Could the 1848-49 revolutions thruout the Hapsburg Empire, esp in Italy (as supported by Piedmont-Sardinia) and Hungary (under Louis Kossuth vs the Croats under Jelacic) have been more successful than OTL ? How would the map of central, eastern and southern Europe have looked had the Italians and Hungarians been more successful in their nationalist risings ?
1848 Revolutions more successful ?
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
Grey Wolf
Donor
Melvin Loh said:
The problem I have with forecasting this forwards is that the forces which acted as a break on OTL need to be removed one way or another. For example, Hungary's defeat and Austria's revival owes most to the actions of the Russians, but we can neither assume much revolution in Russia proper (1848 was rarely a peasants revolt) nor that the Tsar would sit back and let the whole of Europe be overtaken by republicanism. Perhaps one could postulate that he is seriously ill, or there is a succession crisis or something, but it begins to stretch things a little
There is also Britain which, whilst affected by Chartist marches and the general flavour of the day, clearly stood as a bulwark against the excesses of 1848. In a large part this was down to how Queen Victoria had managed her reign, removing the excesses of her forebearers and handling affairs in a more diginified way. Whilst to achieve lasting success in Southern Europe may not require Britain to be changed much, its existence as a beacon of relative stability did have an effect on Northern Europe
One could then suggest that with a tweak to Russia (as above) we can split the European experience in two - the uprisings and reforms are rolled back in Northern Europe, with the exception of France which goes the way of OTL (effectively rolling them back with the election of Louis Bonaparte a couple of years later), but that the Austrian empire breaks apart
My first thought on this is that neither the Hungarian landowners nor the prevailing spirit of the time is going to allow a Hungarian REPUBLIC. I do not know what plans Kossuth had for this - was he intending to be Prime Minister to a king brought in from outside, or did he have hopes of attaining that position for himself ? Also, which dynasties would be in the running for kingship ? One might assume there is emnity towards the Habsburgs but it cannot be denied that they are the legitimate rulers of Hungary, so would a cadet branch be acceptable ? There was the Hungarian line which resided within Hungary, but what evidence is there from 1848 of Hungarian attitudes towards the Habsburgs ? The only one I can think of off the top of my head is Transylvania where the Archduke (or was it Archduchess ?) ruling the Grand Principality was overthrown by the Hungarians who then voted to go into union with Hungary. That probably does not bode well for the future.
What are the alternatives to a Habsburg ? Some of the Hungarian noble families are royal - both Hungarian royal (Bathory) and Polish royal (Radzwilli). But I would think trying to choose a king from amongst their own number could well plunge the country into civil war, or at best weaken and undermine it. A German princeling ? It seems hard to see the proud Hungarians allowing some minor nobody to come and rule over them. How about a Romanov ?
It is unprecedented but might make sense. Hungary is going to owe its long-term viability to Russian INACTION, and the best way to gain the passive support of Russia is to revolve within her sphere. The problem would be that the example of Poland shows what could happen even to an ancient and independent-minded people; Congress Poland moved from autonomous existence to territory and then to nothing much.
Hungary though is going to have to bite the bullet and choose one of these paths...
I think the cause of republicanism within Italy is better; there are more historical roots and republican France is a neighbour, albeit with the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia sitting in the way.
You could end up with a unified Italy under Garibaldi's auspices, accepting the accession of Piedmont-Sardinia with their king as overall constitutional monarch. A lot will depend on how events in Lombardy-Venetia and the Papal States go. In the former it is possible that Lombardy will eventually fall under the control of Piedmont-Sardinia as it provides the best chance of stability in the immediate term. Venice though would not, and it is possible that with some kind of Italian nation forming in Rome both Lombardy and Venetia would manage to hold off Piedmont-Sardinia in order to accede to a union as independent states.
Grey Wolf
Last edited:
France to the Rescue?
