1 The Environment in the Event of War
The power of modern military conflict to transform everything that surrounds us humansâwhether natural or man-madeâis undeniable. The stark images from the devastated front lines of the First World War shaped peopleâs imagination of that conflict for generations. This chapter does not trace the long-term consequences of the war on the natural environment as a system, which consists of several interrelated subsystems.1 Rather, the focus is on the interventions of peopleâspecifically the Austro-Hungarian militaryâwith regard to certain elements of the environment, such as the water, soil, air, and living creatures, using the example of the siege of the Galician belt fortress of PrzemyÅl during World War I. Conversely, it is also about the effects of these individual elements on the military. To examine the mutual influences, official military records of the Austro-Hungarian army as well as private estates of combatants and civilians will be analysed. As explained, this chapter does not deal with the longer-term consequences for the environmentâthis is not possible due to the nature of the sources used. For this reason, the study focuses on the concept of landscape. It is both a cultural image and a physical place. Engagement with it is always linked to an engagement with time and space, and takes on a different meaning depending on the observers.2 Natural as well as cultural landscapes consist of the same elements as the environment: water, soil conditions, living beings, air. The objective here is therefore the examination of the militaryâs intervention in these elements, or components, of a landscape. The concept of landscape also speaks to its enormous importance
One resorts to this extreme means if the diplomatic negotiations conducted to establish disturbed mutual legal relations [of sovereign states] have remained fruitless and the state or other relations are necessarily sought by means of force, by war. The decision is then made by battle, by the sword.4
Thus, a conflictâa warâis to be fought by means of violence. A relevant question in relation to the use and destruction of the landscape in this context is: what are the rules of war? What is the army allowed to do and what is it not? The next volume of the cited publication defines this: it is clearly regulated how to deal with the fallen, with prisoners, and with the population. When it comes to the landscape, it seems that everything can serve its own purposeâvictory on the battlefieldâwith the landscape being affected. Everything from bodies
2 PrzemyÅl in Austro-Hungarian War Planning
Galicia acquired significance for the Austrian military as early as 1787. The first governor of Galicia, Count Pergen, saw this region as a source of new recruits and resources for his own army.6 This importance was supported by the figures: four years before the First World War, Galicia had eight million inhabitants, making this crown land the most populous within the entire monarchy, with its capital, Lemberg, the fourth largest city within the monarchy.7 Besides the resources from cattle breeding and mining, oil deposits played a primary role, which is why it was essential from the militaryâs point of view to defend the territory.
This region was a conflict area for Austria-Hungary and the Russian Empire, which supported the pro-Russian movements within Galicia.8 From a strategic perspective, the situation was unfavourable because Galicia was difficult to defend, which the officers also learned at the Imperial and Royal War School in Vienna.9 Without a natural barrier, the landscape north of the Carpathians was dominated by a wide plain extending to the border of the Russian Empire. To be able to defend Galicia, given the nature of the terrain, Field Marshal
PrzemyÅl was chosen, of course, because of its strategic location. It was situated on the San, relatively central to the SanâDniester defence line, and was based in the Carpathians and protected from the west and south by the first of the mountains. To the north-east and east of the city, a wide plain began, which stretched to the border with the Russian Empire. Thus, in the event of war, the planned fortress could serve as a mobilization point for further operations in the latter directions. Since it was planned to actively defend Galicia, PrzemyÅl was to be developed into a belt fortress. This means a fortress consisting of a wide ring with several fortification works. In this way it could secure a wide manoeuvring terrain for the field armies, which it was also to actively support.11 The first construction measures took place after the Crimean War due to the aggravated political situation of Austria-Hungary and Russia. A first ring of fortifications was built, consisting of earthworks and a few roads.12 Since the situation between the two countries had eased relatively by the 1860s, no further construction was undertaken. It was only after the defeat by Prussia that Emperor Franz Joseph decided in 1871, on the recommendation of the Commission for the Defence of the Empire, to have PrzemyÅl definitively expanded to become the second largest fortress in Europe after Verdun.13
Over years of construction work on the fortifications, a massive complex surrounded by the Carpathian foothills and with a strategic crossing over the San River was created. Before the fortress was built in 1869, the town had around 15,000 inhabitants. Thanks to the enormous financial investment in the construction of the fortress, the development of infrastructure, and the increase in the number of workers, the population had already reached 54,000
Inside the outer defensive belt was a smaller belt that surrounded the city but was not as strong as the outer defences. There was a lot of military infrastructure in the city and between the two defence rings: hospitals, weapon and food magazines, barracks, airfields, training grounds, artillery parks, etc.18 The construction measures were curbed again in 1910, as Austrian general Conrad von Hötzendorf tended to favour an active defence of Galicia. PrzemyÅlâs role would thus be to act as a rallying point and camp for the field armies.
3 In the Middle of Enemy Territory
The defeats of the k. u. k. Armyâthe land force of Austria-Hungaryâon the Eastern Front from autumn 1914 onwards meant that the troops had to withdraw from large parts of Galicia. In the middle of the Russian occupied territory was the last Austro-Hungarian âislandâ, the now enclosed and besieged fortress of PrzemyÅl. This was the largest siege of the First World War, which lasted almost half a year with a brief interruption.
Apart from the strategic measures and related constructional undertakings, the fortress command also had to deal with the sanitary and health situation
The preparation of the fortress for the impending siege in the hinterland: from August 1914, the fortress was additionally upgraded, and new works and interval lines were set up. In this first phase from August to mid-September, hundreds of thousands of soldiers, as well as civilians, marched through the city as refugees, displaced persons, and evacuees.
