AHC: Superpower Hapsburg Empire post-1849

[wolf_brother]

True dat.

Well, I figure if Radetzky was given a free hand in Italy, the Northern Italians would not have a force to stop him, despite the Liberal sentiments. True, it might temporarily unify the Republicans, Monarchists, and the Fusion groups against the Austrians, they could not possibly field an equal to Radetzky's army in time. Venice would end up how they did, staying in their fantastic defensive position waiting for the battle to be decided in Lombardy. The Piedmont-Sardinian-Lombard Army would have to meet Radetzky somewhere, and would likely lose (likely).

The problem is that once Radetzky became involved, things were already out of control. He was given a free hand in Italy, and did all that he could do, and that was essentially to pull back to the Quadrilateral to keep the revolutionaries from invading Austria itself.

EDIT: Perhaps Palffy agrees to Manin's proposals to create a Venetian Civic Guard instead of telling him off, which led to Manin creating his own volunteer militia, and eventually leading the Venetian Revolution. IOTL when word of the promised imperial constitution, which would have retained the basic Hapsburg structure while granting greater autonomy in local matters to the various provinces, reached Venice the crowds chanted "Long live Italy, long live the Emperor!" When the arsenalotti rise up as per OTL it would be Manin and his cohorts fighting against them, not with them. It was the fall of Venice that pushed the imperialists to fall back, they knew they couldn't even attempt to try putting down the revolutionary fighting that had already started in Lombardy if Venetia rose up behind them as well.

 

[King of Rome]

Radetzky was not given enough men, methinks.

And as far as the revolutionaries threatening Austria itself, I doubt there was enough unity among them to even kick Radetzky out. Two of the three camps of liberals were not reconcilable, and the third camp prevented Venice from really falling one way or the other, though the city itself was intensely Republican. This fractious attitude drained Charles Albert's potential army.

I am not casting doubt on the Lombards spirit and martial abilities, I just think they were too divided to really pose a threat to the Austrian Homeland, and could have easily been crushed in the beginning.

Well, Venice's forces would have to take to the fields to have a real impact on the war effort.

 

[wolf_brother]

Again, I'm not sure that there's much to be done before Radetzky fell back to the Quadrilateral. There simply wasn't enough time. The Five Glorious Days broke out on 18 March 1848, and by 23 March he was forced to fall back out of Italy altogether as Milan had thrown him off, Piedmont had declared war, the countryside was in flames, and even Venice had risen up. There simply wasn't any safe harbor for the Hapsburg forces left in the North Italian plain except for Verona. Hell, even that wasn't impenetrable, as demonstrated by the 8 April opening skirmishes of the Battle of Goito. And then you have the revolutions happening in Tuscany, the Papal States, Naples, Sicily, etc, the former two of which IOTL would send tens of thousands of volunteers to fight in the north against the Hapsburgs as well. So without a change very early in the revolution there's not going to be much difference, in Italy at least. More troops later will just mean less troops somewhere else, either in Prague, Budapest, or Vienna itself, for the Hapsburgs, perhaps with disastrous consequences.

 

[King of Rome]

Ha, touche- I am going to have to go back and do some reading to see if I can't argue my way out of this box. You got me this round.

 

[Monty Burns]

I don't see how AH could have handled 1848 much better. They could have been more successful in that they would keep more restive Italians or even expand a bit - taking in more restive minorities. Taking more German lands likely wouldn't be that beneficial either, as this would only strengthen German relative domination - but not sufficiently.

You need more germans. We simply have no example fot a trully multinational Superpower.

I think this has the two main points.

AH would have had great chances to become a great power - and maybe even a superpower - if they had managed that multi-ethnic state successfully and had managed a democratic transformation. That way you could have a proto-EU with stable common institutions. And such an entity could expand peacfully, accepting other Balkan countries as members of the federation or whatever it is called. I like the idea, but it never happened IOTL and I just don't see how to get this during the age of nationalism.

Now with more Germans you could turn AH into a multi-ethnic state that is clearly dominated by one ethnicity. But how to get that many Germans with a POD after 1848? That's even more ASB by simple maths.

