Russia intervenes on behalf of Hungary in 1848... and betrays the revolutionaries

[El_Presidente]

So, the idea is that the Tsar decides to intervene against Austria in 1848, snatching Galicia and sending troops into Hungary. Then, after the war is won, the Russians basically coup Hungary, installing a conservative government and a trusted noble as King (or a russian prince, but I think that may be pushing it too far).
So, how plausible is that? How ugly could the situation go if said coup doesn't success?

 

[Drunkrobot]

It's a good way for Nicholas I to unite all of Europe against Russia (good luck to Russia being able to make a treaty with another state within the next 50 years) and shatter the Holy Alliance, of which he is the main cheerleader for.

As desperate as the Hungarians might be, I doubt they're going to be very trusting of receiving 'help' from the Gendarme of Europe.

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

So, the idea is that the Tsar decides to intervene against Austria in 1848, snatching Galicia and sending troops into Hungary. Then, after the war is won, the Russians basically coup Hungary, installing a conservative government and a trusted noble as King (or a russian prince, but I think that may be pushing it too far).
So, how plausible is that? How ugly could the situation go if said coup doesn't success?

Not plausible. Just not. Nicholas I was maybe the only person cheering for the Holy Alliance and if he betrays it, the entire states of Europe will turn against Russia (not directly with war but...)

I doubt Nicholas I is that stupid or drunk.

 

[Mackus]

You can't exactly install conservatives as part of revolution, because any conservatives that would form backbone of such state would not support revolution in the first place.
You gonna run into same problem Germans ran into when they installed Hetmanate in Ukraine. They got rid of Ukrainian socialists to replace them with Russian conservatives who considered Ukraine placeholder state which should rejoin Russia at first opportunity.

Any hypothetical conservatives installed in Hungary would be too friendly to Austria.

Closest thing you can expect is that Hungarian revolutionaries mitigate their goals into something more palatable to the Nicolas I to discourage him from intervening in support Austria. That means revolutionaries officially recognize Franz Joseph as king rather than flirt with republicanism.

 

[Gwachiko]

You are implying Nicolas I could have been this reasonable.

 

[FillyofDelphi]

So, the idea is that the Tsar decides to intervene against Austria in 1848, snatching Galicia and sending troops into Hungary. Then, after the war is won, the Russians basically coup Hungary, installing a conservative government and a trusted noble as King (or a russian prince, but I think that may be pushing it too far).
So, how plausible is that? How ugly could the situation go if said coup doesn't success?

Coup? I wouldn't call that a coup. Russia CAN put a reactionary regime in power in Budapest, at least in the short term (medium term they have to find a way to get the other great powers to concede or agree, long term such a regime is going to be teetering in constant instability), but it'd be at the point of picketing the throne with a garrison of Russian bayonets from his own forces in Hungarian territory and telling Vienna that it's essentially a Russian client regime now. It's going to be ugly, since Austria isent going to take that lying down (They can't while still being taken seriously in the future), meaning you get a three way war between Russia, Austria, and the Revolutionaries, but you might, MIGHT be able to pull off splitting Hungary off from Austria under an unaligned/internationally supervised but Russian friendly conservative regime if the Habsburg domestic situation goes entirely belly up and GB, France, Prussia ect. all come to believe something like the Berlin Conference is the only way to prevents total breakdown on the Danube

 

[alexmilman]

You are implying Nicolas I could have been this reasonable.

The problem with Nicholas was not a presence or absence or a "reason" (which is a highly subjective thing) but a plain fact that the cornerstone of his foreign policy was principle of "legitimacy" and support of the Hungarian rebellion would go against that principle as Nicholas chose to understand it at the moment.

However, I don't think that scenario is 100% hopeless. All these principles had been nice and fine but they did not prevent Nicholas from supporting the Greek rebellion against the Ottomans or infringing upon the Ottoman sovereignty in the issue of the local Christians. If he was really 100% dedicated to the letter of principle he preached he would also reject legitimacy of Charles XIV of Sweden instead of being quite friendly with him, probably would have problems with letting his daughter to marry Maximilian Joseph Eugene Auguste Napoleon de Beauharnais, 3rd Duke of Leuchtenberg (yes, no directly compromising blood but, still, linkage to a VERY BAD PERSON was undeniable).

If the Greek rebellion was justifiable, why not the Hungarian one? After all, unlike Greece, Hungary was a clearly defined state that was linked to other Hapsburg possessions just by a personal union. The fact that the Hapsburgs had been using troops of the vassals of Kingdom of Hungary (Bannat, Serbs) against Hungary could be considered as violation of the legitimacy principle (toward Hungary) thus giving more justification to Nicholas actions. Of course, Nesselrode must be sent into a retirement but this is not a noticeable problem.

