Franz Josef assassinated in 1853, what reforms should Maximilian have introduced?

@Kellan Sullivan I agree that Ferdinand being healthier and more intellectually capable would be a good pod for an improved Austrian performance in the xix century as it could, if not completely avoid, probably manage to minimise the disruptions of 1848/49.
As to Neptune's Timeline, which one are you referring to? I skimmed a couple which, while nice, had Austria willingly hand over Lombardy-Venetia, which is IMO something that no Emperor would ever do without losing decisively in a war, as Lombardy was one of the wealthier parts of the Empire and Venice was strategically important.
 
@Kellan Sullivan I agree that Ferdinand being healthier and more intellectually capable would be a good pod for an improved Austrian performance in the xix century as it could, if not completely avoid, probably manage to minimise the disruptions of 1848/49.
As to Neptune's Timeline, which one are you referring to? I skimmed a couple which, while nice, had Austria willingly hand over Lombardy-Venetia, which is IMO something that no Emperor would ever do without losing decisively in a war, as Lombardy was one of the wealthier parts of the Empire and Venice was strategically important.

Well, I wonder if having a network of alliances between the Italian Habsburgs and Savoy means that Austria is freed from having to worry too much about Italy and can instead focus more on Germany since their Italian backdoor is firmly shut
 
Well, I wonder if having a network of alliances between the Italian Habsburgs and Savoy means that Austria is freed from having to worry too much about Italy and can instead focus more on Germany since their Italian backdoor is firmly shut
The marriage alliances were already there, since Carlo Alberto married Maria Teresa of Hapsburg-Tuscany and his son Vittorio Emanuele married Maria Adelaide of Hapsburg-Lorraine (who was the niece of Carlo Alberto as well as first cousin to Maria Teresa: do you want anything closer than that?), but these ties did not produce any benefit in terms of aligning Sardinia with Austria. IMHO the 19th century is already too late to believe that marriages can trump geopolitics, even if they were still very popular: Queen Victoria placed almost all of her brood on a European throne, so that by the end of the century Nicholas II and Wilhelm II were first cousins, the queen of England was their grandmother and the Prince of Wales their uncle, but aside from frequent family get-together nothing political came out of this links.

In terms of "securing Italy" Austria is already well-placed even without Sardinia: the duke of Modena and the Grand-duke of Tuscany are in the family and the Papal States are pretty conscious that they need Austria to keep the revolution at bay (although when in the 1830s Metternich became worried by the awful papal government in the Legations and suggested reforms his advice was completely disregarded), and the duchy of Parma (where the hated Carlo III was assassinated in 1854) was little more than an Austrian proxy. Ferdinand II in Naples was not going to create problems to Austria, concentrated as he was on reactionary politics. Carlo Alberto had got closer to Austria in the early 1830s (the jury is still out if it was because of the promise he made to Carlo Felice on his death bed or because the king of Sardinia had truly rejected the liberal illusions of his youth), but by the end of the decade the relations started to become colder: French influence, French ideas and investments and overall the fact that an alliance with Austria would never help to fulfill the Savoys' aspiration to Milan. This was nothing new, it had been the traditional Savoyard policy for centuries, and after the debacle of 1848-49 was not a reason of worry for Vienna.

The situation is not too dissimilar in Germany: besides the formal alliance treaties of the German Confederation, Bavaria and Saxony were firmly in the Austrian camp and Prussia was not considered a serious rival. This perception of German affairs was not really wrong, as shown by the intervention of Prussia and other German states on the Austrian side in 1859. Admittedly their efforts were quite desultory and their mobilization was botched, but the principles of the alliance stood.

In 1853 the Austrian empire felt secure, and with firm alliances where it mattered to them (Italy and Germany). Sardinia was pretty isolated (even if France would not have accepted an Austrian annexation of the kingdom), and Russia was assumed to be willing to give support if another revolution threatened the empire; the traditional British policy of considering Austria the linchpin of stability in Central Europe was firmly in place. There was no reason to try and get close to the new regime which had emerged in France after another revolution.
 
Possible consequences on the Crimean War: if the Austrians stay strictly neutral, saying for example that they are grateful to Russia for the past assistance, but cannot go against the interests of other Catholic nations, or something along those lines and therefore don't force Russia to evacuate the Principalities, would the War actually be fought around the mouth of the Danube and not mainly in Crimea? Would this favour more Russia or the allies?
 
