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
I meant against Germany.

How would that be possible once France started marching into Italy, with all its reminders of Napoleon I's early career? There's been no Crimean War yet to estrange Austria from Russia, so the Tsar will be a lot more worried about France than about a (probably relatively slight) strengthening of the German Confederation. Expect the Holy Alliance to come back together pronto.
 
Then what does it mean?

What was the point of bringing it up unless it makes a difference of some kind?
I'm not sure what the point of bringing it up was but how does supporting a country's unification equal invading them? Italy had its own organic unification movement from 1848 onwards. Supporting them means providing diplomatic support, maybe assisting them economically and financially, assisting in training their military, funding movements in the South to spur unification and maybe softening support for an independent papacy in Rome.

A united Italy that's still looking to gain Venice from Uber Germany is a valuable ally for France. Its in their interests to help Piedmont-Sardinia or Garibaldi and Mazzini and the young italians (or both) in uniting the country as a counterweight to uber Germany. I imagine Britain would also see the utility in this as well.
 
I'm not sure what the point of bringing it up was but how does supporting a country's unification equal invading them? Italy had its own organic unification movement from 1848 onwards. Supporting them means providing diplomatic support, maybe assisting them economically and financially, assisting in training their military, funding movements in the South to spur unification and maybe softening support for an independent papacy in Rome.

A united Italy that's still looking to gain Venice from Uber Germany is a valuable ally for France. Its in their interests to help Piedmont-Sardinia or Garibaldi and Mazzini and the young italians (or both) in uniting the country as a counterweight to uber Germany. I imagine Britain would also see the utility in this as well.


If France hasn't intervened militarily how can a united Italy possibly have come into existence?
 
If France hasn't intervened militarily how can a united Italy possibly have come into existence?
Italy was able to unite without French military intervention IOTL. If the germans attempt to prevent it militarily and France comes to Italy's aid the entirety of Europe isn't suddenly going to turn against France as you seemed to suggest earlier. Instead, Germany will be viewed as a far larger threat from all sides.
 
Italy was able to unite without French military intervention IOTL..

Only after the French had done the real work for them by defeating Austria . They wouldn't have stood a chance otherwise.

If the germans attempt to prevent it militarily and France comes to Italy's aid the entirety of Europe isn't suddenly going to turn against France as you seemed to suggest earlier. Instead, Germany will be viewed as a far larger threat from all sides.


What exactly do you mean by "Germany"?

If we are envisaging some kind of centralised state, where the Austrian Army comes under Prussian control or vice versa, then we are in ASB country, as neither Habsburgs nor Hohenzollerns - not even the most liberal figures among them - would ever have subordinated themselves in that way short of defeat in war.

If, OTOH, we just mean some kind of close Austro-Prussian partnership, with some kind of shared control over the armies of the smaller states, I doubt if that would set many alarm bells ringing. After all, when Austria and Prussia formed a partnership against Denmark in 1864, the other European rulers greeted the event with a shrug. Nor had the 1863 Congress of Princes had such an effect, even when it seemed possible that Prussia might attend. So my guess is they'd still be worrying about France rather than "Germany".
 
Last edited:
The whole point of this thread is positing the effects of some sort of unified Germany including Austria somehow coming into being at some point after 1848. This era isn't my forte, so I can't say how that would happen. But in any case, why would the entirety of Europe suddenly be on France's back if Napoleon III simply did exactly what he did IOTL as far as policy towards Italy goes?
 
The whole point of this thread is positing the effects of some sort of unified Germany including Austria somehow coming into being at some point after 1848. This era isn't my forte, so I can't say how that would happen. But in any case, why would the entirety of Europe suddenly be on France's back if Napoleon III simply did exactly what he did IOTL as far as policy towards Italy goes?
The Main Issue is Regardless of the Union, France Alone is unable to Scrath 'Germany' without either russia or britain or even mandatory to have both...as Britain is still in Splendid isolation and 1848 was event out their control, they might get wary but little can do at the time(they're more worried with US having ideas with Canada and busy in India) and Russia have his internal Issues. Italy is non-existant and will be killed if they even dare to lift a finger against Austria-Controlled Lombardo-Venetia with the support a united 'german' army, thus short europe going insane, germany will focus in itself and their 'allies' satellites(Hungary more likely9)
 
