Austria keep Lombardy and Veneto unto 20 century

what if Austria joint France in Crimean war and earn gratitude form Napoleons III . so that Franco-Austrian is Butterfly because Napoleons III have better relationship with Austria. war of 1866 end as same in Germany. Austria loss Germany but keep Tuscany and Lombardy and Veneto because savoy didn't get Lombardy in 1859 savoy is weaker. Prussian-Franco war of 1870 end in same result as OTL. after war 1870 France cant attack Austria in Italy. what effect on world if Austria keep it Italian provinces after 1859 ?
 
I think that something like an Ausgleich will be needed in the aftermath of the 1866. I'm any case by the time of your pod Italian nationalism was very strong already, at the first defeat it will erupt and things will eventually get ugly. I also doubt that in 1866 Savoy cannot get at least Lombardy and the Italian Duchies if the Prussians win as in otl.
To have Lombardy-Venetia as a stable productive and relatively happy part of the empire you need a degree of institutional reforms.
 
what if Austria joint France in Crimean war and earn gratitude form Napoleons III . so that Franco-Austrian is Butterfly because Napoleons III have better relationship with Austria. war of 1866 end as same in Germany. Austria loss Germany but keep Tuscany and Lombardy and Veneto because savoy didn't get Lombardy in 1859 savoy is weaker. Prussian-Franco war of 1870 end in same result as OTL. after war 1870 France cant attack Austria in Italy. what effect on world if Austria keep it Italian provinces after 1859 ?

I dispute that this chai of events is possible. European politics from 1848 to 1871 were volatile enough that a big change like your PoD will change everything later as well.
Not only Prussia, but also many smaller German states were neutral, but felt rather pro-Russian, partly for dynastic reasons. Austria allying with France and the UK against Russia would move the fightting from the Crimea to the Danube principalities and possibly Galicia. Why should Austria agree to become the battlefield, fully dependent on reinforcements France and the UK might send or might not send?

Hm, assume that Emperor FJ is killed by that Hungarian taylor in 1853.
His successor, Emperor Max, is fascinated by Napoleons III diplomacy and flattery and consents to fight in a great liberal crusade against oriental despotism. The more pragmatic courtiers justify this as move to keep Russia away from the mouth of the Danube and all parts south of the river.. He institutes some reforms in his Italian possessions.
The problem is that Austria has no money. Even the mobilization of the army in OTL almost bankrupted them, leading to the reduction of their military power. If their are battles, with losses of men and materiel, the financial crisis is only bigger. Even if Austria is given free hand to annex Moldavia and Wallachia afterwards, that will not help much, as there regions are dirt poor in the mid-19th century.

Prussian internal history will look different. Presumably no Bismarck, with all consequences. There might be a new Schleswig-Holstein crisis created by a Danish dynastical chaqnge in 1864, but it will be handled differently.
 
But if you simply want to avoid the Italian War of 1859, you can start by having Felice Orsini die in 1857 of typhoid fever. France does shy away from an alliance with Savoy, and the latter either avoids war or stumbles into a war against Austria and is crushed. France only intervenes diplomatically to prevent the establishment of permanent Austrian garrissons in Torino and Genoa.
 
I think that something like an Ausgleich will be needed in the aftermath of the 1866. I'm any case by the time of your pod Italian nationalism was very strong already, at the first defeat it will erupt and things will eventually get ugly. I also doubt that in 1866 Savoy cannot get at least Lombardy and the Italian Duchies if the Prussians win as in otl.
To have Lombardy-Venetia as a stable productive and relatively happy part of the empire you need a degree of institutional reforms.

Lombardy-Venetia was a productive and stable part of the Empire (Lombardy much more so than Venetia), and the lower classes largely supported the rule of the Habsburg. However, the middle classes felt disenfranchised, to say the least. Give them a high degree of autonomy, and they'd probably choose being an autonomous part of Austria over being ruled by the Savoy, similarly to how many people in contemporary Swedish-speaking Aland and German-speaking South Tyrol are satisfied with being part of Finland and Italy rather than their neighbouring states.
 
@Westphalian you could also have Orsini succeed and kill the Emperor, who was the main supporter of France's Italian policies.

@Neoteros I know, Cattaneo wrote that L-V had an eight of the empire's populace and contributed for a third to its finances (not sure how accurate that is, but it's certainly an indication of the relative prosperity of L-V).
On the other hand Austrian administration, especially the military one after 1848 was stifling economic growth: just compare the building of railways on Piedmont and Lombardy between 48 and 59, so I would argue that Austria could have better managed those lands.

Politically, I am not that sure that the lower class were completely excluded from it: the first weeks of the 1848 showed a remarkable degree of participation even in the countryside and by the lower clergy, while statistics for the casualties in the 5 days of Milan show an ample participation by urban working class. Obviously farmers were generally conservative and loved stability and the Austrians could therefore generally count on them so you have a point. I meant that I am not sure that Austria could go on and suppress the productive elites of L-V without expecting some sort of backlash.
The first lost war or moment of weakness would mean Savoy snatching Lombardy. To survive into the xx century Austria needs to implement deep reforms in the second half of the xix century (emperor Max could be better than Franz Josef for this) and, before that, grant to L-V at least the degree of autonomy that Milan had in the xviii century when they create the kingdom after the Congress of Vienna.

