| An Austrian Avocation | |
|---|---|
| Topic Started: Jan 31 2011, 02:07 AM (1,067 Views) | |
| Matthew | Jan 31 2011, 02:07 AM Post #1 |
|
Due to my adventure with Austria last year, it has become a topic that holds quite a bit of interest for me. A few months ago Simon suggested that I do a timeline on them, and it would be interesting, perhaps this will develop into something of that sort. Anyways, for the moment this thread will probably just contain heterogeneous bits and pieces of things that would be interesting to explore, though perhaps one day I will link them all together. Reading some of Burke's work put me in the mind to consider again what type of government and constitution I was working towards in the 1836 game, working with the resources and quirks of the Austrian Empire as it was. I will attempt to develop a workable and realistic system. How and in what time frame it would come about, I do not know at this stage, but it would be the model and target. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jan 31 2011, 02:34 AM Post #2 |
|
Kaiserlich und Königlich Reichstag The Kaiserlich und Königlich Reichstag will contain the Empire's legislature and executive, the Imperial Parliament to use something familiar to all. As in most constitutional monarchies, the power will reside with the crown but will be exercised through the Reichstag. The focus of the Reichstag will be primarily on the state and organsation of the military (through the Minister for War and Minister for the Navy), Law and Order (Minister of Justice), Foreign Affairs, and certain limited empire wide infrastructure issues, though most of infrastructure concerns are left up to the parliaments of the states. The Reichstag will contain two houses, the Herrenhaus and the Abgeordnetenhaus, translated House of Lords and House of Deputies, respectively. The Herrenhaus will consist of the upper aristocracy, the 'Hoher Adel', Princes and Counts, in the range of 30 in the former case, and 294 in the latter, if my earlier calculations are correct. Additionally I am considering including a number of positions (20 perhaps) for representatives of the Roman Church, though I will need to determine how that will work out. Additionally I am considering having a number of hereditary peerages created for each Imperial State to give a measure of representation. ~10 for Austria; ~10 for Hungary; ~8 each for Bohemia, Croatia, Galicia; ~6 for Transylvania, Slovakia; and ~3-6 for any Italian posessions (dependant on how many are still under Hapsburg rule.) This would give about 400 seats to the upper house. The executive would normally reside in the Herrenhaus, though ministers will be selected from both houses. The Abgeordnetenhaus will, as suggested by the name, be elected. The suffrage will be property based to some degree, though in later years it will slowly be extended. I am looking at something around 650 seats, roughly based on population. Around 125 would go to Austria, ~125 to Hungary, ~120 to Bohemia, ~90 each for Croatia and Galicia, ~60 for Slovakia and Transylvania, ~40 for any Italian possessions. The entire Empire will be under this one legislature, there will be no special status for Hungary and to some degree this will require a Hungarian defeat - 1848 seemed to be a reasonable date before and will probably suffice here. They will be shorn of their claims on Transylvania, Croatia and Slovakia, but in the end find themselves still able to control their day to day affairs without the interference of Vienna. Nevertheless, it will be the same for the other areas: Bohemia, consisting of Bohemia, Moravia, Silesia; Slovakia; Croatia, consisting of the Dalmatian Coast, the Crown lands and Trieste, and the Military Frontier; Galicia; and Transylvania. There will be one law across the entire Empire, administered by the Minister in Vienna, one law enforcer (though states and cities will have some autonomy to provide their own, but it will be Imperial law which they will administer), and one army. State parliaments will handle local infrastructure concerns, and other issues that would be better dealt with lower down the line. Edited by Matthew, Jan 31 2011, 02:56 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jan 31 2011, 03:10 AM Post #3 |
|
