"History is the memory of things said and done."
 - Carl L. Becker

Danube Swabian History
  1800's   1900's   2000's
DS History 101 Ethnic Cleansing 1944-48 Displaced Persons' Camps Atrocity Books Maps

Contact Registry

Subscribe to DVHH-L email list.


The Banat – a “Penal Colony“ of Maria Theresia?

by Dr. Hans Dama
Translated by Nick Tullius

This irrelevant assertion has repeatedly appeared in the historiography, without the authors being able to provide any primary source evidence to prove it.

     In the recent presentation "Short History of the old-Austrian German ethnic groups in Southeast Europe”, written under the auspices of the private foundation of German-speaking displaced persons from the Sudetenland, Carpathian and Danube Regions, 1030 Vienna, Steingasse 25, 2008, the author, Dr. Peter Wassertheurer, makes the same mistake, when he writes on p. 33: "[…] From 1766 the Banat had its own Impopulations Commission to better coordinate the settlement process between the Vienna Hofkammer and the responsible bodies in the Banat. Maria Theresia allowed the Banat to be converted into a penal colony for rebels, prisoners of war, prostitutes, and felons. In 1778, the Vienna Hofkammer handed the Banat back to the Hungarian Hofkammer […]"

     To make such a serious allegation without quoting primary sources, is amateurish and inadmissible, insulting to an entire ethnic group and its habitat.

     But what is this allegation based on? That is a field of activity for historians, and in the archives of Vienna, Budapest and Temeswarer, they would certainly find plenty of relevant material.  The starting point for the deportation policy, especially in the Theresian age, was a policy of deterrence: the Banat was in those days a region racked by swamp fever, and therefore feared in the whole empire. Secondly, the so-called harmful elements of the population were to contribute something to the benefit the whole nation.  But the settlement of an area of low population density, with persons of dubious character, in order to develop a stable population, is just not possible. The deportation known in history as ”Viennese Water Thrust” or ”Temeswarer Water Thrust”, initiated by Charles VI and accelerated by Maria Theresia, Archduchess of Austria and Queen of Hungary and Bohemia (ONLY wife of the Emperor, NEVER empress!) just proves that statement.

     The deportation of the Hauensteiners and that of the Protestants moved from Austria to Transylvania for reasons of religious policy are two other examples of failures in the population policy of the Habsburgs in the 18th Century, because none of these three deportations achieved its goal as a deterrent.

      Emperor Joseph II, was a follower of the Enlightenment, and thus a champion of equal rights and equal treatment for all countries and territories of the monarchy, and brought this deportation policy to an end. The Hungarians had been vehemently opposed to these types of deportations from the beginning, and it is the merit of the “Einrichtungswerk" (”installation work") of Cardinal Kollonich that it vigorously opposed any deportation policy. 1

"Now it remains solely to consider in what kind of fashion the settlement in Hungary is to be accomplished, and to note that while in history two kinds of settlement are found, namely with colonists moved by force from overpopulated regions, or with harmful rabble and the dregs of other countries and cities, even hostile subjects and residents, or by public invitation and indiscriminate acceptance of foreign peoples, but especially since the first mode is very difficult and dangerous to introduce: partly as being violent and against nature, according to which patria sua cuique dulcissimum est solum [only his own country is sweetest], so those taken to remote islands, where the deported people have no hope left to escape, mostly having been liquidated, partly dwell like collected dross, dedicated to idleness and vice, bringing a country more harm than benefits […]" 2 

     The ‘Temeswarer water thrust’ removed undesirable persons from the imperial capital of Vienna and from its closer and more distant surroundings, and exiled them to the Banat of Temeswar.

     For about 17 years, between 1752 and May 1768, with the exception of the war years 1758-1760, these transports took place twice a year - in the spring and in the fall. The eligible persons were gathered in Vienna and transported on the water down the Danube (hence ‘water thrust’) to Temeswar in the Banat.