The period of sieges: the first phaseâthe layer of the additionally upgraded fortressâis covered by the battles in the second phase, which makes it a terrain. Material destruction, carcasses of horses, dead and wounded soldiers as well as civilians, epidemics, lack of food, and improvised supplies characterize the period of the sieges. This phase ends with the surrender of the fortress and its occupation by the Russian army in March 1915. The destruction and exhaustion of the military equipment and fortifications ordered and carried out by the fortress command mark the final phase and thus form the last layer of the fortress. The last act discussed here is the entry of the Russian soldiers into the surrendered city.
4 Actors and Sources
4.1 The Landscape
Landscape has already been presented and discussed in the introductory section. As an actor, it represents the landscape of PrzemyÅl and its immediate surroundings, which was tangible for the people in the fortress as well as for the military and could be used or perceived. To capture the diversity of the PrzemyÅl landscape and how it was perceived and used, it is divided into several spaces. At the centre of the fortress is the town of PrzemyÅl, which was furthest away from the fighting, as the place of residence of the remaining civilian inhabitants. The second space is the area within the fortress ring, which served as the garrisonâs manoeuvring space. Finally, the fortifications of the outer belt with the interval line that connected them and the apron positions form the last space. Hereâin the fieldâbattles were fought and this area was completely militarized. This division is necessary for the analysis because
4.2 The Austro-Hungarian Army
As explained in the introduction, an army serves to resolve conflicts between sovereign states by means of force.19 To gain an understanding of what role a belt fortress has for the army and what the army has to do to defend this type of fortress and to regulate everyday life in it in the event of war, handbooks from the k. u. k. Kriegsschule Wien (war school of Vienna) are referred to. They form a good transition to the actual orders of the PrzemyÅl fortress command, which proceeded according to these theoretical indications. The orders and reports from the fortress were written by different commanders of the PrzemyÅl defence districts, as well as by the commander-in-chief, thus conveying a broad view of events.
4.3 The People and their Memoirs
To shed light on the events inside the fortress from several perspectives, diary entries by combatants and civilians are discussed. The four selected authors all stayed in PrzemyÅl, but their activities, reasons for coming to PrzemyÅl, and their work and duties differed greatly. They viewed events in PrzemyÅl from their own perspective and attributed very different meanings even to major events affecting the collective. Josef Tomann20 was a military doctor in the Imperial and Royal Army. He describes the events of the second siege from 22 December 1914 to 4 May 1915. Tomann died a few days after the fall of the fortress, on 16 May 1915, as a result of illness. His diary displays a perspective shaped by his work in the hospitals, focusing mainly on the events and developments surrounding the care of the sick and wounded.
Ilka Künigl-Ehrenburg21 published her diary under her maiden name Ilka von Michaelsburg as late as 1915, but after she had left the city and Galicia. Her husband, Count Emil Künigl-Ehrenburg, was called up as a medical officer to the fortress hospital in PrzemyÅl to where she followed him and worked as an
The diary of Eduard Freunthaler presents a contrast with the first two.22 He came from Lower Austria and fought with the Austro-Hungarian army in the rank of corporal and later as a platoon leader. He describes his participation in battles at PrzemyÅlany, Gródek, and the first and second sieges of PrzemyÅl until the fall of the fortress and his capture. His descriptions of service in the fortress belt, which always begin with a weather report, seem almost monotonous and passive. However, there are also passages in which he describes events in more detail, giving free rein to his emotions, which illustrates the personal significance of his perceptions.
Finally, the most extensive and elaborate diary of Helena z Seifertów JabÅoÅska23 should be mentioned. Together with her mother, she travelled from Sanok to PrzemyÅl in August 1914 to look for an apartment and rented a building from absent relatives. In the wake of the chaotic situation, she was obliged to accommodate refugees as well as soldiers and officers in these apartments and to support caregivers in the city. Among others, an Italian officer lived with her until the Russian takeover of the fortress, and JabÅoÅskaâs mother left for Vienna with his wife before the first siege. An analysis of her diary is particularly interesting because, as a Pole, she is the only author apart from the Austrians to report on the events in PrzemyÅl. None of the other authors describes the themes of chaos and executions as frequently and in such detail as JabÅoÅska. Her diary, along with that of Ilka Künigl-Ehrenburg, is also interesting because it shows how important it was for women to build up a social network in the turmoil of war. This was necessary to procure rare products and food, but above all to obtain new information and news.
The focus in this part is on the narrative/description of practices in relation to the landscape. As different as the diaries and notes are, they all depict the development of the fortress town of PrzemyÅl during the time of the sieges. Not all the authorsâ observations coincide, but they reveal a deteriorating situation that the actors perceived and described from their different perspectives.
