Help Required: Is Venice or Triest the best location for a naval base?

Which of the following 2 places would be best for a large naval base in the 20th c.?


  • Total voters
    65
Trieste is a much more open harbor which makes deploying a fleet easier. By the WWII or WWIII timeframe radar would provide good coverage against a surprise attack ala the Imperial Japanese Navy at Port Arthur. Trieste also has better rail access to the waterfront.
 
Shevek23 and Detlef, thank you both very much for your contributions; your comments were very helpful.

A few things on the whole history (again this is in the planning phases). There will be both a WWI and a WWII in my TL, and WWI is the same watershed event it was in OTL. After my WWI, the Empire gets Silesia as well as land in Poland and the east.

I keep speaking of an alt-WWII, because in my TL WWII will probably be different than in OTL and probably smaller in size. There will be fighting in the Pacific between the US and the Japanese and Hitler will cause some problems but Mitteleuropa in my TL is obviously not the unstable powderkeg it was in OTL, but rather consolidated in a pretty solid Empire. Because of this Hitler and Mussolini will basically fall quicker.

I'm not entirely sure on the whole thing though. I'm also considering a storyline in which Argentina (which is much bigger in my TL) turns fascist and allies itself with the Third Reich and Italy. This will make for a much more naval WWII. Again, I'm not sure.

What I can say is that, on the question of Venice's evolution, basically Venice is a very tight ally of the Habsburgs. It finally integrates into the Empire after Napoleon, basically at the Congress of Vienna. So yes, Shevek23, Venice does start as the main Austrian port. So what you've said about the Empire wanting to maintain it does apply.

In the 1860's there a war with Prussia that Austria loses pretty badly. Unlike in OTL this war lasts several years, the Prussians burn Linz and basically this war will be more similar to OTL's American Civil War than to OTL's Austro-Prussian war of the 1860's. The idea is that the Empire being much more powerful in my TL than in OTL, the Prussians can't afford a cabinet war if they want to defeat it. They do defeat the Habsburgs and as a result they snatch southern Germany from the Habsburgs' sphere of influence. Also as a result, Italy, Prussia's ally, gets Lombardy; not the Venetian Province (Veneto). Austria keeps all of Veneto. So Venice isn't exactly isolated. It appears as though you thought, Shevek, that Italy would get Veneto too, but not Venice per se. Italy doesn't get Veneto, it's just Lombardy that changes hands.

There is of course the problem that if the war of 1860's is more intense, there might not be the same impetus to go to war in WWI as it was in OTL but... I'm working on that. The reason why I need the war of 1860's to be more intense is because after it there will be no way in hell any German-speaking Austrian (or Bohemian, Tyroler, Swabian etc.) will want to have anything to do with the northern Germans. This way the Empire will be more oriented towards their non-German holdings and the German-speaking Austrians will develop their unique identity sooner and more markedly.

After my alt-WWII the people of Lombardy, initially very hostile to the Empire, would have become by this point very tired of the Italian administration and kind of welcome their re-integration into the Empire. They're not so sure it should be premanent and some of them are maybe not so thrilled about the whole monarchy thing but they've come by the 1950's to believe that they are much better off (at least economically) in the Empire than in Italy (which they have come to dislike especially during the years of fascism). Similar sentiments of dislike of the Italian government and even secessionist ideas do exist today in Northern Italy (though maybe they're not in the majority - however it shows that such dramatic turns of events can happen: the Italians were the most rebellious Habsburg subjects in OTL, yet today Austrian Empire nostalgia is pretty high in northern Italy; in my TL this turn of events is simply a bit exacerbated).

Veneto is different in my TL. The whole Venetian Provice has been part of the Empire continuously since at least the defeat of Napoleon. Venetians consider themselves significantly different than other Italians. Both localism and Habsburg loyalism are very strong in the Venetian Province.