Miscellaneous armament things I was working towards and hoping to achieve eventually. Kaiserliches Arsenal, Vienna (Small Arms, Artillery) Trieste DY (Machinery, Shipbuilding) Pola DY (Machinery, Shipbuilding) Steyr Mannlicher, Steyr (Small Arms) Witkowitz Mines and Iron Works, Witkowitz (Artillery, Armour, Machinery, Munitions) Škoda Works, Plzeň (Artillery, Armour, Machinery, Munitions) Ganz, Budapest (Machinery, Shipbuilding) Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino, Trieste (Machinery, Shipbuilding) Cantiere Navale Triestino, Trieste (Machinery, Shipbuilding) Trieste DY One slip and two drydocks for dreadnoughts. Pola DY One drydock for dreadnoughts, slips for large cruisers. Witkowitz Mines and Iron Works By 1910, something around 5,500 tns of armour, 3.5 x 14in turrets a year. Škoda Works, Plzeň I need to look for actual historical figures here, but at minimum 13,500 tns of armour and 8 14in turrets a year by 1910 Stabilimento Tecnico Triestino Three slips and one drydock for dreadnoughts. Cantiere Navale Triestino One slip for dreadnoughts. Ganz, Budapest One slip for dreadnoughts (at Flume). Just for the sake of interest, this permits 6 dreadnoughts every 3 years though somewhat staggered. By 1917 it would give 14 battleships, likely 6 12in and 8 14in. Of course if the war intervenes, things may not complete, but with even just Austria being considerably different by 1914, it is difficult to say with any certainty what the situation would turn out to be. The question is, after this if its better to jump up to 15" or 16", though the latter seems somewhat more likely. It is something I will need to look into. This also assumes historical guns are used, 12" and then 14" which were planned for the new Monarch class that was never constructed. I don't know a whole lot on the matter, so I figured for now its just best to go with those. From 1908: 1908: 2 Dreadnoughts laid down 1909: 1910: 4 Dreadnoughts laid down 1911: 2 Super-Dreadnoughts laid down, 2 Dreadnoughts Completed 1912: 1913: 4 Super-Dreadnoughts laid down, 4 Dreadnoughts Completed 1914: 2 Dreadnoughts Completed 1915: 2 Super-Dreadnoughts laid down 1916: 1917: 4 Super-Dreadnoughts Completed 1918: 1919: 2 Super-Dreadnoughts Completed I am going to add, in addition, 16 pre-dreadnoughts from 1895 or so, to 1908. 8 9.4in ships and 8 12in ships. Habsburg Class 9.4in Predreadnought (1895) Habsburg, Arpad, Babenberg, Zrínyi Novara Class 9.4in Predreadnought (1898) Novara, Eagle, Don Juan d'Austria, Lissa Graf Class 12in Predreadnought (1902) Graf Jelačić, Graf von Heß, Graf von Prokesch-Osten, Erzherzog Albrecht Prinz Class 12in Semi-dreadnought (1905) Prinz von Metternich, Prinz von Schwarzenberg, Prinz von Windisch-Graetz, Prinz Eugen von Savoy Erzherzog Class 12in Dreadnoughts (1908) Erzherzog Franz Rudolf, Erzherzog Franz Ferdinand Viribus Unitis Class 12in Dreadnoughts (1910) Viribus Unitis, Szent István, Erzherzog Johann von Österreich, Erzherzog Karl von Österreich Erzherzog Friedrich Class 14in Superdreadnought (1911) Erzherzog Friedrich, Erzherzog Ferdinand Max Kaiser Class 14in Superdreadnought (1913) Kaiser Franz Joseph, Kaiserin Maria Theresa, Kaiser Franz II, Kaiser Frederick III Radetzky Class 14in Superdreadnought (1914) Graf von Radetzky, Graf von Tegetthoff Edited by Matthew, Feb 5 2011, 03:17 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Mar 6 2011, 07:24 AM Post #4 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
http://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=186559 This discussion may be of interest, particularly in regards to the need for infrastructure development being acknowledged for centuries, but opportunities only becoming possible in the 19th century or so. |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Mar 6 2011, 05:44 PM Post #5 |
![]()
The General
|
The parliamentary changes seem very possible, however this would require complete defeat of Hungarian forces in the field during the Revolutions of 1848. However, one can find many allies for that; Croats, for example, were promised to have equal status with Austria and Hungary after the revolutions, and remained one of the most loyal nationalities for it's duration (though, unfortunately, we didn't become equal to them after 1848 :/). But as I said, this is quite possible, with some changes. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jun 14 2011, 06:27 PM Post #6 |
|
http://books.google.ca/books?id=MUP8ORMJYLMC&printsec=frontcover#v=onepage&q&f=false Just a note on the constitutional changes. Starting from 1815 one could probably avoid a lot of the earlier decline, this exerpt from the Encyclopedia Britannica illustrates:
Edited by Matthew, Jun 14 2011, 06:34 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jun 14 2011, 11:21 PM Post #7 |
|
