In an alternate scenario where the Holy Roman Empire was never dissolved or/and reinstated after the Napoleonic wars with the borders and 30 countries of the German Confederation (Basically the German Confederation, with the Holy Roman Empire in name) Could Otto Von Bismarck unify the Holy Roman Empire under Prussia, and make the House of Hohenzollern the Holy Emperor, creating a Holy German Empire?
Could Otto Von Bismarck unify the Holy Roman Empire
- Thread starter GameBawesome
- Start date
The Holy Roman Empire pretty much was reinstated after the Napoleonic Wars, except with much of the graft removed and with the more accurate name of "German Confederation".
Anyways, no. The HRE was an inherently Austrian- and Catholic-led entity by this point and Bismarck or any other equivalent would just abolish it and institute something else.
The important difference between HRE and the German Federation was that the Federation lacked an Emperor. Such a construction would probably have been opposed by Prussia at the Vienna Conference so it would fall through directly.
This is ONLY imaginable, if Austria instead of Prussia would have turned their heels on Napoleon in the winter of 1812/13 while Prussia would have hesitated too long and be open for such a slap on the wrist (similar to Saxony and Bavaria). This might also mean that Prussia wouldn't get all the territorial rewards it gained in OTL 1815 - the powerbase (especially the western Provinzen which turned into an industrial powerhouse) which allowed Bismarck to challenge Austria along with most of the other German states.
Open rebellion against a Kaiser, instead of against a treaty, might be even more difficult anyways.
BUT an HRE opens up another route for the Hohenzollern. A reinstated HRE would also mean that the emperor would be elected by the electors. The Habsburg dynasty would find itself in a way more difficult situation without the Catholic Prince-Bishops. And if their government is seen as backwards, reactionary and too concerned with their non-German possessions, a Hohenzollern should stand good chances if the right alliances where made and paid for in advance.... Additionally, there will be the case of Ferdinand in 1835, a person who was generally seen as unfit to govern.
This is ONLY imaginable, if Austria instead of Prussia would have turned their heels on Napoleon in the winter of 1812/13 while Prussia would have hesitated too long and be open for such a slap on the wrist (similar to Saxony and Bavaria). This might also mean that Prussia wouldn't get all the territorial rewards it gained in OTL 1815 - the powerbase (especially the western Provinzen which turned into an industrial powerhouse) which allowed Bismarck to challenge Austria along with most of the other German states.
Open rebellion against a Kaiser, instead of against a treaty, might be even more difficult anyways.
BUT an HRE opens up another route for the Hohenzollern. A reinstated HRE would also mean that the emperor would be elected by the electors. The Habsburg dynasty would find itself in a way more difficult situation without the Catholic Prince-Bishops. And if their government is seen as backwards, reactionary and too concerned with their non-German possessions, a Hohenzollern should stand good chances if the right alliances where made and paid for in advance.... Additionally, there will be the case of Ferdinand in 1835, a person who was generally seen as unfit to govern.
althisfan
Banned
Would electing someone other than a Habsburg mean war would break out almost immediately? Or even if it wouldnt, if the electors BELIEVED it would, would it be enough of a scare that they wouldn't go with electing someone else? And in your scenario of an Austria that turned on Napoleon first... how long would it be able to realistically APPEAR stronger than Prussia?
I doubt that this would mean war automatically - the principle of election has been more than a formality in the HRE; the electors always used it to get some....errrrrr.....economic aid from Vienna (or elsewhere). Also, the election of Karl VII. in 1742 didn't cause war, but was possible due to the war and a current dynastic weakness of the Habsburgs. As I said before, if you remove the bishops as electors (which I still view as almost certain), the dynamics of this election change.
Austria over-reacting with declaring on the majority of German states might be a possibility, but would be seen as an extreme measure.
***
Austria was definitely appearing stronger than Prussia from the latters defeat in 1806 onwards. Although they also lost against Napoleon a further war in 1809, their military performance was better than the shameful defeat Prussia had gone through earlier on. OTL, Prussia after 1815 was once again seen as the weakest of Europe's major five powers. Only the onset of industrialization started to change that after the 1830s - and it was ironically the 1848-revolution which first implied that Prussia could become the power which determines the fate of Germany.
But in order to make the Prussians swallow a return of the HRE , their bargaining position in Vienna would need to be way more weakened. That's why I proposed a scenario in which they cannot play the "liberators of Germany" card.
I am also uncertain if the other powers would favour such a move.
I may talking out of my A**, but the Austrian Emperor did abdicate after Napoleon. If the HRE is reinstated, could this make the Habsburgs look weak, and the Prince Electors vote for another house, like the Hohenzollern?
