WI: Buffed (Austria-)Hungary

[Fehérvári]

So for whatever reasons, for example, less destructive Ottoman wars, no uprisings, quicker regeneration after Ottoman era, no inner customs frontier established by Maria Theresa, etc. Hungary (and eventually Austria-Hungary), population- and economy-wise is much more prominent, than OTL. However the flow of history still goes as OTL atleast until 1871, with Austria-Hungary being established in 1867 with the same terms (one exception) as it actually was.

Here are some diagrams:
Germany and Austria-Hungary comparison

Austria and Hungary comparison

To be continued in second post

 

[Fehérvári]

(this is the exception I was reffering to; I distributed these number by the percentage of the division of burdens of the common affairs' finances, which OTL was 65,6%/34,4%, but ITTL it's 57,6%/42,4%)

Furthermore, the population of Hungary (together with Croatia) is now 60,66% ethnic Hungarian, since the disaster of listed at the beginning of the first post affacted primarily the ethnic Hungarian population.

Map of Austria-Hungary(alt) (1910):

And now, it's you, who can form the destiny of <buffed> Austria-Hungary and tell me your sceniario!

 

[Padilla]

So for whatever reasons, for example, less destructive Ottoman wars, no uprisings, quicker regeneration after Ottoman era, no inner customs frontier established by Maria Theresa, etc. Hungary (and eventually Austria-Hungary), population- and economy-wise is much more prominent, than OTL. However the flow of history still goes as OTL atleast until 1871, with Austria-Hungary being established in 1867 with the same terms (one exception) as it actually was.

Here are some diagrams:
Germany and Austria-Hungary comparison
View attachment 364082
View attachment 364083
View attachment 364084
View attachment 364085
View attachment 364086
View attachment 364087
View attachment 364088

Austria and Hungary comparison
View attachment 364089
View attachment 364090
View attachment 364091
To be continued in second post

Wasn't Austria-Hungary industrializing at a fast pace before WWI? If so delaying WWI a couple of years might be enough

 

[Fehérvári]

Wasn't Austria-Hungary industrializing at a fast pace before WWI? If so delaying WWI a couple of years might be enough

That's not the point of this thread, since it's a much more radical shakeup of matters. (Especially regarding the balance between Austria and Hungary)

 

[Old1812]

It might be too much to ask, but could <buffed> Austria-Hungary and Germany defeat Russia in a "CP focus on taking out Russia first" scenario?

 

[Fehérvári]

It might be too much to ask, but could <buffed> Austria-Hungary and Germany defeat Russia in a "CP focus on taking out Russia first" scenario?

Well, it's not even given that this time Germany and Austria-Hungary are actually allies, however given that even OTL Central Powers managed to defeat Russia, I think it's very likely. However the question is that, would the Germans even consider a Russia-first strategy, if they still got the Schlieffen plan? Especially since A-H is now much more capable of aiding them.
Or something like this..

 

[TruthfulPanda]

The alternative GDP is quite realistic. It is what AH would have in 1913 if in 1870-1913 it had grown at the same pace as Germany.
Germany managed to grow about 3,5 times whereas the Dual-Monarchy - 2,5.

 

[JackLumber]

So is Bosnia separate from both and not fully integrated or does it only look separate because it' part of the Austrian half?

 

[Vanity 6]

So everything goes the same right up through 1867. But there's more robust economic growth and thus, less emigration and a higher population. I think that could lead to a more confident, independent foreign policy. Internally, there may be less friction between the two halves if prosperity is greater and more money is in the government coffers. After the Russo-Turkish War, the wrangle Bosnia and Serbia in return for not challenging the Treaty of San Stefano. Bosnia and Dalmatia are joined to Croatia (Hungary). Serbia is set up as a protectorate. While there remains a cultural affinity for Germany, there is no Dual Alliance as there is less anxiety about Russia. Relations are characterized by cautious cooperation. Maybe these Russian advancement leads to an Anglo-German agreement (though not a formal alliance). That is enough to prevent an all out grab of Constantinople. That's what I have got so far.

 

[Fehérvári]

So is Bosnia separate from both and not fully integrated or does it only look separate because it' part of the Austrian half?

Bosnia has the OTL status, it's under the control of the common finance ministry.

So everything goes the same right up through 1867. But there's more robust economic growth and thus, less emigration and a higher population. I think that could lead to a more confident, independent foreign policy. Internally, there may be less friction between the two halves if prosperity is greater and more money is in the government coffers. After the Russo-Turkish War, the wrangle Bosnia and Serbia in return for not challenging the Treaty of San Stefano. Bosnia and Dalmatia are joined to Croatia (Hungary). Serbia is set up as a protectorate. While there remains a cultural affinity for Germany, there is no Dual Alliance as there is less anxiety about Russia. Relations are characterized by cautious cooperation. Maybe these Russian advancement leads to an Anglo-German agreement (though not a formal alliance). That is enough to prevent an all out grab of Constantinople. That's what I have got so far.

Keep going, I like it. (However Dalmatia is initially part of Hungary, while I imagined that there's a strife over Bosnia, because if it would join Hungary, that would a upset the current balance between the two countries, so Austria supports the status quo.

 

[Fehérvári]

The alternative GDP is quite realistic. It is what AH would have in 1913 if in 1870-1913 it had grown at the same pace as Germany.
Germany managed to grow about 3,5 times whereas the Dual-Monarchy - 2,5.

As you can see on the graphs, basically all I did is to bring Hungary to more or less equal footing with Austria, so yeah I tried to make it "plausible"

 

[Fehérvári]

The info about the economy of Bosnia is missing because I couldn't find any source on that, so I just simply split it between Austria and Hungary.

 

[Vanity 6]

I propose in this buffed up situation, Vienna and Budapest are chummy enough that Bosnia can go to Hungary (Croatia). This brings the Croats into the fold as they have achieved their Triune Kingdom ideal--and then some. Within Bosnia, the Croats and Muslims will likely be loyal. The Serbs may agitate later, but perhaps they can be bought off with some self-governing cantons. Serbia proper is nominally independent but Finlandized and integrated economically with the Monarchy. With some increased prosperity and lack of support from Russia, Serbia will not become the force they were in the original time line.

The Monarchy will try to hold sway in Italy. They promote the colonial policy to distract from irredentism. With time, the burgeoning cities of Trieste and Fiume will become majority Slovene and Croat--I think they were on their way to being so anyway, but that could be accelerated in our scenario. With this support, Italy stays pretty anti-French.

By the turn of the century, we see a powerful Russia contained by a loose Anglo-German arrangement. France, Austria-Hungary and Italy are prosperous and largely non-aligned.

 

[JackLumber]

Bosnia has the OTL status, it's under the control of the common finance ministry.

Keep going, I like it. (However Dalmatia is initially part of Hungary, while I imagined that there's a strife over Bosnia, because if it would join Hungary, that would a upset the current balance between the two countries, so Austria supports the status quo.

Thanks for answering my question.
It's an interesting enough concept, I have always thought people focused too heavily on Germany when creating CP victory scenarios when improving Austro-Hungarian performance seems more logical as they had more room for inprovement.

 

[Old1812]

As a naval buff, I hope the KuK navy gets more ships to play with.

 

[Fehérvári]

As a naval buff, I hope the KuK navy gets more ships to play with.

