Why Austrians and not Hungarians..

I'm not seeing why being de-facto independent means you stay de-facto independent. Where are the Hungarians going to get arms or diplomatic recognition to defeat the Romanians, never mind the Hapsburg army?

Also, what was absolutist about Austria-Hungary?

Apparently, the fact that the king-emperor could make decisions about policy.

Instead of Constitutional Monarchy being a very thinly disguised oligarchy gradually morphing into a republic.
 
I'm not seeing why being de-facto independent means you stay de-facto independent. Where are the Hungarians going to get arms or diplomatic recognition to defeat the Romanians, never mind the Hapsburg army?

Also, what was absolutist about Austria-Hungary?

The Hungarians produced a lot of their own arms, their manufacturing capability in 1848 wasn't as far behind the Austrians, let alone Western Europe, as it was in 1918, or 1867. They also purchased weapons from abroad, mostly from the Belgians, but also from Dutch and British contacts. The latter, speaking of which, under Palmerston was inclined to recognize the newly independent states of Europe, the Magyars were recognized by the similarly revolutionary Italians, and the US opened diplomatic recognition and sent an ambassador to Budapest before the Hungarians were crushed by the Russians.

The Romanians already were defeated in field by 1849, there was no way they were going to get Transylvania, especially not when they had their own internal issues (the Romanian revolutions in 1848, the weak rule of both the Hospodars of Moldavia and of Wallachia, the Organic Statues, the Russian interventions, etc.) to work out that prevented them from fielding a capable army.

If the Russians hadn't intervened the Hungarians would have broken away, and likely would have taken a bite out of the Hapsburgs military frontiers as well.

Like I've already said the OTL Compromise was the worst of both worlds. The system you've been arguing for would be far more advantageous to both the Hapsburgs in Vienna and the Magyar elites in Budapest.
 
The Hungarians produced a lot of their own arms, their manufacturing capability in 1848 wasn't as far behind the Austrians, let alone Western Europe, as it was in 1918, or 1867.

Sure, anyone could equip an army with muskets. Artillery, though, required big state ironworks, engineering expertise, infrastructure... the Hungarians, my point is, couldn't summon up an army of European standard. We're talking about an insurrection that was staked on the Austrians being busy elsewhere, and by the end they weren't.

They also purchased weapons from abroad, mostly from the Belgians, but also from Dutch and British contacts. The latter, speaking of which, under Palmerston was inclined to recognize the newly independent states of Europe,

Where have you heard this? I have read that Pam was in favour of small Germany and Italian victory precisely in order to get the remains of Austria as a check to Russia on the Danube, undistracted by putting down nationalism elsewhere. Breaking up Austria, it seems, would defeat the purpose.

the Magyars were recognized by the similarly revolutionary Italians,

And Nagorno-Karabakh is recognised by Transnistria.

and the US opened diplomatic recognition and sent an ambassador to Budapest before the Hungarians were crushed by the Russians.

Circa 1849, there is very little America can do about what happens in Hungary.

The Romanians already were defeated in field by 1849,

But they weren't fighting in the field. Iancu was still making a nuisance of himself as a guerilla.

there was no way they were going to get Transylvania, especially not when they had their own internal issues (the Romanian revolutions in 1848, the weak rule of both the Hospodars of Moldavia and of Wallachia, the Organic Statues, the Russian interventions, etc.) to work out that prevented them from fielding a capable army.

By 'the Romanians' I mean only the Romanians living in Transylvania and their own insurgency, not the Principalities.

Like I've already said the OTL Compromise was the worst of both worlds. The system you've been arguing for would be far more advantageous to both the Hapsburgs in Vienna and the Magyar elites in Budapest.

But I'd rather the word 'absolutist' wasn't chucked about like it has no meaning. Bachian absolutism was absolutist, the Ausgleich regime was not.
 
Last edited:
If the Russians hadn't intervened the Hungarians would have broken away, and likely would have taken a bite out of the Hapsburgs military frontiers as well.

What does 'breaking away' actually entail? I'd have thought they'd done it already. But to suppose that the Austrians would let it stand is to suppose either a) that a provisional army vexed by guerillas could beat the established army of what is, let us be frank, a larger country and force them to terms or b) that somebody had the means to bully Austria into recognising Hungary.

If anybody did, it was Russia...
 
IBC, you seem to have separated out what I've said in your post, and in doing say accidentally quoted it as being state by Byzantine. I'm sure everyone involved would prefer it if you corrected that.
 
Sure, anyone could equip an army with muskets. Artillery, though, required big state ironworks, engineering expertise, infrastructure... the Hungarians, my point is, couldn't summon up an army of European standard. We're talking about an insurrection that was staked on the Austrians being busy elsewhere, and by the end they weren't.

