I wonder if he liked it, but it sure was always an easy gamble for the lad. Till he got well... a bit arrogant in some situations like the Spanish Occupation, which he said himself was a mistake seeing that it became his Vietnam War, and the Continental system was never effective and caused him to declare war on Russia for them betraying it and then dying.
Let's face it, we're all envious of him. He got to sit on an Imperial throne for decades next to his pretty wife, never had to do a single thing correctly in all that time. To quote Office Space: "It would be wonderful to have that kind of job security."
Franz Joseph went through 4 Russian Tsars through his reign and his nations opinion of Russia basically did a 180 during his lifetime. That’s honestly impressive how such a massive geopolitical shift with a major ally becoming a major enemy was overseen by 1 single monarch. Many rulers that lived longer like Victoria and Louis XIV couldn’t do that
Without knowing too much about all those 4 Tsars, I just think back to when Tsar Peter III basically did a 180 on his mother, Elizabeth, after her death and made peace with Prussia during the Seven Years War - only for his wife, Catherine the Great to murder him when she claimed the throne about half a year later. So, yeah, Russia was kinda unstable sometimes, which obviously was reflected in other countries' perception of her.
But it did happen under Victoria, that being British Opinion of France. Who in the 1830’s were our Imperial Rival. By the end of her reign we had started to discuss potential alliances. That is literally a 180 shift on a country and that country becoming your major ally. But 🤷🏻♂️
@@princeofdaemons7344 sometimes it's easier to make friends than loose them. The brits and French at the start of the 19th century only hated each other because of French opposition to monarchies and their industrial rivalry, but by the end of the 19th century Britain was so overwhelmingly powerful compared to France, and both were together so much more powerful than any other individual empire that rivalry made no sense, and they weren't really industrial rivals anymore as they both had their own empires and similar levels of technology
*Bismarck after Austria ended up alone in a war with Prussia after angering their most powerful ally* :young fool, only now at the end do you understand
The kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont in the Crimean war is like that weak child in a friend group with overly-optimistic goals and ambitions that just wants to be included in every single event
And there are more… some of them being faraway for German interests to interfere or otherwise not beneficial to Metternich policies when it comes to internal dissent, with a case on the Balkans in the late 1820s
Eh. Your king was reluctant to even join in the Franco-German war... starting the whole thing that Bavaria doesn't see itself as gem fan but as its own state. Nah
@@andrewklang809 Prussians are not the whole German, tbh. It was after 1871 seen as that, but I mean, there was this legend of the country (or land?) of thinkers and poets. It had to come from somewhere.
@@BrutusAlbion I like to think that Germany would still have united, since nationalism was trendy during the late 19th century, but it would have been smaller, weaker and feeling surrounded by France, Austria, and Russia. Probably leading it to ally with England and Italy in the future.
@@BrutusAlbion but maybe Bismarck would have found another way to get his Empire after all. He was a strategic mastermind when it came to understanding the motives of the great power and exploting those for his advantage. After all he was able to win all these wars needed for unification without getting Great Britain or Russia involved as his enemey
@@NoBudjetFilms alternatively maybe the prussians would have been crushed and the austrians created a greater germany? Then germany proceeds to dominate central european politics without the whole ... cough .... genocides ...
@@herrsan I like to think that Bavaria could have preserved its independence. People tend to not be aware that even today Bavaria would be among the top ten most populated nations in Europe. I assume the smaller states might have been absorbed by Prussia eventually, but Bavaria possibly not.
Those videos are just so greatly made. They are short (which I kinda hate, but due to the fact they are really good), yet so to the point and they also have his humor which is subtle yet hilarious sometimes. And the fact he does not take sponsorships is the best thing. History Matters, in my opinion is the Best history UA-camr. This man deserves a place on at least ArmchairHistoryTV if no streaming service takes him.
