I have a basic philosophical problem with your question; allow me to explain, and then suggest a remedy.

So, you have a story that you're interested in telling. Presumably, this story includes several main characters, the conflicting interests of whom drive the narrative. Of course, in developing this story, you've created personalities for these characters, giving them values, motivations, goals, world-views, and so on. All that is fine, and is the normal process of developing and writing a story.

You've indicated that you don't actually know a lot about medieval Austria, your chosen setting. You seem to want a generic "medieval" setting with "knights," "kingdoms," and so on, but you want it to be "accurate." This is where my problem exists. What you'll find if you are really interested in serious research is that the actual people of medieval Austria, or France, or England, or wherever, had radically different values, motivations, goals, world-views, and so on, from what you have very likely given your characters. The people of the past were very different from us in fundamental ways, and you have very likely given your characters qualities that are largely modern, even if you've done so implicitly: personal ambition through individual initiative and merit, a Cartesian separation of mind and body, a secular separation of the self from the Divine, and so on. Or, alternatively, you might have given your characters "medieval" characteristics, such as devout religiosity. In either case, however, since you've indicated that you don't actually know a whole lot about medieval Austria, your characters won't be historically accurate. If you're interested in real accuracy, in terms of human experience, agency, and culture, you cannot really write a basic story and then just drop it into whatever time and place looks good. You can be "accurate" in terms of their weapons, their clothing, their names for each other, or whatever, but that's pretty much costumes and backdrops, not the fundamental dynamics of the characters and the social and cultural world they inhabit. Unless you really understand the culture of that time and place, your story will not be "accurate" because it will not take place in the particular culture and value system of that time and place. So, "accuracy" in that sense is fundamentally impossible. You might have accurate costumes, but it won't be an accurate story. (And, on top of that, if your story is indeed accurate in terms of culture, you and your audience might not even like it! It will, after all, reflect an alien set of values.)

My question to you is why make it "Austria"? If your ultimate priority is to tell your story--and this is generally the case with the writers I know--then you need to build a setting that fits it. Call it "Austoria" or something, and just make it the way you want. Borrow from historical sources to give it the feeling of realism that you want, but avoid the constraints of accuracy by making it your own place.

To illustrate this, let me describe an example I recently came across. I am a cultural (and environmental) historian of Victorian Britain. As such, I sometimes read Victorian novels, and the other day I read Jules Verne's Around the World in 80 Days. Even this story, published in 1872, betrays a society with radically different values from ours. Phileas Fogg, for example, is a bit of a prick. He's constantly described as showing virtually no emotion at all, and is essentially a kind of embodiment of technological progress and capital, with no actual personality. He also gets credit for things that he didn't actually do, but only that he made decisions about. His French servant Passepartout saves a girl from a sati (ritual burning of a widow) by pretending to be the girl's dead husband, and pulling her from the flames in front of an angry crowd of Indians. Passepartout was the one who took real risks to save this girl, totally on his own initiative. And yet, Fogg gets credit for saving her, because he made the decision to take the time from his busy schedule of traveling around the world to try to save her. He risked money, because the delay made it possible that he would lose his £20,000 bet that he could travel around the world in 80 days. Never mind that his own individual contribution after that point was virtually nil; he was the decider, the one in charge, the one who risked capital, and therefore the one who gets credit. And, despite his utter lack of personality, by the end of the novel the saved Indian girl has fallen in love with him. lol wut bro? Seriously. What's going on here is a story that takes place in a value system radically different from our own. The reader is expected to like certain characters for certain reasons, when those same characters would be deeply unlikeable today. It's not really surprising that the recent (2004) film adaptation has almost nothing in common with the book. They took the name, a basic premise of traveling around the world, and then wrote their own story.

So, looking at this example, we can infer that if we showed up in the 1870s with a story that we would find engaging, the people of the past would not really get it; there are certain values, ideas, and expectations built into our culture that we don't even know about, but that people from the past would find alien, in the same way that we find their stories alien. And, this is only the 1870s, a point at which the world in many ways resembled our own. Medieval Austria would be a much, much different place. If you want to get a sense of what an "accurate" story might look like, start reading actual stories from medieval Europe. Check out the Nibelungenlied, an epic poem in Middle High German. It won't be like stories you've read before, I can assure you.

The best thing I've ever read on historical novel is from Perry Anderson 'The Historical Novel'

http://www.lrb.co.uk/v33/n15/perry-anderson/from-progress-to-catastrophe

The way /r/AskHistorians works, is that you're supposed to pose specific questions - general calls for broad, topical subjects are discouraged. "What were swords like in 14th-century Austria?" is a great question. "Tell me everything I need to know about medieval Austria so that I can write a novel," not so much.

I can't speak for anyone else, but it strikes me as unlikely that you'll find someone willing to consult on the breadth and level of detail you need to write an authentic piece of historical fiction. At least, not for free.

However! From the language of your post, it seems like you have virtually no knowledge to speak of, so far. That's not a bad thing - it means you can begin to read just about any source and benefit from it without redundant information wasting your time - head on over to Wikipedia and start reading about Austria!

Edit: Mod put me in my place:

It's perfectly fine to ask for book recommendations