Different Congress of Vienna: Poland to Russia, Germany to Prussia, Italy to Austria

General Zod

Banned
I've produced a map.

156dbt0.jpg


315zzhd.jpg


Red line is the border of the German Confederation (Presidents: Austria and Prussia).
Yellow line is the border between the Presidencies of Austria and of Prussia.
Black line is the border of Prussia.
Green line is the border of Austria in Italy.
Azure line is the border of the Italian Confederation (President: Austria).
White line is the border of the Kingdom of Lorraine.
Violet line is the border of the Savoy Kingdom.
 
Last edited:
I have severe doubts about the Hannover thing- would the British really go for that? (and your Prussia would still be continuous without Hannover, if barely)
 

General Zod

Banned
I have severe doubts about the Hannover thing- would the British really go for that?

Why not ? United Netherlands is richer, more powerful and more prestigious than Hannover. Having either still creates a mainland committment, anyway.

(and your Prussia would still be continuous without Hannover, if barely)

It's not just about territorial continuity. Hannover is necessary for Prussia to balance an Austria that has the vast majority of northern-central Italy and leads southern Germany and Italy both. This way, Prussia and Austria, and both halves of the German confederation are roughly balanced.
 
Why not ? United Netherlands is richer, more powerful and more prestigious than Hannover. Having either still creates a mainland committment, anyway.
Well, the British government wasn't interested in a larger mainland commitment- yes, Hannover is still one, but it was a legacy and less important than the Netherlands. (By the way, I presume this means that the Dutch colonies also fall into British hands? Well, actually nevermind- I suppose they'd stay in the hands of the "Kingdom of the United Netherlands", as uniting Britain and the Dutch in one formal state isn't going to be popular, though it's somewhat more likely than uniting the British with Hannover I guess)

It's not just about territorial continuity. Hannover is necessary for Prussia to balance an Austria that has the vast majority of northern-central Italy and leads southern Germany and Italy both. This way, Prussia and Austria, and both halves of the German confederation are roughly balanced.
The German Confederation is very un-balanced, at least it looks that way to me- the Prussians have the larger and more prosperous half, and rule the bulk of it outright, with all the other states mostly being of the tiny micro-states that one so loves the HRE for, while the Austrian territory proportionally has more non-Austrian states, and the states are larger principalities... (By the way, would you say that Hohenzollern would still pass into the hands of Prussia in TTL?) I did miss the fact that Austria apparently includes Piedmont, though.
 
I really don’t see Austria letting Prussia get that big without significantly more compensation maybe if you give them Bavaria outright but even then I still don’t see them being happy about it.
 

General Zod

Banned
The German Confederation is very un-balanced, at least it looks that way to me- the Prussians have the larger and more prosperous half, and rule the bulk of it outright, with all the other states mostly being of the tiny micro-states that one so loves the HRE for, while the Austrian territory proportionally has more non-Austrian states, and the states are larger principalities... (By the way, would you say that Hohenzollern would still pass into the hands of Prussia in TTL?) I did miss the fact that Austria apparently includes Piedmont, though.



I really don’t see Austria letting Prussia get that big without significantly more compensation maybe if you give them Bavaria outright but even then I still don’t see them being happy about it.

Folks, you are not looking at the whole picture. Austria directly rules half of Italy, and the other half is united in the Italian Confederation which has an Austrian Presidency. Please take notice of the whole balance of power in Germany & Italy before telling that the situation between Austria and Prussia is unbalanced.

Here, I've added a second map to show the situation in Italy.
 
Last edited:
Its Germany I have the most problem with.
Sure its kind of fair that Prussia gets Germany and Austria Italy but...Austria was German. They would be far more interested in Germany. I don't think that would work out. If you must have a early Germany I'd think you'd need to go down the north/south German confederations route.
 

General Zod

Banned
If you must have a early Germany I'd think you'd need to go down the north/south German confederations route.

This is what this settlement creates. Nominally Germany is one confederation, but Austria is the President (read: hegemon) south of the Main and Prussia north of it. Look at the first map (yellow line).
 