The following figures illustrate the number of deported persons: 3

1752 – 1757  ~ 709 persons

Dec. 1758  284 persons

Aug. 1759   64 persons

April  1760  263 persons

May  1761  107 persons

Oct   1761  107 persons

May  1762  113 persons

Nov. 1762  135 persons

May  1763  158 persons

Oct. 1763   77 persons

May  1764  117 persons

Oct. 1764   78 persons

May  1765  175 persons

Oct  1765  100 persons

May  1766  161 persons

Nov  1766  134 persons

May  1767  136 persons

Oct. 1767  120 persons

May  1768  122 persons 

The question arises whether these 3130 ”thrust people” can be counted as an real population increase, given that during the second Swabian Colonization (1763-1773) approximately 42,000 voluntary emigrants came to the Banat. Most historians doubt it.4 

     The thrust was actually intended to help population growth in the Banat, but nobody really cared about the fate of this type of deportees once they arrived in the Banat. The administration in Temeswar and its superior authority, the “Ministerialbanco-hofdeputation” in Vienna, saw the thrust people as an undesirable burden, which only increased their cost by their demands of clothes, accommodation and so on.

     An on 3 December 1762, the State Council, in a meeting with Queen Maria Theresa and Crown Prince Joseph II, all the relevant authorities involved in the resettlement plans for the Banat - the Temeswar Administration, the Bancodeputation, the Hofkammer and the Illyrian Hofdeputation – took a determined position against this type of settlement plans (by means of water thrust).

      Councillor Baron Egid of Borié took the view that the thrust people would be available as a free material for the marsh drainage works in the Banat, if they they were helped to improve their lot: "This arrangement would have to insist that the prisoners remain in the local workhouse until they show real improvement, rather than releasing the loose girls in the Banat, for those Serbs to trade their bodies."5  This position was endorsed by the Queen and thus implied the continuation of the ‘water thrust’.6 

     After a long period of silence, in the spring of 1763, the President of the Temeswar Administration presented the Vienna Court with a list of the Catholics settled in the Banat. It was probably his intention to make the ‘water thrusts’ appear superfluous, because according to its listing, 32,981 Catholics had already been settled.

      Borié interpreted this differently and took it as proof of how many souls this vast, sparsely populated country could still accommodate. In addition, he was of the opinion that to establish families, more women should be moved into the Banat, because according to the population statistics, there were more males than females:  4211 boys of 1-8 years; and 3348 boys of 8-20 years; for a total of 7559. There were 3918 girls of 1-8 years, and 2925 girls of 8-20 years, for a total of 6841. There was thus a difference of 715 in favor of male youth.7 

      For Temeswar and the suburbs, however, the population figures were evenly balanced: 1194 men and 1122 women, even though in a city of administration officials the male population predominates. Borié concludes that "therefore care must be taken to ensure that more women are dispatched to that country. This can be done if more loose girls from our city are shipped there, and made useful to the population there".8 

      Clearly, the monarch followed the proposal of Councilor of State Borié, and issued orders to the Bancodeputation to continue the ‘water thrust’.9 The governments of the German hereditary lands were excited by this measure, because it allowed them to get rid of their financial obligations for the prisons and workhouses for undesirables. They even wanted to extend the ‘water thrust’ to the whole of Hungary.

      So far, the ‘water thrust’ had transported only citizens, but the Hofdekret of 18 August 1764 stated that it should also include foreign vagabonds, who previously were enrolled in the military or, if they were not fit for that, returned to their home country. The Lower Austrian government announced on 5 September 1764 that their workhouse for citizens was not sufficient and therefore only the dispatch to Hungary should be considered.10 

      When asked about the possible use of such persons on its own properties, the Hungarian Hofkammer meeting in Bratislava on 12 November and on 10 December 1764, reacted with a sharp rejection. It thus prevented this project a priori, so that the ‘water thrust’ had to remain limited to the Banat (as a crown colony of the Habsburgs). Some individuals succeeded in fleeing from the ‘water thrusts’ in Bratislava or Pest and avoided the onward transport to the Banat.

