How Plausible Is An Austrian Victory?

In every history lesson I have ever had, the Austro-Prussian War has been portrayed as a one-sided curbstomp in which the feeble, backwards Austrians were destroyed by the awesomly powerful and modernized Prussians.

So, being a young and uneducated Austrophile and Alternate Historian, I've been wondering, how plausible is an Austrian victory with a POD allowed in the 1850s?

(If you could point me to any TLs about this I would be much obliged, BTW)
 
Very possible. Austria needed better military leadership than it had in our timeline, since they were too conservative and didn't appropriately make use of new ideas. But Austria had good advantages, such as a larger army, and higher industrial output than Prussia (in 1860, Austrian industrial output - 4.2% of world manufacturing - was close to the output of the whole of the rest of the German Confederation - 4.9% of world manufacturing).
 
Could I recommend Geoffrey Wawro The Austro-Prussian War as a good account, though regrettably ignoring the naval side. It is my impression that had Austria's generals been half as good as her Admirals, she'd have won the war easily.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
If it helps, in 1860 Austria's army had 306,000 men, while Prussia's had 201,000.

All of the guns that Austrian infantry happen to be carrying are muzzle-loaded. Prussia had breach-loaders. Those extra 100,000 are useless if they can't fire half as quickly as a Prussian soldier. The only technological advantage that Austria had was in her artillery. But that was useless given their tactics.

Could Austria win? Of course. But the Prussians would need to either be trying to lose, or be struck with so much incompetence that they may not be able to wipe their own asses.
 

Susano

Banned
All of the guns that Austrian infantry happen to be carrying are muzzle-loaded. Prussia had breach-loaders. Those extra 100,000 are useless if they can't fire half as quickly as a Prussian soldier. The only technological advantage that Austria had was in her artillery. But that was useless given their tactics.

Could Austria win? Of course. But the Prussians would need to either be trying to lose, or be struck with so much incompetence that they may not be able to wipe their own asses.

Uh, actually, you just described the easiest PoD. I mean, it were not just guns, but also organisation, training etc. - but the point is had Austria for some reason enacted similar army reforms than the one Bismarck had pushed through in Prussia against the resistance of the parliament, then that numerical advantage would have done the trick.

Of course, the numerical advantage wasnt all that great considering the Austrians also had to fight Italy (while its own German allies were knocked out faster than <appropriate simile>)
 
Of course, the numerical advantage wasnt all that great considering the Austrians also had to fight Italy (while its own German allies were knocked out faster than <appropriate simile>)

If the loyal German states had cordinated their strategy like Austria and the Kingdom of Saxony, the latter could have been avoided.
 
If the loyal German states had cordinated their strategy like Austria and the Kingdom of Saxony, the latter could have been avoided.

So, what I'm hearing so far is-Austria reforms faster and better, coordinates a successful defense with the loyal states, maybe somehow appeasing Italy with Venetia (or losing Venetia earlirer), maybe getting some French support, to gain a victory? Could that have worked?
 
So, what I'm hearing so far is-Austria reforms faster and better, coordinates a successful defense with the loyal states, maybe somehow appeasing Italy with Venetia (or losing Venetia earlirer), maybe getting some French support, to gain a victory? Could that have worked?

It's pretty simple:

1. Get good general in charge
2. Buy breech-loaders.

Of course, if those two had been in place, Prussia would probably have avoided war.
 

Susano

Banned
So, what I'm hearing so far is-Austria reforms faster and better, coordinates a successful defense with the loyal states, maybe somehow appeasing Italy with Venetia (or losing Venetia earlirer), maybe getting some French support, to gain a victory? Could that have worked?

If Italy loses Venetia earlier Italy might just try to go for Gradisca etc.... I think that front is unavoidable. And why would France help Austria? It planned on supporting Prussia. The problem was everybody from the Emperor Napoleon III to the Pope thought that Austria would win. Seeing Austria as the major power, France was rather against them than Prussia.

However, yes, military reforms (or, as Abdul put it, simply introducing a new gun alone might hav ebeen sufficient, but its a surer case if thats part of wider reforms) and a better military leadership is enough already. But a Abdul also said, then Prussia would most likely have avoided war, and IOTL they started it.
 

Nietzsche

Banned
It's pretty simple:

1. Get good general in charge
2. Buy breech-loaders.

Of course, if those two had been in place, Prussia would probably have avoided war.

