Poll: During which era did Austria/Austria-Hungary become impotent as a great power?

[Aloha May]

There is much talk about Austria, and later Austria-Hungary's generally poor military performance. On top of that, during the 18th and 19th centuries, Austria and the Habsburgs lost much of their continental holdings which at points had been able to challenge France, Britain, and the Ottomans.

So, at what point did this trend appear? If you vote "Other" please explain in the comments, because voting other with no explanation really isn't that helpful.

 

[A Most Sovereign Lady]

Napoleon dismantling the Holy Roman Empire probably went a long way to screwing Austria-Hungary over tbh.

 

[Dominic]

It didn't? Austria, and later Austria-Hungary, remained a Great Power until its dissolution. It's relative power certainly declined after the 18th century, but that is not the same as becoming impotent.

 

[Wendell]

The Hapsburg monarchy never fully recovered after the War of the Austrian Succession.

 

[Rognvald]

Probably during the course of the First World War.

 

[stevej713]

It didn't? Austria, and later Austria-Hungary, remained a Great Power until its dissolution. It's relative power certainly declined after the 18th century, but that is not the same as becoming impotent.

This. Austria-Hungary never became impotent. Its actions were probably the most directly responsible for the beginning of WWI. An example of an "impotent" country would probably be Denmark after the Second Schleswig War. Plus, as a side note, Austria did not collapse, but was forcibly dismantled after the war was over. Austria was much more resilient than people give it credit for.

 

[Johnrankins]

If you said declined I would say around the Napoleonic Period. It didn't become impotent until it lost the war.

 

[Aloha May]

Plus, as a side note, Austria did not collapse, but was forcibly dismantled after the war was over. Austria was much more resilient than people give it credit for.

So, the West Ukrainian People's Republic, the State of Slovenes, Croats and Serbs, the Banat Republic, the Hungarian People's Republic, and the Republic of German-Austria (all of which were countries that wouldn't last more than a year) were part of the forced, planned dismantling of Austria-Hungary?

Not to mention the fact that all those countries went to war with each other immediately for whatever crumbs of territory were left.

 

[alexmilman]

The Hapsburg monarchy never fully recovered after the War of the Austrian Succession.

Well, it was capable of getting the best piece of the 1st Partition of the PLC and its performance during the 7YW was not too bad. During the Congress of Vienna Austrian role was quite significant as well.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

I would say the unification of two of it's neighbours gave A-H in a very short time a lot less diplomatic playing ground.

 

[Nassirisimo]

It's hard to put an exact date on it, but I think there's a lot of argument for the period 1867-1901 being time period in which this happened. Although Austria-Hungary never became fully impotent and better command at the beginning of World War One could have prevented the embarrassing defeats in Galicia and Serbia, this period did mark her decline from the top rung of the Great Powers to being one of the weaker ones. Austria-Hungary's army became smaller, recruiting only 1 man in every 132 (compared to 1 in 98 in Russia and 1 in 64 in France), meaning that despite having the 3rd largest population of the European Great Powers in 1914, her army was smaller than all except Italy's. Economic backwardness explains some of this, as despite the great progress made at the turn of the century Austria-Hungary was still poorer and less industrialised both in total and per-capita when compared to Britain, Germany and France, though not necessarily to Russia and this is where the impact of Austria-Hungary's "peculiar institutions" show themselves.

The army was poorly funded in part due to the intransigence of the Hungarians in particular, though Franz Josef was feckless enough to allow his empire to atrophy. In addition those in command of the Empire's army in 1914 were very much inexperienced among other things, allowing their forces to be repeatedly defeated by the Serbs, who were materially inferior to the Austro-Hungarians in nearly any way you can imagine.

 

[AltoRegnant]

they were doomed after the congress of Vienna. The more congealed nation states born from it, and the fact that shortly after Hungary made themselves equal to Austria, meant the clamouring and nationalism we associate with them is inevitable because they couldn’t repel napoleon dragging Europe through the enlightenment

 

[Wendell]

Well, it was capable of getting the best piece of the 1st Partition of the PLC and its performance during the 7YW was not too bad. During the Congress of Vienna Austrian role was quite significant as well.

All of those things are true, but none of them really increased the power of Austria meaningfully or more than temporarily.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

The Hapsburg monarchy never fully recovered after the War of the Austrian Succession.

Yeah but the question is when they became impotent, ie powerless, not when they became less powerful.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

So, at what point did this trend appear? If you vote "Other" please explain in the comments, because voting other with no explanation really isn't that helpful.

1917 after their failed bid for a white peace.

 

[Wendell]

Yeah but the question is when they became impotent, ie powerless, not when they became less powerful.

Right. If their gains were fleeting, meaningless, and/or inconsequential, they're basically impotent.

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

Right. If their gains were fleeting, meaningless, and/or inconsequential, they're basically impotent.

"Because the "Second British Empire" has dissolved we can say that the UK has been impotent ever since the American revolution."

Literally the logic you're utilizing.

 

[Wendell]

"Because the "Second British Empire" has dissolved we can say that the UK has been impotent ever since the American revolution."

Literally the logic you're utilizing.

Err, no. Britain made net gains by leaps and bounds after 1781. If anything, American independence was a net benefit to the British Empire. What good, pray tell, did Galicia do for Austria?

 

[SealTheRealDeal]

What good, pray tell, did Galicia do for Austria?

According to you it's acquisition was "fleeting, meaningless, and/or inconsequential".
Fleeting: if ruling for over a century can be counted as such. By the same standard, all of Britain's post-1781 gains were equally transient.
Meaningless: Mate in 1914 it was a fifth of the Empire's population! What comprable expansion of Britain's metropole, pray tell, occurred post 1781?
Inconsequential: A fifth of the Empire's population and the Central Power's primary oil field is inconsequential?

 

[Wendell]

According to you it's acquisition was "fleeting, meaningless, and/or inconsequential".
Fleeting: if ruling for over a century can be counted as such. By the same standard, all of Britain's post-1781 gains were equally transient.
Meaningless: Mate in 1914 it was a fifth of the Empire's population! What comprable expansion of Britain's metropole, pray tell, occurred post 1781?
Inconsequential: A fifth of the Empire's population and the Central Power's primary oil field is inconsequential?

This is laughable on so many levels.

The analogue for your example, if you wanted to counter mine, would be to bring up Switzerland,, much of which was at one time under Hapsburg rule.

Britain benefited directly and substantially from its control of India, the settler dominions, and assorted colonies at different points well after 1781. Yes, bits and pieces were gained afterward, but the height of the British Empire came after American independence. Is it really your contention that Austria was at the height of its power at some point after losing ground in the War of the Austrian Succession?