Kaiser Ferdinand der Gutige assassinated in 1832, what then?

On the 9th of August 1832 a retired army captain, Franz Reindl, furious at having been refused a sum of money he had requested, made an attempt on... edit: Archduke Ferdinand, heir to the throne of the Austrian Empire and at least partially mentally disabled.

Iotl Ferdinand survived with a negligible wound, but what if he had died? In these circumstances would Franz Karl accept the throne? Probably yes as there aren't many alternative around.

What was his character like? I couldn't find much, given his irrilevance post-abdication...
He probably wasn't too bright, but probably capable enough to avoid a regency council?


Avoiding 13 years of ineffectual regency government seems a good thing for Austria and maybe tgings can still be patched up in Lombardy-Venetia and Hungary, possibly even avoiding the worst of 1848, but Franz Karl hardly seems an inspired reformer and certainly there would be no support for things like a comprehensive land reform in Hungary. Even the creation of an Habsburg Zollverein analogue including the southern German states as well as the Italian Duchies seems far fetched at this stage, but it would be very important to create the economic basis of a long lasting Mittleuropa.

An useful secondary POD would be an early death of Sophie (in childbirth?), so that her extremely rigid outlook on life doesn't influence Franz Josef too much. On the other side eliminatingbhwr wouod likely weaken Franz Karl faculties even more...
Edit: it is likely that Sophie would become the de facto ruler of the Empire if Franz Karl is Emperor, would this be a disaster or could her reactionarism be somewhat tempered into a less miopic form of conservatism?
 
Last edited:
On the 9th of August 1832 a retired army captain, Franz Reindl, furious at having been refused a sum of money he had requested, made an attempt on the Austrian emperor life.

Iotl Ferdinand survived with a negligible wound, but what if he had died? In these circumstances would Franz Karl accept the throne? Probably yes as there aren't many alternative around.

What was his character like? I couldn't find much, given his irrilevance post-abdication...
He probably wasn't too bright, but probably capable enough to avoid a regency council?


Avoiding 16 year more of ineffectual regency government seems a good thing for Austria and maybe tgings can still be patched up in Lombardy-Venetia and Hungary, possibly even avoiding the worst of 1848, but Franz Karl hardly seems an inspired reformer and certainly there would be no support for things like a comprehensive land reform in Hungary. Even the creation of an Habsburg Zollverein analogue including the southern German states as well as the Italian Duchies seems far fetched at this stage, but it would be very important to create the economic basis of a long lasting Mittleuropa.

An useful secondary POD would be an early death of Sophie (in childbirth?), so that her extremely rigid outlook on life doesn't influence Franz Josef too much. On the other side eliminatingbhwr wouod likely weaken Franz Karl faculties even more...
Edit: it is likely that Sophie would become the de facto ruler of the Empire if Franz Karl is Emperor, would this be a disaster or could her reactionarism be somewhat tempered into a less miopic form of conservatism?

If the date is right, then the Emperor was still Franz I.

Ferdinand would just ascend the throne three years sooner.
 
If the date is right, then the Emperor was still Franz I.

Ferdinand would just ascend the throne three years sooner.
You are right :oops: he was still only the heir to the throne at the time.
But the attack was againsy Ferdinand, not Kaiser Franz, so when the emperor dies in 1835, as in otl, Franz Karl, not Ferdinand would become Emperor and the rest of my considerations in the op still stand.
 
Well, in that case Franz Karl (b1832) was of age and the next heir (future Emperor Franz Joseph) only about two years old, so it would have to be FK. Afaik he was at any rate no stupider than Ferdinand, so if Ferdinand was accepted, no reason why FK wouldn't be.
 
Well, in that case Franz Karl (b1832) was of age and the next heir (future Emperor Franz Joseph) only about two years old, so it would have to be FK. Afaik he was at any rate no stupider than Ferdinand, so if Ferdinand was accepted, no reason why FK wouldn't be.
There is the fact that in 1848 he abdicated in favour of his son, but clearly that can't happen now that FJ is only a little kid.

