Actually I would also go at it from the Russian angle - Im fairly certain that without russian (or some other) intervention a total victory of the austrian forces was IMO very unlikely. Meaning either Hungary wins and becomes independent or some compromise is made.Well, putting aside the “bear” part (which is, AFAIK, the British stereotype 😉), there was actually a realistic alternative which would require a relatively simple thing, namely Nicholas I being more pragmatic than ideological (and firing Nesselrode or just not listening to him). Of course, the “rebellion” was a bad thing but there were legitimate reasons behind it, which could satisfy his consciousness and, anyway, FJI was not a crowned king of Hungary, blahblahblah.
Objectively, it was much more beneficial for the RE to have an independent Hungary than OTL Austrian Empire, which was the main competitor on the Balkans. It is rather hard to imagine Hungary trying to implement the same expansionist policy on the Balkans as the Hapsburgs so where is the reason for confrontation? If anything, both are gaining from the good relations. If in 1849 Russia provides military support to Hungary vs. Austria then Hungary ends up as a de facto Russian depended state thus seriously improving Russian chances to dominate the Balkans. And a much weaker Austria would be good for the RE as well. In OTL NI stuck with the idiotic policy of his brother but this was a “subjective” rather than “objective” factor.
Basically, if Hungary formally remains a kingdom, Nicholas can spare Grand Duke Constantine (his second son) as a candidate to the Hungarian throne.
Could getting rid of Nicholas I achieve this? Him having an acident or some such.
Finally I will also state that though it was most certainly not baseless, the minority problems are way overblown in this thread, especially concerning 1848-49.
Last edited: