Austro-Hungarian triple monarchy

[NzRuJw]

How would the situation on the Balkans develop in this AT if by some means (eg. more "liberal" kaisers coming into succession) the Austria-Hungary had added a third royal entity, for Slavic peoples? So we still have Cisleitania and Transleitania, but the disputed territories of Dalmatia and Bosnia are used as a platform to form either Kingdom of Croatia or Dalmatia.

I suppose that if it was brought into reality much earlier before the Balkan wars, then the economic dependency of the Serbian kingdom could be used to Habsburg's advantage, and instead of sparking the Pig war/Customs war, it would be seen as a way of effectively turning Serbia into a protectorate that could be later incorporated into the Empire. Montenegro, Macedonia and even historically Slavic lands of OTL Albania could be later absorbed on the premise of "protection of Balkan Slavs". We could even see Bulgaria coming even closer into Austro-Hungaro-Slav empire, first off because of dynastic ties to Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (who even ruled over Great Britain untill 1917) to the Habsburgs. Bulgaria probably wouldn't see annexation, but would be expanded greatly to match the Second Bulgarian empire, while being a proxy state of the Habsburgs, being used as a tool to further expand and exert their influence over the Balkans.​

What would be the destiny of Greece, being an orthodox brother of the Russians, but an strategic ally of the British, and how would the decaying Ottoman empire react to a new challenger approaching, and what would be the actions of the Serbian government incorporated into The Empire?
Could there be a Great War of global scale spark out because of the bickering of three great powers jockeying for their part of the Balkan pie, or would the troubles be resolved on grand conferences or local scale wars? What would be the fate of the Italians, and who would rule the Adriatic sea? Could we even see the Austrians be the first ones to get their hands on the Ottoman Libya and the Khedavite of Egypt? Who knows.

 

[Frrf]

Orthodox Serbia is unlikely to give up its hard won independance easily, nor is Montenegro, and Russia is likely to back both. Croatia is traditionally considered to be tied to Hungary, and Budapest would fight its elevation to equal status tooth and nail. Dalmatia would be a bad choice as it was small, desperately poor, had poor transport links to the rest of the Empire and was mostly administered in Italian, which would crwate unneccessary friction with tbe other South Slavs being brought under its control. The most likely third crown would be Bohemia, as Hungary can't really object to it on any grounds other than it diluting its own position, it has a long history as a seperate kingdom, and is wealthy and economically developed and could therefore support itself, which Croatia/Dalmatia couldn't.

 

[Ultima Ratio]

There is hardly a united Slavic entity in the AH, not culturally, nor linguistically. Yugoslavia shows us how monolithic Slavs are: not at all. There are of course Slavic peoples that could be given representation, namely the Croats (who already have a degree of self-rule) and the Czechs. These are also the two nationalities that might be acceptable to the Hungarians to be given a place at the table. The Kingdom of Croatia has always been a separate entity in Hungary and if the Czechs accept to not support Slovak nationalism, then there are no conflicting interests, besides of course the Hungarians fear of losing influence. And the latter is a big issue, as Vienna used the Croats and others to crush the revolution in 1848, so their fear of the Croats siding with the Austrians in any major decision is a justified one. Besides, if you are thinking of a Quadrople Monarchy, you might as well just federalize with these four states. But as always, the Hungarian magnates will be troublesome, so you have to remove their power somehow. This is a prerequisite for any reform in the Empire and likely a different topic altogether.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

The most likely third crown would be Bohemia, as Hungary can't really object to it on any grounds other than it diluting its own position, it has a long history as a seperate kingdom, and is wealthy and economically developed and could therefore support itself, which Croatia/Dalmatia couldn't.

While this makes sense in terms of Imperial politics, Bohemia-Moravia has a big hurtle to overcome internally between the German and Czech speaking elements; even if at many points these were proxies for rural vs urban and Noble vs. industrial ect. disputes. The question of the language of government, which instiutions would control policies such as education, where the tax income was to be diverted too, ect. is going to have to be definitively solved in favor of the Czechs (as the Germans are pretty anti-devolution) which won't pan out well in Austria proper. Another option that might not offend the Magyars is Gallicia, though a Polish crown will likely raise eyebrows in Russia.

