BlondieBC
Banned
Just have Italy swap some additional land in Italy for a Colony. Think Somalia + Cash for Tyrol type deal.
Why did Austria-Hungary have such a terrible WWI record?
- Thread starter Snake Featherston
- Start date
Just have Italy swap some additional land in Italy for a Colony. Think Somalia + Cash for Tyrol type deal.
Italy was in an almost similar (albeit slighter better) situation after the unification, multitude of dialects (many so different between them to be uncompresible), a national identity very nebulous as till the end of the Roman empire the italian penisula was disunited but fastforward 50years and we were already a more solid nation of A-H. It was not easy, required lot of propaganda, education, a very gruesome and brutal guerrilla campaign in south Italy (with problem we still feel), the use of the army as a mean to unify the people, lot of jingoism but in the end worked but nevertheless a PoD after the 1848 revolutions will be better after 1900 anything short of a miracle is capable of saving them, only delay the inevitable
Don't make the Magyar nobility so overblowing powefull in Hungary but require a PoD in the 1800 or at least have the guts to solve the situation, in OTL have a couple of occasion but in the end they don't act. Using Latin as official language of the empire burocracy and court (as neutral at it was it don't offend many). Try the federal approach, and i meant really try it not using it as a bait for political reason and accept that you must give up some of your power to continue to exist. THe really hurtfull point will be some serious
And with this frase we can sum why the A-h empire cannot survive the 20th century
BlondieBC
Banned
I think with all the POD's out there, you can find one that works. And it does not have to be all, it could be part. or It could be the colonies in exchange for a plebiscite. Or it could be Tryol for Balkans concessions plus colony plus cash.
But if you don't like this type of POD, then find another one for the TL.
It can be Trent plus an italian university in Trieste and the use of italian ships for the colonial endevour or some hard cash; at the time relationships between Italy and A-H was almost normal so it's now or neveragain
abc123
Banned
IMO Italy and A-H are two very different things. Yes, Italy had very big regional differences, my country has them too, we also allmost don't understand dialects from other parts of country, but nobody in 19th Century didn't doubt that Sicilians, Sardinians or Napolitans are Italians as Venetians or Piemontese.
OTOH in A-H to say some Czech, Romanian, Croat, Slovenian, Hungarian or Pole that he is Austrian or Austro-Hungarian or some Habsburgian
would be a BIG mistake.Italy was national state, with big problems, big regional differences, big linguistical difficulties etc., but she was national state.
A-H never was national state and could not become one, never mind when the POD is, it was tried and failed several times.
Nor did a german austrian, they rather saw themselves as part of the german nation than to view all austrians as one nation. It could not become one nation, since it is made up of various ethnicies. but it could become a willensnation like switzerland, perhaps. Especially during the war, there was some kind of national feeling within austria, but it was only shortly, the nationalism grew stronger when it was clear the Austria hungary is doomed and losing the war.
Last edited:
We used our wars of independence as a mean to forge our national identity, colonialism to booster our prestige or at least try and the fact that we were the new kid on the block to make the people stick with each others as the other nations were perceived as hostile thing ready to crush us. A-H border with Italy (fought three war, had still territorial claim), Russia (territorial claim), Germany (fought a war whit humiliating result), Serbia (territorial claim); at least can use the fact that she is 'under siege' to finance the army and using that for booster national feeling and the use of a single language for the 'national' affair limiting the various native speak to 'local' affairs. Use federalism even if diminish the power of the crown, but at least you get rid of the Magyar noble and can make thing be done, and this will help the image of the state but do it before the turn of the century after that is all for nothing time is not a thing A-H has to spare...honestly it can be worse than OTL.
Among many Kakanians, there was some sort of feeling of belonging to this strange construction, which in my opinion sprang from two sources:
a) loyalty to the dynasty, especially the person of Franz Josef
b) a knowledge that while far from perfect, Austria-Hungary was not a worst-case scenario either and a break-up could be a turn for the worse
The problem is:
a) FJ is not immortal and nobody could be expected to replace his role (despite him lacking charisma as well as... a lot of other things)
b) many people who say the situation in the way I described had a feeling that it was futile nevertheless and that their way of live was doomed.
Interestingly, secular Jews were a part of the population which usually felt rather attached to the multinational monarchy.
You are absolutely right. The German Army alone against the k.k.s? It would be 1866 all over again.
But I also agree with whoever said that considering the enemies, Austria-Hungary didn't fail that badly. Russia was an empire far more powerful - and Germany chose to concentrate on France for a long time; which didn't make the Austrian general staff happy.
And Italy was a challenge, too, especially at the point of time when they declared war.
I agree. My opinion is that WW1 was (in some aspects) a close run thing, or at least could have been. "Every little helps". Also I think we can reconcile our opinions when better infrastructure and economic development go hand in hand with improvement of defense.