@@Skorpychan the thanking of the patreons does not bother me because it is at the end of the video. I also would not be not be mad if all sponsorhips were at the end of the video because I can just leave. I don't care about your stupid mobile pay2win game, streaming platform, earbuds, browser, ball care product, vpns or other type of bullshit.
Fun fact: My family had a Prussian ancestor who immigrated to America (with his wife IIRC) in 1866. We're not entirely sure, but we suspect he may have done it partially to avoid being conscripted to fight in that war against Austria. If indeed that is the case, what a crafty move.
Russia: *helps Austria with Hungarian Rebels in 1849* Austria: *stays neutral during Crimean War 1853-1855 and forces Russian troops out of Walachia and Moldova, thus causing Russian Defeat in War* Russia: *supports Prussia against Austria in 1866* Austria: *Shocked Pikachu Face*
Don't forget they also refused to help Austria against France in 1859 during the War of Italian Unification. The result is that Napoleon III and Victor Emmanuel II bulldozed Franz Joseph and utterly humiliated him for the most part.
Well not realy support Prussia just stay neutral. The Prussian army realy did not need any help. Although Prussia winning does lead directly to an united Germany and forces Austrias interest to the Balkans, which realy ends up ending the Russian empire in WWI. So arguably by not helping Austria the Russian empire did an oopsie.
To be honest it's quite straightforward. If they were to declare independance, they would still be under American influence and thus not really independent foreign policy wise. They would also lose the social benefits of being a part of France, they receive free healthcare, good workers right... They wouldn't have these social programs if they were independant seeing how costly they are
@@Martin-wt9co It's a sound argument but then why didn't other similar places think like that? For example Suriname declaring independence from the Netherlands?
@@Martin-wt9co Even more straightforward : they are culturally French. With some minor differences of course, but not any more than between Paris and the South-West. It doesn't make too much sense to declare independence from a nation you feel like you belong to/with. Same goes with all other territories France has retained across the globe.
As the papers of the time wrote about Austrian occupation of Romanian provinces(Russian at the time): "The Austrians impressed the world with their ingratitude."
@@porphyry17 It seems that you didn't hear of such thing like the policy of magyarisation of transylvanian Romanians that that was executed by Austrians, lmao. This would've happen with all Romanians as well if Moldova and Walachia were annexed to Austria. So you wouldn't be speaking german, you would just be servants and bootlickers of austrians and hungarians
@@alexandrs7594 i knew about that. i am just imitating the Germans that always make "top's of civilisations". "i would like to remain German and if not at least Latin", "if not Latin then Magyar" and "if not Magyar than Slavic". that is, the Russians did not want to respect the cultures they annexed(language, identity) or their faith, they, like the magyars, wanted them absorbed to their "great countries"
Franz Josef is the kind of ruler you sometimes get in Crusader Kings who lives so damn long that it actually becomes a sort of problem. Like everything is good while he is around, there's decent stability, but so many heirs die that succession gets weird with a grandson or grand nephew taking the throne.
not directly related but the Mughal empire(India) also suffered this problem. The last Great Mughal that is Aurungzeb ruled for around 49 years and died at 88 years. So his successor was pretty much a 63 year old man and was succeeded by a line of old emperors with poor administrative abilities and short reigns leading to further instability in the empire.
Even more surprisingly, the Kingdom of Hawaii declared neutrality too, despite being able to win the war for either side of their choosing through their contributions alone
@@Generaallucasthe fact that it was all for nothing and they were still colonised by the US is kinda sad. And now they've basically been assimilated and almost lost their language and culture because the USA, despite acknowledging that the invasion was illegal, still kept Hawaii
Some questions I’d like to see videos on (whether or not I already know the answers doesn’t matter, I just think they’d make for interesting videos) - Why does Brunei exist? - What’s the difference between Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia? - Why does Nauru exist (why wasn’t it grouped into the Federated States of Micronesia?) - What happened to the Old Prussians? - Why is Guam not part of the Northern Mariana Islands? - Why did the Federal Republic of Central America break up? - Why does Bulgaria claim North Macedonia? - Why does Bahrain exist? - Who are the Knights of Malta? - What happened to the Romans in North Africa? - Why is there a Jewish Island in Tunisia? - Why did Indochina break up (not from the French, I mean just as a whole, dividing into Cambodia, Laos, and both Vietnams)? - How did Thailand avoid colonization? - Why doesn’t Finland want East Karelia (this could acknowledge Russia’s habit of Russifying territories to discourage its original owners from wanting them back)? - Who claimed to be the Third Rome (I know Russia did, but many may not know the Ottomans, Papal States, Italy, the HRE, and the French have claimed it too)?