The Main Issue is Regardless of the Union, France Alone is unable to Scrath 'Germany' without either russia or britain or even mandatory to have both...as Britain is still in Splendid isolation and 1848 was event out their control, they might get wary but little can do at the time(they're more worried with US having ideas with Canada and busy in India) and Russia have his internal Issues. Italy is non-existant and will be killed if they even dare to lift a finger against Austria-Controlled Lombardo-Venetia with the support a united 'german' army, thus short europe going insane, germany will focus in itself and their 'allies' satellites(Hungary more likely9)
Italy doesn't have to unite in 1848. 20-40 years down the line the geopolitical scenario will shift, especially since an uber germany in central europe is something that unnerves just about the entire rest of the continent.
 
The whole point of this thread is positing the effects of some sort of unified Germany including Austria somehow coming into being at some point after 1848. This era isn't my forte, so I can't say how that would happen. But in any case, why would the entirety of Europe suddenly be on France's back if Napoleon III simply did exactly what he did IOTL as far as policy towards Italy goes?


Because 1848 is not 1859. By then, Russia is thoroughly brassed off with Austria for its refusal to support her in the Crimean War, and Prussia won't help her without getting an equal share in the government of Germany - which Austria, even in this moment of weakness, is still too pig-headed to grant. Since British opinion was sympathetic to the Italians, even if not to the French, effectively Austria was on her own.

In 1848 most of this is still in the future. All anyone can see is that revolutions are breaking out all over the place, while France has just installed another Napoleon as its ruler, so is presumably about to go on the rampage again. With 20/20 hindsight, we know that Napoleon the Little will prove a damp squib, a mere pale shadow of his uncle, but nobody knows that yet. Only 33 years after Waterloo, it's still France that everyone worries about [1], and for Brits at any rate, the next biggest worry is Russia. The Germanic powers are way down the list. Metternich's Austria was disliked in Britain, but not particularly feared, while no one anywhere is the least bit scared of Prussia, which is still seen as the smallest and weakest of the great powers.

And as I've already observed, a "Unified Germany" which includes Austria can only be very loosely unified, since neither of the big boys will surrender control of its army to the other. In practice it can't be much more than a reformed German Confederation, with a somewhat more effective military organisation - which won't scare people until they see it in action, and maybe not even then. Indeed, many are likely to welcome it as a safeguard against revolution and against France.



[1]Incidentally, even in 1859-60 many Brits were still uneasy about France. The 1859 war led to calls for the strengthening of British defences, in case the French turned on us, and France's annexation of Nice and Savoy caused a distinct cooling in Anglo-French relations, in case it proved to be the start of a new round of expansion. In retrospect it all seems a bit hysterical, but that was how people thought at the time.
 
Last edited:
In 1848 the British nearly managed to convince Austria to let the Italian provinces go. Then the austrians started to win. So even in 1848 the brtish were very pro Italian.

But the point is: how was Greater Germany created: if it was created by the lieral revolution it wont have the italian provinces: they will give them up freely just like Hungary. One of the biggest debate was between the Frankfurt parlaiment and Austria that the german liberals didnt want to include the not german territories of Austria in Germany (Bohemia they saw as german). and i dont see a Greater Germany created without the liberals in this time frame. Its near ASB even with them.
 
But the point is: how was Greater Germany created: if it was created by the lieral revolution it wont have the italian provinces: they will give them up freely just like Hungary.

Who are "they"?

The Frankfurt Parliament ("Frankfurt Debating Society" might be a better name) has no power to give away any Austrian territory, nor to compel Austria to do so. It has no armed forces. So if it insists on anything of that kind, the whole project just flops.
 
Who are "they"?

The Frankfurt Parliament ("Frankfurt Debating Society" might be a better name) has no power to give away any Austrian territory, nor to compel Austria to do so. It has no armed forces. So if it insists on anything of that kind, the whole project just flops.

Yes i ment the Frankfurt Parliament. And your question is the same i wrote after what you quoted. How came this Greater Germany to existence? The only ones who really wanted and tried to create it were the liberals assembled in Frankfurt. OTL they insisted and the project did flop: the austrian delegates left the parliament.