Well, of course, Nicholas would be pointed (by whom?) to his own Polish Rebellion but who is without a sin and, anyway, these Poles were just a bunch of the ingrates while the noble Magyars are fighting against the evil Hapsburg oppressors; a completely different situation as anyone can see.

Anyway, Franz Joseph was not recognized as "King of Hungary" by the Hungarian parliament, and he was not crowned as "King of Hungary" (until much later in OTL) so this is not even a rebellion against a legitimate monarch and no principles are violated. As far as the Hungarian liberalism is involved, in OTL Hungary was not declared a republic until 1849 and formally still was a constitutional monarchy with a reasonably moderate government led by Count Batthyány (in OTL, AFAIK, his government was not doing anything excessively "revolutionary"). Earlier Russian intervention on the Hungarian side means that more extreme figures, like Lajos Kossuth (Finance Minister in Batthyány government) are marginalized, at least for a while. After the Hapsburgs are defeated, Hungary remains a constitutional monarchy and some suitable king can be found either among Nicholas' sons or among the countless German princes (like Otto Wittelsbach, Otto I of Greece).

Not sure about the absence of a foreign support either.

Germany: The lofty principles were all nice and good but they did not remove the rivalry between Austria and Prussia (and the notion of the German unification already was in the air even if Frederick William IV considered it being too revolutionary and feared that the formation of a German Empire would mean the end of Prussia's independence within the German states). Serious weakening of the Hapsburgs would strengthen Prussian position in Germany so probably not too many objections from that corner.

France: In 1848 had its own révolution de Février which ended the rule of Orleans dynasty and established 2nd Republic. If anything, Nicholas would be applauded and this attitude would not change after the coup of 1851 because soon enough Nappy #3 was fighting against the Hapsburgs.

Kingdom of Sardinia: In 1848 at war with Austria (which it was losing in OTL) so any enemy of the Hapsburgs is their friend.

Spain: In the midst of the Carlist Wars and it is not like it mattered at that time, anyway.

The Ottoman Empire: In a process of modernization and, keeping in mind general history of its foreign relations, why would they be against independent Hungary? Surely, not because of the excessive obsession with the issue of "legitimacy".

The Brits: May or may not be upset as a matter of a general attitude toward what can be considered as Russian expansionism but can do little without a powerful ally on the continent and the only candidate to such an alliance is just in a process of being beaten by the Russians and Hungarians.

Sweden & Norway: Oscar I is quite liberal (within the reasonable limits) in his principles and owns nothing to the Hapsburgs.

What's left? The Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, Naples, Switzerland, etc. all the way to Princedom of Monaco. Who cares?

 

[Gwachiko]

The problem with Nicholas was not a presence or absence or a "reason" (which is a highly subjective thing) but a plain fact that the cornerstone of his foreign policy was principle of "legitimacy" and support of the Hungarian rebellion would go against that principle as Nicholas chose to understand it at the moment.

However, I don't think that scenario is 100% hopeless. All these principles had been nice and fine but they did not prevent Nicholas from supporting the Greek rebellion against the Ottomans or infringing upon the Ottoman sovereignty in the issue of the local Christians. If he was really 100% dedicated to the letter of principle he preached he would also reject legitimacy of Charles XIV of Sweden instead of being quite friendly with him, probably would have problems with letting his daughter to marry Maximilian Joseph Eugene Auguste Napoleon de Beauharnais, 3rd Duke of Leuchtenberg (yes, no directly compromising blood but, still, linkage to a VERY BAD PERSON was undeniable).

If the Greek rebellion was justifiable, why not the Hungarian one? After all, unlike Greece, Hungary was a clearly defined state that was linked to other Hapsburg possessions just by a personal union. The fact that the Hapsburgs had been using troops of the vassals of Kingdom of Hungary (Bannat, Serbs) against Hungary could be considered as violation of the legitimacy principle (toward Hungary) thus giving more justification to Nicholas actions. Of course, Nesselrode must be sent into a retirement but this is not a noticeable problem.

Well, of course, Nicholas would be pointed (by whom?) to his own Polish Rebellion but who is without a sin and, anyway, these Poles were just a bunch of the ingrates while the noble Magyars are fighting against the evil Hapsburg oppressors; a completely different situation as anyone can see.

