Liberal Germany, Independent Hungary, United Italy, 1848

In the "United Federal Confederation of Germany" (or whatever it was precisely) thread, Homer came up with an interesting idea.

Frederick William accepts the crown of a united Germany and rather than helping the other German princes crush revolutions, Prussia intervenes on the side of the revolutionaries.

By the time the dust settles, we have a liberal united Germany stretching from the Baltic to the Mediterranean, an independent Hungary, and (thanks to the destruction of the Hapsburgs) a unified Italy. All in 1848.

How might we get such a scenario, and what might its effects be? I'm thinking of perhaps using such a thing in my "Calvinist South African Superpower" TL, although I'm not sure how to bring it about.

Thats a bit of a reach.....

Smaug said:

Thats a bit of a reach.....

Click to expand...

Well, it does depend on a lot of things going quite right.

Could the Prussians defeat the Russian interventionist forces? The impression I have is that the Russian army that crushed the Hungarians was not well-led or -supplied (few died in battle and vast numbers died of disease).

MerryPrankster said:

Well, it does depend on a lot of things going quite right.

Could the Prussians defeat the Russian interventionist forces? The impression I have is that the Russian army that crushed the Hungarians was not well-led or -supplied (few died in battle and vast numbers died of disease).

Click to expand...

Most of the fighting was done by the Austrians, who actually performed excellent from a purely military point of view in 1848.
Consider, only in control of parts of Austria at the start (Vienna was under control of the revolutionaries, so the Habsburg fled to Innsbruck), but Radetzky and Windischgratz secured Italy and Bohemia and allowed the Austrians to concentrate on Hungary.

I dont think the Russians did much crushing on the Hungarians. They suffered 543 war deaths and 11,028 from cholera (ah, 19th century warfare), while the Austrians and Hungarians each had about 50,000 deaths in their armies.
[From "A history of Eastern Europe: Crisis and Change, Robert Bideleaux and Ian Jeffries, 1998, pg. 306 if you want to check]

Most likely, in the case the Hungarians become independant, the Russians make of with Galicia, with its mostly Ruthenian population. They would still not like a Hungarian Republic, but Galicia sounds like a nice consolation prize.

At first you need a different Prussian king who's willing to become German emperor and receive the crown from the people. Friedrich Wilhelm was the last one who'd do so, he couldn't stand the "mob" and was very anti-constitutional.

First of all, this would need a liberal Friedrich Wilhelm IV., or at least a more pragmatic one, who takes an opportunity when he sees it.

But then there will be quite a lot of fighting to do it. and we'll have to keep the French out:

1. the Italians do a better "Guerra Santa". Instead of loosing pretty much every battle, they win against Radetzky. The Habsburg princes are thrown out, Milan and Venice start uprisings as the Savoyans and volunteers march upon them. After the king of Savoy conquered Milan, the revolution started all through Italy, the Pope flees to Gaeta, the King of Naples flees to Vienna. Garibaldi builts up a voluntary army in the South to help the Savoyans.
So the war wouldn't stop in August 1848, but would keep on. And the Savoyans would get a lot of help by enthusiastic revolutionaries. A liberal constitution is introduced, British private donators help with equipment and money, "Phil-Italian" clubs start throughout Britannia. Impressed by the Italian success, the French do not intervene to help the Pope.

2. the Russians help the Austrians only after their emperors met in Warsaw in Mai 1849. Now would the Russians help against disorganized Hungarians: yes. Would they help against well-organized Prussians who offer them Galicia in the vvery same meeting? Probably not.

Now the Russians invade Galicia in 1849, the Prussians invade Bohemia in 1849, led by the "emperor of the Germans", who was crowned April 1848, the Southern German armies march towards Vienna - cheered by the population. The Italians - Garibaldis revolutionaries and Savoyan regulars - conquer Venice and Triest. And at the same time, hungary is in rebellion, as are the German parts of Austria. Thus the Habsburgs flee.

As Problems we'll have the British and the French.

The British could be held out, because they'll get a new balance of powers in Europe where the new liberal states of Germany and Italy or Hungary get the Places of absolutistic Prussia and Austria.