      The ‘water thrusts’ transported "unsavory elements" to the Banat, but military personnel needed for work on the fortress of Temeswar were not part of them, even though some used the ‘water thrusts’ as a convenient means of transport: in 1762, only 52 military delinquents worked in the fortress Temeswar.11 

The occupants of the Temeswar jail were not ‘water thrust’ people, because they had been convicted to carry out their sentences locally.

      The ‘thrust people’ transported from Vienna to the Banat were different from the groups mentioned above, because they had not committed any actual crimes that could be tried in a real criminal court. These people were subjected only to preventive measures in order to remove unwelcome "elements" from the imperial capital of Vienna and its surroundings. They were persons that could exert a negative moral influence on their fellow humans, without necessarily having committed a specific offence. A complaint about their flashy lifestyle could be enough to become a ‘water push person’; no court action was required. This inadequate procedure, created for the convenience of the justice system, was later denounced by Emperor Joseph II, because only his mother, Queen Maria Theresia, was responsible for it.

      The enlightened monarch Joseph II was elected emperor after the death of his father, emperor Franz Stephan of Lorraine. From 1765 on, he was co-regent with his mother Maria Theresia, in the Habsburg hereditary lands. He convinced all the important statesmen of the monarchy about the injustice and cruelty of the ‘water thrusts’ as parts of the government system. But Maria Theresia, generally seen as a caring mother of the country, continued to defend the ‘water push’. Her attitude must be interpreted within the general approach of the Theresianic criminal law, as expressed in the Codex Theresianus. The principle of deterrence reigned supreme, but it was not the crime and its punishment in itself, but rather the fear of penalties, that was to be spread in the ranks of the masses. And that was also the purpose of the ‘water thrust’.

      Through this ‘water thrust’ policy, the Banat gained a bad reputation and was seen in Vienna as "a country of criminals": "Then the name of Banat already made them stop," said Maria Theresa, as she tried to defend her position to the bitter end.12 

      That Maria Theresia converted the Banat into a penal colony for rebels, prisoners of war, loose girls and felons, is historically wrong. The term “penal colony” was never used, nor was the political and legal basis for it ever created in the crown land Banat. And the terminology that is, or was, used in the vernacular or colloquially, is historically irrelevant, even if in the middle of the 18th century an Austrian satirical song on the deportation to Transylvania (Protestants) and the Banat was in circulation:

      //“Royal soldiers/five battalions/ Cavalry-men and Croats/ are already watching you,/ Those that do not want to remain Catholic,/ Will be chased from the land. / Even to Temeswar! / Hey, that scares you! //"13 

      It would be wrong to assume that because of the arbitrary way of putting together the ‘water thrusts, they were consistently and predominantly made up of criminals. Rather the opposite was the case: The percentage of actual or alleged criminals of the total population of the ‘water thrusts’ was extremely low.

      The number of farmers from Lower Austria that were in conflict with the government for various reasons, was considerable. And since in the middle of the 18th century the patrimonial justice system was still in use in Austria, the state allowed the transfer of those who were sentenced by the landowners’ court (i.e., farmers) to the public sector. They were placed in the public work houses, into the military, or just into the ‘water push’. The arbitrariness of landowners’ courts, which acted both as judge and accuser, is obvious. If a farmer dared to demand his rights, he was simply placed into the ‘water push’ "because of disobedience". Also refusal of ‘Robot’ and shooting of the nobleman’s game, even when it damaged the farmer’s fields, was cause for removal of the farmer by the ‘water thrust’.

      Even Queen Maria Theresia, who loved to hunt, was against poaching, while Emperor Joseph II loathed hunting and gave his share of the heron hunting area in Laxenburg to the farmers, for free use.  Considering that the deported farmers were often people with considerable properties, one wonders who benefited from the assets left behind.

