If everything “stays the same” until 1900-10 (highly unlikely, IMO) then I can’t see a “more powerful” (higher population, more industry) Hungary being less of a problem internally for A-H. At the least the Russian intervention in 1848 is going to be more bloody if there are more Hungarians fighting for independence, surely?
Only until 1867 or 1871 must everything stay more or less the same, then policies or other countries details could go just as you imagine.
There's truth in what you say, but the united might of Austria and Russia could still crush the Hungarians, however the higher population and industry would indeed make Hungary a bigger problem for the Habsburgs during the passive resistance of the Bach-period, which this way allows us the OTL-ish path to 1867. After 1867, since there's a better balance between Austria and Hungary, the two sides' relation could be much healthier this way, which could remove Hungary as a problem (especially because TTL, Hungary is significantly more stabile, than Austria, because of the higher percentage of the ethnic Hungarian population. Imo.

The easiest way to buff Austria Hungary would be to give them part or all of Bavaria during the Cabinet Wars period. There was in fact, a timeline predicated on this.

With Bavaria the demographics are much more even between Germans and non Germans. Bavaria is also more industry and another flank to pressure Italy, as well as a preemption of German unification, at least of the sort OTL which included the south.
You are right, however I do not only want to buff Austria-Hungary, but I want to improve the balance between Austria and Hungary as well. Austria acquiring Bavaria would be quite the opposite of the second criteria.





However, let's go a bit more back in time to the suggested 1848. How would you accomplish the forming of Austria-Hungary without excluding the option of OTL-esque Italian and German unification?
 
In the end I think Hungary taking a bigger part of the burden would lessen the animosity of the Austrian side. It also makes Hungary much more stable at least initially.

However IMO it was Hungary that was the more stable of the 2 parts OTL: the original concept of the Ausglech was that it let the germans dominate the Austrian side and the hungarians the Hungarian side. The austrian election system was originally designed in a way that heavily favored the germans. Hungary did the same with the hungarians. The difference was that in Austria this didnt work and they were slowly forced to change the system till they reached the kind of universal suffrage that they are celebrated for today by many liberals. IMO at the time this was more of a failure for the german liberals than a success to be celebrated. It also didnt make them more stable. The hungarians were OTOH successfull in dominating their part of the Empire - this also ment that they were able to oppress the national minorities without them making any serious trouble before the defeat of WWI. I wont go into details of what are the causes as those didnt change with the POD.

My prediction is Hungary will be even more stable than OTL thanks to the POD and will be just as oppressive to the national minorities as OTL (luckily their ideology wont allow more). However this only barely improves the situation on the Austrian side. Sadly I also dont see the hungarian elit being any more accomodating towards the empire's needs than OTL.

You have to understand the politics of post Ausgleich Hungary a bit for this. As the national minorities had barely any presence in the parlaiment and werent really politically active othervise (no mass demonstrations, terrorist acts etc) they werent the most prominent of problems for the hungarian elit. They didnt even understand they existed as a problem before they had to fight them in 1848. The most prominent question for the hungarian elit was the Ausgleich. Usually that meant that the governing party was the one supporting it and the biggest opposition party that wanted to change it in a way that would give more freedom to Hungary. When the opposition party won the election they usually gave up on that stand and accepted the setup. This was only changed by the socialist - they wanted universal suffrage and did mass demonstrations. But they too were on a managable level OTL.

An even more violent 1848 revolution TTL would be not prone to change this. Also an even more stable Hungary would be standing against an Austria were government is increasingly difficult (see the number of Austrian government pre WWI). This would strengthen the position of the Hungarians inside the empire compared to the Austrians significantly and they had a much better chance to a looser Ausgleich which was their goal. An important and destabilizing change would be the socialist: a more populous and better developed Hungary should face a much stronger socialist movement than OTL. Question is how much stronger this would be?
 
Last edited:
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.

[snip]

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.
I really don't see that happening, especially if this population boost is mostly for ethnic Hungarians (more Hungarians in 1848, and minorities being Austrian loyalists is less of an issue). That said, an 1849 Ausgleich could pay out in spades, as satisfied Hungarians means the monarchy can throw its entire weight (both military and diplomatic) into the Italian wars. Something would still have to be done about strategy and tactics, but this could potentially put Austria in a position to strangle Italy in the crib, and retaining Lombardy would surely be a massive industrial "buff" (a second Bohemia perhaps?).
 