WI France had not roled back the revolution completely? There's no earthly reason why Napoleon should win the election (there are elections in history, every now and then, where all you can say is "how could they? It was so OBVIOUS!".) WI a stable French Republic, based on bourgeois consensus lasts? Obviously, some rather fierce suppression of domestic dissent, but would this not be that natural patron of newly emergent consitutional monarchies and republics in its traditional sphere of influence?
I have few hopes for Hungary (too far from Paris, too close to Russia), but I could well see the Paris government being only too happy to detach Piedmont, Lombardy, Tuscany, Wurttemberg, Bavaria and maybe even the Rhineland and the Veneto from the Holy Alliance's sphere. Naturally, this would need some kind of great-power approval (a naked French land grab would run the risk of savage retaliation), but if treaties guaranteeing independence and neutrality, similar to those made for Belgium, could be negotiated in the course of the early 1850s, why not? Prussia would be significantly weakened by a successful revolution in Western Germany, even if its territory remains under the thumb (which is by no means a given - Berlin came very, very close to regicide at some point). Germany's unhealthy obsession with unity would have to go another way - a real problem, but I doubt something that French and Prussian military power could not solve. The Paulskirche Parliament would simply become an irrelevancy as the new constitutions are written in the capitals across Germany, divided between the souffleurs from Paris and Berlin. Much the same could apply in Italy. Perhaps a Sardinian-led treaty organisation could be established?
You would need Britain on board for all this, so constitutional monarchies look more likely than republics. Something that France could very likely live with, and the bourgeois elements might welcome as a guarantor of stability against the wilder fringe...
WI France had not roled back the revolution completely? There's no earthly reason why Napoleon should win the election (there are elections in history, every now and then, where all you can say is "how could they? It was so OBVIOUS!".) WI a stable French Republic, based on bourgeois consensus lasts? Obviously, some rather fierce suppression of domestic dissent, but would this not be that natural patron of newly emergent consitutional monarchies and republics in its traditional sphere of influence?
I have few hopes for Hungary (too far from Paris, too close to Russia), but I could well see the Paris government being only too happy to detach Piedmont, Lombardy, Tuscany, Wurttemberg, Bavaria and maybe even the Rhineland and the Veneto from the Holy Alliance's sphere. Naturally, this would need some kind of great-power approval (a naked French land grab would run the risk of savage retaliation), but if treaties guaranteeing independence and neutrality, similar to those made for Belgium, could be negotiated in the course of the early 1850s, why not? Prussia would be significantly weakened by a successful revolution in Western Germany, even if its territory remains under the thumb (which is by no means a given - Berlin came very, very close to regicide at some point). Germany's unhealthy obsession with unity would have to go another way - a real problem, but I doubt something that French and Prussian military power could not solve. The Paulskirche Parliament would simply become an irrelevancy as the new constitutions are written in the capitals across Germany, divided between the souffleurs from Paris and Berlin. Much the same could apply in Italy. Perhaps a Sardinian-led treaty organisation could be established?
You would need Britain on board for all this, so constitutional monarchies look more likely than republics. Something that France could very likely live with, and the bourgeois elements might welcome as a guarantor of stability against the wilder fringe...
Grey Wolf said:
Gi' us some toime 'ere, mate! I barely manage to read every thread on the board, let alone reply
If the AH empire breaks up, & Hungary adopts a Romanov prince as King. ?What happens to Austria? ?Do we get a fight with Prussia over who, will unify Germany. If Hungary is firmly in the Russian sphere, what happens to Russia's southward push thru the Balkans? ?Could this lead to a Russian Victory in the Crimean War? ? Or lead to a greater European war during the Crimean episode?
Grey Wolf
Donor
DuQuense said:
Well, a victory by conquest or even diplomatic conquest is not necessarily the only way. Therefore it may not be so much Austria fighting with Prussia, but a gradual union as the new democratic governments look to bring about unity not via the German Confederation but using some of the ideas from its political processes. Perhaps France would create a rival union on the Rhine, maybe tying in a now-independent Rhenish republic with Baden, though quite what happens to the Bavarian Palatinate I am not sure.