The first phase of the war in PrzemyÅl begins with the preparation of the fortress town for a possible upcoming siege. It was now necessary to prepare rations and weapons, as well as to dominate the entire landscape surrounding the fortress and thus control it. It may seem absurd to speak of militarization in the case of a fortressâa building that primarily serves military purposes. In the case of PrzemyÅl, however, this is true. The landscape of the fortress, which had already been militarized for years, was massively upgraded during the course of the mobilization. Thus the already known militarized landscape was once again significantly changed. The fortress was composed of several areas. In the centre was the city, enclosed by its own fortification ringâthe inner ring. The second fortification ring was located a few kilometres away from the city and enclosed the entire first area. However, the fortress in this state was far from prepared for war. In the event of war, it still had to be equipped. This concerns the additional troops for the garrison, additional armament, and closure of the outer belt by an interval line.24 The fortress functioned as a supporting supply point and magazine for the field armies.25 Hermann Kusmanek von Burgneustädten, commander of the PrzemyÅl fortress, wrote in a general report on the fortress after his return from Russian captivity in 191826 that it was not in good condition before the war, which was also confirmed by reports from his generals. He even goes so far in his report as to describe it as not able to be held.27 Besides that, the fortress lacked every possible materialâfood and equipmentâfor the soldiers. The equipping time of 42 days, immediately followed by the siege, Kusmanek classified as âvery shortâ, but he emphasized
Map of PrzemyÅl Fortress: from Allen L. Churchill, The Story of the Great War. Vol. V, eBook, Dez. 14, 2007, p. 1449
Helena JabÅoÅska and Ilka Künigl-Ehrenburg arrive in the city shortly before it is surrounded by the Russian army. Their impressions and observations can be summed up in one word: chaos. Many inhabitants had to leave the city, and people from the greater area around PrzemyÅl fled to safety or were deported by the military. In addition, the retreating k. u. k. Army flowed through the city. Künigl-Ehrenburg realizes the extent of the war during those days. She reports that until then she had no idea âwhat an army isâwhat hundreds of thousands areâ.29
Eduard Freunthaler had a different experience as a soldier. He camped with his regiment outside, in a meadow within the fortress ring, at what he calls a âbeautiful sleeping placeâ.30 He also describes the road to the fortifications in Siedliska, in the south-east of the fortress belt, as âbeautifulâ. These small remarks could at first be overlooked as unimportant, but they certainly represent the perception of the fortress especially by those soldiers who, before arriving, endured a heavy retreat in bad weather and even worse roads. Künigl-Ehrenburg also refers to the different perceptions of the city: âTo someone from Viennaâ PrzemyÅl is said to have seemed like a âdangerâ, but for the soldiers coming from the field, the city represented a âpoint of rest, a short breathing space, stretching out and restingâ.31
In early August 1914, 27,000 soldiers from the construction regiments were sent to PrzemyÅl to further expand the fortifications and new positions. The developments on the Eastern Front already showed on 26 and 27 August, after the defeats of the 3rd Imperial and Royal Army,32 that it was necessary to build up PrzemyÅl. The accounts of the clearing of the villages in preparation for the impending siege are linked to the perception of the misery of their former inhabitants by the authors of the diaries. Deserted stretches of land that lay in ruins are described.33 With these arrangements, the landscape is further militarized, transformed, and the natural elements of the landscape are affected.
Karl Waitzendorfer was in the fortress as commander of the 111th Infantry Brigade of Landsturm and of the 3rd Defence District in the western part of the fortress. He associates this phase with extensive work on the fortress as well as with repeated rotations of troops between different works.40 He considers this disadvantageous, as the garrisons and their officers had to repeatedly get used to the new conditions of the individual works. The surroundings of the individual fortification works were very different. In the west and south-west, the landscape was dominated by forested mountains, in the south by mountains, and in the north and east by extensive plains. Depending on the location of the work and the nature of the landscape in the forefront, one had to reckon with different actions by the enemy, who also tried to use the landscape for their own strategy. Because of the difficult terrain and the fortifications,
When comparing the reports of the commanding officers with the diaries of other actors, it is immediately noticeable how differently the strategically prompted transformation and destruction of the landscape is thematized. In official military reports, the practical view dominates, with the aim of using the landscape for oneâs own advantage. The authors of the diaries, even if they knew the reasons for these practices, express their empathy for the now destroyed forests and villages.
6 The First Siege
The Russian army closed in on the fortress on 17 September 1914. This first siege lasted until 10 October. The reports of the commanders of the defensive districts in PrzemyÅl, written at the time, give a good overview of conditions during the first siege. From September 1914 to March 1915, there were about 160,000 people inside the fortress, of whom between 120,000 and 130,000 formed the garrison. The first siege, which lasted just under a month, left many deficiencies for the fortress, ranging from the infrastructure to the food supply. The following example from the 6th Defence District may serve to give a small insight into the events of the battle: within only the short month of the siege, the Russian artillery hit the district with 45,000 rounds. The defenders are said to have fired about the same number of times.43
The attacker was also deceived by mock buildings. These are said to have been constructed in detail so that they could not be distinguished from the actual military installations. This means that the defenders not only built a mock position, but in addition to this, other obstacles, head protections and even water pipes on wheels, to pretend to have their own artillery position.48 This created âblocking areasâ in their own space that were intended to draw enemy artillery fire.
