Jump to content

Talk:List of rulers of Austria

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

erlier comments[edit]

As Lupo said in an edit summary, this page is a mess...and that's probably my fault, since I created it. There seems to be more dukes and archdukes than are listed here, but I'm not sure what exactly they were rulers of. Were they just heads of the Habsburg household, while someone else actually ruled Austria? Adam Bishop 15:23, 25 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Sorry, I edited this page and didn't notice the discussion. There is a lot of confusion with the numbers, especially of the Leopolds. It seems that they started at I again with the changeover from the Babenbergs to the Habsburgs, but not with the elevation of Austria to a duchy. The Habsburgs seem to have counted the sons of Rudolf I and also the rulers from different lines of the dynasty when it split up cumulatively. The confusion is aggrevated by the different numbers as Holy Roman Emperors. Martg76 03:29, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

  • I added the splits in the dynasties from the German Wikipedia. I hope it's correct now. Martg76 03:56, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)

Cool, thanks. Adam Bishop 03:59, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)


  • o Siegmund 1439-1490 and Sigismund (1662-1665) have the same link (to the first one).
    • fixed. Martg76 10:44, 3 Mar 2005 (UTC)

Frederick I => Frederick III?[edit]

Regarding "Frederick I the Fair, son of Albert I, Duke 1308-1330":

Shouldn't he be listed as Frederick III? Apparently there is no disagreement that he was Frederick III of Germany. The concept that he was Frederick I of Austria (I've seen the Austrian numbering both ways, although the Britannica has Frederick III) doesn't make a lot of sense, since there was a Frederick II before him. Apparently, he was Frederick I of the Habsburg line, but not of Austria itself. There is also a Frederick IV who is the next Austrian ruler, and the next Habsburg, after him.

Can anyone think of a good reason why his name shouldn't be changed to Frederick III?Eldred 12:12, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

The Habsburg Dukes of Austria didn't follow the numeral of the past Babenberg Dukes. So the names Albert, Frederick and Leopold are restarted. It's the same reason why Edward I of England is not Edward IV since there were Edward the Elder and Edward the Martyr and Edward the Confessor before him.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:32, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Eldred: @Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy: see note 8 of the article, please. Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 20:18, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Disambiguating Archdukes of Austria, Further Austria and Inner Austria[edit]

What are the distinctions between the following: Upper, Lower, Inner and Further Austria? Furthermore, are there any archdukes who ruled just one of these lines? The titles of the archdukes vary and pages should be moved to the include the proper titles. Charles 00:09, 31 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Upper and Lower Austria are Upper and Lower Austria - you can look them up on a map today (except Vienna, now a separate state, was then part of Lower Austria). Inner Austria was Styria, Carinthia, and Carniola. Further Austria was Tyrol, Vorarlberg, and the Habsburg lands in southwestern Germany. john k (talk) 14:06, 14 August 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Charles: @John K: It's possible that the original County of Habsburg (in Swiss canton of Aargau) and the family's possessions in today's Switzerland (which they kept at least until 1415) were part of Further Austria as well (maybe as part of the "southwestern Germany"'s possessions). Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 20:22, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Tried to Fix it[edit]

I tried to fix the pages information provided. As a History Student in Austria, should be no problem. I have to commit that This Wikipedia is more complete and in my opinion better than the German version.

Greetings from Austria Xandl Hofer 20:36, November 5th 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Xandl Hofer (talkcontribs) 19:37, 5 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Source for additional names[edit]

Here are some sources that have additional and/or conflicting information. These sources may not be authoritative enough to be relied upon. Expert attention is required.

this page is a list, isnt it?[edit]

i have been doing quite a lot of work on the List of Hungarian rulers page, and was surprised how (over)detailed this "list" is. i think the structure of this article is good, just overwhelming in its content. some people have put in a lot of work here, but for me, a list shouldnt have long explanations, just wikilinks to them (eg. List of rulers of Bohemia or Lists of rulers of Spain). Jabberjawjapan (talk) 07:01, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

  • BTW i took the initiave (and axe) to the last section of the article (Republic/Modern Govt etc) already...Jabberjawjapan (talk) 07:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]
It based on the List of English monarchs.--Queen Elizabeth II's Little Spy (talk) 05:34, 9 April 2010 (UTC)[reply]

File:Albert II of Habsburg.jpg Nominated for speedy Deletion[edit]

An image used in this article, File:Albert II of Habsburg.jpg, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations
What should I do?

Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page.