I really don't see that happening, especially if this population boost is mostly for ethnic Hungarians (more Hungarians in 1848, and minorities being Austrian loyalists is less of an issue). That said, an 1849 Ausgleich could pay out in spades, as satisfied Hungarians means the monarchy can throw its entire weight (both military and diplomatic) into the Italian wars. Something would still have to be done about strategy and tactics, but this could potentially put Austria in a position to strangle Italy in the crib, and retaining Lombardy would surely be a massive industrial "buff" (a second Bohemia perhaps?).
You could have the French throw more weight behind Italian unification to compensate and having the Prussians win seems pretty doable regardless.
 
You could have the French throw more weight behind Italian unification to compensate
Would they? Napoleon III basically had a guarantee that the war would be over quick, as the Hungarian tensions made Austria entirely incapable of engaging in a drawn out war (and ensured that come negotiations, rather than debating borders in Italy their primary objective would be getting guarantees that France wouldn't support Hungarian separatists). If in 1859 Franz Joseph is as willing to engage in an imperial slugging match as he was in 1914, then I don't think anyone in France is going to be all that eager to see the Sardinians' war to its conclusion.

and having the Prussians win seems pretty doable regardless.
And I agree to that much, though I think it would be more down to Prussia's industrial advantages and better organized general staff rather than a single pivotal battle cementing the image of Prussian space marines wading up to their knees through white-tuniced corpses.
 
Last edited:
Would they? Napoleon III basically had a guarantee that the war would be over quick, as the Hungarian tensions made Austria entirely incapable of engaging in a drawn out war (and ensured that come negotiations, rather than debating borders in Italy their primary objective would be getting guarantees that France wouldn't support Hungarian separatists. If in 1859 Franz Joseph is as willing to engage in an imperial slugging match as he was in 1914, then I don't think anyone in France is going to be all that eager to see the Sardinian's war to its conclusion.


And I agree to that much, though I think it would be more down to Prussia's industrial advantages and better organized general staff rather than a single pivotal battle cementing the image of Prussian space marines wading up to their knees through white-tuniced corpses.
Idk but it's a possible POD wars have been waged over less, I was simply suggesting a POD.

As for the second part I feel you're putting words in my mouth because I didn't say anything about Prussian space marines.
 
Last edited:
As for the second part I feel you're putting words in my mouth because I didn't say anything about Prussian space marines.
Didn't mean to imply that you did, just wanted to make a general joke about the popular* perception of Prussian military history

*well as "popular" as any view regarding that now somewhat obscure historical country can be
 
I really like the chart for the relative sizes of the European navies.

In this scenario, A-H has the following dreadnoughts:
SMS Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand
SMS Radetzky
SMS Zrínyi
SMS Viribus Unitis
SMS Tegetthoff
SMS Prinz Eugen
SMS Szent István (I'm guessing she would be completed earlier)

Wouldn't this give A-H 7 dreadnoughts, rather than 6?

Also, just throwing out a few ship name ideas:
SMS Lissa (If the Italians stay with the CP, they likely won't care for this)
SMS Hunyadi
SMS Laudon (the Germans probably won't like this or the one below)
SMS Graf Daun
SMS Don Juan d'Austria
SMS Kaiser Josef II
SMS Donau

We need more Hungarian names. Especially with a bigger Hungarian contribution. Maybe more Bohemian or Croatian names?

Extra Austrian names:

SMS Erzherzog Karl (of Napoleonic Wars fame)
SMS [Prinz zu] Schwarzenberg (see above)
SMS [Prinz zu] Liechtenstein (House Liechtestein served the Habsburgs faithfully for centuries. Joseph Wenzel I, oft-forgotten, reformed the artillery in the 18th century)

I feel like SMS Donau is out of place. River names were reserved for the Danube Flotilla (minus Donau itself admittedly).

Hungarian names:

SMS Esterházy (doubt I need to explain that one)
SMS Pálffy Miklos, Pálffy János, or just Pálffy (brothers, Palatines of Hungary and Imperial Field Marshalls in the 18th century; fought in the liberation, helped pass the Pragmatic Sanction and negotiated the end of the war with Rakocsi)
SMS József nádor (Archduke Joseph, popular Palatine ("the most Hungarian Habsburg"), held that office during the Reform Diets)
SMS Hadik András (my personal favourite, 18th century hussar general that sacked Berlin during the Seven Years' War)

Other ethnicities:

SMS Svatý Václav (Good King Wenceslaus, patron saint of Bohemia. Basically Czech equivalent of Szent István)
SMS Kralj Tomislav (first King of Croatia, Croat equivalent of Szent István without thr sainthood)
SMS Montecuccoli (Raimondo Montecuccoli was an Imperial Field Marshall from Italy. His descendent, Rudolf, was head of the KuKKM and, erm, ensured the construction of A-H's first dreadnoughts)

I can probably think of more, but I'll stop for now because I want to share my idea. Especially about the potential alt-1848.

If everything “stays the same” until 1900-10 (highly unlikely, IMO) then I can’t see a “more powerful” (higher population, more industry) Hungary being less of a problem internally for A-H. At the least the Russian intervention in 1848 is going to be more bloody if there are more Hungarians fighting for independence, surely?

I would disagree here, although perhaps that's because the war for independence was completely avoidable iOTL, I find that it has an even better chance of not happening iTTL at all- at least, not like OTL.

I'm basing this on the vague ideas from the thread that make Hungary more stable and prosperous: Less bloody Turkish Wars and liberation, perhaps Hungarian grievances in the 18th century are addressed earlier, no inner customs barriers and, more importantly, even more successful Reform Diets and economic boom pre-1848 thanks to the changes in the 18th century. Serfdom is also abolished earlier (more succesful Joseph II? Leopold II? The Hungarian magnates themselves thanks to the better economy?)

To put a bit more detail: A lot of the issues that led to the Revolution are internal. For example, one of the bigger issues of the Reform Diets was the reform of the county government. By the 19th century, they were controlled by the magnates and quite corrupt. To the point where the government in Vienna intervened and appointed paralleled county governments under their control to counter the issues. When the reform diets finally modernised the county governments, however, Vienna didn't pull out their... arguably illegal (according to the Liberals) appointees, leading to tensions and growing hostility towards perceived meddling from the undemocratic kamarilla.

Say that the county governments are reformed earlier and at a slower pace thanks to a growing middle class in towns and a generally more propserous country, Vienna may never have to meddle in the Hungarian counties, butterflying the issue altogether.

Abolishing serfom earlier is also pretty important for Hungary's prosperity in the 19th century. iOTL, the magnates' dependence on slave labour an abnormally-high number of serfs severely gimped economic growth and progress and kept the countryside overpopulated and seriously poor (an issue that lingered into the 1920s and maybe even 30s). Force the magnates to move away from their attrociously inefficient economies earlier will really help the Hungarian economy and boost the OTL growth in the first half of the 19th century, helping Hungary industrialise at a closer pace to Austria and Bohemia.

Speaking of them, they are bound to prosper as well thanks to a healthier Hungarian economy and competition as the crownlands industralise. This is bound to strengthen the middle class and, inadvertently, Liberalism. A stronger liberal movement in Austria could potentially change things drastically, but for the sake of getting the Ausgleich to happen in 1867, we can't go too crazy.

With that in mind, here's my idea for TTL's 1848 Revolution.

As per OTL, the event that started it all was the French Revolution of 1848. However, what led to violence erupting and an actual revolution to happen was a run to the banks in Vienna as panic spread. People expected serious economic problems if Second French Revolutionary War happened. Panic eventually led to demonstrations and Metternich is abandonned and forced to resign. As per OTL, Kolowrat succeeds him briefly. However, the liberal government that forms after him is a little more stable iTTL; perhaps Pillersdorf becomes Minister-President earlier? By the end of the year, Austria has a consitution similar to the March '49 constitution (i.e. powerful Emperor that makes final decisions and heads military and foreign affairs, bicameral Reichstag, provincial diets maintained, no customs barriers enshrined), Good Ferdinand retires and Franz Joseph succeeds him.

Of course, while this happens, the Hungarians are already doing its own thing. By the time the Austrians are forming their first liberal government, the Hungarians already have responsible government. The liberals in Vienna are just as, if not more, impressed by the Hungarian reformers and are happily allowed their reforms based on Deák's *Ten Points (would be less because Serfdom is already gone), slightly different than Kossuth's 12 points and the April Laws, as it excludes the National Army and Bank.

Jellačić still leads his rebellion against the Hungarians. The clusterfuck that followed was what led to war between Austria and Hungary iOTL. However, because the government in Vienna is more stable and they are just as initially hostile to him as OTL (if not more), their orders a more clear than iOTL not to meddle in the affair. Nevertheless, the Hungarian-Croatian conflict remains a stalemate with Vienna implicitly supporting Buda-Pest (which is OTL, by the way, until the Kamarilla regained power and von Lamberg's murder, both butterflied iTTL). Eventually, as the Hungarian radicals call for further autonomy/independence and a national army to fight the Croats, the Liberal government in Vienna to broker a peace between Buda-Pest and Zagreb, seeing the writing on the wall that if things escalate further, the Empire and constitutional experiment would crumble. The following are decided:

- Croatia remains part of Hungary (as a Land of the Holy Crown of Saint Stephen)
- Croatian autonomy is guaranteed, with the Sabor maintained
- Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia (thanks to pressure from Dalmatian delegates to the Reichstag) are merged into the Triune Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia (which means Hungary de jure gains Dalmatia)
- The Military Frontier is partitioned: Lands south of the Danube and Drava to Croatia, north to Hungary
- ... Something about the appointment of the Ban. What would be more acceptable for all sides? Buda-Pest appointing a largely-ceremonial Ban? The King (Emperor) appointing him directly? The Sabor?
- Something about delegates to the Hungarian Diet or the Reichstag. I feel like the latter isn't really possible in '48/49. Would the Hungarians accept Croatian delegates if they are autonomous?

In other words, the OTL Croat-Hungarian settlement happens during the Revolutions and Austria-Hungary exists in all but name by 1849! Well, not really:

There's one problem. The Austrian constitution would likely include Hungary as part of the Empire, clashing with the *April Laws. The Hungarians would be unwilling to reverse the hard-gained reforms, with radicals calling for even more autonomy or outright independence. While this sounds a lot like the Ausgleich structure, it's not: There are no common ministries and K.u.K. Ministerial Council (yet), meaning that the Hungarians have no say in foreign and military affairs (neither do the Austrians, but that's besides the point). However, because neither sides are willing to either compromise (Hungary doesn't want to subordinate itself to Vienna again (yet) and Austria doesn't want to let Hungary have its own army and foreign policy) and war not being an option, an awkward status quo exists after 1849.

I made sure to avoid the Hungarian War of Independence because I believe the '49-'67 period seriously delayed economic, cultural and political growth, leading to the horribly static political situation in Hungary of 1890-1919, serious growth inequalities and Magyarisation policies/unwillingness to enforce the Minorities' Law. Without the war, the Martyrs of Arad and with liberal, reformist traditions taking deeper root in Hungary, maybe the shift towards further and more radical nationalism can be reduced, economic growth can continue without military occupation and the dominance of the magnates. Plus, that means Batthyány doesn't get his undeserved execution, and that makes me happy.

The period between '49 and '67 is an awkward one. While Austria is victorious in Italy and Prussia is put back to its place as per OTL, the constitutional experiment sort-of stalls in Austria while the Hungarian Liberals are divided: Batthyány, Széchenyi and Deák are dominant figures in the 'moderate' wing of the party, maintaining the status quo and personal union with Austria. Opposing them are the Radicals, perhaps led by Petőfi, calling for full-independence and 'finishing the revolution'. Between them is the charismatic Kossuth calling for even further autonomy (national army, contol of Hungarian regiments, national bank). There's also a growing Conservative Party led by Count Apponyi (for they too have been growing in strength as the democratic system entrenches itself) forming the main non-liberal opposition, pushing for finally sending its delegates to Vienna.

Austria is just as politically divided. Liberals are divided by "centralist" (or German) liberals and "federalist" liberals. Obviously, the issue at hand is centralisation vs. decentralisation and "staatenrechte" (because, yes, States' Rights was an Austrian issue too). Just like in Hungary, the conservatives are growing, too, as the liberals appear more and more divided. The reactionaries/Neoabsolutists are, however, severely weaker without OTL's constitutional failures and the kamarilla's influence on FJ.

Basically, TTL's status quo replaces OTL Neoabsolutism and Military occupation, serving as the justification for the political stagnation in "Austria-Hungary" until 1867 without interrupting the economic growth like OTL did. I can see attempts to solve the issues in the early 1860s failing as per OTL with the Hungarians refusing to cooperate (with some Austrians even calling for a customs barrier to be enacted and a trade war against Hungary, but shut down for being unconstitutional). Despite the stronger economy, "Austria-Hungary" still isn't able to replace Radetzky, Franz Joseph still proves himself to be a sub-par military commander and, as much as I want to save Benedek's reputation, Austria still loses against the Prussians, leading to the Ausgleich of 1867.

I want to keep going, but it's 3:00 and I've been at this for over 4 hours. I'll continue after some feedback. I did also spoil some of my plans for my own TL. Whoops.
 
It doesn't fully matches my OP, but I post this here anyway, as I believe it could be a good material to work with.
POD: Earlier Habsburg Hungary, no Turkish occupation
View attachment 374747
The Kingdom of Hungary after the administrative reform of 1861

View attachment 374748
The various ethnicities of the Kingdom of Hungary by counties in 1910*

Red - Magyars (18 950 000) (70,1%)
Green - Germans (2 050 000) (7,6%)
Turquoise - Slavons (1 850 000) (6,8%)
Yellow - Romanians (1 150 000) (4,2%)
Indigo - Croats (1 000 000) (3,7%)
Light Turquoise - Slovaks (850 000) (3,1%)
Purple - Rusyns (400 000) (1,5%)
Yellowish Green - Serbs (300 000) (1,1%)
Brown - Bosniaks (250 000) (0,9%)
Dark Green - Italians/Dalmatians (100 000) (0,4%)
Lavender - Slovenes (50 000) (0,2%)
[others (100 000) (0,4%)]

Total: 27 050 000

*on the map, only ethnicities with min. 10% are shown in the counties
 
We need more Hungarian names. Especially with a bigger Hungarian contribution. Maybe more Bohemian or Croatian names?

I would disagree here, although perhaps that's because the war for independence was completely avoidable iOTL, I find that it has an even better chance of not happening iTTL at all- at least, not like OTL.

I'm basing this on the vague ideas from the thread that make Hungary more stable and prosperous: Less bloody Turkish Wars and liberation, perhaps Hungarian grievances in the 18th century are addressed earlier, no inner customs barriers and, more importantly, even more successful Reform Diets and economic boom pre-1848 thanks to the changes in the 18th century. Serfdom is also abolished earlier (more succesful Joseph II? Leopold II? The Hungarian magnates themselves thanks to the better economy?)

To put a bit more detail: A lot of the issues that led to the Revolution are internal. For example, one of the bigger issues of the Reform Diets was the reform of the county government. By the 19th century, they were controlled by the magnates and quite corrupt. To the point where the government in Vienna intervened and appointed paralleled county governments under their control to counter the issues. When the reform diets finally modernised the county governments, however, Vienna didn't pull out their... arguably illegal (according to the Liberals) appointees, leading to tensions and growing hostility towards perceived meddling from the undemocratic kamarilla.

Say that the county governments are reformed earlier and at a slower pace thanks to a growing middle class in towns and a generally more propserous country, Vienna may never have to meddle in the Hungarian counties, butterflying the issue altogether.

Abolishing serfom earlier is also pretty important for Hungary's prosperity in the 19th century. iOTL, the magnates' dependence on slave labour an abnormally-high number of serfs severely gimped economic growth and progress and kept the countryside overpopulated and seriously poor (an issue that lingered into the 1920s and maybe even 30s). Force the magnates to move away from their attrociously inefficient economies earlier will really help the Hungarian economy and boost the OTL growth in the first half of the 19th century, helping Hungary industrialise at a closer pace to Austria and Bohemia.

Speaking of them, they are bound to prosper as well thanks to a healthier Hungarian economy and competition as the crownlands industralise. This is bound to strengthen the middle class and, inadvertently, Liberalism. A stronger liberal movement in Austria could potentially change things drastically, but for the sake of getting the Ausgleich to happen in 1867, we can't go too crazy.

With that in mind, here's my idea for TTL's 1848 Revolution.