Besides the militarization of the terrain, the air also served military purposes. The enemy used balloons for reconnaissance, which is why there was a demand for anti-balloon guns. For their own side, there was a lack of such reconnaissance balloons or aeroplanes.49 The enemy is said to have repeatedly
This observation and perception are also conveyed to us in the diaries of the selected actors. The total cordoning off with no possibility of communication with the outside worldâexcept for the supreme commanderâis said to have evoked a strange feeling.52 After the fighting on the battlefields, Eduard Freunthaler felt as if he was caught in a âmousetrapâ in which one was simply locked in by an overpowering enemy.53 Freunthaler and Ilka Künigl-Ehrenburg believed one had to get used to the new situation first. For bothâalthough they had different duties and tasksâthe change inevitably meant their âimprisonmentâ within the city.54
The air also played a significant role in another respect. The threat of viruses also lurks in the air, which every living being needs to live. Epidemics and plagues in an enclosed space pose a serious danger, especially when no outside help can be expected and the contaminated space cannot be left. In addition to the construction of barracks and sanitary facilities, epidemic sites and isolation barracks were also built, as the spread of an epidemic in the fortress could have catastrophic effects.55 Contamination of the air, and of places, objects, and living beings, together with the weather, were among the most important factors that the fortress garrison had to deal with. These have a direct effect on peopleâs bodies in terms of disease, cold, and wetness. An indirect effect was caused by poor organization of the food supply in PrzemyÅl. The supply problems did not only affect the people but of course also the animals within the fortress. For example, hay was brought in in large quantities, but it was stored in the open where it was exposed to weeks of rain. Hay was immensely important for feeding the animals, especially horses, which were used as draught horses.56 An interesting and at the same time pitiful use of animals in the war is illuminated by the report of the 4th Defence District. It describes how the Russian army prepared cattle to destroy the obstacles in front of the fortress
One element of PrzemyÅlâs landscape was mentioned only briefly and in passing: water. The Inspector Generalâs report on the first siege provides valuable information on this, although it is limited to the military installations. For drinking and utility water, there were wells in the vicinity of the fighting positions and dugouts. The San River, which ran through the fortress, was subject to military use and control, as was the rest of the landscape. A river was a potential border and defence line, an obstacle or danger due to flooding.58 To create additional crossings over the river, a bridge was built in the west (near the village of Ostrów) and in the east (near Hurko) within the fortification belt. To protect the bridges, river barriers made of floating beams were also placed near them. It is said that there were fixed river barriers here, but they were destroyed by floods.59
The first siege represents a learning process for the garrison. The city of PrzemyÅl was chosen for its good strategic location for expansion into a belt fortress, with the landscape playing the decisive role. Nevertheless, it was found that not enough attention was paid to the terrain everywhere; some strategically important parts of the landscape were overlooked. In front of the fortifications, there were in some places mountains and hills that were higher than the fortifications themselves. It was only in the period shortly before the first siege and also in the interim up to the second siege that the surrounding landscape was integrated even more into the fortifications of the fortress, usually through the construction of forefield positions, in order to be able to better control the surroundings of the fortress.
7 The Second Siege
The second siege lasted from 4 November 1914 to 22 March 1915, but despite the suggestions for improvement and actual improvements made during the first siege, the initial situation was even worse than before it. After the successful relief in the first days of October, PrzemyÅl functioned as a supply depot for the field armies advancing against the enemy. In exchange, thousands of
To illustrate the state of the peopleâs strength, I would like to make the following observation, which I was able to make on the occasion when the 3rd Intelligence Battalion, returning home, needed four and a half to five hours to get from its position to the Lipowica barracks camp (about 6 km).62
The scene described clearly shows the debilitated condition of the defending troops in the spring of 1915. Due to their malnutrition and constant exhaustion, the soldiers were essentially prevented from accomplishing the tasks they had to perform for the service. Waitzendorfer was aware of the situation and even showed understanding for desertions, which, according to him, occurred mainly because of the disastrous state of the menâs rations.63 In the south of the fortress, the soldiers were repeatedly given the opportunity to advance further in front of their own apron positions. They did so because sugar beet, cabbage, and potatoes were still lying under the frozen ground covered with a thick layer of snow. They were still lying there because the garrison had not
Josef Tomann began his diary on 22 December 1914. Shortly before Christmas he felt âlonely ⦠in the middle of enemy territoryâ.65 He writes about his longing for his family and for his home. In addition to the depiction of the miserable situation of the starving and freezing people and the description of the material destruction of PrzemyÅl and the dozens of carcasses of horses lying around,66 dead of exhaustion and hunger, he also draws a vivid picture of the clearly deteriorating morale of the garison and civilians: nurses were said to have served primarily âthe lusts of the officers and the doctorsâ, and to have hindered rather than helped him and other medical personnel.67
The increasingly serious physical destruction of the fortress and the city is also a recurring theme in the diaries. Künigl-Ehrenburg, who lived in the city, thus in the centre of the fortress, compares the fortress works, with their cannons circling the city, to a âfire-fed volcanoâ, calling the cannons âfaithful guardsâ.68 Freunthaler, who was not in the city but was quartered in the barracks in the fortress ring near the works, compares the cannonade to hell.69 Hell was also played out before the eyes of their own soldiers in the advance positions. After the first siege, hundreds of families returned to their homes devastated by the military. After the second enclosure, these people found themselves between the Russian and Austro-Hungarian positions and neither side showed any willingness to let them through. The starving people were the next of kin of soldiers of the 18th Infantry Landsturm Regiment recruited from the PrzemyÅl area.70 This is only one, unfortunately very sad, example of the fact that when analysing the perception of the landscape, the people must also be considered.
