If Germany plus Austria unifies in 1848, what does it look like?

Bonus: Would this Germany better than the German Empire?

  • Yes

    Votes: 91 89.2%
  • No

    Votes: 11 10.8%

  • Total voters
    102
Is it militaristic, like the German Empire. Is it an Empire st all or a Republic. Since unification is in 1848, that would mean that the liberals had won. How liberal would it be than? Would it have women's rights achieved earlier or later. Who would be it's allies? Who would be it's enemies? Would it have colonies at all? If it did, how would Germany treat it's colonies? Where would they be? How differently would the world war(s) occur, if they occur at all?

For how it comes into existence, let's say that Hungary wins independence from Austria , which ends up losing the Empire except for Bohemia.
 
Last edited:
This is the best image I could find of an 1848 unification. As you can see it has access to the Mediterranean. How would this change Germany?
I would try to find another map. This map does not make sense with a 1848 POD. For example Prussia is way to big. It includes parts that Prussia conquered during the Austro-Prussian war.
 
It would be good for Germany, but terrible for the rest of Europe, and probably for Africa and Southeast Asia. The new German great power would seek major conquests and have the largest military and industry in Europe after Britain.
 
It would be good for Germany, but terrible for the rest of Europe, and probably for Africa and Southeast Asia. The new German great-power would seek major conquests and have the largest military and industry in Europe after Britain.
If I recall, the German Empire already had an industry thst was bigger than Britain, so it would even be larger than it was. But, why would it be particularly militaristic. This Germany would be more than just a larger German Empire, as liberals would have united it as they tried to in 1848.
 
If I recall, the German Empire already had an industry thst was bigger than Britain, so it would even be larger than it was. But, why would it be particularly militaristic. This Germany would be more than just a larger German Empire, as liberals would have united it as they tried to in 1848.
Until battlefield photography, war was almost universally romanticized. After battlefield photography, it was only mostly romanticized, until WWI.

Germany would also try to conquer farmland to ensure consistent food stocks after the late 1840s famines.

There may be a second round of "Napoleonic" wars, but with Germany as the focal point.
 
Until battlefield photography, war was almost universally romanticized. Germany would also want to conquer farmland to ensure consistent food stocks after the late 1840s famines.

There may be a second round of "Napoleonic" wars, but with Germany as the focal point.
What farmland would Germany conquer, also could Germany win these "Wars". I'll be back tomorrow.
 
It does depend greatly on how this occurs. OTL the liberals fell apart fairly quickly once the monarchs and conservatives regained their nerve; it seems fairly unlikely that the liberals would not at some point face conservative backlash, which would be backed by the most guns. IMO the best way to achieve this, or more likely an exclusively North German version of this (at least initially in 1848), would be for a series of unfortunate events occur in the House of Hohenzollern and for the young Frederick III to assume to the throne. He was quite liberal, and perhaps could have been swayed into accepting the crown from Frankfurt, in particular if he was in a particularly hormonal/excitable frame of mind as teenagers often are. It may also be easier if '1848' occurred in '49 or '50 though, so as to ensure that Freddy was secure in the throne as an adult.
 
What farmland would Germany conquer, also could Germany win these "Wars". I'll be back tomorrow.
Pretty much all the countries bordering them had good farmland, so it depends on who they go to war with. They would probably invade Russia or the remnants of the Habsburg empire first, which would prompt a Franco-British intervention a la the Crimean war. Seeing as Germany lost WWI and WWII, and Britain was ahead in industry in the 1840s/1850s, Germany would be defeated probably.

Unless they have a Napoleon-quality leader, then they conquer everything in sight--France, Denmark, disunited Italy, disunited Austria, the Baltic--until a failed invasion of Russia that destroys them.

It's possible depending on leadership that they would only seek something like the Franco-Prussian War. In that case, they quickly seize Alsace-Lorraine from France without much trouble for them (and a lot of trouble for France). But France may seek a rematch 20-30 years later during the time of the OTL Franco-Prussian War.
 
Last edited:
Why would they invade their neighbours in search of farmland? Lots of European countries imported food OTL, but they did not invade each other in search of it. Economic domination of agriculturally significant countries, say Romania for instance, is perfectly plausible, but conquest of this nature is just inefficient. Not to mention impossible on a large scale, Grossdeutchland would have been a total powerhouse but still would not have been able to stand up to a determined coalition of Britain, France, Russia, and everyone else.

To be sure, such a Germany may end up winning a major war a la WW1 and make major gains there, but like WW1 this war would probably not be framed in such aggressive tones. Remember, all that nationalist hatred in Europe prior to WW1 came out of the belief of being attacked, and later the anger at the casualties. Prior to then most Western Europeans had no desire to invade one another in wars of aggression like this.
 
Why would they invade their neighbours in search of farmland? Lots of European countries imported food OTL, but they did not invade each other in search of it. Economic domination of agriculturally significant countries, say Romania for instance, is perfectly plausible, but conquest of this nature is just inefficient. Not to mention impossible on a large scale, Grossdeutchland would have been a total powerhouse but still would not have been able to stand up to a determined coalition of Britain, France, Russia, and everyone else.