Has everything relevant on this topic already been said? I think that some sort of land reform in the Hungarian lands, could do much to increase political stability in the long run, although at the (possibly too high) cost of instability in the short run. I am also not sure about its economic effects: would it successfully create a class of rural smallholders? And wouldn't such a class be a stumbling block for the developement of an industrial proletariat or of industrial agricolture?

Would creating "national" regiments, normally serving in their own regions a political suicide, basically providing would be insurgents with a "ready-made" army and allowing a class of potentially radical officers to form?
 
The main reform would have been the armament.
Do you mean an earlier adoption of breechloaders? I don't think weaponry by itself was the cause of defeats in 1859 and 1866, much less than incompetent generalship and other factors such as poor unit coordination and less training than the Prussians (who were also better able to make use of their railroads).
 
Do you mean an earlier adoption of breechloaders? I don't think weaponry by itself was the cause of defeats in 1859 and 1866, much less than incompetent generalship and other factors such as poor unit coordination and less training than the Prussians (who were also better able to make use of their railroads).
The army would have suffered a remodeling.
 
Bumping this: is there any way that FJ being assassinated in 1853 could have preempted the Crimean War? Maybe cause of meetings between high ranking diplomats/royalties attending his funeral or Max's crowning?

The army would have suffered a remodeling.

I am not sure what you mean here... What kind of remodelling would it be, in your opinion?
 
The only thing which might derail (or maybe better postpone) the war of Crimea would be a serious unrest in the Austrian empire following the assassination of FJ (18 February 1853) and the crowning of Max (sometime in late March 1853): the causes of the war of Crimea are quite deep, and well established to assume that they can just disappear.

IMHO it is pretty unlikely that Max will kick start a reformation process the day he sits on the throne (assuming that he really would go along that path: the liberal fame of Max is mostly hinging on his apparent distaste for the repressions which followed the restoration of the empire in 1849. There is quite a difference between being the heir-to-the-throne and being the emperor, and Max is also the guy who signed the "black decrees" in Mexico 12 years later): the crown came to him very unexpected, he was not likely to have had a plan to reform the empire in his mind and certainly he did not have a liberal and reformist faction backing him.

The best one can expect (and it might be even a bit of stretch) is a vague promise of reforms and maybe setting up a committee to discuss possible reforms.

As far as the war of Crimea is involved, the diplomatic mission of Menshikov to Constantinople should not be affected, and the results should be the same as IOTL. By the same token French and British fleets would be sent to the Dardanelles (no reason the death of FJ would change any of this, unless there is a strong unrest or insurrections in Austria).
Russian troops entered the Danubian Principalities on July 2 1853, without encountering any Turkish resistance, and reached the Danube (which is where Austrian interests would be affected). By the end of July the Ottomans would have declared war on Russia, and fighting would start along the Danube and in the Caucasus.

Notwithstanding this, there might be a window of opportunity to end the war with a negotiated peace brokered by the other powers (with the caveat that Prussia had been humiliated by Austria at Olmutz in 1850, and would be more sympathetic to Russian aims, while Austria might be even less willing to be directly involved).
Prussia position was the same IOTL, and the war was not averted: the Ottomans had some success in the early stages, on both fronts, and this made them less willing to compromise (OTOH a better Russian performance would increase Russian appetites: I'd call it a wash). The point of no-return is certainly the Russian bombardment of Sinope in November.

I would believe that the only compromise acceptable to Russia would let them on the Danube (as well as recognize their right to "protect" Orthodox Christians in the Ottoman empire), but the Russian control of the navigation on the Danube would not be in the interest of Austria for sure.
 
If Austria ends up joining the Crimean War it might start a snowball effect probably have Sweden intervene and conceivably Prussia too against Russia. It would be a huge gamble, but the rewards of a much reduced Russia might make his post-war position nigh unassailable. It might also help cement Austria's relationship with France regarding Italy.
 
If Austria ends up joining the Crimean War it might start a snowball effect probably have Sweden intervene and conceivably Prussia too against Russia. It would be a huge gamble, but the rewards of a much reduced Russia might make his post-war position nigh unassailable. It might also help cement Austria's relationship with France regarding Italy.
Prussia against Russia? No chance there,in particular with the recent humiliation that Prussia received from Austria (Olmutz).
Austria does not have the money to seriously consider intervening against Russia, nor an army at a level to make a difference, as well as the fact that Nicholas saved the Austrian bacon just a few years.
It would be funny if Austria were to intervene, and Prussia entered the war too on the Russian side.
 