Thinking on this further. Obviously what is needed is a way for Metternich's 1816 proposal to not be sidelined and lost and to avoid having everything consolidate in the emperor himself. I would like to avoid removing Francis out of hand, he is far too interesting and not a bad fellow over all, I just need to think of a way of having him even delegate something somewhere as a start. One idea might be that he burns himself out somewhat so must step back for a time, similar to Ferdinand's illness in WI. So perhaps, starting from 1815: 1816 - Metternich proposes the reforms, not immediately accepted but taken for consideration. Francis crowned "in the presence of deputies from the estates of all the provinces." 1817 - Franz, tired out from the war and the peace, must step back for a while. Sets Metternich up as Imperial Chancellor and gives him some freedom to begin establishing a ministerial system. 1818 - Reforms adopted separating government and administration. Ministry of the Interior and of Justice established, joining Ministry of Finance. 1821 - Updated Metternich proposal from 1816 on Reichsrat is accepted. 1823 - Ministry of Police (Public Safety) established 1826 - Hofkriegsrat abolished, Ministry of War established, General Staff set up (followed by other military reforms over time) 1828 - Hungarian and Transylvanian chancelleries lowered the rest of the way to be subordinate to the Ministry of the Interior 1830s - Withdrawal from Lombardy? 1832 - Serfdom abolished 1834 - Reorganisation of the provinces (Primarily the removal of Transylvania, Croatia, etc from Hungary.) 1834-48 - Hungarian Unrest/Revolution? 1841 - Ministry of the Navy and Colonies established 1848 - Upper House (Herrenhaus) added to the Reichsrat in exchange for limited suffrage on the original body which will morph into a Lower House (Abgeordnetenhaus.) 186? - Suffrage for Abgeordnetenhaus extended 1870 - Death of Franz II, succeeded by Franz Joseph I Emperors: 1835 - Death of Franz I, succeeded by Ferdinand I 1842 - Abdication of Ferdinand I, succeeded by Franz II 1870 - Death of Franz II, succeeded by Franz Joseph I Imperial Chancellor and Foreign Minister: 1852 - Metternich retires, succeeded by Prince Felix of Schwarzenberg 1856 - Death of Prince Felix of Schwarzenberg, succeeded by Anton von Prokesch-Osten 1864 - Retirement of Anton von Prokesch-Osten, succeeded by Count Friedrich Ferdinand von Beust 1868 - Retirment of Count Friedrich Ferdinand von Beust, succeeded by (?) Ministry of the Interior: 1818 - Johann Philipp Stadion, Count von Warthausen 1824 - Baron Franz von Pillersdorf 1842 - Franz Stadion, Count von Warthausen Ministry of War 1826 - Count von Kolowrat-Liebsteinsky Secretary of State for the Navy and Colonies 1841 - Archduke Friedrich 1880 - Archduke Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph Chief of Imperial and Royal General Staff 1826 - Alfred I, Prince of Windisch-Grätz 1842 - Joseph Radetzky von Radetz 1852 - Heinrich von Heß 1864 - Archduke Albrecht, Duke of Teschen Imperial Viceroys - Ban of Croatia-Slavonia-Dalmatia 1834 - Josip Jelačić One notable matter is that of something called 'conferences'. From what I can figure it sounds like a 'cabinet meeting', and they would make all the decisions about all the ministerial matters. Metternich wanted to, it sounds, separate this so that the ministers themselves would make the decisions and report to the emperor independently, leaving plenary sessions for matters touching two or more ministries. Here, by 1826 more or less, we would see actual ministries with executive power (the executive) and the Reichsrat (the legislative.) The Reichsrat would start out representing thse 'estates' (they "represented the social, and to some extent political, interests of the nobility, gentry, clergy, and the small upper stratum of the bourgeoisie.") Later on it might develop into the 'Reichstag' as elaborated above. the Herrenhaus might be added in later in response to, perhaps, the liberal sentiment abounding, to satisfy the conservative reaction, and the representation of the 'estates' might develop into the Abgeordnetenhaus by having the members eventually selected by limited suffrage, that expanding as time went on. Lowering the Hungarian chancellery and reorganising the provinces will likely cause considerable aggravation in Hungary but this is not to be baulked at, as it provides an opportunity to do the job fully. Interesting experts from the book linked above:
It seems his 1816 proposal was based upon this. As to that proposal:
It seems that Francis simply forgot about it (due to all the other paperwork and issues)
Emphasis mine. It seems that eventually a very watered down version of the above was implemented, however it was so diluted as to be wrecked and after this failed Metternich just resigned himself to making the best of what he got, making sure what was given was implemented correctly. Edited by Matthew, Jun 15 2011, 01:09 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jun 15 2011, 01:36 AM Post #8 |
|
