Many thanks to Ridge Wallet for sponsoring this video! www.ridge.com/MONSIEURZ We have new videos every Wednesday at 2:30pm EST. Don't miss them, and please like & share the video if you enjoyed it! Become a channel sponsor: th-cam.com/channels/QR_kmeb0lBEk1Zj_9LWDHA.htmljoin Buy official shirts: modernmediamerch.com/search?q=monsieur+z Join our "Discord Server": www.usofz.com/forum Pick up a copy of our novel: www.amazon.com/Am-Uncle-Sam-Dean-Mosley-ebook/dp/B07WNG95QH
What if Prussia didn't just unify the German states but also included the low lands, Switzerland, Denmark, and the Austrian empire. Focusing on making a unified culture in the German states it has conquered and aggressively superssing the balkans.
What if Emperor Charles V didn't abdicate and divide his empire? Basically, what if King Philip II of Spain inherited everything and was elected Holy Roman Emperor?
Bismarck can lie rolling on the floor hammering at the ground. It won't help him.He might have dominated his dimbwitted, craven king that way in real life, but if he lost the war, that won't help him.
@You're Spying Yes, all of this is true. Poland was France's most numerous ally - out of 300 thousand soldiers that marched into Russia, 100 thousand were Poles. Napoleon even called the invasion of Russia the "Second Polish War" saying that he is going to help liberate Poland from the occupiers. All in all, France was always seen as the 'free world' and Napoleon seen as a great ally of ours.
I would guess that Prussia in this timeline would be like Austria now. Just a bit stronger than our Austria. They probably won’t see themselves as Germans anymore but as Prussians.
As an ethnical Prussian/Slesian, I think that is unlikely. It does not fit to the Prussian soul. Prussians are very rational and the Prussian state allways was opportunistic. Furthermore, the way we got an independent Austria was not that simple. After being excluted from the Union, Austria-Hungary was it's own big power and allied with Germany, probally because they still feld connected to the other German states. After destroyed by the entante, the small Austria wanted to unify with Germany, but France and Britian did not allow this. When Hitler toke Austria, the people still liked this and after WW2 Austria again wanted to unify with Germany but again wasn't allowed to. Only after being cut of from Germany for more than 100 years, Austrians have developed this kind of volunteer independents. Prussia on the other hand, first and foremost saw itself as German. After a heavy defeat, the Prussian ambitions to become a great power would be discarded, if it is out of reach. If the Austrians would be smart, they could even appeal to the Prussian ambitions and rally their military expertice under the German flag. Prussia would have become much like the military states in Appalachia, where many of the US soldiers come from. I am pretty sure that a big Austria would not have any interest to exclude a small Prussia and a small Prussia would not have any interest to be left out! I think it is unbelieveable that Prussia would lose Brandenburg, but even if they just lose parts of it, Slesia and the Rhineland. Prussia would have lost most of its population. It wouldn't be a danger to Austria anymore and also would not be able to be independent. Prussias remaining lands would be arround 40% Polish. They couldn't hold it. And as a small remaining country - with maybe 4 million people at its best - you would have been freiwild aka defenseless at the time. Next to Russia, it wouldn't stand a chance - in peace or war, they would fall either to Prussia or Germany. I am pretty sure, Prussia would have chosen Germany.
@@joze838 I am of East Prussian origin: D But you have to see the situation, Prussia lost a war because all other German states have united against them. If we follow exactly this scenario, they will even have lost their capital. I hardly think that the Prussians still feel really German after something like that. Otto von Bismarck had never really liked the Austrians. Then they should join a Germany that is dominated by Austrians? Kaiser Wilhelm 1 didn't even want to become an emperor of a Prussian dominated Germany. Prussia would still have an strong army and through Birsmarck they also have good diplomatic relations. If a war broke out then I am sure France would like to have one major power less on the border and because Prussia is not a danger to them, it might even ally itself with them. Prussia also has no problem with going to war with Germans, as you could see. I think Prussia would wait for a favorable situation and build up its strength again until then. Furthermore, the areas of Prussia were predominantly German. Never 40% of Poles, that would be far too many. Ich hoffe man kann es lesen.
@@technine967 I meant 40% Poles in the scenario I proposed there. You were right anyways, I wastly underestimated how advanced the Germanification of the Prussian lands was and slightly overestimating how much of Poland still was in their possession. I calculated it, just for the records look at what you (we) would have gotten there - on the German side: A smaller version of the sparsely populated Brandenburg with a Berlin with still under one million people. Brandenburg with Berlin had at the time arround 2,8 million people, so lets take 2,4. The even more sparsely populated East Prussia arround 1,8 million people with a significant Polish population in the south and Pommern with 1,4 million people. 1,3 million in West Prussia, but of those arround half of them were Polish or Kaschubish and Posen with nearly 1,6 million people, but those were to 65% Polish (and Kaschubish and Masurish). So we would get 8,5 million people - twice as much as I thought :O and 1,9 million wouldn't be German - so roughly 20%. So I admit, I am wrong about that. They/We maybe could survive alone. I do not share your opinion about the idea that Prussians wouldn't feel German anymore. The German identity at the time wasn't connected with a particular state yet. So it would be a bit like if the Polish wouldn't feel slavic anymore, because Russia devided them. "Kaiser Wilhelm 1 didn't even want to become an emperor of a Prussian dominated Germany." - that's not correct. He didn't want the title "deutscher Kaiser" but wanted to become even more powerful as "Kaiser von Deutschland", which would have gave him a stronger grip on the other German states and also technically would include Austria. So therefore, I think he was pretty much into a German state. While much stronger than I thought, there would be the possibility to remain outside of Germany but, I do not think so - it simply could have been demanded by the other German states and if Wilhelm really stood behind the idea of a German nation state, he would have agreed.
@@technine967, that the Austrians do not feel German anymore is just a result of World War II, the same thing happened in Switzerland, where the majority thought to be German themselves. Just the World War II changed it. And between the two wars, the fascists declared that Austrian are own ethnic group and have nothing in common with Germany, thus Hitler has to fight against the fascists there.
@@YMandarin Brandenburg was the dominant partner in the Brandenburg-Prussian Kingdom. It was the Hohenzollern electors of Brandenburg who came into possession of the Duchy of Prussia, and the Kingdom was named for the Duchy as a legal technicality - the Hohenzollerns wanted to be Kings, but there could only be one King in the Empire, and that was the King of Bohemia, a title held by the Emperor through the Habsburg claim on that throne. The Hohenzollerns in Brandenburg got around this by naming themselves Kings IN Prussia, which was outside the Empire. So "liberating" Brandenburg from Prussia would be like "Liberating" Moscow from Russia - completely nonsensical, as Brandenburg was the founding component of the Kingdom in the first place.
@@DarkRaven4649 True, even though you still could split both in half. But the video ones again showed quite a lack of understanding of the matter, I agree. It's not like Austria could just annex everything they want. And Austria probally wouldn't want to annex Brandenburg anyway. Just split it in some parts and rule as Kaiser. Prussia would never become excluded like this. It doesn't have any advantages for Prussia or Austria.
One thing I would add as an Austrian is; We would go after Italy for "our" lost sea. Some of us are still kinda angry about Italy's takeing of South Tyrol and Triest .
Yes, Z has no idea of how important Triest was at the time, however, as the Austrians would have suffered heavy losses against the prussians, they would not be able to get back everything, Veneto, Trent and Goritia (and possibily Alto Adige, you know,that thing that is not Tyrol anymore) would have been annex by Italy, and there would have been some sort of agreement on Triest
After a war against prussians that left Austria exausted, the power shift may have been to great to let other thing happening. France was allied to Italy and Russia would have helped to keep the order of power. Oh and don't forget about a reveng from Prussia. And btw it was never your sea, Trieste is an italian city, found by Romans, and kept being italian for the whole history. And about alto-adige (south tryol is till bolzano not till trento), you should be thankful that there are still germans there
Lol, Italian nationalists are always so cringy. You people should be happy Italy even exists, and I have no idea how any of you can be proud of the mess you made of the place.
Obviously, you don't know the old Habsburg motto "A E I O U": Alles Erde Ist Österreich Untertan" (All of the Earth is under Austrias Rule); it's a bonmot, not an ideology btw. Also: "Austria is the country where the sun never sets". This was true, when Austria and Spain was one country - and all spanish colonies, like Mexiko.
Spain had multiple reason why they couldn't join ww1. 1. The economy at the time was litteral garbage. 2. Their army wasen't the best, same goes for the navy 3. If they would have joined the central powers, the entente would most likely still win. Why? Well first because of all the reasons above, and second that they would have to cross the pyrenees and also, Portugal was on the entente's side. Spain would fall or peace out rather quickly and the war would follow the same pathern as in our timeline.