So even if we add a little to their budgets (and do not waste it but spend wisely), Austria's position improves. But still I doubt they can go to 5%, that sort of spending (resp. the mass recruitment going with it) even was a burden on France and Germany.
i believe so, wasnt Austro-Hungary effectively Austria > Hungary as in wasnt Austria the more important part of the country than Hungary, so the de facto language would be German but those from the Hungarian part would more likely speak Hungarian than German, this could cause problems
im not sure if this is right, im estimated by me knowledge of Austro-Hungary
Alternate History
Banned
Indeed it was. F-J was the monarch of both countries, which proves superiority alone. Besides, the Hungarians had to fight tooth and nail for the dualist structure after they were defeated in 1849. The election districts were also rigged so that Hungarians had less weight than they should have had based on their population, and F-J only accepted a Hungarian prime minister if he ran with a '67 (i.e. pro-status quo) program.
BlondieBC
Banned
Agreed. And in most ATL where CP win, and the Russians and likely Poles likely persecute the Jews (Pogroms). We see Jews moving to Austria in mass for lack of better options, and this will help stabilize at least the Austrian portion.
In most ATL where Italy does not join the Entente, the A-H army will have a good reputation. After doing badly in 1914/early 1915, the A-H will not be seriously beaten for the rest of the war. A-H if adequately led was up to the job, and would have been ok if one just removes Conrad.
One on One, A-H beats Italy, and to be fair terrain helps a lot. Any Italian threaten breakout tends to stall on the mountains. Any A-H gain threatens to break on to much more open terrain.
IMO, if we had an event radomizer for close decision, the CP wins WW1 at least 65% of the time. Now they almost never get a dictated peace like the ToV, but they get a lot of favorable negotiated peaces.
And yes, A-H never has the army to beat Germany, but with a close ally, that is never an issue. They only really needed to be able hold the Italian line and make a slow progress into the Ukraine. With two extra armies (2nd goes east plus another one from budget or just existing armies with modern gear), A-H holds the line in Galacia and has a decent chance to make gains into Poland even without major Germany help. Wide spread use of a gun like the French 75 on the Russian Armies in open fields in 1914 would have been devastating.
Snake Featherston
Banned
I wonder to what extent this has to do with Franz Josef and the nature of his regime? The guy won only Custozza and Lyssa by himself, in other situations he needed either Nicholas I or Wilhelm II to bail him out. The question to me this raises is why the guy who lost Solferino and Koniggratz didn't seem to learn anything from the 1860s fifty years later? This also to me raises the question of whether or not these defects are deeper than the 20th Century.
Max Sinister
Banned
What exactly should he have learned?
Also, I remembered a different reason: While A-H may have spent a relatively low percentage of the GDP for arms, their tax level was one of the highest in the world. Don't know for what they spent their money for - debt?
And I think that soldiers had to know more than 100 German words (though not that many more, either 200 or 500).
Also, I remembered a different reason: While A-H may have spent a relatively low percentage of the GDP for arms, their tax level was one of the highest in the world. Don't know for what they spent their money for - debt?
And I think that soldiers had to know more than 100 German words (though not that many more, either 200 or 500).
Snake Featherston
Banned
At the very least to promote a general who could command on the battlefield who actually showed *evidence* that he could do so, not relying on reputations. This had failed twice. first in 1859, then with Benedek in 1866, repeating it a third straight time with Conrad indicates Franz Josef was a wee bit stupid.
BlairWitch749
Banned
WW1 was rediculously strange in how terrible generals were allowed to remain in command
in the civil war or ww2 all of the botched entente or central powers generals would have found themselves relieved (Cadorna, Conrad, Haig and Sarrail could have found themselves shot)
If FJ was so sick and disconnected people in his court should have interveaned and shot Conrad by 1915.
Then again in the democracy of France Sarrail and Nivelle were allowed to repeatedly send men to their deaths after they had been demonstrated to be completely disconnected idiots (especially Nivelle) in fact the chamber of deputies insisted that Sarrail and Nivelle keep killing the citizenry on threat of no confidence in the government
Britain and Italy were equally bad in keeping horrendous generals in power; and a full length novel could be written on the personality flaws that were allowed to roam around the upper echelons of the Russian officer corps and their high court
in the civil war or ww2 all of the botched entente or central powers generals would have found themselves relieved (Cadorna, Conrad, Haig and Sarrail could have found themselves shot)
If FJ was so sick and disconnected people in his court should have interveaned and shot Conrad by 1915.
Then again in the democracy of France Sarrail and Nivelle were allowed to repeatedly send men to their deaths after they had been demonstrated to be completely disconnected idiots (especially Nivelle) in fact the chamber of deputies insisted that Sarrail and Nivelle keep killing the citizenry on threat of no confidence in the government
Britain and Italy were equally bad in keeping horrendous generals in power; and a full length novel could be written on the personality flaws that were allowed to roam around the upper echelons of the Russian officer corps and their high court
Snake Featherston
Banned
The point I'm making is that WWI actually fits directly into the pattern of Franz Josef's reign. Austria/Austria-Hungary is held to be badass, to have good generals. Then it needs to invite the Tsar of Russia in to crush rebels on its own territory because its generals were too feckless even for this. Then in 1859 it goes to war with Napoleon III under the expectation that its generals are really, really badass and know what they're doing. The result is the brutal drubbing at Solferino, one of the worst defeats Habsburg armies suffered to that point. The commander in 1859 was none other than F-J himself, and he botched it very, very badly.