@LordKalvan alright then, butterflying the Crimean war doesn't look much plausible and that Prussia would in any case stay neutral or at most side with Russia, leading to a truly pan european war if Austria joined against Russia. IMO the most likely outcome is as in otl, although avoiding the extremely costly mobilisation would be a real boon. I am a bit skeptical that the Austrian army would not pose any sort of threat to Russia, as in otl they gave up when it looked likely that Austria would join against them... Austria's main interest at the time is avoiding Russian encroachment on the Danube mouth and in the Balkans, other consider are secondary.
About reforms, I agree that giving a constitution might be problematic aftermath of the assassination, but in my opinion it is not impossible to concede limited statutes to the crownlands and returning to civilian rule, maybe if there is sufficient backlash against the Hungarians a wide move could be imposing an end to the feudal regime there, playing up the loyalty of the peasants etc.

Maximilian in Mexico is imho incomparable to Maximilian as emperor. We can maybe get an hint to his opinion by looking at the proposed reforms during his brief tenure in Lombardy-Venetia, which were by the way mostly vetoed by his older brother.
Now they might have been motivated by ambition and desire for relative autonomy in the lands assigned to him, but the point of this thread is trying to answer the question "what reforms did Austria need, and which could be plausibly implemented by a less myopic leadership, in order to remain as strong as to avoid Italian unification, Prussian overlordship over Germany and an Ausgleich that stabilised the Empire for fifty years at the price of making it impotent to react to the processes in motion at the turn of the century, leading to its ultimate collapse.
Now I know that it would not be some sort of legitimist utopia, but I wonder if an alternate model to the toxic nationalism that developed in OTL's Mitteleuropa can be possible.

I think that Empress mother Sophia will play an important role in the first years, but I cannot find much about her relationship with her younger son, apart from the rumour he was actually the Duke of Reichstadt's and that she was deeply affected by his execution in Mexico. Any ideas?
 
Prussia against Russia? No chance there,in particular with the recent humiliation that Prussia received from Austria (Olmutz).
Austria does not have the money to seriously consider intervening against Russia, nor an army at a level to make a difference, as well as the fact that Nicholas saved the Austrian bacon just a few years.
It would be funny if Austria were to intervene, and Prussia entered the war too on the Russian side.

I don't think Austria would intervene, even with Max in charge. But considering how close Sweden came to intervening in OTL if Austria does intervene then a huge chunk of western Europe is already at war with Russia, Prussia could be tempted with easy victories against a Russia that's occupied against so many different fronts. It isn't the most likely scenario, but it makes more sense than fighting Britain, France and Austria.
 
The Austrian behavior during the war of Crimea was anything but linear: there were different interests at play, a general lack of money and overall a strong urge to secure the borders before committing anyway.
The potential dangers to Austrian borders were Prussia and Sardinia. Theoretically Prussia was an ally, at least in German matters; however the humiliation they had been subjected to at Olmutz (being forced to scrap the Union of Erfurt and accept Austrian presidency of the German Confederation) had not been easy to swallow. Sardinia was an obvious enemy, even if the rebuilding and reforming of their army was still under way; while it could not face Austria alone, it might take the opportunity of an Austrian involvement in the war against Russia to strike, possibly in conjunction with insurrections in Northern Italy.

