly. Additional research was deemed unnecessary. However, Leibniz's ties to the imperial court made it possible to establish unofficial contacts between the Duke of Hanover and the Emperor. The growing tensions between the Holy Roman Empire and France, as they were already apparent before the beginning of the Palatinate War, brought the Duke in distress: a secret treaty, which did not come into force, made the Duke appear as an ally of France. Leibniz's hitherto unknown letter of November 1688 to Johann Christoph von Urbich is evidence of Leib niz's close contact with the authors of the imperial response to the French declaration of war. In addition, this letter enables, among other things, a...

Zusammenfassung Die Wahrung der politischen Ordnung des Heiligen Römischen Reiches, wie sie durch den Westfälischen Frieden festgelegt wurde, benutzte auch Zar Peter I. als politisches Argument nach der kriegsentscheidenden Schlacht bei Poltava (1709) während des Großen Nordischen Krieges. Die erstarkte militärische Position erlaubte es, politische Interessen zu postulieren, die eine europäische Konzeption einer künftigen Friedensordnung beinhalteten. Sah sich Peter I. nach Poltava in der Situation, die Position Schwedens als Garant für den Status quo des Heiligen Römische Reiches zu übernehmen, so war 1712 nach der Eroberung der schwedischen Ostseeprovinzen nicht die Bewahrung des Status quo das Ziel, sondern er erhob gegenüber dem kaiserlichen Hof die Forderung nach einer Neuordnung des Heiligen Römischen Reiches unter seiner Ägide. In diesem Kontext wurde der Plan verfolgt, eine russische Reichsstandschaft für Livland zu etablieren. Partielle Unterstützung erhielt das Vorhaben du...

Die Reformvorschläge von Leibniz für das Moskauer Reich sind seit der Publikation seiner Denkschriften und großer Teile des einschlägigen Briefwechsels durch Woldemar Guerrier (1873) Gegenstand der Forschung. Seitdem ist weiteres Quellenmaterial hinzugekommen, das von der Leibniz-Edition erschlossen wird. Der Nachlass des Diplomaten Johann Christoph von Urbich enthält zusätzliche, bisher unbekannte Informationen zu den Kontakten von Leibniz zu Vertretern des russischen Hofes. Im Hinblick auf die Frage nach der Rezeption von Leibniz’ Vorschlägen ist ein Memorandum von Urbich von besonderem Interesse, das er nach seiner Audienz bei Zar Peter I. im Januar 1710 in Moskau verfasst hat: Dort wird Leibniz’ Idee eines ökumenischen Konzils der christlichen Kirchen aufgegriffen, um es im Interesse Zar Peters I. als  diplomatisches Instrument für eine Wiederbelebung der Heiligen Liga einzusetzen.

Practice of indirect diplomacy is amply documented in the estate of the diplomat Johann Christoph von Urbich (1653-1715), which is currently evaluated in a research project (https://gepris.dfg.de/gepris/ project/416436858). The documents investigated refer to the courts of the Emperor in Vienna, of the Moscow Empire, of Denmark-Norway, of several German princes and the Sandomierz Confederation in Poland-Lithuania. During his career the diplomat Urbich acted in different roles, as legation secretary, as envoy or as imperial privy councilor, and experienced various forms of indirect diplomacy. Sometimes indirect communication channels were used by sovereign authorities to initiate policy changes. In other cases a lack of trust moved a sovereign to sidestep an accredited envoy and to communicate with his court through other channels. Regional authorities or local notables tried to gain access to foreign courts by employing diplomats from other courts. Sometimes diplomatic actors took recourse to indirect ways: The high pressure to succeed, under which they worked, forced them to take initiatives of their own instead of only relying on orders from their courts. Those initiatives could be validated by the sovereign, if successful, but it also harbored the risk of being accused of disobedience and disloyalty.

Die Forschungen zur Diplomatie der Frühen Neuzeit haben in den letzten Jahren die strukturellen Unterschiede zur modernen Diplomatie herausgearbeitet. Simultane Loyalitätsbeziehungen zu verschiedenen Fürstenhäusern und Territorien charakterisierten die Stellung von Diplomaten aus dem hohen Adel. Anhand der Karriere des Pastorensohns Johann Christoph (von) Urbich wird gezeigt, dass ein weit gespanntes Beziehungsgeflecht auch für bürgerliche Diplomaten die Grundlage für den Aufstieg in höhere Positionen bilden konnte. Transterritoriales Agieren kennzeichnete das Selbstverständnis der sich etablierenden Funktionselite, bedingte aber auch die Fragilität einer beruflichen Existenz, die auf multiplen Loyalitäten aufgebaut war. Sich verschiebende Machtkonstellationen und Interessen konnten bisher geschätzte Netzwerke des Fürstendieners entwerten und, wie im Fall von Urbich, zum Vorwurf der Illoyalität führen.

In recent years, research into early modern diplomacy has highlighted the structural differences to modern diplomacy. Simultaneous loyalty relationships with various royal houses and territories characterized the position of diplomats from the high nobility. Based on the career of the pastor's son Johann Christoph (von) Urbich, it is shown that a wide network of relationships could also form the basis for promotion to higher positions for middle-class diplomats. Transterritorial action characterized the self-image of the emerging functional elite, but also caused the fragility of a professional existence that was built on multiple loyalties. Shifting power constellations and interests could devalue previously valued servant networks and, as in the case of Urbich, lead to accusations of disloyalty.

The transformation of the Ottoman Empire from absolute monarchy to the constitutional monarchy was actualized after the Revolution of 1908. The Ottoman Freedom Society (Osmanlı Hürriyet Cemiyeti) was founded in 1906 by young officers of the Third Army to conduct an effective revolutionary organization in Macedonia. After Resneli Niyazi Bey revolted against the Hamidian regime, Abdülhamid II decided completely abolish the Unionist structure in Rumelia. The plan was to use Albanian warriors, whose loyalty to the palace was well-known, under the command of Şemsi Paşa. However, Şemsi Paşa was assassinated outside the Telegraph Office by a Unionist partisan, Atıf Bey, shortly after he arrived in Manastır. This not only caused the disappearance of the threat against the existence of the Committee of Union and Progress, but also left thirty thousand armed Albanians gathered in Firzovik aimless. The dissident agents who infiltrated into this group managed to convince them to do the exact opposite of what Şemsi Paşa planned. They threatened Abdülhamid II in their successive telegrams to “either declare the Constitution immediately, or they would march on to İstanbul”. The Sultan was forced to re-institute the Constitution on the night of July 23, 1908, with the death of one of his famous generals and the loss of Albanian support. This work aims to highlight the great importance of the assassination of Şemsi Paşa during the process that led to the Second Constitutional Period.