- Why does Brunei exist? Was independent before the British annexed it and remained so after - What’s the difference between Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia? Different ethnic and linguistic groups - Why does Nauru exist (why wasn’t it grouped into the Federated States of Micronesia?) idk - What happened to the Old Prussians? Genocide - Why is Guam not part of the Northern Mariana Islands? idk - Why did the Federal Republic of Central America break up? Overly centralized in Guatemala, which at the time was the richest part - Why does Bulgaria claim North Macedonia? Has ethnic Bulgarians - Why does Bahrain exist? Was independent before the British annexed it and remained so after - Who are the Knights of Malta? Descendants of Crusaders - What happened to the Romans in North Africa? Conquered by the Vandals and then the Arabs - Why is there a Jewish Island in Tunisia? I didn't even know this existed - Why did Indochina break up (not from the French, I mean just as a whole, dividing into Cambodia, Laos, and both Vietnams)? Different languages and ethnic groups - How did Thailand avoid colonization? Buffer state between British Burma and French Indochina - Why doesn’t Finland want East Karelia (this could acknowledge Russia’s habit of Russifying territories to discourage its original owners from wanting them back)? Answered your own question - Who claimed to be the Third Rome (I know Russia did, but many may not know the Ottomans, Papal States, Italy, the HRE, and the French have claimed it too)? Technically only Russia but the rulers of the Ottoman and Holy Roman Empires claimed to be Roman Emperor and Mussolini and Napoleon LARPed as one
"Why doesn’t Finland want East Karelia" There is a small minority of Finns who do. Most of us don't, because, I would guess: (1) Practically everyone was evacuated from the lost territories (East Karelia plus small patches elsewhere along the eastern border), so Finns have no strong ethnic connection to its present-day inhabitants. (2) Finland has plenty of land for its citizens, being one of the least densely-populated countries of Europe, so there's no pressure for more Lebensraum, so to speak. (3) Several wars have been fought over the eastern border of Sweden, later that of Finland, over the centuries. In the extremely unlikely case that Finland was able to get back East Karelia (= IteuctFwatgbEK), that would just set up pressure for a new war, especially as the border would again be within artillery range of St. Petersburg. (4) IteuctFwatgbEK, restoring its infrastructure and environment to present-day Finnish standards would be enormously costly, after the tender mercies of 80 years of Russia. (5) IteuctFwatgbEK, unless Russia were to perform a mirror-image evacuation, Finland would have a huge minority population of formerly Russian citizens, most of whom do not speak Finnish, nor have any emotional connection to the nation they'd find themselves in. (6) Russia really, really doesn't want to give up any of its territory (see the southern Kuril Islands), so it would be silly to antagonize it with pointless demands. (7) It's been 78 years since the territories were lost, so for most of us, the matter is dusty history.
The main principle of Prussian foreign policy was to never, ever go to war against Russia. Napoleon forced them to do so in 1812 but they changed sides at the end of the year.
The lessons they learned during the thirty years war became ingrained in them. Only a strong army and a strong state can stop the devastation that the 30 years war caused, and neutrality sucks. They became the opposite of Switzerland
@@ivangarcia1327 More or less due to treaty obligations and the fact that both tended to hate Austria more than each other would lead me to believe so as well. Had Germany left Austria and Joined Russia after the collapse of the Treaty of the Three Empires it might have turned out different. Especially with the Italians probably joining them as well.