Anyway, Franz Joseph was not recognized as "King of Hungary" by the Hungarian parliament, and he was not crowned as "King of Hungary" (until much later in OTL) so this is not even a rebellion against a legitimate monarch and no principles are violated. As far as the Hungarian liberalism is involved, in OTL Hungary was not declared a republic until 1849 and formally still was a constitutional monarchy with a reasonably moderate government led by Count Batthyány (in OTL, AFAIK, his government was not doing anything excessively "revolutionary"). Earlier Russian intervention on the Hungarian side means that more extreme figures, like Lajos Kossuth (Finance Minister in Batthyány government) are marginalized, at least for a while. After the Hapsburgs are defeated, Hungary remains a constitutional monarchy and some suitable king can be found either among Nicholas' sons or among the countless German princes (like Otto Wittelsbach, Otto I of Greece).

Not sure about the absence of a foreign support either.

Germany: The lofty principles were all nice and good but they did not remove the rivalry between Austria and Prussia (and the notion of the German unification already was in the air even if Frederick William IV considered it being too revolutionary and feared that the formation of a German Empire would mean the end of Prussia's independence within the German states). Serious weakening of the Hapsburgs would strengthen Prussian position in Germany so probably not too many objections from that corner.

France: In 1848 had its own révolution de Février which ended the rule of Orleans dynasty and established 2nd Republic. If anything, Nicholas would be applauded and this attitude would not change after the coup of 1851 because soon enough Nappy #3 was fighting against the Hapsburgs.

Kingdom of Sardinia: In 1848 at war with Austria (which it was losing in OTL) so any enemy of the Hapsburgs is their friend.

Spain: In the midst of the Carlist Wars and it is not like it mattered at that time, anyway.

The Ottoman Empire: In a process of modernization and, keeping in mind general history of its foreign relations, why would they be against independent Hungary? Surely, not because of the excessive obsession with the issue of "legitimacy".

The Brits: May or may not be upset as a matter of a general attitude toward what can be considered as Russian expansionism but can do little without a powerful ally on the continent and the only candidate to such an alliance is just in a process of being beaten by the Russians and Hungarians.

Sweden & Norway: Oscar I is quite liberal (within the reasonable limits) in his principles and owns nothing to the Hapsburgs.

What's left? The Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, Naples, Switzerland, etc. all the way to Princedom of Monaco. Who cares?

Yes. This would have been a reasonable action, but Nicolas I, as I said earlier, was not too reasonable.

 

[alexmilman]

Yes. This would have been a reasonable action, but Nicolas I, as I said earlier, was not too reasonable.

As I keep saying, he was "reasonable" (as in "having a sound judgement") within his own framework of thinking. The problem was that the framework was faulty.

 

[Urcea]

If the Greek rebellion was justifiable, why not the Hungarian one?

The Habsburgs are Christian, for one

 

[Koprulu Mustafa Pasha]

The problem with Nicholas was not a presence or absence or a "reason" (which is a highly subjective thing) but a plain fact that the cornerstone of his foreign policy was principle of "legitimacy" and support of the Hungarian rebellion would go against that principle as Nicholas chose to understand it at the moment.

However, I don't think that scenario is 100% hopeless. All these principles had been nice and fine but they did not prevent Nicholas from supporting the Greek rebellion against the Ottomans or infringing upon the Ottoman sovereignty in the issue of the local Christians. If he was really 100% dedicated to the letter of principle he preached he would also reject legitimacy of Charles XIV of Sweden instead of being quite friendly with him, probably would have problems with letting his daughter to marry Maximilian Joseph Eugene Auguste Napoleon de Beauharnais, 3rd Duke of Leuchtenberg (yes, no directly compromising blood but, still, linkage to a VERY BAD PERSON was undeniable).

If the Greek rebellion was justifiable, why not the Hungarian one? After all, unlike Greece, Hungary was a clearly defined state that was linked to other Hapsburg possessions just by a personal union. The fact that the Hapsburgs had been using troops of the vassals of Kingdom of Hungary (Bannat, Serbs) against Hungary could be considered as violation of the legitimacy principle (toward Hungary) thus giving more justification to Nicholas actions. Of course, Nesselrode must be sent into a retirement but this is not a noticeable problem.

Well, of course, Nicholas would be pointed (by whom?) to his own Polish Rebellion but who is without a sin and, anyway, these Poles were just a bunch of the ingrates while the noble Magyars are fighting against the evil Hapsburg oppressors; a completely different situation as anyone can see.