And thats the problem with creating a Greater Germany in the mid 19th century: you need a PoD that lets the Frankfurters succeed and than you have a liberal Greater Germany that doesnt want the not german parts of Austria. I dont think any non liberals tought about creating a not liberal Greater Germany around this time period. Not to mention no one had the means to create such a Germany. So your left with the revolutioneries however you need serious PoD's.
 
Last edited:
Yes i ment the Frankfurt Parliament. And your question is the same i wrote after what you quoted. How came this Greater Germany to existence? The only ones who really wanted and tried to create it were the liberals assembled in Frankfurt. OTL they insisted and the project did flop: the austrian delegates left the parliament.

And thats the problem with creating a Greater Germany in the mid 19th century: you need a PoD that lets the Frankfurters succeed and than you have a liberal Greater Germany that doesnt want the not german parts of Austria. I dont think any non liberals tought about creating a not liberal Greater Germany around this time period. Not to mention no one had the means to create such a Germany. So your left with the revolutioneries however you need serious PoD's.


I agree as far as 1848 is concerned.

There might have been a chance in 1863 had King Wilhelm agreed to come to Frankfurt (as he apparently wanted to until Bismarck talked him out of it). But even then there could have been many a slip.
 
Because 1848 is not 1859. By then, Russia is thoroughly brassed off with Austria for its refusal to support her in the Crimean War, and Prussia won't help her without getting an equal share in the government of Germany - which Austria, even in this moment of weakness, is still too pig-headed to grant. Since British opinion was sympathetic to the Italians, even if not to the French, effectively Austria was on her own.

In 1848 most of this is still in the future. All anyone can see is that revolutions are breaking out all over the place, while France has just installed another Napoleon as its ruler, so is presumably about to go on the rampage again. With 20/20 hindsight, we know that Napoleon the Little will prove a damp squib, a mere pale shadow of his uncle, but nobody knows that yet. Only 33 years after Waterloo, it's still France that everyone worries about [1], and for Brits at any rate, the next biggest worry is Russia. The Germanic powers are way down the list. Metternich's Austria was disliked in Britain, but not particularly feared, while no one anywhere is the least bit scared of Prussia, which is still seen as the smallest and weakest of the great powers.

And as I've already observed, a "Unified Germany" which includes Austria can only be very loosely unified, since neither of the big boys will surrender control of its army to the other. In practice it can't be much more than a reformed German Confederation, with a somewhat more effective military organisation - which won't scare people until they see it in action, and maybe not even then. Indeed, many are likely to welcome it as a safeguard against revolution and against France.



[1]Incidentally, even in 1859-60 many Brits were still uneasy about France. The 1859 war led to calls for the strengthening of British defences, in case the French turned on us, and France's annexation of Nice and Savoy caused a distinct cooling in Anglo-French relations, in case it proved to be the start of a new round of expansion. In retrospect it all seems a bit hysterical, but that was how people thought at the time.
Yes, and Napoleon supporting Italian unification, something, as pointed out above, the British were pushing for in 1848, this isn't suddenly going to get the entirety of the continent to rise against France. In any case, given Napoleon III isn't a complete idiot, and given British support for Italy was strong enough in 1848 to get them to press hard for Austria to give up their Italian holdings, presumably France and Britain can work together for this united ITaly.
 
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.

I find this quite an interesting scenario. Has anyone done a time line based on a similar idea before?
 
Although some have noted challenges such as the opposition of the Habsburgs/Hohenzollerns, and the general hesitance of other powers to accede to a proper German federation, it wasn't all that far off actually hapenning.

If we are envisaging some kind of centralised state, where the Austrian Army comes under Prussian control or vice versa, then we are in ASB country, as neither Habsburgs nor Hohenzollerns - not even the most liberal figures among them - would ever have subordinated themselves in that way short of defeat in war.

If, OTOH, we just mean some kind of close Austro-Prussian partnership, with some kind of shared control over the armies of the smaller states, I doubt if that would set many alarm bells ringing. After all, when Austria and Prussia formed a partnership against Denmark in 1864, the other European rulers greeted the event with a shrug. Nor had the 1863 Congress of Princes had such an effect, even when it seemed possible that Prussia might attend. So my guess is they'd still be worrying about France rather than "Germany".

