The Habsburg dynasty is honestly my favourite historical entity of all time. Such a bizarre aberration of world power; a monarchy of an Empire that didn't exist, a multicultural powerhouse whose strengths were also their own weaknesses, whose dynasty was the closest to a universal european monarchy as well as the closest to discovering brand new chromosomes, who spent centuries waging war with the ottomans only to die side by side with the ottmans, whose state lost again and again against her enemies but somehow resurfaced from the ashes until the fires of WWI put it to rest!
You guys don't get it, Hungary was heavily involved in the balkans and stuff. Romanians or transylvanian identity was non existant. Croatia had huge amounts of autonomy under Hungary, also Bosnia, something they'd rather have than be venetians or serbians or turks at the time. Slovenians and slovakians are made up countries, ragusa was but a city, so was venice, Bosnia wa-... In one word, modern nationalism is nutjobs
Found out the other day that Austrian rule in northern Italy -in such regions as Lombardy,the Veneto,South Tyrol and Friuli actually initiated universal education at least at the primary level.Despite the anti-Austrian Italian irredentist intelligentsia ,the Austrian Habsburg government actually provided good government and progress and real benefits for ordinary Italian people.
@@kaloarepo288 If you have any sources other than Wikipedia please share them as I want to find out more about this. It was a shock to me that the Italian people were mostly indifferent to the risorgimento in 1848.
Maria THeresia introduced the general education (6 years) in 1774. Back then mostly the local priests were in charge of the education as there was no money for a school and a teacher of our modern understanding. Why would Italians not have litteracy as they were just seen as normal citizens like everybody else. During WW1 litteracy was a lot higher among A-H's soldiers compared to the Italian soldiers.
@@johnnotrealname8168 I think I heard about it in an Italian language video probably by historian Alessandro Barbero who is a leading popularizer of historical topics in Italy and he is on You Tube.I have heard before that the Venetians were very unpopular on the Italian mainland (In the Veneto region and Friuli)as the venetian aristocracy taxed and exploited the peasants mercilessly and often the local Italians preferred the Austrians to the Venetians.And then there is the matter of the catholic church and the papacy which was strictly in alliance with the Austrian empire as one of the foremost conservative powers of the day -the church would have opposed the Risorgimento because of the liberal anti-clerical focus within it and the fact that the pope was still ruler of the papal states -about one third of Italy which the risorgimento people wanted to annex to an United Italy under the Savoy dynasty.As a matter of fact Italian catholics were urged to boycott the Italian kingdom and not vote in elections until Mussolini made a concordat with the vatican in the 1920's.
I will always admire how Austria managed not to explode even a century after the French revolution, considering their defeat in the Italian wars and the Austro-Prussian war.
The Austrian empire truly is fascinating its somehow managed to keep limping on despite being beaten up by pretty much every other great power and somehow managed to continue appearing strong despite seemingly constantly being on the verge of complete collapse
Austroungaria a fost batuta de serbia in 1914. Daca nu intervenea germania, al doilea om bolnav al europei disparea de atunci. Este de mirare cum a scapat austria dupa ww2 pentru ca unii din marii criminali nazisti au fost austrieci. Acum austria este o tara ca si ungaria la mila celor puternici in europa.
Very very nice video. It's notable to what degree Austria continued to be bound by the system set up by Metternich in his triumph at Vienna. Having a vital interest in Italian, German, and Balkan affairs simultaneously is all good and well, but total defeat on any of these fronts could spell doom for the Habsburg state, which had always had a greater difficulty marshaling her resources than, say, France or Britain. Austria was thus left in the position of fighting on three diplomatic fronts simultaneously. I think that it does explain why Austria could ill afford to pull out of Italy. Defeat would mean not just the loss of the rich province of Lombardy-Venezia, but also the loss of any Austrian influence in Tuscany, the Two Sicilies, and the small Italian states. Furthermore, it would almost certainly lead to further designs on Austrian territories - South Tyrol, the Austrian Riviera, and possibly the whole of Dalmatia.
I hope you enjoy this short documentary on Schwarzenberg's diplomacy. I'm experimenting with producing these at a bit of a quicker pace, though I think it has meant the script has suffered to some extent this time. For brevity I’ve also left out some details, such as Schwarzenberg’s plan for an ‘Empire of Seventy Millions’. I know I've somehow managed to forget to add Sardinia to the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia - apologies. Correction: The constituent assembly of 1848-1849 was held in Kremsier, not Kresmier.
@@yazanraouf9604 Ah hell, apologies meant to include them. I’ll add them to the description to tomorrow. Edward Crankshaw’s Fall of the House of Habsburg is my favourite narrative, and the most readable, but there are a few factual errors. Robert Kann’s A History of the Habsburg Empire is the best actual history, but a bit of a harder read IMO than Crankshaw. I’ll post the others in the description tomorrow
I work at a hotel in Cesky Krumlov, where he was born. A Schwarzenberger Grenadier Guard has guarded the castle well into the communism period, being dissolved in 1948. Nowadays it is reinstated as a reenactment group and reenacts in the castle from time to time.
Thumbs up for the video! The interesting thing to me always was how Ferdinand I. is portrait. You for example use the words "invalid" and "disabled". And that's exactely how i learned about him back in history class in school. He was born with a hydrocephalus rickets and epillepsy. And everyhwere he is depicted as unable as a ruler and basically as mentally disabled. On the other hand he managed to speak 5 languages played 2 instruments, was very talented in drawing, proficient in riding, fencing and shooting and very interested in technological inventions and technological progress in general as well as very interested in gardening and agricultur. When he give his rule to his nephew (he actually never abdicated and had the title of "Kaiser" until is death) and went to bohemia, he became pretty sucessfull in managing the properties he had there. That made him quite rich and all that was inherited by Franz Josef and was the base of his wealth.
Oh yes, I definitely was unfair on him in this. Unfortunately when I’m producing a short video like this, there isn’t much space for nuance. I had to show in a few seconds why Schwarzenberg needed him to renounce the throne. But thank you for this, adds a lot of depth to his character as a person.
One thing worth remembering though is after the Crimean War in 1853 where Austria was "neutral" but clearly sympathetic to Britain's and France's desire not to see the Ottoman empire collapse changed Austria's position dramatically. It actively sought to prevent Russian encroachment on the Ottoman Empire. Russia after this then saw Austria as a rival and it was very unlikely Austria would ever get Russian aid again to say crush Hungary, one of the reasons why they granted autonomy later. Part of the problem for the Habsburgs in Venetia I'd suggest is that they didn't have the roots there that they did in other parts of the Empire that had been under Habsburg rule for centuries as they did in say Bohemia, Galicia, Hungary etc. The population there resented how Napoleon's conquest of Venice was not reversed in the same way they there were for say, Switzerland or the Netherlands in the Congress of Vienna. It was always going to be difficult to secure the long term allegiance of the population, especially in a circumstance where a major rival power in started growing in the form of Piedmont. In reterospect the Austrian Empire probably would have been better focusing its efforts on retaining hegemony over German states where they had a far deeper base of support and which would be far more important economically and politically in the long run. Some kind of unification of Catholic southern German states like Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg into a Catholic German empire under Austrian auspicies for example would have made what Bismarck later did far more difficult to pull off. It would have had deep support in those states both culturally and given the interconnectedness of their elites with Austria. An independent Venetian monarchy or aristocratic republic allied to Austria set up as a buffer state in the same way as the Netherlands in 1815 would have had far more incentive to resist being gobbled up by Italy rather than actively seek it, but of course this would have required the clairvoyance to see how Piedmont would suddenly grow powerful - although by granting Piedmont Genoese territory at Vienna they were already creating the conditions for this to happen. Also I would debate whether by this point it is useful to talk of the Holy Alliance. That seems to me more of a post-Vienna Concert arrangement that was supposed to be of a far more grand scale than the alliance between Prussia, Austria and Russia here. It was supposed to also involve Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands and the Two Sicilies. It pretty much vanished immediately after, Britain became increasingly alienated from the illiberal reactionaries, France had revolutions that reversed the restoration, the great powers let the Netherlands break apart and the formation of Belgium, they disagreed bitterly over what to do with Greece and they couldn't even agree to help Spain to retain its Latin American territories (which Britain didn't really want it to anyway). Its only real tangible achievement was crushing the liberal government in Spain in 1823 with French troops, but this was a pyhrric victory indeed given how rapidly British-backed liberal governments under Isabella II ended up taking power just 10 years later. Western Europe quickly became out of reach of the alliance or the Concert given British ambivalence and resurgent French power and so its efforts were focused in a more hardened core of reactionaries more intensely focused on stability in Central and Eastern Europe. One that took on a more realpolitik aim of anti-nationalism within their mutual borders rather than trying to stamp out revolution wherever it occured. I would frame the agreement between the three powers here more in line of what was known at the time as the "Alliance of the Three Kings" or what was very much an informal precusor of Bismarck's "Dreikaiserbund" or "League of the Three Emperors".