Künigl-Ehrenburg also connected the act of deforestation with the future of Galicia and asked herself: âFor how many decades to come will this unfortunate country suffer!â72 In her diary, she also shows how she perceived Galicia as particularly dangerous, at least geopolitically. According to Künigl-Ehrenburg, anyone living in the âprotected heart of the fatherlandâ73 had to be happy, since their own family could live in protection. At this point it becomes clear that she perceives Galicia as a periphery, unprotected and far away from the âheart of the monarchyâ. Along with people, animals also suffered. Josef Tomann repeatedly mentions numerous horse carcasses along the roads. He speaks of heroes who pulled diligently in the hunger and frost until they received a mercy killing. Because of exhaustion and lack of food, several hundred horses are said to have been slaughtered every day. They then served as food for the people.74
The shortages concerned not only food and fuel but many everyday items, as well as war equipment. A railway workshop was modified according to need. Thus different sgarrisons, flare guns, nails, ropes, staples, horseshoes, wire cutters, hand grenades, toothpaste, shoe polish, soap, matches, and more could be produced. Other factories produced food for the garrison and fodder for
The material wear and tear and destruction were also accompanied by âwear and tearâ and debilitation of the people in the fortress. To this fact, Josef Tomann adds the moral decay of the people in PrzemyÅl. Tomannâs criticism was directed primarily at the officers before the fortress was handed over to the Russians in March 1915. In his reports, their lifestyle and behaviour contrasts sharply with the starving and completely exhausted soldiers. He complains of officers who had contracted several venereal diseases and of those who, to escape fighting at the fortifications, fled to the hospitals. On one day there is said to have been only one wounded person among 58 sick; they are said to have come under the pretext of various illnesses that had already been treated and had suddenly either worsened or allegedly âreturnedâ.76 Freunthaler also highlights the gulf between the soldiers and their officers with an account of a dinner to which he and another soldier were invited. This took place in an officersâ dugout in an earthen shelter, which was supposedly furnished and comfortable. Freunthaler questioned, above all, the origin of the food offered, since after all there was officially almost nothing left to eat in the fortress. That evening, however, there was chicken soup, roast lung with rice, potatoes and even beer, which had already disappeared from the city in September 1914.77
Before the fortress was surrendered, another breakthrough attempt was made in the eastern direction on 19 March 1915. Here, the landscape again played a dominant role. As described at the beginning, a wide plain begins in this direction. The condition of the depleted troops did not allow them to break out into difficult terrain. The attempt was not successful, however, and so the fortress was prepared for surrender to the Russian army. First, all guns were fired during the night to get rid of the ammunition. Then, from 5 a.m., the first prepared mines detonated. The outer and inner fortifications, three bridges, the powder magazinesâeverything was blown up. Weapons and bayonets were broken, carts were burned and all horses still alive were shot. Later, on 22 March 1915âat 9 a.m.âthe first Russian soldiers marched into the city.78
During the spring offensive of the combined troops of the Imperial and Royal Army and the German units, the fortress was recaptured. Thanks to the
8 Conclusion
In the presented chapter, the fate of PrzemyÅl Fortress, its inhabitants, its garrison, and its landscape were illuminated. The peaceful pre-war landscape was covered by a new layer of war. The initiation of the landscape transformation was a rapid one, accompanied by massive interventions. Neither the natural and nor the cultural landscape inside and outside the fortress were spared. When comparing the preparations of the field armies for the first battles, which related to the deployment to the designated locations, it becomes clear that the landscape was transformed to a much greater extent by the constructional undertakings and clearings in PrzemyÅl during this first preparatory phase.
The source group of military records describes in detail numerous undertakings of the garrison: their intervention in the terrain (in the soil) through numerous obstacles, deforestation, burning, the disinfection and control of the air, the control of the San, as well as the use of animals. As indicated in the introduction to this chapter, in the event of war, all elements of the landscape were to serve military purposes. Whether this undertaking could have long-term negative consequences was of no concern. Nevertheless, attempts were made to prevent contamination of the fortress landscape and outbreaks of disease. After the siege, the entire fortress was also cleared of battle and war remnants. Here, however, there can be no question of an environmental understanding. It was not the case that these actions and practices were a contribution to environmental protection, rather, they were people â and war-oriented. As the equipment of war, the army naturally needed healthy soldiers, as well as civilian populations in the hinterland to be able to supply the troops.
The diaries from the same time and place open up an additional perspective that is not to be expected in the official military records due to their purposeâreporting and documentation. In personal accounts, the natural beauty of the landscape also comes to the fore. In nature, the actors sought an escape from their miserable situation. Concerns about the future and empathy for animals and nature are also described. Detailing the daily struggle for survival, everyday worries, the perception of natural beauty and destruction, and militarization of the terrain and its transformation, the selected sources present a wide range
Bibliography
Primary Sources
Archive Materials
OeStA Nachlässe. Eduard Freunthaler. B/497.
OeStA/KA Nachlässe. Kusmanek von Burgstädten. B. u. C/1137.
OeStA/KA Neue Feldakten. Festungskommando Przemysl. Kt. 1322. F. 1345, 206. Josef Tomann. Tagebuch.
OeStA/KA Neue Feldakten. Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918. Kommanden. Kt. 149. Festung Przemysl 1914â1918. F. 74: Aus dem Ordensgesuche des Gen.Obstn. Hermann von Ksumanek. âDie Festung Przemysl vom Kriegsbeginn bis zur Kapitulation.â Vienna. October 26, 1920.