1848 was a great opportunity lost. Reasons why:

a) the Frankfurt parliament had possibly the best academic qualification of any parliament ever, but did not know what the word "practicality" meant

b) representatives from Bohemia were invited to attend, but refused "not being German"

c) the Prussian king wavered a lot before refusing the crown; possibly it was never his intention to accept, but he succeeded in creating expectations and paralyzing the Parliament

d) the Hungarians took a lot of time to decide, and when the hungarian parliament finally recalled the Hungarian regiments, the damage was done: Vienna and Bohemia were pacified, and the same regiments had been instrumental in repressing the Italian rebellion

e) Italian insurgents, like the German parliament, wavered a lot between offering the crown to Carlo Alberto of Savoy, and declaring a republic. The final decision (calling the king to intervene) was a coup de main by the moderates, and alienated the more extremist factions

f) none of the insurgents called up "la levee du peuple", the people in army, a la French revolution

g) probably the insurgent leaders were to nice guys: there was no Danton, no Marat, no Robespierre (or no Lenin), and the revolution fizzled out in factionalism

In May 1848 the Habsburg were holed up in Innsbruck. Vienna and the Bohemia were up in arms, the Ban of Croatia was regarded with suspicion, Milan and Venice had already carried out successful revolts, expelling the Austrian garrison, Hungary was not officially rebellious but effectively so.
It would have taken just one more tiny step (just recalling the Hungarian regiments) and the empire would have been finished. It did not happen; and the path which could have led to a democratic, federal Europe was closed for a century.

Homer said:

As Problems we'll have the British and the French.

Click to expand...

The French, never the people to turn down an oppurtunity, were busy with their own revolution. They had just kicked out their last king and probably need some time before they can interfere across the Rhine.

The British could be held out, because they'll get a new balance of powers in Europe where the new liberal states of Germany and Italy or Hungary get the Places of absolutistic Prussia and Austria.

Click to expand...

They would probably agree to any outcome as long as there is no dominating power in Europe. And a liberal governement is of course always a plus.

In any case, Britains army is not large enough to stand against a united Germany. That would pay a role in their thoughts before they decide to interfere.

Max Sinister said:

At first you need a different Prussian king who's willing to become German emperor and receive the crown from the people. Friedrich Wilhelm was the last one who'd do so, he couldn't stand the "mob" and was very anti-constitutional.

Click to expand...

If the revolutionaries had offered him the crown a year earlier, when they were in a position of strength, would he have accepted out of fear or pragmatism?

In an one of the earlier "liberal Germany in 1848" discussions, someone wrote that the OTL offer of "the crown from the gutter" was too late to matter.

LordKalvan said:

1848 was a great opportunity lost. Reasons why:

a) the Frankfurt parliament had possibly the best academic qualification of any parliament ever, but did not know what the word "practicality" meant

b) representatives from Bohemia were invited to attend, but refused "not being German"

c) the Prussian king wavered a lot before refusing the crown; possibly it was never his intention to accept, but he succeeded in creating expectations and paralyzing the Parliament

d) the Hungarians took a lot of time to decide, and when the hungarian parliament finally recalled the Hungarian regiments, the damage was done: Vienna and Bohemia were pacified, and the same regiments had been instrumental in repressing the Italian rebellion

e) Italian insurgents, like the German parliament, wavered a lot between offering the crown to Carlo Alberto of Savoy, and declaring a republic. The final decision (calling the king to intervene) was a coup de main by the moderates, and alienated the more extremist factions

f) none of the insurgents called up "la levee du peuple", the people in army, a la French revolution

g) probably the insurgent leaders were to nice guys: there was no Danton, no Marat, no Robespierre (or no Lenin), and the revolution fizzled out in factionalism

In May 1848 the Habsburg were holed up in Innsbruck. Vienna and the Bohemia were up in arms, the Ban of Croatia was regarded with suspicion, Milan and Venice had already carried out successful revolts, expelling the Austrian garrison, Hungary was not officially rebellious but effectively so.
It would have taken just one more tiny step (just recalling the Hungarian regiments) and the empire would have been finished. It did not happen; and the path which could have led to a democratic, federal Europe was closed for a century.

Click to expand...

