AHC: Superpower Hapsburg Empire post-1849
- Thread starter Rush Tarquin
- Start date
Rush Tarquin
Gone Fishin'
Okay, so it looks like the 2 scenarios to consider are revolutionary Prussia v AH or revolutionary AH v Prussia as per your scenario or wolf_brothers.
I'm thinking everyone agrees the latter is more viable. So the scenario I see is Prussia stirring the hornets nest during the Luxembourg Coup and the Neuchatel Crisis in 1856 causing a repeat of 1848 (kudos to wolf_brother for the PODs). The South German states run to AH when they realize Prussia intends to go through them to Switzerland. Prussia has to contend with German revolutionary nationalists while AH experiences a multiethnic uprising. The AH emperor becomes a figurehead and the various ethnicities get a degree of more equal footing. AH attacks Prussia ( the price of AH's German revolutionaries getting onboard with the uprising), and with the German revolutionaries, have Prussia against the ropes. Russia swoops in to preserve autocratic Prussia as they did with AH only years before (obviously pissing off France). German revolutionaries have their hopes for a united Germany dashed as Russian troops take up permanent positions to prevent a unification. AH's Slavs lose any affection for Russia as they realise they oppose their progressive state. They agitate for the 'liberation' of their fellow Slav Russians leading to an OTLish Russian revolution and civil war with AH advancing into and incorporating the Heartland to bring Slavs together under one progressive state.
I hate to torpedo the board's one(?) attempt at AEIOU*, but "Austra-Hungary takes MacKinder's Heartland" - no matter what the POD - sounds almost impossible. However the Slavs within the Empire feel, doesn't mean that Slavs outside it want to join, or that the Big White Blob's armies are successful, or that the realm can otherwise handle that much new territory.
* Alles Edreirch Ist Osterreich Untertan.
* Alles Edreirch Ist Osterreich Untertan.
Snake Featherston
Banned
The rise of nationalism is pretty much an irresolvable conundrum for the Habsburgs after a certain point. The Habsburg rulers were basically decent sorts who sought to conciliate the challenge of ruling a political system still reflecting that of Dynastic EuropeTM, not Modern EuropeTM. Too much nationalism in this sense creates bureaucratic ossification and after a certain point you get absolutism mitigated by sloppiness and a state able to ensure its survival as a strong absolutist regime or as a multi-ethnic imperial system but incapable of doing both.
I am wondering what kind of Hapsburg Empire we can have here. One similar to the line Austria was following, or some sort of newfangled state headed by a Hapsburg?
Even the latter seems to suffer from the fact Austria+ just does not have a lot inspiring any sense of the various components being part of a whole anything. Its a hodgepodge of territories which have nothing in common except the King-Emperor himself.
Snake Featherston
Banned
To be fair, given how long Francis Joseph lived, it's not the *worst* foundation built on one man's rule.
Agreed. And FJ himself was far from the worst possible man to be in that position - one of the best, IMO.
It just wasn't enough.
Snake Featherston
Banned
Well, there certainly *are* examples of people much more ill-suited to that kind of responsibility: Wilhelm and Nicholas II of Germany and Russia immediately come to mind.
Alliance with France? No way. As France in general and especially the Bonapartes are a "persona non grata" in the foreign affairs of the german states. Whoever allies with France would lose the support of the german minors. Prussia tried this (economic arrangement / trade deal) to 'blackmail' the Zollverein and got away with it but lost all its support among the german minors.
Alliance with Russia? Possible, as long as both states continue their restrictive/reactionary politics the "Holy Alliance" might hold. But sooner or later (most likely sooner) the Balkans, straits and pan-slavic sentiments will brake this alliance. Especially after the Crimean War an alliance will be highly unlikely.
An Alliance with Russia to beat Prussia? No way. The Prussians had way better relations with the Tsar since the Convention of Tauroggen as the Austrians ever had. You really would need some major butterflies.
Prussia weaker than Austria before 1862? Unlikely but close. Before Bismarck to reform the military against the parliament's will (-> Heereskonflikt) Prussia had seen a decline of its military capabilities. Since the early 1850s officers and politicians were convinced that a major reform was needed. This decline let the prussian king and generalstaff back down from a participation in the crimean war in 1853. Right at the moment I'm not sure which side the Prussians favored. But both Russian and France forces seem to me more numerous than Austria's army. So between 1850 and 1862 I think it would be very close in numbers, but the Prussians had an advantage in mobility and logistics as they had way more railroads allready in this timespan.
