Quintuple Monarchy?

Inspired by an earlier thread, how plausible would this arrangement* have been?

I: (apostolic) kingdom of Hungary (16: Hungary), II: kingdom of Bohemia (1: Bohemia, 9: Moravia and 11: (Austrian) Silesia), III kingdom of Croatia (17: Croatia-Slavonia, 5: Dalmatia, (18: Bosnia-Hercegovina) and the Kvarner/Quarnaro Islands (7)), IV: the kingdom of Galicia and Lodomeria (6: Galicia and 2: Bukovina) and V: the Austrian Lands (8: Lower Austria, 14: Upper Austria, 12: Styria, 10: Salzburg, 3: Carinthia, 13: Tirol, 15: Vorarlberg, 4: Carniola and 7: Austrian Littoral (minus the Kvarner/Quarnaro Islands).

Is there any POD were this division, similar to the ideas of former Austrian Imperial Minister-President Belcredi can be achieved? And would it have improved the survival chances of this ATL Austrian Empire/quintuple monarchy?

(* = I know that there were some threads about a triple or a quadruple option, but in my opinion a quintuple monarchy seems to be an option. Furthermore this IMHO would have been more plausible than the United States of Greater Austria.)
BTW I found this map on wikipedia:

500px-Austria-Hungary_map.png
 
Last edited:
No as soon as you have the shift in attitudes from being subjects of King X to being Germans or Bosnians the Hapsburg Empire is doomed. You can delay it and prop it up but at a certain point its going to come tumbling down.
 
I suspect that Hungary would've been pissed at the loss of Croatia, and Serbian nationalists very upset about Bosnia's inclusion in the Croat kingdom. Likewise, some Austrians would probably have been quite upset by the separation of Bohemia and Austria (and the likely increasing Czech nationalism in the former).
 
1 I suspect that Hungary would've been pissed at the loss of Croatia, 2 and Serbian nationalists very upset about Bosnia's inclusion in the Croat kingdom. 3 Likewise, some Austrians would probably have been quite upset by the separation of Bohemia and Austria (and the likely increasing Czech nationalism in the former).

I see your point about Hungary and Austria, but Croatia becomes more complicated. Since this is a administrative division, it might be possible that (dominant (Austrians and Hungarians)) minorities get certain (special) rights and guarantees in certain areas (most likely in Bohemia and Croatia).
Probably any Croatian kingdom within the empire, would have wanted Bosnia-Hercegovina to become a part of their 'kingdom', however it depends on the POD whether Bosnia-Hercegovina is a province of the Austrian Empire.

And I'm wondering if such a quintuple monarchy would have had better (relative?) prospects than the OTL Dual monarchy.

Note: If I wasn't clear enough, this is a division (POD) before or instead of the Ausgleich.
 
Last edited:
I not understand why an federal solution could not work!
Is simple,reasonable and beneficial for all.
A federation of nations and peoples under the Habsburg Monarchy,with one free market and one common defence system.
In XX century for sure would become a great democracy.
What is wrong?
For the Switzerland work.
 
I not understand why an federal solution could not work!
Is simple,reasonable and beneficial for all.
A federation of nations and peoples under the Habsburg Monarchy,with one free market and one common defence system.
In XX century for sure would become a great democracy.
What is wrong?
For the Switzerland work.

Yeah, anything over a Triple Monarchy and you might as well federalize the whole damned thing.
 
Yeah, anything over a Triple Monarchy and you might as well federalize the whole damned thing.

What do you mean with that, turning each Crown Land into a state? Even a quintuple monarchy could become more federal, with each part as a member of the federation. This would depend on how this new situation (government etc.) would be ''designed''. Although this would turn this quintuple monarchy into something more different from the OTL dual monarchy.
 
What do you mean with that, turning each Crown Land into a state? Even a quintuple monarchy could become more federal, with each part as a member of the federation. This would depend on how this new situation (government etc.) would be ''designed''. Although this would turn this quintuple monarchy into something more different from the OTL dual monarchy.

I think the point is that if you already have fife parts, then you could easily have more. I mean with your proposal, only those minorities with foreign "home countries", hence Serbs, Italians and Romanians, do not get their own part and Slovenes and Slovaks do not get their own either.
 