@@BaraWilmer dude, portugal joined in 1915/1916, and in this scenario spain joined right in 1914. Therefore, portugal wouldnt join, feeling that would be conquered by spain. And since the germans were so close to win in our timeline (if they won the 2th battle of the Marne (1918) they would get Paris), in this timeline they would have won, because more entente troops would have to be diverted away from germany. And, greece would fall easily, if they decided to join the entente, since spain would simply conquer gibraltar, thus preventing the greek from getting supplies, since the british would have to pass through the suez canal, which takes more time and effort to travell to. And if greece falls, bulgaria doesnt surrender, and so the ottomans keep the fight. If the ottomans keep fighting, then austria hungary doesnt surrender too.
@@BaraWilmer I was thinking a coup could happen in Spain in the 1850s, from a royal Spanish family member who was Austrian. I heard there were Austrians in the Spanish royal family. Maybe Spain could be as strong as Italy. Because in order for Spain to colonies more of North Africa they would have to be strong.
@@martimsalvador9186 You have a point, Portugal wouldn't really join the war it that scenario, but Britain, Italy and France would blockade Spain so that they couldn't import or export. France would not have to divert too many troops to keep the spanish front in check.
@Plamen Stoev Romania would likely never join the central powers, it is like asking France to ally with Nazi Germany so that they can split the Benelux, it ain't gonna happen. The Romanian oil fields were all mainly in Muntenia, therefore Bulgaria would have to pretty much annex half of Romania in order to get access to them, which just wouldn't happen if Romania ever joined the Central Powers. Serbia would once again never join the central powers for obvious reasons and you haven't specified any reasoning for Austria to give away lands to the Serbs. Austria's goal was always to establish dominance in the Balkans and giving Serbia land wouldn't help that goal at all, therefore the Macedonia thing wouldn't happen either. I'll tell you what would happen. Nothing, for the simple fact that the Second Balkan war would happen either way. If Bulgaria does not trigger it, then it is likely that Serbia and Greece would. Thrace always had a Greek majority. In the following years (presumably before WW1), Greece would sign a pact with Serbia whereas Greece would get Thrace and Serbia would get the rest of Bulgarian Macedonia and the Vidin region. The only difference here would likely be that Romania would not get involved, opting to be neutral instead, so in the end you have a Bulgaria that owns Southern Dobrogea...which changes absolutely nothing because Bulgaria owns it today. Bulgaria can still be a regional power today but the politicians are not actively working towards that goal. Germany lost practically half of its land after WW1 and WW2 and it still the strongest economy in Europe today.
@Plamen Stoev I still think this is a bit unrealistic. I'd much rather have it that at some point in history we had a Balkan Empire and we all lived happily ever after.
Instead of looking at the Austro Prussian war of 1866 it might be even more interesting to look at the revolution of 1848. In our timeline the parliament elected after that revolution wanted to introduce a relatively centralised constitutional monarchy like in Britain and asked the Prussian king to take that role. The Prussian king declined because he rejected the concept of a constitution and the revolution ran out of steam. If on the other hand the parliament asks the Austrian king (who of course would have to accept for the sake of this timeline) the Austrian king would immediately get a strong claim on Germany, including most of Prussia, and would be backed by the people that already took control of most major cities.
I think there is an important factor you forgot. The Prussians were using modern rifles while the Austrians were still fighting with muskets, which gave the Prussians an enormous advantage.
'modern' rifles, for the time sure, but i think you overestimate that advantage. and the austrians were useing rifles, just mussel-loading ones (a musket is a smooth bore). aditionally the prussian gun was unreliable, its mechanisms were to fragile, resulting in greater numbers of missfires, and had to be stripped down and replacement parts added every 12 shots (something you can't do in the field), this reduced how effectively the only advantage (rate-of-fire, but was only twice the number of shots per minute) could be used. -additionally, the austrians did have breechloaders, in smaller numbers, which were more rleiable than the prussian ones. austrian infantry tactics were about getting in too close for enemy rifles to be used accurately (rifles at the time had their sights set for long range fire), thus the austrians would have the advantage at close range, and the prussians also could not fight a prolonged infantry battle. the real prussian infantry advantage was better trained line troops (their elites were of similar quality), which is more important than the rifles used. on the flip side austrian artillery was both better trained and more modern. the austrians were useing breechloading rifled cannons, while the prussians were still useing mussel loading smooth bores. plus austrian artillerymen were better trained and more numerous, and artillery is the god of war. additionally the austrians had more and better-trained cavalry rideing faster and stronger horses (due to better breeders), this would give them better recon and raiding troops, which is important for strategic reasons, and allows for more flanking actions. anyway if you look at the war, the austrians lost 2 and won 2 major battles, the issue was austria's allies were loosing to the prussians, not the austrians themselves, if they had better allies, like in this scenario, then the austrians would have won. even without abandoning italy like in this scenario (which would have only put the austrians at a greater advantage in the north against the prussians)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 there was also 2 problems I have with what your points, but first while I can agree that the Needle rifle had its problems it still was advanced for its time and was instrumental in the foundation of Germany. Now with my Needle rifle rant out of the what o. To my points 1. Prussian Royal army was trained to be a disciplined fighting force and one that could cultivate leaders from enlisted men something that Austria was still have Inc. trouble with due to its German population seeing themselves as the ones on top of the pile, and 2. Prussia had one army that spoke one language German while Austria had its commanders that could speak German, but every soldier under their command either spoke Bosnian, Croatian, Hungarian, Czech, Slavic, Slovan, Italian, or German it was a multi-ethnic army with no real way of communicating without complications.
There was an ever so slight problem in the 1840s/1850s that Prussia placed a massive shipment for those "new" guns and eight years later, less than half their army had them because the Prussian couldn't pay for them. Austria, by contrast was updating her "muskets" (which in the 1840s were of better quality than even what the British army had at the same time) roughly every ten years. Prussia in the 1840s hadn't updated since 1815
Now that was definetly an interesting video Austria finally gets a theoretical win on its own but you raise a good question what if Austria had remained loyal to Russia and was there ally during the chrimea war? Would we see the Austrians come out on top as the dominate power of Germany still? What do you think?
As far as i read, if Austria had joined Russia during the crimean war, we would have had "the first world war" in the 1850's. And it would have gone bad for Austria and Russia. Both were militarily not en paar with the british and french. And austria came close to bancrupcy just by the "armed western powers friendly neutrality" they tried to pull off. The Austrians were of the opinion that if they stood completely neutral, their role as big power in europe would have been over, and if they had sided with one they would have had to shoulder the brunt of the costs and fighting, which would have crippled them no matter the outcome, so they tried to gamble with a little threatening to russia and teasing the western powers to maybe enter on their side with the goal to get their peace goals on bothe sides when negotiating. This teasing but never really entering limited the western powers abilities in as far as they were not able to do anything towards russian main land. (And the overall outcome was that both sides hated the Austrians...while one could argue that their strange behavior limited the conflict)
@@nirfz he did do a "What if Russia Won the Crimean War?" with Austria helping. the biggest problem for Russia is that they were technologically behind much of Europe, but an ally in the fighting would have helped split the Franco-British attention between them. In this timeline, Austria would form a union in the southern part of Germany, while Prussia would form a union in the northern part.
True as Indonesian i want to know what will happen, as we get it after some talk with the Dutch and also one of the leader in my country wanted to trade it with eastern Malaysia (or maybe even uniting the two countries) as most of Indonesian People were closer to Malaysian than the Papuans
West papua be an independent republic in our world maybe uniting with its eastern brother. It might have a strange love for the dutch as its not the hig scary power next to it wanting miniral exploitstion. Proably the mollucan diaspora in the netherlands whould move there since it borders ther homeland
@@chandy3859 western papua wasnt a core colony of the dutch empire. Its exploitation was only looked into 1900 onwards and never that intence. Decolonisation was the thing to do. Creating good will and a place to dump all the colonial regime left overs is pretty handy. Yea the dutch could keep it for mining sure. But there not britian or france able to jutifie protecting the last part of indonesia. It not political doable to hold afther ww2. Maybe it recognise the dutch king as its. monarch but it be just as independent as suriname.
@@timvanrijn8239 i mean the part about uniting with eastern papua and about mollucan diaspora that you mention are unlikely to happen. not the independent part.
The Austrians proposed being united with Germany but under 2 different countries, 1 German one under Austria and everything else under a different branch of the Hapsburgs, whether this plan would work or not i really don't know
I’ve thought about this scenario myself. I do think Austria would have been the better unifier of Germany. Prussia never really wanted to unify Germany, they wanted to prussianize Germany. Prussia also essentially laid the blueprint for modern day dictatorships.
