WI: Habsburgs promote the Venetian language
- Thread starter kasumigenx
- Start date
Thomas1195
Banned
It was still different from being ruled by an absolute monarchy. There was no constitutional monarchy in 1815-1848 in Europe, all were absolute monarchies of different forms, even the July Monarchy became increasingly reactionary as time went on.
The Austrians went down the OTL route of direct oppression because when they promised home rule IOTL initially, the Venetians demanded nothing short of complete independence, basically reestablishing the old republic. In addition, Venice and Trieste (under direct Habsburgs control) were natural rivals, and the Habsburgs by any mean would have favoured the latter - this is a problem that cannot be resolved. Also, the Austrians had debts on their eye balls following the Napoleonic Wars, making it impossible for them to lower taxes IOTL.
In addition to economic factors, the attachment to the old republic did play a part in the formation of the Republic of San Marco IOTL. In Piedmont, Genoa/Linguria was a republican hotbed throughout the whole period for the reason - its strong republican tradition.
Last edited:
Thomas1195
Banned
The Venetian rule was less oppressive than any typical absolute monarchy during the Holy League/Congress of Vienna era, after all.
The Austrian Empire ceased to be absolutist beginning around 1860...
There was no constitutional monarchy in 1815-1848 in Europe, all were absolute monarchies of different forms, even the July Monarchy became increasingly reactionary as time went on.
This is untrue. Just tried making a list of them but got bogged down in the middle of the constituent states of the German Confederation. Constitutional monarchies with some shared power between monarch and a legislative assembly may not have accounted for the majority of the European population (Russia and the OE probably tip that scale), but there were certainly quite a lot of them prior to 1848.
This^
Among the states that were constitutional monarchies in Europe were as follows:
- United Kingdom: Has been a constitutional monarchy before even the Acts of Union of 1707, with England in 1215 with the Magna Carta and Scotland dating back to 1235. Both of whom have even played a role as being a thorn in the side of the affairs of the monarch (even more so with regards to England's).
- Belgium: Has been a constitutional monarchy since 1831, as a matter of fact, it's constitution has been in force largely since 1831.
- France: Both the Bourbon Restoration and the July Monarchy were technically constitutional monarchies, as a matter of fact, the condition for the original Bourbon Restoration was that Louis XVIII must have a constitution. And while the Bourbon Restoration did become increasingly reactionary over time (especially during the reign of Charles X who outright sought to institute Absolutism without delay), I can't say the same with the July Monarchy, though I will concede they did become increasingly conservative over time, which alienated the liberals.
- Spain & Portugal: Both countries had multiple constitutions in force between 1815-1848, Portugal with 3 (1822, 1826 & 1838) and Spain, 4 (the 1812 constitution which was enforced twice, in 1820-1823 & 1836-1837, as well as the Royal Charter of 1834, and Constitutions of 1837 & 1845), in fact both countries fought a Civil War which, while fought over who had the right to their respective thrones, was also a war of constituionalism (on the side of Isabella II and Maria II of Spain & Portugal respectively) vs. absolutism. (on the side of Duke Carlos of Molina [Carlos V] & Miguel I respectively)
- Poland: Technically counts, as it is the reason it's referred to as the "Congress" Kingdom of Poland. Not actually enforced because, am I'm pretty much convinced, that Russia probably more wanted to have Poland as just another Russian-speaking, Eastern Orthodox governorate.
- Sweden & Norway: The Instrument of Government of 1809 functioned as the Constitution of Sweden until 1974 with their Basic Laws. As for Norway, which was in personal union with Sweden at the time, a modified version of the 1814 Constitution was used in those lands and would remain in force until Norwegian independence in 1905.
- United Netherlands: Believe it or not, also sort of had a constitution in 1815.
All in all, all of the aforementioned countries had constitutions and were by definition constitutional monarchies, despite some of them largely being fairly limited in form and many having been improved upon over time, but to say that there were simply no constitutional monarchies in Europe is very much wrong.
I think Russia suspended (or at least ignored) the Constitution of Congress Poland after the Revolt of 1830, but they did leave the laws and Diet of Finland in place, at least until Alex III and Nicky II started tightening the reins in the late 1800's...
Thomas1195
Banned
My bad, forgot about Belgium and Britain, but these two were the only ones really close to constitutional monarchy in modern sense. (Actually was about to say Continental Europe). As for Netherlands, Belgium was a thing because Willem I was too autocratic.
As for Venice, if your POD is 1860-1866, then the Old Republic would have been even more fantastic in terms of propaganda values for liberals and nationalists. It would have easily become the myth of the Good Old Cause. Venetian nationalism cannot be separated from the Venetian Republic, because of its foundation and its long history (1000 years, maybe longer than the Habsburg Empire itself) and the fact that it was forcibly merged into the Habsburg Empire against its will, regardless of the Republic's flaws. And, there is the Trieste/Venice thing that would not go away. Finally, the Austrians would have to win a war against Prussia because Italy could simply side with Prussia and grab Venetia at peace talk.
Theoretically, you can recreate a puppet Venetian Republic under Habsburg reign (there were republics within German Confederation at some points IOTL), but it would open a can of worms as the Croats, the Czechs, the Hungarians would not stay idle if that deal happens.
If you're talking about it in the modern sense, then well yes, it's just Belgium and Britain, and even then in the modern sense not a single country on Earth has achieved the level of governance we've achieved in well...today's sense.