OeStA/KA Neue Feldakten. Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918. Kommanden. Kt. 149. Festung Przemysl 1914â1918. General der Infanterie d. R. Karl Waitzendorfer. âDarstellung der Ereignisse bei Przemysl in den Jahren 1914/15.â
OeStA/KA Neue Feldakten. Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918. Kommanden. Kt. 149. 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl. âK. u. k. Generalgenieinspektor.â
OeStA/KA Neue Feldakten. Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918. Kommanden. Kt. 149. 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl. âAuszug aus dem Berichte über die Aktion im III. VertBez. während der EinschlisÃung.â
OeStA/KA Neue Feldakten. Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918. Kommanden. Kt. 149. Festung Przemysl 1914â1918. âVI. Verteidigungsbezirksartilleriekommado, Bericht über stattgefundenen Kämpfen.â
OeStA/KA Neue Feldakten. Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918. Kommanden. Kt. 149. Festung Przemysl 1914â1918. âIII. VertBez. während der EinschlisÃung.â
OeStA/KA Neue Feldakten. Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918. Kommanden. Kt. 149. 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl. âIV. VertBezKommando der Festung Przemysl.â
OeStA/KA Neue Feldakten. Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918. Kommanden. Kt. 149. 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl. Schwabl m.p. Oberst. âIV. VertBezKommando der Festung Przemysl.â
Published Sources
JabÅoÅska, Helena z Seifertów. Dziennik z oblÄżonego PrzemyÅla 1914â1915 [Diary from the besieged PrzemyÅl 1914â1915]. PrzemyÅl, 1994.
Kratky, Karl, Rudolf Müller, and Jozef Ritter von Bahnbrück. âFestungskrieg. Besondere Operationenâ. In Operativer Generalstabsdienst. StudienBehelf, 4. Notebook. Vienna: Verlag der k. u. k. Kriegsschule, Print: L. W. Seidel & Sohn, 1911.
Michaelsburg, Ilka von. Im belagerten Przemysl: Tagebuchblätter aus der groÃen Zeit. Leipzig: Armelang, 1915.
Müller, Rudolf, and Maximilian Randa. Behelf zum Studium der Militär-Geographie. Nordöstlicher Kriegsschauplatz. Vienna: L. W. Seidel & Sohn, 1910.
Müller, Rudolf, and Maximilian Randa. StudienBehelfe der k. u. k. Kriegsschule. I. Ãber Befestigungen, II. Die Reichsbefestigung. Vienna: Verlag der k. u. k. Kriegsschule, Print: L. W. Seidel & Sohn, 1912.
o. A., Supplement zum Behelfe für das Studium der Militär-Geographie des nordöstlichen Kriegsschauplatzes. Vienna: Verlag der k. u. k. Kriegsschule, Print: Franz Kreisel, 1903.
Reinländer, Wilhelm. Vorträge über Taktik gehalten an der k. k. Kriegsschule. Vienna: L. W. Seidel & Sohn, 1870.
Reinländer, Wilhelm. Vorträge über Taktik gehalten an der k. k. Kriegsschule. Vienna: L. W. Seidel & Sohn, 1871.
Secondary Literature
Borodziej, WÅodzimierz, and Maciej Górny. Der vergessene Weltkrieg: Europas Osten 1912â1923, Volume 1: Imperien 1912â1916. Darmstadt: Theiss, 2018.
Dunagan, Curt. âThe Lost World of PrzemyÅl: Interethnic Dynamics in a Galician Center, 1868 to 1921.â PhD diss., Brandeis University, 2009.
Fahey, John E. âBulwark of Empire: Imperial and Local Government in Przemysl, Galicia (1867â1939).â PhD diss., Purdue University, 2017.
Forstner, Franz. PrzemyÅl: Ãsterreich-Ungarns bedeutendste Festung. Vienna: ÃBG Pädagogischer Verlag, 1997.
Haid, Elisabeth. Im Blickfeld zweier Imperien: Galizien in der österreichischen und russischen Presseberichterstattung während des Ersten Weltkriegs (1914â1917). Marburg: Herder-Institut, 2019.
Heiden, Hermann. Bollwerk am San: Schicksal der Festung Przemysl. Oldenburg: Stalling, 1940.
Idzikowski, Tomasz. Twierdza PrzemyÅl: Powstanie, Rozwój, Technologie. Krosno: Arete SpóÅka, 2014.
Saunders, Nicholas J. âThe Dead and Their Spaces. Origin and Meanings.â In Conflict landscapes. Materiality and Meaning in Contested Places, edited by Nicholas J. Saunders and Paul Cornish, 3â33. London: Routledge, 2021.
Watson, Alexander. The fortress: the great siege of PrzemyÅl. London: Allen Lane, 2019.
Atmosphere, hydrosphere, lithosphere with elements such as: water, air, soil, and living organisms.
Nicholas J. Saunders, âThe Dead and Their Spaces. Origin and Meanings in Modern Conflict Landscapes,â in Conflict landscapes. Materiality and Meaning in Contested Places, eds. Nicholas J. Saunders and Paul Cornish (London: Routledge, 2021), 3.
The landscape of all the regions relevant to the Austro-Hungarian Army â including Galicia â is described in detail in manuals of the Vienna War College, encompassing rivers, infrastructure, topography, climate, and population. In OeStA/KA Militärerziehungs â und Bildungsanstalten (MEB) Militär-Schulen, Kt. 65, Behelf zum Studium der Militär-Geografie. Nordöstlicher Kriegsschauplatz (Vienna, 1910), 11.
OeStA/KA MEB Militär-Schulen, Kt. 59, Wilhelm Reinländer, Vorträge über Taktik gehalten an der k. k. Kriegsschule, Bogen 1â15 (Vienna: L. W. Seidel & Sohn, 1870), 1.
OeStA/KA MEB Militär-Schulen, Kt. 59, Wilhelm Reinländer, Vorträge über Taktik gehalten an der k. k. Kriegsschule, Bogen 16 â to the end (Vienna: L. W. Seidel & Sohn, 1871).
John E. Fahey, âBulwark of Empire: Imperial and Local Government in Przemysl, Galicia (1867â1939)â (PhD diss., Purdue University, 2017), 42â43.
