Rhine Danube Link

I have read that there were proposals in the 19th century for a canal between the Rhine and the Danube. What would have been the consequences if (however unlikely it seams) it had been built.

Would the Austro-Hungarien empire have grabed Bavaria?
How would it have effected the Crimean war, or would that war have happend at all?
What would have the Ottomans reactions to it been?
How would central and eastern Europe have developed?
Would the Ukraine have tried to break from Russia?
Would Germany have united or remained divided?
Would WW1 have happend earlier, latter, the same or not at all.
 
The fact is is that by the time the technology to build such a canal was developed there were railways which made them all-but redundant. If it were built earier then maybe- but not in a time period where it could influence the AHE, the Crimean war or the German unification.
 
To build a canal linking to rivers at such a relative high altitude is choked full of technical challenges, that I doubt could have easily been met before 1900. Besides, like it says above, railroads rended this sort of canal rather moot.
 

Susano

Banned
Would the Austro-Hungarien empire have grabed Bavaria?
How would it have effected the Crimean war, or would that war have happend at all?
What would have the Ottomans reactions to it been?
How would central and eastern Europe have developed?
Would the Ukraine have tried to break from Russia?
Would Germany have united or remained divided?
Would WW1 have happend earlier, latter, the same or not at all.

Why would any of that happen just because of a single river canal?
 
Why would any of that happen just because of a single river canal?
It would provide a direct link to the international sea trade for goods from central and eastern europe. European canals also tend to be much larger than British ones. Many of the canal barges used in Europe are the size of small coastal frieghters.

Also would ease the logistics of any western armies fighting in the east.

Technically it would be a huge and expensive project that I imagine could only be funded by national goverments. It would also in my opinion only appeal to the sort of ruler with an ego the size of the Alps.

I am more interested in the long term implications of the canal than the technical difficulties but for the sake of the argument try this for a starting point.

At the Congress of Viena the Austrians are granted reparations from the French, but it has the condition that they are used to improve transport links in central Europe. The reparations are also to be spread over a period of 25 years. After the hundred days campaign the Prusians and Dutch urge that the monies be spent linking the Rhine and Danube so that in the envent of the French attacking again the movement of troops and supplies will be easier. They also pledge to aid the project by suppling convict labour, and meeting 30% of any costs above the level of the reparations. This is because of the wellcome Napoleon recieved when he landed in France. Also he was not stopped until he reached Antwerp, and reports from the survivours of the sack of Brusells. (Think Magdeberg in the 30 years war).
 

Susano

Banned
European canals also tend to be much larger than British ones.
Britain is patr of Europe. Simple geographic fact. Now, apart from that I wouldnt know what they are like in Britain, as I am from Germany ;) But as was said, by the time its feasible all that couldb edoen far more efficiently by rail. Plus the Main-Danube canal was in fact built. Hence an additional canal would really change nearly nothing at all.
 
Would the Austro-Hungarien empire have grabed Bavaria?

I see no reason. Just "grabbing" was considered awfully bad form at the time, when everyone was mustard keen on the Balance and the Treaties, although thye were never quite defined.

How would it have effected the Crimean war, or would that war have happend at all?

The Austrians might be less nosy... but perhaps not. The Danube is still a vital artery for commerce, and it's not like it cost them anything to make nasty sounds at Russia, in the short term.

What would have the Ottomans reactions to it been?

Hasten! To the Pasha!

How would central and eastern Europe have developed?

More input is required.

Would the Ukraine have tried to break from Russia?

Uh, no.

Would Germany have united or remained divided?

Probably united at some point.

Would WW1 have happend earlier, latter, the same or not at all.

Any is possible.
 
ACtually, it´s an idea going back to Charlemagne:

I´ve found a map on Wikipedia
 
Last edited:
An earlier, better canal could propel A-H interest in economic cooperation, maybe an earlier "Zollverein" on a south-eastern Axis?
 

Susano

Banned
An earlier, better canal could propel A-H interest in economic cooperation, maybe an earlier "Zollverein" on a south-eastern Axis?

It doesnt solve the problem that the Austrian economy as a whole was less competitive than the economy of the German states. Thats why Austria kept itself out of the Zollverein or any other custom agreements, to protect its economy with protectionist measures.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
An earlier, better canal could propel A-H interest in economic cooperation, maybe an earlier "Zollverein" on a south-eastern Axis?

Interesting could it lead to the German Bund being a custom union too? Because if that happens I could see a quite different, larger and more peaceful German unification.
 
It doesnt solve the problem that the Austrian economy as a whole was less competitive than the economy of the German states. Thats why Austria kept itself out of the Zollverein or any other custom agreements, to protect its economy with protectionist measures.

of course. My idea Austria tries an aggressive economical policy towards the southern german states.

btw and partly unrelated, I think there´s a part in "Wealth of Nations" where Smith speculates about the benefits of one country controlling the Danube from mouth to spring.
 
Top