 

[Rush Tarquin]

So if you include southern and western Catholic Germany, is that enough natural resources and people with the right ideas to drag AH into a German Empire equivalent industrial state? Will this create migration of the other ethnicities into German cities with accompanying proletarisation? There was an OTL internal immigration from east to west into the cities and regulation of internal migrants in AH was more relevant to their legal status rather than right of entry or residence (a bit like the debates on illegal immigrants in the US today, only it wasn't a matter of illegal entry so much as municipalities' right to expel alien residents).

 

[Elfwine]

Some figures worth noting (all from 1913).

Urban population: 4.6 million/8.8% ( Britain 15.8/34.6%, Germany: 14.1/21%, France:5.9/14.8%)

Per captia level of Industrialization (relative to the UK in 1900=100): 32. ( Great Britain: 115, Germany: 85, France: 59)

Steel production: 2.1 million tons (Germany 13.6, Britain 6.5, France 3.4)

Energy consumption from modern sources: Equivalent to 49.4 million metric tons of coal (Britain: 195, Germany: 187, France: 62.5)

Total industrial potential: (UK in 1900=100): 40.7 (Germany: 13.7, Britain: 127.2, France: 57.3)

Percent of world manufacturing output: 4.4% (Germany 14.8%, Britain: 13.6%, France 6.1%)

Russia, the United States, Italy, and Japan not included (available if requested).

Source: The Rise and Fall of the Great Powers.

So to answer your question: Given the gap we're talking about, probably not. Total population, maybe. But productivity, no. Ideas - it isn't any better for Austria for the subjects of Franz Joseph to invent something than someone else doing so.

 

[wannis]

So if you include southern and western Catholic Germany, is that enough natural resources and people with the right ideas to drag AH into a German Empire equivalent industrial state?

It's certainly possible for AH to grab the Southern Catholic states with a POD in 1848, but while that would somewhat increase the German share of the population, these states were mostly agricultural backwaters at that time - the centres of German industrialisation were the Ruhr area, Saxony and Silesia. In order to grab Western Catholic Germany (you mean the Rhineland and Westphalia?), AH would need to take it from Prussia. I don't think that AH would be able to do that without a strong ally - Russia (and why should the Russians go against Prussia instead of going for the easier option of dismembering AH?) or France (and while I can imagine scenarios where France supports AH against Prussia, I don't think they would let AH get away with annexing the Rhine area).

 

[Elfwine]

It's certainly possible for AH to grab the Southern Catholic states with a POD in 1848, but while that would somewhat increase the German share of the population, these states were mostly agricultural backwaters at that time - the centres of German industrialisation were the Ruhr area, Saxony and Silesia. In order to grab Western Catholic Germany (you mean the Rhineland and Westphalia?), AH would need to take it from Prussia. I don't think that AH would be able to do that without a strong ally - Russia (and why should the Russians go against Prussia instead of going for the easier option of dismembering AH?) or France (and while I can imagine scenarios where France supports AH against Prussia, I don't think they would let AH get away with annexing the Rhine area).

Prussia up until the 1860s is the weaker power than Austria, though. Not the stronger.

 

[Rush Tarquin]

It's certainly possible for AH to grab the Southern Catholic states with a POD in 1848, but while that would somewhat increase the German share of the population, these states were mostly agricultural backwaters at that time - the centres of German industrialisation were the Ruhr area, Saxony and Silesia. In order to grab Western Catholic Germany (you mean the Rhineland and Westphalia?), AH would need to take it from Prussia.

Getting Silesia back was one of AH's recurring aims in its struggles with Prussia and Saxony was an ally. A South German Confederation including those areas after defeating Prussia should have the effect on AH industrialisation under discussion.

 

[wannis]

Prussia up until the 1860s is the weaker power than Austria, though. Not the stronger.

That's something you need to prove to me. Whenever they fought, Prussia won. And a lot of AH's troops was bound up in keeping down restive populations - much less the case with Prussia.

Getting Silesia back was one of AH's recurring aims in its struggles with Prussia and Saxony was an ally. A South German Confederation including those areas after defeating Prussia should have the effect on AH industrialisation under discussion.

Well, one of your conditions was "no Großdeutschland". In a scenario where AH is able to take Silesia and Western Germany from Prussia, which implies a total rout of Prussia, why would an AH emperor who sees himself as the legitimate heir of the HRE not go for a German Reich with himself as emperor, but satisfy himself with a Southern German confederation? Your condition "no Großdeutschland" implies a strong Prussia, that's one reason why it's so hard to get a non-ASB scenario.