Ok back on topic. So Venice is the Empire first main port. Others (Triest, Pola, Fiume, Zara, Spalato, Cattaro etc.) will develop afterwards but Venice remains the centre of the Austrian navy at least for a while. The question is whether this function will move to Triest or not in the late 19th or early 20th century, when bigger ships enter the picture.

Detlef, I am very interested in what you've said about currents and erosion. Didn't the Dutch have also similar problems (as well as flooding) and they solved them with big barriers. Do you think that such barriers/similar shoreline protection works could be done in some (or most) part of the lagoon concomitently with dredging for ship access in other parts of the lagoon?

Trieste also has better rail access to the waterfront.

Rail wouldn't be a problem in my TL, besides we're speaking here of the Cavallino Peninsula not of Venice proper. Rail could be easily built on the peninsula (I think).
 
Last edited:
Ok back on topic. So Venice is the Empire first main port. Others (Triest, Pola, Fiume, Zara, Spalato, Cattaro etc.) will develop afterwards but Venice remains the centre of the Austrian navy at least for a while. The question is whether this function will move to Triest or not in the late 19th or early 20th century, when bigger ships enter the picture.

The Habsburgs tended to be pretty conservative. Love of tradition and all that. Pride before reason on occasion. If Venice is picked as the naval base, then it's likely to remain after having been so for, what, a hundred years or so? Tradition and pride take precedence before the practical solution.

Now, you'll likely get dissenting voices and it will be expensive, but I don't really see the leadership letting Venice go.
 
Detlef, I am very interested in what you've said about currents and erosion. Didn't the Dutch have also similar problems (as well as flooding) and they solved them with big barriers. Do you think that such barriers/similar shoreline protection works could be done in some (or most) part of the lagoon concomitently with dredging for ship access in other parts of the lagoon?.

Well the Dutch and the Venetians did have different goals.
The Dutch wanted to win additional land while the Venetians wanted to keep the water lagoon as protection against land attacks.

Okay, a thought experiment to explain it. Venice somehow is relocated to the Netherlands.
In that case the Dutch would be delighted of the rivers turning the lagoon into marshland. They wouldn´t divert them. Partly for the silt transported by the rivers and partly for the fresh water. They´d build dikes to protect the new lands and windmills to de-water the new lands. While dredging one canal (with dikes on both sides) to connect the port of Venice to the opens sea.
They´d build a big barrier not to protect against normal tides but against storm floods. Which would endanger the dikes "in-land".

The Venetians in the 15th or 16th century on the other hand didn´t want to win new land. They wanted to keep the water obstacles to protect them from land attacks.

Keep in mind that we´re talking about 1850 or 1900 here.
"Normal" tides allow fish to enter and leave the lagoon. A boon for fishermen.
Even more important, the tides also result in an "exchange" of salt water. Meaning that waste water from a city gets "thinned down". In 1900 it´s just been understood for a few decades that waste water is an important carrier of cholera for example.

So on one hand you really need the tides to "clean up" the lagoon of Venice. A larger and deeper canal to a naval base might help here.
On the other hand without resupply of silt the existing islands will slowly erode because of the tides.
Big barriers only would make sense if Venice is endangered by storm floods or extremely high tides. And at the same time the waste water needs to be put into the Adriatic Sea, not the lagoon of Venice.

You´d need a decade long research project at least to determine currents inside the lagoon and the effects of the tides. You´d need to know that if you dump a ship load of earth and stones along the coast of one island, most of it will stay there. Otherwise your effort might be nil?
 
It's getting too late tonight for me to respond to what you've revealed about the background, let me just say I support your greater Hapsburg empire. It has potential.

I'm particularly curious about the configurations of the alliances in your WWI alternative. Clearly the Central Powers as OTL are clean out, Austria is never on the same side as Germany! So I guess they take a beating on their north border but any territory they lose they get back at the peace table. It's not inconceivable to me that the Empire manages to foster considerable industrial development--in addition to Bohemia and central Austria, also in Hungary, the northern Balkans (in particular all this naval buildup in the north Adriatic will probably foster quite a lot of development in Trieste and the Dalmatian coast and who knows how deep into the Croatian hinterland) and the territory known OTL as Romania--would it have that name in the Empire though?