Austria faced revolts simultaneously in the Italian and Hungarian parts of their empire. Radetzky's excellent leadership quelled the Italians effectively, leading to the obvious question of how much impetus the revolutionaries could have had if they faced an opponent more in disarray, though one thing to bear in mind is that in all the Italian upheavals of this era, the Kingdom of Two Sicilies toppled like a house of cards as soon as they were threatened by nationalist militias - I dont think it would take much to topple them, and for a Northern Italian monarch to step into the breech and already have 2/3 of Italy under his control. Meanwhile the Hungarians they simply were unable to deal with on their own, and went cap in hand to the Russians asking for assistance. As well as this, for a significant portion of the year they had an intellectually challenged emperor. IMO events as they played out tended to paper over just how serious things were for the Habsburgs in 1848. I feel they actually came pretty close to critical mass, whereby spiraling success of revolutionaries would eventually breed more and more success that the Habsburg forces would no longer be able to impede. This sense of momentum often plays an important role in revolutions, since it relatively emboldens one side and causes another to waver or even break. A shattered Austrian rump would be far less able to resist the political will of Frankfurt - or Berlin

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.

This is perhaps the most critical element that was absent in 1848. It is often remarked that the two monarchs saw the revolution as a threat rather than opportunity. However a Hohenzollern who seized the initiative would potentially be in a position to benefit enormously, so long as they were willing to sacrifice a few things (absolutism, guarantees of a minimum level of military spending, a parliament of sorts). I also think that to keep on good terms with the British and (their future BFF) Italy, all of Slovenia, South Tyrol and Trieste will have to be given up (i.e. no Adriatic outlet). It goes without saying the Transalpine side of the empire must be disposed of entirely to create a Mega-Hungary.

In sum, there are a several elements that, if they all came together successfully, could have resulted in a polity equal to German Empire 1914 + Austria-Tyrol +Bohemia-Moravia. These are

  • A Prussian monarch that decides from March onwards that it is his destiny to unite Germany under his leadership, and who is ably assisted by excellent statesmen. From this PoD all subsequent divergences could have plausibly flowed.
  • Italian and Hungarian rebels to do better, perhaps with covert Prussian support. Austrian political and military establishment bungle their response or otherwise are unable to quell the rolling tide of nationalist victories. Prussia begins to quietly influence certain high placed individuals by letting them in on the plan, and offering them key posts in the 'new' Germany in exchange for deliberately undermining the Austrian war effort. Revolutionaries in Lombardia declare a 'Provisional Authority of Northern Italy' under the presidency of the Savoyard monarch, with seats on the council made up of other dukes and princes. Rebels steadily push aside all resistance in the Two Sicilies and appoint a temporary administrator. The Italians call their own 'Parliament of Turin'.
  • Russia's conservative concerns are assuaged with a quid pro quo (Galich), a reminder that the real enemy is the reincarnated Bonnapartist France and that Germany could be an effective counterweight, an assurance that a Hungarian empire will be made that dominates the little nationalities (Slovaks, Transylvanians, Croats,etc) lest the Poles get any ideas. Also offer a private codicil to support Russian ambitions in the Balkans. Hungarians now have a real shot.
  • ATL Prussian Monarch goes to Frankfurt to graciously "accept" their endorsement and crown, even if they haven't offered this yet (gotta give those professors a kick in the bum to get moving somehow!). King makes a passionate speech about nationalism and the will of the German people, his divine fate to be their leader at this time and place in history, and vaguely hints that he is of liberal bent. Presents a pre-packed constitution he's been working on last couple of months that creates a federal Germany, and asks them to debate its merits and make any amendments necessary. Makes it clear they need to get a move on, and these are broadly the terms he will accept if he is to become their patron, and his junior staff work like demons over the next few weeks to prevent discussion from drifting too far from the King's vision for the new Germany.
  • France is too busy with its own internal upheaval that makes it unable to choose a strategy in response to all this. But privately, for insurance, Hohenzollern envoys tell the French that the German monarch will personally keep a lid on any talk of A-L or Luxembourg, promises that the new Italy under a Savoie will cede a little land to France (the OTL 1859 quid pro quo) and vague references to turning blind eye to French annexation of Belgium (OTL precisely the same strategy Bismarck used to get French onside in 1867). The French/N III cautiously agree to not interfere.
  • Envoys dispatched to Prague to win over Czech elites. Tell them bluntly they can be in Germany as their own Lander with their minority culture protected, or left on their own to deal with Russia. After some ummming and awwing, they duly send several delegates to Frankfurt.
  • Britain realises too late that France and Russia have been bought off, making military action impossible. They leverage their considerable diplomatic weight to try and wrangle a concession of their own nonetheless, and they get an Anglo-German naval accord limiting the size of the German navy to a tokenistic force for the next 20 years, with options for renewal on both sides
  • Frankfurt Parliament approves a Constitution, declares the German Empire to be extant by the grace of God and the German people, and asks the President to dissolve the house for elections to occur in accordance with the provisional electoral articles they established. The next day, the new German monarch calls for an international conference in Switzerland to discuss what to do with the remainder of the Habsburg territories, knowing that most of it has already been committed in advance. By virtue of attending, all the major powers recognise the new German state as legitimate.
 