Naval Levels: Just musing on the following. Comments welcome. This all assumes, of course, that Austria gets some colonies and therefore some use for a fleet aside from keeping up with the Turks. I must develop the ironclad era more however. 1840: 2 120 gun First Rate Ship of the Line 2 80 gun Third Rate Ship of the Line 6 74 gun Third Rate Ship of the Line 2 64 gun Third Rate Ship of the Line 12 Frigates 1858: 2 120 gun Screw First Rate Ship of the Line 6 80 gun Screw Third Rate Ship of the Line 6 74 gun Third Rate Ship of the Line 2 64 gun Third Rate Ship of the Line 8 Screw Frigates 6 Frigates 1890: 20 Ironclads 4 Monitors 24 Cruisers 1908: 16 Predreadnoughts 8 Armoured Cruisers 24 Protected Cruisers 48 Destroyers 24 Torpedo Boats 1920: 8 Superdreadnoughts 14 Dreadnoughts 2 Battlecruisers 32 Cruisers 52 Destroyers |
![]() |
|
| JBK | Jun 20 2011, 08:39 PM Post #9 |
|
The Navy in general seems too big to me. Austria is a country that -even with substantial colonial possessions- has no need for a 22 strong capital fleet. Even Great Britain, which had the largest navy in the world could not muster twenty two capital ships in 1920. The same goes for the cruisers. At maximum the strength of the KK Navy might be equal to that of France, even that I highly doubt when one takes the geographical condition of Austria into account.
Edited by JBK, Jun 20 2011, 08:40 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Petar | Jun 20 2011, 10:20 PM Post #10 |
![]()
The General
|
Personally, I think that the Navy posted by Matt is quite realistic, as A-H had 13 capital ships (4 Dreadnaughts and 9 Predreadnaughts) before WWI. If they had colonies, that number would be larger... if they had a couple of big and important colonies, that number would be much larger. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jun 21 2011, 01:11 AM Post #11 |
|
There is going to be colonies and there wouldn't be a WWI as it was in real life, so no Washington Naval Treaty. The idea was more to see how things would build by that time assuming there was no WWI (at least of the historical variety). The Royal Navy would, and could, be considerably larger. Its really only about 8 semi-modern battleships by 1920, only double the number planned historically. I imagine Britain would have a vastly larger number than that if not interrupted by war and the WNT. They would be solidly in the 16" camp, something Austria would eventually follow with, but 8 or so active battleships does not seem all that extreme considering Italy (Italy!) had eight through the Second World War and a revitalised Austrian Empire would be certainly capable of that, and with colonies and no alliance blocs (therefore a less set situation) it would be of use in exercising some measure in the Mediterranean though it wouldn't be much of a threat to Britain as Austria would be on friendly terms (though not allied) with Britain for a number of reasons. I could see Britain having at least 20 modern and semi-modern battleships by 1920, likely more than that, though it would depend on Germany, Russia, France, and so on. The earlier dreadnoughts would really be of little use and would most likely be mothballed, at very least, by 1920. We are talking about a much stronger Austrian Empire mind, and no power blocs where these things become too much of a liability, and where a fleet would be useful as a barganing chip for coordination and cooperation in Europe as was seen before the 1870s. Edited by Matthew, Jun 21 2011, 01:26 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jun 21 2011, 07:44 AM Post #12 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
I'd keep it at a level of 13-17, as the early dreadnoughts would be getting to the end of their useful life and Austria-Hungary, despite a wider colonial responsibility, would still face the issue of manpower. The dreadnoughts would also be on the edge of going within the next 5 years. A fleet of a dozen superdreadnoughts is more than adequate for Austria and reflective of its naval interests and place in Europe, even with the different circumstances. 22 is a very large fleet, around the same size as the HSF. With a different situation, the RN would probably be looking at a modified 2 power standard of around 32-36 ships, with reserves. It depends more on what is happening in France, Russia and Germany. Edited by Simon Darkshade, Jun 21 2011, 07:51 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jun 21 2011, 11:00 AM Post #13 |
|