From your map, the Turks took a major beating, and I presume the Hellenic state is a close Austrian ally?

I can go so many ways on how powers like Britain and France might have lined up in the early 20th century Great War. I'm guessing Russia pretty much had to be aligned with Germany, and evidently got badly broken up going down with Germany. It looks like the Austrians fostered both Polish and Ukrainian independence, indeed the Black Sea area looks shattered. It occurs to me some of those big rather mysterious entities, such as the region centered on the Sea of Azov or the big enclave of northeast Anatolia, might be overseas colonies of either Austria or the Hellenic state.

Also some of these changes might not have happened after the first war but the second, I'm assuming though that Poland at least is a result of the first war.

Another possibility is that Russia might not be as broken up as it looks--it might be a kind of Soviet federation that honors the nominal independence of the component states more than OTL, so on the map they show as separate countries but they are a cohesive Bolshevik league. If so, I'd be sure Poland is not in it, but not sure about Ukraine, the Azov/Crimean state, or even the Baltic nations. The Central Asians might go either way and conceivably the northeastern Anatolian state (Pontus? Colchis?) might be a Soviet republic too!

I'm not one of those strict butterfly people, in fact I have a whole "anti-butterfly" theory, so if you really want to have Hitler, I'd support your right to have him. But I can't forego to point out, you really don't have to have him! It would be quite a trick actually to come up with a scenario whereby a guy like him, born where and when Hitler was OTL, could wind up running Germany. It's not like OTL where Austria and Germany were allies; to replicate his biography you'd have to have him being a complete traitor to his birth land. Not that I mind tarring him that way too, but I'm not sure it can work. He could of course have been born on German rather than Imperial soil, but it's still hard to see how to work it from there. You might as well call him something else.

But I'd think any dictator who in any way resembles Hitler who takes power in a revanchist, defeated Germany that has lost the Polish corridor to an Austrian-backed Poland would lead the country to a ruin that would leave it looking a lot less like interwar Germany and--well, I don't know, isn't it likely Germany at least loses Bavaria? Or are the Bavarians too damned by association with the Prussians for the Empire to want them and too unwilling to join it anyway?

I can well imagine a much more moderate (but still imperialist and revanchist) German regime that does go to war with Austria and her allies, and still manages to lose, but can negotiate a less devastating surrender--well the Third Reich only surrendered in the most technical sense, in point of fact it was pretty much crushed out of existence with Doenitz being left only to formally acknowledge that fact. Here even if Germany is again on the losing side they seem to have managed to hang on to more, which makes me think they were in a position to haggle, which I devoutly hope means they weren't Nazis.

If Germany in this second war is still on the wrong side, and yet does not bring down the hammer of retribution they did OTL, I suppose you'd do well indeed to balance their side by raising up someone else to fight alongside them, Argentina for instance, as a serious power.

After all this particular thread is just a technical question about ports, which implies your Empire is a major naval power, so it's all very well they do have a rival on that front to worry about.

Also Germany might have allies other than Argentina--somewhere in the former Tsarist east for instance, if I'm wrong about the Bolsheviks ruling more by consensus than central terror. Or they might be allied with Bolsheviks--not if there's a Hitler involved of course, but I'm strongly suggesting you forget about that.

But it is your timeline, and maybe Hitler is central to it for reasons you'll have to make clear.

I'm going to subscribe to this and hope you announce the main thread here so I can catch it if I don't notice it in the forums.
 
Sorry guys for the delay in my response, I've been gone for a while. Not that there's absoluely no internet in the Transylvanian Alps but one does want a break from everything once in a while.