 

[Elfwine]

That's something you need to prove to me. Whenever they fought, Prussia won. And a lot of AH's troops was bound up in keeping down restive populations - much less the case with Prussia.

The problem is, Prussia in the period between Napoleon and Wilhelm I doesn't have that The Best Army On the Continent, and its resources as a power are more limited.

That Frederick the Great beat Austria is not the same thing as Austria being weaker in say, 1850.

 

[Rush Tarquin]

That's something you need to prove to me. Whenever they fought, Prussia won. And a lot of AH's troops was bound up in keeping down restive populations - much less the case with Prussia.


Well, one of your conditions was "no Großdeutschland". In a scenario where AH is able to take Silesia and Western Germany from Prussia, which implies a total rout of Prussia, why would an AH emperor who sees himself as the legitimate heir of the HRE not go for a German Reich with himself as emperor, but satisfy himself with a Southern German confederation? Your condition "no Großdeutschland" implies a strong Prussia, that's one reason why it's so hard to get a non-ASB scenario.

Well a personality change for Franz Joseph could mean he follows the policy of revenge against Prussia but does not want to pursue becoming the German emperor because he rightly foresees it will cleave his domain in two. And maybe Prussia is weak but effectively becomes a Russian client state. This sets up some serious problems still with his own Slavic population.

Another impediment to wanking would be that Nappy III would likely take his piece in the west in exchange for his collaboration with Austria. If we're talking 1850 though, what would 2nd French Republic's demands be?

 

[wannis]

The problem is, Prussia in the period between Napoleon and Wilhelm I doesn't have that The Best Army On the Continent, and its resources as a power are more limited.
That Frederick the Great beat Austria is not the same thing as Austria being weaker in say, 1850.

In 1848, Prussia was the power that restored the pre-revolutionary order in Germany. Austria was busy enough to keep its own empire together. You need to change a lot to get to an AH that could free sufficient ressources to decisively beat Prussia.

Well a personality change for Franz Joseph could mean he follows the policy of revenge against Prussia but does not want to pursue becoming the German emperor because he rightly foresees it will cleave his domain in two. And maybe Prussia is weak but effectively becomes a Russian client state. This sets up some serious problems still with his own Slavic population.

This is not a question of personality, this is a question of dynastic ideology. Put whatever Habsburg on the throne in 1848 or in the next 30 years, none of them would forgo a chance to unite Germany if he'd have managed to beat Prussia to a pulp. The Germans in Austria would demand the same thing. In order to get to an AH that wouldn't jump at a chance to rule the whole of Germany, the only workable ideas I see are 1) what wolf_brother proposed - a revolutionary situation where the peoples of AH see reactionary Russia and Prussia as their greatest threat and therefore stick together instead of forming all their own nation states or 2) a power shift inside AH to Hungary, perhaps with the Italian and parts of the German-speaking territories jumping ship, where the Hungarians would form the ethnic core together in alliance with the Czechs (afraid of the Germans) and Croats (bribed with autonomy and a program of expansion on the Balkans). With 1), the Habsburgs would be mere figureheads if they keep the throne at all; with 2), a scenario where a Habsburg rides the tiger is possible, although more likely they'll be removed or only be figureheads as well.

Another impediment to wanking would be that Nappy III would likely take his piece in the west in exchange for his collaboration with Austria. If we're talking 1850 though, what would 2nd French Republic's demands be?

You mean Napoleon doesn't take over? To make demands, France would have to be involved - I still maintain that AH wouldn't be able to beat Prussia so decisively that it could grab the Rhine area without having a great power ally. A France that would get involved wouldn't want Austria to get too big for its shoes, so it probably would demand that the Rhineland would be kept apart from AH - depending on what flavour of government France would have, as a Rhenanian Republic or as some kind of non-Habsburg principality.

 

[wolf_brother]

If I might offer some insight vis-à-vis Prussia in the 1848 Revolutions; yes, they eventually were the ones that crushed the revolution across most of the German states and re-instituted the reactionary order, however, that was only after they dealt with their own issues first. Berlin rose up, twice, and the Rhineland was a hotbed of revolutionary activity. And the Hohenzollern principalities weren't exactly free from radicalism either. Plus they had to deal with the Poles in Posen. And fight the First Schleswig War. There were certainly plenty of opportunities for things to go wrong for Prussia, and the final results in her favor from of the 1848-1849 Revolutions were more a combination of exceptionally good luck, lack of the multi-ethnic empire that the Austrians held, as well as the fact that the Austrians were considered the German power so most revolutionary and reformist activity flocked there, and that the other noteworthy German states (Hanover, Saxony, Bavaria, etc.) were experiencing uprisings just as bad, or worse, than what Prussia found itself up against. None of this points to some inherent Prussian strength.