As per OTL, the event that started it all was the French Revolution of 1848. However, what led to violence erupting and an actual revolution to happen was a run to the banks in Vienna as panic spread. People expected serious economic problems if Second French Revolutionary War happened. Panic eventually led to demonstrations and Metternich is abandonned and forced to resign. As per OTL, Kolowrat succeeds him briefly. However, the liberal government that forms after him is a little more stable iTTL; perhaps Pillersdorf becomes Minister-President earlier? By the end of the year, Austria has a consitution similar to the March '49 constitution (i.e. powerful Emperor that makes final decisions and heads military and foreign affairs, bicameral Reichstag, provincial diets maintained, no customs barriers enshrined), Good Ferdinand retires and Franz Joseph succeeds him.

Of course, while this happens, the Hungarians are already doing its own thing. By the time the Austrians are forming their first liberal government, the Hungarians already have responsible government. The liberals in Vienna are just as, if not more, impressed by the Hungarian reformers and are happily allowed their reforms based on Deák's *Ten Points (would be less because Serfdom is already gone), slightly different than Kossuth's 12 points and the April Laws, as it excludes the National Army and Bank.

Jellačić still leads his rebellion against the Hungarians. The clusterfuck that followed was what led to war between Austria and Hungary iOTL. However, because the government in Vienna is more stable and they are just as initially hostile to him as OTL (if not more), their orders a more clear than iOTL not to meddle in the affair. Nevertheless, the Hungarian-Croatian conflict remains a stalemate with Vienna implicitly supporting Buda-Pest (which is OTL, by the way, until the Kamarilla regained power and von Lamberg's murder, both butterflied iTTL). Eventually, as the Hungarian radicals call for further autonomy/independence and a national army to fight the Croats, the Liberal government in Vienna to broker a peace between Buda-Pest and Zagreb, seeing the writing on the wall that if things escalate further, the Empire and constitutional experiment would crumble. The following are decided:

- Croatia remains part of Hungary (as a Land of the Holy Crown of Saint Stephen)
- Croatian autonomy is guaranteed, with the Sabor maintained
- Croatia, Slavonia and Dalmatia (thanks to pressure from Dalmatian delegates to the Reichstag) are merged into the Triune Kingdom of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia (which means Hungary de jure gains Dalmatia)
- The Military Frontier is partitioned: Lands south of the Danube and Drava to Croatia, north to Hungary
- ... Something about the appointment of the Ban. What would be more acceptable for all sides? Buda-Pest appointing a largely-ceremonial Ban? The King (Emperor) appointing him directly? The Sabor?
- Something about delegates to the Hungarian Diet or the Reichstag. I feel like the latter isn't really possible in '48/49. Would the Hungarians accept Croatian delegates if they are autonomous?

In other words, the OTL Croat-Hungarian settlement happens during the Revolutions and Austria-Hungary exists in all but name by 1849! Well, not really:

There's one problem. The Austrian constitution would likely include Hungary as part of the Empire, clashing with the *April Laws. The Hungarians would be unwilling to reverse the hard-gained reforms, with radicals calling for even more autonomy or outright independence. While this sounds a lot like the Ausgleich structure, it's not: There are no common ministries and K.u.K. Ministerial Council (yet), meaning that the Hungarians have no say in foreign and military affairs (neither do the Austrians, but that's besides the point). However, because neither sides are willing to either compromise (Hungary doesn't want to subordinate itself to Vienna again (yet) and Austria doesn't want to let Hungary have its own army and foreign policy) and war not being an option, an awkward status quo exists after 1849.

I made sure to avoid the Hungarian War of Independence because I believe the '49-'67 period seriously delayed economic, cultural and political growth, leading to the horribly static political situation in Hungary of 1890-1919, serious growth inequalities and Magyarisation policies/unwillingness to enforce the Minorities' Law. Without the war, the Martyrs of Arad and with liberal, reformist traditions taking deeper root in Hungary, maybe the shift towards further and more radical nationalism can be reduced, economic growth can continue without military occupation and the dominance of the magnates. Plus, that means Batthyány doesn't get his undeserved execution, and that makes me happy.

The period between '49 and '67 is an awkward one. While Austria is victorious in Italy and Prussia is put back to its place as per OTL, the constitutional experiment sort-of stalls in Austria while the Hungarian Liberals are divided: Batthyány, Széchenyi and Deák are dominant figures in the 'moderate' wing of the party, maintaining the status quo and personal union with Austria. Opposing them are the Radicals, perhaps led by Petőfi, calling for full-independence and 'finishing the revolution'. Between them is the charismatic Kossuth calling for even further autonomy (national army, contol of Hungarian regiments, national bank). There's also a growing Conservative Party led by Count Apponyi (for they too have been growing in strength as the democratic system entrenches itself) forming the main non-liberal opposition, pushing for finally sending its delegates to Vienna.

Austria is just as politically divided. Liberals are divided by "centralist" (or German) liberals and "federalist" liberals. Obviously, the issue at hand is centralisation vs. decentralisation and "staatenrechte" (because, yes, States' Rights was an Austrian issue too). Just like in Hungary, the conservatives are growing, too, as the liberals appear more and more divided. The reactionaries/Neoabsolutists are, however, severely weaker without OTL's constitutional failures and the kamarilla's influence on FJ.

Basically, TTL's status quo replaces OTL Neoabsolutism and Military occupation, serving as the justification for the political stagnation in "Austria-Hungary" until 1867 without interrupting the economic growth like OTL did. I can see attempts to solve the issues in the early 1860s failing as per OTL with the Hungarians refusing to cooperate (with some Austrians even calling for a customs barrier to be enacted and a trade war against Hungary, but shut down for being unconstitutional). Despite the stronger economy, "Austria-Hungary" still isn't able to replace Radetzky, Franz Joseph still proves himself to be a sub-par military commander and, as much as I want to save Benedek's reputation, Austria still loses against the Prussians, leading to the Ausgleich of 1867.

I want to keep going, but it's 3:00 and I've been at this for over 4 hours. I'll continue after some feedback. I did also spoil some of my plans for my own TL. Whoops.

I think you'r assesment of the two examples that led to the 1848 rebellion is fundamentally flawed in one case and I feel the need to clerify on the other as well.

1. County government: It was far from the most important issues - there was only a small group called Centralist who were important but clearly a minority among the liberal nobility. The whole question never was about corruption or efficiency. The thing is that in this regards government in hungary was very decentralised. During the absolutist reign in the earlier part of the 19th century the main point of hungarian resistance was at the counties and this was effective. Vienna sending parallel county governments was Vienna tring to break this resistance. Because of this the vast majority of the hungarian liberals preferred to keep the county system as it was because they saw it as their line of defence if Austria went absolutist again.

2. Serfdom: In hungary it was the nobility including the "evil" magnates that ended serfdom in the parlaiment. They did it in a way that the peasents received much more land than they did either in Russia or Prussia were the ruler ended it against the nobility. I think this is unique - Also the hungarian nobility was forced to rely on serflabor for another of the most glaring issues. There was a law from the middle ages (1352) regarding the inheritance and selling of noble estates that had the effect in the 19th century that the nobles coudnt get loans to modernise their estates. Them giving land to the peasents in 1848 srenghtened the revolution immensly. I agree that ending serfdom earlier is good but if you do it earlier however whats the POD for that? Vienna pushing for it in the early 1820's? Or Joseph II? Both would lead to rebellion. At Joseph time this is very dangerous because of the french revolution. In the 1820's time is better but you need some very serious changes to the Austrian leadership.

3. Most reasons or the revolution was internal and thats true. However in a lot of cases it was the ruler who blocked initiatives of the hungarian liberal nobility. Vienna backed the constervatives and illegally imprisoned some of the liberal leaders. In others the king simply refused to sign some of the laws voted by the pairlaiment (he was within his rights to do so). What I ment to say is that the will to reform and modernise the county existed in Hungary among the nobility and they were willing to make considerable sacrifices of their own to reach this goal.

Regarding the Croatian issue: everyone is better of if Croatia is as independent of Hungary as it can be managed. Ban should be appointed by the king and maybe stipulated that he should be Croatian - or a croatian noble which is more likely at the time.
 
