How could the 1848 Revolutions have had a better outcome?

I have a soft spot for the 1848's revolutions and insurrections. I think that the "Springtime of Peoples" could have been a decisive turning point for European history, more than it was in OTL. The Habsburg Empire could have collapsed, France could have stayed a Republic, if it had avoided the lure of Bonapartism, Germany and Italy could have maybe been unified earlier and in a different way.

All in all, I think that 1848 was a great lost occasion, as Europe's political and social developement could have been steered on a rather more liberal course, maybe even paving the way for earlier forms of economical and eventually political cooperation, avoiding or reducing the effect of the more extreme forms of nationalism that developed at the end of the XIX century and showed their deadly face during the XX century.

Probably I am painting a too much rosy scenario, but still I think that a more successful 1848 would have been a net gain for the peoples of Europe.

So... what POD could, in your opinion, bring about a more successful and longlasting "Springtime of the Peoples"?

I am an Italian, so I am especially interested in Italian history, and I think that 1848 could have gone far better, bringing about at least a partial unification, if only things had evolved a bit differently.
I already opened a thread on this topic some time ago (my first thread actually:eek:), where posters like LordKalvan offered very interesting insights on what the revolutionaries in Milan and Venice could have done better, but I think that this may be worthy of a bit more speculation...

For example, the King of the Two Sicilies was forced to declare war to Austria and send north a sizeable expedition (about 16.000 men), but, after Pope Pius IX's turnaround on the 29th of April 1848(1), recalled it before it could enter Veneto, and only the artillery refused to comply. What if the King never recalls the expedition, or if the rest of the army follows general Pepe and the artillery?

Together with the Papal forces (who refused to comply with the Pope's orders and fought against the Austrians in Veneto) they could have defeated Nugent's corps coming from Friaul, or at least slowed them enough to avoid them joining forces with Radetzky, thus saving Venice from the siege and probably causing the Austrian positions in the "Quadrilateral"(2) to become unsustainable.

The Pope himself could have kept on being a paladin of the italian liberals, thus giving greater legitimacy to their cause, and maybe find himself President of the Italian Confederation, as in the projects of neo-guelphs like Gioberti(3).

Finally I think that the role of the Savoy dinasty should be reduced, for the italians to be more successful: it is true that they had the strongest army in Italy, but they were also more interested in acquiring Lumbardy than in unifying Italy, and their conduct of the First War of Independence was really abysmal. I would really like to see Italy unified on more federal and possibly republican terms(4). (I would also very much like a really federal Germany with a capital in Frankfurt and not Berlin, but I am afraid that would require the intervention of even more ASB).

Sorry for the rantish post, I hope it can be the start for an interesting discussion. I am clearly interested in Italy, but feel free of thinking alternative outcomes for France, Hungary and Germany too!

(1) He declared to the Consistory that the military expedition had the only objective of protecting the borders of the Papal States, and that there was no intention of fighting Austria.
(2) A set of four fortified cities (Peschiera, Mantua, Verona and Legnago) dividing Lumbardy from Venetia and protecting the approaches to the Brenner pass.
(3) Ok this is probably impossible, and besides I don't think a stronger Papal State, however liberalised, would be so positive for Italy's political developement...
(4) Wouldn't it be very cool to have an Italy made up of a confuse yet somehow working confederation of Kingdoms, Duchies and Republics? Think of the Flags :D ...and of a restored Republic of St. Mark in Venice...
 
Last edited:
Frankly, while i don't really like the Savoy, they are in the period the only with a real shot in unify Italy due to both the military force and diplomatic recognition.
The other repubblican players, IMHO, are too much fragmented and apple in the sky types (diciamo troppo ottimisti e con poca esperienza politica) or too rigid to accomplish something of really durable. Better not forget that there is not only the task to create a nation or a confederation of nation but to keep it alive and i doubt that A-H and Russia or UK will want the spectre of a new series of repubblican wars.
Garibaldi, for all his idealism and admiration for Mazzini, was realistic enough to see that only Piedmont had the possibility to unify Italy.
IMHO the key, at least for Italy, lay on foreign land, more precisely in Germany and Hungary, make the Russian delay their intervention a little more and make the Prussian king accept the German crown and Vienna will be in a worse position to intervene in Italy; and while the Roman Repubblic will inevitable fall Turin can be in a good position to negotiate the annexation of Tuscany and the Ducats in adjunt of Lombardy (without the quadrilatero as the Hapsburg will want to keep the strategic position)
 
I am in part with you, when you say that the fate of Italy rests with what happens beyond the Alps. Neither Piedmont, nor any other Italoan entity can face off alone against a united Habsburg Empire and prevail. On the other hand in march-april 1848 the Austrian Empire was all but united or stable, and I think that it wouldn't take too much to have it collapse altogether: maybe if the Hungarian Parliament had for some reason recalled the Magyar battalions from the Austrian army?