A democratic Revolution leading to a "Federation of the Danube"? Highly unlikely. The Revolution of 1848 was not a united movement but on the contrary its forces where very distinct from each other. In the german parts of Austria it mainly was driven by the desire for a reformation of the state and goverment, at least they wanted a constitution at best they hoped for voting rights and a (strong) parliament. The other ethnicities in the empire wanted their own (nation)state and hence pushed for the dissolution of the Austrian Empire. Nationalism and nation-building were more important than constitution and other reforms as it was the common denominator of those otherwisely highly diversified movements. This is especially true for the italian, bohemian and hungarian parts of the empire. With this in mind, how should they form a "federation"? Closest to this comes the partition into three parts: austrian, hungarian and croatian which was supposed by Archduke Franz Ferdinand IOTL if I'm not mistaken.
Granting more autonomy will lead to a more powerful Austria? I doubt that, but this might be just me. IOTL the hungarian parliament blocked almost each and every budget and reform of the military and doesn't pass budgets without demanding more rights for the hungarian parliament or the like. And with regards to the etnic sentiments (eg. the croatians hated the hungarians as they were treated by them as second rate citizens) this would only lead to a more self-blockading system of government.
Extending the german population by annexing the south german minors? Doable but might not be sufficient. By south german minors Baden, Bavaria, Württemberg and one of the Hessian states (I always mix them up) are meant. This is the line on which both austrian and prussian diplomats agreed (though never at the same time) in case that the "Deutsche Bund" is dissoluted and Germany partitioned between the two Great Powers. Those states are not very populous nor are they industrialized at that point in history. This helps a bit but not enough as even bolstered by the population of the annexed south german states the germans wouldn't even hit the 50% mark.
Extending the german population by annexing additional german states? Even as this might not be violiting the "no Großdeutschland" rule it can only be done by a major war against Prussia. And maybe France too, if they couldn't be paid off.
No Großdeutschland? This is not only tough but in my eyes impossible. Either you let Austria beat the Prussians in the struggle for Germany and thus "Großdeutschland" is formed by Austria in one way or the other. Or Austria gets beaten in this struggle by Prussia and therefore would not become a superpower (and especially not the one and only continental superpower which seems to be the maingoal). One could argue that it draws its power from other regions, lets say by dominating and annexing the balkans or the italian states. But why hasn't happened it IOTL? Because even by letting its ambitions in Germany go (early) it would not have the necessary power to fend off neither the Russians (in the Balkans) nor the French (in Italy) which both would bring in Prussia if Austria has any ambitions in Germany left. If German Unification is not gonna happen than Napoleon III. will become gready sooner or later and swallow the minors, making France once again the continental superpower.
That the scattered regionalism would come to an end seemed like a no-brainer for most german politicians and diplomats after 1848/49 (for the time between 1815 and 1848 I can't tell for sure). The minors were going to be a) united and dominated by Austria (Prussia as a part of the empire) b) united and dominated by Austria (Prussia remains independent) c) united and dominated by Prussia (leaving Austria out) d) united and dominated by Prussia (including the german parts of Austria) e) united in a confederation and "ruled" by a council of five, including Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony and Hannover iirc (This is known as "Trias-Lösung) f) partitioning of Germany, North dominated by Prussia, South dominated by Austria
As a matter of fact chances weren't too bad for Austria to win the struggle for Germany. The austrian plans were more pleasing to the minor german states and even Wilhelm I. at one point was about to give in to the Austrians which only could be prevented by major decisive action of Bismarck himself. And for most of the time between 1850 and 1866 most german states were in favor of Austria as dominating power.
Alliance with Russia? Possible, as long as both states continue their restrictive/reactionary politics the "Holy Alliance" might hold. But sooner or later (most likely sooner) the Balkans, straits and pan-slavic sentiments will brake this alliance. Especially after the Crimean War an alliance will be highly unlikely.
An Alliance with Russia to beat Prussia? No way. The Prussians had way better relations with the Tsar since the Convention of Tauroggen as the Austrians ever had. You really would need some major butterflies.