C, D, E, and F might be good "crunch points" for the scenario. If the Prussian Emperor accepts the crown early on (even if it's just out of fear), it may push the Hungarians into recalling the Hungarian regiments. The Prussian king can't go back on accepting the Imperial crown even if it was under semi-duress and if the Hungarians recall their regiments early enough, Bohemia and Italy go.

The revolutionaries never tried to raise mass armies from the populace? I did not know that.

Archdevil said:

The French, never the people to turn down an oppurtunity, were busy with their own revolution. They had just kicked out their last king and probably need some time before they can interfere across the Rhine.

Click to expand...

That's true - they HAD their revolution: Louis Napoleon was elected for presidency in November 1848 by a 75% majority, in December he took power. So the French Revolution of 1848 was over - in 1849 Louis Napoleon could sent an expeditionary force to Rome to protect the Pope against the revolutionaries in Italy. This force defeated the revolutionaries in July 1849. So I think they would probably be able to act across the Rhine in summer 1849.
But on the other side: it's one thing to fight against Italian revolutionaries and a whole other thing to fight against regular Prussian troops, and Louis Napoleon was not that military genius...

Thus when the Prussian king accepts the crown earlier and would act against Austria earlier, it could work out so fast, that the French wouldn't be able to intervene.

How might the fact that the British royal family is in fact German play into this scenario?

Also, with the increased success of the revolutionaries in Central Europe, might we see a follow-on effect in Scandinavia, the Balkans, and Iberia?

The Sandman said:

How might the fact that the British royal family is in fact German play into this scenario?

Also, with the increased success of the revolutionaries in Central Europe, might we see a follow-on effect in Scandinavia, the Balkans, and Iberia?

Click to expand...

The Hanover connection is already gone in 1848, so that's one complication less.
In any case, it's not the royals, but the government that decides things at this time.

MerryPrankster said:

C, D, E, and F might be good "crunch points" for the scenario. If the Prussian Emperor accepts the crown early on (even if it's just out of fear), it may push the Hungarians into recalling the Hungarian regiments. The Prussian king can't go back on accepting the Imperial crown even if it was under semi-duress and if the Hungarians recall their regiments early enough, Bohemia and Italy go.

The revolutionaries never tried to raise mass armies from the populace? I did not know that.

Click to expand...

That was the main weakness: there was no conscription, and in a way it was more of a "gentle" revolution raising regiments of voluntaries, but never putting them under a real military discipline, or coordinating the actions of these militias.

However, 1848 is the time to act: 1849 is already too late. France is stabilised under Louis Napoleon, the king of Prussia has become more decisionist, and the Habsburg have sorted out most of their problems. And the Russians are on the move...
IMHO the turning point should be the Hungarians recalling their regiments in April 1848. This would negate Radetsky's campaign in Northern Italy and would send ripples through all Germany.

There is another possible POD: the Swiss were just coming out of their civil war (where the catholic cantons had been supported by A-H) and the Swiss president (I should go and look for the name, but I'm a bit lazy) threatened to send 20000 men in Lombardy to support the insurrection and to expel the Austrian troops. Nothing came out of it, but if it had happened.....

LordKalvan said:

That was the main weakness: there was no conscription, and in a way it was more of a "gentle" revolution raising regiments of voluntaries, but never putting them under a real military discipline, or coordinating the actions of these militias.

However, 1848 is the time to act: 1849 is already too late. France is stabilised under Louis Napoleon, the king of Prussia has become more decisionist, and the Habsburg have sorted out most of their problems. And the Russians are on the move...
IMHO the turning point should be the Hungarians recalling their regiments in April 1848. This would negate Radetsky's campaign in Northern Italy and would send ripples through all Germany.

There is another possible POD: the Swiss were just coming out of their civil war (where the catholic cantons had been supported by A-H) and the Swiss president (I should go and look for the name, but I'm a bit lazy) threatened to send 20000 men in Lombardy to support the insurrection and to expel the Austrian troops. Nothing came out of it, but if it had happened.....

Click to expand...

Thanks for the info. I've never heard of the Swiss threat before--how well do you think they'd have held up against the Austrians in Italy? They were once the terror of Europe, but that was 200-odd years ago.

MerryPrankster said:

Thanks for the info. I've never heard of the Swiss threat before--how well do you think they'd have held up against the Austrians in Italy? They were once the terror of Europe, but that was 200-odd years ago.