I'd love a "How did Thailand avoid colonisation" video. Edit: When I asked for the video, I did it because I like the format and his voice. So please, don't reply with the answer. I already know the basics
It was in the French sphere of influence, as I'm not mistaken. Maybe France thought that was enough and they didn't feel the need to make it an official colony
The French did not want to share another colonial border with Britain (did not want French Indoshina to border the British Raj or currently Myanmar) also I think the Siamese played them off each other and may have made concessions to stay independent There are a few videos on yt about it but I agree it would be nice to see his simplified take on it
Mostly to remain as a buffer state between British India and French Indo-china. Neither sides didn’t want to directly border one another so Thailand was left relatively alone to keep the borders separate. It's the same reason Afghanistan has that random stretch of land sticking out like sore thumb, they were given the land so the Russian empire and Britsih India didn’t directly border with each other.
Fun fact: The second country to know and get invited to the Crimean War was Egypt. The Ottomans sent Egypt a message three months prior to the start of the war asking them to prepare a military contingent for a possible war with Russia.
@@sajt6619 Sort of. Egypt had a frenemy relationship with the Ottoman Empire. It was technically part of it, but it was also autonomous. Sometimes it fought on the side of the Ottomans, such as when suppressing the Greek rebellion. Sometimes it fought against the Ottomans, like the two times Egypt almost conquered the heart of the Ottoman Empire, before being forced back by combined European powers both times.
@@adamesd3699 dude, the khediv of egypt, or the "governor" was a Turk from Kavala, part of Greece today. Its not like autonomous egypt was a republic or anything that people of egypt had any say in anything they did. Hence saying "egypt did this, that" just sounds inaccurate. Ottoman empire was inefficient to the point that some of their subordinates did not obey orders and at times openly rebelled. This cant be accredited to nations as we understand today having anything to do with the events that transpired. That is my point. In internatiinal view, it was governed by Ottomans and what kind of grip they had on their land is another story.
Man was unbelievably unlucky (with such bad luck only being topped by Blessed Karl) and still stood there like a rock, kicking until the last second. To think about Franz Joseph's reign is like imagining what if Elizabeth the II had a leading role in politics, since she started her reign, until the present day
@@evanclarke5561 If Hitler had returned, he would have had no support. If Stane had returned, there are two options. 1. The Russian government sends military to beat him and kill him. 2. The military does not kill Stalin, but brings him to power. The economy is growing. Mass rallies in the countries of the former socialist bloc.
I believe the alienation of Austria from Russia following the Crimean War was the largest reason the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand led to WWI. If Austria were still a close ally of Russia, Russia may have been able to mediate a peace between Austria and Serbia in 1914, or at least stayed out of the fight. They may have intervened as protector of the Slavs, but I think the chances would be severely reduced. No Russian entry into the war would have meant no German entry, which would mean no French entry, and so on. The dominoes simply don't seem as likely to fall. Russia may have even supported Austria in the war with Prussia, which may have even led to an Austrian-dominated Germany! All European history would be entirely changed from that point forward, and 20th century world history might have been drastically different. Edit: I'm not trying to say WWI would never have happened. Only that the assassination would not be the inciting event, and the alliances may have been different.
The more you go back in past, the more likely it is for relatively minor differences to have a drastic effect on outcome. For example, what if Romans hadn't recovered after being sacked by Gauls in 3rd century BC, or what if the battle of Cannae had actually weakened Rome. In that case, Austria, Prussia and France wouldn't have even existed in the way we know them.
So in the end it all was Franz Joseph's fault ... as an Austrian myself I wished the monarchy would have come up with another leader. His direct ancestors Karl and Otto von Habsburg where much wiser people, but it was already too late for them.
@@mal_dun At the same time, one may also say that by siding with Russia, he would've alienated the 2 strongest European powers at the same time. While he was not a great ruler, it's always more complicated than it seems.