I'd agree with much of your analysis here. I also agree the Holy Alliance was a dead letter at this point, though Spain wasn't its only achievement IMO- there was of course the intervention in Sicily for one thing (admittedly more an Austrian effort than the Spanish and proposed Latin American intervention was). I still consider it useful for framing the Russian intervention in an overview like this. But I did go out of my way to show that the realpolitik was more important. 'Alliance of Three Kings' would be way too confusing for a video that is also talking about Prussia's efforts with Hanover and Saxony, but I nonetheless take your point. Great and brilliantly informed comment though.
Was it really a restoration? As defeats of 1860s would show - not so much. Instead of adopting reforms and especially a proper constitution, that guy just stretched whats left of Empire once more. And followed Dual compromise limited Viennas power over Empire. Liberal democratic reforms, this what Austria actually needed, but aristoracy did not want to share it s power with anyone....
@@mint8648 I think, and that's a fact that dual compromise limited power of Austrian government over the country, also it was adopted kinda late ( after defeat against Prussia, which practically made Austria- Hungary dependable on Prussia in foreign policy ). I believe instead of dual compromise should reform government making it more democratic, giving voting rights to all nations ( with money census probably), or at least make it a Quadruple compromise, like Austria- Hungary- Croatia- Transylvania or Austria- Bohemia- Croatia- Hungary.
Brilliant video, as I Hungarian I learned a lot of this in school and studied it a lot in my own time. You explained it all wonderfully. One little thing: Haynau gets a horrible reputation. Yes he executed a lot of people (including all the leaders of the revolution) but the orders were not his. They all came from the young emperor personally. Something which a lot of Hungarians would never forgive. During the Austrian Hungarian empire, there were parties that demanded that the emperor should officially beg for forgiveness for his commands
@@wilhelmhohenzollern4560 The Habsburgs are a mixed bag. They came to the Hungarian throne at a time when Hungary was really weak and chaos stricken, and there is a sense of being colonized by Austria. So the period in which the Habsburgs ruled Hungary is really viewed as a dark time, and we spend a lot of time studying all the different conspiracies and rebellions which aimed to get them out. A dude called Rákóczi Ferenc is even on our money, for starting a rebellion against the Habsburgs. So the Habsburg rulers before 48' all have terrible reputations (except a few, such as Maria Theresia who is viewed incredibly favorably for some reason.). The people who started and participated in the revolution of 48' are the greatest national heroes of Hungary and pretty much all of them are household names. However after the austro-hungarian compromise (Kiegyezés in hungarian) the entire attitude changes. Since the terms of the compromise were to Hungary(we got complete independence in domestic affairs, and a shared foreign and military policy with Austria making us much more powerful than we would be without them, and we got an equal say in running the empire) suddenly, the Habsburgs became the great and noble royal family of Hungary. Empress Elizabeth was and still is very popular and Francis Joseph the Bloddyhanded (Véres Kezű Ferenc József) became our good old Francis Joe (A jó öreg Ferenc Jóskánk). The main boulevards and streets of Budapest are all named after Habsburgs and there is absolutely no public demand for change, and everything associated with Austria-Hungary is viewed with great amounts of nostalgia. So all and all it's pretty inconsistent how we look at them today. The Habsburgs before 48' are viewed as great oppressors and tyrants, except a few who we adore. The Habsburgs of 48' are seen as evil incarnate. And the Habsburgs after the compromise are seen as our good old royal family who is one with the Hungarian state. If you want any more detail of anything just let me now, because I really love talking about this stuff! :)
"the well meaning but disabled Ferdinand I" The poor Habsbergs just couldnt stop marrying each other. Ferdinand I was a sweet lad that liked to be photographed and liked wearing his stylish hats. He had up to 30 seizures a day. He could never even consumate his marriage.
Wow! I only heard of Bismarck as the premier statesman of the 19th century. This man was equally as excellent. Definitely going to be fun playing as Austria Hungary in Victoria 3
I haven't read Kahn's book, but Macartney's "The Habsburg Empire 1790-1918" is a strong contender for the best book on the history of the late Habsburg Empire from roughly the end of Maria Theresa's reign to WWI. Definitively give it a read. One book recently translated to english is the monumental biography of Empress Maria Theresa by Barbara Stollberg-Rillinger, without a doubt the best book on the subject. There are two other books useful to those interested in austrian diplomacy in the XIX century: "Metternich: Strategist and visionary" by Wolfram Siemann and "The Grand Strategy of the Habsburg Empire" by Aaron Wess Mitchell. Regarding Austria-Hungary in WWI, there are a few: "The First World War and the End of the Habsburg Monarchy 1914-1918" by Manfried Rauchensteiner, "The Passing of the Hapsburg Monarchy 1914-1918" by Arthur J. May and Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I" by Alexander Watson. Also, another book that's worth reading is Perry Anderson's "Lineages of the Absolutist State". It has a chapter dedicated to the austrian monarchy and how it worked, comparing and contrasting its customs and institutions to those of other absolute monarchies, analyzing the complexities of the Habsburg dominions and attempting to explain why it fell the way it did.
As another idea for a series, considering it was touched on here, snapshots of the various nations' responses to the crises of 1848 could also be rather interesting, given how that year managed both to change quite a lot and yet remarkably little.
I love coming back to this channel. Your visual maps and narrative style keep me engaged and to add, as an American, European history is just so much more interesting than American ngl lol
The audio is a bit low. That being said, great video! I like specially that it has the references because this allow us to go deeper if we want to! Thanks a lot!
Nicholas didn’t forgive Austria’s failure to support him during the Russo Franco British war in Crimea. After that the Balkans became a source of competition between Vienna and St Petersburg as Ottomans steadily retreated from Europe, leading to 1914. If Schwarzenberg had survived until 1856 I wonder how he’d have handled Crimea? An enduring Austro-Russian alliance might have had very different outcomes for Europe.
Love the videos that show the play by play. Would be interesting to see the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 and all the players and actions behind that. Or maybe the Second Schleswig War?
This is another fascinating video. I had never fully realized just how radical the alterations to the Imperial succession and how impressive Schwarzenbergs achievements were. Nevertheless, the fact that all these threats were defeated but not crushed is a very valid one. I wonder whether Austria really could have gotten away with crushing Prussia, had it come to war. I guess they could have retaken Silesia, restored Saxony to 1815 borders and carved the Rhineland into small duchies for mediatized princes? Russia and France could have been bought off with territorial concessions, but in the latter case the German nationalists would definitely have been even more infuriated. It certainly would have weakened Prussia, though.
B.A.S.E.D.!!! I love this period of the Austrian Empire being a Habsburg fanatic although marred by a Germanisation policy. I was genuinely fascinated by this guy but doubly so now. Thank You so much for this exposition, if only he lived another couple decades.