Ok so Keb, I believe you're absolutely right. Despite popular opinion around here, I lean at the moment towards having Venice as the Hauptkriegshafen. Pola and some other 1-3 places will be Centralkiegshäfen, i.e. also very important but not the main port. I'm thinking about the possiblity of keeping Triest and Fiume as mainly civilian ports. There would also be military ports there, but the 2 cities would me mostly known for being major hubs for commercial anc civilian navigation. (still thinking about it).

As far as Venice goes, I think that the challenge it presents will make the story more interesting. Detlef, of course, no one would worry about normal tides, they'd worry about the "high waters". I think the current OTL MOSE project is specifically for that and would allow for normal tides. Obviously, the dredging required for my naval base will probably speed up the erosion process. However, a technical solution to that will be found, either by re-directing some small rivers into the lagoon, or, more probably, by "enforcing" the islands as you've suggested with stones and earth.

I'm not yet certain about the exact technical solution (or the technology behind it), but the story value of this endeavour is too attractive to let the idea go. I would be very thankful if you would expand on what you think could be done about the erosion caused by the dredging of some parts of the lagoon. (remember it's not all the lagoon, I'm thinking especially the channer between the Cavallino Peninsula and the Sant'Erasmo island and some of the area to the south of Old Venice will be the main areas dredged)


I'm particularly curious about the configurations of the alliances in your WWI alternative.

There is a lengthy discussion on that here. Please feel free to contribute. I guess it's another of those many things I'm not yet sure about.

the territory known OTL as Romania--would it have that name in the Empire though

Well, the "Vlach Nation" is mentioned by name, just as the "Italian Nation" as one of the 12 Constituent Nations of the Empire in some Constitutional Acts. However, just as the Venetians are very different and somewhat separate from other Italians, and have a unique identity which is promoted (especially since this localism tends to also promote loyalty towards the Empire), also in the Romanian case, while it's clear to everyone that there is such a thing as "Vlachs" or a "Vlach people", most people don't see the Romanian region as one distinct thing, but rather as a collection of very different places.

There is Moldavia, which has a long tradition of Habsburg loyalism, of military might and of political authonomy. Moldavians are quite distinct culturally, have been heavily influenced by the Poles and have managed to keep their country relevant politically when they joined the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth and afterwards when they joined the Austrian Monarchy. The Moldavian nobles have intermarried with Polish and German-speaking Austrian nobles (despite the religious difference) and have always been part of the Habsburg establishment, just like the Polish nobles. Moldavians are also very religious. The Moldavians are the "red tories", if you'd like, among Vlachs (please note, in my TL's terminology OTL "Romanians" = my TL's Vlachs, OTL "Wallachians" = my TL's Romanians).

Even today, within Cisleithania, Moldavia forms a "Crown" of it's own, "the Crown of the Kingdom of Moldavia". Obviously that doesn't mean much, as most power is at the crownland level and not all of the crownlands in the Moldavian Crown are inhabitted in the majority by ethnic Moldavians.

Then there is Transylvania. This TL's Vlachs (i.e. OTL "Romanians") in Transylvania didn't have a government of their own till after WWI (just like in OTL); until that time, they have been ruled by Hungarians. Thus, they have developed very strong ties with both Moldavians and this TL's Romanians (i.e. OTL "Wallachians") to the south, the Vlachs that did have governments and countries of their own. This has not been a very easy balancing act, as Moldavians and Romanians dislike each other with a passion. It's fair to say that Transylvanian Vlachs have been closer to Moldavians and more influenced by them, since Moldavians have been more powerful culturally and politically, but Moldavians have also been very friendly to Poles (as mentioned), who are friendly with Hungarians, and to Szeklers (who are a distinct type of Hungarians), so it's fair to say that Moldavians and Hungarians are quite friendly as well. Conversely, the Transylvanian Vlachs have been, historcially, quite hostile to the Hungarians, mainly because they have been forced to live under Hungarian rule for a long time. Old wounds have been recently beginning to heal (easpecially since now Transylvania is mostly under Vlach rule -- more on the specifics of Transylvania in the future), but there is still hostility between the Hungarians and the Transylvanian Vlachs so the Moldavians being all chummy with the Hungarians hasn't historically gone that well in Transylvania.