Prussia weaker than Austria before 1862? Unlikely but close. Before Bismarck to reform the military against the parliament's will (-> Heereskonflikt) Prussia had seen a decline of its military capabilities. Since the early 1850s officers and politicians were convinced that a major reform was needed. This decline let the prussian king and generalstaff back down from a participation in the crimean war in 1853. Right at the moment I'm not sure which side the Prussians favored. But both Russian and France forces seem to me more numerous than Austria's army. So between 1850 and 1862 I think it would be very close in numbers, but the Prussians had an advantage in mobility and logistics as they had way more railroads allready in this timespan.
A democratic Revolution leading to a "Federation of the Danube"? Highly unlikely. The Revolution of 1848 was not a united movement but on the contrary its forces where very distinct from each other. In the german parts of Austria it mainly was driven by the desire for a reformation of the state and goverment, at least they wanted a constitution at best they hoped for voting rights and a (strong) parliament. The other ethnicities in the empire wanted their own (nation)state and hence pushed for the dissolution of the Austrian Empire. Nationalism and nation-building were more important than constitution and other reforms as it was the common denominator of those otherwisely highly diversified movements. This is especially true for the italian, bohemian and hungarian parts of the empire. With this in mind, how should they form a "federation"? Closest to this comes the partition into three parts: austrian, hungarian and croatian which was supposed by Archduke Franz Ferdinand IOTL if I'm not mistaken.
Granting more autonomy will lead to a more powerful Austria? I doubt that, but this might be just me. IOTL the hungarian parliament blocked almost each and every budget and reform of the military and doesn't pass budgets without demanding more rights for the hungarian parliament or the like. And with regards to the etnic sentiments (eg. the croatians hated the hungarians as they were treated by them as second rate citizens) this would only lead to a more self-blockading system of government.
Extending the german population by annexing the south german minors? Doable but might not be sufficient. By south german minors Baden, Bavaria, Württemberg and one of the Hessian states (I always mix them up) are meant. This is the line on which both austrian and prussian diplomats agreed (though never at the same time) in case that the "Deutsche Bund" is dissoluted and Germany partitioned between the two Great Powers. Those states are not very populous nor are they industrialized at that point in history. This helps a bit but not enough as even bolstered by the population of the annexed south german states the germans wouldn't even hit the 50% mark.
Extending the german population by annexing additional german states? Even as this might not be violiting the "no Großdeutschland" rule it can only be done by a major war against Prussia. And maybe France too, if they couldn't be paid off.
No Großdeutschland? This is not only tough but in my eyes impossible. Either you let Austria beat the Prussians in the struggle for Germany and thus "Großdeutschland" is formed by Austria in one way or the other. Or Austria gets beaten in this struggle by Prussia and therefore would not become a superpower (and especially not the one and only continental superpower which seems to be the maingoal). One could argue that it draws its power from other regions, lets say by dominating and annexing the balkans or the italian states. But why hasn't happened it IOTL? Because even by letting its ambitions in Germany go (early) it would not have the necessary power to fend off neither the Russians (in the Balkans) nor the French (in Italy) which both would bring in Prussia if Austria has any ambitions in Germany left. If German Unification is not gonna happen than Napoleon III. will become gready sooner or later and swallow the minors, making France once again the continental superpower.
That the scattered regionalism would come to an end seemed like a no-brainer for most german politicians and diplomats after 1848/49 (for the time between 1815 and 1848 I can't tell for sure). The minors were going to be a) united and dominated by Austria (Prussia as a part of the empire) b) united and dominated by Austria (Prussia remains independent) c) united and dominated by Prussia (leaving Austria out) d) united and dominated by Prussia (including the german parts of Austria) e) united in a confederation and "ruled" by a council of five, including Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony and Hannover iirc (This is known as "Trias-Lösung) f) partitioning of Germany, North dominated by Prussia, South dominated by Austria
As a matter of fact chances weren't too bad for Austria to win the struggle for Germany. The austrian plans were more pleasing to the minor german states and even Wilhelm I. at one point was about to give in to the Austrians which only could be prevented by major decisive action of Bismarck himself. And for most of the time between 1850 and 1866 most german states were in favor of Austria as dominating power.
Out of interest when was the problem of nationalism first identified in Europe at the time?