It is basically 8 superdreadnoughts (2 Erzherzog Friedrich, 4 Kaiser, 2 Radetzky) and 14 dreadnoughts. I added the dreadnoughts to that 'Naval Levels' post simply to illustrate the construction levels, I don't know exactly what would happen to all the earlier ones, probably reserve/scrapping, and in what time frame, though I could easily see the first two dreadnoughts decommission in 1917-18, and the next four between 1919-20. As you say, they will be going out anyway soon enough, so Austria is playing a game of catch up, but that is suitable. I was not aiming for some fleet that would be able to take on anyone and everyone but one that would let Austria be a bit player in naval affairs and provide something of a deterrent against aggression on the colonies. There will be a number of 16" battleships commissioned through the 20s, but I haven't gotten that far yet, no more than a handful though, perhaps four. I do wish to fit in a couple of battlecruisers as well as they would be potentially useful. I am not convinced either way yet, however, though they may be useful for anchoring the overseas squadron that would be necessary with colonies. Edited by Matthew, Jun 21 2011, 11:07 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jun 21 2011, 11:41 AM Post #14 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Probably one battlecruiser for each colonial armoured cruiser squadron if the holdings are large enough. 8 superdreadnoughts is very doable, and I can't see any problems there. The 14 dreadnoughts are going to be manpower sinks, though. 12-15 capital ships are the upper limit that Austria can push, without major changes in population or naval support infrastructure. Some of the older ships could be semi dreadnoughts or coastal battleships, which would balance things out. That 12-15 figure would enable them to outbalance anyone but the British, and would lead to a larger Italian programme. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jun 21 2011, 04:43 PM Post #15 |
|
Naval infrastructure would definitely be greater than in real life due to more resources being available (instead of having it all needed for internal stuff). But yeah, I can see most of the dreadnoughts being at best mothballed by the time the 1920s roll about. I do think manpower available will be slightly higher than historically, mostly due to cutting inefficiency due to the need for the three land services. Edited by Matthew, Jun 21 2011, 04:45 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jun 22 2011, 12:21 AM Post #16 |
|
Army Levels: This is all extremely rough, so comments on size would be welcome. 1816: (Historical) 42,000 Cavalry 215,000 Infantry (455,000 reserve infantry) 17,000 Artillerymen with 960 field guns 13,000 Engineers 1840: (New) 42,000 Cavalry 235,000 Infantry (485,000 reserve infantry) 18,000 Artillerymen with 1,000 field guns 13,000 Engineers 1860: (New) 42,000 Cavalry 255,000 Infantry (515,000 reserve infantry) 22,000 Artillerymen with 1,500 field guns 14,000 Engineers 1880: (Historical) 32,000 Cavalry (10,000 reserve cavalry) 280,000 Infantry (230,000 reserve infantry) 25,000 Artillerymen with 1,680 field guns 15,000 Engineers (New) 42,000 Cavalry (4,000 reserve cavalry) 300,000 Infantry (575,000 reserve infantry) 30,000 Artillerymen with 2,000 field guns 18,000 Engineers 1900: (New) 42,000 Cavalry (4,000 reserve cavalry) 340,000 Infantry (640,000 reserve infantry) 32,000 Artillerymen with 2,150 field guns 19,000 Engineers 1910: (Historical) 32,000 Cavalry (10,000 reserve cavalry) 335,000 Infantry (240,000 reserve infantry) 18,000 Artillerymen with 1,200 field guns (Largish numbers in reserve) 15,000 Engineers (New) 42,000 Cavalry (4,000 reserve cavalry) 380,000 Infantry (700,000 reserve infantry) 36,000 Artillerymen with 2,400 field guns 20,000 Engineers 1920: (New) 42,000 Cavalry (8,000 reserve cavalry) 400,000 Infantry (750,000 reserve infantry) 38,000 Artillerymen with 2,500 field guns 20,000 Engineers Edited by Matthew, Jun 22 2011, 03:24 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jun 22 2011, 07:38 AM Post #17 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
It appears to be a well balanced force; more regular infantry would likely be required post 1880. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Jun 22 2011, 03:20 PM Post #18 |
|
Added info for 1900, 1910, 1920. Of course it all partly depends on how events play out, but this could be taken as the 'base' growth so to speak. The one notable difference between the historical and the new one is the larger size of the reserve forces. I figure if they could have 450k in reserve in 1816, they should be able to keep that up, and having 'one' army will help with that. The latter would also mean that the historical artillery units that were in the Honved/Landwehr would remain in the regular army, keeping regular artillery levels higher. Cavalry eventually would convert to armoured cars and tanks (whenever those two types would appear.) Edited by Matthew, Jun 22 2011, 03:23 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Jun 23 2011, 07:00 AM Post #19 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