@@doodledeviser well the reason is that all rus principalities were weak as hell and completely under control of the golden horde, they literally weren't able to do anything, but pay tribute to the nomads and pray that it ends someday. besides, if we're talking about kievan rus specifically, kiev was razed to the ground by the mongols, for eastern slavs it's pretty much like the fall of rome, novgorod stayed fairly strong up north, but it wasn't the same
It was eventually restored in a sense. The Muscovites had asperations to restore the Rus', and one of their titles was even "Emperor of Rus'", and it's why they adopted the name of Russia afterwards, but it had nothing to do with the original Kievan Rus' and there was no likeness between them other than Russia, eventually, occupying all of the Rus' (White Rus', Little Rus', Great Rus', and Black Rus').
The Swedish/Norwegian king wanted to retake Finland but I always heard there were two reasons that never took place. They didn't get guarantees from Britain and France that they would help keep Finland as theirs later. And that the Finnish people (although they were Swedish subjects half a century before) had accepted their new overlord and probably would not support the troops.
Finland had lots of autonomy, the czar reigned as grand duke of Finland or something, they had an own parliament etc, so I think most Finns liked it better than during the rather incompetent rule from Stockholm during the 18th Century. But then Alexander III mucked it up with a russification campaign and the independence movement got strong.
My first thoughts were Prussia and Austria also had the most to lose if the war went sour. Also Austria and the Ottoman empire couldn't be better enemies.
Quite right. Both of the countries if joining would have been expected to do most of the land fighting for their side. (as they would have been right at the border of one side to the other) And at least the austrians could not afford that at the time. (in all the ways you can think of... Having still not finished to bring the empire fully in order again, and not having enough men and money) Lot's of what Austria didduring that war was bluffing. This way the western allies couldn't send that many troops, and not do a big scale attack over the european mainland, and the russians also had to scale down their troopsizes a little like he mentioned in the video.
No, Austria was in this era the strongest supporter of Ottoman territorial integrity other than Britain because it feared southern Slavic / Romanian nationalism. It only got serious about territorial expansion on the Balkan after it was pushed out of Italy and Germany. This video overstates Austrian aspiration to integrate the Danube principalities. Its goal was to prevent a united Romanian state that could lay claim to Transylvania and the means to achieve this was to force them back under Ottoman rule (where high Austrian influence would have been guaranteed because of its economic ties to the region and the weakness of the High Porte). However, keeping the principalities separated failed when Moldova and Wallachia both elected the same guy, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, to be their hospodar (prince). Austria couldn't intervene due to the beginning of the Austro-Sardinian war.
@@drakegod84 What is "wrong" about that? My professor at least was fine with my presentation I gave about this topic at university. If you're interested, literature I used included: - D.W. Baumgart, Der Friede von Paris 1856, Munich/Vienna 1972 - G.J. Bobango, The Emergence of the Romanian National State, New York 1979 - W.G. East, The Union of Moldavia and Wallachia, New York 1973 - B. Jelavich, Russia and the formation of the Romanian national state, Cambridge 1984 - B. Marinescu, Romanian-British Poitical Relations 1848-1877, Bucharest 1983 - T.W. Riker, The Making of Roumania, New York 1931 - V. Roman, Rumänien im Spannungsfeld der Großmächte 1774-1878, Offenbach 1987
I really enjoy your content and I want to see it keep on publishing but I really miss your longer videos. Please reconsider posting some longer videos sometimes. But in the end I'm just happy to see your videos, thank you.
I think the reasons for the war could have been a bit more fleshed out. The whole "defender of Christianity" might have been part of the excuse, but the main thing was that the colonial powers wanted Russia far from the Mediterranean and their potential colonies. GB wanted Russia weaker to it would not threaten their Indian possessions either. Austria had ambitions in the Balkans, and were afraid Russia would eat them up as they were populated by Slavs. But Austria owed pretty much its existence to Russia saving it from Napoleon as well, and leaving their traditional ally quickly made them Germany's b!tch.