Pretty much this. Bismarck was not a man to take wild gambles, contrary to the popular belief. If anything, he was perhaps the most cautious one to ever hold power in a state. If you notice, under Bismarck, Prussia/Germany only ever did things when they had the most obvious advantage.
 
Of course, the numerical advantage wasnt all that great considering the Austrians also had to fight Italy (while its own German allies were knocked out faster than <appropriate simile>)

With a PoD in the 1850s, we could detach Venetia from the Austrians. The whole problem Austria had after 1848 was that she had her foot in three places - Italy, Germany, and the Balkans - and her interest in each alienated one potential ally. The sensible thing was to ditch the field where the least was to be gained, which was clearly Italy, and embrace the alliance with the relevant power, France, to try and win in Germany and the Balkans. It's obviously not realistic to expect the insecure Austrian government to adopt a radical policy and throw away a province without fighting for it, but if the French somehow beat them hands-down and took Venetia, Austria would have an extra army and a more friendly France.
 

Susano

Banned
Would it be realistic for the Austrian government to speculate for an alliance with France, though? I think even before the war the French government was more friendly with Prussia... and it might not even get rid of the Italian front. As said whos to say the Italians dont try for Gradisca or Istria?
 
If Italy loses Venetia earlier Italy might just try to go for Gradisca etc.... I think that front is unavoidable. And why would France help Austria? It planned on supporting Prussia. The problem was everybody from the Emperor Napoleon III to the Pope thought that Austria would win. Seeing Austria as the major power, France was rather against them than Prussia.

True, and it was Napoleon's instinct to prop up the Prussians and claim his reward; but he was obsessed with Venetia, no doubt about it (he said that if he didn't take it for Italy "my son will have a volcano for a throne"). Removing Venetia leaves a much clearer field for those like Drouyn (and the Empress) who advocated backing the winning horse. And the extra army doesn't hurt. After all, they won.

As for Gradisca: there was the occasional mumble about the South Tirol back then, but that was either when Italy was already at war, or else trying to be paid for allying with Austria. I've never heard any mention of Gradisca or Trieste. Anything less than Venetia itself is peanuts when compared to the first ambition of the Italian nationalists in this period: Rome. Similarly, with Garibaldi still at large, Nice was a grievance raised as often or more often than what would later become the classic "irredenta".
 
All of the guns that Austrian infantry happen to be carrying are muzzle-loaded. Prussia had breach-loaders. Those extra 100,000 are useless if they can't fire half as quickly as a Prussian soldier. The only technological advantage that Austria had was in her artillery. But that was useless given their tactics.
You've actually got this backwards. There's a tendency on these boards to assume that breech-loaders confer an automatic advantage to the side using them regardless of any other factors. Leaving aside the Dreyse's other failings, its faulty gas seal gives it an extremely short range and, as an added bonus, means it spews sparks into the face of anybody firing from the shoulder: not exactly an incentive to careful aiming. However, the Austrians can't expect to buy every soldier a breech-loader and obtain parity with the Prussians. Prussian superiority is due in part to a careful training regime in which each recruit fires five times as many shots per year as the Austrians from a variety of ranges and angles and records the success or failure of each one.

As for Austria's techological advantage, their RML pieces may have had the edge on Prussia's smoothbore artillery but they were nowhere near the Krupp cannon. The idea that Austrian artillery was useless, meanwhile, seems to ignore the effect it had at Trautenau or Koniggratz- or the efforts the Prussians made between 1866 and 1870 to completely revamp their artillery in response.
 

Susano

Banned
As for Gradisca: there was the occasional mumble about the South Tirol back then, but that was either when Italy was already at war, or else trying to be paid for allying with Austria. I've never heard any mention of Gradisca or Trieste. Anything less than Venetia itself is peanuts when compared to the first ambition of the Italian nationalists in this period: Rome.

Oh, true. And it was protected by... ah, yes, right that could be a way then to avoid the Italian front and with some luck even keep France busy :D
 
Oh, true. And it was protected by... ah, yes, right that could be a way then to avoid the Italian front and with some luck even keep France busy :D

Interestingly enough, the French had actually quit Rome temporarily: they had reached a splendidly doublethink agreement whereby the Italians moved their capital to Florence. The Italians let themselves believe it was a recognition of their claim, the French that it was the end of it. The Italians tried to escape from this humbug by letting Garibaldi do their dirty-work in 1867, but his volunteers made a poor showing and the French had to come back for domestic reasons: Napoleon III was looking pretty wobbly and desperately needed the clericals.

If the Italians had held their breath and sent in the Royal Army... there's an interesting scenario.
 
Top