Austria could never be a purely German empire. That would mean, for example, an independent Hungary and Italy. But with no guarantee of them being friendly to Austria. Which would mean too much competition and no possibility to unufy Germany.
I don't think Berlin and Brandenburg would be occupied by Austria in such a scenario. Such a step would be like Prussia occupying Vienna, too extreme. The concept of total war was not yet established, the losers would be allowed to "save face" somehow.
Very good video! I really liked how you put this all together. It really makes sense, given the political and military aspects of the time. If only it had gone down like this! Once again, very well done! Please keep the outstanding videos coming and God bless you, my friend!
What if the attempted "Mongol-Crusader Alliance" actually succeeded? Kings And Generals did a video on the topic recently, found it really interesting.
What does better mean? This germany would definetely have a smaller Army and probably a weaker economy growth. But with no world wars, the 20th century probably looks better for germany.
Probably because as an Emperor, Franz Joseph was FAR better then the Hohenzollerns. Dedicated, level headed, known to have tact and was approachable to his people while still wrangling a disunited Empire, he had the characteristics of a great ruler, just not the Empire to display it
@@YMandarin I honestly like the reputation given to germany in the 20th century. I say this as a german. We may not have built a magnificent empire like the british, commanded raw industrial might like the russians or wielded global influence like the americans but we sure showed the world that we are batshit insane. Everyone likes to joke about germany in peacetime. Nobody jokes about germany in wartime.
Now imagine if Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor have not gave Brandenburg to Hohenzollerns and kept it under Bohemian crown. That way, it would like be part of Austria empire and not Prussia.
The ardent Protestants in Germany were unlikely to ally with Austria! At most, Austria would get Bavaria who always was reluctant to join with Prussia and only did so because Prussia won against France. Most Germans were tired of constantly fighting France who was forever encroaching on their lands and was happy to have the help of Prussia to finally once and for all got France out of Germany.
Virtually every Germany state, including the Protestant ones, sided with Austria. The main motivating factor was that the States knew that Austria would treat them like co-equal partners in a united Germany but feared the Prussians would treat them like conquered peoples.
I think along the lines of, What if Wilhelm 2nd didn’t let Bismarck go and the old guy lived long enough to advise his Emperor to NOT give a blank check to Austria in the aftermath of the Austrian archdukes murder? After it was Otto’s belief that Austria wasn’t worth the life of one Pomeranian grenadier.
I shall now ask for 3 obscure scenarios: 1. What if the Taiping Rebellion succeeded? 2. What if the Ottomans never came to power? And the most random thing I could think of... 3. What if the First/Second Bulgarian Empire never fell?
China fall under a new dynasty opium is out and europeans merchants and the countries set up consestion to do business. Maybe making them pier towns of the main land. Money will flow and the peoples will be done.
Future video suggestions: What if Britain started WW2 What if Australia was communist What if Lenin was a far right supporter What if Japan invaded the USA What if Britain occupied the trucial states What if Russia was an axis power
Fool of a Tuck! Next time throw yourself into it, then you and your stupidity are gone! There is a difference between a multi-ethnic state and diversity. All states in history were multi-ethnic and worked perfectly fine before accursed nationalism came up. Diversity can´t work because there is nothing that would bind them together. Don´t mix up milti-ethnic and divers.
Sweaty Hoi4 Germany: I don't need it.... I don't need it....I don't need it.....I don't need it.....I don't need it.....I don't need it.....I don't need it....I don't need.....I don't need it.....I don't need it.....I don't need it.....I don't need it.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... I NEEEEED IIIIIT! *ENTIRE SCREEN COVERS IN WAR DECLARATIONS*
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Austria mainly won verus Italy in Battle of Lissa. It was a cheesy win, but a clear one. With some support of Russia also Prussia wouldn't be able to take Schlesien. If Austria didn't break alliiance with Russia, everything would be different.
Subsequent to German re-unification, Germany embarked upon a path to take it's place amongst the leading global players of the day, while Austria (as the dominant half of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), was more insulated from the larger world, and was preoccupied with maintaining its diminishing status in regards to other European countries. The former had to not only adopt, but excel, at the cutthroat tactics of the established industrial states, while the latter struggled with attempting to placate the implacable Balkan groups. A very divergent path, that...
Not entirely. Polish ruling dynasty written in the Polish constitution was the house of Wettin. Saxo-Poland, you can call this personal union, had the eastern border as far as on Dnieper in the most of 18th century, so in today's eastern Belarus and Ukraine. Frederick Augustus I of Saxony had a hudge support in Poland during the Napoleonic era.
Ngl that flag in the thumbnail is pretty fire. There should be a mod in hoi4 that lets austria make their own german styled empire with that as the flag..
Probably an apt moment to take advantage of was 1815, when the German Confederation was formed. They could have made it an elective monarchy (in which all the princes and regents vote for a new Emperor from the eligible king candidates (kings of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Wurttemberg, and Hannover), and converted the German Confederation into the German Empire.
That was the plan of the people, in a way. Anyway all the dukes and counts didn't want to lose their power and Austria and Prussia just wanted to have the most control
Austria is a country of 9 million mostly Catholic people. Do you really think they could have unified a much larger Germany with a much larger protestant population? Maybe South Eastern Germany bit that is it,
@@t-brick538 most of the censored ones would be about ww2 wouldn't they ? Personally I think censoring history is stupid as then how will people not know what happened in their country's history.
Austria sacrificing the Dalmatian Coast is laughable, since it would cause a Hungarian Revolution (given how those lands were technically not Austria's to give away). Felix von Schwarzenberg 's proposal wouldn't see Austria/Saxony seizing Berlin, after all, the Prussian king was still the brother-in-law/uncle of the Russian emperor (and the Prussian Crown Princess was Queen Victoria' s daughter) . Rather the deal was Austria would get Silesia back and Saxony would be restored to its 1815 size. The Prussian Rhineland would not pass to Hannover, given that firstly the kingdom showed no appetite for conquest/expansion and secondly it would simply be replacing a Prussian influence in Germany with a British one (George V of Hannover was Queen Victoria's cousin). Likely, the Rhineland would've been divided up between Austria, Hesse, Nassau and Bavaria
@@savagedarksider5934 it would be possible, if there's one thing the habsburgs are good in, it's expanding their dynasty It's kinda unlikely though, I admit
@@YMandarin Yes there were plans, Philip II of Spain was married with Marie I of England, after her death he autoproclaimed himself as the new King of England, but he lost the war because he let a nobleman that knew nothing about the sea to become the commander of his whole navy. You can read more about it here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Spanish_War_(1585%E2%80%931604) The naval battle here: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada
If Austria had defeated Prussia then it could have united Germany, with Prussia as a Baltic and eastward inclined state. The twentieth century would have been a whole lot more peaceful and happy than it actually was.
13:25 This doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't Austria & its allies simply divert its armies southward and retake Dalmatia and Venice following their victory over the Prussians? Why just let the Italians hold these valuable areas? Further to that, the Austrians would most likely take Lombardy as well, which they held until 1859.
I would have thought that the Austrian crown would have looked at the Commonwealth of Lithuania and Poland as a partner to defeat its common adversary of Prussia. In doing so they would take more of the lands in the western part of Prussia and having the commonwealth take back its lands lost to it in the in the Northern Wars. In doing so they would insulate themselves from Russian and Nordic aggression with a strong Polish-Lithuania buffer between them. This would have the Austrian navy gain access to the Baltic sea which opens up trade routes and more stable ports. In this timeline the Russian empire would look south rather than west as to not create a war with an Austrian power allied with its neighbours. The Baltic-Northern Slavic nations would then have allies to secure themselves from both Nordic and Russian aggression. I could see this new power dynamic lead to the unification of both Germany (through Austria) and Poland/Lithuania.
So Austria‘s multiethnic population among quite similar brother nations is depicted as problematic but today’s diversity is our greatest strength allegedly. Question is who is „we“ in this context? Not the titular nations of their states
It feels weird seeing Austria become a north-central European power, instead of it's real world south-central position. I never understood why Franz Josef and the Austrian never tried to fix relations with Russia. Their relationship served each other well for a long time, and the Austrians were just not in a good domestic position to help the Russians in Crimea. The Austrians should never have sided against the Russians in the conflict, instead they should have stayed on the sidelines and try and mediate a peace treaty.
this scenario describes the greater german solution which the southern german states in particular had in mind. In addition to the southern German states of Bavaria, Baden and Wuerttemberg, this Greater German solution also includes Austria, Bohemia and Moravia, as well as the entire North German Confederation with all Prussian provinces. the german unification, also known as the brotherly war, was decided in favor of prussia in 1866. thus the small German solution prevailed.