Transylvanian Vlachs are a very proud, individualistic, independent-minded and entrepreneurial people. They have been at the forefront of science and business and the fact that they did not have a nobility of their own made them more inclined towards equalitarian ideas. The fact that they lived under a hostile government for a long time has made them look favourably on libertarian solutions. Culturally the three-way balancing act between the influences of the powerful Vlach culture of Moldavia (but which is firendly to Hungarians, whom Transylvanian Vlachs dislike), the influences of the less powerful and historically Ottoman-dominated Romanians (OTL "Wallachians"), and the influences of the Catholic West (i.e. Hungarians, Austrians, other Germans, the French culture, etc.), this balancing act among these influences has been at the centre of Transylvanian Vlach culture. There is also a strong ethical, moralistic streak in Trasylvanian Vlach culture which stems from their individualism and tendency in ages past to try and keep the Hungarian government of Transylvania out of their way and basically to abide by their own rules. This streak is not really related to the church but it's not entirely secular either. You might compare this sort of culture with early America in a way. However, Transylvanian Vlachs are loyal Habsburg subjects, maybe not in the assertive, boastful way that the Modlavians are, but they are pro-monarchy.

Today Trasnylvania is still a crownland within "the Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary", but it is politically dominated by Romanians (as mentioned, power is mostly at the crownland level; however, Transylvania has some very liberal laws concerning minority rights). Also, Szeklerland is not part of Transylvania, but a different crownland in itself. (Transleithania does not have "Crowns" like Cisleithania, since it is in itself a "Crown". Instead it has 2 kingdoms: the Apostolic Kingdom of Hungary and the Triune Kingdom of Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia. However it is important to note that both the Kingdoms of Transleithania and the Crowns of Cisleithania, which include, each, several crownlands, are mostly formal, as policy is made either at the crownland level, or by the central Parliament, government and the Crown.)

And, finally, in the South there are the Romanians (OTL's "Wallachians"). Romania has been different in that is was conquered by the Ottoman Empire (unlike Transylvania and Moldavia) and their culture has been influenced by it. Moldavia and Transylvania = Central Europe; Romania = The Balkans. Moldavians believe that most Romanians are rude, low class, godless petty businessmen, that anything is for sale in Romania (again, remember, in my TL, "Romania" only refers to OTL's Wallachia), and that most Romanians would be even willing to sell their soul for profit. Romanians think that most Moldavians are superstitious, snobbish, toffish prigs with no sense of humour (obviously neither stereotype is -entirely- correct).

On the other hand Transylvanian Vlachs think that Romanians have a society that is more backward in the sense that Romanians have some "oriental" problems and customs they have acquired during the years of Ottoman rule, in the sense that they do worse economically, and have problems with corruption, etc. But on the other hand there is also a lot of myth about the jovial, easy-going Romanians, who do things the old way, who know how to have fun etc. Basically a bit of a myth about a different, more "Balkan" society, that is interpreted in 2 different ways and in both situations exaggerations tend to occur. However, none of that rivalry and enmity that exists between the Moldavians and Romanians.

It's also important to note that while the Moldavians and Transylvanian Vlachs are loyal Habsburg subjects, the Romanians are in the Empire against their will. Romania (OTL's Wallachia) became independent from the Ottoman Empire in the 1860's and then joined a political union with Bulgaria. This Bulgaria-Romania fought against the Empire in WWI. The empire won and they forced Romania into the Empire at the peace conference. Yet, most Romanians have this idea that all Vlachs are one people and they would like to live in a "Greater Romania" consisting of Romania, Transylvania, maybe Szeklerland and at least some parts of Moldavia. So they do believe it's a good thing that all Vlachs live in the same country together. But they would like it to be separate from the Empire and they would like it to be a republic. Whereas in most parts of the Empire some 80-something % of the people support the monarchy, in Romania most people believe a republic would be better. Today, Romania (i.e. OTL's Wallachia) forms a Crown of its own within Cisleithania, "the Lands of the Princely Steel Crown of Romania"; the fact that this Crown is "Princely" and not "Royal" or "Archducal" was meant to be slightly demeaning, but most Romanians, supporting a republic, don't care one way or the other.