This was interesting and comical as always lol. Thank you. I would be very interested to see more videos on the Crimean War on UA-cam in general. Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you, friends. ✝️ :)
This was a gift for loyalty and a sign of friendship. Of course Finland had to ruin it and screw Russia when it needed help and chose to suck German d*ck twice to then lose the war 2 times in a row and tell everyone that they won. What a story lol
Fun Fact :France sent more troops (310 000) than the Ottomans (235 000) ,only 34.71% of the troops were from the Ottomans There was 676 000 troops (Add UK ,110 000 + Piedmont-Sardinia ,21 000)
Austria-Hungary feels like it's playing the game as a great power when it certainly is not, pretentiously aspiring to territory it obviously cannot conquer, and sacrificing an alliance it desperately needed. It's so disconnected from reality, it looks like when you give your brother a controller that ain't plugged and just let him think he is having fun in multiplayer cuz you just can't be bothered.
First, Austria-Hungary didn’t exist during the Crimean war, second the Austrian and Austro-Hungarian empires were great powers during their entire existences, able to exert influence on neighbors, like in southern Italy and Bosnia. You have it all wrong
Theres something missing here... See russia helped (they played a very big part, but weren't alone to praise) in stopping the hungarian revolution in austria, but that didn't mean austria by the time of the crimean war was able to fight on either side. This was no computer game where you take a med pack and you are back with 100% health in the fight in a second or two. They did practically try to bluff both sides into thinking they were a force to reckon with, but they couldn't join even if they wanted. The empire wasn't fully stabilized again by that time and that uprising had cost a lot of money and material thanks to the fighting. So they lacked everything and tried to make the others think they could be joining either side at any moment. In a way this was their try to preserve the country and focus on internal stabilization. (show weakness and you get attacked by all sides in that time) If they had joined russia, they would have been expected to do the main land fighting against france and italy, and they neither had the manpower or the materials and money to do so. Same for the other side. (if they joined the western allies) The two central empires if joining would have been expected to do the brunt of the dying on the battlefield for the side they joined.
I have heard a little bit about the Crimean War, and I learned quite a bit from this video! For instance, not only did I learn that the Russian Emperor was the protector of Christians of the Ottoman Empire before the war, but I also learned about Austria's armed neutrality! Thanks for the video!
I love this analysis! It seems as if Austria clearly had much in the long-run to fight for diplomatically even though no territory changed hands. And Prussia had great Baltic and northern support on both sides for this conflict as well; yet wisely sidestepped it to weaken France in its own ambitons! These subtle denouements of world history are very important! 🇦🇹🇦🇹 🇩🇪 🇩🇪
Russia: Bro I need your help Austria: Aight who’s involved? Russia: Ottomans, Britain and France Austria: Lol nah I’m good my G, you do you yeah safe Russia: Oi nah cuz I’ll remember this 😡 *1886* Russia: Yo Prussia my bro I heard you needed help against Austria 😈 Prussia: 😳 Austria: 😨
@@leonardorivelorivelo9253 Russia didn't have anything interesting to give Prussia. Meanwhile, have you seen what Prussia stood up for if they had joined the Allies? Prussia saw everything they received in the partitions of Poland as core territory. Your argument for them joining Russia is... land in France? With which they had a minuscule border, granted only by the Rhenish exclave? Your scenario is odd to me when the most plausible seems UK+France+Sweden+Prussia+Ottomans+Sardinia vs Russia+Austria.
Emperor Franz Joseph Me: "He lived that long." "Yes he lived that long." Great mind reading lol honestly if britian is in another war now, people in the future will think that way about Queen Elizabeth being in WW2
Fun fact: here in little New Zealand at the bottom of the world, even we've heard of Franz Josef! We have a town and a glacier named after him, even ("Franz Josef" and "Franz Josef Glacier", respectively. We're a creative bunch)
Similar to Ukraine & Russia since Feb. The only difference is Ukraine is much smaller than Russia so the USA is sending targeting information and lots of weapons/ammunition with training & spare parts.
