Reverse France and Austria-Hungary?

While France eventually became the very epitome of a nationstate, it was originally a pretty diverse collection of ethnic groups, cultures, and languages. It seems to me that in the 1500s France was in many ways comparable to the Hapsburg lands in central Europe; a collection of regions of competing interest that all shared a commonruler whose power periodically waxed and waned.

Why did France become a unitary state and Austria-Hungary eventuallybalkanize? I assume that the end result is driven in part by geography. However, is there any way to reverse that outcome so that France splinters into separate countries while the Hapsburg domains stay united and develop a common culture? Could there be something like a France and an Occitan with a history analogous to present day Spain and Portugal?
 
While France eventually became the very epitome of a nationstate, it was originally a pretty diverse collection of ethnic groups, cultures, and languages. It seems to me that in the 1500s France was in many ways comparable to the Hapsburg lands in central Europe; a collection of regions of competing interest that all shared a commonruler whose power periodically waxed and waned.

Actually it was different, a lot.

1)France was ONE kingdom, when Habsurg was a mosaic of different demesnes.

2)The gallo-roman background united almost all the cultures existing in France (French, Occitan) and the others were kind of close (Heavily french-influenced Britton, romanized Basque) when Habsburg deal with Slavic, Germanic, Romance, Hungarian, Italian, Dalmats peoples.

3)HYW helped a lot to build a "national" identity. People were kind of loyal to "their" king.

4)Geographically, as you said, it played at least in the North.
 
The various counties, duchies, and what not in France shared the benefit of all being Romance-cultured, i.e. belonging to the same general cultural and linguistics group.
The Habsburg lands on the other hand did not have that kind of unity. They had Germans, Slavs, Finno-Ugrians, Romanians, Italians...the lot.
Another problem is of course geography, but I would say it is more in relation to the states around them than the terrain itself. The Austrian Empire (not counting Galicia) had very defensible and natural borders. There were mountains at most borders actually (I'm counting only contiguous territory here).

As for reversing this...well, I have no idea how to possibly bring together something from the patchwork of states, ethnicities, cultures, etc. that was the Austrian Habsburg holdings. France had the advantage of mostly having just Romance language cultures inside its borders.
 
The Habsburgs could have done it, they just needed to maintain Latin as the language of the state, thus not alienating the non-germans.
 
The Habsburgs could have done it, they just needed to maintain Latin as the language of the state, thus not alienating the non-germans.

It would have been impraticable as hell. Furthermore, if we have a rise of nationalist as OTL, not only it would piss the Germans in their demeses, but the non-germans would want as well the devellopement of their national language.
 
Weren't the Austrian Habsburgs considerably less Balkanized before WWI ended with a peace treaty based almost solely around U.S. and British interests? I know that there was never any sort of cultural hegemony, but politically they could have stayed united I think.
 
You'd have to go wayyy back with a POD. Try and prevent some of the migrations into the Balkans in order to make it a more homogenous area, like France OTL. As it is there is now way a centralised kingdom could have developed in the lands we knew as Austria-Hungary.
 
It would have been impraticable as hell. Furthermore, if we have a rise of nationalist as OTL, not only it would piss the Germans in their demeses, but the non-germans would want as well the devellopement of their national language.

At that time all of the nobility spoke and wrote in latin, it was part of their education. The parlimentary sesions were held in latin, so don't thing it would be that much of a stretch to have Maria or Joseph II who did the reform of the educational system to introduce teaching of lating alongside native languages in schools from the first grade. Basically it would be the same thing you have today except today english fulfills that role (at least in ex-Yu countires).
 
At that time all of the nobility spoke and wrote in latin, it was part of their education.
Precisely, the rise of the bourgeoisie in the XV/XVI was also the rise of the national languages.

Or, when you have no longer feudal, but modern states, bourgeoise matter and as you have an alliance between it and high nobility, as well the necessity to use "national" argument against neighbours once the feudal principe is no more.

It's why latin cesead to be used OTL, and not becaus" hey, let's give up latin for no reason".

For trade, for anything not scientific (and even there, Galileo showed that it was more efficient to publish the results in languages actually spoken), for commanding armies recruiting more and more among the non-nobles, and for praising its own state against the others, the use of latin would have been a dead-end.