I don't want to nitpick, and it's a bit too late anyway, but the name of the town where the constitution was drafted is Kremsier (Czech: Kroměříž). :) Great video, though. Felix of Schwarzenberg doesn't get the recognition he deserves. Certainly not here in Czechia, where he was born and is buried. So thank you for that.
Felix Schwarzenberg is a hugely underestimated prime minister whose life was cruelly foreshortened. At the end of his very long reign, Emperor Franz-Josef (who was at the time of Schwarzenberg's death actually planning to sack him) referred to him as the most capable of all his first ministers.
0:45 I don't necessarily see WW1 happen the way it did if this would have come to pass as Germany wouldn't have interfered in the Balkan mess the way Austria did. Thus not angering the Russians to much and perhaps, with Bismarck on the Helm, signing some sort of Alliance with them and perhaps the newly established Italy.
This might be apocryphal, but when he first heard of the revolt in Vienna, Ferdinand is supposed to have said "Derfens denn des?" which is german (with a viennese accent) for "Are they allowed to do that?"
Italian concessions for a more integrated Hungary couldve probably saved the Empire. With a better relationship with Italy, the Italian politicians wouldve probably sided with the Central Powers and with more available men, they couldve easily crushed the Eastern Front with Bulgaria. And with Italy in the Central Powers, it couldve been the tipping balance it needed to allow Germany to break through the French.
0:49 imagine how the last 175 years would have been different if this Germany had occurred. Prussia wouldn't have had as dominant a position as it did in the German Empire formed in 1871 (both because it wouldn't have annexed the territory it took in the 1860s and it would have been more counter balanced with Austria and Bohemia being included), so this Germany might not have been as militant, and Napoleon III may not have tried to pick a fight with an already united Germany, so maybe no Franco-Prussian war either. Alsace-Lorraine probably would have stayed French, and while there'd be a rivalry between France and Germany, there wouldn't have been the feeling of a looming grudge match. Italy would likely have united earlier, as Piedmont-Sardinia would have annexed Lombardy-Venetia from a collapsing Austrian empire (and kept Savoy and Nice), and Cavour may have even tried his luck with annexing parts of the Dalmatian coast that had previously belonged to the Republic of Venice. Who knows how a newly independent Hungary (which may also include the parts of northern Croatia that it had historically been in personal union with) would have functioned in European politics, and the Galicia region would have become a political football between Germany, Hungary and Russia, and could have become a base of Polish nationalism.
If such Germany had occurred then it would be instantly invaded by France and Russia, with UK and Habsburg remnants more than likely joining the fray. And more than likely it would be swift war, given how disunified armed forces of such Germany would be.
Funny how Russia saved Austria in 1848 only to be left alone during the crimean war. By the way it would be cool to see something about Bismarck politics or 1890s alliances (how Russia shifted from a pro-german to a pro-french state)
I can't really tell the compete reasons why Prussia stayed neutral in the crimean war, but for Austria i read up on the topic a little while ago. They basically were bluffing both sides, while fighting hard to keep the empire alive. They were almost entirely broke and could neither field nor pay enough soldiers for any real parttaking on either side. The thing they realized early on was that due to geographics either side would let them bear the brunt of the landfighting (actually the prussians were of that opinion too, not just for austria but also for themselves if they'd joined), and that would have meant something like WW1 in europe just earlier and the end of the austrian empire. What i find so interesting, is that the bluffing was so effective that it is still not common knowledge today. (studies and articles of historians who accessed the actual documents in archives that prooved it, are available online, but they are a pretty dry and long read with partially quite complicated phrases. -> made more for academic purposes than for normal people like myself)
@@nirfz Bluff or not they left Russia isolated fot most of the conflict (if i remember correctly) and it kinda led to Austria's demise (Prussia wouldn't have attacked Austria in 1866 if Russia was on its side)
@@fil1375 Don't forget, we know more than they did in hindsight. (Just as people in 30 or 130 years will know more about how Putins war will pan out for everyone in the future) Prussia would not have attacked Austria in 1866 because Austria would not have been a player in the german federation anyway anymore. It would have either been completely gone -> the parts taken over by other big powers in europe, or it would have been a small rest without any influence on the federation, so Bismarck (Prussia) would not have had any need to do anything in that regard to make Prussia the most powerfull of the german speaking realms. One step less for him towards a germany under Prussian leadership.
It’s somewhat arbitrary and down to personal opinion of course. But I really think Metternich in 1815 was doing a good job of obscuring just how fragile Austria’s great power status was. I view it’s power under Leopold, however briefly, as being more substantial.
@@Theodosius_fan Restored Austrian internal and external power after Joseph had diplomatically isolated the Monarchy, and destroyed its internal cohesion by moving too quickly with his reforms.
@@OldBritannia ok makes sense. But why do you think that Metternich‘s apparent victory at Vienna (getting an Austrian dominated germany and Italy while also establishing austria as the great diplomatic power) is only superficial?
@@Theodosius_fan I don't think Metternich's success at Vienna was superficial in the way Schwarzenberg's was in 1850. What I do think is that Austrian power itself was somewhat superficial at that point. As John Charmely puts it, Austria could only remain a Great Power so long as it avoided war, much the same way as Britain in the inter-war period.
It's ironic how Schwarzenberg's "triumph" was what set Austria straight on the route to it's now inevitable demise, he fought harshly for the italian territories that everyone but apparently him knew were a lost cause, in exchange for having them a couple more years he made Italo Austrian relationships completely irreparable and drifted the soon to be great power firmly to the side of France and Germany, this decision also forced him to call for russian intervention, a help that he knew wouldn't pay back, also destroying Russo-Austrian relations, leaving the weak power alone to the will of whatever the other nations wanted to do with it, and of course, his policy of harsh repression, absolutism and brutalization made the state cross a point of no return that no amount of reform could ever repair for it to survive the next century, even if it came victorious of every single conflict it fought
Well, you're right with the part that Austria lost militarily and influence to France and Prussia. Austria's policy in the Crimean War also wasn't the best (although staying neutral was the best way possible). But I strongly disagree with the typical myth you're spreading that Habsburg Austria's collapse was "inevitable". Austria-Hungary could've collapsed during the Panic of 1873, yet it didn't. Austria-Hungary could've collapsed right after the invasion of Bosnia in 1878, yet it didn't. Austria-Hungary collapsed in 1918 not because no one liked empire, but because of widespread famine, the British blockade, high inflation, and the millions of lost lives. Between 1949 and 1914 there wasn't a single revolution in Austria-Hungary, calls for independence only became a real problem in January 1918, when there were strikes in entire Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary in 1914 only wanted to fight Serbia. Serbia never could win a war of attrition against Austria-Hungary without Russian intervention, they didn't have the manpower and economy. Bulgaria would also very likely intervene. Btw, Austria-Hungary also started to reform with male suffrage in 1907 and they would've likely succeeded if it hadn't been for WW1.
As a hungarian, IMO the best solution would have been if the Habsburgs would have compromised with the Hungarians in 1849, rather than 1867 ... like another 20 years for the modernisation of all the lands in the empire, eventually the empire would have fallen apart, but maybe without the mayhem of WW1 ... which hit us most hardly -> Treaty of Trianon ... essentially a lot more fair deal might have been possible ... but ofc we will never know ... unless we discover a paralell universe with a different history ...
Something like WW1 just earlier, and austria as an empire would have ceased to exist earlier. If they had joined either side they would have been expected to do the majority of the land fighting. (and they knew that) They were still recovering from what was shown in the video and they neither had the money nor the recources (men, weapons, ammo) to be able to afford to take part on either side. So if they had joined any side, they would not have had enough troops and material to really make a difference, but they would have been attacked from the other side and would not have been able to withstand that attack. So they bluffed their way through that time, and while making either side angry, they at least managed the empire to survive a few more decades. Disclaimer, i am not a historian, but i read that question a lot of times, while not knowing much about the crimean war myself in the last few years and started to search for articles and papers by actual historians who read the archive materials. And what i wrote is the consensus tthe ones i found seem to come to.