Having reserve artillery and more reserve cavalry regiments may also be useful. |
![]() |
|
| JBK | Aug 6 2011, 03:39 PM Post #20 |
|
"Wilhelm von Metternich, a colonel in Mainz service, stormed the place [Hanau] without the loss of a man on 18 February 1638, though Ramsay was mortally wounded in the fighting. Metternich was rewarded with the Bohemian estate of Konigswart that became the home of his descendant, Prince Clemens, the Austrian statesman." p. 593 Wilson, Peter H. Europe’s Tragedy: A New History of the Thirty Years War. London: 2010 (2009), Penguin Books |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Feb 20 2012, 05:10 PM Post #21 |
|
I was thinking of how Austria could have responded to the impulse for German unification, in light of our WI experience, and the later reading I have done. Would something along these lines be plausible? Let us say things develop in a similar fashion as they did in WI (with or without the Russian war which wouldn't make much difference either way.) This means that the withdrawal from Italy was still begun in some form or another, though at least Venetia is retained. During 1848 the decision is to still focus on Hungary first, but this allows certain pressure to be brought to bear on Metternich and the Austrian crown in Italy and, significantly, Germany. In 1848, instead of giving in to Italian demands immediately, (something they would be reluctant to do anyway) they dangle Venice in front of the Italians, being willing to negotiate, but just slowly. This ties up some troops, but most importantly it also adds extra pressure through the year. This is the interesting part. In order to secure Austria, specifically, from the 'liberal threat,' the Austrian government offers the Prussian king the following deal: - Prussia will, in conjunction with Austria, abandon and boycott the Frankfurt parliament, Prussia moving to put down the liberal movement. - Austria will not oppose Prussian influence in northern (protestant) Germany, as long as there is no outright hostile takeovers, except in Saxony. - Saxony returned to her pre-Congress borders - South Germany (Bavaria, Wurtemberg, Baden) confederated, though remain as separate states. - Prussia promises to never meddle in South Germany or Saxony. Would such a deal be acceptable to Prussia? It wouldn't be immediately acceptable to someone like Metternich, but if the integrity of the empire were sufficiently threatened, (and perhaps Russian intransigence and the strained relations of the two empires would push him to work with Prussia,) I could see something of the above being acceptable to Austria. The major question is, I suppose, the restoration of the borders of Saxony, but either way Saxony would have to remain independent; they were too closely allied to Austria for the latter to let her go. Aside from South Germany, though, there is no other German states that Austria would feel obligated to stick up for, individually. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Feb 20 2012, 06:18 PM Post #22 |
|
Another area that I have been considering is that of finance and the economy. 1816 - Establishment of Oesterreichische Kaiserlichebank.1 1816 - Establishment of Königlichmünze. 1818 - New paper currency issued. 1819 - Coinage Act of 1819, where newly minted coinage is transfered to the independent Kaiserlichebank, in return for the latter taking on government bonds of the equivalent sum.2 1822 - Abolition of any and all internal tariff duties. Standardizes all external import and export duties. 1823 - Establishment of bonded warehouses in Venice and Trieste. 1825 - Tax Reform. (Abolishes Industry, Jew, Taxes.) 1835 - Encouragement of the Ludwigskanal.3 1838 - Tariff Reform.4 1840 - Railway construction between Trieste/Vienna/Budapest.5 1847 - Expansion of port of Trieste. 1860s - Danube river cleared. There is probably more to fill out, but this is a start. I am beginning to wonder if the "Royal Mines" are in fact the mines that bring in the gold and silver for the mint to turn into coinage. I had assumed they were just regular mines, but if not, they would definitely not be sold off. 1. Historical Privilegirte Oesterreichische National-Bank est. in 1816. http://www.oenb.at/en/ueber_die_oenb/bankh_archiv/geschichte_der_oenb/1816_bis_1818/18161818.jsp#tcm:16-160104 2. Not quite sure about this but I could not think of any other way to get the money to them without compromising their independence. 3. http://s1.zetaboards.com/World_Imperialism_I/single/?p=228938&t=2736973 http://s1.zetaboards.com/World_Imperialism_I/topic/2752587/1/ 4. Similar to: http://s1.zetaboards.com/World_Imperialism_I/topic/2803275/1/ 5. http://s1.zetaboards.com/World_Imperialism_I/single/?p=247502&t=2736973 Other Links: http://www.daggarjon.com/Coinage_Austria.php Edited by Matthew, Feb 20 2012, 09:41 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Feb 20 2012, 09:42 PM Post #23 |