Most Romanians (OTL's "Wallachians") think that monarchy is an outdated, laughable concept, just as aristocracy, and you'd have to be stupid to attach any significance to either. Compare with the Moldavians who mostly believe that their aristocracy, the Moldavian szlachta, is a patriotic, kind hearted group who've always defended Moldavia and have breavely stood up to tyranny with no regard to their personal well-being, but only to their duty, and thus deserve respect (Poles believe the same about their own szlachta); and that the monarchy is basically a contract under the auspices of God, that as long as the Habsburgs do their duty to the Moldavian people - and they did - it is the Moldavians' duty to God to be loyal to the Habsburgs. Basically towards the monarchy and the aristocracy the Moldavian (and incidentally also Polish) attitude is that loyalty given (by the Habsburg King and the szlachta towards the people) should be rewarded with loyalty (by the people towards their King and the patriotic and charitable nobles) and that there is a religious component to this relationship.

However, it's important to know that in my TL's, due to different policies, the Crown acts as an attenuating force towards these internal tensions (unlike in OTL, where, to be fair, the Habsburgs had an exacerbating effect). Also it's important to note that in OTL, while there are some differences beween Moldavians, Transylvanians and Wallachians, they are pretty minor compared to the situation in my TL.

From your map, the Turks took a major beating, and I presume the Hellenic state is a close Austrian ally?

Yes, and yes.

the Austrians fostered both Polish and Ukrainian independence, indeed the Black Sea area looks shattered. It occurs to me some of those big rather mysterious entities, such as the region centered on the Sea of Azov or the big enclave of northeast Anatolia, might be overseas colonies of either Austria or the Hellenic state.

The Polish situation is more complicated. There is an independent, republican Polish Republic to the north and a monarchist "Crown of the Kingdom of Poland" within Austria-Hungary to the south. Both want a united Poland but the guys in the north can't give up the republic and the guys in the south can't give up the Habsburgs (this is a very compelling argument since in my TL the Habsburgs did not take part in the partition of Poland like in OTL, but instead were elected Kings of Poland by the Bar Confederation and were defeated in a war in which they fought for Poland - the result was the same, the partition, but the attitude towards Austria is very different from OTL). These days, the Polish Republic is in Germany's sphere, being part of an alt-EU (Austria Hungary and the UK - and maybe others - are not part of this alt-EU)

Now, around the Sea of Azov there are 2 countries, both in the Austrian zphere: Crimea (or whatever it will be called) with a Russian or Russian-and-German majority, and the Kuban Republic to the east of the Sea of Azov, which is the state of the Kuban Cossacks and which has a Ukrainian majority, but it's a different country from the Kingdom of Ukraine. There's also the states of the Don Cossacks, the Terek Cossacks (both Russian-speaking), the Kingdom of Alania and the Kingdom of Georgia. Also there is (Buddhist, Mongolian) Kalmykia. These were all "White" (anti-Bolshevik) areas in an alt-Russian Civil War.

The enclave in Anatolia is Pontus. It is the state of the Pontian Greeks. You might also notice independent Cappadocia for the Cappadocian Greeks and the Karamanlis (Orthodox Christian Turks) in central Anatolia. And the Greek-Armenian Kingdom of Cyprus and Cilician Armenia (long story). Please remember that I'm assuming different demographics to begin with, and they are more favourable to Greeks and Armenians.

All these countries are in Austria's sphere of influence and some of them may have as their formal head of state the Austrian Emperor but I haven't thought that through yet. (Though Georgia, Alania, Cyprus-Cilicia, Greece/restored Byzantine Empire, and the Aromanian state you see to the north west of Greece will all have local monarchies. I thought about Greece and the Aromanian state sharing one monarch and maybe Georgia and Alania also sharing a monarch. Still have to work out the details though.)