For example, ten farmers from the Vienna Woods (Gföhl) were brought to Lugoj in 1758, from where they petitioned for the return of their properties. About 500-600 guilders were at stake, a significant amount. On average, the claims amounted to 200 Fl, a sizable possession for the farmers in the 18th century.14

      The second group of deported persons included smugglers (especially of tobacco products), as a necessary consequence of the then compelling economic system (radical import ban and huge internal customs duties), who today would not necessarily be considered totally dishonorable. If today somebody has the misfortune of being caught trying to illegally carry some cigarettes or a few bottles of alcohol across the border, he will certainly not be placed into a penal camp.

      One cannot blame the people from the less prosperous regions of the former monarchy, if they wanted a share of the general prosperity. To deport them as "criminals" appears to today’s citizens as exaggerated. Other groups were allocated to the ‘water thrust’ because they were considered to be ”rowdy elements" or resisters against state authority. In addition, there were beggars, vagrants, vagabonds, and also foreigners who had found their way back to Vienna after repeated deportation to their homeland.

      Among the female deportees, the vast majority was formed by "loose women" or "women stepping on a man's premises" or caught "in a military guard room" of Vienna. But even in the legal opinion of the 18th century, such "offenses" were not considered criminal offenses in the strict sense of the word. There were no convictions for such offenses.

The punishment for these offences was actually supposed to be confinement to local or regional prisons or work houses. But in the 18th century these facilities were often lacking, so that the delinquents were simply placed onto the ‘water thrust’. They were supposed to be transferred to areas with low food prices, where they could be useful for increasing the agricultural production. So it was decided at the Vienna Court of Maria Theresia to send them to the Banat. But in the Banat, Count Mercy had already stimulated industrial production - think of the emergence of Temeswarer Fabrikstadt (factory town) - and cheap labour was always welcome.

      The prison built in Temeswar was much too small to hold all people brought in by the ’water thrusts’. An extension of the local prison for those arriving in the Banat or Temeswar without custodial sentence imposed, as Borié had requested, could not be contemplated, as the prison had been built for the detention of local criminal offenders that had been properly sentenced. The solution was to just free the ’water thrust’ people, in the hope that they would be available as part of the warforce of the Banat.

      Borié intended to provide the cheapest labor force to the Banat, because of a lack of workers and servants in this inhospitable region, but the grain production was also to be encouraged. The place of exile was supposed to be as far away from Vienna as possible, to prevent the potential return of these unpleasant elements to Vienna. And the Banat was such a place. Although Borié’s goal was to send out vast numbers of women, the female element of ‘water thrusts’ was always in the minority, as illustrated by the example of the ‘water thrust’ from May 19, 1768.15

      Of the 122 persons, numbers 1-9 were men destined for Temeswar that had been properly sentenced; 61 were men "ordered only to serve and work in the Banat ". Others were deported with wife and children. Numbers 68-72 were "female subjects", with remaining penalties of fortress imprisonment. Numbers 73-122, however, were sent only to "serve and work". In Hungary, five persons already left the ship: one in Pressburg and four in Pest. For them, the way back to Vienna was not a problem.

      A considerable number of ‘water thrust’ persons were of Hungarian origin, found prowling around Vienna: "They were mainly gypsies from the area of today's Burgenland. One ‘water thrust’ held Hungarian gypsies: 4 men, 2 of them with families, and 11 single, young gypsy women and girls. Places of origin are Wieselburg, Prodersdorf [probably Podersdorf, HD], Potzneusiedel, Weiden am See, Gr. Sinzendorf, Ödenburg (today: Sopron) Ungarisch Altenburg [today: Mosonmagyarovár, HD] and Warasdin. Offences committed were: dangerous prowling and begging. The non-gypsy delinquents had committed theft, fraud and adultery, while the actual ‘water thrust’ people had committed attacks on the guard, illegal trading with tobacco, and especially hunting without a permit. The women had committed predominated “thresspassing of a man’s premises”, and unruly behavior."16

      All these groups of ‘thrust people’ lacked any precondition for developing into solid, stable citizens. This was due in no small measure to the prevailing living conditions in the Banat and the treatment they had received. Even the living conditions came close to a death penalty (according to the ‘death-not-bread’ saying of the settlers brought in by the three major Swabian migrations).

