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 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
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.
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.
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.
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
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.
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.
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! :)
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.
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.
I never understood Metternich’s sanguine acceptance in 1815-16 of Prussia getting more territory in Germany unmatched by Austrian gains. He even allowed Prussia to take Catholic territories, a concept that would have given Maria Theresa a stroke. More than anything the Prussians did, this laid the groundwork for Austria’s exclusion from Germany later in the century.
Well it came down to Russia and Prussia teaming up at the Congress of Vienna to demand territorial gains, Prussia demanding all of Saxony and Russia claming all of Poland. France, Britain and Austria were obviously against that and it nearly escalated into all out war, but they reached an agreement: Prussia would get half of Saxony and a bit of Poland and they agreed upon the founding of the so called congressional Poland under Russian influence. This mitigated Russias de facto influence in these regions and Metternich also probably believed that Prussia could be contained in this loose but steady construct of the german Bund. To summarise, they had no choice and it was probably not that big of a deal concerning the shared hegemony in the german Bund as this construct guaranteed the balance of power.
People do not give the Austrian Empire nearly enough credit. They’re often made into a laughing stock because of their poor performance in WWI, the confusion nature of the preceding HRE, and the revolts and hardships they faced. But really, the Austrians were quick learners and had shrewd policies, carefully keeping up with changing trends and crafting plans to adapt in turn. When Napoleon smashed them at Austerlitz with his ingenious tactics and modern army organization, it was the Austrians before anybody else who adopted Napoleon’s corps structure. They lasted a lot longer than they realistically should have, considering everything they’ve faced over the centuries.
Exactly, that's a common misconception in history. That the Habsburg Monarchy was mostly unstable is actually a myth. They only faced 1-2 major revolutions per century (1620s Bohemian Revolt, Rákóczi's War of Independence, 1840s Italian & Hungarian Wars of Independence). They were actually competent holding 10+ ethnic groups together compared to the Ottomans. They also had a decent economy until the 1840s revolutions. Austrian military commanders often learn from mistakes and shock their opponents (Frederick & Napoleon) in the next war, winning a lot of battles against the Prussians & French. They also stopped the Ottomans at their best with minimal help. However, Austria had no time to change its tactics during WW1. Austria also had some influence in Latin America and was the the 3rd country in history to introduce mandatory education. People often critize Austria for losing Silesia, but forget that a huge coalition of European nations tried to kill Austria in 1741 (Prussia, France, Spain, Bavaria, Saxony, Naples, Sardinia & Modena), that they survived with almost no outside help is impressive. Compare it with Poland, who barely lasted long. Hell, even Prussia nearly got destroyed in the 7 Years' War, if it wasn't for Russia's exit. Last not least, the Austrian navy, while small, was a formidable force in the 2nd Ottoman-Egyptian War, 3rd Italian War of Independence and even WW1! It never lost a major naval battle aside from a few ship losses in 1917-18. Modern historians are trying very hard to portray Habsburg Austria as an evil, weak & disunited empire when they lasted for centuries and didn't oppress millions of people over half of the world (colonialism).
@@UnholyWrath3277 Well the Hungarian was the problem majority with it than the Czech, Pole, Sloven best loyal of all Croat. Honestly The Hungarian problem within Austria was alway a problem for Austria to make any reforms or changes.
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
"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.
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.
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!
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
I'm French and love the historical relations between France and Austria, specialy during the XVIII and XIX. I think that if Austria would unify Germany, France and Austria could be very short allied states because of many cultural and historical links. Prussia was definitely the worst choice and it led with the lost of a lot of german territories after WW2...
@@karlhintonwilson5111 I understand why you might like Prussia, but I think that it was the rude of many problemes that Germany had and still has, like the authoritarianism that killed the Weimar republic and the boner for strong leaders instead of a democratic Parlament
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.
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?
I knew the mildest amount of background on this but I am very impressed that Austria managed to go from collapse to a large European power once again...and all this only a few decades before their empire finally collapsed forever.