I also don't think that Britain would be concerned by a confederation of the italian States, even if it included some Republics, as it would be seen as non-threathening by virtue of it being, at least initially, a rather loose union. The British would also be rather happy to see Sicily separated from Naples I suppose. Also France will possibly be supportive of the Italians, at least as long as the Pope stays in Rome.

I know that the Piedmontese army would be needed, but could there be a way for its role to be less hegemonic? Maybe Cattaneo is more decisive in Milan and calls out Casati and the moderates for trying to negotiate a ceasefire with the Austrians when the insurgents were already on the verge of expelling them from Milan, thus discrediting them.
At this point leadership is "forced upon" Cattaneo by the other members of the "War Council" and he creates a provisional government that as its first act calls for the formation of an "Italian League" open to all Italian States to fight the Austrians, leaving the question of political organisation for after the war is won.

Charles Albert of Savoy doesn't want to commit initially, as he wants Milan to have a plebiscite on annexation to Piedmont, but is soon forced to act, as otherwise he would face revolution in Turin and especially Genua, and the French Republic might use the opportunity to grab some land or depose him.

While the "Italian Hamlet" ponders what to do, Cattaneo (1) with Swiss and French support manages to organize rather well the voluntary forces that are swarming into Milan, but cannot stop Radetzky from taking refuge into the Quadrilateral. Radetzky cannot stage a counterattack either, because the reinforcement from Nugent are stopped in Friaul by the combined ex Papal and Neapolitan forces, who have both declared their allegiance to the "Italian League", and the way of the Brenner Pass is blocked by irregular forces (Garibaldi?).

At this point Charles Albert would finally declare war to Austria, hoping to assert his role as leader of the Italian League. What can happen now? The situation is much different than OTL, as Milan is still an independent actor, and Veneto is in Italian hands, Radetzky might possibly be defeated in this scenario, or Wien could even start negotiating.

EDIT: or at least a stalemate could develop, and in October 1848 the Hungarians might win at Schwechat and march on Wien, as apparently it was a rather close run affair.

(1) I think that Cattaneo is much underestimated: he strikes me as a very good organizer and pragmatical leader, very different from Mazzini. The problem is that he was too modest, and after his role during the 5 days of Milan he soon disappeared from the active political scene, mostly because he was disgusted from Casati subservience to Piedmontese interests. But things could have gone otherwise imho.
 
Last edited:
Interesting topic. The hypothetical Italy as a HRE-style federation of many wildly different monarchies and republics sounds cool, but it also sounds like a terribly inefficient way to run a state.

I wonder how a world with a surviving revolutionary Hungary would look like, and how that might be accomplished.

It seems like Kossuth's government honestly wasn't such a genuinely bad partner for the non-Hungarian minorities, when compared to the alternative. Admittedly the Romanian, Serbian etc. leaders did not know at the time just how thoroughly the Habsburg regime will betray its promises to them; they were only able to see the short-term picture, and in that picture Budapest didn't look very good; but even so there was still room for improvement and understanding.
If Kossuth and his people were willing to listen to the minorities requests just a little more, I believe they could have secured a mutually acceptable agreement and focused all of Hungary's energy and resources on winning independence from Vienna (instead of having to fight the various non-Hungarian revolutionary movements).

The big elephant in the living room is the possibility of Russian intervention - but if Hungary fights the Habsburgs well enough and turns its independence into a fait accompli early enough, Russia will likely consider it more cost-effective to exploit the new situation instead of fighting to destroy it.
 
Well, as said my problem is not the immediate success, it can be obtained without ASB, but the consequence of it in the long term.
The overall leaderships of the italians revolutions was neither united or coordinated among them and frankly the moment somekind of peace is obtained they will start to bickering among therm, while basically holdin an enormous sign saying 'Please France or Austro-Hungary, come and resolve violently the situation, we love to become again a puppet of a foreign power or be military reconquered'.
I say France because either a Kingdom or a Repubblic, having an italian puppet as a buffer state between them and Austria was one of the principal objective of French foreing policy.
In 1848, barring a total different outcome of the revolution in all Europe, the best that he can be obtained...expecially for the long term prospective of italian unity is an enlarged Piedmont.

