WI Leopold II of Austria, instead of Joseph II, succeeds Maria Theresa

This is the same WI as I posted here, just with a title that is more clear. :D

Joseph II of Austria is much feted in allohistorical circles. People often ask "what if his reforms had worked?" and to be sure, it is a fascinating what-if. People imagine a Hapsburg Empire reformed, rationalized and entering the 19th Century with an energy more comparable to our own history's Prussia than to the conservative and divided empire of OTL. Alas, Joseph II had ambition and intelligence, but he was a poor ruler and, by most reports, not a nice man. His high-handed rule made even the people whose lot he wished to better hate his reforms, his poorly chosen wars impoverished Austria, and did much to enrich Russia and Prussia. His personal, and rather traumatic, involvement in the raising of his nephew and eventual successor, Francis I, led to the boy growing into a man who hated libralism with every fiber of his soul. In short, Joseph II was a disaster for Austria and all of Europe.

But Joseph had a brother, who, in the words of contemporaries "had a heart of brains". This brother, who would, after Joseph's death become Emperor Leopold II, was the man who undid most of his brother's damage. He was unloveable but also capable, liberal, and most importantly, practical. In short, he is the man Joseph wished to be, and a worthy heir to Maria Theresa. Unfortunately, he died only two years into his reign (their are rumours that he was poisoned).

See this wikipedia article for more detail on the man.

So, what if Joseph II falls ill while leading his troops during the Bavarian War of Succession. He struggles on for a few months, but dies shortly after the treaty of Teschen is signed in May of 1779. His brother, as OTL, succeeds him. Briefly acting as co-regent with his mother, until Maria Theresa dies as OTL, in November of 1780.

Leopold is now free to set Austria on a course of his own choosing, without being weighed down by the damage his brother did. Let us further suppose that his sudden death, if not by poison in OTL, is at least butterflied, and he lives as long as his eldest son, and dies on 23rd May 1813 at the age of 67.

So what to people think would happen in the 33 years of Leopold's rule?

I think for a start, Leopold with persue his OTL course of allying with Britain to contain Prussia. But with a much earlier start, this could have enormous effects. For example, if Prussia is restrained by intelligent Austrian diplomacy, the second partition of Poland may never happen, or be significantly altered in character.

I am not sure if Leopold will ally with Russia as Joseph did, but I very much doubt it. Joseph was very much a fan of Catherine the Great, and let her bamboozel him into an alliance that was not in the Austrian interest. And after all, Leopold's alliance with Britain was as much to contain Russia as Prussia. If Leopold continues Maria Theresa's arms-length relationship with Russia, then the Austro-Turkish war of 1787 doesn't happen, and nor does the Russo-Turkish war of 1787. Both Russia and the Ottomans wanted the war though, so while Leopold might delay the two powers fighting, I think another war between Russia and Turkey is inevitable. The question is, how soon, and can Austria extract favorable a favorable outcome for them when it does happen?

The reform of the Austrian realms themselves are put on a completely different trajectory. I have difficulty imagining what that will be though.

I do wonder if Leopold will abolish the use of Latin as the official language. I have a feeling he would, since that is the "enlightened" thing to do. But keeping Latin as the official language could have very large practical benefits for the Empire. It would certainly avoid the nationalistic fights over the languages of command and governance that Austria-Hungary had in the 19th and 20th Centuries.

There is the possibility that the French revolution is butterflied, but I think that by 1779 SOME form of French revolution is likely, so for the sake of discussion, let us say that a butterfly net between Austria and France keeps things on their OTL track.

At that point, it's hard to say what changes, Leopold did not want to get drawn into the French Revolution in OTL, and being on the throne longer won't change that, I think. But unless his sister and her children successfully escape France before they are executed I think it is inevitable that Austria is drawn into a war with France. But outside that, stronger direction from Vienna can significantly change the details of the early revolutionary wars.

Perhaps most importantly, Leopold succeeding his brother earlier means that he retains control of the education of his son, the future Francis II. A less reactionary Francis I would be a great gift to the future.

fasquardon
 
Does a better-run Austria during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic period really inspire so little interest?

fasquardon
 
I would say killing off Joseph II would be the more interesting scenario, I'd love to read how Austria would do in the face of revolutionary europe
 
Very interested in this idea (the original one in the OP that is). Austria rarely is in a position to benefit in ATLs not centered around them, and very few people here seem interested in doing TLs about them. If you write the TL, I'll be sure to give it a look:)
 

Vitruvius

Donor
I'm a big fan of Leopold II so I would definitely be interested either way its done. It's funny but I think that what you said about Joseph II being (overly) feted in the alternate history community is a true. I posted something a while back in a thread about Josephinism defending Leopold and I got a stern response knocking down his rule as huge setback for Austria. I get the impression, and I could be wrong, but it seems that people who know him mostly in the context of the French Revolution and the Declaration of Pillnitz tend to view him unfavorably as an arch-reactionary. This in turn colors how they view his handling of Austria. Unwinding Joseph's more ill conceived reforms is cast as a conservative reaction or a backwards unenlightened mistake.

So maybe if Leopold was able to take charge earlier and carry out a more carefully considered Leopoldian Reform we could get a period of enlightened reform that could really accomplish something for Austria in the long run. I wonder about Tuscany though, it would probably have to be under a Regency since Ferdinand III would only be about 10 when Leopold becomes HRE. Would that be a distraction? I also worry that some of Leopold's success came through trial and error in a smaller more manageable state like Tuscany. So I could see more mistakes or bumps along the road trying to reform the Austrian empire.
 
I also worry that some of Leopold's success came through trial and error in a smaller more manageable state like Tuscany. So I could see more mistakes or bumps along the road trying to reform the Austrian empire.

Most likely some of his success was due to that. On the other hand, Tuscany was a much more conservative place, compared to Austria, so even if he succeeded less, he'd be working from a higher base.

But in there are three respects in which Leopold seems, even at the earliest age, to be fundamentally different from and better than his brother in. Firstly, he was not, by nature an autocrat and listened to advice. Secondly he, like his mother, was not an expansionist. Thirdly, he had a talent for picking good subordinates.

Also, I think it is notable that most of his children were very able as well. (The exceptions are those that he didn't have much time to influence.)

fasquardon
 

Vitruvius

Donor
Oh, I agree completely. He had a better temperament than Joseph and was more likely to actually accomplish something without creating a new problem to solve. And I think having Francis II raised by Leopold would certainly improve his prospects as well. I'm just careful to temper my expectations. Just as some people tend to over glorify Joseph I'm leery of assuming things under Leopold II would be perfect.
 
Top