Is Croatia-Slavonia part of this Kingdom of Hungary, or has it decided that being under Vienna is more to its liking?
Italico Valore - A more successful 1848 revolution in Italy - a TL
Deleted member 147289
Vienna decided that if Hungary has to be somewhat independent they should always depend on Austria for ports and trade so Croatia-Slavonia is part of Austria
Will Dalmatia be attached to Croatia in this case? Also, what about Fiume?
Deleted member 147289
Hungary is in green, the rest is Austria. I've not made this map but it's very explicative. Obviously Bosnia isn't part of 1849 Austria
Attachments
-
1200px-Austria-Hungary_map.svg.png
The compromise sounds very shaky, and I doubt the Hungarians will be satisfied loosing any voice in Foreign Policy and Defense and they will be certainly incensed by the alienation of Croatia which has historically always been included in the lands under the Crown of St. Stephen. Look forward to future unrest in the land. Additionally, FJ would rule Hungary as its king, not as emperor.
This is honestly impossible, since Russia, Prussia and Austria will never accept such a solution, nor will allow the liberal constitutions, which the minor German states had been forced to grant, to stand.
The Siccardi laws are long overdue, and are needed to upheld the principle of equality under the laws of the country. If Sardinia does not take the initiative, there is the risk to end with a harsher set of laws regulating the activities of the Church in Italy.
This is both ungenerous and incorrect: while Manin and the Provisional Government were certainly moderates, they cannot be labelled "an oligarchy". The scales were certainly tipped toward the bourgeoisie, and I can agree that the RR approved a constitutional document very democratic. However IOTL the Republic of san Marco never approved a formal constitutional document (making rather reference to the constitution granted by von Schwarzenberg after the insurrection of Vienna) because of its short story and the (sometimes clumsy) attempt made by Manin to avoid choosing a side between the full independence of Venice and the annexation to Sardinia. After Custoza, and under siege by the Austrians, the constitutional question became moot. TTL has developed quite differently, and I believe that a formal constitution would have been discussed and agreed in Venice before entering the Confederation.
Last edited:
The Siccardi Laws were excessively harsh and will alienate catholics. Maybe this time is possible to have better and more reasonable laws.
Maybe that hopinion of Mazzini can be retained as his own biased hopinion; just add the words "in his hopinion"
The Siccardi laws abolished the ecclesiastical courts and the immunity of the clergy from prosecution by the state, as well as the right of asylum in church. They also forbid the donation (either in life or after death) of properties to ecclesiastical or civil mortmains without the assent of the king and the State Council, and reduced the penalties for non-observance of religious festive days.
All of this does not strike me as harsh at all, but rather as a necessary reform to bring the Sardinian civil code in line with the times and the western European legal system.
Deleted member 147289
The Hungarian situation is just a compromise forced upon Austria by France and Britain in the name of goodwill and maintaining the balance of power, and as a token gesture towards Hungary. The Austro-Russians were ready to crush the Hungarians as soon as they disagreed with the treaty and both France and Britain would not have lifted a finger to prevent it because nobody will fight for Hungary in 1849. This peace will leave the Hungarians livid and their dislike for the Austrians will just grow since they only got to handle their internal affairs. Independence was never on the table and this felt like the most cautious solution.
The Frankfurt Parliement decides that since noone wants the crown they will just empower the Confederation a bit more which is really not that much since the assembly can decide but the princes still have to implement it. It's a compromise solution between the delegates and for example Prussia, despite being anti liberali and conservative, will be more inclined to accept this as it states that the North German Area is in the Prussian sphre of influence and that they're the leading power in that area, while in the South German area Austria might still be president but Bavaria is a rising German state and after the revolutions of 1848-1849 Austria would want a stable Germany on which they can spread influence. The constitutions of the smaller states might be amended or more conservative ones proclaimed instead: it's not that Germany has gone the way of Italy, it's states are still divided but bound together by belonging to the German Confederation which is trying to erode the differences between them, what they're doing is not a German Constitution but merely addressing the powers of the Confederation. The Confederate Diet dissolved and passed it's role to the parliement. The Congress of Vienna is respected and Russia won't intrevene with a heavy hand in Germany as Prussia and Austria are perfectly capable of crushing what radicals they have, the balance is not yet broken, it might have shifted a bit but it's still intact and that matters for Russia.