      The only way to survive was to work as a servant or maid, since there were hardly any other opportunities for private employment. For public works, the treasury had to take advantage of the available ’Robot’ days owed by its subjects. The German settlement farmers limited their workforce to their own offspring. Because of language barriers, the majority of the ‘thrust people’ were unable to enter in the service of Wallachian and Serbian farmers. Whoever was able to get it, accepted work as a servant in Temeswar, but even here the demand was soon fulfilled.

      With the prettier girls, Serbian traders established a lively trade with Turkey. Only a small number were forced to continue their ‘Viennese trade’ at the lowest level in the Banat. All these ‘loose women’ tried to get back to Vienna as soon as possible. Once they were there, they could get apprehended again, and placed on a new ‘water thrust’. This game was often repeated four or five times until they finally were able to submerge in Vienna. It must not go unmentioned that a large part of the ‘water thrust’ people died of swamp fever, the prevailing disease of the Banat.

      Emperor Joseph II, who unlike his mother, was an opponent of the ’water thrust’ from the beginning, was able to convince all statesmen engaged in this endeavor, of the futility of this approach. The water thrusts were finally stopped, and the emperor ordered the return of the deportees. The emperor also ordered the construction of a large work house in Austria, where - unlike in the Banat - the economic and demographic conditions for the care of ’water thrust’ people were available.17

      Even Borié considered the arguments of the emperor as convincing and state chancellor Wenzel Anton Graf Kaunitz was also striving to get Maria Theresia to agree, but the monarch - by nature a fighter – was not inclined to give up the ‘water thrust’. She defended this action as follows: "Much can be said against the abolition of the ‘thrust’, but one can suspend it for 2 years to see the effect. I want to believe that there were many excesses in its execution. It might be possible to stop these, but keep the activity. Meanwhile the ‘water thrust’ should be suspended […] However, not all people affected should be allowed to return: otherwise Vienna would be full of thieves and the country full of illegal hunters, hence there would be little security. Until now, the name of Banat already made them stop. It does not surprise me that there is no police in Banat, because in all my country no good one is known."18

      Thus the cessation of the ’water thrusts’ was prevented by the veto of Maria Theresia, but in the pertinent section of the resolution, it is stated: "The ordinary Viennese ’water thrust’ is suspended until further orders […]". This is only a temporary cessation, but gradually it became permanent.19 Because the deportations of Protestants continued until the end of Maria Theresia’s reign, there were occasional applications for deportation through the ’water thrust’ that were approved and sometimes carried out.20

      The case of the so-called Waldviertler Bauern  (“woodquarter farmers”) from Gföhl involves the subjects of Count Franz Wenzel Sinzendorf. Because in Lower Austria proper regulations had not been introduced, the farmers challenged the nature of Robot-allocations. Specifically, they declined the transportation of wood to Krems that had been scheduled for a time they considered unfavorable. The noble landowners obtained the involvement of the military. Eight elderly, well-liked farmers, viewed as alleged ringleaders, were captured and detained for eight days, then placed for 14 days in irons, and finally thrown into a prison. After this approach failed to frighten the farmers, the land owners asked for the deportation of these recalcitrants, including their wives and children, to the Banat. This was meant to set a horrible example, so that the subjects would no longer dare to oppose against the landowners. Fierce debates ensued in the State Council about this case.21

      In October 1771 an attempt was made to restart the ’water thrust’. After the medical doctor Haan had returned illicitly from the Banat to Vienna, he was convicted together with the farmers from Gföhl and sent to the Banat: "He will practice medicine there and thus earn his living"; he was even granted some financial aid.22
The petition submitted by their neighbors, asking for the release of the farmers, was not taken into account and the farmer families were sent to the Banat with the ‘water thrust’ that departed mid-October.

