Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Russia was nowhere weak before 1877. The dying Ottoman thing was considered after 1878 (wrongfully, Ottomans still survived) and got Bosnia for it.
What traits of Habsburg Austria made it capable of sustaining a multi-ethnic empire for so long?
- Thread starter Moetron 9000
- Start date
Russia was nowhere weak before 1877. The dying Ottoman thing was considered after 1878 (wrongfully, Ottomans still survived) and got Bosnia for it.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
Because they could not. The Great Turkish War (after the Siege of Vienna) started with driving the Ottomans out of Europe but only to realise it was beyond their capacities. That's why the Habsburgs accepted with gaining most of Hungary rather than to continue even after the Ottomans lost their war treasure and most of their manpower. Afterwards Prince Eugene won impressive battles afterwards, yet still refrained.
Whatever Upper Hungary was for the Ottomans, the deep Balkans were for the Habsburgs. Too hard to consolidate power.
Of course, a lot could be said about German military plans but the fact remains that it was Austrian political leaders who saw the only possible solution of the problems plaguing A-H in a further territorial expansion on the Balkans and this was a reason for the growing dependence upon Germany. An idea that the patchwork empire should keep looking for the land acquisitions as a way of "saving prestige" after being beaten by pretty much everybody (and losing almost all Italian possessions) instead of fixing internal problems was what lead to the "death spiral".
Prince Eugene was not there forever and after his death Austrians simply could not win a war against the Ottomans. Not that they were doing too well against Prussia or France.
Russo-Austrian-Turkish War of 1735 - 39: Russian armies successful (for the 1st time successfully invaded Crimea, took Azov, Ochakov, defeated the Turks at Stavuchany and occupied the fortress of Khotin and Iaşi). Austrians are beaten at Banja Luka and Grocka, lost Belgrade and made a hasty peace with the Ottomans (losing Serbia and a part of Banat) forcing Russians to make peace of Nis (giving away most of their conquests).
Austro-Turkish War of 1788–91: Was going in parallel with the Russian-Ottoman War. Managed to get back some of the lost territories and even participate in a couple of victorious battles (Prince Josias was intelligent enough to go under Suvorov's command without arguing) but gave most of their conquests back by the Treaty of Sistova while the Russians solidified most of their earlier gains by the treaty of Jassy.
But "the spirit of acquisition" was there resulting in the 1st Partition of the PLC.
Deleted member 92195
There was a tiny problem: after Prince Eugene, for most of the XVIII they had been repeatedly beaten by the Ottomans.
I thinking more 19th century, it was good to be defensive up until that point where your enemy is stronger than you.
Deleted member 92195
Exactly. When German Empire is created the existence of the Austrian Empire is questionable because it is supposed to be "Austrian", so their solution was to just stick the Hungarian bit on. If they wanted to do that then they should have fully embraced becoming a multi-ethnic empire, which distinguishes them from the Germans, not create a halfway house between their German links and recognising only the Hungarian culture. In not distinguishing all the cultures they just became a German monarchy on a states head. They should at least accomplished this and they would have won WWI and incorporated Poland but it is still conservatism thinking.
I see war and territorial expansion was not just their solution for survival because of their geopolitical and cultural situation but to become an everlasting presence on the world stage. If a state required war post-1815 it was the Austro-Hungarians, Ottomans, and the Russians because they had special 'issues' to address in order to guarantee their survival and expand. I am just extremely radical on their type of expansion and how it should be done. I'm thinking about re-organising the European balance of power, whilst they were thinking about annexing Bosnia and Herzegovina. It's only 51,129 km2, its pittence.
Deleted member 92195
The Crimean war was in 1856 and that was an indication Russia was not that well, as for the Ottomans it is only the European Ottoman lands I am interest in. That should be conquerable.
Deleted member 92195
Inbreeding led to the notorious Habsburg Jaw and other human physical deformations. I don't know but I would think this affected their IQ, decision making, having good genes and intelligence. Their inability change, especially during 19th century when society was radically changing because of the industrial revolution, Franz Joseph still believed in enlightened absolutism and the country remained an absolute monarchy. Prussia was competent because they learned after their collapse in the Napoleonic wars they needed to reform. They also had people like Bismarck, Moltke the Older and Roon. Frederick III was really good but Wilhelm II was again incompetent as well through his physical and mental difficulties which contributed to WWI. Ultimately there is no point one person having all the power because it never works and they don't know best.
The Austrian Habsburgs were significantly leas inbred than their Spanish counterparts so I don't think you can attribute their perceived incompetence to that. Either way, they weren't so much incompetent as unlucky (no-one could have imagined a tiny backwater German state having such a fucking brilliant army and if Maria Theresa had been born a man then no War of Austrian Succession and arguably therefore no rise of Prussia for example) and many members of the dynasty were very competent, Maria Theresa for instance (I am also of the opinion that Karl I, the last emperor, was fairly competent but prevented from doing anything by WWI).
I also think you might be applying too much hindsight to what you call incompetence, much of it (like Franz Josef's obsession with enlightened absolutism) only looks incompetent to us now because we know what happened next, to the Habsburgs at the time they made sense.
Joseph II's habit of inserting himself into and proceeding to mismanage everything he could really burnt what could have been a good opportunity for expansion.