About Venice, I know it's not an oligarchy but if it wasn't clear that was Mazzini's thought not mine.
There is obviously a huge difference between the Confederation Diet and the Frankfurt Parliament, even if ironically they were both seated in Frankfurt. However, the Diet was not made up of elected members but rather of envoys appointed by the rulers of the various German states, and was never allowed legislative powers. It was established by the Congress of Vienna, and if anything it was a kind of German UN (although even more ineffective than the UN is) and effectively governed by a kind of Security Council, made up of envoys from the 4 major states (Austria, Prussia, Bavaria and Saxony), where Austria usually could count on the votes from Bavaria and Saxony. Considering that Maximilian II of Bavaria was very hostile to the Frankfurt Parliament, and Austria and Prussia were the first two states to pull out their delegates from the Frankfurt Parliament. it is very hard to believe that the Parliament might be allowed to replace the Diet, or that Russia would consider this consistent with the decisions of the Congress of Vienna.
It wasn't clear to me, but never mind: my comment still stands, and I'd say it to Mazzini's face
Which was exactly my point. Hungary has stopped on the edge of the abyss this time, but the compromise reached will not last for long.
Deleted member 147289
There is obviously a huge difference between the Confederation Diet and the Frankfurt Parliament, even if ironically they were both seated in Frankfurt. However, the Diet was not made up of elected members but rather of envoys appointed by the rulers of the various German states, and was never allowed legislative powers. It was established by the Congress of Vienna, and if anything it was a kind of German UN (although even more ineffective than the UN is) and effectively governed by a kind of Security Council, made up of envoys from the 4 major states (Austria, Prussia, Bavaria and Saxony), where Austria usually could count on the votes from Bavaria and Saxony. Considering that Maximilian II of Bavaria was very hostile to the Frankfurt Parliament, and Austria and Prussia were the first two states to pull out their delegates from the Frankfurt Parliament. it is very hard to believe that the Parliament might be allowed to replace the Diet, or that Russia would consider this consistent with the decisions of the Congress of Vienna.
It wasn't clear to me, but never mind: my comment still stands, and I'd say it to Mazzini's face
Which was exactly my point. Hungary has stopped on the edge of the abyss this time, but the compromise reached will not last for long.
My plan is to strengthen the German Confederation, laying the very own foundations of a future German state, by having the Frankfurt Parliament replace the ineffective diet but as a compromise, the German States retain some kind of oversight and control like a fixed number of delegates appointed by the state and others elected. Then as a consequence of the revolutions and che change in the German balance of power with the decline of Austria and the somewhat rise of Prussia the entire region is split in conflicting spheres of influence, with Prussia dominating the north and Austria the south. The Parliement would act as the middleman between the blocks using it's status to slowly create the framework of a state with common measurements, citizenship etc and as the situation develops they might succeed or fail.
Austria has suffered huge losses: northern Italy, prestige, the occupation of Vienna, the ineffective army and a restless Hungary, they don't have much leverage and have to rely on Russia which would back and prop up it's ally as both are interested in maintaining the Congress. Calming the German situation for the foreseeable future looks like a good choice for Russia as it has time to reorganise itself as Germany is not a threat and won't be for a while.
Again for Hungary, Austria is in for a rough ride in the next 30 years with Hungary that would demand more concessions as soon as this grow old and with FJ on the throne it might not end well. With Maximillian...it might change. It also helps that without N III he's never sent to Mexico.