      They could not do much with the 40 Fl they received. While they had been allocated a piece of land in the Banat to set up an economic foundation, they remained connected to their Lower Austrian homeland, where in the auction of its former land and houses, no member of the village community expressed an interest in their lands and houses.
This justified a complaint regarding the lack of compensation for their abandoned properties in Lower Austria. A new action to the monarch was initiated, with the request that they be allowed to return home.

      After Maria Theresia took over the matter personally, the farmers finally received permission to return to Gföhl, with the condition that they not leave their land until their case was clarified. In a letter to Blümegen dated 1 November 1773, Maria Theresia finally approved the formation of a local commission to resolve the matter, as requested by the farmers, and issued the order that a new deportation to the Banat be avoided.24

      Unfortunately, and as expected, the members of the commission endorsed the position of the landowners, and after the farmers showed no willingness to go along, on 27 August 1774 the commission demanded renewed use of the cavalry to punish the recalcitrants. The soldiers used canes and whips repeatedly, until the resistance could be broken.
The petition of the landowners, to deport the farmers back to the Banat, was supported by the Bohemian-Austrian Chancellery, although Gebler and Löhr stood firm against the petition, in the name of humanity. In addition, they pointed out that the commission had ignored its mandate to find a consensual solution with the farmers.

      The new head of the State Council, count Karl Friedrich Hatzfeld, took the side of the landowners and demanded the maximum penalty for the farmers. This time the monarch stuck with her decision: "I cannot agree to this severe punishment of subjects who, according to the commission’s own findings, have previously suffered from the oppression and exaggerated heaviness of the government officials. Lasting peace could never be established in the proposed way, because the subjects still insist that the demands made by the landowners upon them … exceeded their capabilities […]"26 An accommodation was to be found on the basis of the Robot patent and mutual consent. It still took some time before the farmers achieved a satisfactory resolution, because the landowners had repeatedly tried to push through their own position.

      Also early in the year 1775, after the monarchy had ordered the resumption of court proceedings and had nominated the members of the Judicium delegatum, Graf Sinzendorf and his supporters mounted a serious defense, and by "special grace" were granted that Count Seilern could propose the members of this special court. In this way the trial was delayed and its impartial workings were put at risk.27

      Based on this case, it can be shown how the beneficiaries and advocates of the continuation of the deportation policy persistently pursued their objectives, and how hopeless the situation of the Austrian farmers was. They were subjected to the will of their lords - as were the Hauensteiner and the Protestants – and they reacted by passive resistance, to avoid being transplanted as colonists to the Banat.

      The majority of the ’thrust people’, if they survived, would sooner or later return from the Banat to their Austrian areas of origin.

The composition of the ’push’ of 1768 showed that the majority of ’push people’ had already been taken to the Banat once or twice before, and it was an exception, when a few of these people actually came to reside in the Banat.

      Von Baussard, administrative director and speaker for deportation affairs with the Banat country authority, informed Emperor Joseph II that of the thrust people "very few, compared to the number sent, almost none, had settled either in Temeswar or in the jurisdictions of the different administrative offices."28

      And these few were farmers willing to build a new life in the Banat, and not loose girls, pickpockets, or vagabonds, who could not accept their narrowed field of activity in the Banat, and who quickly found their way back to Vienna, as the Gföhler farmers had found theirs to the Waldviertel.

      That, historically speaking, the ’water thrust’ was a total failure, meaningless to the existing population structure of Banat, needs no further explanation. But if tendentious attempts are made to repeatedly revive this issue, they indicate either professional incompetence or ignorance on the part of their authors, and appear counterindicated to the search for, and the finding of, the truth. 


- Cod. Palat. Vindobon. (= Codex Palatinensis Vindobonae) = heute ÖNB (Österreichische Nationalbibliothek) Wien.

