Polish–Hungarian Tensions During the Kraków Negotiations on the Holy League (1596)
A Perspective from Papal Sources
Abstract
This article examines the convocation and course of the Kraków negotiations on the formation of the Holy League in 1596, with particular attention to papal sources, above all the diplomatic correspondence of Cardinal Enrico Caetani, the papal legate. Convened during the Third Austro–Turkish War (in Hungarian historiography called the Fifteen Years War, 1591/1593–1606), the congress was part of the Holy See’s broader effort to construct a wide-ranging anti-Ottoman coalition embracing the Polish–Lithuanian Commonwealth, the Habsburg Empire, Spain, Venice, and Transylvania. Caetani’s central mission was to reconcile Poland and the Empire, divided primarily by disputes over the status of Moldavia and Wallachia. Yet the proceedings also exposed deeper Polish–Hungarian and Polish–Transylvanian frictions, rooted in earlier border conflicts and sharpened by the dynastic interests of the Habsburgs. Although Poland faced the threat of Tatar incursions, it resisted immediate war with the Ottomans, instead prioritizing the maintenance of peace and control of Black Sea trade routes. Caetani’s correspondence illuminates both the inner workings of the talks and his unsuccessful attempts to secure the meaningful participation of Sigismund Báthory. The negotiations ultimately collapsed: the parties disagreed over prior treaties, the conduct and aims of the war, and the projected duration of the league, while the deputies present lacked authority to commit to binding terms. Even so, Caetani persisted in his mission, convinced that the Commonwealth could yet serve as a cornerstone of Europe’s defense against Ottoman expansion.
Copyright (c) 2025 Ignatianum University in Cracow

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution-NoDerivatives 4.0 International License.
The Yearbook only accepts materials for publication that are free of all conflicts of interest, and that in no way involve conflicts over authorship, copyright, etc. The Editors will take action against any cases of plagiarizing, ghostwriting1, guest/honorary authorship2, etc. Where co-authored work is concerned, the Author listed first is expected to take responsibility for the submission, and is required to make clear the contributions of all of the Co-Authors involved. In the event of the publication owing its existence to funding dedicated to this purpose, this fact should be made clear: e.g. in any note of thanks/acknowledgement, or in a footnote, etc. Explicit notification should be given of any form of reprinting, with the appropriate evidence of permission to publish being furnished as required. Any impropriety on the part of Authors/Reviewers risks exposing them to appropriate responses from the relevant institutions.
______
1 This term refers to instances of a person who has made an essential contribution being omitted from the list of authors, or from notes conveying gratitude and/or acknowledgement.
2 This occurs when a person who has made either an insignificant contribution or no contribution at all nevertheless appears on the list of authors.