Ok, obviously there will be no Hitler, you know, the person. (Though it's interesting to note that Hitler hated the Habsburgs and the Austro-Hungarian Empire with a passion.) But Germany will go Nazi after WWI. However, as noted, alt-WWII will be different, Germany will not get the chance to do the same kind of damage as in OTL and as a result it won't loose as much as in OTL.

Stalin will exist though and while he can't do anything about his southern flank he does something about the northern flank. In my TL obviously Eastern Germany is much larger, and this is one reason why Western Germany isn't broken up. Another reason has to do with some Austrian-Bavarian rivalry and with the fact that the peoples in the Habsburg Empire who aren't native German speakers like a lot the current ethnic balance and wouldn't be too happy if it were unbalanced by more Germans. That being said there are independentist movements in both Bavaria and Swabia. And while the Austrians have some strong rivalry with (central and southern) Bavarians, they consider Swabians and Franconians kin who are wrongly under Prussian rule.

Also in my TL, apart from Eastern Germany, Poland (the northern, independent part), Finland and Sweden have gone communist after my alt-WWII. I'm not sure about the Baltic states, but they would have been either communist or integrated into the Soviet Union.

IMPORTANT: I don't know when or if this TL will be written. I have a lot of things to work out and a lot of other stuff to prepare. But when I write it, in a different thread (in the pre-1900 section), I'll let all of you know in here as well.


OK, while I'm working on the details, here's a little something out of the many things I'm working on. Current (i.e. 20th and 21st century) KuK Kriegsmarine officer rank insignia for my TL: specifically sleeve insignia and shoulder boards for the winter (i.e. "bue", actually black) and summer (white) Dienstadjustierung (service dress uniforms), collar patch for the winter Paradeadjustierung (ceremonial uniform; black is the only Egalisierungsfarbe in the Kriegsmarine; summer whites use shoulder boards), and collar patch for working and camouglage uniforms (which I'm still working on).
You may notice the use I've made of traditional Austro-Hungarian navy patterns, modern Austrian army patterns as well as ideas I've took from the British Navy, etc., and that I've mixed it all up a little bit, thinking basically how it would have all developed had the Habsburgs had a strong navy, but also keeping an eye out for the aesthetic factor.




(Note: in my rank system Fregattenkapitän and Linienschiffskapitän are one rank higher than they were in OTL, also note the presence of the British style Kommandeur and Kommandeurleutnant, and also of the Venetian - or generally Mediterranean, the rank exists in the Spanish navy as well - "Kapitän-General" for the highest ranking admiral, equivalent to the Feldmarschall. Also, in OTL the Austro-Hungarian navy had no one-star Admiral or anything equivalent to the Commodore.)

[Legal: These images are derivative works made for fun from other images, both free (sleeves, shoulder boards), and not-so-sure-they're-free (Paradeadj. collar patches), taken from the internet or books. I believe it's fair use. Whatever part of it is my work (remodeling the sleeves, work unif. collar insignia, bringing it all together), I release as "copyleft" (i.e. no licence, you can do whatever you like with it). I believe it would be fair use to use anything anyone would like as long as it's for fun and no money is involved, but whatever's my work I really don't mind one way or the other - that's what copyleft is all about.]

[Also Legal: The map I've posted previously on this forum is my work, based upon a free blank relief map of Europe from Wikipedia by Alexrk2. I release my map of the AH Empire under a CC BY-SA licence, basically you can use it however you like as long as you just attribute it to me and whatever derivative work you do from it must also be free under a CC BY-SA licence; this way we keep all derivatives free.]
 
Last edited:

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
I would say Fiume is a better alternative to both Trieste and Venice. Only problem with Fiume is that it's part of the Hungarian half of the Empire. So maybe Pola could be an alternative.
 
Top