|
1815 Diplomatic: - Start of Neapolitan War. (March) - Treaty of Casalanza ends war with Naples. (May) - Final Act of the Congress of Vienna. (June) - Second Abdication of Napoleon Buonaparte. (June) - Holy Alliance formed with Prussia and Russia. (September) Military: - Battle of Tolentino vs Naples. (May) - Battle of Waterloo. (June) 1816 Political: - Metternich's first reform proposal: for reorganisation of both empire and government. (May) Financial: - Establishment of Oesterreichische Kaiserlichebank. (August) - Establishment of Königlichmünze. (August) 1817 Political: - Franz II suffers mild stroke due to workload; steps back from personal administration. (March) - Metternich promoted to Imperial Chancellor. (April) - Ministry of the Interior (Stadion, Count von Warthausen), Ministry of Justice established. (May) 1818 Financial: - Currency Reforms initiated. (July) 1819 Political: - Carlsbad Decrees (September) Financial: - Coinage Act of 1819. (March) 1820 Diplomatic: - Congress of Troppau convenes. (October) - Troppau Protocol. (November) 1821 Diplomatic: - Congress of Laibach convenes. (January) - Declaration of war on Austria by Naples. (March) Military: - Naples Occupied. (March) 1822 Diplomatic: - Preliminary Conferences to the Congress of Verona. (September) - Congress of Verona convenes. (October) 1823 - Abolition of any and all internal tariff duties plus standardization of all import duties. (March) - Establishment of bonded warehouses in Venice and Trieste. (July) 1824 1825 Political: - Baron Franz von Pillersdorf becomes Minister of the Interior. (April) - Metternich's second reform proposal, limited to government. (July) - Kaiserlich und Königlich Reichstag established, to convene in new year. (August) 1826 Political: - Kaiserlich und Königlich Reichstag meets for its first session. (May)* - Ministry of Police (Public Safety) established (June) *Original constitution of the reichstag will be different than what was proposed earlier, that will be the eventual look. Will elaborate more later but the lower house will be heavily weighted to towns, propertied landowners, etc. Nobility sit in the upper house. Edited by Matthew, Feb 21 2012, 12:33 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Simon Darkshade | Feb 20 2012, 09:45 PM Post #24 |
|
Nefarious Swashbuckler
|
I'm not sure if the Italian withdrawal can be realistically carried out, nor if Austria would concede effective Prussian control over half of the German Confederation. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Feb 20 2012, 09:59 PM Post #25 |
|
At some point enough pressure would have to force Austria to give up control over Germany, the question is what. What if it wasn't an out and out handing over, but just a small shift in policy that would expand over time? Italy doesn't have to go smoothly, and in fact, the less smoothly the better (as long as it wouldn't prejudice the Hungarian campaign) as it would just make it all the more necessary to come to a settlement with Germany. With Russia unfriendly as well (though that may or may not be part of it), its another reason to come to some sort of agreement. I don't think it'd be simple to convince Austria to pull out of most of Germany, but a few mistakes/divided attention/spread out resources could perhaps make it necessary. |
![]() |
|
| Doctor_Strangelove | Feb 20 2012, 10:05 PM Post #26 |
|
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
|
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 10:40 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Feb 20 2012, 10:12 PM Post #27 |
|
Perhaps watered down both ways, in that case. No outward shift toward Prussia, though in effect, somehow, and then no messing with the Saxony settlement. Saxony was thrown in there to make the out and out handover more palatable to Austria, but if the shift is more subtle it may not be necessary. The idea is to make the war unnecessary though, while keeping Southern Germany (primarily) and Saxony (secondarily) out of the eventual German union. Perhaps it is not practicable but it is worth exploring, from my perspective. I'd rather not have to worry about the side effects of a defeated Prussia in 1866; stopping German unification entirely would seem to be extreme and overboard (not to mention terribly troublesome in the long run.) Edited by Matthew, Feb 20 2012, 10:13 PM.
