How early is this recognition going to take place? Will we need a tri-monarchy?
(Or in British rugby terms a Triple Crown)
I think after 1848 would be appropriate. Yes a Triple-Monrachy would be needed, if the Czechs accept the emperor as their king in an age of nationalism and pan-Slavic desire (but I think that they are eager of being recognized for a start) . What could be the appropriate title of the emperor for being the Czech´s king ?
King of Bohemia.
I agree. But does the Habsburg elite want to share power with the Slavs as well as the Hungarians?
The Habsburgs planned to Include Teschen in West Galicia.
Pethaps we have that happen and have the Poles, Ukrainians and Czechs have their own crowns.
Let me again point at Richard Graf Belcredi, the Austrian head of government in the mid-sixties.
His conservative concept was a federalization of the monarchy along traditional lines (ie not along ethnic lines like the late Popovici concept).
There would have been
~ the Hereditary Territories of Austria
~ the Lands of St. Vaclav's Crown, ie Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia
~ the Lands of St. Stephen's Crown, ie Hungary and Transsylvania
~ the Lands of the Iron Crown (Lombardy and Venetia)
~ the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (plus Bukovina)
~ the Kingdom of Illyria (Croatia and Dalmatia)
None of these realms would have been mono-ethnic: Austria would have had a Slovene and Italian minority, Bohemia lots of Germans and some Poles, Galicia had besides Poles many Ukrainians and some Romanians, Hungary had Germans, Romanians, Slovaks and Serbs, Lombardo-Venetia the Friulians. Illyria had Italian and Serbs besides the Croat majority.
But having Czechs, Poles, Croats and Italians as additional "Staatsvölker" would have covered a lot. Those were the "historical nations", ie those who had had their own national states somewhen in history, which frex Slovaks and Slovenes were said not to be.
Let me again point at Richard Graf Belcredi, the Austrian head of government in the mid-sixties.
His conservative concept was a federalization of the monarchy along traditional lines (ie not along ethnic lines like the late Popovici concept).
There would have been
~ the Hereditary Territories of Austria
~ the Lands of St. Vaclav's Crown, ie Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia
~ the Lands of St. Stephen's Crown, ie Hungary and Transsylvania
~ the Lands of the Iron Crown (Lombardy and Venetia)
~ the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (plus Bukovina)
~ the Kingdom of Illyria (Croatia and Dalmatia)
None of these realms would have been mono-ethnic: Austria would have had a Slovene and Italian minority, Bohemia lots of Germans and some Poles, Galicia had besides Poles many Ukrainians and some Romanians, Hungary had Germans, Romanians, Slovaks and Serbs, Lombardo-Venetia the Friulians. Illyria had Italian and Serbs besides the Croat majority.
But having Czechs, Poles, Croats and Italians as additional "Staatsvölker" would have covered a lot. Those were the "historical nations", ie those who had had their own national states somewhen in history, which frex Slovaks and Slovenes were said not to be.
Let me again point at Richard Graf Belcredi, the Austrian head of government in the mid-sixties.
His conservative concept was a federalization of the monarchy along traditional lines (ie not along ethnic lines like the late Popovici concept).
There would have been
~ the Hereditary Territories of Austria
~ the Lands of St. Vaclav's Crown, ie Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia
~ the Lands of St. Stephen's Crown, ie Hungary and Transsylvania
~ the Lands of the Iron Crown (Lombardy and Venetia)
~ the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (plus Bukovina)
~ the Kingdom of Illyria (Croatia and Dalmatia)
None of these realms would have been mono-ethnic: Austria would have had a Slovene and Italian minority, Bohemia lots of Germans and some Poles, Galicia had besides Poles many Ukrainians and some Romanians, Hungary had Germans, Romanians, Slovaks and Serbs, Lombardo-Venetia the Friulians. Illyria had Italian and Serbs besides the Croat majority.
But having Czechs, Poles, Croats and Italians as additional "Staatsvölker" would have covered a lot. Those were the "historical nations", ie those who had had their own national states somewhen in history, which frex Slovaks and Slovenes were said not to be.
Do you think this could lead to a more stable Austrian Empire than OTL ?
Somewhat. But it'd probably cause alot of tension inside the constituent kingdoms, i.e. Germans vs. Czechs in Bohemia- Moravia etc.
It'd also weaken the Central Government, and with that the Monarchy. And I don't think the Habsburgs would ever agree to anything weakening their position to this degree.
Well, given that they ended up with Hungary as being essentially independent, only united as a union of crowns, they DID weaken their position that much iOTL. (I exaggerate, but only a little.)
Seriously, the Hungarians revolted regularly and refused to grant their own minorities the rights that they themselves demanded. Why then were the rebellious Hungarians constantly appeased and the loyal Croats, e.g., thrown under the bus?
A multiple-monarchy (the list of kingdoms above makes sense) would/could give the various ethnic minorities more local influence, while reigning in the power of the Hungarian magnates. This could actually STRENGTHEN the empire compared to OTL. Strengthen and support the loyalists, weaken the disloyal....
It would surely NOT be (explicitly) ethnically based, to avoid the tensions that would involve, but a reform with more local control? That should be quite possible.
Let me again point at Richard Graf Belcredi, the Austrian head of government in the mid-sixties.
His conservative concept was a federalization of the monarchy along traditional lines (ie not along ethnic lines like the late Popovici concept).
There would have been
~ the Hereditary Territories of Austria
~ the Lands of St. Vaclav's Crown, ie Bohemia, Moravia and Silesia
~ the Lands of St. Stephen's Crown, ie Hungary and Transsylvania
~ the Lands of the Iron Crown (Lombardy and Venetia)
~ the Kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (plus Bukovina)
~ the Kingdom of Illyria (Croatia and Dalmatia)
None of these realms would have been mono-ethnic: Austria would have had a Slovene and Italian minority, Bohemia lots of Germans and some Poles, Galicia had besides Poles many Ukrainians and some Romanians, Hungary had Germans, Romanians, Slovaks and Serbs, Lombardo-Venetia the Friulians. Illyria had Italian and Serbs besides the Croat majority.
But having Czechs, Poles, Croats and Italians as additional "Staatsvölker" would have covered a lot. Those were the "historical nations", ie those who had had their own national states somewhen in history, which frex Slovaks and Slovenes were said not to be.
You should go entirely with saints:
Lands of the Crown of Saint Boniface (Austria)
Lands of the Crown of Saint Stephen (Hungary and Transylvania)
Lands of the Crown of Saint Wenceslaus (Czech lands)
Lands of the Crown of Saints Cyril and Methodius (Croatia/South Slavs)
Lands of the Crown of Saints Ambrose and Mark (Lombardy-Venetia)
Lands of the Crown of Saint Stanislaus (Galicia and Lodomeria)
Interesting. To repeat, it is not *my* proposal but an OTL idea of an OTL Austria statesman. As Belcredi comes from a anti-modernist position, I can easily see him favouring such a religious-flavoured nomenclature. It also emphasizes the common catholicism of the broad majority.
But for Austria I would probably go with St. Leopold (III., of the House of Babenberg), who was something like a pet saint heavily propagated by the Habsburg dynasty.
Ambrose and Mark sound good, or just St. Mark the Evangelist if the PoD is after 1859.
Stanislaus of Cracow seems a good choice if the central government favors the Poles over the Ruthenians, which seems very likely. Alternatively, if the theme is also "canonized nobility", they might go with Saint Casimir.