To be sure, such a Germany may end up winning a major war a la WW1 and make major gains there, but like WW1 this war would probably not be framed in such aggressive tones. Remember, all that nationalist hatred in Europe prior to WW1 came out of the belief of being attacked, and later the anger at the casualties. Prior to then most Western Europeans had no desire to invade one another in wars of aggression like this.
Well, they probably would feel attacked. As a liberal empire, or especially if they're a liberal republic, all the conservative empires in Europe would want to dismantle them. This tension would result in war if there's a major economic sanction, reactionary violence, or other reasonable threat to the new unified state.

If the rebels take Alsace Lorraine, that would also result in war and could perhaps coincide with the previous scenario of conservative backlash.

Then once the war has already started, they would use the famines of the 1840s, in very recent memory, as a justification for conquering new farmland.
 
Well, they probably would feel attacked. As a liberal empire, or especially if they're a liberal republic, all the conservative empires in Europe would want to dismantle them.


There was never the remotest possibility of a Republic in 1848, and an Empire is unlikely to be particularly liberal.
 
Well, they probably would feel attacked. As a liberal empire, or especially if they're a liberal republic, all the conservative empires in Europe would want to dismantle them. This tension would result in war if there's a major economic sanction, reactionary violence, or other reasonable threat to the new unified state.

If the rebels take Alsace Lorraine, that would also result in war and could perhaps coincide with the previous scenario of conservative backlash.

Then once the war has already started, they would use the famines of the 1840s, in very recent memory, as a justification for conquering new farmland.

Alsace-Lorraine? Why would they invade France? A-L was not a part of Germany nor particularly German (unless Swiss counts as "German" too I guess), and invading fairly liberal France seems like the absolute dumbest thing they could do.

I could see Europe ganging up on Germany due to its size and potential threat, certainly, though I don't think it's particularly likely without a real casus belli.

Invading countries is a great way to make their agricultural output crash, and if this is a Germany forged out of nationalism it's not going to be keen to include more Hungarians or Poles. If Germany wants food it can grow it, buy it, or extort it; actually invading outside of a truly extraordinary scenario seems unlikely to me.
 
There was never the remotest possibility of a Republic in 1848, and an Empire is unlikely to be particularly liberal.
There have been several liberal empires: the First and Second French Empires, the British Empire*, the short-lived Second Mexican Empire, as well as many states that while not empires, were liberal kingdoms.

*The British Empire was of course on the side of the conservative empires against Napoleon, but they had evolved into a liberal country over centuries. If a liberal empire appeared within a few years however, that would be much more alarming to the great powers, as Napoleon was.

Alsace-Lorraine? Why would they invade France? A-L was not a part of Germany nor particularly German (unless Swiss counts as "German" too I guess), and invading fairly liberal France seems like the absolute dumbest thing they could do.
Alsace-Lorraine was 11% French and 86.8% German in 1900, presumably similar in 1848.

edit: double post
 
Last edited:
There have been several liberal empires: the First and Second French Empires, the British Empire*, the short-lived Second Mexican Empire, as well as many states that while not empires, were liberal kingdoms.

*The British Empire was of course on the side of the conservative empires against Napoleon, but they had evolved into a liberal country over centuries. If a liberal empire appeared within a few years however, that would be much more alarming to the great powers, as Napoleon was.

Interesting but how does it apply to Germany? Whatever happens, Austria is still likely to be run by Franz Josef and Prussia by Frederick William IV. Both those ruling houses are much too firmly established to be overthrown. Any liberal politicians will be on the scene for just as long as those monarchs choose to tolerate them, which probably won't be for long.
 
Alsace-Lorraine was 11% French and 86.8% German in 1900, presumably similar in 1848

Alsatian =/= German. Germanic, yes, but the majority of them did not consider themselves "German" in the mainstream sense. This is why I used the Swiss as a comparison. Closer than the Dutch I guess, but not the same.
 
This would be a very liberal Germany. They would be very different to OTL Germany and not at all the militarist state with the worlds strongest army by far. OTL they didnt want the non german parts of Austria to be part of Germany so i dont see them going on conquering left and right. They thought that Alsaice was german but i dont think they would go to war for it.

If they are left alone they would be a peaceful giant.
 
Interesting but how does it apply to Germany? Whatever happens, Austria is still likely to be run by Franz Josef and Prussia by Frederick William IV. Both those ruling houses are much too firmly established to be overthrown. Any liberal politicians will be on the scene for just as long as those monarchs choose to tolerate them, which probably won't be for long.

1918 should caution us against the idea of enduring autocratic German monarchies. As should the 1848 barricades in the streets of Prussia, really.

I'm not saying the monarchies fall, but for an 1848 union to work you need a more liberal German governmet at the end.
 
1918 should caution us against the idea of enduring autocratic German monarchies. As should the 1848 barricades in the streets of Prussia, really.


In 1848 the bulk of the population (and in particular of the soldiers) were peasants who had received the only thing they really cared about as soon as serfdom and feudal obligations were abolished. In 1918 (even apart from the rather important difference of the wartime conditions) there was a totally different population. As Taylor put it, by the second half of WW1 the mass of the army was "the Social Democrats and the Centre in arms".


I'm not saying the monarchies fall, but for an 1848 union to work you need a more liberal German governmet at the end.

But the peasant soldiers obey their officers, who in turn obey their monarchs. So whatever liberal concessions the monarchs make, they can withdraw as soon as they recover their nerve.
 
Top