@@nirfz yeah, Austria was definitely weak in the wake of the 1848 revolutions. Likewise Austria didn't perform well in the Franco-Austrian war in 1859. So I'm guessing in the hypothetical situation where Austria joined Russia, they would basically just distract the Sardinians and some portion of the Ottomans. Not sure if that'd be enough to push Russia to victory.
@@anneonymous4884 exactely, there would most likely have been a two front war for for them and considering how they fared against the sardiniens (ok they were backed by france but still), imgaine hwat would ahve happened if they would have faced Sardinia again and France, the Ottomans and some of the british at the same time. Either a short complete implosion, or the Prussians (to keep "the balance of power") would have joined in and voila: WW1 a little earlier.
Felix Ludwig Johann Friedrich, Prince of Schwarzenberg (1800-1852). Restauration? That was mostly military. Nicolas I tsar helped to destroy the Hungarian revolution, and this new state based on military supress. As soon as Austria let down Russia this was a weak state what defeated by French in Italy 1850's, and Prussian in Königgratz. It survived 19 years....Train network expanded by private companies that was the best deed of this regime.
Croatian ban Josip Jelačić save Austrians near Wiena when he left batllefild in Hungary and with his army of Croats he attack second Hungerian army from back and that batlle was disasive in Revolution
@@jozsefsandor671 he got order to lave batlle and atack hungerian army from back near wiena so yes Hungarians win battle near Pest but lose war and dont learn history fom wiklipedia
7:43 Why the f-k did they not just partition Hungary at this stage when there were already ethnic divisions *within* the kingdom? Why didn’t they set up a Slovak entity, a Romanian entity, a Vojvodina/South Slavic entity as punishment for Hungary rebelling?
In short, but not entirely, the problem of ‘the peoples’ lay not with the Habsburg’s, but with nationalism. Lombardy-Venetia wasn’t a major problem, or one at all, so long as Italy remained a collection of states rather than a unified realm. Hungary and Bohemia used nationalism as a means to fan the flames of discontent against Habsburg rule as a foreign power, despite the fact that the Empire was contiguous, and more or less comprised of the same lands for nearly 2 centuries already. Nationalism is perhaps the greatest plague on humanity, killing off perfectly workable polities in the name of the people, to have their own state, ie simply to be ruled by someone else. It’s a disintegrating and destructive force, often taken advantage of by the elites, who themselves are prone to republicanism on account of not wanting to play second fiddle to a monarch.
@@mrsupremegascon people never rule themselves, not even in Republics. There will always be the rulers and the ruled; a minority who rule, and a majority who are ruled.
@@aaronfire359 Beside pretty sure much of them even Hungary want at least a monarch on their country throne. Not the aristocrat. The Habsburg monarch was the only thing that bind them together not the people.
Actually, Balkans were a mess because of Ottoman Empire which was not going to let them go easily, and because of backing from major powers they got at Berlin congress 1878. In fear of bigger Russian influence European powers made slavs and greeks slaves to Ottomans once more, btw getting a nice deals for themselvs, Britain got Cyprus, Austria got influence over Bosnia, France got permission to conquest Tunisia.
5:45 that right there is what makes an analysis jump from good to brilliant. To point out that even a decisive victory to retake valuable provinces (all positive indicators) may not lead to a wise conclusion because this could force the central power of a State to live on a precarious or even counterproductive balance is worthy to be named wisdom. In Austria's defence, it must be said that giving away too much ground after winning a war could have been easily interpreted as a sign of weakness therefore an invitation to another conflict soon after. In my opinion they could have settled things for a while by splitting the Italian provinces, handing Lombardy to the Kingdom of Sardinia in exchange for the recognition of the Habsburg rule over Venetia (far easier to control and defend due to its proximity to Austrian lands), effectively "bribing" the Savoyard King in the face of the Italian cause. (but probably Cavour would have never allowed this)
Thanks for shining some light on Schwarzenberg and the 1848 drama. I used to pay little attention to the years between Napoleon and Bismarck but recently I've looked more into things such as this and the Crimean War and Italian Unification and the independence of Greece and Belgium, I think this period from Napoleonic Wars to German Unification deserves more attention on TH-cam. Also, the empire building prior to the Scramble for Africa and Congress of Berlin, like the French in Algeria and the Opium Wars and British expansion in India and Dutch expansion in Indonesia are interesting
The Habsburg dynasty is honestly my favourite historical entity of all time. Such a bizarre aberration of world power; a monarchy of an Empire that didn't exist, a multicultural powerhouse whose strengths were also their own weaknesses, whose dynasty was the closest to a universal european monarchy as well as the closest to discovering brand new chromosomes, who spent centuries waging war with the ottomans only to die side by side with the ottmans, whose state lost again and again against her enemies but somehow resurfaced from the ashes until the fires of WWI put it to rest!
You guys don't get it, Hungary was heavily involved in the balkans and stuff. Romanians or transylvanian identity was non existant. Croatia had huge amounts of autonomy under Hungary, also Bosnia, something they'd rather have than be venetians or serbians or turks at the time. Slovenians and slovakians are made up countries, ragusa was but a city, so was venice, Bosnia wa-...
In one word, modern nationalism is nutjobs
Found out the other day that Austrian rule in northern Italy -in such regions as Lombardy,the Veneto,South Tyrol and Friuli actually initiated universal education at least at the primary level.Despite the anti-Austrian Italian irredentist intelligentsia ,the Austrian Habsburg government actually provided good government and progress and real benefits for ordinary Italian people.
@@kaloarepo288 If you have any sources other than Wikipedia please share them as I want to find out more about this. It was a shock to me that the Italian people were mostly indifferent to the risorgimento in 1848.
Maria THeresia introduced the general education (6 years) in 1774. Back then mostly the local priests were in charge of the education as there was no money for a school and a teacher of our modern understanding. Why would Italians not have litteracy as they were just seen as normal citizens like everybody else.
During WW1 litteracy was a lot higher among A-H's soldiers compared to the Italian soldiers.
@@johnnotrealname8168 I think I heard about it in an Italian language video probably by historian Alessandro Barbero who is a leading popularizer of historical topics in Italy and he is on You Tube.I have heard before that the Venetians were very unpopular on the Italian mainland (In the Veneto region and Friuli)as the venetian aristocracy taxed and exploited the peasants mercilessly and often the local Italians preferred the Austrians to the Venetians.And then there is the matter of the catholic church and the papacy which was strictly in alliance with the Austrian empire as one of the foremost conservative powers of the day -the church would have opposed the Risorgimento because of the liberal anti-clerical focus within it and the fact that the pope was still ruler of the papal states -about one third of Italy which the risorgimento people wanted to annex to an United Italy under the Savoy dynasty.As a matter of fact Italian catholics were urged to boycott the Italian kingdom and not vote in elections until Mussolini made a concordat with the vatican in the 1920's.
I will always admire how Austria managed not to explode even a century after the French revolution, considering their defeat in the Italian wars and the Austro-Prussian war.
I had an aneurysm reading that
I always admire how Austria managed not to implode every century, despite everything always pointing towards it.
@@rey.del.guac.7 Sorry, I read my comment again and corrected it.
@@DarthFhenix55 nej hetesk mij bad
The Austrian empire truly is fascinating its somehow managed to keep limping on despite being beaten up by pretty much every other great power and somehow managed to continue appearing strong despite seemingly constantly being on the verge of complete collapse
Austroungaria a fost batuta de serbia in 1914. Daca nu intervenea germania, al doilea om bolnav al europei disparea de atunci. Este de mirare cum a scapat austria dupa ww2 pentru ca unii din marii criminali nazisti au fost austrieci. Acum austria este o tara ca si ungaria la mila celor puternici in europa.
