AHC: Austrian "devolution" before 1859

Is it possible, with a POD after 1815, for the Hapsburg Monarchy to placate the various nationalist movements, especially the Hungarian and Italian ones by creating localized parliaments (Milan, Prague, Budapest) and generally operate in a less centralistic way? As a consequence can those countries remain loyal to the empire and it lasts well into the XXth century, possibly with a federal structure?

Could the 1848 revolutions be avoided or their impact reduced?

The parliaments, don't need to be elective, the members can be appointed, and don't need to have extensive powers at the beginning. They serve the purpose of showing that the Hapsburg empire doesn't exist only in the interest of Wien, but treats its constituent Kingdoms equally, or at least fairly.

I don't know much about Bohemia or Hungary, but in Lombardy-Venetia a major cause of disaffection, which brought the strenghtening of nationalist sentiment, was the appointment of "german" officials at all levels. It might be argued that coopting the local elites would have made them more loyal and less responsive to nationalist ideas.
After all it's better to be a Kingdom in the Great Austrian Empire, than a province of the relatively backwards and very centralistic Kingdom of Sardinia..

[Obviously this isn't at all related with my TL about Muratian Naples.]
 
The short answer is: Yes, but...

The problem is finding an impetuous to cause such a shift in outlook and the personalities to carry it out. My personal favorite is to just have the Habsburgs (specifically Archduchess Sophie and Archduke Johann) coopt the 1848 Revolutions and basically create (without intending to do so) Otto von Habsburg's vision of the EU, but a century early and initially contained to Central Europe.

Before 1848 the biggest stumbling block could become the biggest asset if done well. I speak, of course, of Metternich, who many would say has to be deposed for any movement to be achieved. I disagreed because I never bought that Metternich was a dyed-in-the-wool Reactionary. Did he become its standard barer? Absolutely, but he did so because he saw it as pragmatic and necessary. If he can somehow be convinced that what we would call "federalization," is the best way to ensure Habsburg hegemony, then he can be likely swayed.
 
Before 1848 the biggest stumbling block could become the biggest asset if done well. I speak, of course, of Metternich, who many would say has to be deposed for any movement to be achieved. I disagreed because I never bought that Metternich was a dyed-in-the-wool Reactionary. Did he become its standard barer? Absolutely, but he did so because he saw it as pragmatic and necessary. If he can somehow be convinced that what we would call "federalization," is the best way to ensure Habsburg hegemony, then he can be likely swayed.

Metternich, personally, was more than willing to go for devolution. His vision, and that of numerous conservatives at the time, were local parliaments for various crownlands of the monarchy (so, IIRC, Bohemia, Hungary, Croatia, Lombardy-Venetia ... maybe Galizia). Now, not to give the man too much credit, his vision included limited political autonomy for said parliaments and the central parliament in Vienna was envisioned as being entirely toothless (being primarily an advisory body for the Emperor ... 'where gentelmanly debate would result in the Emperor being provided with the best possible advice for each sitution', yeah, the man had very odd ideas about how that would work).

The issue is that Metternich is both too powerful (thereby blocking opposing ideas) and not powerful enough (therefore unable to push through his own ideas). During the reign of Franz II, there was going to be no devolution or reform, the Emperor was categorically opposed. During the regency that followed, well, its composition was problematic. Metternich and Kolowrat-Leibsteinsky were at each other's throats most of the time (to the detriment of the entire Empire, such as Kolowrat's cutting of the army's budget to the bone, to the point where it couldn't afford to pay it's soldiers and officers regularly). The Archdukes Louis and Franz Karl were, well, Louis was an arch-consrvative and not open to reform and Franz Karl was useless.

Ultimately, there are two real options. Have Franz II bypass Ferdinand and pass the crown to Franz Karl, avoiding the regency and, given how ineffectual the man was, placing power handily in Metternich's hands. Bonus points if Kolowrat-Leibsteinsky never gains a position where he can cause trouble (though he was a brilliant organizer and economist, so the economy of the Empire would suffer for it).