@@thebutterflycomposer7130 A potent pangermanic state including Austria and Switzerland and the aid of Russia would protect Europe from futur invasions from Asia using the modernized silk road.
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.
Schwarzenbergs had Palace in bohemian crown they are still here and one of schwarzenberg Karel was Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic
Thank you for exploring the history of the much left-out Austrian Empire! As a German American, most of my knowledge has focused on the northern Germans rather than their southern equals.
@@LucidFL Aber natuerlich! Es gibt leider viele Leute in Amerika die Deutsche Abstammung haben aber ihre Eltern haben ihnen nichts bei gebracht. Sehr traurig. Sind sie Deutsch?
made Austria great again just goes to show that even when everything seems lost things could actually be brought back under control very quickly with the right plan well executed same could be said for America today things that could potentially be fixed in 5 years if the right leadership is in charge: 1) global peace 2) fix economy 3) increase birthrate 4) restore the prestige of america
0:07 Hungary didn't secede, it never was part of Austria in the first place. Still, it is true that the new Hungarian government assumed control over competences previously reserved to the King himself and removed itself from its inofficial but effective joint governance with Austria. Also, Hungary did include Croatia at the time, albeit the Croatian Diet's refusal to implement the April Laws put Croatia in a state of "rebellion" against the Hungarian government.
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.
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.
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.
That would be a good question if Schwaryenberg had survived, he would had involve Austria in the Crimean war, to thank Russia for helping them against Hungary. The Russians never forgave Austria for letting her fight alone with England, France, and the Ottoman Empire in the Crimean war. If Schwarzenberg had lived in 1853, would he have involved Austria in that war on Russia's side? And this would have later helped Austria against Prussia and Sardinia?
If anything, Russia should've helped Austria against Prussia before the Crimean War during the Autumn Crisis of 1850: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn_Crisis_1850 While Austria was exhausted from its wars against Sardinia & Hungary, they still had many veterans & experienced generals. Prussia's army was not strong in 1850, they barely could win a war against tiny Denmark, and they only became powerful 10 years later after their reforms: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Schleswig_War I'm pretty sure they could beat Prussia with full Russian intervention, it was Austria's last chance for victory in Germany. However, I entirely couldn't blame Austria for not helping Russia later. Their performance in the Crimean War would be the same as in WW1 (Anglo-French naval blockade, Franco-Sardinian advance in the Lombardy, 2nd Hungarian Revolution) and the empire would die earlier.
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.
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.
On one hand we could say that Schwarzenberg only patched up a system which was severely strained and had little hope of remaining stable in the long run… on the other, one must not forget that an opportunity is always needed. If Franz Joseph had had a great prime minister such as Bismarck or Cavour, Austria wouldn’t have been played in such a way as actually happened… Cavour in particular made a terrifying gamble that absolutely had to succeed: if Austria didn’t fall to Turin’s provocation in 1859, the Piedmontese economy would’ve been crushed by the weight of its army’s mobilisation… we would’ve never won our independence, not in the way that actually happened, which was honestly great beyond measure. I’m quite sure the empire would’ve fallen anyway… as to the opportunity, who knows? The Republic of Venice is a good example of this: internal problems and diplomatic weakness maybe doomed the Serenissima from the start, but it took an opportunity called Napoleon Bonaparte to actually sign the death certificate.
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 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.
I always saw the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a weird experiment the Europeans did, mix everything inside a multiethnic, multicultural empire with a made up royal dynasty and with a population that shared very little or nothing with each other except for the color of their skin and hope for the best!
Loving this channel A far too often over simplified or untold period Much enjoying the general international coverage Too much is about Britain at this time in most other historical synopses Would love one on the opening of Japan or the effects of the Industrial revolution in the future
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.
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?"
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?
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 ...
"...and saw the Austrian emperor as his liege lord" Can you site your source for this? First, because it's fascinating. But second that implies that for Frederick William IV the Holy Roman Empire was still real and that's wild.
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
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.
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 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
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
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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
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.
