Cholera epidemics in the 19th century represent an important yet neglected chapter in the social history of Slovakia. This study aims to examine society's responses to the threat of the previously unknown infectious disease, the evolution of opinions on its causative agent, methods of treatment, anti-epidemic measures, the extent of their acceptance, and the changing authority of doctors and sanitary workers over the course of five major cholera epidemics. In the Kingdom of Hungary, only the first wave of the epidemic in 1831/32 led to significant social radicalization, which, however, escalated into violent actions only in certain areas. During the second cholera epidemic (1848/49), social tension was vented through the ongoing revolution and military conflict, in which both sides used cholera as a tool of propaganda, accusing each other of deliberately introducing it. The subsequent waves of cholera epidemics (1854/55, 1866, 1872/73) did not lead to significant radicalization. This was a result of preventive measures, the bureaucratization of the administrative apparatus during the period of neo-absolutism, and the continued medicalization of society. The authority of medical and sanitary personnel was significantly undermined by the rivalry between two dominant theories regarding the etiology and transmission of cholera - those of the miasmatists and contagionists - as well as by therapeutic anarchy. Until the 1880s, the precise causative agent of cholera remained unidentified, and its mode of transmission was not clearly understood, which allowed a multitude of theories on the disease's origin, spread, prevention, and treatment to persist within medical practice. The notion that poor sanitary conditions, overcrowded housing, and contaminated water were the primary culprits gained traction in the Kingdom of Hungary during the third (1855/56) and, conclusively, the fourth wave (1866) of the cholera epidemic. Despite the relatively low level of urbanization, both professional and public discourse increasingly favoured modern and rational approaches and interventions. The state's resources, enhanced by reforms in state and public administration as well as the educational system from the 1850s onward, were more effective and had a greater impact on the population. However, the medicalization of society proceeded slowly in the predominantly rural society, a fact reflected in the high rates of infection and mortality during the last major cholera epidemic.