Aland and Alto Adige are very small parts of their countries and enjoy wide ranging autonomies in democratic countries (to a degree imo unthinkable in the xix century), not an apt comparison with Habsburg ruled Northern Italy: it would be more like Poland for the Russian Empire.

Savoy should be made inoffensive too: maybe without Genoa they would be weakened enough not to pose a threat?
 
Last edited:
Savoy should be made inoffensive too: maybe without Genoa they would be weakened enough not to pose a threat?

Maybe, but they'd still have Nice, and an independent Genoa past its prime bordering a rising Piedmont to the north and west could have easily become a de facto extension of the Piedmontese state; the people in charge of the restored Ligurian polity would have to be able to industrialize on their own and outwit Cavour.

Maybe Genoa could turn into Austria's unofficial Tyrrhenian shipyard.
 
Ideally I would say that Piedmont has to be annexed (but it's rather unlikely even if somehow the Savoia get extinct before 1815).
Genoa would likely become an outlet for liberalism which might cause Savoy to remain more reactionary and Austrian aligned, while Genoa comes under French (after the June revolution) or even British protection. As a thyrrenian outlet for Austria I would rather look at the port of La Spezia, which in a no hundred days situation could have gone to Parma.
 
Lombardy-Venetia was a productive and stable part of the Empire (Lombardy much more so than Venetia), and the lower classes largely supported the rule of the Habsburg. However, the middle classes felt disenfranchised, to say the least. Give them a high degree of autonomy, and they'd probably choose being an autonomous part of Austria over being ruled by the Savoy, similarly to how many people in contemporary Swedish-speaking Aland and German-speaking South Tyrol are satisfied with being part of Finland and Italy rather than their neighbouring states.
I don't think this is backed up by the historical record. After the first Piedmontese victories in 1848, the people of Lombardy and Venice they rose up against Austria-Hungary. I don't know much about Aland, but I did come across an article on the South Tyrol. The people there feel Austrian (because they are). Also, it's unlikely that the major powers will want to break up Sardinia-Piedmont. It's purpose was to serve as one of the reasonably strong buffer state between France and the rest of Europe.
 
I don't think this is backed up by the historical record. After the first Piedmontese victories in 1848, the people of Lombardy and Venice they rose up against Austria-Hungary. I don't know much about Aland, but I did come across an article on the South Tyrol. The people there feel Austrian (because they are). Also, it's unlikely that the major powers will want to break up Sardinia-Piedmont. It's purpose was to serve as one of the reasonably strong buffer state between France and the rest of Europe.

In fact, they rose up before the Piedmontese intervention and had it been more swift and decisive Radetzky might have found himself hard pressed to reorganize in the Quadrilateral system of fortresses as he did iotl. Also Venice resisted to the Austrian siege for months after the Savoia had pulled out of the war and only surrendered in 1849 because it was being devastated by hunger and cholera. This means that the populace had to be rather on board with the population and this usually doesn't happen in happy and well-administered lands...

the South Tyroleans are indeed Austrians, they are (relatively) happy to be Italian citizens mostly because they have wide ranging fiscal autonomy, besides cultural and administrative autonomy [IMO one can say all the bad one wants about the "Special Statute Regions", but the fact is that this could have been Italy's Basque Country or N. Ireland, and the compromise avoided this and thus can be counted as a success. The last thing the Habsburgs will want to do is let the Lombards and Venetians administer the taxes raised there. Honestly, the region was milked as a cash cow with little investment from Vienna (apart from expenses for the military (and strategic east-west railways), fortresses and a very extensive and nosy police.

Now, how can we change Austrian policies so that Lombardy Venetia is happy to be part of a great, powerful and prosper empire intead of being annexed by a backwards and very provincial country like Sardinia-Piedmont?
 
In fact, they rose up before the Piedmontese intervention and had it been more swift and decisive Radetzky might have found himself hard pressed to reorganize in the Quadrilateral system of fortresses as he did iotl. Also Venice resisted to the Austrian siege for months after the Savoia had pulled out of the war and only surrendered in 1849 because it was being devastated by hunger and cholera. This means that the populace had to be rather on board with the population and this usually doesn't happen in happy and well-administered lands...

the South Tyroleans are indeed Austrians, they are (relatively) happy to be Italian citizens mostly because they have wide ranging fiscal autonomy, besides cultural and administrative autonomy [IMO one can say all the bad one wants about the "Special Statute Regions", but the fact is that this could have been Italy's Basque Country or N. Ireland, and the compromise avoided this and thus can be counted as a success. The last thing the Habsburgs will want to do is let the Lombards and Venetians administer the taxes raised there. Honestly, the region was milked as a cash cow with little investment from Vienna (apart from expenses for the military (and strategic east-west railways), fortresses and a very extensive and nosy police.

Now, how can we change Austrian policies so that Lombardy Venetia is happy to be part of a great, powerful and prosper empire intead of being annexed by a backwards and very provincial country like Sardinia-Piedmont?
I wouldn't call Sardinia-Piedmont backwards. Piedmont was one of the wealthier parts of the peninsula, alongside Venice and Lombardy. It was weaker obviously, but that wa due more to size than anything else.
 
Top