But the Magyars had cannons. You make it sound like the Austrians were fighting some backwards tribal confederation in Darkest Africa :rolleyes:

Where have you heard this? I have read that Pam was in favour of small Germany and Italian victory precisely in order to get the remains of Austria as a check to Russia on the Danube, undistracted by putting down nationalism elsewhere. Breaking up Austria, it seems, would defeat the purpose.

Palmerston was in favor of whatever advances his own, and Britain's, interests; he could go either way about the European revolutions really, depending on how the situation on the ground resolved. He was initially in favor of the Sicilians gaining independence from Bourbon Naples, and only turned his back on that after the Neapolitans began to retake the island, and the whole of the Italian unification process began to fall apart with the Savoyards defeats in the north and the fracturing of the central republics. Similarly he was initially against Hungarian nationalism, but as it became more obvious an independent Hungary was likely he came around to support it, only to turn his back on it again after the Russian intervention.

And Nagorno-Karabakh is recognised by Transnistria.

Circa 1849, there is very little America can do about what happens in Hungary.

You asked who had or would grant diplomatic recognition to the Magyars and I could you. Don't get upset just because the answer isn't the one you were looking for.

But they weren't fighting in the field. Iancu was still making a nuisance of himself as a guerilla.

They were doing both, but even their limited guerrilla campaign was being ground down by Bem. Without Russian intervention and the Austrians held at bay it would only be a matter of time for Hungarian control over Transylvania to be de-jure recognized.

As well Iancu really did little. He wasn't waging a guerrilla campaign in so much as he was holed up in a cave in the mountains. The same can be said for most of the Romanian fighting in Transylvania.

But I'd rather the word 'absolutist' wasn't chucked about like it has no meaning. Bachian absolutism was absolutist, the Ausgleich regime was not.

Eh, we're arguing semantics at this point, we both agree that the system under the Compromise was inherently weak.

What does 'breaking away' actually entail? I'd have thought they'd done it already. But to suppose that the Austrians would let it stand is to suppose either a) that a provisional army vexed by guerillas could beat the established army of what is, let us be frank, a larger country and force them to terms or b) that somebody had the means to bully Austria into recognising Hungary.

If anybody did, it was Russia...

I think you have a woefully incomplete understanding of the facts on the ground during the 1848 Revolutions, particularly in Hungary. The Magyars had defeated the Austrians numerous times, it was after, and only after, the Russians intervened that Budapest was crushed. If you remove the Russian intervention than there's no way the Austrians can force the Magyars back into the Hapsburg fold.
 
I will agree that without Russian intervention Hungary may become an independant state but it will probably be even smaller than the what is today.
 
Sure, anyone could equip an army with muskets. Artillery, though, required big state ironworks, engineering expertise, infrastructure... the Hungarians, my point is, couldn't summon up an army of European standard. We're talking about an insurrection that was staked on the Austrians being busy elsewhere, and by the end they weren't.

regarding rifles and artillery, first of all, there were large quantities aviable at depots, taken over by the hungarian governement legally first (prior to the dethronement of the habsburgs, the hungarian governement was legitimate all around, with king ferdinand, etcetc) later by capturing the depots by force
(oh, and an interesting thing: the first battle of 48 was near Pákozd-Sukoró-Pátka, both the belligerents were "imperial" even they tried to gave orders to each other...)

but the one of the very first thing the governemnt ordered, was to create an independent source of military supplies and they began converting civilian fatories to military use, and by november, the army got their first home-produced battery

but the artillery was never an issue, the rifles were...

the regular "honvéd" was pretty much an army of european army, the insurgents were of course not



Where have you heard this? I have read that Pam was in favour of small Germany and Italian victory precisely in order to get the remains of Austria as a check to Russia on the Danube, undistracted by putting down nationalism elsewhere. Breaking up Austria, it seems, would defeat the purpose.


the british simply kept their options open


And Nagorno-Karabakh is recognised by Transnistria.



Circa 1849, there is very little America can do about what happens in Hungary.



But they weren't fighting in the field. Iancu was still making a nuisance of himself as a guerilla.



By 'the Romanians' I mean only the Romanians living in Transylvania and their own insurgency, not the Principalities.



