AHC: Austria-dominated Germany

very well, I assume that the armies of the German states will still be combined right?

so do the Hapsburg have nearly the same control that Prussia had over our OTL German empire or more likely around half the amount of federal control at least at first.


who is the best minister after Metternich to help Franz Joseph's crazy plan?

Count Franz Anton von Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky?
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
very well, I assume that the armies of the German states will still be combined right?

so do the Hapsburg have nearly the same control that Prussia had over our OTL German empire or more likely around half the amount of federal control at least at first.

Nivek is absolutely correct about the details of the plan for the East.

As it concerns the political system of Germany, yes, it is going to leave internal affairs largely in the hands of the individual states, but make no mistake, the 1848 constitution, like the 1871 one, was a *federal* one, which means that external and defense affairs, as well as economic issues of national importance, shall be in the purview of the central legislature and executive. Given its population, however, Prussia shall have a great deal of influence in the Reichstag and (more importantly from the Hohenzollern PoV) in the Reichsrat. Given Prussia's importance and military expertise, hoever, it is possible that they bargain some special status in defense affairs, such as at least partial command of their own armed forces in peacetime or leadership of the federal high command, much like Bavaria did with the former concession in peacetime. Personally, I find giving leadership of the High Command to a Prussian more functional, the Prussian armed forces were much too big a component of the German military might to keep them apart even in peacetime, for optimal effectiveness.

Again, I urge all of you to refer to the flowchart of the 1848 constitution for reference. Unfortunately, I have been unable to find a good English translation, but as it concerns its federal character, it was in all likelihood not much different from the the 1871 one, which we may use for reference, too. As it concerns federalism, the 1871 constitution was based on the 1848 one.
 
Last edited:
Minor point:

If you have a Russo-British alliance against a united Hapsburg Germany, what happens to Denmark in the inevitable European wars? And Sweden for that matter?

Sweden, I think, would try to stay neutral. It's possible that they try to enter in a war against Russia to regain Finland, but other than that, they will stay neutral. They'll be either a fairly minor ally of the Hapsburgs or a Hapsburg-friendly neutral.

Denmark is trickier. The Kattegat will be very important to the *Entente for communication with Russia. Denmark will be under enormous pressure from them to let Russian and British ships through, and equally enormous pressure from the Hapsburgs to not let them through. I think that the Danes side with the Hapsburgs, since the Hapsburgs present a much more credible threat. At this point, the Brits, possibly assisted by the French, would probably try an amphibious assault on Denmark to force the Kattegat open. They will probably fail, due to the close proximity of Germany. Denmark will then probably end up a Hapsburg satellite.

Any problems with this series of events? It depends a lot on the events of the larger wars involved, of course.
 
1848

1848 -- Austria & Hungary Split.
Hungary spends the next 60~75 years competing with the Ottomans over the Balkans.
Austria spends the next several decades, uniting Germany
 
These are very good points gentleman and let me answer them in turn

Imperialaquelia- as much as I And I assume the central powers would like to avoid it, it does seem likely that the allaince will be attacked by russia and france at some point by the alliance of France and Russia with the unfortunate addition of Britain at some point in the 19th century. however to answer your question about Denmark it is actually going to drift to Sweden after the loss of Holstein ( or part of it) and eventually become part of the Scandinavian union/ kingdom. and it will drift if that occurs to the Hapsburg camp

Duquense-

you raise a point that most of the next few decades will be growth and unification however the Hungarian are not going to face the ottomans in the Balkans rather the ottomans and Hapsburg alliance will be dealing with angry Russia and friends.

and The good news is that i'm defiantly looking at the flowchart and constitution right now
 

Eurofed

Banned
Minor point:

If you have a Russo-British alliance against a united Hapsburg Germany, what happens to Denmark in the inevitable European wars? And Sweden for that matter?

Sweden, I think, would try to stay neutral. It's possible that they try to enter in a war against Russia to regain Finland, but other than that, they will stay neutral. They'll be either a fairly minor ally of the Hapsburgs or a Hapsburg-friendly neutral.

Denmark is trickier. The Kattegat will be very important to the *Entente for communication with Russia. Denmark will be under enormous pressure from them to let Russian and British ships through, and equally enormous pressure from the Hapsburgs to not let them through. I think that the Danes side with the Hapsburgs, since the Hapsburgs present a much more credible threat. At this point, the Brits, possibly assisted by the French, would probably try an amphibious assault on Denmark to force the Kattegat open. They will probably fail, due to the close proximity of Germany. Denmark will then probably end up a Hapsburg satellite.

Any problems with this series of events? It depends a lot on the events of the larger wars involved, of course.

IV, if I may give my reasoned opinion, it is actually rather unlikely that Britain shall be an enemy of the Habsburg alliance in the first general European war in the 50s-70s. Russia and France shall be the enemies that round, with Turkey possibly joining the Habsburg. Yep, the Schleswig-Holstein question is sgnificant and might theoretically be a casus belli, but it was not very important to London, it is much more likely that Britain mediates a compromise after Germany humbles Denmark, and afterwards Scandinavia turns inward to attend to its own unification. In this period, Russia and France were the main imperialistic rivals of Britain, the UK was friendly to German and Italian unifications, at this point the Habsburg block is a land power which does not directly threaten any UK interest, and no more destabilizing to European equilibrium than the Triple Alliance, which Britain was happy with for 20 years. Britain is unlikely to make a 180° turn in its foreign policy for little reason.

Britain is much more likely to join the *Entente in the second round, in the 1890s-1910s, when the Habsburg bloc has started to be a major player in the colonial scramble, has in all likelihood already humbled France and Russia, is economically upstaging Britain and possibly entered a naval race with it, and thus became a believable threat to UK interests.