Especially since it's essentially an afterthought to the Holy Roman Empire and the spanish empire
Very very nice video. It's notable to what degree Austria continued to be bound by the system set up by Metternich in his triumph at Vienna. Having a vital interest in Italian, German, and Balkan affairs simultaneously is all good and well, but total defeat on any of these fronts could spell doom for the Habsburg state, which had always had a greater difficulty marshaling her resources than, say, France or Britain. Austria was thus left in the position of fighting on three diplomatic fronts simultaneously.
I think that it does explain why Austria could ill afford to pull out of Italy. Defeat would mean not just the loss of the rich province of Lombardy-Venezia, but also the loss of any Austrian influence in Tuscany, the Two Sicilies, and the small Italian states. Furthermore, it would almost certainly lead to further designs on Austrian territories - South Tyrol, the Austrian Riviera, and possibly the whole of Dalmatia.
I hope you enjoy this short documentary on Schwarzenberg's diplomacy. I'm experimenting with producing these at a bit of a quicker pace, though I think it has meant the script has suffered to some extent this time. For brevity I’ve also left out some details, such as Schwarzenberg’s plan for an ‘Empire of Seventy Millions’. I know I've somehow managed to forget to add Sardinia to the Kingdom of Piedmont-Sardinia - apologies.
Correction: The constituent assembly of 1848-1849 was held in Kremsier, not Kresmier.
Hey Britannia! I know this video is gonna be good!
Thank you very much for this video! Can you tell me the sources if you don't mind? I'd like to read more on Schwarzenberg
Thought of making videos on the 1857 Indian mutiny, the crimean war and the opium wars?
@@yazanraouf9604 Ah hell, apologies meant to include them. I’ll add them to the description to tomorrow.
Edward Crankshaw’s Fall of the House of Habsburg is my favourite narrative, and the most readable, but there are a few factual errors.
Robert Kann’s A History of the Habsburg Empire is the best actual history, but a bit of a harder read IMO than Crankshaw.
I’ll post the others in the description tomorrow
@@OldBritannia Thank you very much! I really appreciate it
I work at a hotel in Cesky Krumlov, where he was born. A Schwarzenberger Grenadier Guard has guarded the castle well into the communism period, being dissolved in 1948. Nowadays it is reinstated as a reenactment group and reenacts in the castle from time to time.
Thumbs up for the video! The interesting thing to me always was how Ferdinand I. is portrait. You for example use the words "invalid" and "disabled". And that's exactely how i learned about him back in history class in school. He was born with a hydrocephalus rickets and epillepsy. And everyhwere he is depicted as unable as a ruler and basically as mentally disabled.
On the other hand he managed to speak 5 languages played 2 instruments, was very talented in drawing, proficient in riding, fencing and shooting and very interested in technological inventions and technological progress in general as well as very interested in gardening and agricultur.
When he give his rule to his nephew (he actually never abdicated and had the title of "Kaiser" until is death) and went to bohemia, he became pretty sucessfull in managing the properties he had there. That made him quite rich and all that was inherited by Franz Josef and was the base of his wealth.
Oh yes, I definitely was unfair on him in this. Unfortunately when I’m producing a short video like this, there isn’t much space for nuance. I had to show in a few seconds why Schwarzenberg needed him to renounce the throne.
But thank you for this, adds a lot of depth to his character as a person.
@@OldBritannia Thanks for the reply!
Don't be too harsh towards yourself. It's just what was and is considered common knowledge.
One thing worth remembering though is after the Crimean War in 1853 where Austria was "neutral" but clearly sympathetic to Britain's and France's desire not to see the Ottoman empire collapse changed Austria's position dramatically. It actively sought to prevent Russian encroachment on the Ottoman Empire. Russia after this then saw Austria as a rival and it was very unlikely Austria would ever get Russian aid again to say crush Hungary, one of the reasons why they granted autonomy later.
Part of the problem for the Habsburgs in Venetia I'd suggest is that they didn't have the roots there that they did in other parts of the Empire that had been under Habsburg rule for centuries as they did in say Bohemia, Galicia, Hungary etc. The population there resented how Napoleon's conquest of Venice was not reversed in the same way they there were for say, Switzerland or the Netherlands in the Congress of Vienna. It was always going to be difficult to secure the long term allegiance of the population, especially in a circumstance where a major rival power in started growing in the form of Piedmont. In reterospect the Austrian Empire probably would have been better focusing its efforts on retaining hegemony over German states where they had a far deeper base of support and which would be far more important economically and politically in the long run. Some kind of unification of Catholic southern German states like Bavaria, Baden and Württemberg into a Catholic German empire under Austrian auspicies for example would have made what Bismarck later did far more difficult to pull off. It would have had deep support in those states both culturally and given the interconnectedness of their elites with Austria. An independent Venetian monarchy or aristocratic republic allied to Austria set up as a buffer state in the same way as the Netherlands in 1815 would have had far more incentive to resist being gobbled up by Italy rather than actively seek it, but of course this would have required the clairvoyance to see how Piedmont would suddenly grow powerful - although by granting Piedmont Genoese territory at Vienna they were already creating the conditions for this to happen.
Also I would debate whether by this point it is useful to talk of the Holy Alliance. That seems to me more of a post-Vienna Concert arrangement that was supposed to be of a far more grand scale than the alliance between Prussia, Austria and Russia here. It was supposed to also involve Britain, France, Spain, Portugal, Netherlands and the Two Sicilies. It pretty much vanished immediately after, Britain became increasingly alienated from the illiberal reactionaries, France had revolutions that reversed the restoration, the great powers let the Netherlands break apart and the formation of Belgium, they disagreed bitterly over what to do with Greece and they couldn't even agree to help Spain to retain its Latin American territories (which Britain didn't really want it to anyway). Its only real tangible achievement was crushing the liberal government in Spain in 1823 with French troops, but this was a pyhrric victory indeed given how rapidly British-backed liberal governments under Isabella II ended up taking power just 10 years later. Western Europe quickly became out of reach of the alliance or the Concert given British ambivalence and resurgent French power and so its efforts were focused in a more hardened core of reactionaries more intensely focused on stability in Central and Eastern Europe. One that took on a more realpolitik aim of anti-nationalism within their mutual borders rather than trying to stamp out revolution wherever it occured. I would frame the agreement between the three powers here more in line of what was known at the time as the "Alliance of the Three Kings" or what was very much an informal precusor of Bismarck's "Dreikaiserbund" or "League of the Three Emperors".
I'd agree with much of your analysis here. I also agree the Holy Alliance was a dead letter at this point, though Spain wasn't its only achievement IMO- there was of course the intervention in Sicily for one thing (admittedly more an Austrian effort than the Spanish and proposed Latin American intervention was). I still consider it useful for framing the Russian intervention in an overview like this. But I did go out of my way to show that the realpolitik was more important.
'Alliance of Three Kings' would be way too confusing for a video that is also talking about Prussia's efforts with Hanover and Saxony, but I nonetheless take your point.
Great and brilliantly informed comment though.
Was it really a restoration? As defeats of 1860s would show - not so much. Instead of adopting reforms and especially a proper constitution, that guy just stretched whats left of Empire once more. And followed Dual compromise limited Viennas power over Empire. Liberal democratic reforms, this what Austria actually needed, but aristoracy did not want to share it s power with anyone....
Definitely a good point, one I more or less articulate at the end of the video.
@@OldBritannia No you don’t your lying
@@maxturner653 He did, you’re lying.
You think Austria lost against France and Germany because of their liberal democratic reforms?
@@mint8648 I think, and that's a fact that dual compromise limited power of Austrian government over the country, also it was adopted kinda late ( after defeat against Prussia, which practically made Austria- Hungary dependable on Prussia in foreign policy ). I believe instead of dual compromise should reform government making it more democratic, giving voting rights to all nations ( with money census probably), or at least make it a Quadruple compromise, like Austria- Hungary- Croatia- Transylvania or Austria- Bohemia- Croatia- Hungary.
Undoubtedly, the best history channel on TH-cam right now. Thank you for your amazing work!