Anyway, Franz Joseph was not recognized as "King of Hungary" by the Hungarian parliament, and he was not crowned as "King of Hungary" (until much later in OTL) so this is not even a rebellion against a legitimate monarch and no principles are violated. As far as the Hungarian liberalism is involved, in OTL Hungary was not declared a republic until 1849 and formally still was a constitutional monarchy with a reasonably moderate government led by Count Batthyány (in OTL, AFAIK, his government was not doing anything excessively "revolutionary"). Earlier Russian intervention on the Hungarian side means that more extreme figures, like Lajos Kossuth (Finance Minister in Batthyány government) are marginalized, at least for a while. After the Hapsburgs are defeated, Hungary remains a constitutional monarchy and some suitable king can be found either among Nicholas' sons or among the countless German princes (like Otto Wittelsbach, Otto I of Greece).

Not sure about the absence of a foreign support either.

Germany: The lofty principles were all nice and good but they did not remove the rivalry between Austria and Prussia (and the notion of the German unification already was in the air even if Frederick William IV considered it being too revolutionary and feared that the formation of a German Empire would mean the end of Prussia's independence within the German states). Serious weakening of the Hapsburgs would strengthen Prussian position in Germany so probably not too many objections from that corner.

France: In 1848 had its own révolution de Février which ended the rule of Orleans dynasty and established 2nd Republic. If anything, Nicholas would be applauded and this attitude would not change after the coup of 1851 because soon enough Nappy #3 was fighting against the Hapsburgs.

Kingdom of Sardinia: In 1848 at war with Austria (which it was losing in OTL) so any enemy of the Hapsburgs is their friend.

Spain: In the midst of the Carlist Wars and it is not like it mattered at that time, anyway.

The Ottoman Empire: In a process of modernization and, keeping in mind general history of its foreign relations, why would they be against independent Hungary? Surely, not because of the excessive obsession with the issue of "legitimacy".

The Brits: May or may not be upset as a matter of a general attitude toward what can be considered as Russian expansionism but can do little without a powerful ally on the continent and the only candidate to such an alliance is just in a process of being beaten by the Russians and Hungarians.

Sweden & Norway: Oscar I is quite liberal (within the reasonable limits) in his principles and owns nothing to the Hapsburgs.

What's left? The Netherlands, Portugal, Denmark, Naples, Switzerland, etc. all the way to Princedom of Monaco. Who cares?

But my friend, you forget two major details: Greece is Eastern Orthodox and Hungary is largely Catholic. Austria is Christian, the Ottoman Empire is Islamic.
Russia and the Ottomans weren't what one should consider as: friends. Basically destroying Austria is another thing. It would piss off a lot if not all Great powers. Now Nicholas I might be ambitious and he has a possibility to go for it but this will leave Russia isolated in Europe. And Russia can forget their desires in the Balkans as well.

As far as the Ottomans are concerned... Their relations with Austria since 1815 was okay. Both being multicultural and the destruction of one can even follow up with more tensions in their own land. Not really desirable. Austria also offered as counterweight against Russian influence in the Balkans and Minorities in the Balkans.

 

[alexmilman]

But my friend, you forget two major details: Greece is Eastern Orthodox and Hungary is largely Catholic. Austria is Christian, the Ottoman Empire is Islamic.

Well, it all depends upon the logic and principles alt-Nicholas is choosing at each specific moment.

In this case he is opting for supporting the people who are legitimately revolting against the illegal usurpation of their rights by someone who is not even their legitimate ruler (using armies of their vassals to attack them). Of course, this would need a substantially different Nicholas I.

Russia and the Ottomans weren't what one should consider as: friends. Basically destroying Austria is another thing.

Yes, it would remove all existing issues regarding influence on the Danube and Austria would not be able to stab Russia in a back as it did in not too remote future.

It would piss off a lot if not all Great powers.

And greeted by quite a few as well.

Now Nicholas I might be ambitious and he has a possibility to go for it but this will leave Russia isolated in Europe.

My friend, you are seemingly ignoring what I wrote in my previous post: it will be cheered in France and Piedmont and either openly or silently appreciated in Prussia.

And Russia can forget their desires in the Balkans as well.

Taking into an account that Austria was historically either impediment or an open obstacle to these "desires", I don't see any logic in this assumption.

As far as the Ottomans are concerned... Their relations with Austria since 1815 was okay. Both being multicultural and the destruction of one can even follow up with more tensions in their own land. Not really desirable. Austria also offered as counterweight against Russian influence in the Balkans and Minorities in the Balkans.

So the Ottomans would disapprove but I don't think that in 1848 this would escalate to any noticeable action.

 

[alexmilman]

The Habsburgs are Christian, for one

They are Catholics so who cares?

 

[FillyofDelphi]

But my friend, you forget two major details: Greece is Eastern Orthodox and Hungary is largely Catholic. Austria is Christian, the Ottoman Empire is Islamic.
Russia and the Ottomans weren't what one should consider as: friends. Basically destroying Austria is another thing. It would piss off a lot if not all Great powers. Now Nicholas I might be ambitious and he has a possibility to go for it but this will leave Russia isolated in Europe. And Russia can forget their desires in the Balkans as well.