I also played with that idea, but maybe I overpowered it a bit, you decide. Here you go (this is based on OTL 1914 August by the way):

Compared to OTL, here is:
The Radetzky-class ships are built as proper dreadnoughts, instead of just semi-dreadnoughts (also 4 Ersatz Monarch-class dreadnoughts are on their way, one is near completion)
The Monarch-class ships are built as proper pre-dreadnoughts instead of being just coast defence ships
There are now 4 Karl VI.-class armoured cruisers, instead of 1 Kaiserin un Königin Maria Theresa-class and 2 Karl VI.-class.
There are now 4 Franz Josef-class protected cruisers, instead of 3.
There are now 4 Zenta-class light and 2 Novara-class* light cruisers, instead of 3 Zenta-class and the SMS Admiral Spaun (also 3 other Novara-class light cruisers are being built, all of them near completion)
The others doesn't need further comment, maybe that they are a bit more modern or advanced than OTL.

What do you think?
*Probably the class name would be Admiral Spaun-class actually, since that's the first ship, but I named it Novara-class to represent its modernnes.

 

[TruthfulPanda]

UK has two semi-dreadnaughts. Russia has at least two as well.
Although 10 dreadnaughts for AH is an absolute waste of money, this is the number the Italians were aiming at. So it's plausible.
I imagine the dreadnaught Radetzky class to be the same case of "pint in a quart bottle" as the OTL Viribus Unitis. Something like the Espana?

 

[Fehérvári]

UK has two semi-dreadnaughts. Russia has at least two as well.
Although 10 dreadnaughts for AH is an absolute waste of money, this is the number the Italians were aiming at. So it's plausible.
I imagine the dreadnaught Radetzky class to be the same case of "pint in a quart bottle" as the OTL Viribus Unitis. Something like the Espana?

I based my research on these two sources:
http://www.naval-history.net/WW1NavyAustrian.htm
https://warandsecurity.files.wordpress.com/2014/08/naval-strength-19141.jpg
It might be a waste of money, but if there's a world war, even a fleet in being can be very helpful.
I don't know what you mean by "pint in a quart bottle" though, but probably yeah, just without the triple turrets.

 

[TruthfulPanda]

The UK semi-draednaughts - Lord Nelson and its twin
Russian - Andriey Prevozanniy and its twin.
By "pint in a quart bottle" I mean that the ship was too small for what was expected from it, to the detriment to its fighting and/or seakeeping capaibility.

 

[Fehérvári]

The UK semi-draednaughts - Lord Nelson and its twin
Russian - Andriey Prevozanniy and its twin.
By "pint in a quart bottle" I mean that the ship was too small for what was expected from it, to the detriment to its fighting and/or seakeeping capaibility.

They are probably listed as pre-dreadnoughts on my table. I don't know much about those ships, how did they compare to the OTL Radetzky-class? Because the Radetzky-class was without doubt semi-dreadnought.
About that bottle, I quote from the Radetzky-class' wikipedia:

The first design was armed with four 28 cm (11 in) guns in two twin turrets, four 24 cm (9.4 in) guns in single turrets, and eight 19 cm (7.5 in) guns in casemates. The second design retained the 28 and 24 cm guns as in the first version, though altered the tertiary guns to twelve 10 cm (3.9 in) guns. The third design, representative of the new dreadnought type of battleship that was being contemplated in other navies, featured eight 28 cm guns in four twin turrets, one fore, one aft, and two wing turrets. The heavy secondary guns were dispensed with altogether, and the light-caliber guns were increased to sixteen 10 cm guns. The fourth design was a variation on the third type; the eight 28 cm guns were replaced by six 30.5 cm (12.0 in) guns, in two twin turrets and two single turrets. The 10 cm guns remained the same. The final design mounted four 30.5 cm guns in two twin turrets, eight 19 cm guns in four wing turrets, and twelve 10 cm guns in casemates.[2] The leader of the design staff, Siegfried Popper, advocated the construction of an "all-big-gun" ship.[4] However, Austro-Hungarian dock facilities at the time limited displacement to 16,000 long tons (16,000 t); the two "dreadnought" type designs were too heavy.[2]

My idea is, that this time the drydock capacity of A-H is improved and the navy is better financed as well, so maybe they could go with the "Dreadnought" type design, this time.