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.
I never understood Metternich’s sanguine acceptance in 1815-16 of Prussia getting more territory in Germany unmatched by Austrian gains. He even allowed Prussia to take Catholic territories, a concept that would have given Maria Theresa a stroke. More than anything the Prussians did, this laid the groundwork for Austria’s exclusion from Germany later in the century.
Well it came down to Russia and Prussia teaming up at the Congress of Vienna to demand territorial gains, Prussia demanding all of Saxony and Russia claming all of Poland. France, Britain and Austria were obviously against that and it nearly escalated into all out war, but they reached an agreement: Prussia would get half of Saxony and a bit of Poland and they agreed upon the founding of the so called congressional Poland under Russian influence. This mitigated Russias de facto influence in these regions and Metternich also probably believed that Prussia could be contained in this loose but steady construct of the german Bund. To summarise, they had no choice and it was probably not that big of a deal concerning the shared hegemony in the german Bund as this construct guaranteed the balance of power.
People do not give the Austrian Empire nearly enough credit. They’re often made into a laughing stock because of their poor performance in WWI, the confusion nature of the preceding HRE, and the revolts and hardships they faced. But really, the Austrians were quick learners and had shrewd policies, carefully keeping up with changing trends and crafting plans to adapt in turn. When Napoleon smashed them at Austerlitz with his ingenious tactics and modern army organization, it was the Austrians before anybody else who adopted Napoleon’s corps structure. They lasted a lot longer than they realistically should have, considering everything they’ve faced over the centuries.
Exactly, that's a common misconception in history. That the Habsburg Monarchy was mostly unstable is actually a myth. They only faced 1-2 major revolutions per century (1620s Bohemian Revolt, Rákóczi's War of Independence, 1840s Italian & Hungarian Wars of Independence). They were actually competent holding 10+ ethnic groups together compared to the Ottomans. They also had a decent economy until the 1840s revolutions. Austrian military commanders often learn from mistakes and shock their opponents (Frederick & Napoleon) in the next war, winning a lot of battles against the Prussians & French. They also stopped the Ottomans at their best with minimal help. However, Austria had no time to change its tactics during WW1. Austria also had some influence in Latin America and was the the 3rd country in history to introduce mandatory education. People often critize Austria for losing Silesia, but forget that a huge coalition of European nations tried to kill Austria in 1741 (Prussia, France, Spain, Bavaria, Saxony, Naples, Sardinia & Modena), that they survived with almost no outside help is impressive. Compare it with Poland, who barely lasted long. Hell, even Prussia nearly got destroyed in the 7 Years' War, if it wasn't for Russia's exit. Last not least, the Austrian navy, while small, was a formidable force in the 2nd Ottoman-Egyptian War, 3rd Italian War of Independence and even WW1! It never lost a major naval battle aside from a few ship losses in 1917-18. Modern historians are trying very hard to portray Habsburg Austria as an evil, weak & disunited empire when they lasted for centuries and didn't oppress millions of people over half of the world (colonialism).
@@TheAustrianAnimations87 this comment made my day. Thanks very much
@@ihatemylifeDF If the Austrian army could fixed it multinational language problem in command. That would improve it army a little better.
@@thanhhoangnguyen4754 they tried in general the army was supposed to use german. Actually enforcing that obviously didnt go as planned
@@UnholyWrath3277 Well the Hungarian was the problem majority with it than the Czech, Pole, Sloven best loyal of all Croat.
Honestly The Hungarian problem within Austria was alway a problem for Austria to make any reforms or changes.
Your videos are exceptional. Glad you are getting the praise, viewership and popularity you deserve. Looking forward to your next video.
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
Very well made documentary on the Habsburg empire post-Napoleonic wars.
Thank you Old Britannia for the in depth coverage on this topic.
Loving these videos on 19th Century politics! Keep up the good work! 😁👍
"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
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.
Best TH-cam channel out right now. Only TH-camr I still consistently watch
Another excellent video, Mr. Old Britannia. I appreciate the frequent releases!