Austrias problems compared to Prussia in a nutshell: -Bad military compared to Prussia -Not liked among occupied countries (backlash), enemies from the inside
Following this scenario, which city would become the new capital? Technically it should be Vienna, which had a higher population and better infrastructure at that time. On the other side it’s very badly placed geo strategically near the eastern border of the new big country. Maybe it would be a split in power with Berlin, just like Vienna and Budapest in the double monarchy?
That doesn't would have worked out. People always forget that religion was far more important back then as it is today. When Prussia formed the german empire, Bismarck forced protestant prusssian culture on the catholic states, in the so called culture war periode. A Habsburg emperor would have done the same, just the other way around and seen Vienna as the traditional heart of the empire. A portestant prussian King would have had a bad standing in that alternate history.
What will become of the Kaiser and his dashounds with cute little spiked helmets. Then again Hitler would have been just a failed art student just like the ANITFA looters and vandals.
Here's something I've always wondered. What if the child born in February 1516 to Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, who was actually Mary Tudor, had been born a boy?
Probably would have died as well. And early in childhood at that. Apparently, Henry VIII had a rare genetic condition. It meant that it was harder for him to sire a male child that didn't end in a miscarriage. And any male child that would be succesfully born, would be weak and not likely to reach puberty, let alone adulthood. Hence why Henry VIII only had one male heir, who ended up dying at a young age. And why his daughters even had the opportunity to succeed him.
@@kwikstik You are correct. I have also heard that Henry might have had syphilis, which makes his entire child bearing deficiency his fault and not Catherine's or Ann Boleyn's. However, what I would like to see addressed in an alternative history experiment is how politics would have changed if Henry had had a healthy male heir. Henry VII produced a healthy male heir. What if Henry VIII did also? With a male heir, Henry would not have had the immediate need to break with the Catholic Church. No Elizabeth. No House of Stuart. How would the Reformation have played out? A lot would depend on the personality of this alternative next king and his successors.
@@davidseymour6447 Well, there was some anti-papal sentiment present in the English population. Which had been used to ease the break from the church. A healthy heir from his first marriage could have strengthened the ties with continental europe. And especially with Spain, and this later on the Habsburgs. But England had throughout the years after the Hundred Years War, tried to stop any power from becoming all powerful and dominating europe. Just to keep themselves safe from invasion. Sentiments would have soured over the years, unless the English kings used that blood connection as a 'right to the Spanish throne'. Now imagine a three-way War of Spanish Succession.
Interesting. Lots to think about. Henry's marriage to Catherine was a fairly happy one early on, and closer sixteenth century ties to Spain changes a lot, possibly even seventeenth century colonialism.
Many thanks to Ridge Wallet for sponsoring this video! www.ridge.com/MONSIEURZ
We have new videos every Wednesday at 2:30pm EST. Don't miss them, and please like & share the video if you enjoyed it!
Become a channel sponsor: th-cam.com/channels/QR_kmeb0lBEk1Zj_9LWDHA.htmljoin
Buy official shirts: modernmediamerch.com/search?q=monsieur+z
Join our "Discord Server": www.usofz.com/forum
Pick up a copy of our novel: www.amazon.com/Am-Uncle-Sam-Dean-Mosley-ebook/dp/B07WNG95QH
What if Prussia didn't just unify the German states but also included the low lands, Switzerland, Denmark, and the Austrian empire. Focusing on making a unified culture in the German states it has conquered and aggressively superssing the balkans.
Just an idea. Don't think you'll want to make a video abiut that right after making a video about the reverse scenario.
@Monsieur Z what happened to pax Historia? If you mind me asking
What if Emperor Charles V didn't abdicate and divide his empire? Basically, what if King Philip II of Spain inherited everything and was elected Holy Roman Emperor?
I have a problem with Lisa
*Sad and Angry Bismarck Noises*
After reading this comment my brain legit started play Johnny Horton sink the bismark.
but bismarck had a plan bismarck always had a plan
Bismarck can lie rolling on the floor hammering at the ground. It won't help him.He might have dominated his dimbwitted, craven king that way in real life, but if he lost the war, that won't help him.
@@str.77 That is why he is considered brilliant. He had a great instict for timing and political shemes. (Looks at Letter to France suspiciusly).
@@PuddingXXL Because he hammered in the floor?
It happened, he did it. Greater Germany!
@Usuário Sarcástico I want Prussia back
@@tada-kun982 this scenario would've been better in reverse
@@etho7351 I mean I want Prussia back in germany tho
@@etho7351 stupid Poland
Von der Maas bis and die Memel,
Von der Etsch bis an den Belt
"Napoleon had brought onto Germany concepts of nationalism"
Poland: *scared noises*
Poland: " *KURWA!* "
@You're Spying Yes, all of this is true. Poland was France's most numerous ally - out of 300 thousand soldiers that marched into Russia, 100 thousand were Poles. Napoleon even called the invasion of Russia the "Second Polish War" saying that he is going to help liberate Poland from the occupiers. All in all, France was always seen as the 'free world' and Napoleon seen as a great ally of ours.
@@Seba00PL I guess you can't spell "Napoleon" without "Pole"
@@jwil4286 omg lmfaoooo
THEN THE WINGED HUSSARS ARRIVED
I would guess that Prussia in this timeline would be like Austria now. Just a bit stronger than our Austria. They probably won’t see themselves as Germans anymore but as Prussians.
That would be rad. Imagine angry austria up north. Maybe Prussia wouldn't be annihilated after World War 2 in that timeline.
As an ethnical Prussian/Slesian, I think that is unlikely. It does not fit to the Prussian soul. Prussians are very rational and the Prussian state allways was opportunistic.
Furthermore, the way we got an independent Austria was not that simple. After being excluted from the Union, Austria-Hungary was it's own big power and allied with Germany, probally because they still feld connected to the other German states. After destroyed by the entante, the small Austria wanted to unify with Germany, but France and Britian did not allow this. When Hitler toke Austria, the people still liked this and after WW2 Austria again wanted to unify with Germany but again wasn't allowed to. Only after being cut of from Germany for more than 100 years, Austrians have developed this kind of volunteer independents.
Prussia on the other hand, first and foremost saw itself as German. After a heavy defeat, the Prussian ambitions to become a great power would be discarded, if it is out of reach. If the Austrians would be smart, they could even appeal to the Prussian ambitions and rally their military expertice under the German flag.
Prussia would have become much like the military states in Appalachia, where many of the US soldiers come from.
I am pretty sure that a big Austria would not have any interest to exclude a small Prussia and a small Prussia would not have any interest to be left out! I think it is unbelieveable that Prussia would lose Brandenburg, but even if they just lose parts of it, Slesia and the Rhineland. Prussia would have lost most of its population. It wouldn't be a danger to Austria anymore and also would not be able to be independent. Prussias remaining lands would be arround 40% Polish. They couldn't hold it. And as a small remaining country - with maybe 4 million people at its best - you would have been freiwild aka defenseless at the time. Next to Russia, it wouldn't stand a chance - in peace or war, they would fall either to Prussia or Germany. I am pretty sure, Prussia would have chosen Germany.
@@joze838 I am of East Prussian origin: D But you have to see the situation, Prussia lost a war because all other German states have united against them. If we follow exactly this scenario, they will even have lost their capital. I hardly think that the Prussians still feel really German after something like that. Otto von Bismarck had never really liked the Austrians. Then they should join a Germany that is dominated by Austrians? Kaiser Wilhelm 1 didn't even want to become an emperor of a Prussian dominated Germany. Prussia would still have an strong army and through Birsmarck they also have good diplomatic relations. If a war broke out then I am sure France would like to have one major power less on the border and because Prussia is not a danger to them, it might even ally itself with them. Prussia also has no problem with going to war with Germans, as you could see. I think Prussia would wait for a favorable situation and build up its strength again until then. Furthermore, the areas of Prussia were predominantly German. Never 40% of Poles, that would be far too many.
Ich hoffe man kann es lesen.
@@technine967 I meant 40% Poles in the scenario I proposed there. You were right anyways, I wastly underestimated how advanced the Germanification of the Prussian lands was and slightly overestimating how much of Poland still was in their possession. I calculated it, just for the records look at what you (we) would have gotten there - on the German side: A smaller version of the sparsely populated Brandenburg with a Berlin with still under one million people. Brandenburg with Berlin had at the time arround 2,8 million people, so lets take 2,4. The even more sparsely populated East Prussia arround 1,8 million people with a significant Polish population in the south and Pommern with 1,4 million people. 1,3 million in West Prussia, but of those arround half of them were Polish or Kaschubish and Posen with nearly 1,6 million people, but those were to 65% Polish (and Kaschubish and Masurish). So we would get 8,5 million people - twice as much as I thought :O and 1,9 million wouldn't be German - so roughly 20%. So I admit, I am wrong about that. They/We maybe could survive alone.