Folks, you are not looking at the whole picture. Austria directly rules half of Italy, and the other half is united in the Italian Confederation which has an Austrian Presidency. Please take notice of the whole balance of power in Germany & Italy before telling that the situation between Austria and Prussia is unbalanced.

Here, I've added a second map to show the situation in Italy.
But that really isn't that much different from OTL, except now the Habsburgs have the burden of administration for a larger area instead of merely having satraps and puppets in place.
 

General Zod

Banned
But that really isn't that much different from OTL, except now the Habsburgs have the burden of administration for a larger area instead of merely having satraps and puppets in place.

And have much more taxes and manpower, under their direct command, organized in the more efficient Habsburg administration and officerdom, instead of them being wasted in the puppets' inefficient, corrupt administration and pathetic armies. if direct annexation is such a burden, and indirect puppet control is so great, why didn't they set up indipendent puppet for Lombardy-Venice ?
 
And have much more taxes and manpower, under their direct command, organized in the more efficient Habsburg administration and officerdom, instead of them being wasted in the puppets' inefficient, corrupt administration and pathetic armies. if direct annexation is such a burden, and indirect puppet control is so great, why didn't they set up indipendent puppet for Lombardy-Venice ?

Because it was more developed, much closer and contigious with Austrain core territories? This is before railroads as an instument of policy remember, the further into Italy you go the greater the management costs (and likihood of resentful annexed regions getting up to things beyond the capitals notice) are and the more attractive getting some local elites to buffer your suzerainity is.

Not to mention ruling Italy would require putting lots of troops there to keep order, which would be a huge problem if a Prussia thats eaten northern Germany decides to march on Austria. Ruling Italy directly is another miltiary commitment for an Empire with certain and uncertain threats on all its borders, leaving Italy as it is and weakening Prussia diplomatically is a far better use of resources.
 
I'm still unsure about the whole Germany-Austria thing. Austria believed it was their inherent right to rule over all of Germany, and indeed for a long time it seemed that they could be the unifiers of Germany into a proper state. They had a long-standing feud with Prussia and weren't going to let Prussia get Germany just like that. Italy would be little compensation to them - Italy proved troublesome time and time again - heck, in a few decades the entire area in essence rebelled in favour of a united ethnic Italian state, and conquered Austrian land as they went. Rather than being a fair swap for Austria, Italy would actually be a chain around their ankles. Also, a number of countries would have been unwilling to let Austria gain so much influence over Italy, too. It's a bit of double standards, really. Austria wanted land but wasn't prepared to make a deal if it involved Prussia getting a lot of land. Prussia wanted land but wasn't prepared to make a deal if it involved Austria getting land.

Also, as per the Hanover situation, I think you need to think about the mindsets involved. Sure, for Prussia they'd be willing to consider giving up claims on Saxony or some place for Hanover, for vice versa, or whatever. But this was because to Prussia Hanover, Saxony, etc were just potential territories, areas of expansion. This is not how Hanover was perceived to George III of the UK. Hanover wasn't "an overseas territory" of the UK. It was a separate country which happened to share a ruler. Even in 1815, 100 years after the Hanoverians had taken the British throne, they still viewed themselves as essentially German, and were disliked for it in Britain. While you might trim a little bit off Hanover to make concessions easier to bear in the Congress of Vienna, saying "we're dispossessing you of Hanover, have a bigger country in exchange" would be an insult. It would be like saying to the Prussian Kings, "well we're not going to let you have Germany. That's Austria's patch. So would you please surrender Prussia? We'll give you Russia in exchange". I mean, the proportions are different but that is essentially what is being asked here. The new country would be tempting briefly in terms of its wealth, but that ultimately wouldn't make up for the fact that George III was a victorious monarch - in fact the victorious monarch of the Congress, considering the UK had been the sole state to constantly oppose the French - and yet he was having his homeland taken off him to make his ally happier. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's the kind of insult which could break alliances. The same can be said of the Dutch - the Dutch already had a monarch. Indeed, the Prince of Orange had been on Wellington's staff at Waterloo. Even if Waterloo is now a French victory, it's no way to treat the Prince of Orange, booting him out of his territory as part of a Europe-sized game of musical chairs. And I'll point out that the British felt little support for Hanover, aside from the fact that it respected the King's German Legion as very good soldiers. If you do try to swap Hanover's ownership around, it's a deal to be done with George III himself. Hanover isn't British and the British don't want it, so they have no interest in bartering for it. As others have again said, Britain didn't even want the commitment of being given Dunkirk to look after.
 