2. Serfdom: In hungary it was the nobility including the "evil" magnates that ended serfdom in the parlaiment. They did it in a way that the peasents received much more land than they did either in Russia or Prussia were the ruler ended it against the nobility. I think this is unique - Also the hungarian nobility was forced to rely on serflabor for another of the most glaring issues. There was a law from the middle ages (1352) regarding the inheritance and selling of noble estates that had the effect in the 19th century that the nobles coudnt get loans to modernise their estates. Them giving land to the peasents in 1848 srenghtened the revolution immensly. I agree that ending serfdom earlier is good but if you do it earlier however whats the POD for that? Vienna pushing for it in the early 1820's? Or Joseph II? Both would lead to rebellion. At Joseph time this is very dangerous because of the french revolution. In the 1820's time is better but you need some very serious changes to the Austrian leadership.
Well, the agrarian deconjuncture began immediately after the Napoleonic Wars, so the desire to reform appeared almost as early as that. I think serfdom could be abolished in the late 20's or early 30's already. Also the peasants receiving less lands might not be that bad in this sceniario, since the towns and cities, because of the earlier industrialisation could suck up more workforce from the countryside. In turn, the lowered available workforce on the countryside would trigger an earlier and better modernisation of the agrarium.
3. Most reasons or the revolution was internal and thats true. However in a lot of cases it was the ruler who blocked initiatives of the hungarian liberal nobility. Vienna backed the constervatives and illegally imprisoned some of the liberal leaders. In others the king simply refused to sign some of the laws voted by the pairlaiment (he was within his rights to do so). What I ment to say is that the will to reform and modernise the county existed in Hungary among the nobility and they were willing to make considerable sacrifices of their own to reach this goal.
An economically and politically heavier weighting Hungary(, which is basically the POD) could probably solve most of the OTL problems, IMO.
Regarding the Croatian issue: everyone is better of if Croatia is as independent of Hungary as it can be managed. Ban should be appointed by the king and maybe stipulated that he should be Croatian - or a croatian noble which is more likely at the time.
I think so too. The King of Hungary appoints the Ban of Slavonia-Croatia-Dalmatia, but maybe an approval of the Hungarian parliement would be needed.
 
Well, the agrarian deconjuncture began immediately after the Napoleonic Wars, so the desire to reform appeared almost as early as that. I think serfdom could be abolished in the late 20's or early 30's already. Also the peasants receiving less lands might not be that bad in this sceniario, since the towns and cities, because of the earlier industrialisation could suck up more workforce from the countryside. In turn, the lowered available workforce on the countryside would trigger an earlier and better modernisation of the agrarium.

An economically and politically heavier weighting Hungary(, which is basically the POD) could probably solve most of the OTL problems, IMO.

I think so too. The King of Hungary appoints the Ban of Slavonia-Croatia-Dalmatia, but maybe an approval of the Hungarian parliement would be needed.

With an economically stronger Hungary I can see the nobility supporting an earlier abolition of serfdom so 1820's is possible. However how will Vienna react? As I said Vienna usually backed the conservatives and with reason. As long as you dont have a liberal austrian government I dont see this changing.

Actually a lot of OTL issues can be solved by a liberal government and the revolution could have been easily avoided. An economically stronger Hungary makes the push for solving the issues stronger but doesnt solve the issues themselfs.

In Croatia I think the most important think is to avoid OTL so hungarian pairlament should not be involved. However I can see this being an important issue. Various hungarian governments would push for a say in croatian matters.
 
Make a way to make A-H more german and magyar, with that they could expand and develop easily without nationalism protest and sabotage, well develop A-H would be the sixth or fifth economy(ahead Italy and japan and tied with France) and would be a power in the balkans.
 
Make a way to make A-H more german and magyar, with that they could expand and develop easily without nationalism protest and sabotage, well develop A-H would be the sixth or fifth economy(ahead Italy and japan and tied with France) and would be a power in the balkans.
So... what they were OTL?
 
Russia was four, bigger that France and would ríe germany if not the war, AH did have massive potential but in OTL got curtailed
Got a source on that? I know they were the fastest growing economy, but I don't think they ever managed to eclipse France.
 
But that was OTL. Austria-Hungary and France had nearly identical GNP. THe difference was in GNP per Capita.
GDP(yeah Colonies screw up) was the one i was using but yeah GNP who is one that matter is more closer, if reorganized would be far stronger even, a shame AH was the country of the missed oportunities
 
Top