I do not share your opinion about the idea that Prussians wouldn't feel German anymore. The German identity at the time wasn't connected with a particular state yet. So it would be a bit like if the Polish wouldn't feel slavic anymore, because Russia devided them.
"Kaiser Wilhelm 1 didn't even want to become an emperor of a Prussian dominated Germany." - that's not correct. He didn't want the title "deutscher Kaiser" but wanted to become even more powerful as "Kaiser von Deutschland", which would have gave him a stronger grip on the other German states and also technically would include Austria.
So therefore, I think he was pretty much into a German state. While much stronger than I thought, there would be the possibility to remain outside of Germany but, I do not think so - it simply could have been demanded by the other German states and if Wilhelm really stood behind the idea of a German nation state, he would have agreed.
@@technine967, that the Austrians do not feel German anymore is just a result of World War II, the same thing happened in Switzerland, where the majority thought to be German themselves. Just the World War II changed it.
And between the two wars, the fascists declared that Austrian are own ethnic group and have nothing in common with Germany, thus Hitler has to fight against the fascists there.
imo austria would've likely annexed Schlesien instead of Brandenburg from Prussia
In his timeline they didn't annex Brandenburg but freed it from prussia
@@YMandarin Brandenburg was the dominant partner in the Brandenburg-Prussian Kingdom. It was the Hohenzollern electors of Brandenburg who came into possession of the Duchy of Prussia, and the Kingdom was named for the Duchy as a legal technicality - the Hohenzollerns wanted to be Kings, but there could only be one King in the Empire, and that was the King of Bohemia, a title held by the Emperor through the Habsburg claim on that throne. The Hohenzollerns in Brandenburg got around this by naming themselves Kings IN Prussia, which was outside the Empire. So "liberating" Brandenburg from Prussia would be like "Liberating" Moscow from Russia - completely nonsensical, as Brandenburg was the founding component of the Kingdom in the first place.
@@DarkRaven4649 yeah it didn't really make sense to me when he took brandenburg from prussia instead of silesia
@@DarkRaven4649 i mean to be fair under that logic everyone would still be under either Roman or Karling rule.
@@DarkRaven4649 True, even though you still could split both in half. But the video ones again showed quite a lack of understanding of the matter, I agree. It's not like Austria could just annex everything they want. And Austria probally wouldn't want to annex Brandenburg anyway. Just split it in some parts and rule as Kaiser. Prussia would never become excluded like this. It doesn't have any advantages for Prussia or Austria.
One thing I would add as an Austrian is; We would go after Italy for "our" lost sea. Some of us are still kinda angry about Italy's takeing of South Tyrol and Triest
.
Eher Südtirol
@@kieferkarpfen6897 eher Triest,
Yes, Z has no idea of how important Triest was at the time, however, as the Austrians would have suffered heavy losses against the prussians, they would not be able to get back everything, Veneto, Trent and Goritia (and possibily Alto Adige, you know,that thing that is not Tyrol anymore) would have been annex by Italy, and there would have been some sort of agreement on Triest
After a war against prussians that left Austria exausted, the power shift may have been to great to let other thing happening. France was allied to Italy and Russia would have helped to keep the order of power. Oh and don't forget about a reveng from Prussia.
And btw it was never your sea, Trieste is an italian city, found by Romans, and kept being italian for the whole history. And about alto-adige (south tryol is till bolzano not till trento), you should be thankful that there are still germans there
Lol, Italian nationalists are always so cringy. You people should be happy Italy even exists, and I have no idea how any of you can be proud of the mess you made of the place.
Man, why do you need to show a world map when only central Europe is concerned?
So much screen real estate lost right there...
Ikr, I can barely see anything too
It would make it much more detailed and understandable to see and more visually pleasing to the eyes too
I couldn't finish this video because the map was so bad.
@@arch3223 Everything about this video is trash
We have it. Finally...
*T H I C G E R M A N Y*
*D A M N B O I H E T H I C C*
The Nazis achieved that as will and it is the Nazis we're talking about here thicc Germany doesn't matter good Germany does Prussia's Germany does
@@salmansingh66 get out
@@gibetax8477 exit's open for
Not germany
Great austrian empire
Austria irl: small and chill
Austria in this timeline: *Österreich über alles!*
Btw, video on what if Greco-Bactria survived plz.
Über alles im der welt.
Obviously, you don't know the old Habsburg motto "A E I O U": Alles Erde Ist Österreich Untertan" (All of the Earth is under Austrias Rule); it's a bonmot, not an ideology btw.
Also: "Austria is the country where the sun never sets". This was true, when Austria and Spain was one country - and all spanish colonies, like Mexiko.
@@shakeyourbunny we pretend it's a bonmot, but really it's our essence as a people
But everything changed when a Reject from the Berlin art school took charge of the Austrian Reich!
Osterreich uber duber allies
As an austrian, this makes me happy
As a Bavarian this makes me happy, too.
@@lukasosterloher9105 why?
@@YMandarin Because Austrians are much better than Prussians.
@@lukasosterloher9105 ok, understandable
@@lukasosterloher9105 let Austria annex you in Bavaria the rest of germany wont mind haha
What if Spain colonized all of Morocco, and had a border dispute with France, allying with the Central powers before ww1 starts.
Spain had multiple reason why they couldn't join ww1.
1. The economy at the time was litteral garbage.
2. Their army wasen't the best, same goes for the navy
3. If they would have joined the central powers, the entente would most likely still win. Why? Well first because of all the reasons above, and second that they would have to cross the pyrenees and also, Portugal was on the entente's side. Spain would fall or peace out rather quickly and the war would follow the same pathern as in our timeline.
@@BaraWilmer dude, portugal joined in 1915/1916, and in this scenario spain joined right in 1914. Therefore, portugal wouldnt join, feeling that would be conquered by spain. And since the germans were so close to win in our timeline (if they won the 2th battle of the Marne (1918) they would get Paris), in this timeline they would have won, because more entente troops would have to be diverted away from germany. And, greece would fall easily, if they decided to join the entente, since spain would simply conquer gibraltar, thus preventing the greek from getting supplies, since the british would have to pass through the suez canal, which takes more time and effort to travell to. And if greece falls, bulgaria doesnt surrender, and so the ottomans keep the fight. If the ottomans keep fighting, then austria hungary doesnt surrender too.
@@BaraWilmer I was thinking a coup could happen in Spain in the 1850s, from a royal Spanish family member who was Austrian. I heard there were Austrians in the Spanish royal family. Maybe Spain could be as strong as Italy. Because in order for Spain to colonies more of North Africa they would have to be strong.
@@martimsalvador9186 You have a point, Portugal wouldn't really join the war it that scenario, but Britain, Italy and France would blockade Spain so that they couldn't import or export. France would not have to divert too many troops to keep the spanish front in check.
@@wilburmay3602 I don't see a royal coup fixing the issues such as the army and economy
I want to see What if Bulgaria won the Second Bulkan War and what if France won the Franco-Prussian War!
@Plamen Stoev Romania would likely never join the central powers, it is like asking France to ally with Nazi Germany so that they can split the Benelux, it ain't gonna happen.
The Romanian oil fields were all mainly in Muntenia, therefore Bulgaria would have to pretty much annex half of Romania in order to get access to them, which just wouldn't happen if Romania ever joined the Central Powers. Serbia would once again never join the central powers for obvious reasons and you haven't specified any reasoning for Austria to give away lands to the Serbs. Austria's goal was always to establish dominance in the Balkans and giving Serbia land wouldn't help that goal at all, therefore the Macedonia thing wouldn't happen either.
I'll tell you what would happen. Nothing, for the simple fact that the Second Balkan war would happen either way. If Bulgaria does not trigger it, then it is likely that Serbia and Greece would. Thrace always had a Greek majority. In the following years (presumably before WW1), Greece would sign a pact with Serbia whereas Greece would get Thrace and Serbia would get the rest of Bulgarian Macedonia and the Vidin region. The only difference here would likely be that Romania would not get involved, opting to be neutral instead, so in the end you have a Bulgaria that owns Southern Dobrogea...which changes absolutely nothing because Bulgaria owns it today.
Bulgaria can still be a regional power today but the politicians are not actively working towards that goal. Germany lost practically half of its land after WW1 and WW2 and it still the strongest economy in Europe today.