 

[NzRuJw]

Orthodox Serbia is unlikely to give up its hard won independance easily, nor is Montenegro, and Russia is likely to back both. Croatia is traditionally considered to be tied to Hungary, and Budapest would fight its elevation to equal status tooth and nail. Dalmatia would be a bad choice as it was small, desperately poor, had poor transport links to the rest of the Empire and was mostly administered in Italian, which would crwate unneccessary friction with tbe other South Slavs being brought under its control. The most likely third crown would be Bohemia, as Hungary can't really object to it on any grounds other than it diluting its own position, it has a long history as a seperate kingdom, and is wealthy and economically developed and could therefore support itself, which Croatia/Dalmatia couldn't.

I must agree with your point on several things, such as disputes with Magyar nobility and the underdeveloped regions of Croatia and Bosnia. But as the FillyofDelphi already pointed out, there are some problems with making Bohemia the third crown of the Slav populace. But as I said in my OP, the divergence point would come much earlier, before the creation of dual monarchy. The p.o.d in this timeline might be the Hungarian revolt, where the Slavs living on the Hungarian territories (Croats in Dalmatia and small parts of Slavonia around Zagreb and the majority-Serb Slavonia, Syrmia and Vojvodina) also take up arms, but this time against both of their overlords. Russians would still intervene like in OTL, but this time they wouldn't just bring in the army and leave the internal pacification matters to the Habsburgs. Since there are Slavs involved too, Russians with their Pan-Slavism ideas would likely intervene into the internal matters of reconciliation of the Germans, Hungarians and Slavs. We might see the creation of two Slavic states within the Empire, both for the West Slavs (taking up the territories of Bohemia and Moravia where the Slavs are the majority, and probably including Galicia-Lodomeria) and for the South Slavs (OTL Croatia, Vojvodina, West Banat and the majority-Slovene parts of Krain). This would mean a more stable internally, but probably a generally weaker Empire, since if every state inside the Empire takes the matters to their own hands, being connected by the emperor only, would mean a lot of differences in matters of laws, state institutions and army.
I suppose the best solution would be the abolition of local governments and creation of a unified Senate, that controls the state, and small National Assembly for each state, with no great power outside of their state and the harsh legal borderlines.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

The third monarchy is either Croatia or Bohemia. The former seems fair as Bosnia and Dalmatia can be added to it. Acquiring Serbia is impossible if Serbia is independent like OTL. Whether it is offering Macedonia, Bosnia and Albania. No, that's just wishful thinking. You'd get every Great Power + the Ottomans as hostile as possible. And add the recently added Serbs as well as the Hungarians.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Austria-Hungary-Bohemia, imo.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

A Kingdom of Galicia-Bukovina would approximately equalize the populations of Austria and Hungary while creating a tie breaker crown.

 

[Arcavia]

A Kingdom of Galicia-Bukovina would approximately equalize the populations of Austria and Hungary while creating a tie breaker crown.

The Russians won't like that. Whether or not they can do anything about it is a different question of course.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The Russians won't like that. Whether or not they can do anything about it is a different question of course.

Would they? It's not called Poland, and with Bukovina included and Silesia excluded its a not much of an endorsement of Polish nationalism.

 

[JackLumber]

If im the Austrians id go with croatia for a few reasons
1. They are largely loyal to the habsburg crown
2.they are catholics but also south slavic making them a good group to put in charge of a troublesome area
3. Gives you something to do with bosnia
4. Its a nice big middle finger to the hungarians

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

My suspicion is that the triple monarchy idea was a solution to a non-existent problem.

The "Lands Represented in the Council" or Greater Austria already had power pretty devolved. There was also no unified pan-Slavic movement, that was the creation of World War I propaganda. There were specific regional ethnic tensions that aggregated into a big headache:

1. Germans vs. Magyars this was what the Dual Monarchy was designed to solve, and to some extent did.

2. Germans vs. Czechs this was a problem specifically in Bohemia (actually the Germans tended to lose ground) and you were always going to have a problem with the Czechs if you favor the Germans and vice versa. Changing internal boundaries doesn't help here.

3. Germans vs. Italians a Slavic "third" monarchy doesn't help with this.

4. Magyars vs. Rumanians a Slavic "third" monarchy doesn't help this

5. Magyars vs. Croats and Slovaks the Croats already had considerable autonomy and the Slovaks were quite

6. Germans/ Magyars vs Serbs this was the issue that brought down the empire but the Serbs really wanted Greater Serbia, so a triple monarchy would not have helped.

7. Poles and Ukrainians the Poles at least though they got a better deal under Vienna than under St. Petersburg or Berlin and were not a problem.