Armchair historian, simple history, and oversimplified are up there too
Brilliant video, as I Hungarian I learned a lot of this in school and studied it a lot in my own time. You explained it all wonderfully. One little thing: Haynau gets a horrible reputation. Yes he executed a lot of people (including all the leaders of the revolution) but the orders were not his. They all came from the young emperor personally. Something which a lot of Hungarians would never forgive. During the Austrian Hungarian empire, there were parties that demanded that the emperor should officially beg for forgiveness for his commands
I'm curious about how Hungarians viewed the Habsburg period
@@wilhelmhohenzollern4560 is this a question you want me to answer?
@@szemjuelhont3574 yes
@@wilhelmhohenzollern4560 The Habsburgs are a mixed bag. They came to the Hungarian throne at a time when Hungary was really weak and chaos stricken, and there is a sense of being colonized by Austria. So the period in which the Habsburgs ruled Hungary is really viewed as a dark time, and we spend a lot of time studying all the different conspiracies and rebellions which aimed to get them out. A dude called Rákóczi Ferenc is even on our money, for starting a rebellion against the Habsburgs. So the Habsburg rulers before 48' all have terrible reputations (except a few, such as Maria Theresia who is viewed incredibly favorably for some reason.). The people who started and participated in the revolution of 48' are the greatest national heroes of Hungary and pretty much all of them are household names. However after the austro-hungarian compromise (Kiegyezés in hungarian) the entire attitude changes. Since the terms of the compromise were to Hungary(we got complete independence in domestic affairs, and a shared foreign and military policy with Austria making us much more powerful than we would be without them, and we got an equal say in running the empire) suddenly, the Habsburgs became the great and noble royal family of Hungary. Empress Elizabeth was and still is very popular and Francis Joseph the Bloddyhanded (Véres Kezű Ferenc József) became our good old Francis Joe (A jó öreg Ferenc Jóskánk). The main boulevards and streets of Budapest are all named after Habsburgs and there is absolutely no public demand for change, and everything associated with Austria-Hungary is viewed with great amounts of nostalgia.
So all and all it's pretty inconsistent how we look at them today. The Habsburgs before 48' are viewed as great oppressors and tyrants, except a few who we adore. The Habsburgs of 48' are seen as evil incarnate.
And the Habsburgs after the compromise are seen as our good old royal family who is one with the Hungarian state.
If you want any more detail of anything just let me now, because I really love talking about this stuff! :)
@@szemjuelhont3574 Very interesting, thanks for sharing.
Greetings from Austria
"the well meaning but disabled Ferdinand I"
The poor Habsbergs just couldnt stop marrying each other. Ferdinand I was a sweet lad that liked to be photographed and liked wearing his stylish hats. He had up to 30 seizures a day. He could never even consumate his marriage.
Awful fate tbh
Wow! I only heard of Bismarck as the premier statesman of the 19th century. This man was equally as excellent.
Definitely going to be fun playing as Austria Hungary in Victoria 3
Based profile pic
Came here to say it, but someone else did
Based profile pic
I'll say it for the 3rd time: based profile pic
Based
imagine being such a sad little gremlin that the fact you hate gay people is your most defining trait
I haven't read Kahn's book, but Macartney's "The Habsburg Empire 1790-1918" is a strong contender for the best book on the history of the late Habsburg Empire from roughly the end of Maria Theresa's reign to WWI. Definitively give it a read.
One book recently translated to english is the monumental biography of Empress Maria Theresa by Barbara Stollberg-Rillinger, without a doubt the best book on the subject.
There are two other books useful to those interested in austrian diplomacy in the XIX century: "Metternich: Strategist and visionary" by Wolfram Siemann and "The Grand Strategy of the Habsburg Empire" by Aaron Wess Mitchell.
Regarding Austria-Hungary in WWI, there are a few: "The First World War and the End of the Habsburg Monarchy 1914-1918" by Manfried Rauchensteiner, "The Passing of the Hapsburg Monarchy 1914-1918" by Arthur J. May and Ring of Steel: Germany and Austria-Hungary in World War I" by Alexander Watson.
Also, another book that's worth reading is Perry Anderson's "Lineages of the Absolutist State". It has a chapter dedicated to the austrian monarchy and how it worked, comparing and contrasting its customs and institutions to those of other absolute monarchies, analyzing the complexities of the Habsburg dominions and attempting to explain why it fell the way it did.
Excellent suggestions. I only have Ring of Steel in my collection unfortunately. But I'll take a look at all of these.
As another idea for a series, considering it was touched on here, snapshots of the various nations' responses to the crises of 1848 could also be rather interesting, given how that year managed both to change quite a lot and yet remarkably little.
Loving these videos on 19th Century politics! Keep up the good work! 😁👍
Your videos are exceptional. Glad you are getting the praise, viewership and popularity you deserve. Looking forward to your next video.
Very well made documentary on the Habsburg empire post-Napoleonic wars.
Thank you Old Britannia for the in depth coverage on this topic.
Another excellent video, Mr. Old Britannia. I appreciate the frequent releases!
I love coming back to this channel. Your visual maps and narrative style keep me engaged and to add, as an American, European history is just so much more interesting than American ngl lol
You are American, but what country are you from?
@@mclabec1946 I'm from the USA, California currently but im in the process of moving to another state
@@nightdragonx123 ok 👍
Best TH-cam channel out right now. Only TH-camr I still consistently watch
The audio is a bit low. That being said, great video! I like specially that it has the references because this allow us to go deeper if we want to! Thanks a lot!
Nicholas didn’t forgive Austria’s failure to support him during the Russo Franco British war in Crimea. After that the Balkans became a source of competition between Vienna and St Petersburg as Ottomans steadily retreated from Europe, leading to 1914. If Schwarzenberg had survived until 1856 I wonder how he’d have handled Crimea? An enduring Austro-Russian alliance might have had very different outcomes for Europe.
amazing content. would love to hear more about the austrian empire.
Love the videos that show the play by play. Would be interesting to see the Austro-Hungarian Compromise of 1867 and all the players and actions behind that. Or maybe the Second Schleswig War?
Some of the best videos on history on TH-cam
Quite a stellar documentary, very enlightening, thank you!
Your videos are awesome, keep making more of this quality content!
This is another fascinating video. I had never fully realized just how radical the alterations to the Imperial succession and how impressive Schwarzenbergs achievements were. Nevertheless, the fact that all these threats were defeated but not crushed is a very valid one. I wonder whether Austria really could have gotten away with crushing Prussia, had it come to war. I guess they could have retaken Silesia, restored Saxony to 1815 borders and carved the Rhineland into small duchies for mediatized princes? Russia and France could have been bought off with territorial concessions, but in the latter case the German nationalists would definitely have been even more infuriated. It certainly would have weakened Prussia, though.
These couple of videos on the Austrian Empire are so enlightening.
Very cool to see you watching these. I love your channel
@@British_monarchist Thank you very much.
Croatia and Hungary were in a personal union between 1088 and 1920.....Croatia was not part of Austria.....
I really love your coverage of excellent statesmen. More if you may please
Enjoyed your video! Just the map is slightly off, the Croatian lands were a part of the Kingdom of Hungary.
❤I Vojvodina...
Damn, your video Quality has Increased a lot
B.A.S.E.D.!!! I love this period of the Austrian Empire being a Habsburg fanatic although marred by a Germanisation policy. I was genuinely fascinated by this guy but doubly so now. Thank You so much for this exposition, if only he lived another couple decades.
Nice seeing you make videos on the habsburgs, please keep it up!
Always awesome videos, keep it up!!!
Enjoyed the video but could I make one small and I hope supportive correction. The Constituent Assembly of 1848-9 was held in Kremsier, not Kresmier.
Ah my apologies, I’ll add a correction in the description now. Thanks for pointing it out.
This content is amazing keep up the good work!
PLEAAAAAASE do an episode on the oriental crisis and the diplomacy behind it
Definitely on the list.