@Plamen Stoev I still think this is a bit unrealistic. I'd much rather have it that at some point in history we had a Balkan Empire and we all lived happily ever after.
He has a video on the franco prussian war
Aaah, yes!
The War of the Bulk. 🧐
If France won the franco-prussian war there would not be an epic painting of Otto von Bismarck saluting the Kaiser in the palace at Versailles
Instead of looking at the Austro Prussian war of 1866 it might be even more interesting to look at the revolution of 1848.
In our timeline the parliament elected after that revolution wanted to introduce a relatively centralised constitutional monarchy like in Britain and asked the Prussian king to take that role. The Prussian king declined because he rejected the concept of a constitution and the revolution ran out of steam.
If on the other hand the parliament asks the Austrian king (who of course would have to accept for the sake of this timeline) the Austrian king would immediately get a strong claim on Germany, including most of Prussia, and would be backed by the people that already took control of most major cities.
As a Habsburg fanboy I am obligated to like every timeline that goes well for the Habsburgs
We stan an incestual authoritarian elitist family
A Habsburg fanboy.? Sure those chin are too appealing
Habsburg bestburg
They invented the gigachad jawline
@@suclox12yearsago56 *incest jawline
I enjoyed this scenario a lot, great job my guy 💙
Thanks, pal!
I think there is an important factor you forgot. The Prussians were using modern rifles while the Austrians were still fighting with muskets, which gave the Prussians an enormous advantage.
'modern' rifles, for the time sure, but i think you overestimate that advantage. and the austrians were useing rifles, just mussel-loading ones (a musket is a smooth bore). aditionally the prussian gun was unreliable, its mechanisms were to fragile, resulting in greater numbers of missfires, and had to be stripped down and replacement parts added every 12 shots (something you can't do in the field), this reduced how effectively the only advantage (rate-of-fire, but was only twice the number of shots per minute) could be used.
-additionally, the austrians did have breechloaders, in smaller numbers, which were more rleiable than the prussian ones.
austrian infantry tactics were about getting in too close for enemy rifles to be used accurately (rifles at the time had their sights set for long range fire), thus the austrians would have the advantage at close range, and the prussians also could not fight a prolonged infantry battle.
the real prussian infantry advantage was better trained line troops (their elites were of similar quality), which is more important than the rifles used.
on the flip side austrian artillery was both better trained and more modern. the austrians were useing breechloading rifled cannons, while the prussians were still useing mussel loading smooth bores. plus austrian artillerymen were better trained and more numerous, and artillery is the god of war.
additionally the austrians had more and better-trained cavalry rideing faster and stronger horses (due to better breeders), this would give them better recon and raiding troops, which is important for strategic reasons, and allows for more flanking actions.
anyway if you look at the war, the austrians lost 2 and won 2 major battles, the issue was austria's allies were loosing to the prussians, not the austrians themselves, if they had better allies, like in this scenario, then the austrians would have won. even without abandoning italy like in this scenario (which would have only put the austrians at a greater advantage in the north against the prussians)
@@matthiuskoenig3378 okay, I didn't know about that, I should have read more about the topic. Thanks!
@@matthiuskoenig3378 there was also 2 problems I have with what your points, but first while I can agree that the Needle rifle had its problems it still was advanced for its time and was instrumental in the foundation of Germany. Now with my Needle rifle rant out of the what o. To my points 1. Prussian Royal army was trained to be a disciplined fighting force and one that could cultivate leaders from enlisted men something that Austria was still have Inc. trouble with due to its German population seeing themselves as the ones on top of the pile, and 2. Prussia had one army that spoke one language German while Austria had its commanders that could speak German, but every soldier under their command either spoke Bosnian, Croatian, Hungarian, Czech, Slavic, Slovan, Italian, or German it was a multi-ethnic army with no real way of communicating without complications.
There was an ever so slight problem in the 1840s/1850s that Prussia placed a massive shipment for those "new" guns and eight years later, less than half their army had them because the Prussian couldn't pay for them. Austria, by contrast was updating her "muskets" (which in the 1840s were of better quality than even what the British army had at the same time) roughly every ten years. Prussia in the 1840s hadn't updated since 1815
That's false info. France used modern rifles but still lost the war.
Now that was definetly an interesting video
Austria finally gets a theoretical win on its own but you raise a good question what if Austria had remained loyal to Russia and was there ally during the chrimea war? Would we see the Austrians come out on top as the dominate power of Germany still? What do you think?
As far as i read, if Austria had joined Russia during the crimean war, we would have had "the first world war" in the 1850's. And it would have gone bad for Austria and Russia. Both were militarily not en paar with the british and french. And austria came close to bancrupcy just by the "armed western powers friendly neutrality" they tried to pull off.
The Austrians were of the opinion that if they stood completely neutral, their role as big power in europe would have been over, and if they had sided with one they would have had to shoulder the brunt of the costs and fighting, which would have crippled them no matter the outcome, so they tried to gamble with a little threatening to russia and teasing the western powers to maybe enter on their side with the goal to get their peace goals on bothe sides when negotiating. This teasing but never really entering limited the western powers abilities in as far as they were not able to do anything towards russian main land. (And the overall outcome was that both sides hated the Austrians...while one could argue that their strange behavior limited the conflict)
@@nirfz he did do a "What if Russia Won the Crimean War?" with Austria helping. the biggest problem for Russia is that they were technologically behind much of Europe, but an ally in the fighting would have helped split the Franco-British attention between them. In this timeline, Austria would form a union in the southern part of Germany, while Prussia would form a union in the northern part.
Austria lost against Prussia and didn't unite Germany.
This enraged Hitler's father, who punished him severely.
Oversimplifief
In other words the Austrian painter would remain Austrian
What if the Dutch kept West Papua
True as Indonesian i want to know what will happen, as we get it after some talk with the Dutch and also one of the leader in my country wanted to trade it with eastern Malaysia (or maybe even uniting the two countries) as most of Indonesian People were closer to Malaysian than the Papuans
West papua be an independent republic in our world maybe uniting with its eastern brother.
It might have a strange love for the dutch as its not the hig scary power next to it wanting miniral exploitstion.
Proably the mollucan diaspora in the netherlands whould move there since it borders ther homeland
@@timvanrijn8239 considering other examples. I highly doubt that the thing you mention would happen if west Papua became independent republic
@@chandy3859 western papua wasnt a core colony of the dutch empire. Its exploitation was only looked into 1900 onwards and never that intence. Decolonisation was the thing to do. Creating good will and a place to dump all the colonial regime left overs is pretty handy. Yea the dutch could keep it for mining sure. But there not britian or france able to jutifie protecting the last part of indonesia. It not political doable to hold afther ww2. Maybe it recognise the dutch king as its. monarch but it be just as independent as suriname.
@@timvanrijn8239 i mean the part about uniting with eastern papua and about mollucan diaspora that you mention are unlikely to happen. not the independent part.
"Gott erharlte Franz en Kaiser!"
Unsern guten Kaiser Franz
@@AustrianFemboyTM Gott erharlte Franz den Kaiser!"
Unsern guten Kaiser Franz
Hoch als Herrscher, hoch als Weiser, Steht er in des Ruhmes Glanz:)
Nein.
I always wanted a video where Austria united Germany
So nice seeing a Monsieur Z video with no dislikes.
Edit: To hell with these 49 dislikers
It's a shame I can't see it
Two people spited you
@@yamamotohiromori419 use a vpn
11 angry Prussians disliked this video.
Hmmm
Impostor
Prussia killed Austria
Dead body reported
Prussia suspicous
Prussia was the impostor
The Austrians proposed being united with Germany but under 2 different countries, 1 German one under Austria and everything else under a different branch of the Hapsburgs, whether this plan would work or not i really don't know
well charles V did it.
Yeah!!! I’ve really been wanting this one! I suggested this back in August and I’m so glad you were able to get to it!
This actually a very interesting scenario!
I’ve thought about this scenario myself. I do think Austria would have been the better unifier of Germany. Prussia never really wanted to unify Germany, they wanted to prussianize Germany. Prussia also essentially laid the blueprint for modern day dictatorships.
Austria
S T R O N K
Sadly the prussians thought otherwise...
Oh good old Austria, how great you are in this AU!
Austria could never be a purely German empire. That would mean, for example, an independent Hungary and Italy. But with no guarantee of them being friendly to Austria. Which would mean too much competition and no possibility to unufy Germany.
I don't think Berlin and Brandenburg would be occupied by Austria in such a scenario. Such a step would be like Prussia occupying Vienna, too extreme. The concept of total war was not yet established, the losers would be allowed to "save face" somehow.