General Zod

Banned
Because it was more developed, much closer and contigious with Austrain core territories?

Tuscany was just as good to have as Lombardy as development goes.

the further into Italy you go the greater the management costs (and likihood of resentful annexed regions getting up to things beyond the capitals notice) are and the more attractive getting some local elites to buffer your suzerainity is.

Which "resentful" annexed regions ? You seem to think there would be a strong loyalty to the dynasties of the minor Italian states that Napoleon had deposed ? There weren't any. If anything, local elites would be pleased or indifferent to come under direct Habsurg rule in a state that encompasses most of northern Italy. The proto-nationalist elements would be displeased of Austrian rule, but would regard pseudo-unity under Habsburg rule more favourably than fragementation in a bunch of statelings. That's a given. Management costs would be realtively trivial. Central Italy was much better developed than Galicia or Transylvania or Slavonia.

Not to mention ruling Italy would require putting lots of troops there to keep order,

But that's the point. A strong Habsburg-ruled Italy to counter France.

Ruling Italy directly is another miltiary commitment for an Empire with certain and uncertain threats on all its borders, leaving Italy as it is and weakening Prussia diplomatically is a far better use of resources.

The PoD makes Habsburg diplomacy and approach being overruled. They can either rule Italy directly, or have an Italian kingdom being set up with another leadership, and then they have no need of or very questionable claim claim to Venice, either. I suppose the Savoia would be overjoyed with being handed over all of northern and central Italy...
 

General Zod

Banned
I'm still unsure about the whole Germany-Austria thing. Austria believed it was their inherent right to rule over all of Germany, and indeed for a long time it seemed that they could be the unifiers of Germany into a proper state. They had a long-standing feud with Prussia and weren't going to let Prussia get Germany just like that.

The PoD changes these perceptions somewhat. ITTL Prussia is the heroic vanquisher of Napoleon. At the best, Austria may claim co-rulership of Germany with Prussia, which this settlement implements. Anyway, in view of late criticism, I've decided of modifying the settlement, in order to better the share of Austria.

Austria gets direct rule over Bavaria. Rhenish-Palatinate would be surely split up (likely to Baden, or becoming an independent state). I am struggling to decide whether Franconia and Swabia would be given to the Habsburg as well, or given to Baden and Wurttenberg, or become an independent state. Suggestions ? How much of Bavaria must go to Austria, in order to balance Prussian gains ? Old Bavaria, or Franconia and Swabia too ?

Italy would be little compensation to them - Italy proved troublesome time and time again - heck, in a few decades the entire area in essence rebelled in favour of a united ethnic Italian state, and conquered Austrian land as they went. Rather than being a fair swap for Austria, Italy would actually be a chain around their ankles.

This is wholly hindsight. Not a relevant concern in 1815. Italy had been a meek and valuable French possession/satellite under Napoleon. They had not rebelled in 1813 as Germany.

Also, a number of countries would have been unwilling to let Austria gain so much influence over Italy, too.

Which countries ? Prussia is getting its own share. Russia has all of Poland, and doesn't mind anyway. France is an occupied country and has not a voice in this Congress of Vienna.

It's a bit of double standards, really. Austria wanted land but wasn't prepared to make a deal if it involved Prussia getting a lot of land. Prussia wanted land but wasn't prepared to make a deal if it involved Austria getting land.