- HKA = Österreichisches Staatsarchiv; Finanz- und Hofkammerarchiv Wien.

- Ministerialbancohofdeputation (Bancodeputation) = Staatsbank innerhalb der Hofkammer (= Finanzministerium)

- Reisrealtion = Bericht eines wirtschaftlich nutzbareren Hoheitsrechtes (in diesem Fall: das Banat; < Reis = Regalien)

- St. R = Staats-Rat 

F o o t n o t e s

1 Vgl. Cod. Palat. Vindobon.[heute ÖNB] Wien, Nr. 8653.

2  Cod. Palat. Vindobon. [heute ÖNB] Wien, Nr.8653, Wien.

3 Vgl. Reisrelation Josephs II. von 1768 = Spezifikation, wie viel Personen seither 10 Jahren, nämlichen ab anno 1758 bis inclusive 1767 mittels des Wienerischen Wassertransports allhier zu Temeswar eingetroffen sind, ausgefertigt vom k k Banatischen Landgericht. 14. Mai 1768, und aus den Angaben Boriés in seinem Votum St. R. 2539/1762.

4 Vgl. Konrad Schünemann: „Die Einstellung der theresianischen Impopulation“, in: Jahrbuch des Wiener Ungarischen Historischen Instituts. Band 1, 1931, S. 170 ff.

5 St. R. 3800/1762.

6 Vgl. St. R. 3800/1762.

7 Vgl. St. R. 1352/63.

8 St. R. 1352/63.

9 Vgl. HKA, Banater Akten No 35, Resolution auf den Bancovortrag vom 17. April 1763.

10 Vgl. HKA, No. 32, 1764, Nr. 35.

11 Vgl. St. R. 2539/1762.

12 HKA, 1765, Nr. 44.

13 Zitiert nach Beheim-Schwarzbach: Hohenzollernsche Kolonisationen. Leipzig 1874, S. 337.

14 Vgl. HKA, Banater Akten No 35, 31. Okt.1759. 

15 Vgl. Beilage H der kaiserlichen Reisrelation  vom 19.5.1768.

16 Beilage H der kaiserlichen Reisrelation  vom 19.5.1768.

17 Vgl. St. R. 4218/1770.

18 St. R. 4218/1770.

19 St. R. 4218/1770.

20 Vgl. St. R. 4218/1770.

21 Vgl. St. R. 2999/1771.

22 St. R. 2999/1771.

23 Vgl. St. R. 2144/1773.

24 Vgl. St. R. 2405/1773.

25 Vgl.St. R. 2405/1773.

26 St. R. 3315/1774.

27 Vgl. St. R. 674/ 1775; 1028/1775; 2259/1775.

28 Beilage H der kaiserlichen Reisrelation  vom 19.5.1768.

L i t e r a t u r e 

- Bellér, Béla: Kurze Geschichte der Deutschen in Ungarn, Teil I (bis 1919), Budapest, 1986.

- Feldtänzer, Oskar: Joseph II. und die donauschwäbische Ansiedlung. Linz/München, 1990.

- Griselini, Franz: Versuch einer politischen und natürlichen Geschichte des Temeswarer Banats in Briefen an Standespersonen und Gelehrte. Erster Theil in 1 Bd., Wien, Verlag Johann Paul Krauß 1780, 135 S.,1 mehf. gef. Karte, 7 gef. Kpfr. Hfrz d. Zt.

- Hofkammerarchiv (HKA) Wien, Banater Akten.

- Kallbrunner, Josef ; Wilhelm, Franz: Quellenbuch zur deutschen Siedlungsgeschichte Südosteuropa, München (1932-1936).

- Kallbrunner, Josef: Familiengeschichtliche Quellen des Auslandsdeutschtums in Südosteuropa. Archiv für Sippenforschung und alle verwandten Gebiete. (Görlitz). Jg. 12 (1935), S. 1-3.

- Kallbrunner, Josef: Einrichtung und Entwicklung des Banats bis 1739. München, 1958.