  • If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use)
  • If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used.
  • If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request

This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 22:58, 13 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Should Frederick III, Duke of Austria be somehow included?--The Emperor's New Spy (talk) 20:22, 27 March 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Numbering rulers of Austria[edit]

The numbering of Habsburg rulers do not continue the Babenbergs'. Why?--Mhmrodrigues (talk) 13:18, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Various countries have various rules for the regnal numbers. Eg. see Principality of Reuss-Gera.--Yopie (talk) 14:58, 8 July 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Leopold the Good?[edit]

In article is now written: Leopold III the Saint - (Luitpold der Heilige). Before was written: Leopold III the Good. The right translation of Luitpold der Heilige is only Leopold or Luitpod the Saint (good is in German gut). --Stebunik (talk) 19:21, 28 September 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Formatting mistake (?)[edit]

In the table of rulers under Dukes and archdukes of Austria under the House of Habsburg, Rudolph II the debonair's line in the table seems to be off-set, resulting in there being no birthdate, his consort being the Duchy of Austria, his death seemingly by his wife and one son, and a whole new (supposed to be the death date) column on the very right which has no other filled cells other than Rudolph. Im not familiar with these tables so im leaving this here so that someone of greater competency may take care of it. SpokenClaw (talk) 05:18, 17 October 2023 (UTC)[reply]


By the name of Maximilian III is said he was unmarried. I think this is redundant, because he was a Catholic monk and even small children know that Catholic and Orthodox - as well as Evangelical - monks are celibate because they imitate Jesus Christ as a virgin, poor and obedient to the Heavenly Father. Not only was Maximilian a monk, but he was also a Grand Master of the Teutonic Order, as I found in the Italian Wikipedia: that article is an excellent support for the English one, as it also has almost all the coats of arms listed. I also found some old coats of arms in old books. If I have time and opportunities, I will donate them to Wikipedia.--Stebunik (talk) 19:34, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Stebunik: Hi! It's not redudant. It's stated Unmarried in Maximilian III's row to contrast to other rulers who had spouses who are listed in that column. And thank you in advance for your donation! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 19:44, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Great article, questionable one comment[edit]

This article about Austrian rulers is absolutely excellent. So I took it as a basis; in doubtful cases, an article in German helps me, (in Hungarian too) and also in Italian there is a very good article on this subject, which also mentions crests - coats of arm. For a long time I have wanted to make a similar article for the Slovenian Wikipedia, because the Austrian rulers were also our Slovenian rulers throughout the millennium - and we could not say that they were worse than our current rulers - no, they were much better than most since the beginning Yugoslavia in 1918 until its dissolution in 1991 and until today (the honorable exception is Janez Janša and next to him, a group of true idealists, who are constantly played by the people of the previous system, who are very good at ruling and manipulating). Regarding the coats of arms, I must remark that it will not hold that the initial Habsburgs had the same coats of arms. The book from 1674 has the exact coats of arms of the 17 Habsburg rulers drawn, as well as their mottos, as well as all birth information. Since the book is older than most of the newer ones, it would be a good idea to compare and check this information. It's a shame that this article doesn't include coats of arms yet - of course that would be a lot of work, and some rulers use the same coats of arms too. This about the article in general.

Regarding Rudolf II. or V. (Rudolf II, Holy Roman Emperor would have three comments. So that we don't have to always quote, let's see what the article says in the note about this ruler now. Given that I have not (yet) studied his life, no one will be able to claim that I want to be biased:

Rudolf is seen as an ineffectual ruler whose mistakes led directly to the Thirty Years' War; as a great and influential patron of Northern Mannerist art; and an intellectual devotee of occult arts and learning which helped seed what would be called the scientific revolution[dubiousdiscuss].
  1. The claim that his mistakes led directly to the Thirty Years' War is, to put it mildly - presumptuous. The causes of this unfortunate war should be sought in many other factors, movements and people, and many decades (if not centuries) before his time.
  2. Again very harsh word that he was ineffective. This could be said of most rulers. It depends, of course, on the point of view from which we observe, as well as on what positions we ourselves defend. The encyclopedia and also Wikipedia should, of course, be free from subjective views and should be scientifically objective as much as possible.
  3. The third statement seems to me to be the most controversial and apparently contradicts itself: that the occult arts, i.e. magic, enchantment and the like, would lead to a scientific revolution? Real science and occult activities are in direct opposition. And even otherwise, I am not aware that this ruler contributed anything to the development of science, especially if he was ineffective. But if he really contributed to the development of science, art, economy, etc., we could not in any way claim that he was ineffective.

--Stebunik (talk) 20:35, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Notes on rulers are usually kept as short as possible, as there is not much space for individuals. Therefore, it is necessary to mention only the most important and avoid rash and one-sided judgments or conclusions. Therefore, I think that the assessment of this ruler would not lose anything if only the core of the text remained and the note about him read simply as follows: Rudolf II. he gained merit in the field of art because he comprehensively supported Mannerist art.--Stebunik (talk) 21:15, 12 November 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stebunik: Done! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 19:39, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@Stebunik: If you like the style of the tables, you'll find also good examples (did them myself) at County of Nassau, Leiningen family, Salm (state), or (for a more complex family) House of Schwarzburg. Thank you! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 20:15, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Unified Formatting[edit]

Hello there, I was just looking at this article recently (have been studying Austrian history for the past couple months in university) and I noticed the article seems to lack uniformity in how the tables are presented. Some show consorts, others have the ruler first instead of the name and so on. Is there a purpose why it's not all similar beyond just nobody wanting to fix it? Joshua D. Muthi (talk) 17:15, 14 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

@Joshua D. Muthi: Done! Greetings, Mhmrodrigues (talk) 23:53, 21 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Thank you! It looks significantly better now. Joshua D. Muthi (talk) 00:29, 22 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]