More Nationalities are recognized as "Staatsvölker" in Austria-Hungary

What if the k.uk monarchy not only recognizes the Germans and Hungarians but also the Czechs as an official "Staatsvolk" within the Empire ? Would it satisfy the Slavs , if they could gain a certain status instead of being looked down upon ?
 
Last edited:

Don Quijote

Banned
How early is this recognition going to take place? Will we need a tri-monarchy?
(Or in British rugby terms a Triple Crown)
 
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 ?
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.
 
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.

That could happen if they could form some sort of new Polish and Ukrainian state out of Russian territory, or just as easily with the Ukrainians/ Ruthenians carve them out of a rebellious Hungary.
 
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.

The concept that Friulans are ethnically distinct from "Italians", at least in a politically meaningful way, is somewhat tricky. Of course it is is unquestionably correct on a linguistic basis, as Friulan belongs to a branch of Romance that is quite distinct from most other Italian varieties, but that never led to a "national" difference (unlike, say, Czechs and Slovaks, who developed separate national identites despite being arguably closer linguistically).*
In the dominant viewpoint of the time, the Lombard-Venetian kingdom was regarded as overwhelmingly inhabited by "ethnic Italians", and most of Friulans who had any opinion on the topic tended to agree; regardless of what they spoke, Italian was their main (but not sole) language of written culture.
Curiously, this was at a time when the linguistic distinctiveness of Friulan was recognized, and a literary tradition existed.

* However, the rest of spoken varieties of Italy hardly show much in the way of cohesive distinctiveness. A major isogloss bundle of general Romance importance cuts aross the country.
 
Last edited:
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.

I agree, this would have been an interesting compromise. Not fully ethnically, but it does make the largest ethnic groups a part of the empire on a 'historic' basis.
 
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 ?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
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.
 
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.
 
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.)

Pretty much this.

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?

Always a question I ask and only seems to reach the conclusion that there isn't a reason. Vienna just more or less allowed the Kingdom of Hungary to live in a state of independence all in the name of Conservatism and saving face after he Russians took care of the rebellion for them.

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's more than reigning in their power, it needs to be broken. Considering that Hungary for all intents and purposes existed in a state of feudalism what is needed is a massive land reform which confiscates those rebellious magnates land and redistributes it to those loyal supporters and more importantly among the landless agricultural workers turning them into smallholders. Those aforementioned agricultural workers, already loyal to the dynasty and suspicious of urban culture, will form the bedrock of future Habsburg support. Especially when the dynasty introduces land based suffrage.

They'll also need to reign in the powers of the Hungarian Diet, which shouldn't be hard in such a radical era.

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.

More or less a federal way of doing things. At this point definitely what it needs.
 
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)
 
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.
 
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.

Good points all. The one I struggled the most to justify was Croatia. That said, you're right about Austria and St. Leopold. I did not go with Saint Casimir for Galicia because of most of Poland being outside of the Empire.
 
Interesting:
Belcredi was a big fan of reconciliation with the Slavs inside the monarchy and as conservative convinced that the state could only be based on continued respect for the traditional local laws and practices. Some kind of Austro-sceptic, apparently. :D
His "Sprachenzwangsgesetz" made it obligatory for high schoolers in Bohemia and Moravia to learn German and Czech, which was apparently hated by the Germans more than by the Czechs, after all, any ambitious Czech in the Monarchy had to speak German anyway. He also strongly lobbied for the formal coronation of FJ as King of Bohemia and for the scrapping of the idea that the people of Bohemia had lost their privileges by rebelling in 1848.
Some historian apparently credit Belcredi's politics with creating enough Slavic goodwill to prevent the complete dissolution of the Monarchy after 1866. His main weakness was his lack of foreign policy experience and the fact that his foreign miniter, Mensdorff, could not really compensate. Not against Bismarck, in any case.

Edit to add:
Apparently Empress Elisabeth intervened personally with FJ against Belcredi becaouse his plans upset her Magyar darling Andrassy. But he finally resigned after the appointment of Beust and the latters decision to pursue a dual Ausgleich only with Hungary. In private conversations with FJ he predicted the end of the monarchy and the dissolution of A-H if the government should not manage to win the Slavic nations for the preservation of the monarchy as protection against despotic Russian hegemony. Seems far-sighted.
 
Last edited:
Top