And for "all the nobility spoke latin", it ceased to be a reality since the XV century in most of western european demesnes, when "natural languages" were preferred for said reasons.
If, of course, we're talking of high nobility, and not about the petty nobility that was 2/3 of the social class, and that had lives closer of peasants than court's live.
 
I understand why latin was phased out but Hapsburg lands slightly lagged behind the western europe. With an education programe in the second half of the 18th century (before the rise of the nationalisms). I am quite sure the learned non-nobles would be quite happy with an education system that supports their native language as well as introducing the use of latin to the lower strata of the society and in a way equalizing them with the nobility.
 
While France eventually became the very epitome of a nationstate, it was originally a pretty diverse collection of ethnic groups, cultures, and languages. It seems to me that in the 1500s France was in many ways comparable to the Hapsburg lands in central Europe; a collection of regions of competing interest that all shared a commonruler whose power periodically waxed and waned.

Why did France become a unitary state and Austria-Hungary eventuallybalkanize? I assume that the end result is driven in part by geography. However, is there any way to reverse that outcome so that France splinters into separate countries while the Hapsburg domains stay united and develop a common culture? Could there be something like a France and an Occitan with a history analogous to present day Spain and Portugal?

Have England do better in the hundred years war, for one. If England continues meddling in France, there's a possibility in my mind that the national identity could be weakened (eg: Our "French" king isn't doing all that well, perhaps we'd be better off on our own against the english) Don't know if that could happen, the latter I mean.

Another way would be to simply keep French regionalism strong. I don't know if this would do anything or not, but perhaps a bit more of a stronger more independent and longer lasting Burgundy might have an effect.
 
You need two different POD...

for a more stable Austian-Hungary, or better Austrian Empire, you need to prevent the Prussian rise (or maybe make lose the Prussian the last decisive battles for the Germany leadership with the Austria) and thus make the Austria the leading power in the Germany and the author of the Germany Unification and Hungary then can remain only a state of the Empire (one of the three, with Austria and Bohemia, under the direct rule of the Emperor). Without giving to the Hungary the same importance of the Austria (because for me this was the real beginning of the end for the Austrian Empire) the Empire will be much more stable and with a strong German barycenter the Austrian Empire will naturally much less interested in Italy and the Balkans.

For a fractured France you have five valid POD and all are between the 1100 and the 1600.
1) naturally make exit the England of the HYW much better than in the OTL (maybe with at least the entire Normandy)
2) a marriage between Franz of Habsburg, Duke of Burgundy (third child of Maximilian I and Mary of Burgundy, in the OTL died shortly after his birth, if he survive ha can easily become the heir of his mother territories) and Anne, Duchess of Brittany... .
3) combining 1 and 2. Thus you have the Normandy in English hands and the Brittany, the intere Benelux and the Burgundy (+ other French territories) ruled by a branch of he Habsburg family... I don't think any French ruler can impose his will and rule on the entire French territory or only in the territories who are supposed to be under his rule.
4) manage differently the English succession of Richard I: if he did not change his will almost at the last minute his main heir will be his nephew, Artur of Brittany (son of his brother Geoffrey) and not his brother John I. Thus Arthur will become King of England, Duke of Normandy, Count of Anjou and Maine and also Duke of Brittany (the latter inherited from his mother) and John will become Duke of Aquitaine and Count of Poitiers some years later at his mother death (inherited her lands). With Arthur as King of England and John only Duke of Aquitaine, Philip II will have no excuses to attack England, and also Brittany joined the domains of the English King: thus we have a very powerful and independent Duke of Aquitaine and an English Kingdom who include the Normandy and the Brittany and a French King who can't impose his will on his powerful Lords (not only the two Plantagentes but also the others) and probably with this the HYW will never happen...
5) the last possibility would be to kill Henry IV after he became King of France, but before he married Maria de 'Medici... this most likely will ended in short time (and probabily permanently) the French Monarchy

My favorite are 3 and 4.... both likely take away any true power from the hands of the King of France without destroy the French Monarchy...
 
Last edited:
Top