You could then get two German unions, with a border running North-to-South, to the East of this line the real and stronger one with Prussia, Saxony, Bavaria and Austria as members, whilst the smaller one exists more as a French client but still is economically strong. Not quite sure which way Hannover and Oldenburg would fall - it would maybe make sense to have them in the Rhenish Union as it provides a direct outlet to the sea
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf said:
Heh, That would put Hamburg in a very interesting position. It can not integrate into the German Empire because that doesn't exist. It is bordered by Denmark in the north, which it has a century-long history of resisting and consequently will be very unlikely to join. Any Rhineland-based confederation would be strong on protective tariffs, which Hamburg would equally reject (having a history of free-trade policy and depending on cheap imported food to support its population). It might choose to go it alone, becoming some kind of Hong-Kong style freeport. I doubt Britain would miss out on the opportunity to get a foot in the door here, especially as relations between the Republic of Hamburg and the Court of St James are traditionally cordial and it will irk France no end.
A new base for HM North Sea Fleet?
Grey Wolf
Donor
I suppose you could postulate a THIRD German element, a union of Hannover, Oldenburg and the Free Cities in the North which would include Hamburg. Maybe Britain intervenes in Hannover as a result of an appeal by royalists or maybe just an appeal by an anti-French and anti-Prussian alliance.
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf
Grey Wolf said:
Good idea. IIRC the king of Hanover was very popular and his subjects were hardly happy when the Prussians took over. Maybe a 'Prussian scare' could lead to Welf family solidarity kicking in...
Cool. We just created a theater for generations of proxy conflict between Russia (through Prussia, which, without its Ruhr/Rhine industries, will not be able to keep up), France, and Britain.
Grey Wolf
Donor
carlton_bach said:
Unfortunately the king in 1848 wasn't the same as in 1866, he was Ernest Augustus, Duke of Cumberland, an arch reactionary etc - interestingly 1848 was a kind of epiphany for him as he was forced to bring in radicals and liberals into the government of Hannover and discovered to his surprise that they were actually reasonable people whom he could deal with
Grey Wolf
Greywolf, I studied the 1848 Revolutions in the course of undertaking Yr 12 Modern European Hist and similarly in my 1st yr of uni, making my knowledge of that time period a little rusty at this point, but I'd hazard that the Italians could've done better had the Piedmontese forces been better-equipped and led while supporting the Milanese and italian revolutionaries against the Austrians, and not lost at Custozza and Novara. Also, I feel that the Hungarians under Kossuth gave a damn good account of themselves initially, and could've tangibly held onto their territorial successes had the Russians somehow not been persuaded to join in. However, I also feel that the Hungarian nationalism arising from this revolution should've been less exclusive too, since IIRC many Hungarian middle-class and landowning nationalists alienated non-Hungarian lower classes such as the Croats and other south Slavs, with their exclusivist perceptions of their struggle against the Hapsburgs.
Grey Wolf said:
That makes for a good starting point, then. If the Prussians are initially busy with their own uprisings and only later try to take care of those pesky democrats elsewhere in Germany, they will find Hanover already in negotiations on the subject of constitutional monarchy and the Rhineland under French tutelage. They could just invade the Rhineland and assume that the French Republic won't be able to do anything about it, but I doubt that. There are still plenty of men alive who remember Jena and Auerstedt. Hanover makes a much more tempting target, sharing a border and having such beautifully flatground, God's wargaming map, so to speak. That might just worry Ernst August enough to look fort support elsewhere. He might be happy to have the rebels off his back, but the price of becoming a Prussian satellite for good might seem too much. He can't well turn to France, but Britain would look an attractive partner.
Would the British government be prepared to back a European 'third way between anarchy and tyranny'? There seems to have been vast appetite for compromise at the time, but also a great desire to not be involved in European affairs. A 'French Scare' could do the trick, couldn't it? - "Will we aid that noble enterprise of reconciliation, or are we prepared to see the Netherlands encircled by clients of France, indeed, the very coasts of our Home Seas become the harbours of the fleet of our oldest foe?"