So along comes the great brainiac Benedek whose aptitude for command is never proven to exist, he suffers great reputation inflation, and who's taking on an enemy all analysis of the time expected him to smack around. Instead von Moltke guts him at Sadowa.
So along comes the brainiac Conrad von Hotzendorf, whose aptitude for command is never proven to exist, to a point where he was actually sacked and then rehired, suffers massive reputation inflation, and who took on an enemy (Serbia) where a man remotely able to command a corps should have done fairly well, and walks into the greatest disasters of any of the WWI Great Powers. The only difference is that Conrad had more disasters for longer, he fits directly into the pattern of Franz Josef's reign of high culture but no army.
The point I'm asking here is whether or not in WWI A-H was having 20th Century problems or whether or not it really did have something to do with that old man in Vienna. If he'd conveniently died in time for the likes of Crown Prince Rudolf to take the throne, would Emperor Rudolf have been any better at war than his daddy was?
So along comes the great brainiac Benedek whose aptitude for command is never proven to exist, he suffers great reputation inflation, and who's taking on an enemy all analysis of the time expected him to smack around. Instead von Moltke guts him at Sadowa.
So along comes the brainiac Conrad von Hotzendorf, whose aptitude for command is never proven to exist, to a point where he was actually sacked and then rehired, suffers massive reputation inflation, and who took on an enemy (Serbia) where a man remotely able to command a corps should have done fairly well, and walks into the greatest disasters of any of the WWI Great Powers. The only difference is that Conrad had more disasters for longer, he fits directly into the pattern of Franz Josef's reign of high culture but no army.
The point I'm asking here is whether or not in WWI A-H was having 20th Century problems or whether or not it really did have something to do with that old man in Vienna. If he'd conveniently died in time for the likes of Crown Prince Rudolf to take the throne, would Emperor Rudolf have been any better at war than his daddy was?
BlairWitch749
Banned
it was a 20th century problem snake given that all of the other powers suffered from incompetent generals being left in place (except Germany 1914,1915 and part of 1916 then they sucked too) and repeatedly leading the citizenry to their deaths in hopelessly poorly staged attacks
Where French/Haig/Gough any more apt for command than Conrad
Was Sarrail/Nivelle/Mangin/Lanzerac etc etc any more competent to command than Conrad (I exclude Joffre from this list because he did get fired; and did have the ability unlike some of the others to add and subtract)
Was Cadorna any more competent than Conrad
Was Jalinsky any more competent than Conrad
Where the respective governments democracy and autocrat alike any more effective than FJ at rooting this people out?
Snake Featherston
Banned
It is more than a 20th Century problem in the case of an Empire ruled by the man with the longest dumbass streak of the 19th Century. This is like Prussia starting out with the army of 1806 and finishing the 19th Century with that army ruled by the King who lost the war with Napoleon. The other states in Europe *did* have generals and patterns of being militarily effective. Prussia, after all, defeated F-J and France, France defeated Austria and ultimately did defeat China in a full war (not a little poking on its borders), Russia defeated the Ottoman Empire under Nicholas I and Alexander II, the UK of course was pretty much unstoppable in its wars at the time......
Franz Josef's military has a consistent track record of epic, ludicrous failure. That doesn't indicate that the problems of WWI generalship were anything atypical of F-J's regime. And if we remember the *size* of Solferino and Koniggratz and how both were the largest battles in Europe pre-WWI, we have a regime with the *least* excuse out of all the Powers not to see where war was going in terms of size and to make even rudimentary efforts to prepare for it.
WWI to me is just the grandest example of how Franz Josef was suited to rule the A-H system, but unsuited to wage a war, and it's an example of how autocracy really can be determined by a single individual (for the worst). This is not off-topic when we consider that Franz Josef's entire reign was one lifetime, and this *did* lead to issues in the Empire again and again. The same man who blundered in 1848, 1859, and 1866 is the one who proved just as stupid in 1914.
Franz Josef's military has a consistent track record of epic, ludicrous failure. That doesn't indicate that the problems of WWI generalship were anything atypical of F-J's regime. And if we remember the *size* of Solferino and Koniggratz and how both were the largest battles in Europe pre-WWI, we have a regime with the *least* excuse out of all the Powers not to see where war was going in terms of size and to make even rudimentary efforts to prepare for it.
WWI to me is just the grandest example of how Franz Josef was suited to rule the A-H system, but unsuited to wage a war, and it's an example of how autocracy really can be determined by a single individual (for the worst). This is not off-topic when we consider that Franz Josef's entire reign was one lifetime, and this *did* lead to issues in the Empire again and again. The same man who blundered in 1848, 1859, and 1866 is the one who proved just as stupid in 1914.