Snake Featherston
Banned
It became dangerous after the Greek Revolution when any bunch of thugs and cutthroats could expel and execute enough of their neighbors for the People's Community and this was perfectly acceptable. That precedent could not be contained, and it is that precedent that is just the most dangerous in Austria. In Russia the Tsars just sent them to Siberia and/or exiled them.
I never heard the Greek Revolution pinpointed as the cause of modern European nationalism before, butit makes some sense. I'd definitely be interested in seeing more about this.
Isn't it really the French Revolution, though, that let the genie out of the bottle, not only in France but in Italy and Germany as well? Not to mention that the French Revolution has an impact on the Greek, if nothing else due to the large number of French Revolutionary and Napoleonic veterans who fought for the Greeks.
Snake Featherston
Banned
The French Revolution let the genie out of the bottle, but the failure of the Congress of Europe in the Greek Revolution is when the genie defied the attempt to control nationalism permanently. It set the rule that the only thing needed to create a nation state was sufficient reliance on crude brute force at the expense of one's neighbors. The danger began with Napoleon, but it got much worse after the 1830s war.
Rush Tarquin
Gone Fishin'
Would pan-Germanism and pan-Slavism continue to resonate and tear AH apart in a different geopolitical situation though? IOTL you had the alternatives and undermining of a German power and a Slavic power. In another situation where there's two powers in Eastern and Central Europe instead of three, and they're both effectively mixed front efforts (AH and Russia with Prussia under occupation), wouldn't the fault line be more autocracy v reform, with Russia having screwed up German unification and opposing the reformist AH state created by their fellow Slavs?
if you could give more autonmy prior to the end of the centuary (mabye by having franz jospeh actually think before he acts), than auriel propovich´s plans for a united states of greater austria would become more a reality, and you wouldnt need the austro-hungarian emopire to fall apart
OT:
On topic of Nationalism.
1) The French Revolution let the genie out of the bottle. This spread out to the german and italian states as well as to the Netherlands (including Belgium) and to a lesser extend to Spain, Denmark and Poland. Nationalism was recognized as the "next big thing" on the congress of vienna and most/all of the assembled statesmen recognized it as a menace (threatening inner peace, peace in general, the european power system etc) and therefore decided to help each other (act in concert) to suppress each and every revolutionary democratic or nationalistic movement.
2) Greek Revolution. It was quite popular among the "literate" elite in many european nations, but it wasn't too popular among the european statesmen. Britain only intervened on behalf of the Greeks due to public pressure.
But Greece as part of the Ottoman Empire was not part of the "congress system" but was rather viewed as "Periphery". And the Greek Revolution was kinda seen as noble savages vs. brute savages.
3) Belgian Revolution. When the belgians declared independence from the netherlands the "congress system" failed to act because both France and Britain pursued there very own interests in this case. The belgian revolution demonstrated, that revolution and nationalsim are tolerated by the great powers. Thus the belgian revolution truly lit the fuse.
Sorry for the OT
On topic of Nationalism.
1) The French Revolution let the genie out of the bottle. This spread out to the german and italian states as well as to the Netherlands (including Belgium) and to a lesser extend to Spain, Denmark and Poland. Nationalism was recognized as the "next big thing" on the congress of vienna and most/all of the assembled statesmen recognized it as a menace (threatening inner peace, peace in general, the european power system etc) and therefore decided to help each other (act in concert) to suppress each and every revolutionary democratic or nationalistic movement.
2) Greek Revolution. It was quite popular among the "literate" elite in many european nations, but it wasn't too popular among the european statesmen. Britain only intervened on behalf of the Greeks due to public pressure.
But Greece as part of the Ottoman Empire was not part of the "congress system" but was rather viewed as "Periphery". And the Greek Revolution was kinda seen as noble savages vs. brute savages.
3) Belgian Revolution. When the belgians declared independence from the netherlands the "congress system" failed to act because both France and Britain pursued there very own interests in this case. The belgian revolution demonstrated, that revolution and nationalsim are tolerated by the great powers. Thus the belgian revolution truly lit the fuse.
Sorry for the OT
Right. So a truly prescient ruler might be able to notice this whole newfangled nationalism thing from about 1800 onwards, after the Napoleonic wars it's somewhat more obvious, and after the Greek Revolution it's pretty much out there for all to see. Doesn't leave much time for rulers like the Habsburgs to try and do something to deal with it.