Ferdinand I Doesn't Abdicate

What if Ferdinand I of Austria didn't abdicate the Austrian throne in 1848 and instead "ruled" till his death. What would Austria look like and do under the continued regency of Archduke Louis and Metternich. And who would succeed Archduke Louis after his death in 1865.
 
One thing is certain, if Ferdinand remains on the Habsburg thrones (so he remains the King of Hungary as well), then the reforms of 1848 would still be in use in Hungary, the Austro-Hungarian war of 1848-'49 wouldn't occur. With a civic country in PU with Austria though, I don't think the maintaining of Metternich era is possible, he have to fall, and most probably a similar system to OTL 1867 Austria would be established.

Let's roll with this idea, a more "civic" establishment both in Austria and Hungary would lead to an earlier, faster and more effective modernisation of the two. Now, let's see foreign policy. Austria and Hungary would most probably be involved in the Crimean War, since the Habsburgs doesn't owe the Tsar like in OTL. What could the Habsburg earn from it? They could eradicate the Russian influence on the Balkans and most probably could attach Wallachia and Moldavia (,which at this point regains Bessarabia) to their own sphere of influence. Also they could be the power, which leads the liberation of Balkans from Turkish control, which could earn them significant prestige amount the Balkan nations and could draw them towards their sphere of influence.

A more modern Austria and Hungary might not lose the war against the French and Piemont, but still would lose the war against Prussia in my opinion.
 
Ferdinand proved to be quite an able administrator later in his life (he increased the output of his estates). He might not be a "public leader", but miht be an able administrator.

I agree we might get an earlier and "fairer" Ausgleich with Hungary (with Croatia probably staying part of Austria if I recall the Hungarian programm of 1848 correctly)

Regarding to the Crimean war, I doubt that he would simply side with the Anglo-French-Turkish Alliance. After all Austrias interests were more targeting the Ottoman posessions on the balkans. Also the relations with Russia were rather cordial at the time. So I'd assume an at least benevolent neutrality towards Russia if not an outright alliance with Russia. Both would be a signifikant improvement over OTL for Russia.

OTL Austria maintained an army of 300k men for the duration of the war at the border of Russia (and crippled Austrias economy, thus the Autrian army received less funds the following years and was not as strong as it could have been in the later wars - especially as Milan was a cash cow for the empire and was lost in 1859/1860.Which led to further cash shortages for the army... -> defeat of 1866.

If you assume Ferdinand allies with Russia then we might see the Russians actually win - and get a step nearer to Constntinople. At this time panslawism was no problem and if Austria and Russia are allied in 1856 they might split the Balkans in a manner beneficial for both. An Austro Russian alliance will probably butterfly Savoys sucesses in 1859 and later. Also if Russia is allied to Austria Prussia probably won't dare to attack Austria in 1866...
 
Top