Actually this POD (based ob a real life event, the failed assassination of Ferdinand) is just an excuse to see some discussion about the plausibility of a more flexible Austrian leadership in the thirties and forties (without the costraints of a regency council) and its possible repercussions, especially once 1848 (or an analogue) happens.
 
Franz Karl would become Emperor - there's no reason to bypass him in favour of Franz Joseph as IOTL. Franz Karl, IMO, seemed to be a bit of a wet blanket, easily pushed about by advisors and relatives. IOTL, he sat on the Geheime Staatskonferenz, the secret regency council that effectively ruled Austria while Ferdinand was on the throne ... and, yet, he was simply there. It was the others that made decisions and Franz Karl just kind of went along. Without the regency council, we can safely leave Archduke Louis out of the equation.

That leaves Metternich and Kolowrat as the major influences in the Imperial court. The Minister of Foreign Affairs/Defence and the Minister of the Economy respectively. Those two are likely to be an issue and the effects highly unpredictable. Both were reformers (Metternich in favour of political devolution to crownlands, but without actually ceding authority; Kolowrat in favour of cultural autonomy, but not political), but neither could stand the other. Their mutual conflicts marked the entirety of the regency, with Archduke Louis make exceptional use of them to maintain the existing absolutist system. With the Archduke absent, the conflict is likely to boil over and the new Emperor would have to choose one or the other.

Personally, I'd say it's more likely for Metternich to win this particular conflict. Kolowrat made a point of being confrontational (something which regularly threw Metternich off, leaving him without an ability to respond) and threatened to resign numerous times. Metternich's more diplomatic approach might sit better with Franz Karl than Kolowrat's attitude - Kolowrat did ultimately threaten to resign to Franz II personally. Several times. Franz Karl might not appreciate Kolowrat's skill as much as Franz II did - not enough to tolerate such back-talk.

Either way, one or the other gets removed and the remaining one has the Emperor's ear, allowing them to implement their own visions for the Empire. Both would lay the foundation for a federal state (though neither was in favour of actually ceding power, the systems would serve as a fair foundation for future expansion and reform), although with different emphases. Compared to OTL, Metternich's Austria would be both more active in foreign policy and have a significantly stronger army (something Metternich was constantly bemoaning), but a weaker economy as Kolowrat's defunding of the army allowed finances to be brought into order. The opposite applies for Kolowrat's Austria, a stronger economy, but an army largely in the shape it was IOTL in 1848. Possibly with a more isolationist foreign policy.

In short - you have two major paths, depending on how the brewing court conflicts turn out. And, potentially, two very different courses of action.
 
Iirc, Habsburg family law gave the Regency to the nearest adult male in line of succession, but excluding branches who held sovereignties of their own, ie the Grand-Ducal houses of Tuscany and Modena.

If I've got that right, the Regent for FJ would be Archduke Albrecht, Duke of Teschen. He was a capable soldier, but politically an ultra-conservative, so not the best bet if you're looking for reforms.
 
Actually this POD (based ob a real life event, the failed assassination of Ferdinand) is just an excuse to see some discussion about the plausibility of a more flexible Austrian leadership in the thirties and forties (without the costraints of a regency council) and its possible repercussions, especially once 1848 (or an analogue) happens.

Seems to me that if you're looking for a more liberal or reforming Emperor, it's really Franz Karl who needs to meet with misfortune - before he has a chance to produce heirs.

In that event, after Ferdinand the next heir is Archduke Leopold, GD of Tuscany. OTL, in 1848 he played along with the revolutionaries, even to the point of sending a Tuscan contingent to fight for Sardinia against Austria!!. Needless to say, he climbed back onto the Imperial bandwagon once Austria started winning, but it certainly shows flexibility, and suggests that he could have lived with a Constitutional government in Austria rather than a full-blown return to absolutism.

If Leopold is the next heir, then it is conceivable that Ferdinand may be excluded from the succession, in which case Leopold succeeds his uncle in 1835. Perhaps Tuscany is given to Ferdinand as a "retirement home". One feeble-minded Prince more or less wouldn't have greatly mattered in 19C Italy.
 