I do understand very well what you're aiming for, and certainly sympathize with your goals, but something must happen to justify it (the failure to mobilize Germany in the war against Denmark, and even worse their vote in favour of the treaty of Malmo which ended the war on Danish terms, and was obviously signed under British and Russian pressure, lost the Frankfurt Parliament whatever little prestige had been left them after the offer of the German Crown to Austria and Prussia had been turned down). Something has to happen, since one cannot do bricks without straw, and IMHO the Confederal Parliament can only be resurrected in the late 1850s, when Austria might have implemented some real reforms and even Maxilian of Bavaria has come to terms with the concession of a constitution and the election of a Bavarian Parliament.
It seems that TTL FJ will have a short and not very eventful reign. After the death of von Scharzenberg in April 1852, the Austrian government took a sharp turn to reactionary politics, which - as usually happens - rather than quell discontent among the imperial subjects, exacerbated it. An Hungarian patriot tried to assassinate him and went very close to succeed: he failed just because his knife struck a metal buckle at the throat of the emperor. ITTL, the assassination might succeed, and Maximilian would take the throne. Who knows, he might even decided to marry Sissi.
Deleted member 147289
In your opinion what could change a shift in the German Events in 1848-49 to allow the Confederation to survive? The war against Denmark ended in a failure and as you said destroyed the parliament's credibility but this 1848 has shaken Germany more than OTL and butterflies might start flying with both Austria and Prussia knocked out a third solution could be found among the delegates and the monarchs
The most obvious thing which might happen is the Austrian empire imploding, but - much as I dislike Austria and the Habsburg - is not a solution: the chaos in Central Europe would be horrible, and I wouldn't wish it on anyone.
You should start asking yourself why the chain of events in Italy had a different outcome: it was because the king of Sardinia, for his own reasons which is not necessary to discuss here, took upon himself to lead the war against Austria. IOTL he failed, ITTL he succeeded and that brought down the entire castle of cards, from Austrian dominance in Italy to the Papal States and the pope's temporal power to a successful secession of Sicily. There were believers fighting for it, there were ardent patriots, but ultimately it was Blut-und-Eisen, steel-and-blood, which brought home the bacon.
In Germany there was no equivalent of Sardinia, since the king of Prussia refused the crown (and the Habsburgs had troubles enough on their own): the Parliament of Frankfurt (which had no history at its back, no proven record to try and forge a nation out of a bunch of squabbling states) tried to kickstart a revolution-within-the-laws (same as Manin did in Venice), and that is a sure recipe to fail.
There is another alternative, the people-in-armies, but I don't see the stout German burghers signing for it (if for no other reason, because there is no unitarian background: France had been a single nation for centuries, and had a capital which was truly the heart of France, Paris. Which is the capital of a Germany which is going to be united bottom up?).
Third alternative, the king of Prussia accepts the crown "from the gutters": theoretically, it might work; in practice there's not a chance in hell, only the "professors"of Frankfurt could believe it. Check how the German Empire came to be: it wasn't proclaimed in Germany, it was done in Versailles after a bloody war. Blut-und-Eisen, again.
Last edited:
I think your Greater German Conf ederation is quite plausible and fits the german mood in 1849 propably bettter then OTL Frankfurter Constitution (which actually just was supported by a slim majority in parlament.)
Deleted member 147289
What if everything goes as OTL as in the Parliament is disbanded by Prussia and the Stuggart experience fails, the Confederation is reestablished and later on, as you suggested, restores some kind of Parliament and German unity gets traction. Maybe Austria could do it in a bid for German hegemony after loosing the Balkans to internal strife.