Click to expand...

Pretty well, I would say. These are experienced troops, which have been fighting in the civil war. They would be welcomed by the insurgents and they have a grievance with the Austrians.

LordKalvan said:

Pretty well, I would say. These are experienced troops, which have been fighting in the civil war. They would be welcomed by the insurgents and they have a grievance with the Austrians.

Click to expand...

The Italians would be thankful for help, that's true.
But they didn't do so bad themselves! The Savoyans fought against the Austrians, who faced a revolution in their own lands in northern Italy. So there are already some regular troops. But the war only lasted from March to August 1848 and they had problems of uniting the princes on the question on what to do. And then, in most history books it is said that the Austrian general Radetzky was a military genius. Just read his bio, VERY impressive:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Joseph_Radetzky_von_Radetz
So Austria had the military leader it needed this time, but what if he wasn't there? After all, he's over 80 years old in 1848!

The main Italian problem in 1848 was the lack of coordination between the different armies. The problem got worse when, after the victories at Curtatone and Montanara, the pope recalled his contingent, and the king of Naples tried to do the same, out of fear that all of Italy would go out in a liberal rebellion (after Milan and Venice, also the duchies of Emilia had revolted, and there were agitations in the pope's states).

Radetzky was a fair (but IMO not outstanding) general; he was also pretty old at the time. To his credit, he kept cool, and rather than accept battle he preferred to concentrate his forces in the area of the Quadrilatero, four strong fortresses which controlled the narrow between the Po and the lake of Garda. He was able to defeat in detail the Italian armies at Custoza (again a matter of coordination, and lack of unity of command), and after that the first phase of the war was practically over.

However, Custoza was fought at the end of July, when the best window of opportunity was already gone. The window of opportunity goes from early March (revolt in Vienna, Bohemia, Milan and Venice) to the end of June, when Prague is occupied by loyalist forces. During these 4 months the empire was in a chaos, and the emperor had to leave Vienna for Innsbruck. Hungary rebelled, but the revolutionary committee failed to call back the regiments in Bohemia and Italy; and the croats refused to rebel, following their Ban. Daniele Manin, who was the head of the revolutionary committee in Venice, lacked decisionism and strategic perspective, and failed to attack the austrian communication lines.

The Swiss regiments would have made quite a difference.

LordKalvan said:

However, Custoza was fought at the end of July, when the best window of opportunity was already gone. The window of opportunity goes from early March (revolt in Vienna, Bohemia, Milan and Venice) to the end of June, when Prague is occupied by loyalist forces. During these 4 months the empire was in a chaos, and the emperor had to leave Vienna for Innsbruck. Hungary rebelled, but the revolutionary committee failed to call back the regiments in Bohemia and Italy; and the croats refused to rebel, following their Ban. Daniele Manin, who was the head of the revolutionary committee in Venice, lacked decisionism and strategic perspective, and failed to attack the austrian communication lines.

The Swiss regiments would have made quite a difference.

Click to expand...

I think there would be some opportunity later then July, too. If the Italians do better - with help of the Swiss - this could become a great threat to Austria. Probably success of the revolutionaries would help to overthrow the Papal States and Naples.
And in Bohemia: What if the Prussian king would grateful accept the crown and start a war to help the revolutionaries in Austria? Wouldn't it be possible for a united German army to defeat the Habsburgs - as long as the Russians stay out? Wouldn't it be possible to promise the Ban of the Croats an own independent kingdom of croatia to get him on the side of the revolution?
More problems in Italy, same problems in Hungary, no Russian help, maybe problems in Croatia for the Habsburgs, too, and to finish them off a full-scale invasion of Prussians, Saxons, Bavarians, Hannoverans, revolutionary volunteers and whatever else. I think this would end in a victory for the revolution even after July 1848. But it would need the invasion and thus a very different prussian king...

LordKalvan said:

Pretty well, I would say. These are experienced troops, which have been fighting in the civil war. They would be welcomed by the insurgents and they have a grievance with the Austrians.

Click to expand...

As some American observer noted: "It was a very civil war!". One medium-size battle, less then 100 dead (in the total war) - I dont think that would count formuch experience.