ITTL greater concern over aggressive France breaks the deadlock, they accept the deal, and both get aggrandized.

Even in 1815, 100 years after the Hanoverians had taken the British throne, they still viewed themselves as essentially German, and were disliked for it in Britain.

This is essentially uncorrect for George III, who was born in England, spoke ENglish as first language, and never visited Hannover in his long life. And this is surely completely untrue for the Prince Regent, who was in charge in 1815. George IV was unpopular for wholly different reasons, and surely cared for Hannover much less than Gibraltar or Malta.

While you might trim a little bit off Hanover to make concessions easier to bear in the Congress of Vienna, saying "we're dispossessing you of Hanover, have a bigger country in exchange" would be an insult. It would be like saying to the Prussian Kings, "well we're not going to let you have Germany. That's Austria's patch. So would you please surrender Prussia? We'll give you Russia in exchange". I mean, the proportions are different but that is essentially what is being asked here.

Trading thrones of minor and middle states was fully-established diplomatic practice in Europe since the Peace of Westphalia, if not earlier, and was seen as perfectably acceptable and not insulting or humiliating in the least, if the Great Powers agreed upon it and some degree of fairness was involved.

The new country would be tempting briefly in terms of its wealth, but that ultimately wouldn't make up for the fact that George III was a victorious monarch - in fact the victorious monarch of the Congress, considering the UK had been the sole state to constantly oppose the French - and yet he was having his homeland taken off him to make his ally happier. Not to put too fine a point on it, but it's the kind of insult which could break alliances.

The place where you grand-grandfather was born and you never cared to visit or give serious notice except to draw some extra troops from is no place to call your homeland, sorry. George III is a raving lunatic in 1815, the Prince-Regent calls the shots that the Parliament allows him to call, and very very few leading British politicians in 1815 give a rat's ass about Britain keeping a personal union with Hannover.

The same can be said of the Dutch - the Dutch already had a monarch.

Say more of an hereditary president for life, with several significant interruptions, and exiled since 1795. Hardly the same prestige as a true monarch.

Indeed, the Prince of Orange had been on Wellington's staff at Waterloo.

You mean him, or his son ?


And I'll point out that the British felt little support for Hanover, aside from the fact that it respected the King's German Legion as very good soldiers. If you do try to swap Hanover's ownership around, it's a deal to be done with George III himself. Hanover isn't British and the British don't want it, so they have no interest in bartering for it. As others have again said, Britain didn't even want the commitment of being given Dunkirk to look after.

You mean the Prince-Regent. George III in 1815 is busy speaking to trees. And George IV didn't care fig over keeping Hannover. If he can somehow wrangle some extra cash from the deal to support his extravagant lifestyle, he would gladly sell Hannover off.

If you deem that the British government would prefer to have Prussia annex most of Hannover, with still setting up United Netherlands as a satellite under the Oranges, that's fine by me.
 

General Zod

Banned
Would you deem this settlement would be acceptable to the Habsburg: it gives them Old Bavaria and Swabia as direct rule, while Franconia becomes a separate state (still in their Presidency).

2mhu6g1.jpg
 
And We think than metterich make a bad patchwork....

I read all the topic(myself propose a possible Austro-Italy with similar border... with magyar being a puppet/vassal in personal union but not part of the empire), and in general if we thing than OTL leave a lot of nationality mess... here is similar, in fact, the GC will have the problems of union with austria, the same for some italiand, the only way yo that work is that austria abadon germany in exchange to Italy and a lot of more butterflies

I like the POD, very original, i want to see my friend(cofofconkellwilliecfEurofedfofcfoIBCcfocf) will coment now about this posibility

(general zod..you're still alive??)

att

nivek von Beldo
 
I like the POD, very original, i want to see my friend(cofofconkellwilliecfEurofedfofcfoIBCcfocf) will coment now about this posibility

(general zod..you're still alive??)

att

nivek von Beldo

Hey, I was here in years gone by! :p

Basically, I stand by the words of my younger and more niave self over on page 1: Prussia ran on military prestige, Russian patronage, and a good deal of bluff and bluster. It was lucky to get what it got; and what it got would go up exponentially in value when the industrial revolution hit Germany - but it will still be the 1860s before economic, educational, and military strength allowed Prussia to successfully challenge Austria for control north of the Main.

