DBWI: 1848 revolutions a total failure?

The 1848 revolutions are among one of the biggest changes in the status quo during the 19th century, leading to the unification of Germany and Italy, as well as the independence of Hungary. My question is how the politics of the 19th century would have been affected if these revolutions all failed somehow and the status quo ended up winning out instead.
 
Well monarchial power would definitely be more. Though most of the really powerful European states are monarchies today, more of them would be absolute ones in this scenario.
 
It is hard to see them lose as the monarchies were losing popularity. Republics were clearly on the way up. After all Germany, Italy and Hungry wound up as liberal democracies. Can it really be prevented in all of them?
 
It is hard to see them lose as the monarchies were losing popularity. Republics were clearly on the way up. After all Germany, Italy and Hungry wound up as liberal democracies. Can it really be prevented in all of them?
Well, liberal monarchies. But you do have a point about absolutism being on a downhill course.
 
Well, liberal monarchies. But you do have a point about absolutism being on a downhill course.
To be fair, the constitution of every one of those monarchies limited the power of the monarchs so much that they were barely able to do anything. All the power from that point onward was in the parliaments, so in that sense, those countries were liberal democracies.
 
I do wounder what things would look like without all the people, such as loyalist, leaving and heading for the few monarchies stay standing. (For the time.)
 
To be fair, the constitution of every one of those monarchies limited the power of the monarchs so much that they were barely able to do anything. All the power from that point onward was in the parliaments, so in that sense, those countries were liberal democracies.
Indeed.
 
To be fair, the constitution of every one of those monarchies limited the power of the monarchs so much that they were barely able to do anything. All the power from that point onward was in the parliaments, so in that sense, those countries were liberal democracies.

Which is the sense I meant it, the monarchs are mere figureheads.
 
OOS: the revolution in France, which was the big one, did at least succeed at getting rid of the Orleanists/ Bourbons, even it it didn't take the most radical turn. And some of the German and Italian rulers granted constitutions that survived 1849. I'm not sure what you would call this type of OI. But I assume we are in a world where Italy was united, Hungary independent, and Germany also united in 1848-9?
 
If the elites got a scare, they could go in two directions. Double down on the old regime and ruthless repression, or try to institute some reforms from above themselves. Some governments might be tempted to side with the liberals and nationalists to gain advantage in diplomatic and power struggles with other countries.

In this scenario, is Russia called on to provide troops to crush the revolutions? That also affects future developments considerably.

If they double down, there is no telling how long they could get away with it, but if there is another round of revolutions they will likely be communist!

The second scenario is more interesting, because it implies a back door to getting much the liberal program enacted anyway.
 
I would imagine the first scenario would be a lot more likely. Both the Prussian and Austrian monarchs at the time weren't exactly the bastions of liberal progress. In fact, if things had been more disorganized during the revolutions, I can imagine that they would have led to no reforms whatsoever and the continuation of absolutism in central Europe. Hell, Frederick William IV was a very strong believer of keeping Germany separate, refusing to accept 'a crown from the gutter' if he were offered. Given the option, he most certainly would have refused and fought on if he survived past 1848.
 
Last edited:
Its hard to come up with a good "WI" or "DBWI" for the "turning point that failed to turn", as AJP Taylor put it. The events of 1848-9 are just too complicated.
 
Well, while Hungary became independent in 1848, the country was still plagued by tensions between liberals and conservatives as well as resentment from the minorities in the borders. I don't know if it's possible, but AFAIK the Hapsburgs (or the former Imperial Government of Austria, if the Springtime of Nations failed in this scenario) has the capability of balancing the tensions in the Danube, paricularly in the Lands of St. Stephen.
 
If the revolutions of 1848 hadn't been successful, Hungary might've avoided being torn apart by civil strife; on the other hand, in such a world the Romanians and the Slovaks in the Kingdom of Hungary would've eventually become minorities in their own lands, because Magyarization would've been a thing nonetheless. And there wouldn't be as much bad blood between Italy/Croatia and Hungary today, either: Budapest still hasn't forgotten the Adriatic War.
 
The only way I can see it failing is the King of Prussia not accepting the crown. The Prussian army was instrumental in defeating reactionary forces. Maybe if Frederick Wilhelm had lived a bit longer and Wilhelm I wasn't King at that point? Wilhelm I was, after all, very much into German unification, even if it meant working with the Liberals. Hell, he ended up agreeing with them!
 
The only way I can see it failing is the King of Prussia not accepting the crown. The Prussian army was instrumental in defeating reactionary forces. Maybe if Frederick Wilhelm had lived a bit longer and Wilhelm I wasn't King at that point? Wilhelm I was, after all, very much into German unification, even if it meant working with the Liberals. Hell, he ended up agreeing with them!

A very patriotic king to be sure, willing to sacrifice a good deal of power if it would help unite Germany. Far from a few men wouldn't have been willing to make the sacrifice.
 
Top