Archduke Friedrich lives, effects on Austrian Navy?

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Friedrich_of_Austria_(1821–1847)

Archduke Friedrich of Austria was one of Archduke Charles' sons, and was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Austrian navy at only 23. In this role, he introduced several reforms and made efforts at modernising the fleet, before his career was cut short, dying at 26. While the Austrian navy would still find supporters in the Imperial family, what would have happened had he lived?

Wasn't there a rivalry between him and another archduke? Or was that his brother Heinz? Either way, Austria might get a navy (and by that I mean a polyglot navy not just a Venetian navy flying Austrian flags) sooner. Might see the development of Trieste, Fiume and Venice as navy yards for the 19th century.

But the question is, unfortunately, what is Austria going to do with this brand spanking new toy? Colonies seem a bit unlikely. Even Austria's overseas companies of the previous century had displayed little to no interest beyond trade. (Although they were still hanging onto Delagoa Bay at some point, so maybe an Austrian Mozambique?). So is it just a prestige project "look, we've got a navy!"? And by the fact that IIRC when Maximilian took over the reins of the navy, one courtier in Vienna asked him "when did the emperor get a navy" and interest seems to have waned soon after Friedrich/Max's death, I'd say Vienna wasn't terribly concerned with a fleet.

Still, the idea of Austria having the most powerful navy in the Mediterranean is interesting IMHO (try having a great-grandad who was a shipwright in the Habsburg navy, and telling the kids at school that and them calling you a liar because "how can Austria have a navy?" Or them getting Austria and Australia muddled -we were only 11yo after all).
 
Wasn't there a rivalry between him and another archduke? Or was that his brother Heinz? Either way, Austria might get a navy (and by that I mean a polyglot navy not just a Venetian navy flying Austrian flags) sooner. Might see the development of Trieste, Fiume and Venice as navy yards for the 19th century.

But the question is, unfortunately, what is Austria going to do with this brand spanking new toy? Colonies seem a bit unlikely. Even Austria's overseas companies of the previous century had displayed little to no interest beyond trade. (Although they were still hanging onto Delagoa Bay at some point, so maybe an Austrian Mozambique?). So is it just a prestige project "look, we've got a navy!"? And by the fact that IIRC when Maximilian took over the reins of the navy, one courtier in Vienna asked him "when did the emperor get a navy" and interest seems to have waned soon after Friedrich/Max's death, I'd say Vienna wasn't terribly concerned with a fleet.

Still, the idea of Austria having the most powerful navy in the Mediterranean is interesting IMHO (try having a great-grandad who was a shipwright in the Habsburg navy, and telling the kids at school that and them calling you a liar because "how can Austria have a navy?" Or them getting Austria and Australia muddled -we were only 11yo after all).
From what I've read, Friedrich didn't have a brother named Heinz, but Archduke Maximilian did have a rivalry with his cousin Archduke Heinrich.

It doesn't look like Friedrich will be able to build up the navy that much by 1848, so I don't think the revolutions will be changed that much. Even if he did, it likely still wouldn't have much impact. However, by the 1860s it could be the premier power in the Mediterranean. I'm not sure what impact this would have had on the Second Italian War of Independence, and would Britain allow Austria's navy to pass Gibraltar if war over Slesvig/Schleswig still happens?
 
From what I've read, Friedrich didn't have a brother named Heinz, but Archduke Maximilian did have a rivalry with his cousin Archduke Heinrich.

It doesn't look like Friedrich will be able to build up the navy that much by 1848, so I don't think the revolutions will be changed that much. Even if he did, it likely still wouldn't have much impact. However, by the 1860s it could be the premier power in the Mediterranean. I'm not sure what impact this would have had on the Second Italian War of Independence, and would Britain allow Austria's navy to pass Gibraltar if war over Slesvig/Schleswig still happens?

My bad, I forgot Heinz was his brother-in-law (Ranier of Lombardy)'s brother.