Although some have noted challenges such as the opposition of the Habsburgs/Hohenzollerns, and the general hesitance of other powers to accede to a proper German federation, it wasn't all that far off actually hapenning.



Austria faced revolts simultaneously in the Italian and Hungarian parts of their empire. Radetzky's excellent leadership quelled the Italians effectively, leading to the obvious question of how much impetus the revolutionaries could have had if they faced an opponent more in disarray, though one thing to bear in mind is that in all the Italian upheavals of this era, the Kingdom of Two Sicilies toppled like a house of cards as soon as they were threatened by nationalist militias - I dont think it would take much to topple them, and for a Northern Italian monarch to step into the breech and already have 2/3 of Italy under his control.

And then to drop out again after his first encounter with a real army. When did either Charles Albert or Victor Emmanuel have any success in the field?


Meanwhile the Hungarians they simply were unable to deal with on their own, and went cap in hand to the Russians asking for assistance.

How much of the actual fighting did the Russians do? Iirc the Austrian army did most of it even after the Russian intervention.



A Prussian monarch that decides from March onwards that it is his destiny to unite Germany under his leadership, and who is ably assisted by excellent statesmen.

If anything happens to Frederick William IV, his successor is either William I or his brother Karl (as Regent for a young Frederick III). Is either of them even remotely likely to behave in such a fashion?

BTW the same is true in Austria. If Franz Josef gets killed, the Regent for an under-age Maximilian will be Archduke Albrecht, who is unlikely to have any truck with revolutionaries.
 
How much of the actual fighting did the Russians do? Iirc the Austrian army did most of it even after the Russian intervention.

I don't know precisely to what extent the Russians were directly involved in combat against the revolutionaries. It may well be similar to America on the Western front in 1918: a small contribution, but their very presence crushed the morale and optimism of the enemy...All I know is that after a year of fighting the Hungarians, Franz Joesef was desperate enough to plead for Russian assistance. This seems to me a pretty clear indication that the Russians played a decisive role, or at least helped end the conflict much faster than would otherwise be the case.

If anything happens to Frederick William IV, his successor is either William I or his brother Karl (as Regent for a young Frederick III). Is either of them even remotely likely to behave in such a fashion?

This I'll admit is the number one sticking point. I agree that liberal Prussian royals arent a plentiful bunch. The solution would have to lie with a Frederick William IV that thinks or acts differently to OTL. He was, famously, a romantic and a German nationalist, so perhaps its not impossible. But a plausible change in his personality or education from a young age would likely be needed to induce a different course of action.

And then to drop out again after his first encounter with a real army. When did either Charles Albert or Victor Emmanuel have any success in the field?

They might not have been able to stand up to the full might of Austria in the field once they mobilise against them, but what if Vienna finds that the Austrian generals inexplicably won't attack, citing vague "supply issues", allowing the Italians to seize strategic areas? Or perhaps, after a donation to a general's retirement fund by the Prussians, he decides that fighting Italians isn't really for him, and leads his men to go and fight the Danes in S-H in a 'war of national liberation'? In other words, the success of rebel factions is in part dependent on early wins (which they had in OTL) creating panic or pessimism in the Hofburg, and an environment ripe for Prussia to tempt any Austrians who sense a shift in the winds and want to be on the right side when its all over, into doing their bidding. Thus sending Austria into a negative-feedback downwards spiral
 
Top