Ruth Deutschmann

Benjamin Epp

Wien

2008-04-29

Sylvia Manning - Baumgartner

Nicole D´Incecco

1809

I might be a bit biased because I know the history of the times very well and had heard all the details early on. I have always wondered: Why did the Tyroleans defend themselves? At first they were rather lethargic about being occupied by the Bavarians. It's funny that it's called the war against the French in Tyrol. In fact the majority were Bavarian soldiers, two Bavarian divisions and one or maybe two French regiments. In particular, the administration was Bavarian. There were three Bavarians in charge who governed Tyrol and enraged the Tyrolean people by the measures they took. The Bavarians were influenced by the secular ideas of the French Revolution. They closed down monasteries and took action against Catholic priests who always represented the villages where they worked. Above all they collected a lot of taxes and recruited young men for the army. So, naturally that lead to an uprising... A lot of courageous and brave deeds were performed. Especially.... the Bavarian and French armies were very modern. You could say, it was like trying to oppose a modern army with primitive weapons by taking advantage of the landscape. They exploited their advantage perfectly. The internal organisation developed quickly and was not prepared beforehand. Many courageous events took place. Naturally, the whole thing was also very emotional and the more cautious people in Innsbruck didn't really support it. In the city there was more support for the new ideas from Bavaria. In rural areas these ideas were spurned, surely also by the Catholic clergy. They absolutely didn't want to support the ideas of the French Revolution. But you need quite a lot of courage to attempt more than one attack. It wasn't only one uprising, there were different phases. It's a different question how well Andreas Hofer himself governed. That's a different story. They weren't prepared for all that. The relationship with the monarchy and to the crown was not clear either. Contradictory signals were sent from Vienna. In Tyrol there was no support for the larger scheme against Napoleon which resulted from the need to preserve the monarchy. They had to sacrifice a part to be able to keep the rest. That idea didn't find any supporters in Tyrol. There was a defensive attitude, so to speak, against the crown. That was typical too. The uprising wasn't supported for a long time. On the contrary, promises were broken by the Viennese headquarters which weren't really headquarters as you would define them today. The sovereign wasn't going to fulfil his responsibility. Of course the people realised that. There were many different interesting points of view. I believe you have to see the heroism and independence on one hand and consider the will to continue to exist on the other hand. And of course the shortcomings that resulted from this. It is also open to discussion if the last uprising was a wise decision; to lead the people into the last confrontation. It should have been obvious that it was a lost cause. That it was a lost cause.