The question is what purpose would it serve in the Second War of Independence? Ferrying troops? Blockading ports? Or actual action? Last I heard, Savoy didn't have a navy (in fact, did any Italian state besides Lombardy-Venetia? Emperor Leopold II dissolved the Tuscan navy in the 18th century; I think Naples may have had one but I'm not sure about if they kept up with the latest shipbuilding trends or if the vessels were all still wooden ones that spent their days rotting at anchor) which means if it came down to a naval battle it would be between the French navy and the Austrian one. But I'm not sure of the state of France's Mediterranean fleet - after all OTL they didn't really have anyone to challenge them (Spain might've still had the world's 3rd largest navy in the 19th century, but fat lot of good that did her; and Britain is a friendly).

Same question for the Austro-Prussian War/Schleswig War. Prussia's navy was a joke before the German Empire IIRC. And Denmark AFAIK actually HAD a decent navy (ISTR they were in the top 5 in Europe: 1) Britain; 2) France; 3) Spain; 4) Denmark; 5) Russia (though Russia and Denmark might be switched ICR)) and it made no difference.

Unless, what you're suggesting that Austria technically LOSES the land war, but BEATS Italy-France/Prussia at sea, and thus the peace treaties are more a status quo ante belli sort of thing?
 
My bad, I forgot Heinz was his brother-in-law (Ranier of Lombardy)'s brother.

The question is what purpose would it serve in the Second War of Independence? Ferrying troops? Blockading ports? Or actual action? Last I heard, Savoy didn't have a navy (in fact, did any Italian state besides Lombardy-Venetia? Emperor Leopold II dissolved the Tuscan navy in the 18th century; I think Naples may have had one but I'm not sure about if they kept up with the latest shipbuilding trends or if the vessels were all still wooden ones that spent their days rotting at anchor) which means if it came down to a naval battle it would be between the French navy and the Austrian one. But I'm not sure of the state of France's Mediterranean fleet - after all OTL they didn't really have anyone to challenge them (Spain might've still had the world's 3rd largest navy in the 19th century, but fat lot of good that did her; and Britain is a friendly).

Same question for the Austro-Prussian War/Schleswig War. Prussia's navy was a joke before the German Empire IIRC. And Denmark AFAIK actually HAD a decent navy (ISTR they were in the top 5 in Europe: 1) Britain; 2) France; 3) Spain; 4) Denmark; 5) Russia (though Russia and Denmark might be switched ICR)) and it made no difference.

Unless, what you're suggesting that Austria technically LOSES the land war, but BEATS Italy-France/Prussia at sea, and thus the peace treaties are more a status quo ante belli sort of thing?
I'm not quite sure how the navy will be used in 1859, I don't know how much trouble a blockade of the French Mediterranean coastline would give France. Maybe some kind of fleet battle between the French and Austrian fleets?

If Austria has a proper navy by the 1860s, naturally they'll want to use it against Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War. To do this, they've got to go through Gibraltar. The question is: does Britain let them?
 
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archduke_Friedrich_of_Austria_(1821–1847)

Archduke Friedrich of Austria was one of Archduke Charles' sons, and was appointed Commander-in-Chief of the Austrian navy at only 23. In this role, he introduced several reforms and made efforts at modernising the fleet, before his career was cut short, dying at 26. While the Austrian navy would still find supporters in the Imperial family, what would have happened had he lived?
Assuming his survival and a more prestigious navy don't cause Austria to re-evaluate her policies, not much changes besides winning an alt Battle of Lissa by a larger margin and probably winning that one battle they had with the Danes.

Assuming these changes do impact other areas of policy, Austria could perhaps seek a dominant position in the Mediterranean, which has pretty big implications in terms of potential expansion, heightening the rivalry it had with France, as well as just shaking up Mediterranean affairs in general (having third player shakes up the Anglo-French power dynamic that existed iotl).
 
I'm not quite sure how the navy will be used in 1859, I don't know how much trouble a blockade of the French Mediterranean coastline would give France. Maybe some kind of fleet battle between the French and Austrian fleets?