âDie Dichtigkeit der Bevölkerung,â Austrian National Library, accessed July 5, 2023, https://alex.onb.ac.at/cgi-content/alex?aid=ost&datum=0001&page=39&size=45.
Elisabeth Haid, Im Blickfeld zweier Imperien: Galizien in der österreichischen und russischen Presseberichterstattung während des Ersten Weltkriegs (1914â1917) (Marburg: Herder-Institut, 2019).
OeStA/KA MEB Militär-Schulen, Kt. 65, Rudolf Müller and Maximilian Randa, Behelf zum Studium der Militär-Geographie. Nordöstlicher Kriegsschauplatz (Vienna: L. W. Seidel & Sohn, 1910), 11.
Fahey, âBulwark of Empire,â 47.
OeStA/KA MEB Militär-Schulen, Kt. 62, Rudolf Müller and Maximilian Randa, StudienBehelfe der k. u. k. Kriegsschule. I. Ãber Befestigungen, II. Die Reichsbefestigung (Vienna: Verlag der k. u. k. Kriegsschule, Print: L. W. Seidel & Sohn, 1912), 82â83.
Fahey, âBulwark of Empire,â 49.
Curt Dunagan, âThe Lost World of PrzemyÅl: Interethnic Dynamics in a Galician Center, 1868 to 1921â (PhD diss., Brandeis University, 2009), 283; cf. Hermann Heiden, Bollwerk am San: Schicksal der Festung Przemysl (Oldenburg: Stalling, 1940), 88.
Fahey, âBulwark of Empire,â 135.
Fahey, âBulwark of Empire,â 34.
Alexander Watson, The fortress: the great siege of PrzemyÅl (London: Allen Lane, 2019), 54.
Fahey, âBulwark of Empire,â 78; Tomasz Idzikowski, Twierdza PrzemyÅl: Powstanie, Rozwój, Technologie (Krosno: Arete SpóÅka, 2014), 183â199. See also Idzikowskisâ detailed publications to the individual Forts in PrzemyÅl, e.g. Tomasz Idzikowski, Forty Twierdzy PrzemyÅl (PrzemyÅl: Regionalny OÅrodek Kultury, Edukacij i Nauki, 2001); Tomasz Idzikowski, Fort XV âBorekâ, Architectura et ars militaris 5 (PrzemyÅl, 2004); Tomasz Idzikowski, Fort VIII âÅetownia,â Architectura et ars militaris 4 (PrzemyÅl, 2004).
Watson, The fortress, 7; Fahey, âBulwark of Empire,â 64.
OeStA/KA MEB Militär-Schulen, Kt. 59, Wilhelm Reinländer, âVorträge über Taktik gehalten an der k. k. Kriegsschule,â Bogen 1â15 (Vienna, 1870), 1.
ÃStA/KA Neue Feldakten (NFA), Festungskommando Przemysl, Kt. 1322, Akt. 1345, 206, Josef Tomann, Tagebuch.
Ilka von Michaelsburg, Im belagerten Przemysl: Tagebuchblätter aus der groÃen Zeit (Leipzig: Armelang, 1915).
OeStA Nachlässe (NL), Eduard Freunthaler, B/497.
Helena z Seifertów JabÅoÅska, Dziennik z oblÄżonego PrzemyÅla 1914â1915 [Diary from the besieged PrzemyÅl 1914â1915] (PrzemyÅl, 1994).
A line consisting of trenches for the infantry that connected neighbouring fortification works. In OeStA/KA MEB Militär-Schule, Kt. 58, Operativer Generalstabsdienst, StudienBehelf, 4. Heft. Festungskrieg. Besondere Operationen (Vienna, 1911), 4â16.
In Conrad von Hötzendorfâs view, fortresses were unsuitable for modern warfare, as they could cause an unnecessary commitment of larger troop units in a military conflict, which were to be used for field operations. In Hermann Heiden, Bollwerk am San (Oldenburg: G. Stalling, 1940), 33â34.
Kusmanekâs accounts of the events were written after the siege. This report was part of his request for the Order of Maria Theresa. For his report he partly used files from the war archives in Vienna, which had already been written at the time of the siege. In OeStA/KA NL, Kusmanek von Burgstädten, B. u. C/1137, 1â12.
OeStA/KA NL, Kusmanek von Burgstädten, B. u. C/1137, 13.
OeStA/KA NFA, Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918, Kommanden, Kt. 149, Festung Przemysl 1914â1918, Folder 74: âAus dem Ordensgesuche des Gen.Obstn. Hermann von Ksumanek, Die Festung Przemysl vom Kriegsbeginn bis zur Kapitulation,â Vienna, October 26, 1920, 1â5.
Michaelsburg, Im belagerten Przemysl, 17.
OeStA NL, Eduard Freunthaler, B/497, 28.
Michaelsburg, Im belagerten Przemysl, 12.
WÅodzimierz Borodziej and Maciej Górny, Der vergessene Weltkrieg: Europas Osten 1912â1923, Volume 1: Imperien 1912â1916 (Darmstadt: Theiss, 2018), 74â83.
Cf. Michaelsburg, Im belagerten Przemysl, 25; cf. JabÅoÅska, Dziennik z oblÄżonego PrzemyÅla, 39.
OeStA/KA NFA, Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918, Kommanden, Kt. 149, Festung Przemysl 1914â1918, General der Infanterie d. R. Karl Waitzendorfer, âDarstellung der Ereignisse bei Przemysl in den Jahren 1914/15,â 6.
