No Dual Monarchy

  • Thread starter Deleted member 1487
  • Start date

Deleted member 1487

How can we have a unitary Habsburg monarchy after 1866, if Austria loses? Beyond that, would this empire then be autocratic and anti-democratic, but perhaps better placed to deal with the ethnic troubles that plagued it in the 20th century? Beyond that, the army would remain Imperial (kaiserlich) only, right?
If the Habsburgs then have the sole control over funding, could then their army maintain pace with the size and equipment of their neighbors?
 
One of the possibilities would be to have Franz Joseph not to marry Elisabeth of Wittelsbach, as she became very Hungarophile (right word?) once she went to the Austrian Empire.

However, the problem with having No Dual Monarchy is the following one : the Austrians are not the majority of the Empire's population. The Hungarians have roughly the same population and the same thing goes for the combined various slavic people.

Besides, Rebellion and Independentist movements are quite strong in these minorities, particularly in Hungary (as was proven in the 1848 events were Austria had to call Russian help to deal with the revolt). If there is no dual monarchy, you're increasing the chances of the Empire exploding as the Hungarians will very likely rebel (they always had trouble supporting Austrian rule) and so will do the slavic people if Pan-slavism rises.

So, in a few words, the Empire will have a harder time dealing with ethnic troubles as you're having the Hungarians AND the Slavic people wishing for Independance or at least Autonomy from Austrian rule.
 
However, the problem with having No Dual Monarchy is the following one : the Austrians are not the majority of the Empire's population. The Hungarians have roughly the same population and the same thing goes for the combined various slavic people.

Besides, Rebellion and Independentist movements are quite strong in these minorities, particularly in Hungary (as was proven in the 1848 events were Austria had to call Russian help to deal with the revolt). If there is no dual monarchy, you're increasing the chances of the Empire exploding as the Hungarians will very likely rebel (they always had trouble supporting Austrian rule) and so will do the slavic people if Pan-slavism rises.

That's the point: of all the minorities in Austria, the Hungarians are the largest, probably most cohesive and best organized. After all, Hungarian nobles and city-dwellers still dominated within the whole kingdom of Hungary. Once nationalism developed, the Austrians had to face their minorities. I think the only chance they had besides a dual-monarchy would be a poly-monarchy in which all minorities get more autonomy. Whereas such a situation might be possible, it's hard to imagine a still rather absolutist state ruling a multinational federation with significant autonomies. Note also that the Hungarians, effectively the ruling class of the kingdom of Hungary, would oppose that anyway as they did IOTL to similar plans of later age.
 
The Hungarians were quite content with the compromise.
Only holding 20%~25% of the populace, the Germans in the empire will not be able to hold on to all that territory with the nationalistic wave in their face.
The empire barely managed to hold itself during the early 20th century, without the compromise it would break apart much earlier.
 
The easiest way is to have Austria defeat Prussia. A defeat in the 1866 war will embolden the same nationalist factions that forced the Ausgleich in the first place. The OP is basically asking for a POD that given the nature of the times and the rise of nationalism is almost impossible to pull off.
 

Deleted member 1487

I probably should have mentioned my solution to the situation. Instead of Ausgleich, a national parliament is set up in Vienna and the major ethnicities like the Czechs, Hungarians, Croats, Poles, and maybe Romanians are given autonomy in the manner of the Poles OTL. Historically the Ausgleich was only supposed to be a stopgap measure on the way to greater reform, but the Hungarian's behavior blocked further reforms.
 
I probably should have mentioned my solution to the situation. Instead of Ausgleich, a national parliament is set up in Vienna and the major ethnicities like the Czechs, Hungarians, Croats, Poles, and maybe Romanians are given autonomy in the manner of the Poles OTL. Historically the Ausgleich was only supposed to be a stopgap measure on the way to greater reform, but the Hungarian's behavior blocked further reforms.

Wouldn't it be easier to simply use Metternich being given a free hand as a PoD? His ideas for the monarchy were very much in line with what you propose.

Alternately, Metternich's son, Richard Klemens, was politically active as it was. A couple of changes could have him pursue his father's agenda as a last favour to his father (who died in 1859). Now, his career was primarily in diplomacy (IIRC, he was Austria's ambassador to France, he tried and failed to convince Napoleon to intervene in the War), but he did hold a hereditary position in the Reichsrat's Herrenhaus.
 

Deleted member 1487

Wouldn't it be easier to simply use Metternich being given a free hand as a PoD? His ideas for the monarchy were very much in line with what you propose.

Alternately, Metternich's son, Richard Klemens, was politically active as it was. A couple of changes could have him pursue his father's agenda as a last favour to his father (who died in 1859). Now, his career was primarily in diplomacy (IIRC, he was Austria's ambassador to France, he tried and failed to convince Napoleon to intervene in the War), but he did hold a hereditary position in the Reichsrat's Herrenhaus.

Any more info about this? When was this freehand have occurred?
 
Any more info about this? When was this freehand have occurred?

Well, Metternich wanted to reform the Monarchy after the Congress of Vienna. It's hard to tell precisely, he was perceived as a reactionary (and he was in foreign policy, lambasting liberals for trying to adopt the British model), but he did clash with the Emperor repeatedly over the Emperor's autocratic rule. I'd say he was pragmatic more than anything, concerned with the internal stability of the Empire and seeing the reforms as one way to do that.

I'd say that any time between 1815 and 1826 would allow him to reform the Empire to his liking.

The unofficial regency (between 1835 and 1848) of Ferdinand I (of Austria)/II (of the Holy Roman Empire)/V (of Hungary) was riven with factional disputes (Kolowrat was a long-standing rival of Metternich's and Archduke Louis favoured absolutism) so the status quo was maintained. A status that favoured Kolowrat and Louis, as Franz I had established absolutist rule quite thoroughly.

Kolowrat wasn't in a position to interfere before 1826, being in Bohemia and holding no political office in Vienna itself. So, having Franz I die before then would allow Metternich to control the Empire (it doesn't solve the problem of Louis, but alone he's less of a problem).

However, this is all outside the scope of your request. Though I suspect the changes wouldn't affect the military, allowing Prussia to win nonetheless. Everyone else in Europe thought the Austrian military should be able to beat down Prussia easily (including quite a few Prussians), anyway, so I doubt the military would be reformed more than it was.

The effects on 1848 would be a lot more significant, however. The internal chaos of the year would probably bypass Austria (or, at the least) be reduced given the autonomy and democratic institutions Metternich would have instituted. Which means Metternich stays in power and Ferdinand I doesn't abdicate in favour of Franz Josef (though, given the severity of the Emperor's epilepsy, as many as 20 attacks per day, it's only a matter of time before he kills himself by accident).
 
Top