To sum it up:

*Schelswig-Holstein war: Germany vs. Denmark, 1848-49, German victory, compromise peace mediated by Britain (Hostein to Germany, Schleswig to Denmark or partitioned.
*Crimean/Franco-Habsburg War: 1855/1870, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Galicia, (Turkey) vs. France and Russia. Britain true neutral.
*WWI: 1890/1910: Germany, Italy, Hungary, Poland, UBD, Turkey vs. Britain, France, Russia, (Serbia, Romania, Greece). America true neutral.
 
Last edited:
IV, if I may give my reasoned opinion, it is actually rather unlikely that Britain shall be an enemy of the Habsburg alliance in the first general European war in the 50s-70s. Russia and France shall be the enemies that round, with Turkey possibly joining the Habsburg. Yep, the Schleswig-Holstein question is sgnificant and might theoretically be a casus belli, but it was not very important to London, it is much more likely that Britain mediates a compromise after Germany humbles Denmark, and afterwards Scandinavia turns inward to attend to its own unification. In this period, Russia and France were the main imperialistic rivals of Britain, the UK was friendly to German and Italian unifications, at this point the Habsburg block is a land power which does not directly threaten any UK interest, and no more destabilizing to European equilibrium than the Triple Alliance, which Britain was happy with for 20 years. Britain is unlikely to make a 180° turn in its foreign policy for little reason.

Britain is much more likely to join the *Entente in the second round, in the 1890s-1910s, when the Habsburg bloc has started to be a major player in the colonial scramble, has in all likelihood already humbled France and Russia, is economically upstaging Britain and possibly entered a naval race with it, and thus became a believable threat to UK interests.

To sum it up:

*Schelswig-Holstein war: Germany vs. Denmark, 1848-49, German victory, compromise peace mediated by Britain (Hostein to Germany, Schleswig to Denmark or partitioned.
*Crimean/Franco-Habsburg War: 1855/1870, Germany, Italy, Hungary, Galicia, (Turkey) vs. France and Russia. Britain true neutral.
*WWI: 1890/1910: Germany, Italy, Hungary, Poland, UBD, Turkey vs. Britain, France, Russia, (Serbia, Romania, Greece). America true neutral.

My question was more along the lines of whether Denmark or Sweden would join in any of the general wars. I wasn't really considering Schleswig-Holstein. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I wasn't clear about whether Britain would join in the one in the 1850s-1870s.

Though if Denmark has fought Germany before the 1st European war, would it be possible for Russia and France to tempt it into the war? I don't think so, because Germany will pretty much always be able to crush Denmark no matter what France and Russia are doing to it within the realm of plausibility.

I would think that Sweden, if it were going to join any war, would join the 1st European war, since the memories of losing Finland would still be remembered. They probably won't move unless it is pretty clear that the Germans are winning, though.

The second war will be the one in which the Danes are under serious pressure, then.
 

Eurofed

Banned
My question was more along the lines of whether Denmark or Sweden would join in any of the general wars. I wasn't really considering Schleswig-Holstein. Sorry for the lack of clarity. I wasn't clear about whether Britain would join in the one in the 1850s-1870s.

Oh, Ok, I had misunderstood your point. :) Scandinavian role in any of the general wars is a more complex issue. These is also the issue of whether Denmark and Sweden unify after the Schleswig-Holstein conflict.

Though if Denmark has fought Germany before the 1st European war, would it be possible for Russia and France to tempt it into the war? I don't think so, because Germany will pretty much always be able to crush Denmark no matter what France and Russia are doing to it within the realm of plausibility.

Exactly.

I would think that Sweden, if it were going to join any war, would join the 1st European war, since the memories of losing Finland would still be remembered. They probably won't move unless it is pretty clear that the Germans are winning, though.

Sweden alone might join either the 1st European war or the 2nd European war, for the sake of Finland. If it unifies with Denmark in the meanwhile, it is more likely to stay neutral in the 1st war, out of lingering Danish bad blood with Germany, and in the 2nd war, because of British pressure on Denmark and Norway. However, it might still join the 2nd war (bad blood would have dissipated by then) if German-Swedish naval power is by then good enough to protect Denmark, and/or Denmark fears German land power more than British naval power. Norwegian wariness to defy Britain might still be a problem, however.

The second war will be the one in which the Danes are under serious pressure, then.

Yep. The Norwegians, too, for different reasons.
 
Can I get Cavour to work for a liberal constitutional Austrian Italy

because I Know I can get garibaldi

can any one confirm?
 

Eurofed

Banned
Can I get Cavour to work for a liberal constitutional Austrian Italy

Absolutely yes. He had no personal animosity against Austria. He was an Italian patriot, working for a Savoy or Habsburg monarch would make no difference for him in the end.

because I Know I can get garibaldi

Likewise, he was a left-wing radical republican that turned reluctant pragmatic monarchist because he realized that the monarchy had the best chances of unifying Italy. Just like OTL, it may take him a little hand-wringing but he would collaborate with Ferdinand Maximilian just like IOTL he did so with Vittorio Emanuele II in the end. ITTL, after Italy has been settled, we may expect him eagerly fighting for the liberation of Poland from Tsarist autocracy with a volunteer corps when the war with Russia occurs. And if wars in Europe are not keeping him busy when the ACW occurs, ITTL we have better chances of him becoming a Union general, too (he would require that Lincoln committs to emancipation before accepting, however).
 
thats just what I'm starting right now eurofed!

Do you think there is a way to get rid of the second Republic more quickly through radicallism I don't just want Napoleon 3 to crush but maybe speed up his election
 
Last edited:
Top