The Austrian Foreign minister, Buoi, was in favor of supporting France and Great Britain in their war but had met the firm opposition of the army who did not consider feasible to commit troops in a major war. There was also the problem that the Russo-Austrian alliance had been a pillar of European diplomacy since the Congress of Vienna. OTOH supporting Russia, even leaving aside the money problem, would not have furthered in any way the Austrian strategic interests (navigation on the Danube and influence in the Balkans). Buoi had worked secretly to obviate these issues, and by the end of 1854 an agreement was signed with Prussia, while France and Great Britain were working on Sardinia (who had been convinced to join the western alliance). Prussia had been the easiest problem to solve (although Prussia did not promise much), while discussions with Sardinia took more time. Anyway Austria mobilized at the end of November, and signed an alliance with France and UK by Christmas 1854, promising an Austrian intervention unless Russia accepted peace on the basis of the Four Points agreed with the allies (Danubian Principalities to be guaranteed by European Powers, free navigation on the Danube, revision of the naval agreement of 1841 and Russian renounce to any right to protect Christians in the Ottoman empire). Sardinia signed a military convention in January 1855 (there was not a lot of other options for them, since allowing Austria and France to become closer would have been a disaster) and diplomats met in Vienna in February to discuss the peace proposal based on the Four Points. Strangely enough the 1st and 2nd points (which were the ones most sought after by Austria) were not much of an issue: the front of the Danube had collapsed, and the Russians had been forced to evacuate the Principalities. The 4th point was also not much of a problem, but the 3rd one was much stickier: after destroying the Turkish fleet at Sinope, the Russians were dominant in the Black sea (excepting only the presence of Franco-British ships). The discussions on this point dragged on until early June without any result, and the Russians left Vienna on the 10th. At this point Austria should have honored the commitment of the December Alliance and moved against Russia, but surprisingly demobilized. It is quite obvious to me that two years had not been enough to put the Austrian army in condition to campaign against Russia and the November mobilization had been a bluff, but it is also equally obvious that the Austrian turn-about was not well received by the Franco-British: in just 6 months the Austrians had managed to damage their relations with both the parties involved in the war. No need to go into details about the rest of the war: Sevastopol siege finally succeeded, and the city fell. In January 1856 the Powers and Sardinia met in Paris to negotiate the peace treaty (which was signed on the basis of the Four Points, including an almost complete neutralization of the Black sea). From Sardinia POV, it was possible for Cavour to sit at the victors' table, and to raise for the first time the Italian issue. From the Austrian POV, they got what they wanted on the Danube and in the Principalities, but substantially damaged the relations with Russia and were unable to get closer to France. It may look like I'm in the game of Buoi's bashing, but in all honesty he was dealt a very bad hand and his moves were more or less forced (which also in my opinion makes any kind of POD very unlikely: what could have he done? The alternatives to the bluff were only intervening in June 1855, but it might have ended very badly for Austria - maybe even something like a pre-view of Conrad's offensives in the east).

Archduchess Sophia now: from what I gather (sources are a bit scarce on the ground) she was a cold and ambitious woman, as well as a conservative one (it is alleged that her coldness grew a lot after the death of the king of Rome - and the legend that FJ would be the outcome of a dalliance with him was never proven and must be considered a legend). In 1848 she managed to convince her husband, archduke Franz Karl, to renounce the throne in favor of their son FJ (Franz Karl was apparently not the sharpest tool on the rack and was not much interested in politics): afterward she was the power behind the throne, and it is said that FJ defied her only once (when he insisted in marrying Elizabeth, rather than her sister Helen who was the one his mother had chosen). Her hate of Hungarians was very well known. It is said that Maximilian was her favored son, and it is quite possible. OTOH when Maximilian proposed reforms in Lombardy-Venetia she certainly did not goto bat for him. Archduchess Sophia is another very good reason why it is very unlikely that Maximilian will be able to implement significant reforms in the empire.

Sorry if I cannot give you good news: I understand you're trying to find a way of reforming the Austrian empire, but I'm afraid that the deck is a bit stacked against you :D
 
I don't think Austria would intervene, even with Max in charge. But considering how close Sweden came to intervening in OTL if Austria does intervene then a huge chunk of western Europe is already at war with Russia, Prussia could be tempted with easy victories against a Russia that's occupied against so many different fronts. It isn't the most likely scenario, but it makes more sense than fighting Britain, France and Austria.
As I said in the post above this, the Austrian Foreign minister was in favor of intervening against Russia from the beginning, which would have made good sense in a lot of ways. The army command informed him in no uncertain terms that they were not in a position to commit troops against Russia. Count Buoi tried again in 1854, and by the end of the year the Austrian mobilization was underway and Austria signed an alliance with France and Great Britain. Unfortunately when the peace talks in Vienna collapsed in early June 1855, Austria rather than intervene demobilized. The Austrian bluff did not work.

As far as Prussia is concerned, they will most likely stay out of this mess.
 
As I said in the post above this, the Austrian Foreign minister was in favor of intervening against Russia from the beginning, which would have made good sense in a lot of ways. The army command informed him in no uncertain terms that they were not in a position to commit troops against Russia. Count Buoi tried again in 1854, and by the end of the year the Austrian mobilization was underway and Austria signed an alliance with France and Great Britain. Unfortunately when the peace talks in Vienna collapsed in early June 1855, Austria rather than intervene demobilized. The Austrian bluff did not work.

As far as Prussia is concerned, they will most likely stay out of this mess.

Considering Max got bought with a song from Napoleon III over being emperor of Mexico, I wonder if Nappy could work the magic again.
 
Top