In 1815, Prussian statesmen were deeply conscious of their precarious position. Metternich has no reason to "abandon Germany for Italy" because he got both as it was: he was President of the Bund and guarantor of all the Italian states, and Sardininia and Prussia acted as his buffers against French influence in his front and back gardens.

People are in general exaggerating nationalism as of 1815. Sure, most Germans were terribly excited about the Befreiungskrieg. Most British people were sympathetic to Poland. Doesn't mean anything will come of it in the actions of cold-hearted negotiators. The exploits of men like Stein and that British commissioner on Sicily who's name I forget are fun reading, but they never had a chance; and in any case Stein wasn't the only german nationalist at large. Humboldt was a sympathiser, like most beamten and middle-class Germans, to one extent or another, but most chose to work at rationalising the German states and safeguarding the rights of individual Germans and the security of Germany against foreign armies, rather than then-quixotic ideas of a united state.

As for Czech and Hungarian nationalism, insignificant. There was no such as a "Sudetenland" in 1815. In 1821, Carl von Weber would write Der Freischuetz, which is full of meaty German folk-tale material and without any particular explananation takes place in Bohemia, with a "Duke Ottokar" who sings in German same as everyone else. European opinion was scarcely aware that the Czechs were even there.

The Vienna Congress is also not a "black box" when it comes to outcomes. The borders of France had been decided at Paris, and their revision after the 100 Days was kept to a minimum by Wellington. If Napoleon had met his Waterloo (I'm sorry) at the hands of Austria or Russia, this wouldn't have changed: both wanted to keep France alive as a great power.
 
Last edited:
Dear author:

1) Many remarks suggest Austria is likely to oppose to Prussia gaining too much in northern germany.
I suggest giving a bit of germany to Bernadotte's Sweden as a counterbalance (after all he was part of the Coalition, and IIRC he was promised a bit, but he did not get it)

2) Could you please clarify if the Austrian control on northern italy is hegemonic or territorial?
(i.e.: are lombardy, venice, Parma, Modena, etc directly ruled by Vienna or are they formally independent states with a Vienna-friendly Duke?).
I notice that those territories are more or less the same of the old Longobard Italic kingdom (which Asburgo still had the Iron Crown of), thus even an unified northern italian state would have an historical precedence

3) Is Murat still in charge at Naples or are the Bourbons back?
Naple's kingtom is being considerably reduced by the loss of Sicily.

4) Pope state should keep at least Umbria and Marche.

5) ITTL I think we should add a third head to the Haupsbourg Eagle
 
Dear author:

1) Many remarks suggest Austria is likely to oppose to Prussia gaining too much in northern germany.
I suggest giving a bit of germany to Bernadotte's Sweden as a counterbalance (after all he was part of the Coalition, and IIRC he was promised a bit, but he did not get it)

Bernadotte was half-promised the throne/regency/Father-of-the-Republicdom of France, too. The Coalition would do anything to lead the poor guy on. It's not a matter of Prussia becoming too strong (Metternich wanted a strong Prussia as his accomplice in northern Germany), it's a matter of Austria being obliged to abandon the nominal headship of all Germany, which they aren't gonna do.

3) Is Murat still in charge at Naples or are the Bourbons back?

It's really hard for Murat to stick around. The Austrians tolerated him, but Talleyrand would do absolutely anything to undermine his position, and he joined Napoleon's last hurrah because if he didn't, he's lose his throne to a French swindle anyway. Still, up to the author.
 
The idea of Russia or Austria agreeing with this idea is absurd.

I can just see the proposal to give Prussia all of what would become the North German Confederation in return for which Russia can have a small province which they already have. Or Austria agreeing in return for being given a dominant role in Italy which...they already have.
 
Top