|
![]() |
|
| Doctor_Strangelove | Feb 20 2012, 10:21 PM Post #28 |
|
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
|
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 10:40 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Feb 20 2012, 10:36 PM Post #29 |
|
I would like to avoid crushing Prussia, as it would smack of taking an advantage of my position here as the writer, and thats something I would prefer not to do. The idea of some draw may work though I think it would be difficult to convince Austria to give anything up short of defeat, at least in terms of German dominance, seeing as the war was not (officially) about that, and a draw would give Austria no reason to change her mind. On the other hand, I don't really see partial victory, for one side or the other, as possible, due to the nature of war at the time, unless the war ended up dragging on a long time. There would be a lot of pressure on Bavaria and Saxony to join, and that is something I will consider down the line, but Austria would have to seek to keep them out, due to their relationship with S. Germany and Saxony. What happens later couldn't change the immediate policy of Austria in this regards. |
![]() |
|
| Doctor_Strangelove | Feb 20 2012, 10:43 PM Post #30 |
|
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
|
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 10:40 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Feb 21 2012, 12:04 AM Post #31 |
|
Yes, any result that frustrates German unification has a lot more frustrating possibilities than one that permits it, for the impulse is not likely to go away, and a war is likely to only strengthen it. I definitely agree that in the long term there will be that unifying pull, but its something I will have to give more thought to when I get to that point. I don't think Austria can put off unification forever, but for a number of reasons I would like to keep it partial, if it can be worked through proper motives on the part of Austria (such as defending the integrity of South Germany and Saxony, both of which were real motives.) At any rate, I will give it some more thought. |
![]() |
|
| Doctor_Strangelove | Feb 21 2012, 03:50 AM Post #32 |
|
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
|
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 10:39 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Feb 21 2012, 04:00 AM Post #33 |
|
Catholicism was always the main dividing point between South Germany and North Germany. It is not, by any means, as big as it used to be, but the distinction remained for some time, and there was a sense of being different. Not enough to stop it forever, obviously, but, coupled with the Austrian leanings, these two things held up for long enough historically. The federation is at any rate meant to be loose, just a trade thing, basically (sort of like the Zolleverein.) |
![]() |
|
| JBK | Feb 23 2012, 12:35 AM Post #34 |
|
I think the main thing to remember is that German Unification was not a idea which held the agreement of all sections of the population. The German princes, including those of Prussia were apprehensive. Any war between Austria and Prussia is not about German Unification but a minor clash to establish exactly how the power in Europe is divided. We have the tendency to look back and see the Austro-Prussian war as the first step to unification, however at the time when the war started I do not think the Prussians had this in mind. Following in the vein a inconclusive batte might lead to a peace treaty as well, with minimal changes in the current situation. Also a defeat of the Prussian armies at Koninggratz is conceivable. Had the flanking Prussian army been caught up in trouble or not led by the formidable Guards who held in play large sections of the Austrian army allowing the rest of the Prussian forces to move up the day might have ended very different indeed. A total Prussian defeat seems unlikely but not impossible. |
![]() |
|
| Matthew | Feb 23 2012, 01:10 AM Post #35 |
|
It was a clash over who would dominate Germany, really, and not directly about unification, you are correct. Nevertheless, I would say that was one of the major secondary issues, at least in the sense that it was very much a possibility on the table. It is difficult to know just how to make it work. As to Koniggratz, I think the Austrian army was a bit too eager itself, moving on the offensive at one point, giving up a decent defensive position, and playing into the Prussian's hands. Nevertheless I feel it is a bit too simple to have the war and all of the lead up play out exactly the same, with just a minor adjustment to the battle itself; such far reaching changes from 1815 deserve a more complex and subtle way to approach the entire matter. What this approach should be I am not yet sure... |
![]() |
|
| JBK | Feb 23 2012, 08:41 PM Post #36 |
|
A possibility of changing the course of the war is an attempt at mediation by Russia in its capacity as a member of the Holy alliance? |
![]() |
|
| Petar | Feb 23 2012, 08:48 PM Post #37 |
![]()
The General
|
I'd say that, by 1866, the Holy Alliance was nothing more than a dead letter on paper, even if it still existed. |
![]() |
|
| JBK | Feb 24 2012, 02:10 AM Post #38 |
|
So would I, but as Matt is writing an alternative timeline I have no idea what might be going on, just throwing the idea out there. |
![]() |
|
| Doctor_Strangelove | Mar 1 2012, 10:23 PM Post #39 |
|
Lord of the Seven Kingdoms
|
.
Edited by Doctor_Strangelove, Nov 11 2016, 10:43 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · Alternate History · Next Topic » |







8:40 AM Jul 11