What if Menton and Roquebrune didn't secede from Monaco? In other words, what if current Monaco was a lot bigger?
Knew you'd be here
Avery is everywhere
I’m going to reply to every comment I see by you
#3
I had no idea Monaco had even had more territory than it has now.
What if Liechtenstein absorbed cantons from Switzerland?
Very good video! I really liked how you put this all together. It really makes sense, given the political and military aspects of the time. If only it had gone down like this! Once again, very well done! Please keep the outstanding videos coming and God bless you, my friend!
Fifth Attempt: What if Franz Josef had Married Helene of Bavaria ?
He would have married Helene of Bavaria obviously 🙄
Not having Sisi would've probably made the Ausgleich a struggle
@@NobodyofTwilgiht And he probably would've had more Sons.
Its a good day when Monsieur Z uploads
What if the attempted "Mongol-Crusader Alliance" actually succeeded?
Kings And Generals did a video on the topic recently, found it really interesting.
How is this Germany better? I mean I guess it is better for Europe as a whole but I don’t see how it is a better Germany.
What does better mean?
This germany would definetely have a smaller Army and probably a weaker economy growth. But with no world wars, the 20th century probably looks better for germany.
Probably because as an Emperor, Franz Joseph was FAR better then the Hohenzollerns. Dedicated, level headed, known to have tact and was approachable to his people while still wrangling a disunited Empire, he had the characteristics of a great ruler, just not the Empire to display it
@@Edmonton-of2ec honestly the hollenzollerns should've just let bismark run the country, he would've done a much better job than willhelm the 2nd
@@YMandarin the First World War was Fought for bankers so it likely would have happened anyway
@@YMandarin I honestly like the reputation given to germany in the 20th century. I say this as a german. We may not have built a magnificent empire like the british, commanded raw industrial might like the russians or wielded global influence like the americans but we sure showed the world that we are batshit insane. Everyone likes to joke about germany in peacetime. Nobody jokes about germany in wartime.
Now imagine if Sigismund, the Holy Roman Emperor have not gave Brandenburg to Hohenzollerns and kept it under Bohemian crown. That way, it would like be part of Austria empire and not Prussia.
Didn't a certain Austrian already try this?
Even my Austrian friends tell me to never listen to one of them. It never goes well.
The ardent Protestants in Germany were unlikely to ally with Austria! At most, Austria would get Bavaria who always was reluctant to join with Prussia and only did so because Prussia won against France. Most Germans were tired of constantly fighting France who was forever encroaching on their lands and was happy to have the help of Prussia to finally once and for all got France out of Germany.
well even historically protestant Germanic states allied with Austria
Virtually every Germany state, including the Protestant ones, sided with Austria. The main motivating factor was that the States knew that Austria would treat them like co-equal partners in a united Germany but feared the Prussians would treat them like conquered peoples.
I think along the lines of, What if Wilhelm 2nd didn’t let Bismarck go and the old guy lived long enough to advise his Emperor to NOT give a blank check to Austria in the aftermath of the Austrian archdukes murder? After it was Otto’s belief that Austria wasn’t worth the life of one Pomeranian grenadier.
I shall now ask for 3 obscure scenarios:
1. What if the Taiping Rebellion succeeded?
2. What if the Ottomans never came to power?
And the most random thing I could think of...
3. What if the First/Second Bulgarian Empire never fell?
China fall under a new dynasty opium is out and europeans merchants and the countries set up consestion to do business. Maybe making them pier towns of the main land. Money will flow and the peoples will be done.
Europe need the austrian empire😭
Amen!
Bismarck: “This is a nightmare!”
Germany has been ruled by Vienna, Frankfurt, Berlin and Wiemar. Let us try Colonge.
Future video suggestions:
What if Britain started WW2
What if Australia was communist
What if Lenin was a far right supporter
What if Japan invaded the USA
What if Britain occupied the trucial states
What if Russia was an axis power
So incredibly incomprehensibly based
Bratwurst or something idk
Bratwurst? That's german, not austrian
@@YMandarin How about Osterbratwurst then?
Chance Bratwurst to Kasleberkas or something. Bratwurst isn't austrian
@@maslauer6411 Do you like Smegma?
@@rolandfeller7800 Sowieso
What if the crusade of Varna succeeded in 1444? They came extreamly close, and it’s where our beloved EU4 starts.
what if america fought with germany in ww2
Someone is already making that video.
Then the world wouldn't have furries
Based
@@savagedarksider5934 there doesn’t have to just be one series.
I think WWI would make more sense. My great grandfather was from Danzig so he wasn't drafted.
Austria: But I thought DIEversity was a strength! Prussia: OK Boomer, keep telling yourself that.
Fool of a Tuck! Next time throw yourself into it, then you and your stupidity are gone!
There is a difference between a multi-ethnic state and diversity. All states in history were multi-ethnic and worked perfectly fine before accursed nationalism came up. Diversity can´t work because there is nothing that would bind them together. Don´t mix up milti-ethnic and divers.
Check modern germany and speak about weakness of diversity kekw
Long live Austria!
Austria the great & strong!
Austria winning the Austro-Prussian war is my wet dream.
What if the Mensheviks got in power rather than the Bolsheviks?
Russia would've probably been either social-democratic or full blown democracy But the first one is more likely
@@dep8776 pretty sure Russia would have been _way_ better off under the Mensheviks
A socialist republic. If they win no need to work with the democrates.
They would get defeated by Germany or the war would be much costlier.
So, Trotsky instead of Stalin?
The Austrian Hapsburgs had already tried their own version of German Unification during the 17th Century Thirty Years War.
Sweaty Hoi4 Germany: I don't need it.... I don't need it....I don't need it.....I don't need it.....I don't need it.....I don't need it.....I don't need it....I don't need.....I don't need it.....I don't need it.....I don't need it.....I don't need it..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
I NEEEEED IIIIIT!
*ENTIRE SCREEN COVERS IN WAR DECLARATIONS*
Holy Austrian Empire
Italy wins versus Austria? Never... in Prussian-Austrian war Austria won versus Italy, why should it be different now?
he explained, the austrians focus in the north to defeatt prussia, thus had to sacrifice in the south.
@@matthiuskoenig3378 Austria mainly won verus Italy in Battle of Lissa. It was a cheesy win, but a clear one. With some support of Russia also Prussia wouldn't be able to take Schlesien. If Austria didn't break alliiance with Russia, everything would be different.
_(Insert Habsburg with chad chin)_ *Yes* . . .
What if Austrulia has a reversed gravity.
Then it would be just like real life
Jk Australia isn't real
Man I'd love to see a second part to this
Subsequent to German re-unification, Germany embarked upon a path to take it's place amongst the leading global players of the day, while Austria (as the dominant half of the Austro-Hungarian Empire), was more insulated from the larger world, and was preoccupied with maintaining its diminishing status in regards to other European countries. The former had to not only adopt, but excel, at the cutthroat tactics of the established industrial states, while the latter struggled with attempting to placate the implacable Balkan groups. A very divergent path, that...
Saxony taking over the entire Brandenburg west of the Oder sounds crazy
Not entirely. Polish ruling dynasty written in the Polish constitution was the house of Wettin. Saxo-Poland, you can call this personal union, had the eastern border as far as on Dnieper in the most of 18th century, so in today's eastern Belarus and Ukraine.
Frederick Augustus I of Saxony had a hudge support in Poland during the Napoleonic era.
Can someone please just a compilation of Mr Z's advertisements?
Ngl that flag in the thumbnail is pretty fire. There should be a mod in hoi4 that lets austria make their own german styled empire with that as the flag..
Probably an apt moment to take advantage of was 1815, when the German Confederation was formed. They could have made it an elective monarchy (in which all the princes and regents vote for a new Emperor from the eligible king candidates (kings of Austria, Prussia, Bavaria, Saxony, Wurttemberg, and Hannover), and converted the German Confederation into the German Empire.
That was the plan of the people, in a way. Anyway all the dukes and counts didn't want to lose their power and Austria and Prussia just wanted to have the most control
As a French, I love this alternate timeline
AEIOU. Austria rules everything!
Austria is a country of 9 million mostly Catholic people. Do you really think they could have unified a much larger Germany with a much larger protestant population? Maybe South Eastern Germany bit that is it,
great video like always. sad that i can't watch most of ya videos since im from germany...
T-Brick why is this because censorship?
@@LiamHickey2967 exactly.
@@t-brick538 most of the censored ones would be about ww2 wouldn't they ? Personally I think censoring history is stupid as then how will people not know what happened in their country's history.