I'm not sure that the Italian success could alter the German events at this point, even a weaker Austria wouldn't change much as the situation was solved by the German states and Russia would step in if something too radical happens at their doorstep
On the other side the events have been a tad more radical and successful like the extension of the Zollverein to all the Confederation or the creation of the Reichsflotte and the delegates have drafted a third solution for the German question that balances power. If this is too radical or improbable to happen in 1849 the Parliament could be still dissolved but the Confederstion could gain more power in the aftermath with a Frankfurt Parliament style gathering that could happen later in the 1860s
Last edited by a moderator:
The Reichsflotte was a nice idea, but it will remain on paper for quite a long time time. Who's going to pay for it, and - more importantly - what use would even a united (or semi-united) Germany would have for it? In the war of 1870, the French sent the navy and some marines to the Baltic to blockade the Prussian Baltic ports: the Prussian navy was certainly unable to confront the French one in open sea, so they kept it in port and mined the Elbe, while coastal defense was handed by land batteries. As soon as the French fleet steamed toward the Baltic, they started to realize that coal was a problem: the fleet need 200 short tons of coal per day to be fully operational, but the combined bunker capacity of the fleet was just 250 short tons. The Danish and the British supplied some coal, at a premium price, but the situation was so precarious that even running after a blockade runner was a problem. The net result was that the French stayed until the end of September 1870, then they had to pull back (the marines and the sailor were conscripted in the army).
As far as Parliament, I suppose that the most practical solution is to reinstate the Diet (maybe with Prussia gaining some formal prestige, besides being the policeman of the NW) and wait to see what's going to happen in the Germanies. IMHO, even if there is not a show down between Austria and Prussia, sooner or later (I guess by the beginning of the 1860s at latest) Prussia has to start some constitutional reforms: if also Austria in the meantime has reformed (at least in part), it would become easier to start thinking about a Confederation Parliament of some kind (but this does not guarantee that there will be one, mind).
Deleted member 147289
Is a 1866 sequence war in the need? Will Austria and Prussia always collide for hegemony in the German area? I think that a more peaceful path could be found if both nations start reforms and pursue the same path for unification as Bismarck is not a confirmed character yet and we know that his policy led the actions of Prussia. Without him and with different Austria leaders there might be no need for a war. Speaking of war Europe is finally in for some peace after the revolutions
So at this point, Italy is a Naples away from uniting the peninsula, 30 years ahead of schedule. It's goinf to be very interesting to see the dozens of ways that changes things, having a united Italy a generation ahead of schedule.
Maybe it will be, maybe it will not happen.
I'm too much of a cynic to truly believe that swords will be forged into plows Austria and Prussia will till the German field in amity forever, Bismarck or not Bismarck (who is anyway coming into maturity, and it is difficult to think that he'll not be attracted to politics).
My guess is that things are slowly moving toward a two-Germanies scenario, with Prussia the hegemon in the North and the southern states under the thumb of Austria.
Another reasonable guess is that Prussia is more satisfied with the outcome and will not start the army reform and re-armament policy they adopted IOTL after the humiliation of Olmutz.
I don't know what's going to happen in Austria, in particular if Maximilian gets the crown. However, the situation in the Habsburg domains is far from stable, what with the patched-up situation in Hungary and the unsolved problems of the many different nationalities in the empire.
Then there are the Balkans, the usual spot to start troubles (you might look at Wallachia and Moldavia, where the upheaval of 1848 had significant impact, but also Serbia).
Which brings us to Russia and the Ottomans. A war with the Ottomans is always in the cards, and it is a given that neither the UK nor France would be happy with a major Russian expansion (and the Italian Confederation will probably get a piece of the action too). At which point, there are three possibilities: Austria stays on the sidelines, and we have a TTL analogue of the war of Crimea; Austria supports Russia, and it's going to be a much serious war, which will pull in also Sweden on the UK/France side, while Prussia is likely to stay out of it; Austria sides with UK/France, which would put Russia in an impossible position (but Austria will want a piece of the actions in the Balkans, the above mentioned Moldavia and Wallachia as protectorates, and Serbia as well. It is unlikely they get all of this, since it would give Austria a complete control of the Danube and pushes Russia completely out of the Balkans, but in any case it would stoke the fires for a future Austro-Russian confrontation).
All of this means that it is very, very unlikely that Europe will stay at peace for a long time, the more so since the impact of the revolutions of 1848 has been more significant ITTL.
IMHO, it is going to be a very different Italy, and hopefully a better one.
I also believe that the German unification will happen significantly later than IOTL (and possibly will not happen). Time will tell if this is a good thing or not.