The Pope staying in Rome mean that the same OTL problem happen here, nobody can leave the eternal city out of any Italian Union but the Pope will rather die under torture that permit that; not counting that him and the idiot in charge of Naples will hate gut whatever come out of this revolution; hell even OTL Piedmont was much too liberal for them.
 
Interesting topic. The hypothetical Italy as a HRE-style federation of many wildly different monarchies and republics sounds cool, but it also sounds like a terribly inefficient way to run a state.

Well I was thinking of something slightly more efficient than that,: Cattaneo was heavily influenced by the Swiss system, and here he will have a more important role, so that might be a start.


If Kossuth and his people were willing to listen to the minorities requests just a little more, I believe they could have secured a mutually acceptable agreement and focused all of Hungary's energy and resources on winning independence from Vienna (instead of having to fight the various non-Hungarian revolutionary movements).

That would for sure spell the doom of Austrian rule on Hungary, but it seems to me rather difficult to keep the country united: weren't magyars a majority only in about one third of the lands of the Crown of St.Stephan? I am afraid they would end up alienating somebody.

The big elephant in the living room is the possibility of Russian intervention - but if Hungary fights the Habsburgs well enough and turns its independence into a fait accompli early enough, Russia will likely consider it more cost-effective to exploit the new situation instead of fighting to destroy it.

Well, they were not so eager to intervene initially, if I recall correctly, so I am with you on this, an early success is key both for Hungary and for Italy.
 
Well, as said my problem is not the immediate success, it can be obtained without ASB, but the consequence of it in the long term.
The overall leaderships of the italians revolutions was neither united or coordinated among them and frankly the moment somekind of peace is obtained they will start to bickering among therm, while basically holdin an enormous sign saying 'Please France or Austro-Hungary, come and resolve violently the situation, we love to become again a puppet of a foreign power or be military reconquered'.
I say France because either a Kingdom or a Repubblic, having an italian puppet as a buffer state between them and Austria was one of the principal objective of French foreing policy.
In 1848, barring a total different outcome of the revolution in all Europe, the best that he can be obtained...expecially for the long term prospective of italian unity is an enlarged Piedmont.

The Pope staying in Rome mean that the same OTL problem happen here, nobody can leave the eternal city out of any Italian Union but the Pope will rather die under torture that permit that; not counting that him and the idiot in charge of Naples will hate gut whatever come out of this revolution; hell even OTL Piedmont was much too liberal for them.


You are right, as difficult as winning the First War of Independence may be, the real challenge lies in the political arrangements to be done after the war. Maybe Charles Albert could be offered the Iron Crown of (Northern)Italy and accept it, but with the different political situation, it would be a much more decentralized Kingdom of Italy, leaving its costituent States(1) as at least formally sovereign, and with a large degree of autonomy. Problem is that I don't see the political willingness to do so on Charles' side. Maybe we need a federalist Cavour (jk)
Also the Roman and Southern questions would still be standing, and be a perfect excuse for foreign interference, especially French, as I am picturing an Austria that get's much reduced and shifts its focus more on Germany (or is even absorbed into Grossdeutschland).
(1)a bit like in the German Empire.
 
That would for sure spell the doom of Austrian rule on Hungary, but it seems to me rather difficult to keep the country united: weren't magyars a majority only in about one third of the lands of the Crown of St.Stephan? I am afraid they would end up alienating somebody.

Sooner or later, they quite possibly will alienate someone...but it doesn't have to happen and it especially doesn't have to happen during the critical year(s) of the revolution.

Some of the goals of the Hungarian revolutionaries were things every other nationality could get behind, too; abolition of serfdom, liberalization etc. As a consequence of that, many Romanians, Serbs and so on supported the new Hungarian government and saw it as a reform-minded potential friend and partner - at first. Conflicts arose on the demands for minority language rights, collective assemblies and that sort of thing. If Kossuth was a bit more accepting there (and ideally hurried up with the abolition in Transylvania) he could have kept them on the Hungarian revolution's side, for the next few years if nothing more.
Well, they were not so eager to intervene initially, if I recall correctly, so I am with you on this, an early success is key both for Hungary and for Italy.

Seems that way. I don't know if the increased danger from Hungary would be enough to screw up the Habsburgs positions in Veneto, but in any case it would be good if the Sicilian army got there as well.
 
Avoiding or reducing the effect of the more extreme forms of nationalism that developed at the end of the XIX century and showed their deadly face during the XX century.