But I'd rather the word 'absolutist' wasn't chucked about like it has no meaning. Bachian absolutism was absolutist, the Ausgleich regime was not.

iancu was not only a nuisance, pratically they ravaged the land.. until the regular units get control of the area
after that, they could not do anything
 
But the Magyars had cannons. You make it sound like the Austrians were fighting some backwards tribal confederation in Darkest Africa :rolleyes:

I know they had cannons - they could hardly have done without them. It seems I've phrased myself rather poorly, but the idea I'm trying to get across is that Hungary's resources in terms of manpower, armaments, and everything else were a lot smaller. The question that keeps failing to be answered is how Hungary beats a bigger country.

Palmerston was in favor of whatever advances his own, and Britain's, interests; he could go either way about the European revolutions really, depending on how the situation on the ground resolved.

Which is precisely the problem: Britain is not going to go and intervene in favour of the Hungarians with anything but words, and our intervention with words had been none too effective in Italy. So how can we change the situation on the ground?

He was initially in favor of the Sicilians gaining independence from Bourbon Naples, and only turned his back on that after the Neapolitans began to retake the island, and the whole of the Italian unification process began to fall apart with the Savoyards defeats in the north and the fracturing of the central republics. Similarly he was initially against Hungarian nationalism, but as it became more obvious an independent Hungary was likely he came around to support it, only to turn his back on it again after the Russian intervention.

I can heartily believe that Pam changed his mind over the issue, but the point is again that he's not going to send a gunboat and, should the Austrians get the upper hand, he's not going to do anything about it.

You asked who had or would grant diplomatic recognition to the Magyars and I could you. Don't get upset just because the answer isn't the one you were looking for.

I don't 'want' any answer except an honest one and I gave an honest response. What is America going to do? Is it any surprise that revolutionary movements recognised one-another and, Italy being defeated, does it maje any difference?

They were doing both, but even their limited guerrilla campaign was being ground down by Bem. Without Russian intervention and the Austrians held at bay it would only be a matter of time for Hungarian control over Transylvania to be de-jure recognized.

I don't see where I said that Hungary was going to lose Transylvania. I said that they weren't able to deal decisively with the Romanian insurgents, which is the whole point of Bem having to be in the province rather than somewhere else doing something more useful.

As well Iancu really did little. He wasn't waging a guerrilla campaign in so much as he was holed up in a cave in the mountains. The same can be said for most of the Romanian fighting in Transylvania.

By the end the insurgents were getting the worst of it, but if it had been some guys in caves, would it have been necessary to send an army?

Eh, we're arguing semantics at this point, we both agree that the system under the Compromise was inherently weak.

Words are important, and a state which was made weak by among other things constant parliamentary scuffles, freezes, and other dysfunctions that the government can do little about seems to me one of the least absolutist things one can imagine.

I think you have a woefully incomplete understanding of the facts on the ground during the 1848 Revolutions, particularly in Hungary. The Magyars had defeated the Austrians numerous times, it was after, and only after, the Russians intervened that Budapest was crushed. If you remove the Russian intervention than there's no way the Austrians can force the Magyars back into the Hapsburg fold.

What in particular am I not understanding or is that just a way of saying grandly that you disagree? Of course the Hungarians held the imperial forces off up to that point or there wouldn't be any debate.

But circumstances had changed in more ways than one: Austria was resolving its problems on various other fronts. How is Hungary supposed to fight by itself against a bigger country?
 
regarding rifles and artillery, first of all, there were large quantities aviable at depots, taken over by the hungarian governement legally first (prior to the dethronement of the habsburgs, the hungarian governement was legitimate all around, with king ferdinand, etcetc) later by capturing the depots by force
(oh, and an interesting thing: the first battle of 48 was near Pákozd-Sukoró-Pátka, both the belligerents were "imperial" even they tried to gave orders to each other...)

Yes, I know the Hungarians weren't fighting with harsh language (not that they wouldn't be good at it). Do tell us more about that battle, though. Rather reminds me of the early Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

but the one of the very first thing the governemnt ordered, was to create an independent source of military supplies and they began converting civilian fatories to military use, and by november, the army got their first home-produced battery

but the artillery was never an issue, the rifles were...

Was it rifles used at the time? I thought they only became the standard infantry weapon in the 50s, but I might be misremembering.

the regular "honvéd" was pretty much an army of european army, the insurgents were of course not

That's what I'm saying.




the british simply kept their options open

This is long-established code among our political classes for not doing anything. ;)


iancu was not only a nuisance, pratically they ravaged the land.. until the regular units get control of the area
after that, they could not do anything

He wasn't going to ride through Budapest, but having an army sent after you is something.
 