As far as the Ottomans are concerned... Their relations with Austria since 1815 was okay. Both being multicultural and the destruction of one can even follow up with more tensions in their own land. Not really desirable. Austria also offered as counterweight against Russian influence in the Balkans and Minorities in the Balkans.

One also needs to remember that it wasn't until after the Crimean War that the Ottomans were formally considered part of the "Concert of Europe" who's legitimacy and place as a nessicery pillar in the post-Napoleonic order. Prior to that, diplomatically they were still considered something still a little outside "proper" circles. Austria, on the other hand, was one of the big four Coalition members who helped establish and maintain a balance of power, or at least organized chaos, in Europe. Messing with them too much, too fast risked that system collapsing and create international uncertainty which nobody wants

 

[alexmilman]

One also needs to remember that it wasn't until after the Crimean War that the Ottomans were formally considered part of the "Concert of Europe" who's legitimacy and place as a nessicery pillar in the post-Napoleonic order. Prior to that, diplomatically they were still considered something still a little outside "proper" circles. Austria, on the other hand, was one of the big four Coalition members who helped establish and maintain a balance of power, or at least organized chaos, in Europe. Messing with them too much, too fast risked that system collapsing and create international uncertainty which nobody wants

1848 - 9 was a time of "uncertainty", especially with France becoming a republic. By 1848 the Holy Alliance still existed mostly in Nicholas imagination and even then mostly because of his complete inability to grasp changing reality. Admittedly, in 1848 a proposed action would be slightly too "proactive" (even putting N's personality aside) but, OTOH, at the same time Piedmont was trying to reconquer Italian lands from Austria and few years later France helped it. The Crimean War also was "destruction of a balance" in Europe with which none of the big powers had any problems.

 

[Jürgen]

It seems to me that a Russia doing this are asking for everyone jumping them in the Crimean War, I could see Austrian remnant, Prussia and Sweden-Norway joining just to push Russia back and set up some buffers to Russia, simply they can't afford staying neutral, when Russia behave in this manners.

 

[TRH]

1848 - 9 was a time of "uncertainty", especially with France becoming a republic. By 1848 the Holy Alliance still existed mostly in Nicholas imagination and even then mostly because of his complete inability to grasp changing reality. Admittedly, in 1848 a proposed action would be slightly too "proactive" (even putting N's personality aside) but, OTOH, at the same time Piedmont was trying to reconquer Italian lands from Austria and few years later France helped it. The Crimean War also was "destruction of a balance" in Europe with which none of the big powers had any problems.

None of those other incidents involved the disintegration of a great power, though. The stakes were lower.

 

[alexmilman]

None of those other incidents involved the disintegration of a great power, though. The stakes were lower.

Well, if AH is supposed to be exact repetition of OTL then you are quite right. But we are in AH so the question is about physical possibility. Are you saying that it would be completely impossible for the Russian empire to attack Austrian empire at the time when none of the remaining great powers can (and willing) to prevent such an attack?

 

[TRH]

Well, if AH is supposed to be exact repetition of OTL then you are quite right. But we are in AH so the question is about physical possibility. Are you saying that it would be completely impossible for the Russian empire to attack Austrian empire at the time when none of the remaining great powers can (and willing) to prevent such an attack?

Well, the way you've been framing the issue suggests that you expect international reactions to range from indifference to outright approval. I submit that even if those are the initial impressions, once the implications of this move set in, there would be more disapproval, and the Russians would be considered the aggressors in hindsight. This in turn will make Britain and France less tolerant of future assertive moves than they would have been IOTL, with all the potential for conflagration that entails.

 

[alexmilman]

It seems to me that a Russia doing this are asking for everyone jumping them in the Crimean War, I could see Austrian remnant, Prussia and Sweden-Norway joining just to push Russia back and set up some buffers to Russia, simply they can't afford staying neutral, when Russia behave in this manners.

Why would Prussia object to weakening Austria, its main rival for influence in Germany? Why would Sweden-Norway care about Austria and how Austria could be, geographically, a "buffer" between Sweden and Russia? Ditto for Prussia.

BTW, I'm not sure that at this specific time even the combination you listed would be able to do anything substantial against Russian-Hungarian(-Piedmontese) alliance. Prussian army is still reasonably weak, Austria is beaten and, with all my warm feelings to the Bernadotte dynasty () I have problems imagining Oscar I getting blessing from his subjects to such a war (or if he did, managing to do a substantial harm).