- Kallbrunner, Josef: Quellen zur deutschen Siedlungsgeschichte in Südosteuropa. 1932.

- Kallbrunner, Josef: Veröffentlichungen des Wiener Hofkammerarchivs. 1935.

- Kraushaar, Karl: Kurzgefaßte Geschichte des Banates. Wien, 1923.

- Krischan, Alexander: Ansiedlung Deutscher im Banat unter Maria Theresia 1763-1773. Wirtschaftsgeographische Untersuchungen. Wien, 1943. 62 S. Typoskript. (Diplomarbeit an der Wirtschaftsuniversität Wien). (1.224.389-C).

- Krischan, Alexander: Die deutsche periodische Literatur des Banats, Zeitungen, Zeitschriften, Kalender 1771-1971. München, 1987.(Veröffentlichung des Südostdeutschen Kulturwerks, Reihe B, Bd. 46.)

- Krischan, Alexander: Das Kolonisationspatent Maria Theresias vom 25. Februar 1763 als Beitrag zur Besiedlungsgeschichte des altungarischen Raumes. Deutsches Archiv für Landes- und Volksforschung. Leipzig, 7 ( 1943) S. 99-104.

- Krischan, Alexander: Handschriftliche Quellen zur Geschichte des Banats im Kriegsarchiv Wien. Südostdeutsches Archiv. München, 2(1959) S. 186-190.

- Szentklaray, Jenö: Die Regierungszeit Mercys im Temescher Banat (ung.), Budapest, 1909.

- Schünemann, Konrad: „Die Einstellung der theresianischen Impopulation“, in: Jahrbuch des Wiener Ungarischen Historischen Instituts. Budapest, Band 1, 1931, S. 170 ff.

- Schünemann, Konrad: Österreichs Bevölkerungspolitik unter Maria Theresia. Band 1. Berlin o. J. [= 1935]. Eine gemeinsame Veröffentlichung des Instituts zur Erforschung des deutschen Volkstums im Süden und Südosten in München und des Instituts für ostbayrische Heimatforschung in Passau, unter Nr. 6.

- Schünemann, Konrad: Zur Bevölkerungspolitik der ungarischen Stände. DUHbl (= Deutsch-Ungarische Heimatblätter), Jg. 2 (1930), S. 115-120.

- Schünemann, Konrad: Zur Beurteilung der Schwabensiedlungen in Ungarn. (Bemerkungen zur Darstellung des 18. Jhs. in Szekfüs Ungarischer Geschichte. (DUHbl = Deutsch-Ungarische Heimatblätter), Jg. 4 (1932), S. 281-297. [Es bezieht sich auf den Band 6 der Ungarischen Geschichte „Magyar Történer“ von Hóman-Szekfü, verfasst von Julius Szekfü, Budapest /1931/, 495 Seiten.]

- Tafferner, Anton: Quellenbuch zur donauschwäbischen Geschichte. 5 Bände, München / Stuttgart: 1974-1995.

- Tafferner, Anton: Donauschwäbische Wissenschaft. Versuch einer geistigen Bestandsaufnahme und einer Standortbestimmung von den Anfängen bis zur Gegenwart. Teil 1. Donauschwäbisches Archiv. Nr. 24, München 1974.

- Wassertheurer, Peter: Kurze Geschichte der deutschen altösterreichischen Volksgruppen in Südosteuropa. Im Auftrag der deutschsprachigen Heimatvertriebenen aus dem Sudeten-, Karpaten- und Donauraum - Privatstiftung. 1030 Wien, Steingasse 25. Wien, 2008.

[Published at DVHH.org 23 Sep 2008 by Jody McKim Pharr]

 Last Updated: 19 Sep 2017

Last Updated: 04 Feb 2020

DVHH.org ©2003 Donauschwaben Villages Helping Hands, a Nonprofit Corporation.
Webmaster: Jody McKim Pharr
Keeping the Danube Swabian legacy alive!