Or If the HRE Emperor was still an electoral position, could Bismarck help make Prussia look like a better candidate for the position of Emperor by war with other countries, such as France, Denmark, ETC, like how he unify Germany in original timeline?
Instead, it had a President who was the Austrian Emperor. Not much of a difference apart from the name, considering how meaningless the imperial dignity was.
Not so much meaningless for the Germans, if in 1870 they prefer to have a Kaiser rather than a President. Fine it was all a construction of Bismarck, but the Imperial concept and dignity lingered in the German region despite the suppression of 1806. It was the Holy Roman Imperial power which forged the German identity after all, and in 1648 was evident when they talked of "Holy Roman Empire of the Germans ".
althisfan
Banned
If Germany is unified with a President, instead of a Kaiser, then there is less pressure for Queen Victoria to become Empress of India. The reason for the imperial title in India was in response to everyone in the past 100 years calling themselves an emperor, from Russia to Napoleon, and then now Germany along with Austria each having an emperor. The Queen of Britain couldn't be seen as having a lesser title.
Another reason, and more important, was because most Indian princes were “Maharajas”, or “Grand Kings”, and thanks to title inflation that was now the standard Indian title. Rulers suzerain to the British monarch had titles superior to him/her, which made the government of Britain uncomfortable. There’s also the fact that Britain won the title through conquest of the Mughal Empire.
Franz abdicated when the Electors cosied up to Napoleon to receive higher ranks (Bavaria, Saxony and Württemberg becoming kingdoms).... so no bad feelings there.
Even OTL, Prussia couldn‘t compete with Austria directly 1815. It took industrialization, nationalism (Prussia seen as „more German“ than the Austrian empire) and eventually militarism (victory over France) to change that long-term. Possibilities are imaginable to speed that up and a liberal Prussia against reactionary Austria might be an alternate fourth factor.
The British Raj was found in 1858 and the suggestions for create an Empire were up since 1848. The Indian Empire was more to enforce the idea of being the successor state of the Moghuls Empire rather than equiparing the Kings of Britain with the Russian or Austrian Emperors.
trajen777
Banned
To make this happen i think the best bet would have been the revolution in 1848 --- IN 1849 the crown was offered to William of Prussia (Austria was in turmoil, as was the rest of Europe)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_revolutions_of_1848–49
On April 2, 1849, a delegation of the National Assembly met with King Frederick William IV in Berlin and offered him the crown of the Emperor under this new constitution.
Frederick William told the delegation that he felt honored but could only accept the crown with the consent of his peers, the other sovereign monarchs and free cities. But later, in a letter to a relative in England, he wrote that he felt deeply insulted by being offered a crown "from the gutter", "disgraced by the stink of revolution, defiled with dirt and mud."
IF Fredrick William HAD taken the crown -- and put pressure on Russia not to support Austria (given Russian some land) -- i think this would have happen --most likely
1. FW would accept the crown
2. Hapsberg family takes over kingship of Hungry (with out Russian help they would have been overthrown)
3. France and rest of Europe was in chaos
4. Germany (or HRE rebuilt)
5. The revolutionaries wanted a German only type country
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/German_revolutions_of_1848–49
On April 2, 1849, a delegation of the National Assembly met with King Frederick William IV in Berlin and offered him the crown of the Emperor under this new constitution.
Frederick William told the delegation that he felt honored but could only accept the crown with the consent of his peers, the other sovereign monarchs and free cities. But later, in a letter to a relative in England, he wrote that he felt deeply insulted by being offered a crown "from the gutter", "disgraced by the stink of revolution, defiled with dirt and mud."
IF Fredrick William HAD taken the crown -- and put pressure on Russia not to support Austria (given Russian some land) -- i think this would have happen --most likely
1. FW would accept the crown
2. Hapsberg family takes over kingship of Hungry (with out Russian help they would have been overthrown)
3. France and rest of Europe was in chaos
4. Germany (or HRE rebuilt)
5. The revolutionaries wanted a German only type country
althisfan
Banned
Do you happen to know why in India the imperial title was called Kaisar-i-Hind? How did Caesar enter the Hindi lexicon as the word for Emperor?
This was a title only held by the British “Emperor of India”. The Mughal emperor was variously styled the Sultan, Padishah, Badshah, Padshah, or Caliph. Hindu Emperors styled themselves the Samrat or Chakravarti.
According to this, before to its use in 1876, it was only used to refer to foreign emperors like those of the Ottoman and Russian Empires (which both had rulers whose title was something akin to “Caesar”). It was chosen by a white guy in 1876 likely because it sounded less foreign than any equivalent.