 

[wannis]

If I might offer some insight vis-à-vis Prussia in the 1848 Revolutions; yes, they eventually were the ones that crushed the revolution across most of the German states and re-instituted the reactionary order, however, that was only after they dealt with their own issues first. Berlin rose up, twice, and the Rhineland was a hotbed of revolutionary activity. And the Hohenzollern principalities weren't exactly free from radicalism either. Plus they had to deal with the Poles in Posen. And fight the First Schleswig War. There were certainly plenty of opportunities for things to go wrong for Prussia, and the final results in her favor from of the 1848-1849 Revolutions were more a combination of exceptionally good luck, lack of the multi-ethnic empire that the Austrians held, as well as the fact that the Austrians were considered the German power so most revolutionary and reformist activity flocked there, and that the other noteworthy German states (Hanover, Saxony, Bavaria, etc.) were experiencing uprisings just as bad, or worse, than what Prussia found itself up against. None of this points to some inherent Prussian strength.

I underlined the main difference between Prussia and AH. But my main issue is that we're not discussing a scenario where AH simply emerges from 1848/49 in a better position than IOTL or wins some battles against Prussia, but the proposals made that AH somehow manages to bring substantial parts of Germany under its control without establishing its rule over all of Germany. For getting Silesia and the Rhine area, as was discussed, AH would have to decisively beat Prussia. Let's assume that AH is lucky and is able to gather sufficient troops while Prussia drowns in revolutionary chaos. For what reason would the Habsburgs stop at occupying the Rhine area and annexing Silesia, when, in such a situation, there would be lots of people begging them to take the imperial crown? Now, let's assume AH occupies Southern and Western Germany plus Silesia in the name of extinguishing the revolution; then the revolutionaries in the North are victorious and decide that they prefer living in liberal republics or parliamentary monarchies to a Germany united under reactionary AH. I don't think that AH could hold on to the Rhine area and Baden under such conditions; also, instead of a superpower-in-waiting, it would then be a reactionary state with the clock ticking against it as IOTL.

EDIT: Let's remember the conditions:
-post-1849: Ouch. Somehow that POD slipped back to 1848 in my mind. Even more difficult, as 1848/49 a lots of cogs started whirring that are difficult to reverse.
-no Grossdeutschland: That's the main road-block. The less of Germany AH holds, the more difficult it will be to create a national core that can maintain it against the forces of nationalism; the more of Germany it holds, the more its policy will be directed at controlling all of it (both dynastic ideology and German popular demand will drive it in that direction). Possible only with a revolution that sets AH against the rest of Germany while keeping the other nationalities from jumping ship or a shift of ethnic core.
-control of Mackinder's Heartland: needs a breakdown of Russia, perhaps in a scenario similar to OTL's revolution and civil war. Doable.

 

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

There never was an armed rebellion, but at the moment the Prussian army retreated in 1918, the French Republic was proclaimed. And it constantly elected "autonomist" (in fact french ratachist) MP to the bundestag.

I am sure the authorities of the Austrian Empire would have wished the rebels they had to deal with were as rebellious as the Alsatians.

And it never spoke german. It spoke Alsatian, which is a dialect of Allemanisch, while Hochdeutsch is upper saxon in the written form spoken by northern german who spoke a language with some large differences.

Calling Alsatian German, is like calling Gascon (an occitan dialect) French.

It is close enough that integration into a German-dominated union should not be an issue.

And on the question of religion, Alsace is a multi-religious area. Even if the south was largely Catholic, even there Mulhouse was protestant. Due to the rule of one Prince, one religion and Alsace balkanization during the middle-age, Alsace is a patchwork of religion, with a lot of diversity in the north. Catholics maybe a majority, but they are close from being a plurality.

So, it is just like the neighboring Swabia and Franconia and even certain parts of the Austrian Empire.

