Violent practices and discourses on violence during the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763)

该子项目比较了欧洲七年战争（1756-1763）期间奥地利和俄罗斯军队的具体暴力文化。两国军队在东部战区合作，并在许多场合以盟友的身份行事。两军都有一些共同的特点，比如使用非正规边境部队（哥萨克人，pandur人），联合作战，比如突袭和战斗，以及共同的技术（舒瓦洛夫的秘密榴弹炮），两军都是亲普鲁士的宣传话语的目标，这些话语密切关注着他们的行为。两支军队在文化上各不相同，其将军的行动范围取决于各自的中心（莫斯科、维也纳）所作的决定。除了明显的相似之处，也有一些显著的差异：尽管他们的军队反映了不同的民族背景，但奥地利人和普鲁士人没有像俄罗斯人和普鲁士人那样的语言障碍，奥地利人的供应链并不像俄罗斯人那样远离家乡，西方军队的形象也不同。有意的比较侧重于被同时代人认为超出规范的不规则暴力的关键做法。这包括对平民的屠杀，在战斗和围攻中夸大暴力，以及焦土政策，这些在18世纪的“开明”战争中都被认为是不合适的。这些实践与“驯服的贝罗纳”的开明愿景相矛盾，是公众判断的问题，这本身就使这种比较成为一个有希望的案例研究，因为对类似实践的不同判断可以进行比较。

The sub-project compares the Austrian and Russian armies during the Seven Years’ War (1756–1763) in Europe with regard to their specific cultures of violence. Both armies cooperated in the eastern theatre of war and acted on many occasions as allies. Both armies shared some common features such as the use of irregular border troops (Cossacks, Pandurs), joint operations like raids and battles and common technologies (Shuvalov’s secret howitzer), and both were the target of a rich pro-Prussian discourse of propaganda, which kept a close eye on their behaviour. Both armies were culturally diverse and their generals’ scope of action depended on the decisions taken at the respective centre (Moscow, Vienna). In addition to evident similarities, there were also some striking differences: Although their armies reflected a variety of national backgrounds, Austrians and Prussians shared no language barrier comparable to the one the Russians and Prussians had, Austrian supply chains were not as far from home as the Russian ones and the image of the armies in the West differed. The intended comparison focuses on key practices of irregular violence considered by contemporaries to be outside the norm. This includes massacres against the civilian population, exaggerated violence in battles and sieges and a policy of scorched earth, all considered inappropriate in eighteenth century ‘enlightened’ warfare. These practices contradicted the enlightened vision of the ‘tamed Bellona’ and were issues of public judgement, which in itself makes this comparison a promising case study because different judgements of similar practices can be compared.