@@brianjonker510 USA is getting immense amount of info on the actual Russian conventional force capabilities. Supporting Ukraine is a tiny price to pay for the info.
"It's emperor, Franz Joseph. Yes he lived that long" Truely long enough for an emperor of a great power turn into the head of the joke of Europe (Austro-Hungarian Empire)
Austria-Hungary was in no way the joke of Europe, it was still regarded as one of the great 5, with Italy being seen as a potential member of a great 6 and the Ottomans being viewed as an empire in decline. A contemporary caricature about the triple alliance shows the view European states had of Austria Hungary quite well, with Austria and Germany toasting to their new alliance, with Italy struggling to reach up with its glass to join in the toast. The idea of a weak and inefficient Austria-Hungary mostly stems from post WW1 propaganda done by British and French historians
The Crimean War always reminds me of Mackinder's words: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World.”
@@martonszucs8887 Not really. Mackinder may be old but his ideas about the heartland are still relevant, even if the rimland has shown itself to be more valuable than the heartland
@@tastyfalcon1788 it controled all of eastern europe through either direct control and puppet regimes. Surely it's collapse discredits this "heartland" theory?
The Russians never forgave the Austrians for ratting on them in the Crimean War; they helped save Vienna’s bacon in 1849 and backed them up in the 1850 confrontation with Prussia (the Hesse Crisis). Vienna’s last chance to defeat Prussia, which they let slip away but which convinced Berlin to get ready for war with Austria. In 1859 and 1866 there’d be no Russian backup for Austria.
The Piedmontese joined the war because like many other people they thought Austria would honour its alliance with Russia, that would have allowed to open a second front against the two Empires in Northern Italy. That didn't happen because Franz Joseph (who had assume power few years before) unlike his predecessors was anti- Russian and wanted hegemony in the Balkans. His decision back then planted the seed of WWI.
im pretty sure thailand was an ally of japan, and got some land from burma and french indochina, until they had to give it back. im not 100% sure, or you mean like why ally them instead of invasion, and the answer is to save resources and manpower
They didn't need to. A short demonstration to prove they could and would was all that was necessary for the Thais to let Japan through en route to Malaya and Burma, Japan's real goals. Japan didn't need Thailand's resources, only their "co-operation".
Interestingly despite making basically the same decision the outcomes would be totally different. For Prussia it turned out to be exactly the right call, while it would proof disastrous for Austria
QUESTION 1:52 Pardon my ignorance, but who is the dude in the painting and why was his picture vandalized with another mustache and devil's horns????????? 🤣😈
The sad thing is that Austrian’s move was clever since it helped end the war and prevent it from becoming too bloody/expensive for both sides yet somehow came out of it the biggest loser…
The 1848 Revolutions weakened Austria, since Hungary broke away and they needed Russia to help them retake it (Austria also had revolts in Italy). As for Kleine Deutschland, the revolts weren't really a military disaster. Once the revolutionaries realized it wasn't going anywhere, they either calmed down or moved to the Americas. The Prussian army didn't really get hurt, since it didn't really have to do much.
Just my two cents: National strength isn't the right way to think about this. The monarchic states themselves came out on top and consolidated against the (pan-German) democratic movements, which were too weak and fragmented. So very broadly speaking, on the one hand you have pretty "strong" and internally relatively stable German states, which probably could have shouldered a war like that, but on the other hand the popular mindset was not very hungry for a far-away war like that and also both society and states much more absorbed with solving the German question first. I assume this is also another reason why Prussia didn't join the war. Besides the promise of territorial gains being spurious anyway, it would have caused pointless troubles and rivalry with Russia, while Prussia wanted/needed to focus on German lands and the German question.
Just a thought. I feel like you should slow down on your speech in these videos. I find myself having to rewind a few times to grasp everything. Maybe aiming for a minute or so more on videos to account for slower speech? Just a thought. But I love your videos.