There were numerous local dialects of Italian, but all the speakers of all of them considered themselves Italians. All scholars and literary figures wrote in "standard" Italian, i.e. Tuscan. If there was any separatist feeling in Venetia in the 1800s, it would have been associated with the old Republic, and would be directed against Austria. I suspect however that the peasantry and townsfolk of the Republic's mainland territories had less-than-fond memories of being ruled from the City. I doubt there was ever a Doge from Padua or Verona.
I think the Habsburgs could revive the Margraviate of Verona instead of Creating Lombardy-Venetia.
If THERE IS a serious Venetian nationalist feeling distinct from Italy (tall order) Italy might feel content with Venetia as a buffer. Unlikely but possibile.Which enemies? If the Kingdom of Italy were to play this angle, it would certainly be a ruse, and the nascent "Republic of Venice" would find itself annexed at the 1st opportune moment
The issue of absolute monarchies prior to the French Revolution was that that were really wasn't one universal method of absolutism. France under Louis XIV was a de-facto absolute monarchy, though the Sun King used his court in Versailles to keep his nobles from scheming against him, and even then their legal and financial privileges remained intact. Louis XIV had his own restrictions. After his death, the French Monarchy was pretty far from absolute. If it were truly absolute then the Revolution would have never happened as the French monarchy would have been able to force through its reforms and curtail its nobility. Instead the Bourbons were strong-armed into calling the Estates General. Though that effort collapsed in flames as it had been defunct for so long, no one in living memory really knew how it operated.
Well the truth was actually a bit more complicated than that. Even Charles X recognized that absolutism, or at least the return to the style of the monarchy prior to 1789 was untenable. He was reactionary, and recognized the Constitution and acted within his principles. Though he did want to bring back some of the traditional trappings and ceremonies of the old French monarchy. This was part of the growing movement of romanticism which idealized the old medieval society. Many nobles from the Ultraroyalists who surrounded him idealized the days of Saint-Louis under whose reign France began a medieval golden age. Honestly Charles' rule reminds me of James II who did manage to assert the Crown's authority over Parliament which was undone because of his staunch Catholicism. Though Charles was pretty tone-deaf when it came to the Parisian and French society, and this combined with worsening economic situation (crop failures of 1827-1829) made him become unpopular with the rural populace who had been historically more favorable to the monarchy. Though he wasn't so unpopular that the monarchy should be abolished, and had he been more tactful, he or probably his son Louis XIX could have suppressed the Revolution like other contemporary European states did.
I doubt that this would work in the long run for the Habsburgs if tried. Venice had always been considered a part of Italy proper and was always involved in its de-jure affairs like the Renaissance and Italian Wars. Plus bringing back the Venetian identity would more likely backfire on the Habsburgs who had conquered it. While Venice would have some parallels to the Netherlands, it shares more of common national heritage with the rest of Italy.
The Netherlands and the low countries by extension could also be grouped as part of the Frankish Kingdom of Lotharingia/the later duchy of Burgundy.
Thomas1195
Banned
Unfortunately, Habsburg rule IOTL was worse, and that was caused by some unavoidable factors such as high debts which forced the Habsburgs to tax the shit out of Lombardy-Venetia, as well as the Venice/Trieste thing.
Thomas1195
Banned
Austrian rule, after realising that mutually-agreeable home rule would not be possible, exploited Venetian resources, economically and politically, favouring Trieste as the imperial seaport.[1] Within 50 years of their acquisition of the former republic, Austria had taken 45 million Austrian lire more from the region than had been spent there and Venetian capitalism had been stifled by a reluctance on the part of the slow, bureaucratic Habsburg régime to grant credit to Venetian entrepreneurs.[1] By the end of the 1840s, a collection of intellectuals, urban manufacturers, bankers, merchants and agrarian inhabitants of the terra ferma were clamouring for political change and greater economic opportunity, albeit only by non-violent means.
Kingdom of Lombardy–Venetia - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
6th paragraph
Republic of San Marco - Wikipedia
nothing says in that of any dissent against Austrian rule or challenging it. It also specifically says Venetians, and nothing of the rural areas like the one discussed:-Austrian rule, after realising that mutually-agreeable home rule would not be possible, exploited Venetian resources, economically and politically, favouring Trieste as the imperial seaport.[1] Within 50 years of their acquisition of the former republic, Austria had taken 45 million Austrian lire more from the region than had been spent there and Venetian capitalism had been stifled by a reluctance on the part of the slow, bureaucratic Habsburg régime to grant credit to Venetian entrepreneurs.[1] By the end of the 1840s, a collection of intellectuals, urban manufacturers, bankers, merchants and agrarian inhabitants of the terra ferma were clamouring for political change and greater economic opportunity, albeit only by non-violent means.
Republic of San Marco - Wikipedia
en.m.wikipedia.org
Austrian rule, after realising that mutually-agreeable home rule would not be possible, exploited Venetian resources, economically and politically, favouring Trieste as the imperial seaport.[1] Within 50 years of their acquisition of the former republic, Austria had taken 45 million Austrian lire more from the region than had been spent there and Venetian capitalism had been stifled by a reluctance on the part of the slow, bureaucratic Habsburg régime to grant credit to Venetian entrepreneurs.[1] By the end of the 1840s, a collection of intellectuals, urban manufacturers, bankers, merchants and agrarian inhabitants of the terra ferma were clamouring for political change and greater economic opportunity, albeit only by non-violent means.
Republic of San Marco - Wikipedia
oh and from the citation it uses:-