Yes, I know the Hungarians weren't fighting with harsh language (not that they wouldn't be good at it). Do tell us more about that battle, though. Rather reminds me of the early Wars of the Three Kingdoms.

uh, more...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Pákozd

just monty-phytonize it to some extent

(and check out the casualities)


Was it rifles used at the time? I thought they only became the standard infantry weapon in the 50s, but I might be misremembering.

m1842 augustin rifled musket (that was the most common)


That's what I'm saying.

uhm, i could be confusing sometimes...

the regular army of the insurgency (the governement) was the honvédség
besides the regular army, there were insurgents, too - but because they were practically no use in any military operations, most of the insurgents either converted to regular units or sent home




This is long-established code among our political classes for not doing anything. ;)

well, yes :)
the british interested in status quo... what they did not interested in, a russian intervention near the balkans
very alternative, but a long russian campaign in hungary (fe: Görgey"s plan to defend near Komárom, instead of Arad got accepted) could have change things



He wasn't going to ride through Budapest, but having an army sent after you is something.

it was not after him - it was ent after Puchner

Iancu and the romanian insurgency was only a "roadkill" (see above the hungarian insurgents)
 
I will agree that without Russian intervention Hungary may become an independant state but it will probably be even smaller than the what is today.


dont think so

first of all, te oppposition against the hungarian revolution by the other nationalities is exaggerated
practically, the board guard serbs were against it (they feared for their privileges) and the croats (they wanted "weight" even independence)
the romanian insurgency in transylvania was ............ (deleted, i dont want any nationalistic debate)


but lets dont forget, that the revolution was a liberal revolution, in a feudal country, not a national movement (the government, the leadership and the people behind the revolution was everything, but hungarian-only)
 
I know they had cannons - they could hardly have done without them. It seems I've phrased myself rather poorly, but the idea I'm trying to get across is that Hungary's resources in terms of manpower, armaments, and everything else were a lot smaller. The question that keeps failing to be answered is how Hungary beats a bigger country.

Well seeing as how they did exactly that IOTL... :rolleyes:

Which is precisely the problem: Britain is not going to go and intervene in favour of the Hungarians with anything but words, and our intervention with words had been none too effective in Italy. So how can we change the situation on the ground?

Well the Russian intervention only came about after Emperor Franz Joseph begged Tsar Nicholas that the Russians intervened in Hungary. And even then it was quite some time before the Russians intervened. The OTL timeline goes like this;

- 23 March 1849; Franz Joseph sends word to St. Petersburg asking for assistance. Nicholas does not immediately respond.
- 1 April 1849; Kossuth appoints Görgey commander of the Hungarian forces; over the next week the Magyars drive the Austrians back to the Danube.
- 15 April 1849; Kossuth proclaims an independent Hungarian republic. The parliament immediately elects him Governor-General. His first act is to offer a truce to the Romanian rebels in Transylvania.
- 23 April 1849; The Austrians abandon Budapest (they had taken it earlier in the year) to the advancing Hungarian army.
- 4 May 1849; The Hungarians capture Komárom. Effectively all of Hungary is, once again, in Magyar hands.
- 21 May 1849; Franz Joseph travels to Warsaw to meet with Nicholas. The Tsar forces the Emperor to beg, from his knees, for Russian assistance, and even is required to kiss the Tsar's signet ring (still from his knees). Nicholas promises to invade by 17 June.
- 2 July 1849; The Battle of Ács, or the Second Battle of Komárom, ends in a tactical draw after the Hungarians are unable to push the Austrians further, but similarly the Hapsburgs can't force the Magyars to fall back.
- 11 July 1849; The Third Battle of Komárom is a tactical Hungarian victory, forcing the Austrians to flee, but a strategic draw as the Hungarians don't press forward on their advantage, due to Görgey sustaining a battlefield injury, confusing in the command without Görgey, and conflict between the army and the government in Budapest.
- 31 July 1849; the Battle of Segesvár, the first major incursion between Hungarian and Russian forces.

If you simply make Franz Joseph as pigheadedly stubborn as he was IOTL later in his career at this point, or change his father Archduke Franz Karl's decision not to become emperor on the abdication of Emperor Ferdinand, than the Russians never intervene. The fact that Nicholas was hesitant to join the fray anyhow, only did so after seeing how far he could push Franz Joseph, and even then only committed himself a full two weeks after he had said he would all point to the fact that the Russians had no great interest in Hungary at this time and only did so that the Austrians would 'owe them one,' - the (in)famous belief of Nicholas' that Vienna would support him in the Crimean War, which of course turned out to be false.

The Hungarians had pushed the Austrians out of their country, and held the Danube south of Vienna, as well as controlling the Banat, the Voivodinia, and Transylvania, and were making preparations to launch an invasion into the Hapsburg Military Frontier in Croatia and Slovenia. The Austrians simply could not defeat the Hungarians on their own at this point.