Nationalism was part and parcel of the 1848 revolutions. 'Germany' as the 1848 revolutionaries conceived of it definitely, definitely included Bohemia (and Prussian Posen), which of course the Czechs were not so hot on. The most radical French revolutionaries wanted to immediately begin Napoleon's conquests all over again, starting with Belgium. Hungary's nationalism was of course based on the pre-Trianon borders, which of course included the assimilation of large parts of Croatia, Romania and so on (and a big reason why the Habsburgs could pry the latter away from the former so easily). Galician/Ukrainian nationalism came late, but it came in the form of Ukrainians rising up and massacring their Polish landlords once released from serfdom by the Habsburgs.

The problem with the Italian side of the 1848 revolutions was that two of the major armies (the Papal and the Neapolitan) were, in effect, 'forced' to join in the war due to the extremely volatile domestic situation. The only way they won't be recalled is if the situation remains volatile, which means prolonged troubles in those home countries. It's still a very fragile situation, however, since it's not unreasonable to believe that these revolutionaries can be calmed down with promises of political reform and the appointment of 'liberals' into the cabinet (like elsewhere). And once these two armies pull out, Piedmont and the revolutionaries are unlikely to hold out on their own.

I'm similarly pessimistic about Hungary because of the fact that in a bidding war for the loyalties of the Romanians and Croatians, the Hungarians are always going to be hamstrung by the fact that they will have to sacrifice the rights of the Hungarian lords, while the Austrians have the benefit of being the 'legitimate' status quo power.

The 'ideal' 1848 revolutions would see all revolutionary armies working together to bring down the Habsburgs, but it's difficult to see why Hungary would support the initial rush of the Italian revolutionaries considering that they wanted autonomy rather than independence (the Italians could definitely have done more cooperation especially between monarchists and republicans - maybe if Savoy was not so desperate to be top dog). I think the next best scenario is a total collapse of the Austrians - Metternich refuses to leave, Vienna falls into chaos, and everybody else breaks free. Still won't get rid of nationalism though.
 
Last edited:
I know that 1848's revolutions had often a strong nationalist spirit. However it was, I think, a not so virulent form of nationalism, more keen on self determination than on ethnic supremacy. Many nationalists believed in the creation of some form of united Europe, at least as an ideal goal for the time after national liberation is achieved. (Think of Mazzini's "Young Europe" movement).
Maybe if they are more successful, the emergence of "rightist" nationalism could be avoided.

As to the role of the Neapolitan army, I think that King Ferdinand might not have recalled it, if he had not perceived the Sardinian actions as a land grab in which he wanted no part and that would not benefit him at all. Also, after the troops start fighting the Austrians and fraternizing with volunteers from the rest of Italy, I don't think they will listen to any recall order any more.

To solve the after war instability, would it be too much of a stretch to think of the creation of an Italian Parliament similar to the German one in Frankfurt? Maybe in Florence or Bologna.

Ideas on France? Was Louis Napoleon's victory unavoidable, or how could the II Republic have lasted longer?
 
I know that 1848's revolutions had often a strong nationalist spirit. However it was, I think, a not so virulent form of nationalism, more keen on self determination than on ethnic supremacy. Many nationalists believed in the creation of some form of united Europe, at least as an ideal goal for the time after national liberation is achieved. (Think of Mazzini's "Young Europe" movement).
Maybe if they are more successful, the emergence of "rightist" nationalism could be avoided.

Frankfurt politician Karl Vogt who supported the Großdeutsche Lösung side of the debate described the liberation of German Austria from the rest of the Habsburg Empire as a "holy war for western culture against the barbarism of the East" (i.e. the Hungarians and Poles and such). That sounds like pretty virulent nationalism to me.
 
Frankfurt politician Karl Vogt who supported the Großdeutsche Lösung side of the debate described the liberation of German Austria from the rest of the Habsburg Empire as a "holy war for western culture against the barbarism of the East" (i.e. the Hungarians and Poles and such). That sounds like pretty virulent nationalism to me.

19th century nationalism came in many flavors; the German was, on average, the most authoritarian and right-wing one.
 
To be honest, a better outcome to me seems like you should look at actual examples of 1848 'revolutions' with pretty good outcomes. I.e. look at the Denmarks and Netherlands' of the time.

So, the way I see it, a good outcome would not be nationality x smashing empire y, but genuine democratic reform by besieged monarchs. Say, have the Habsburgs accept a serious unitary parliament on democratic basis, have many of the German states accept democracy, have the pope rule Rome together with a 'Senate', or whatever.

Of course that's gonna be tricky since, unlike Denmark or the Netherlands, there's no stable national basis for those reforms... but it seems by far the better outcome than 'wank the rebels to win, nevermind that the aftermath will have plenty of unrest and misery'.
 