Some of the best videos on history on TH-cam
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!
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 👍
I'm French and love the historical relations between France and Austria, specialy during the XVIII and XIX. I think that if Austria would unify Germany, France and Austria could be very short allied states because of many cultural and historical links. Prussia was definitely the worst choice and it led with the lost of a lot of german territories after WW2...
As a German frome the Ruhr I must say that the revolutionaries should have unified Germany, that would have been the best ending.
I'm German but I love Prussia, we just need good politicians like Bismarck.
@@karlhintonwilson5111 I understand why you might like Prussia, but I think that it was the rude of many problemes that Germany had and still has, like the authoritarianism that killed the Weimar republic and the boner for strong leaders instead of a democratic Parlament
@@bastian182 I also support a liberal democracy, the Revolution of 1848 should have been succeeded in Germany.
@@bastian182 what do you think about East Germany ("DDR")? Just wonder, but respect you.
amazing content. would love to hear more about the austrian empire.
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.
Ur Chanel is very underrated, i never heard of this
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.
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?
I knew the mildest amount of background on this but I am very impressed that Austria managed to go from collapse to a large European power once again...and all this only a few decades before their empire finally collapsed forever.
The Butterfly Com..
Forever ?
@@ezzovonachalm9815 well...I suppose it could come back. Maybe. Very unlikely though.
@@thebutterflycomposer7130
A potent pangermanic state including Austria and Switzerland and the aid of Russia would protect Europe from futur invasions from Asia using the modernized silk road.
Russia saved austria by defeating the hungarian rebels.
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.
Great video! May I ask what editing software you use in making these artpieces? :)
Just Photoshop and Premier Pro to make the videos.
Your videos are extremely well made!
Thank you. Very glad you like them.
Damn, your video Quality has Increased a lot
Quite a stellar documentary, very enlightening, thank you!
Schwarzenbergs had Palace in bohemian crown they are still here and one of schwarzenberg Karel was Former Minister of Foreign Affairs of the Czech Republic
Your videos are awesome, keep making more of this quality content!
Nice seeing you make videos on the habsburgs, please keep it up!
Thank you for exploring the history of the much left-out Austrian Empire! As a German American, most of my knowledge has focused on the northern Germans rather than their southern equals.
Do you speak German? If not, you are no German.
@@LucidFL Aber natuerlich! Es gibt leider viele Leute in Amerika die Deutsche Abstammung haben aber ihre Eltern haben ihnen nichts bei gebracht. Sehr traurig.
Sind sie Deutsch?
"As a German American". LMAO.
@@lqs1w68 It's the truth :) I was raised by Germans in America and can speak both languages.
Let's not forget, though, that the Austrian Empire was a predominantly non-German country. Only less than 1/4 of its population spoke German.
Always awesome videos, keep it up!!!
Amazing work,would love a video on William Pitt The Younger
I really love your coverage of excellent statesmen. More if you may please
Very great video! What’s the name of the music playing at 9:55?
made Austria great again
just goes to show that even when everything seems lost
things could actually be brought back under control very quickly with the right plan well executed
same could be said for America today
things that could potentially be fixed in 5 years if the right leadership is in charge:
1) global peace
2) fix economy
3) increase birthrate
4) restore the prestige of america
Enjoyed your video! Just the map is slightly off, the Croatian lands were a part of the Kingdom of Hungary.
❤I Vojvodina...
another fascinating installment. if only you were around during my history a level
This content is amazing keep up the good work!
Great content man!
Music at 11:30?
0:07 Hungary didn't secede, it never was part of Austria in the first place. Still, it is true that the new Hungarian government assumed control over competences previously reserved to the King himself and removed itself from its inofficial but effective joint governance with Austria. Also, Hungary did include Croatia at the time, albeit the Croatian Diet's refusal to implement the April Laws put Croatia in a state of "rebellion" against the Hungarian government.
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.