I can heartily believe that Pam changed his mind over the issue, but the point is again that he's not going to send a gunboat and, should the Austrians get the upper hand, he's not going to do anything about it.

I don't 'want' any answer except an honest one and I gave an honest response. What is America going to do? Is it any surprise that revolutionary movements recognised one-another and, Italy being defeated, does it maje any difference?

Again, you asked "Where are the Hungarians going to get [...] diplomatic recognition [...]," and I answered your question showing even IOTL they had it, or were close to having it, from the great powers of the day.

I don't see where I said that Hungary was going to lose Transylvania. I said that they weren't able to deal decisively with the Romanian insurgents, which is the whole point of Bem having to be in the province rather than somewhere else doing something more useful.

By the end the insurgents were getting the worst of it, but if it had been some guys in caves, would it have been necessary to send an army?

Then your point is a slightly odd one, and rather moot regardless. The Romanians aren't going to get Transylvania, and after being defeated in field the only Romanian resistance left was holed up in the mountains, at which point Bem was transferred to the Banat.

If you're tying to argue the Hungarians lacked an effective army due to your belief in a poor campaign in Transylvania then you're grossly over-estimating the Romanians few victories and their overall capabilities.

What in particular am I not understanding or is that just a way of saying grandly that you disagree? Of course the Hungarians held the imperial forces off up to that point or there wouldn't be any debate.

But circumstances had changed in more ways than one: Austria was resolving its problems on various other fronts. How is Hungary supposed to fight by itself against a bigger country?

Except that the Hungarians did exactly that IOTL :rolleyes: The Italians had been put down already and yet the Magyars still held the Hapsburg Austrians at bay. It was, once again, only after the Russians intervened that the independence of Hungary was crushed. Austria did not have the resources, the man power, or either the political will or capital, considering her own many internal issues that were just barely being held in check, to be able to force the Hungarians back into the Hapsburg empire without foreign assistance. If we remove Russia from the equation there is no one else who can effectively do the job, and Hungary gains her independence.
 
Except that the Hungarians did exactly that IOTL :rolleyes: The Italians had been put down already and yet the Magyars still held the Hapsburg Austrians at bay. It was, once again, only after the Russians intervened that the independence of Hungary was crushed. Austria did not have the resources, the man power, or either the political will or capital, considering her own many internal issues that were just barely being held in check, to be able to force the Hungarians back into the Hapsburg empire without foreign assistance. If we remove Russia from the equation there is no one else who can effectively do the job, and Hungary gains her independence.


Not necessarily.

The Austrians had already scotched all the other risings, and Haynau, though a bastard, was a competent bastard. Agree it would have taken the Austrians longer to win, but given that Hungary had not only them to fight but some of its own ethnic minorities, the end would very likely have been the same even without the Russians.
 
Not necessarily.

The Austrians had already scotched all the other risings, and Haynau, though a bastard, was a competent bastard. Agree it would have taken the Austrians longer to win, but given that Hungary had not only them to fight but some of its own ethnic minorities, the end would very likely have been the same even without the Russians.

Wait, what?

Haynau was competent in the sense that he knew which way was forward on the battlefield. He was brutal, yes, and that adds a certain efficiency if you're willing to look the other way in war, but competent is never one of the words I've heard attached to him.

Görgey on the other hand seems to have been quite the brilliant tactician. I'd really love to hear your opinion on how the Austrians could defeat the Magyars, but for my money it just can't be done.

Also, re; the other uprisings in the Hapsburg empire - that's my point. The Austrians had effectively dealt with events in Prague and the Italian states and stabilized her affairs in the German states, and yet IOTL she still was losing the war against the Hungarians until the Russian intervention. Again, I just don't see how the Austrians could defeat the Hungarians when they didn't IOTL in the exact same circumstances.
 
Not necessarily.

The Austrians had already scotched all the other risings, and Haynau, though a bastard, was a competent bastard. Agree it would have taken the Austrians longer to win, but given that Hungary had not only them to fight but some of its own ethnic minorities, the end would very likely have been the same even without the Russians.


the problem is, that the habsburgs dealt with the other uprisings with the help of hungarian troops (mainly in italy - sorry about that)
and those troops wanted to go home - any longer campaign meaning more austrian/loyal troops against hungary would have made those troops switch sides or return to home


the other problem is, that the austrian empire was practically bankrupt even with the russian intervention

as for the ethnic minorities, i think, that any lasting conflict would have made the hungarian government to further compromise (lets dont forget, that by 49 the government made a pretty good minority law - for that time - and the removal of serfdom in practice)
 
Top