If Austria has a proper navy by the 1860s, naturally they'll want to use it against Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War. To do this, they've got to go through Gibraltar. The question is: does Britain let them?

I'm not sure what Britain's stance was in the Austro-Prussian War - on the one hand, Prussia was swallowing up their cousin's territory in Hannover, and on the other, Victoria's daughter was Crown Princess of Prussia. So it'd be anybody's guess if Britain would allow them through - technically, I'd imagine that by not allowing the Austrians through, Britain would be openly siding with Prussia (and thus have France and Denmark pissed off at her), and AIUI in the Franco-Prussian War, Britain attempted to main scrupulously neutral, which might mean that they'd allow Austria a by-your-leave.
 
If Austria has a proper navy by the 1860s, naturally they'll want to use it against Prussia in the Austro-Prussian War. To do this, they've got to go through Gibraltar. The question is: does Britain let them?
I'm not sure what Britain's stance was in the Austro-Prussian War - on the one hand, Prussia was swallowing up their cousin's territory in Hannover, and on the other, Victoria's daughter was Crown Princess of Prussia. So it'd be anybody's guess if Britain would allow them through - technically, I'd imagine that by not allowing the Austrians through, Britain would be openly siding with Prussia (and thus have France and Denmark pissed off at her), and AIUI in the Franco-Prussian War, Britain attempted to main scrupulously neutral, which might mean that they'd allow Austria a by-your-leave.
Britain let the Austrian Navy steam out to fight the Danes otl.
 
How long did Prussia's leaders expect conflict with Austria? How much would Austria having a modern navy impact Prussia's plans? I'd expect it likely would, possibly leading Prussia to consider building a serious navy - Prince Adalbert will be happy anyway.
 
So I did a bit of looking around (read: looked at the Wikipedia footnotes), and there's only one biography of Archduke Friedrich available: Erzherzog Friedrich von Österreich: Admiral und Ordensritter, by Robert L. Dauber. Now I just need to learn German...
 
So I did a bit of looking around (read: looked at the Wikipedia footnotes), and there's only one biography of Archduke Friedrich available: Erzherzog Friedrich von Österreich: Admiral und Ordensritter, by Robert L. Dauber. Now I just need to learn German...

I wish you luck in your endeavour. If I may ask, when was the bio published?

EDIT: I see it was published in 1993, so with luck it should still be in print (not necessarily, since I was looking for a book the other day that was published in the early 2000s and the person at the bookshop said to me "that's soooo long ago". I'm like "yeah, we had pet dinosaurs and black-and-white TVs then too"
 
Last edited:
I'm not sure what Britain's stance was in the Austro-Prussian War - on the one hand, Prussia was swallowing up their cousin's territory in Hannover, and on the other, Victoria's daughter was Crown Princess of Prussia. So it'd be anybody's guess if Britain would allow them through - technically, I'd imagine that by not allowing the Austrians through, Britain would be openly siding with Prussia (and thus have France and Denmark pissed off at her), and AIUI in the Franco-Prussian War, Britain attempted to main scrupulously neutral, which might mean that they'd allow Austria a by-your-leave.
The fact that Queen Victoria's daughter was Crown Princess of Prussia does not necessarily mean siding with her. Do not forget, her daughter-in-law was Princess Alexandra of Denmark, who was the wife of her heir apparent, Prince Albert Edward, the Prince of Wales. (Future Edward VII.)
 
The fact that Queen Victoria's daughter was Crown Princess of Prussia does not necessarily mean siding with her. Do not forget, her daughter-in-law was Princess Alexandra of Denmark, who was the wife of her heir apparent, Prince Albert Edward, the Prince of Wales. (Future Edward VII.)

Yes, and Victoria's family itself was divided on the issue (as was parliament IIRC). Victoria and her eldest daughter and many of the house felt a kinship with Prussia (being Protestant and all). Bertie, Alix and several other politicians were pro-France, and many of the others only swerved over when they saw what Prussia did to France.
 