OeStA/KA NFA, Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918, Kommanden, Kt. 149, 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl, âK. u. k. Generalgenieinspektor.â
OeStA/KA NFA, Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918, Kommanden, Kt. 149, 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl, âK. u. k. Generalgenieinspektor.â
Michaelsburg, Im belagerten Przemysl, 27.
Franz Forstner, PrzemyÅl: Ãsterreich-Ungarns bedeutendste Festung (Vienna: ÃBG Pädagogischer Verlag, 1997), 149.
OeStA/KA NFA, Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918, Kommanden, Kt. 149, 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl, âK. u. k. Generalgenieinspektor.â
OeStA/KA NFA, Karl Waitzendorfer, âDarstellung der Ereignisse bei Przemysl in den Jahren 1914/15,â 5.
OeStA/KA NFA, âAus dem Ordensgesuche des Gen.Obstn. Hermann von Kusmanek, Die Festung Przemysl vom Kriegsbeginn bis zur Kapitulation,â 20.
OeStA/KA NFA, Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918, Kommanden, Kt. 149, 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl, âAuszug aus dem Berichte über die Aktion im III. VertBez. während der EinschlisÃung,â 2.
OeStA/KA NFA, Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918, Kommanden, Kt. 149, 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl, âVI. Verteidigungsbezirksartilleriekommado, Bericht über stattgefundenen Kämpfen.â
OeStA/KA NFA, âAus dem Ordensgesuche des Gen.Obstn. Hermann von Kusmanek, Die Festung Przemysl vom Kriegsbeginn bis zur Kapitulation,â 23.
OeStA/KA NFA, âIII. VertBez. während der EinschlisÃung,â 2â3.
OeStA/KA NFA, Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918, Kommanden, Kt. 149, 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl, âIV. VertBezKommando der Festung Przemysl,â 2.
OeStA/KA NFA, Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918, Kommanden, Kt. 149, 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl, Schwabl m.p. Oberst, âIV. VertBezKommando der Festung Przemysl.â
OeStA/KA NFA, Schwabl m.p. Oberst, âIV. VertBezKommando der Festung Przemysl.â
OeStA/KA NFA, âIII. VertBez. während der EinschlisÃung,â 3.
OeStA/KA NFA, âIII. VertBez. während der EinschlisÃung,â 4.
OeStA/KA NFA, Schwabl m.p. Oberst, âIV. VertBezKommando der Festung Przemysl,â 3.
Michaelsburg, Im belagerten Przemysl, 17.
OeStA NL, Eduard Freunthaler, B/497, 31.
Michaelsburg, Im belagerten Przemysl, 12.
OeStA/KA NFA, Schwabl m.p. Oberst., âIV. VertBezKommando der Festung Przemysl,â 5.
OeStA/KA NFA, âIII. VertBez. während der EinschlisÃung,â 10â11.
OeStA/KA NFA, Schwabl m.p. Oberst., âIV. VertBezKommando der Festung Przemysl,â 3â4.
OeStA/KA MEB Militär-Schulen, Kt. 65, âSupplement zum Behelfe für das Studium der Militär-Geographie des nordöstlichen Kriegsschauplatzesâ (Vienna, 1903), 9â18.
OeStA/KA NFA, Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918, Kommanden, Kt. 149, 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl, âK. u. k. Generalgenieinspektor.â
Michaelsburg, Im belagerten Przemysl, 139.
Michaelsburg, Im belagerten Przemysl, 139.
OeStA/KA NFA, Karl Waitzendorfer, âDarstellung der Ereignisse bei Przemysl in den Jahren 1914/15,â 29.
OeStA/KA NFA, Karl Waitzendorfer, âDarstellung der Ereignisse bei Przemysl in den Jahren 1914/15,â 29â30.
OeStA/KA NFA, Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918, Kommanden, Kt. 149, 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl, Hermann von Kusmanek, âTatbeschreibung,â 47.
OeStA/KA NFA, Festungskommando Przemysl, Kt. 1322, f. 1345, 206, Josef Tomann, Tagebuch, 2.
OeStA/KA NFA, Festungskommando Przemysl, Kt. 1322, f. 1345, 206, Josef Tomann, Tagebuch, 10.
OeStA/KA NFA, Festungskommando Przemysl, Kt. 1322, f. 1345, 206, Josef Tomann, Tagebuch, 13.
Michaelsburg, Im belagerten Przemysl, 34.
OeStA NL, Eduard Freunthaler, B/497, 35.
OeStA/KA NFA, Karl Waitzendorfer, âDarstellung der Ereignisse bei Przemysl in den Jahren 1914/15,â 30; and Appendix no. 5, 11.
OeStA/KA NFA, Festungskommando Przemysl, Kt. 1322, f. 1345, 206, Josef Tomann, Tagebuch, 9.
Michaelsburg, Im belagerten Przemysl, 28.
Michaelsburg, Im belagerten Przemysl, 28.
OeStA/KA NFA, Festungskommando Przemysl, Kt. 1322, f. 1345, 206, Josef Tomann, Tagebuch, 9â10.
OeStA/KA NFA, Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918, Kommanden, Kt. 149, 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl, Hermann von Kusmanek, âTatbeschreibung,â 49â50.
OeStA/KA NFA, Festungskommando Przemysl, Kt. 1322, f. 1345, 206, Josef Tomann, Tagebuch, 39â40.
OeStA NL, Eduard Freunthaler, B/497, 72â73.
OeStA/KA NFA, Gefechtsberichte 1914â1918, Kommanden, Kt. 149, 1914â1918 Festung Przemysl, Hermann von Kusmanek, âTatbeschreibung,â 56â57.