I think the point is that if you already have fife parts, then you could easily have more. I mean with your proposal, only those minorities with foreign "home countries", hence Serbs, Italians and Romanians, do not get their own part and Slovenes and Slovaks do not get their own either.
Yes, thank you, I hadn't had my caffeine.
 
I think the point is that if you already have fife parts, then you could easily have more. I mean with your proposal, only those minorities with foreign "home countries", hence Serbs, Italians and Romanians, do not get their own part and Slovenes and Slovaks do not get their own either.

I do not agree, there were OTL ideas (at least one) and 'historic' precedents for these 5 administrative 'kingdoms' (actually the least historic is the kingdom of Galicia-Lodomeria). Giving other minorities a own part, will be harder, for instance Croatia historically was a kingdom, but the area of the Slovaks was considered an integral part of Hungary (proper) by Hungarians. Slovaks and Slovenes could (in time) get minority rights within certain (parts of) provinces of a 'kingdom'.
 
Last edited:
If we assume rather more power stays with all-monarchy organs than was the case in 1867 (which is hardly hard, and in fact a state with five units as absurdly autonomous as Hungary was would be rather shambolic), that the subunits (Moravia, Transylvania, etcetera) are also fairly important, and that most of the the larger nationalities enjoy cultural autonomy, then this is hardly disimilar to the model of gradual liberalisation and devolution favoured before the 1866 disaster. Austria avoids/wins 1866, eventually gains new constitution, and this hardly seems implausible.
 
Well imperial prime minister Belcredi wanted a more federal solution and was against the process, that made the imperial (joint) government less (more decentralization) important (and he was against the OTL dual solution). He wanted to divide the empire of Austria in five historic parts, each with a own landtag (parliament) and a federal Reichsrat (senate or parliament) for the government tasks at the (general) imperial level.
 
Last edited:
A Confederation avoid huge nationalists movements.
See for exemple at Switzerland in the Italian Canton Ticino.
The same would have been for Trieste,Trentino and (why not?) Venice (if Confederation is established before 1866,and the war with Prussia is avoid).
Paradoxically the former Austrian Empire,now "Habsburgic Confederation of Peoples",could be the more modern and advanced type of State in Europe.
 
A Confederation avoid huge nationalists movements.
See for exemple at Switzerland in the Italian Canton Ticino.
The same would have been for Trieste,Trentino and (why not?) Venice (if Confederation is established before 1866,and the war with Prussia is avoid).
Paradoxically the former Austrian Empire,now "Habsburgic Confederation of Peoples",could be the more modern and advanced type of State in Europe.


I second you, and in fact that gonna be a good base for any *EU in the future(the problem of indenity is more serious than the people think)... but well, that is doesn't the Irredentia Italians Thin(EF to anyone)
 
A Confederation avoid huge nationalists movements.

Not necessarily. I think it's completely ASB to assume an Austrian Confederation in which the nationalities hold as much autonomy and personal freedom as, for example, the people of any Western European state. Nevertheless, there's still independence movements. A confederation is one point, the second point is economics. All independence movements in Europe today have a clear economic background. Now obviously, a common market should benefit all in the Austrian confederation to be, yet would they acknowledge it? After all, the EU economically benefits most Europeans, but many do not acknowledge it either...
 
A Confederation avoid huge nationalists movements.
See for exemple at Switzerland in the Italian Canton Ticino.
The same would have been for Trieste,Trentino and (why not?) Venice (if Confederation is established before 1866,and the war with Prussia is avoid).
Paradoxically the former Austrian Empire,now "Habsburgic Confederation of Peoples",could be the more modern and advanced type of State in Europe.

I'm not convinced that the Austrian Empire would be turned into a Confederation, it could evolve into a confederation, but IMHO a federation seems a more likely option. That is what most of the 'federalists' wanted. Obviously the number of member states of such a federation is open for debate. If they opt for larger member states, than 5 states are plausible, but OTOH they could just as well turn each crown land into a 'state'.
The option of ethnic borders is IMHO not (so) realistic, 'historic' borders (including each crown land) seems more plausible.
 
Top