The best you can do is to promote the idea of the Germans and Slavs, or at least Czechs, having equal status outside of Hungary. Again this won't help with the Italians, Rumanians, or even the Serbs.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

4. Its a nice big middle finger to the hungarians

If you feel confident enough to give the middle finger to and break the power of the Magyara, why are you devolving authority yet further in the first place? You can just recenteralize in that case and provide equal (ish) rights and representation to everybody.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

I've seen on this forum that in the 1870s the prospect of making Bohemia a third crown was floated.

OTL most Austrian Trialist proposals involved the elevation of Croatia. Croatia-Slavonia was already a de-facto separate entity from Hungary in a number of ways. The merger of Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Bosnia would make a Croatian Kingdom workable. If the Hungarians oppose the idea of a Croatian Kingdom, perhaps include the Slovene lands as well and form a Kingdom of Illyria with the official language being the Kajkavian dialect of Croat (mutually intelligible with the more Serbo-Croatian Shtokavian and Slovene).

In this thread I've seen Galicia-Lodomeria + Bukovina brought up. It'd be an interesting one.

If Austria retained Lombardy-Venetia, a crown of "Padania" could work.

 

[Frrf]

I've seen on this forum that in the 1870s the prospect of making Bohemia a third crown was floated.

OTL most Austrian Trialist proposals involved the elevation of Croatia. Croatia-Slavonia was already a de-facto separate entity from Hungary in a number of ways. The merger of Croatia, Slavonia, Dalmatia, and Bosnia would make a Croatian Kingdom workable. If the Hungarians oppose the idea of a Croatian Kingdom, perhaps include the Slovene lands as well and form a Kingdom of Illyria with the official language being the Kajkavian dialect of Croat (mutually intelligible with the more Serbo-Croatian Shtokavian and Slovene).

In this thread I've seen Galicia-Lodomeria + Bukovina brought up. It'd be an interesting one.

If Austria retained Lombardy-Venetia, a crown of "Padania" could work.

With northern Italy they may as well revive the medieval title of King of Italy, which only ever covered the north of the peninsula. That or they could try and revive the title King of Lombardy, but that would probably annoy the Venetians and Friulians.

 

[Deleted member 109224]

With northern Italy they may as well revive the medieval title of King of Italy, which only ever covered the north of the peninsula. That or they could try and revive the title King of Lombardy, but that would probably annoy the Venetians and Friulians.

The capital of Napoleonic Italy was Milan. I can see an Italian crown comprised of Veneto, Lombardy, Venetian Istria, Dalmatia, and perhaps Trentino, Gorizia, and Gradisca.

Croats TTL would be divided between three crowns. That'd be interesting.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

The capital of Napoleonic Italy was Milan. I can see an Italian crown comprised of Veneto, Lombardy, Venetian Istria, Dalmatia, and perhaps Trentino, Gorizia, and Gradisca.

Vienna wouldn't tolerate Trieste being taken out of Cisleithania's administration come hell or high water, given its their only good, substantial trading port, but the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia was a political component that in theory could see devolution. The problem with that is so long as Italy exists as a robust political and cultural idea you're going to have a hard time preventing autonomy from developing into Pan-Italianism. You need to kneecap Savoyard Italy to the point a viable union isen't an option.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Vienna wouldn't tolerate Trieste being taken out of Cisleithania's administration come hell or high water, given its their only good, substantial trading port, but the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia was a political component that in theory could see devolution. The problem with that is so long as Italy exists as a robust political and cultural idea you're going to have a hard time preventing autonomy from developing into Pan-Italianism. You need to kneecap Savoyard Italy to the point a viable union isen't an option.

or hulk out and unite Italy. Actually, just twisting the Habsburg statelets in Italy into accepting real union with Austria would probably be sufficient to make "Lombardy-Venetia" into "Italy".

 

[Deleted member 109224]

Vienna wouldn't tolerate Trieste being taken out of Cisleithania's administration come hell or high water, given its their only good, substantial trading port, but the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia was a political component that in theory could see devolution. The problem with that is so long as Italy exists as a robust political and cultural idea you're going to have a hard time preventing autonomy from developing into Pan-Italianism. You need to kneecap Savoyard Italy to the point a viable union isen't an option.

Italy can have Venetian Istria, which didn't include Trieste.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

or hulk out and unite Italy. Actually, just twisting the Habsburg statelets in Italy into accepting real union with Austria would probably be sufficient to make "Lombardy-Venetia" into "Italy".

There's a rather large problem here in he form of France, who will leave this attempt to turn the entire penninsula into the exclusive domain of Vienna uncontested the day hell freezes over. And Austria in the mid 19th century, by the addmission of virually all aspects of its government, quite literally can't afford that kind of contest that might lead to a major war.