The second option is to remove Metternich. Ironically, Kolowrat was also a proponent of devolution (though with a very different idea as to what powers to give to the crownlands, Kolowrat argued for cultural rights, Metternich for political), so having him in power would allow for a different form of devolution.

Also, load Archduke Louis into a cannon and fire him out of it. Well, I suppose you could simply avoid Ferdinand ascending to the throne, that would remove Louis from doing too much, too. I still say he should be fired out of a cannon.
 
P.O.D. On 10th April, 1819, Archduke Ferdinand, son of Francis II, suffered from a major epileptic episod, that left his fragile health in deteriorated, he died in Vienne, on the 12th April, 7 days before his 26th birthday.
This deaht ment that his 16 year old, unwed and childless, brother, Archduke Franz Karl, was now the next in line to the throne. Who as an unambitious and generally ineffectual man, filled his father's 51 year old heart with dread.He had to plan a strong marriage and quickly, his main options were Maria Anna of Savoy, Princess Alexandrine of Prussia or Princess Marie-Caroline of the Two Sicilies. The proposal of Princess Sophie of Bavaria was not fitting for the future heir to the throne.

However five years later, Archduke Franz Karl died at the age of 21 in Vienna after suffering from tuberculosis. Him and his wife Maria Anna, were sadly not blessed with children.

The country was heading for a crisis that could lead to another European war, with a Second War of Austrian Succession on the cards, with the Napoleonic War finishing only 10 years before and it has not even been 100 years since the last War of Austrian Succession, when his grandmother, Maria Theresa had to fight for her right on the throne and now at 56, Francis II, was too old to father a new son.

The next in line is his brother, Charles, Duke of Teschen, who was more of a military man then a governing policial man, so Francis was setting up a way of devolving power down to his parliament.

Thus starting the way for Charles to be the first constitutional monarch of Austria.
 
Why are you guys talking like parliments in some of those places didn't exist. Hungary and Croatia had both a joint one and separate ones.
 
Why are you guys talking like parliments in some of those places didn't exist. Hungary and Croatia had both a joint one and separate ones.

Relevant ones, with actual power. At least that's what I mean. I'm well aware both Hungary and Croatia had them, but they were largely window dressing, a nod to tradition, in the period discussed. Utterly powerless. There's a reason the period is called one of absolutism even in the areas where there were local parliaments.

Devolution of powers would've made them important, so they're mentioned in the same breath as theoretical new parliaments. Saves time when speaking/writing.
 
I think that a "cultural" devolution would serve the Monarchy better.

IF you get different parliaments you ultimately end with different laws. That would only serve to make things complicated.

A central parliament (pre 1848) would be perfect to ensure a common law for all subjects and probaly be the core fore a true democratic Monarchy later on.

It would be important that the executive brabch in each Kronland is mirroring the locla population and executives should be native or at last speak the native language. (and be sure to promote troublemakers to advanced posts in Vienna ;)).

BE sure that religious holidays are introduced that mirror the local church (Polish Catholics might rever different saints than Italian or Czech ones - and the orthodox church has more different ones)

Make sure to MAKE differences. Try to Promote Veneto Lombardian culture and NOT "Italian" culture. (IIRC the North Eastern Italian is even today a bit different from the Italian spoken in Rome - try to "deepen" the rift)

And HAVE A STRONG MILITARY. The War(s) of Austrian sucession were lost becuase tooo less money went into the military and too much was used for appeasement (of foreigners - appeasement of your own subjects might pay off).
 
The next in line is his brother, Charles, Duke of Teschen, who was more of a military man then a governing policial man, so Francis was setting up a way of devolving power down to his parliament.

Thus starting the way for Charles to be the first constitutional monarch of Austria.


You sure? I think the Grand Duke of Tuscany was actually next, though he would probably have to resign Tuscany to a younger son on succeeding.
 
Top