I rest my case about Britain not getting involved with blocking Gibraltar
British Royal family was split as Princess of Alexandra was married to her son and heir, the Prince of Wales, and her daughter was married to the Crown Prince Frederick of Prussia. Neutrality seems to have been the best course of action for the royal family, but not necessarily for British foreign policy. Thus, allow the Austrian navy access through Gibralter.
 
Last edited:
Yes, and Victoria's family itself was divided on the issue (as was parliament IIRC). Victoria and her eldest daughter and many of the house felt a kinship with Prussia (being Protestant and all). Bertie, Alix and several other politicians were pro-France, and many of the others only swerved over when they saw what Prussia did to France.
It would have been interesting to see how the government would have leaned had Prince Albert still been alive. The Prince Consort was known to be pro-Prussian as well, and saw a future united Germany under what he hoped would be Prussian influence and possibility of a co-ruler reign between his daughter and son-in-law, and a future alliance of Prussian led Germany and the UK leading to a liberal leaning Europe. I am sure the uneasy relationship between the Prince of Wales and his father the Prince Consort would have been tested by this war as well. And as it turns out, what would Prince Albert's view been had he experienced the Conservative militarism of Bismarck. If he could see in the future, perhaps he advises the Admiralty and the government to not let the Austrian Navy pass Gibralter.
 
Last edited:
https://academic.oup.com/gh/article-abstract/8/2/229/626890?redirectedFrom=fulltext

An article about the Habsburg navy in the 19th century. Looking in Sondhaus' two books (Navies in Modern World History; and Naval Warfare 1815-1914: Warfare and History) if there's anything remotely Austrian (specifically about Friedrich)

Okay, to answer my earlier question about the use of the Austrian navy in the war with Italy, a) Naples had a fleet (she started laying down screw-propeller ships in the 1850s - before that she'd had a bunch of obsolete armoured paddle steamers (much like Russia, Prussia and Sweden did at the same time)) and b) Austria's navy had already been used in the 1820s against the Neapolitan Revolt (or rather it was supposed to be, but the army managed to put it down by themselves). Sardinia had a navy of 8 frigates (I'm not sure if this is including the 3 60 gun warships mentioned).

A big enemy of the Austrian navy was apparently Metternich. After the Napoleonic Wars he tried to sell off a lot of ships (but found no buyers) and so many were sent to be broken up or burned. He saw the problem with this when the revolt in Naples happened in 1820, and again with the Greek Wars of Independence (since the Greek "navy" started preying on Austrian/Italian merchantmen), and this was why Austria was apparently the only European power to side with the Ottomans rather than the Greeks.

The Austrian navy was expanded in the 1840s Muhammad Ali crisis to include 2 (new) frigates, 2 (new) corvettes and several brigs (under a Rear-Admiral Bandier). The Austrian navy, under the leadership of Friedrich played a role at the battle of Sidon, the Austrian corvette Clemenza oversaw the surrender of Tripoli, and Friedrich himself was present at the bombardment (and seizure) of Acre
 
Last edited:
In 1848 the Austrian navy lost 4 corvettes, 5 brigs and 1 steamer to the revolutions, but managed to save all 3 frigates. However, the Austrians leased ships (and officers) from abroad - including it's first screw-propeller. Under the leadership of an Admiral Dahlerupp Austria's navy blockaded Venice and Ancona. Interestingly enough it mentions that Archduke Johann (regent in 1848) and Prince Adalbert of Prussia were friends and both had ideas for giving this imperial Germany (of 1848) a navy - however, the politicians at Frankfurt couldn't agree on whether Baltic/North Sea or Adriatic defence was more important, since the "German" navy consisted of a bunch of ships they'd bought over from Hamburg and the Austrian navy (Trieste was within the Confederation) was currently tied up in use against Italy.

Friedrich was responsible for saving a bunch of ships/officers from the Revolution by ordered that all vessels still in Austrian hands were to make port at Trieste or Pola or other anchorages on the Dalmatian coast.

And after that the focus (and leadership of the Austrian navy) shifts to the emperor of Mexico.

All the above comes from Naval Warfare by Sondhaus
 
Top