The medieval Kingdom of Hungary collapsed in the wake of the military disaster at Mohács in 1526. The Ottomans subsequently extended their authority to control a large swathe of central and southern Hungarian counties. Ottoman policy aimed to keep the remnant of the Kingdom of Hungary divided between two rival polities. A tripartite division of the kingdom indeed developed with a northwestern territory emerging under elected Habsburg rulers and an eastern territory centred on the province of Transylvania ruled by a series of elected nobles. There were negotiations to unite these two rival entities, but they remained divided. The rulers of Transylvania eventually adopted the title of princes of Transylvania, leaving the Habsburgs alone holding the title of Hungary's kings.

Géza Pálffy's book is concerned with the northwestern Habsburg remnant of the medieval Kingdom of Hungary and its relations with the rest of the Habsburg monarchy. The most influential treatment of this subject has been provided by Robert Evans in The Making of the Habsburg Monarchy, 1550–1700 (Oxford, 1979). Evans assessed how the policies adopted by the Habsburgs in the wake of the Renaissance and Reformation shaped the “limited rejection” of Habsburg authority by the Hungarian elite during the early modern period. Pálffy's treatment of this subject is rather different in several important respects. First, his focus is restricted to the period up to around 1600 and the revolt of István Bocskai. Second, Pálffy's focus is on the mechanics of governance, rather than on religious and cultural policies. Third, Pálffy is interested in looking at the significance of Hungary within the Habsburg monarchy, rather than considering the development of the monarchy as a whole.

Pálffy insists on the continuity and integrity of the Kingdom of Hungary throughout this period, despite its division during the sixteenth century. He supports this interpretation by drawing attention to the Habsburgs' ongoing use of the symbols and ceremonies associated with the medieval Hungarian state. Pálffy argues that the story of Habsburg rule in sixteenth-century Hungary is not one of external domination, but one of integration and compromise between the interests of the dynasty and the interests of Hungarian nobles. At the same time, Pálffy acknowledges the rather marginal role that the Hungarian aristocracy played at court and concedes that Austrian nobles dominated the administrative councils in Vienna that directed how Hungary was governed. He suggests that the new Habsburg rulers adopted a political program that was characterized by “great elasticity and pragmatism” (60). The Habsburgs aimed to construct effective and efficient means of organising administrative, financial, and military affairs, but they did not pursue centralization for its own sake. Pálffy considers in detail the crucial area of defending the kingdom from further Ottoman encroachment. Only about a third of the total costs needed to pay for border fortresses and their garrisons could be met out of domestic resources. By 1577, the enormous costs of defending Hungary had dragged the whole monarchy into debts of over ten million Rhenish florins. The burden of ruling Hungary was hardly offset either by revenues generated from mining or by access to basic agricultural goods exported from Hungary.

Pálffy argues that the system of Habsburg rule, which was established during the middle decades of the sixteenth century, was upset by the renewal of conflict with the Ottomans during the 1590s. Heavy-handed attempts to impose Catholicism also backfired, bringing together an anti-Habsburg alliance under István Bocskai. For Pálffy, the fragility of Bocskai's alliance of nobles, towns, and the Transylvanian estates only served to confirm, as far as most of the political elite were concerned, that the Habsburgs were the best guarantors of Hungary's political traditions and integrity. Pálffy's book reflects the results of detailed archival research on how sixteenth-century Habsburg Hungary was governed. Some of his arguments, though, are rather colored by domestic agendas that will lose a little in translation for an English-speaking audience. He is anxious to highlight that the Hungarian kingdom “did not dissolve” in the sixteenth century (237). Rather, Hungary became part of a new dynastic power in the region, and “St Stephen's state carried substantial political weight and prestige within the [Habsburg] Monarchy” (239). Finally, Pálffy suggests that the way in which the Habsburgs governed Hungary proved so effective that most of the political elite remained loyal to their monarchs during the early modern period and rejected both the pretensions of Transylvania's princes and the ambitions of some rebellious aristocrats.