Another excellent video
Great content man!
great video, I never knew about this
I don't want to nitpick, and it's a bit too late anyway, but the name of the town where the constitution was drafted is Kremsier (Czech: Kroměříž). :) Great video, though. Felix of Schwarzenberg doesn't get the recognition he deserves. Certainly not here in Czechia, where he was born and is buried. So thank you for that.
Thanks. Yeah I have already added a correction in the description. Very frustrating nonetheless.
@@OldBritannia I can relate... :)
What about Joseph Jelačić
The biggest mistake of Russian diplomacy is saving Austrian empire.
❤
I came looking for coal and I found diamonds. Awesome video and great channel
Felix Schwarzenberg is a hugely underestimated prime minister whose life was cruelly foreshortened. At the end of his very long reign, Emperor Franz-Josef (who was at the time of Schwarzenberg's death actually planning to sack him) referred to him as the most capable of all his first ministers.
Another great and interesting video
Schwarzenberg be like: alright let's save Austria 1848 disaster save
wish you had more videos
This is my go to channel for 19th century history
6:25 cool video, but there was no Budapest in 1848
Funnily enough before 1873 it was offer referred to as "Pest-Buda".
Right. Buda and Peshta was two cities but one bridge over river of Danube made Budapest.
0:45 I don't necessarily see WW1 happen the way it did if this would have come to pass as Germany wouldn't have interfered in the Balkan mess the way Austria did. Thus not angering the Russians to much and perhaps, with Bismarck on the Helm, signing some sort of Alliance with them and perhaps the newly established Italy.
This might be apocryphal, but when he first heard of the revolt in Vienna, Ferdinand is supposed to have said "Derfens denn des?" which is german (with a viennese accent) for "Are they allowed to do that?"
Italian concessions for a more integrated Hungary couldve probably saved the Empire. With a better relationship with Italy, the Italian politicians wouldve probably sided with the Central Powers and with more available men, they couldve easily crushed the Eastern Front with Bulgaria. And with Italy in the Central Powers, it couldve been the tipping balance it needed to allow Germany to break through the French.
He was skillful in building houses made of cards, but not in preventing strong winds.
Opulence is always the beginning of the end for Great empires.
0:49 imagine how the last 175 years would have been different if this Germany had occurred. Prussia wouldn't have had as dominant a position as it did in the German Empire formed in 1871 (both because it wouldn't have annexed the territory it took in the 1860s and it would have been more counter balanced with Austria and Bohemia being included), so this Germany might not have been as militant, and Napoleon III may not have tried to pick a fight with an already united Germany, so maybe no Franco-Prussian war either.
Alsace-Lorraine probably would have stayed French, and while there'd be a rivalry between France and Germany, there wouldn't have been the feeling of a looming grudge match.
Italy would likely have united earlier, as Piedmont-Sardinia would have annexed Lombardy-Venetia from a collapsing Austrian empire (and kept Savoy and Nice), and Cavour may have even tried his luck with annexing parts of the Dalmatian coast that had previously belonged to the Republic of Venice.
Who knows how a newly independent Hungary (which may also include the parts of northern Croatia that it had historically been in personal union with) would have functioned in European politics, and the Galicia region would have become a political football between Germany, Hungary and Russia, and could have become a base of Polish nationalism.
If such Germany had occurred then it would be instantly invaded by France and Russia, with UK and Habsburg remnants more than likely joining the fray. And more than likely it would be swift war, given how disunified armed forces of such Germany would be.
Funny how Russia saved Austria in 1848 only to be left alone during the crimean war.
By the way it would be cool to see something about Bismarck politics or 1890s alliances (how Russia shifted from a pro-german to a pro-french state)
I can't really tell the compete reasons why Prussia stayed neutral in the crimean war, but for Austria i read up on the topic a little while ago. They basically were bluffing both sides, while fighting hard to keep the empire alive. They were almost entirely broke and could neither field nor pay enough soldiers for any real parttaking on either side.
The thing they realized early on was that due to geographics either side would let them bear the brunt of the landfighting (actually the prussians were of that opinion too, not just for austria but also for themselves if they'd joined), and that would have meant something like WW1 in europe just earlier and the end of the austrian empire.
What i find so interesting, is that the bluffing was so effective that it is still not common knowledge today.
(studies and articles of historians who accessed the actual documents in archives that prooved it, are available online, but they are a pretty dry and long read with partially quite complicated phrases. -> made more for academic purposes than for normal people like myself)
@@nirfz Bluff or not they left Russia isolated fot most of the conflict (if i remember correctly) and it kinda led to Austria's demise (Prussia wouldn't have attacked Austria in 1866 if Russia was on its side)
@@fil1375 Don't forget, we know more than they did in hindsight. (Just as people in 30 or 130 years will know more about how Putins war will pan out for everyone in the future)
Prussia would not have attacked Austria in 1866 because Austria would not have been a player in the german federation anyway anymore. It would have either been completely gone -> the parts taken over by other big powers in europe, or it would have been a small rest without any influence on the federation, so Bismarck (Prussia) would not have had any need to do anything in that regard to make Prussia the most powerfull of the german speaking realms. One step less for him towards a germany under Prussian leadership.
I love this quality content
Good video
I read it as Schwartzenager and was relatively confused
How was 1790 and especially 1850 a better time for austria than 1815?
It’s somewhat arbitrary and down to personal opinion of course. But I really think Metternich in 1815 was doing a good job of obscuring just how fragile Austria’s great power status was. I view it’s power under Leopold, however briefly, as being more substantial.
@@OldBritannia What is so special about Leopold’s reign? Honestly curious I always thought he was just some emperor
@@Theodosius_fan Restored Austrian internal and external power after Joseph had diplomatically isolated the Monarchy, and destroyed its internal cohesion by moving too quickly with his reforms.
@@OldBritannia ok makes sense. But why do you think that Metternich‘s apparent victory at Vienna (getting an Austrian dominated germany and Italy while also establishing austria as the great diplomatic power) is only superficial?
@@Theodosius_fan I don't think Metternich's success at Vienna was superficial in the way Schwarzenberg's was in 1850.
What I do think is that Austrian power itself was somewhat superficial at that point. As John Charmely puts it, Austria could only remain a Great Power so long as it avoided war, much the same way as Britain in the inter-war period.
Very impressive.
It's ironic how Schwarzenberg's "triumph" was what set Austria straight on the route to it's now inevitable demise, he fought harshly for the italian territories that everyone but apparently him knew were a lost cause, in exchange for having them a couple more years he made Italo Austrian relationships completely irreparable and drifted the soon to be great power firmly to the side of France and Germany, this decision also forced him to call for russian intervention, a help that he knew wouldn't pay back, also destroying Russo-Austrian relations, leaving the weak power alone to the will of whatever the other nations wanted to do with it, and of course, his policy of harsh repression, absolutism and brutalization made the state cross a point of no return that no amount of reform could ever repair for it to survive the next century, even if it came victorious of every single conflict it fought
Well, you're right with the part that Austria lost militarily and influence to France and Prussia. Austria's policy in the Crimean War also wasn't the best (although staying neutral was the best way possible). But I strongly disagree with the typical myth you're spreading that Habsburg Austria's collapse was "inevitable". Austria-Hungary could've collapsed during the Panic of 1873, yet it didn't. Austria-Hungary could've collapsed right after the invasion of Bosnia in 1878, yet it didn't. Austria-Hungary collapsed in 1918 not because no one liked empire, but because of widespread famine, the British blockade, high inflation, and the millions of lost lives. Between 1949 and 1914 there wasn't a single revolution in Austria-Hungary, calls for independence only became a real problem in January 1918, when there were strikes in entire Austria-Hungary. Austria-Hungary in 1914 only wanted to fight Serbia. Serbia never could win a war of attrition against Austria-Hungary without Russian intervention, they didn't have the manpower and economy. Bulgaria would also very likely intervene. Btw, Austria-Hungary also started to reform with male suffrage in 1907 and they would've likely succeeded if it hadn't been for WW1.