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 is my go to channel for 19th century history
Another excellent video
PLEAAAAAASE do an episode on the oriental crisis and the diplomacy behind it
Definitely on the list.
Great video . I imagine you'll be receiving some new viewers soon with the release of victoria 3 coming up.
I came looking for coal and I found diamonds. Awesome video and great channel
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... :)
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.
great video, I never knew about this
Where was this channel my whole life??
That would be a good question if Schwaryenberg had survived, he would had involve Austria in the Crimean war, to thank Russia for helping them against Hungary. The Russians never forgave Austria for letting her fight alone with England, France, and the Ottoman Empire in the Crimean war.
If Schwarzenberg had lived in 1853, would he have involved Austria in that war on Russia's side? And this would have later helped Austria against Prussia and Sardinia?
If anything, Russia should've helped Austria against Prussia before the Crimean War during the Autumn Crisis of 1850: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autumn_Crisis_1850
While Austria was exhausted from its wars against Sardinia & Hungary, they still had many veterans & experienced generals. Prussia's army was not strong in 1850, they barely could win a war against tiny Denmark, and they only became powerful 10 years later after their reforms: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/First_Schleswig_War
I'm pretty sure they could beat Prussia with full Russian intervention, it was Austria's last chance for victory in Germany. However, I entirely couldn't blame Austria for not helping Russia later. Their performance in the Crimean War would be the same as in WW1 (Anglo-French naval blockade, Franco-Sardinian advance in the Lombardy, 2nd Hungarian Revolution) and the empire would die earlier.
Another great and interesting video
I can't be the only one that read the title as "Schwarzenegger's Triumph" =D
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.
Croatia and Hungary were in a personal union between 1088 and 1920.....Croatia was not part of Austria.....
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.
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.
On one hand we could say that Schwarzenberg only patched up a system which was severely strained and had little hope of remaining stable in the long run… on the other, one must not forget that an opportunity is always needed. If Franz Joseph had had a great prime minister such as Bismarck or Cavour, Austria wouldn’t have been played in such a way as actually happened… Cavour in particular made a terrifying gamble that absolutely had to succeed: if Austria didn’t fall to Turin’s provocation in 1859, the Piedmontese economy would’ve been crushed by the weight of its army’s mobilisation… we would’ve never won our independence, not in the way that actually happened, which was honestly great beyond measure. I’m quite sure the empire would’ve fallen anyway… as to the opportunity, who knows? The Republic of Venice is a good example of this: internal problems and diplomatic weakness maybe doomed the Serenissima from the start, but it took an opportunity called Napoleon Bonaparte to actually sign the death certificate.
Great content
The biggest mistake of Russian diplomacy is saving Austrian empire.
❤
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 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.
I always saw the Austro-Hungarian Empire as a weird experiment the Europeans did, mix everything inside a multiethnic, multicultural empire with a made up royal dynasty and with a population that shared very little or nothing with each other except for the color of their skin and hope for the best!
Schwarzenberg be like: alright let's save Austria 1848 disaster save
Loving this channel
A far too often over simplified or untold period
Much enjoying the general international coverage
Too much is about Britain at this time in most other historical synopses
Would love one on the opening of Japan or the effects of the Industrial revolution in the future
He was skillful in building houses made of cards, but not in preventing strong winds.
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.
I love this quality content
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?"
Opulence is always the beginning of the end for Great empires.
Pity Austria did not remake themselves as a federation. They might have been able to hold out and maybe reformed their army a bit.
I didnt know Arnold was interestred in saving the Austrian empire.
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.
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 ...
Good video
The goat has returned
What about Joseph Jelačić
7:39 hey y'all, what is this word and what does it mean in this context? :P
Policeman
"...and saw the Austrian emperor as his liege lord" Can you site your source for this? First, because it's fascinating. But second that implies that for Frederick William IV the Holy Roman Empire was still real and that's wild.
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.
Very impressive.
Can we get a video on how France rebuilt itself after the Franco-Prussian war up to WW1?
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.
Love it
I read it as Schwartzenager and was relatively confused