Thats ironic. Censor history and you'll be doomed to repeat it. Im sorry to hear that Germany is still authoritarian
@EinsamerWolf yeah the german censorship sux's ballse
That video warms my little Austrian heart.
What if the Prussians beat the Austrians, but incorporated all of the lands belonging to German confederation into one single German empire?
That would be a superstate not tolerated by other major powers , just like Napoleonic France.
ABout the customers union there were attemps before which could include Austria but Austria was against it.
What if The Bolsheviks won the Polish-Soviet war ?
R u kiddin'?
Polish SSR is what would happen.
The world would be a lot uglier today.
The world would be a lot prettier today.
@@Walht ok commie
Austria sacrificing the Dalmatian Coast is laughable, since it would cause a Hungarian Revolution (given how those lands were technically not Austria's to give away).
Felix von Schwarzenberg 's proposal wouldn't see Austria/Saxony seizing Berlin, after all, the Prussian king was still the brother-in-law/uncle of the Russian emperor (and the Prussian Crown Princess was Queen Victoria' s daughter) . Rather the deal was Austria would get Silesia back and Saxony would be restored to its 1815 size. The Prussian Rhineland would not pass to Hannover, given that firstly the kingdom showed no appetite for conquest/expansion and secondly it would simply be replacing a Prussian influence in Germany with a British one (George V of Hannover was Queen Victoria's cousin). Likely, the Rhineland would've been divided up between Austria, Hesse, Nassau and Bavaria
What if the Habsburgs had conquered Great Britain.
Conquest is not the habsburg way
@@timvanrijn8239 True, but what you have consider; the only way the Habsburg was gonna to get their hands on Britain is through Conquest.
Were there any plans to? We can't really predict anything if there's no correlation
@@savagedarksider5934 it would be possible, if there's one thing the habsburgs are good in, it's expanding their dynasty
It's kinda unlikely though, I admit
@@YMandarin Yes there were plans, Philip II of Spain was married with Marie I of England, after her death he autoproclaimed himself as the new King of England, but he lost the war because he let a nobleman that knew nothing about the sea to become the commander of his whole navy.
You can read more about it here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Anglo-Spanish_War_(1585%E2%80%931604)
The naval battle here:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spanish_Armada
Basically Austria had to be playing New Game in New Game+ gear
As a Berliner, this video made me throw up in my mouth. what a cursed timeline
Well, I am from Vienna. And I agree. There is no timeline where prussians and austrians would get along.
@@Ajunta Sad brother war noises
@@Ajunta or just germans in general
He is the only TH-camr I know that has a long introduction
What if Italy unified during Renaissance?
If Austria had defeated Prussia then it could have united Germany, with Prussia as a Baltic and eastward inclined state. The twentieth century would have been a whole lot more peaceful and happy than it actually was.
13:25
This doesn't make sense. Why wouldn't Austria & its allies simply divert its armies southward and retake Dalmatia and Venice following their victory over the Prussians? Why just let the Italians hold these valuable areas? Further to that, the Austrians would most likely take Lombardy as well, which they held until 1859.
Why is his new video privated
I would have thought that the Austrian crown would have looked at the Commonwealth of Lithuania and Poland as a partner to defeat its common adversary of Prussia. In doing so they would take more of the lands in the western part of Prussia and having the commonwealth take back its lands lost to it in the in the Northern Wars. In doing so they would insulate themselves from Russian and Nordic aggression with a strong Polish-Lithuania buffer between them. This would have the Austrian navy gain access to the Baltic sea which opens up trade routes and more stable ports. In this timeline the Russian empire would look south rather than west as to not create a war with an Austrian power allied with its neighbours. The Baltic-Northern Slavic nations would then have allies to secure themselves from both Nordic and Russian aggression. I could see this new power dynamic lead to the unification of both Germany (through Austria) and Poland/Lithuania.
Austria + Poland/Lithuania is my new wet dream...
So Austria‘s multiethnic population among quite similar brother nations is depicted as problematic but today’s diversity is our greatest strength allegedly. Question is who is „we“ in this context? Not the titular nations of their states
Tbf Hungarians come from Asia.
0:26 "rightful claim to the throne of the Roman empire"
How about no
But technically yes.
@@MonsieurDean I think the Russian Empire and Ottoman Empire would disagree
@@MonsieurDean Well, Yes but actually NO.
Don't forget Tzar means ceasar and the Turks made Constantinople their capital after renaming it to Istanbul.
@@etho7351 and Kaiser is the correct pronuncation of caesar
It feels weird seeing Austria become a north-central European power, instead of it's real world south-central position. I never understood why Franz Josef and the Austrian never tried to fix relations with Russia. Their relationship served each other well for a long time, and the Austrians were just not in a good domestic position to help the Russians in Crimea. The Austrians should never have sided against the Russians in the conflict, instead they should have stayed on the sidelines and try and mediate a peace treaty.
A Deutssch Österreich coalition would be fun, especially during wars, they couldn't be beat
this scenario describes the greater german solution which the southern german states in particular had in mind. In addition to the southern German states of Bavaria, Baden and Wuerttemberg, this Greater German solution also includes Austria, Bohemia and Moravia, as well as the entire North German Confederation with all Prussian provinces. the german unification, also known as the brotherly war, was decided in favor of prussia in 1866. thus the small German solution prevailed.
What if Britain moved its capital to Philadelphia before it started upsetting America
This would end up with a reverse revolution, and also moving the capital to Philadelphia would be a absolutely stupid idea that wouldn't help
Hwy rember cromwell yea lets do that again if the king is running off.
@@twoscarabsintheswarm9055 Philadelphia was the largest city in the Americas at the time
I remembered reading something about King George moving to America and renaming everything Georgeland
@@Bluesonofman i mean isnt goergia named afther that?
Nice video I like the concept of germany surviving for centuries
Austrias problems compared to Prussia in a nutshell:
-Bad military compared to Prussia
-Not liked among occupied countries (backlash), enemies from the inside
So, is Ridge Wallet the new Pepperidge Farm?
Following this scenario, which city would become the new capital? Technically it should be Vienna, which had a higher population and better infrastructure at that time. On the other side it’s very badly placed geo strategically near the eastern border of the new big country. Maybe it would be a split in power with Berlin, just like Vienna and Budapest in the double monarchy?
That doesn't would have worked out. People always forget that religion was far more important back then as it is today. When Prussia formed the german empire, Bismarck forced protestant prusssian culture on the catholic states, in the so called culture war periode. A Habsburg emperor would have done the same, just the other way around and seen Vienna as the traditional heart of the empire. A portestant prussian King would have had a bad standing in that alternate history.
Very nice!
What will become of the Kaiser and his dashounds with cute little spiked helmets. Then again Hitler would have been just a failed art student just like the ANITFA looters and vandals.
What if Qing dynasty didn't conquer Taiwan, and Zheng clan made it to conquer Philippines?
What if Mao didn't came to power in the PR China?
Wonderfull video, except that it wasn't Germany's desire to surpass Britain, but just Wilhelm II.
Here's something I've always wondered. What if the child born in February 1516 to Henry VIII and Catherine of Aragon, who was actually Mary Tudor, had been born a boy?
Probably would have died as well. And early in childhood at that. Apparently, Henry VIII had a rare genetic condition. It meant that it was harder for him to sire a male child that didn't end in a miscarriage. And any male child that would be succesfully born, would be weak and not likely to reach puberty, let alone adulthood. Hence why Henry VIII only had one male heir, who ended up dying at a young age. And why his daughters even had the opportunity to succeed him.
@@kwikstik You are correct. I have also heard that Henry might have had syphilis, which makes his entire child bearing deficiency his fault and not Catherine's or Ann Boleyn's. However, what I would like to see addressed in an alternative history experiment is how politics would have changed if Henry had had a healthy male heir. Henry VII produced a healthy male heir. What if Henry VIII did also? With a male heir, Henry would not have had the immediate need to break with the Catholic Church. No Elizabeth. No House of Stuart. How would the Reformation have played out? A lot would depend on the personality of this alternative next king and his successors.
@@davidseymour6447 Well, there was some anti-papal sentiment present in the English population. Which had been used to ease the break from the church. A healthy heir from his first marriage could have strengthened the ties with continental europe. And especially with Spain, and this later on the Habsburgs. But England had throughout the years after the Hundred Years War, tried to stop any power from becoming all powerful and dominating europe. Just to keep themselves safe from invasion. Sentiments would have soured over the years, unless the English kings used that blood connection as a 'right to the Spanish throne'. Now imagine a three-way War of Spanish Succession.
Interesting. Lots to think about. Henry's marriage to Catherine was a fairly happy one early on, and closer sixteenth century ties to Spain changes a lot, possibly even seventeenth century colonialism.