How did Croatia go from Austrian in 1848 to Hungarian in 1866?
It was always part of the Crown of St Stephen , but remained loyal to the Empire in 1848.
This maps are beautiful
Love it
As a hungarian, IMO the best solution would have been if the Habsburgs would have compromised with the Hungarians in 1849, rather than 1867 ... like another 20 years for the modernisation of all the lands in the empire, eventually the empire would have fallen apart, but maybe without the mayhem of WW1 ... which hit us most hardly -> Treaty of Trianon ... essentially a lot more fair deal might have been possible ... but ofc we will never know ... unless we discover a paralell universe with a different history ...
Interesting
The goat has returned
Ayo he was born at my home town. I live 5 minutes away from the Castle
Kinda tangential, but I've recently been wondering what would have happened if Austria helped with Russia in the Crimean War.
Something like WW1 just earlier, and austria as an empire would have ceased to exist earlier. If they had joined either side they would have been expected to do the majority of the land fighting. (and they knew that)
They were still recovering from what was shown in the video and they neither had the money nor the recources (men, weapons, ammo) to be able to afford to take part on either side. So if they had joined any side, they would not have had enough troops and material to really make a difference, but they would have been attacked from the other side and would not have been able to withstand that attack.
So they bluffed their way through that time, and while making either side angry, they at least managed the empire to survive a few more decades.
Disclaimer, i am not a historian, but i read that question a lot of times, while not knowing much about the crimean war myself in the last few years and started to search for articles and papers by actual historians who read the archive materials. And what i wrote is the consensus tthe ones i found seem to come to.
@@nirfz yeah, Austria was definitely weak in the wake of the 1848 revolutions. Likewise Austria didn't perform well in the Franco-Austrian war in 1859. So I'm guessing in the hypothetical situation where Austria joined Russia, they would basically just distract the Sardinians and some portion of the Ottomans. Not sure if that'd be enough to push Russia to victory.
@@anneonymous4884 exactely, there would most likely have been a two front war for for them and considering how they fared against the sardiniens (ok they were backed by france but still), imgaine hwat would ahve happened if they would have faced Sardinia again and France, the Ottomans and some of the british at the same time.
Either a short complete implosion, or the Prussians (to keep "the balance of power") would have joined in and voila: WW1 a little earlier.
I suspect it probably would have led to Britain taking a far less 'hands off' approach to Austria than it did.
Áustria faz parte da união europeia adolfo hiteler era da Áustria ou não para todos.
Felix Ludwig Johann Friedrich, Prince of Schwarzenberg (1800-1852). Restauration? That was mostly military. Nicolas I tsar helped to destroy the Hungarian revolution, and this new state based on military supress. As soon as Austria let down Russia this was a weak state what defeated by French in Italy 1850's, and Prussian in Königgratz. It survived 19 years....Train network expanded by private companies that was the best deed of this regime.
Croatian ban Josip Jelačić save Austrians near Wiena when he left batllefild in Hungary and with his army of Croats he attack second Hungerian army from back and that batlle was disasive in Revolution
Jelacic was beaten by Hungarians.
@@jozsefsandor671 if he is beaten how revolution end Jelačić was consider one of greates Austrian generals
@@osa-mv4iv He always lost the battles. Learn: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_P%C3%A1kozd
@@jozsefsandor671 he got order to lave batlle and atack hungerian army from back near wiena so yes Hungarians win battle near Pest but lose war and dont learn history fom wiklipedia
@@osa-mv4iv Wikipedia use more references of books of academic historians than other encyclopedias. Jelacic practically lost all of his battles.
Glory to Italy and Italians 🇮🇹
I miss the Austrian Kaiserreich
you are placing Croatia outside Hungary. That's a mistake.
I did purposely to represent their loyalty throughout the revolution. They are included in the Crown of St Stephen post-1867 on the map.
7:43 Why the f-k did they not just partition Hungary at this stage when there were already ethnic divisions *within* the kingdom? Why didn’t they set up a Slovak entity, a Romanian entity, a Vojvodina/South Slavic entity as punishment for Hungary rebelling?
Migrant people like Serbs or Romanians did not have intellectuals to controll public administration, neither city burgeroise, they were villagers.
7:39 hey y'all, what is this word and what does it mean in this context? :P
Policeman
I misread that as the restoration of austin powers
I read Schwarzenegger at first glance
Austria 🇦🇹 now is sth like 80k square km after an Anschluß with a dictature of course
In short, but not entirely, the problem of ‘the peoples’ lay not with the Habsburg’s, but with nationalism. Lombardy-Venetia wasn’t a major problem, or one at all, so long as Italy remained a collection of states rather than a unified realm. Hungary and Bohemia used nationalism as a means to fan the flames of discontent against Habsburg rule as a foreign power, despite the fact that the Empire was contiguous, and more or less comprised of the same lands for nearly 2 centuries already. Nationalism is perhaps the greatest plague on humanity, killing off perfectly workable polities in the name of the people, to have their own state, ie simply to be ruled by someone else. It’s a disintegrating and destructive force, often taken advantage of by the elites, who themselves are prone to republicanism on account of not wanting to play second fiddle to a monarch.
Oh no, my great oppressing Empire is destroyed because people wants to govern themselves, how horrible.
@@mrsupremegascon people never rule themselves, not even in Republics. There will always be the rulers and the ruled; a minority who rule, and a majority who are ruled.
@@aaronfire359 Beside pretty sure much of them even Hungary want at least a monarch on their country throne. Not the aristocrat. The Habsburg monarch was the only thing that bind them together not the people.
If only he was never born, and maybe the Balkans wouldn't of been such a mess without the Austrian Empire, so as to never start WWI
Actually, Balkans were a mess because of Ottoman Empire which was not going to let them go easily, and because of backing from major powers they got at Berlin congress 1878. In fear of bigger Russian influence European powers made slavs and greeks slaves to Ottomans once more, btw getting a nice deals for themselvs, Britain got Cyprus, Austria got influence over Bosnia, France got permission to conquest Tunisia.
Hmm yes lore of Austria
don't mess with radetski
Based
Commenting 4 algorithm
First
Second lol
This presentation is not easyly understandable due to an imperfect articulation of the fluffy anglomerican language.
Restoration of Austro Hungary.
Serbia: Hold my beer..
One of the worst things to have happend to the Slovene nation.
The Austrian Bach's Neoabsulitism killed the Slovenian hope for a united Slovenia.
No grazie un Cecco beppe il re degli impiccati ci è bastato..
jajaja ridiculos
You should've pronounced it as Kremsier
5:45 that right there is what makes an analysis jump from good to brilliant.
To point out that even a decisive victory to retake valuable provinces (all positive indicators) may not lead to a wise conclusion because this could force the central power of a State to live on a precarious or even counterproductive balance is worthy to be named wisdom.
In Austria's defence, it must be said that giving away too much ground after winning a war could have been easily interpreted as a sign of weakness therefore an invitation to another conflict soon after.
In my opinion they could have settled things for a while by splitting the Italian provinces, handing Lombardy to the Kingdom of Sardinia in exchange for the recognition of the Habsburg rule over Venetia (far easier to control and defend due to its proximity to Austrian lands), effectively "bribing" the Savoyard King in the face of the Italian cause. (but probably Cavour would have never allowed this)
Thanks for shining some light on Schwarzenberg and the 1848 drama. I used to pay little attention to the years between Napoleon and Bismarck but recently I've looked more into things such as this and the Crimean War and Italian Unification and the independence of Greece and Belgium, I think this period from Napoleonic Wars to German Unification deserves more attention on TH-cam.
Also, the empire building prior to the Scramble for Africa and Congress of Berlin, like the French in Algeria and the Opium Wars and British expansion in India and Dutch expansion in Indonesia are interesting