Leopold is interesting. (As an aside I had once thought about a TL in which the insurgents in Milan and Venice do much better and Piedmont is more passive. To save face and free the troops trapped in the quadrilateral to concentrate on Hungary - which ittl would have rebelled already in late spring - it is decided to have a ceasefire in Italy, ceding most Lombardy-Venetia to Leopold II, which would go on to become King of a federalized and relatively austrian friendly kingdom of Italy, hostile to French-pawn Kingdom of Sardinia. Not the most plausible of TLs, I must admit...

About Kolowrat vs Metternich, I think too that Metternich would have the upper hand, but he is so much of a reactionary scarecrow to much of the liberal European intelligentsia that I doubt whatever he does can be met with anything but increased hostility.
 
About Kolowrat vs Metternich, I think too that Metternich would have the upper hand, but he is so much of a reactionary scarecrow to much of the liberal European intelligentsia that I doubt whatever he does can be met with anything but increased hostility.

Oh, Metternich'd live to see the downfall of his own system as OTL even if he did manage to put his own ideas into place. He was far from popular and his system would probably exacerbate dissent. I'm, however, of the opinion that it would be a good foundation for liberalization when the time comes (and Metternich is gone). It would also have the potential to explode in everyone's faces, of course, given mishandling - never underestimate the ability of leaders to do utterly stupid things.

His ideas were for the existence of crownland (read: federal state, albeit with borders drawn in accordance with the crowns of the Empire - a popular concept among the conservatives at the time) parliaments, coupled to an Imperial one in Vienna. Local parliaments were envisioned as having some authority over purely local matters - though, notably, the Imperial parliament was envision to have a purely advisory role to the Emperor. Metternich had some rather ... odd ideas - specifically, the idea was that the Imperial parliament would serve as a forum for gentlemanly, intellectual debate to produce the best possible advice to the still-absolutist Emperor. Thing is, as toothless as this system would be, it is surprisingly prescient - one that would allow real authority to be passed to the parliaments and actual federalization to take place once public pressure becomes too great.

In theory, it would allow an Austrian Empire to navigate any alt-1848-like disturbances relatively smoothly with reasonable leadership. Metternich's system could, ironically, be the vessel to implement liberalization (exactly the opposite of what he intended). ITTL, he might remain remembered as the absolutist supporter and the very image of a reactionary, but his work was surprisingly forward-thinking.
 
As far as I know, Franz Karl was more or less a "wet blanket" as it has already been said, and his wife Sophie was more or less keeping him under her thumb.
In my understanding, having Franz Karl as emperor would not change substantially the internal politics of Austria in the 1830s and 1840s.
To get rid of both Ferdinand and Franz Karl would look a bit gruesome, and anyway it would not really change the trajectory of Austria if Franz Joseph has already been born. Probably what you need to get Leopold of Tuscany on the throne is to have Franz Karl die of some illness in the 1820s, and Ferdinand assassinated in 1832.

Leopold was not a bad man, actually for a ruler in the post-Napoleonic period he was quite good: in Tuscany he was quite well liked by his subjects, and he never went willingly along the more restrictive policies devised by Metternich.
Everything changed with 1848: he was never forgiven for changing his stance and recalling the troops sent to fight in Northern Italy, and then leaving Florence. His return in the uniform of an Austrian general - escorted by Austrian troops who had stormed Leghorn and sacked Florence - killed any remaining good will.
Put him on the Austrian throne, and he will not have the willpower to oppose Metternich and the conservatives (nor the desire to rule an empire, for all that matters: he was more than happy in Tuscany).
OTOH, there will be no reforms in Tuscany nor anything resembling the reasonable government that was in place IOTL: it looks to me a perfect example of a loose-loose proposition.

The problems of Austria were twofold: on one side, the Napoleonic wars had left a lot of debts to be repaid; on the other one, the Congress of Vienna had set up Austria as the gendarme of Europe (together with Russia, and with Prussia added as a sidekick), and in particular had handed over to them Italy as a playground. The taxation in Lombardy-Venetia, the censorship, the opposition of Austria to anything it might resemble a cooperation among Italian states (even something as limited as a customs union) stem out from the two critical issues I mentioned earlier on. There is no way that replacing a figure-head emperor with another one will change the constraints on imperial policies.
 
Top