Also, shame Laudon died so shortly after returning from retirement. Him and Suvorov teaming up would have been like the late 1700s version of that time Prince Eugene and the Duke of Marlborough fought together.
Deleted member 92195
Now I have been critique bashing them a lot and that's because history falls harshly on those who failed but they also must be praised. Answering the forum question, the reason they ruled over a vast multi-ethnic empire is simple: through complete dictatorship and tyrannical emperor, there crushing of 1848 revolution is a testament to this. I know Metternich created a system of censorship and a network of spies which put the people of the state in constant fear to stay in line, otherwise its the firing squad. Simples.
Because the Ottomans never lost a war with Austria decisively enough. And after a certain point, Austria felt that keeping the Ottoman Empire there was preferable, the alternative being possibily a Russian takeover. Indeed, it's hard to say that the Ottoman Empire was seen as a unifying threat for the Austrian Habsburg lands past about 1790 at latest (by which time, historical dynastic legitimacy had become a point as such).
The Great Turkish war was a huge Austrian success and Before the French started another war that has seen the best Austrian forces sent to the west they were doing even better. I dont say that they would have driven out the turks from Europe without the french diversion but they could have achieved far better results than OTL. The war of 1714-15 was an Austrian sucess as well.
The 1740 war was the real problem for Austria. The Austrian army was at its worst than added with incompetent leadership and the shadow of the looming Austrian war of sucession and a Russia that didnt help much. Even than the Austrian diplomat made a terrible peace giving up far too much territory and could have easily gotten a far better deal than the actual peace of OTL.
After that Maria Theresa was fixated on Prussia but I think the Austrian army of the seven years war would have done well against the Ottomans. Though I suspect that the Prussians would either opposed any Austrian gains in any direction or demanded compesnation in much more valuabéle german or polish territories. And by the time the next war came about incompetent leadership was back - everyone would have been off much better on the Austrian side if Joseph II didnt want to play general. By than the wars of the french revolution were starting and Austria had more pressing problems than the ottomans. And the russians were already far too close to let the Austrians do anything alone on the Balkans.
Koprulu Mustafa Pasha
Gone Fishin'
I never denied that 1683-1699 and 1716-1718 was not an Austrian success. They won the war so it was successful. What I say is it would be harder for the Austrians to operate south of Belgrade, so the Balkans, because it is getting further and further away in a Geographic hell. Hungary was rather easier to deal with as it is plain and not covered with mountains.
Austria reached as fas Niş in 1689. But after 1687 the Ottoman Army returned to Istanbul refusing to fight unless Mehmed IV abdicated or joined the Army. As soon as Grand Vizier Köprülü Mustafa Pasha took over he reorganised the Army and drove the Austrians back over the Danube and Sava river. Some battles like Slankamen were even close battles that could have been won by the Ottomans. Whatever could have happened afterwards... maybe the war would have lasted longer.
I have to Agree with one thing though. If France did not intervene Austria would have secured entire Hungary before 1699 rather than 1718. Possibly Wallacia or Belgrade Pashaluk as well. I also would agree that the Austrian Army would be in better shape in 1756. I have however my doubts if it would be successful considering the two fronts in Bohemia and the Balkans and the leadership of the Austrian Army.
But in the XIX they were seemingly too busy 1st fighting Napoleon and then clinging to their Italian possessions to try to destroy the Ottomans. Anyway, starting from the XVIII century, there was Russian "competition" in fighting the Ottomans and, rather typically, the Hapsburgs were more into trying to limit the Russian expansion at the Ottoman expense. In their typical way they were trying to get something with a minimal risk, like occupation of the Principalities during the Crimean War (after which their were forced to leave) or demanding Bosnia-Herzegovina as a "compensation" for their agreement on the Russian-Ottoman War of 1877-78.
Of course, if they were bent upon the destruction of Ottoman Empire, there was more than one opportunity in the XIX but all these opportunities involved a military alliance with Russia.
Well, the "Russian takeover" never really assumed a complete takeover of the Ottoman territory by them and most of the time starting from 1726 and all the way to the Crimean War Russia was Austrian ally including the Ottman Wars of 1737- 39 and 1787 - 92). Surely, the Russians were not a fault that at both these wars Austrian performance was not quite stellar and that in both cases they made a separate peace abandoning their ally.
Well, you can hardly blame Joseph II for the abysmal Austrian performance in 1737 - 39.
Agree about Laudon but not sure that he'd willingly teaming up with Suvorov because he outranked Suvorov (and had a lot of "seniority") and it is unlikely that Suvorov would voluntarily go under his command (as was the case with Prince Eugene going under command of Marlborough). Prince of Coburg, while formally outranking Suvorov did not make any fuss about obeying his orders but Laudon, may not be so compliant.
BlondieBC
Banned
Terrain. Lot of rough country between the two.
Logistics. Ottomans supplied their forces mostly by sea. A-H is a land power with land logistics. The biggest A-H port was Hamburg in 1900. So some of this is like asking "Why didn't England just subjugate France?" Or "Why didn't Louis just march his army to occupy London?" Not as extreme in this case, but same idea. If A-H is strong and Ottomans are weak, Ottomans are supply their forces by easy, uncontested ocean voyages and A-H are having mule trains over high mountain passes. If Ottomans are strong, A-H is fighting on home lands with easy supplies and Ottomans are shipping stuff to ports to then be hauled over high mountain passes by mules.