Well, one of your conditions was "no Großdeutschland". In a scenario where AH is able to take Silesia and Western Germany from Prussia, which implies a total rout of Prussia, why would an AH emperor who sees himself as the legitimate heir of the HRE not go for a German Reich with himself as emperor, but satisfy himself with a Southern German confederation? Your condition "no Großdeutschland" implies a strong Prussia, that's one reason why it's so hard to get a non-ASB scenario.

There is the option of Austria leading a reformed German Confederation without turning it into an united German state.
The Austrian reform plan IOTL was aiming for this kind of Germany.

 

[Elfwine]

In 1848, Prussia was the power that restored the pre-revolutionary order in Germany. Austria was busy enough to keep its own empire together. You need to change a lot to get to an AH that could free sufficient ressources to decisively beat Prussia.

We're not looking at Austria defeating Prussia, we're looking at the difficulty of defeating Austria vs. defeating Prussia.

Not necessarily the same thing.

Honestly, both are marginal first rate powers - Prussia is too small and Austria too . . . troubled.

Up to the 1860 reforms for Prussia, after that it becomes increasingly OTL.

 

[Simon]

It's certainly possible for AH to grab the Southern Catholic states with a POD in 1848, but while that would somewhat increase the German share of the population, these states were mostly agricultural backwaters at that time - the centres of German industrialisation were the Ruhr area, Saxony and Silesia. In order to grab Western Catholic Germany (you mean the Rhineland and Westphalia?), AH would need to take it from Prussia. I don't think that AH would be able to do that without a strong ally - Russia (and why should the Russians go against Prussia instead of going for the easier option of dismembering AH?) or France (and while I can imagine scenarios where France supports AH against Prussia, I don't think they would let AH get away with annexing the Rhine area).

Regarding the Rhineland and Westphalia provinces and Silesia one of the ideas that often comes up is Prussia losing the Austro-Prussian war. From what I've read the Battle of Koniggratz was a pretty close run thing, when Wilhelm I started getting cold feet and considering retreating von Moltke informed him that "We are fighting here for the very existence of Prussia" and Bismarck was nervous enough to have £7,500 in gold coins of various types sewn into his jacket in case he had to make a run for it. All it takes if for the Austrians to win and the Prussians would be forced to try and retreat via narrow mountain passes and countryside that they had stripped of supplies coming the other way, to the extent that most of their forces hadn't eaten for a couple of days before the battle, which probably turns into even more of an unorganised disaster. If Austria is able to win the war decisively then depending on how decisively they can probably make some decent gains against Prussia and just as importantly force some serious losses on them even if they personally don't benefit. Regular ideas include dividing the Rhine and Westphalia provinces up into two or three grand duchies to compensate Habsburg rulers from Italy that lost their states, retaking Silesia - or if they want to look magnanimous then perhaps only Upper Silesia which just happens to contain most of the natural resources IIRC, possibly expanding Saxony back to it's pre-1816 borders. Would also mean that Hanover isn't absorbed - so Prussia doesn't get to loot its treasury for Bismarck's 'reptile fund' and they might even annex Bremen and Hamburg as well as inheriting Brunswick a few years later. The main benefits are that you've just stripped out a lot of Prussia's future industrial heartland and blocked the dissolution of the German Confederation and its replacement by the North German Confederation. France will probably stick their noses in to try and gain some influence but I think they could probably be bought off by Austria agreeing to stick to the deal to give them Venetia to pass on to Italy since Napoleon III was a supporter of the risorgimento to an almost silly degree.

Kneecapping Prussia whilst keeping Germany still a collection of smaller states doesn't violate the no Grossdeutschland stipulation, although it might make the southern German states more nervous about a resurgent Austria so the best you could get from them would be membership of the German Confederation if you're lucky. Aside from the reacquisition of part of Silesia it doesn't do much to directly help Austria become a superpower but the massive boost to its prestige and neutralising a major competitor for a decent time allows them the freedom to get on with things like internal reforms.

 

[Rush Tarquin]

France will probably stick their noses in to try and gain some influence but I think they could probably be bought off by Austria agreeing to stick to the deal to give them Venetia to pass on to Italy since Napoleon III was a supporter of the risorgimento to an almost silly degree.

I thought Napoleon III wanted Luxembourg in such an event. I also see France 'getting' one of the Ruhr principalities as a buffer state.