Frankfurt politician Karl Vogt who supported the Großdeutsche Lösung side of the debate described the liberation of German Austria from the rest of the Habsburg Empire as a "holy war for western culture against the barbarism of the East" (i.e. the Hungarians and Poles and such). That sounds like pretty virulent nationalism to me.

19th century nationalism came in many flavors; the German was, on average, the most authoritarian and right-wing one.

This strikes me as a pretty stupid generalization!

  • Citing a single member of the Frankfurt parliament
  • Not mentioning that at the 1832 Hambach Festival Polish flags were waved along the Black-Red-Gold flag of a democratic and unified Germany as a sign of support for the failed Polish uprising. And the founding of numerous Polish associations across Germany to support Polish refugees fleeing Russian suppression.
  • A certain fellow named Carl Schurz was a pretty prominent member of the failed German 1848 revolution. Google him.
You know, I´m pretty sure I could find a 19th century politician in pretty much every European country who supported the "re-unification" (read annexation) of some province bordering his country citing historical reasons.

Anyway, to return to the original question of a more successful outcome of the 1848 revolutions.

In Central Europe that means Prussia. A successful revolution there would mean a successful revolution in Germany. Prussia in 1848 is the second state in Germany after Austria. A Prussia supporting a "revolution" in Germany (remember they offered the Prussian King the position of German Emperor) would be a big moral boost.
(Always keeping in mind the possibility of a Russian intervention.)

And a successful revolution in Germany would divert quite a bit of Habsburg Austrian "attention" to Germany. Which might help Hungary and / or Italy?
In 1848 in OTL Habsburg Austria definitely wasn´t ready to loose its influence and premier position in Germany.

Austria in OTL was willing to let Prussia put down the revolutions in Germany while it dealt with its problems in Italy and Hungary. Supported by Russia later on. Then they stared down Prussia in 1850 with their alliance with Russia. And then a few years / decades later on they happily enlarged the Austrian-Hungarian Empire in the Balkans knowing that this would enrage Russia.
Prince Felix of Schwarzenberg: !Austria would shock the world by the depth of its ingratitude".
 
This strikes me as a pretty stupid generalization!

That said, you did had a form of...let's say paternalist attitude at best when it came to other nationalism.
It could be Marx defining Hungarians as too backwards for that nationalism could be anything but reactionary (as for all Slavs, for that matter, but Poland).

Or the treatment of Czechia by Frankfurt Congress, included de facto within Germany because "Hey, you lucky guys, you're with us now" "But we don't want to" "Why not?"

Doesn't make Palacky more or less right with the proclamation of Austro-slavism, of course.

National liberalism didn't meant the same things depending where you were. A Seeing itself generally as "develloped" nationalism, you had maintain of dominant/dominee visions (nothing special about Germany, that said. You had similar exemples for all nationalist* rises, but as liberal nationalism was more develloped in Germany, contradictions were more noticable)

*I use this word on a neutral sense, you'd have understood.
 
That said, you did had a form of...let's say paternalist attitude at best when it came to other nationalism.
It could be Marx defining Hungarians as too backwards for that nationalism could be anything but reactionary (as for all Slavs, for that matter, but Poland).

God yes. Count Cavour threw the Irish nationalists under a metaphorical bus for... well being nationalist against the wrong people (Britain.)
 
While an interesting idea, ultimately the 1848-49 revolutions were doomed. They had popular support but little to no government backing, aside from Hungary and Sardinia-Piedmont. In Germany most of the German states were opposed to the revolutionaries, which is what helped lead to the Frankfurt parliament's failure. In Italy, the war of unification quickly looked like a land grab by Sardinia, leading to the rest of Italy withdrawing from the war. To make matters worse, Sardinia was in no position to beat Austria on her own. Even in 1859, it was mainly France that won the war, no the Italians.

As for Hungary, the leadership was mainly aristocratic and Magyar nationalists. So no sympathy from the Romanians or the Croats, nor was their a groundswell of support thanks to their refusal to reform the aristocratic government. Not to mention that Russia had no desire to see revolutionary regimes in Austria or Germany, and would no doubt intervene if necessary.

Finally, as to France remaining a Republic, highly unlikely. Everyone and their mother saw the Second Republic as a stepping stone to a Monarchist restoration. Second, in 1848 no one had the ability to beat Louis-Napoleon, as shown by the percent he won by (74%). The Wiki page on the 1848 election sums it up nicely: between the Bonaparte name and his inexperience in politics, the future Napoleon III was able to appeal a little bit to everyone and was ultimately the "least-worst" candidate.
 
Top