“When you invite one European party to a war, it’s only polite to invite them all”
*_Napoleon liked that_*
You mean Great Brittain since they financed 7 coalitions against France in 20 years
Napoleon approves this notion 👍
Mfw you get "shadows of war" event in vic2
I wonder if he liked it, but it sure was always an easy gamble for the lad. Till he got well... a bit arrogant in some situations like the Spanish Occupation, which he said himself was a mistake seeing that it became his Vietnam War, and the Continental system was never effective and caused him to declare war on Russia for them betraying it and then dying.
@@sharkronical I never played Vicky 2 (I have eu4, hoi4, and ck3 tho). I am looking forward to Vicky 3 to give it a shot
1:34 "Franz Joseph, yes he lived that long" absolutely golden
Let's face it, we're all envious of him. He got to sit on an Imperial throne for decades next to his pretty wife, never had to do a single thing correctly in all that time. To quote Office Space: "It would be wonderful to have that kind of job security."
It's a common joke here in Slovenia when we say something is really old.
@@andrewklang809 Oh so that was the gist of the joke. I just thought it was funny that the transition happened so fast.
Yeah, he was 86 when he died and ruled for 68 years.
@@MTTT1234should’ve pushed to 87
Franz Joseph went through 4 Russian Tsars through his reign and his nations opinion of Russia basically did a 180 during his lifetime. That’s honestly impressive how such a massive geopolitical shift with a major ally becoming a major enemy was overseen by 1 single monarch. Many rulers that lived longer like Victoria and Louis XIV couldn’t do that
Without knowing too much about all those 4 Tsars, I just think back to when Tsar Peter III basically did a 180 on his mother, Elizabeth, after her death and made peace with Prussia during the Seven Years War - only for his wife, Catherine the Great to murder him when she claimed the throne about half a year later.
So, yeah, Russia was kinda unstable sometimes, which obviously was reflected in other countries' perception of her.
But it did happen under Victoria, that being British Opinion of France. Who in the 1830’s were our Imperial Rival. By the end of her reign we had started to discuss potential alliances. That is literally a 180 shift on a country and that country becoming your major ally. But 🤷🏻♂️
@@princeofdaemons7344 sometimes it's easier to make friends than loose them. The brits and French at the start of the 19th century only hated each other because of French opposition to monarchies and their industrial rivalry, but by the end of the 19th century Britain was so overwhelmingly powerful compared to France, and both were together so much more powerful than any other individual empire that rivalry made no sense, and they weren't really industrial rivals anymore as they both had their own empires and similar levels of technology
Ye, because their brains worked properly.
And his empire pay the ultimate price.
If Austria Hungary would have been friendly towards russia, maybe they wouldnt dissolve.
Austria: Does practically nothing. Loses.
Prussia: Does absolutely nothing. Wins.
The thing is, Prussia could afford to do nothing. Austria could not.
austria basically saved to russians while staying neutral
Bismarck: Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen.
Luigi Time
*Bismarck after Austria ended up alone in a war with Prussia after angering their most powerful ally* :young fool, only now at the end do you understand
The kingdom of Sardinia-Piedmont in the Crimean war is like that weak child in a friend group with overly-optimistic goals and ambitions that just wants to be included in every single event
They got their wish by uniting Italy though.
they were building prestige by having great power carry the war. This prestige is very important for Italy unification
Victoria 2 player spotted
Seeing Piedmont-Sardinia written the other way around is strangely disturbing
It was more or less how they started the unification so it was a big deal for Italy.
"You May Exist"
blessed be Prussia's grace
Omg its the gameplay guy
yes king
As a Bavarian, I am SHOCKED to learn that there was a European war in which Prussia and Austria were not involved.
And there are more… some of them being faraway for German interests to interfere or otherwise not beneficial to Metternich policies when it comes to internal dissent, with a case on the Balkans in the late 1820s
Well, there are the Cod Wars.
EDIT:...I've just been informed that they "intervened" in that one too. Oh, those wacky Germans!
@@andrewklang809 that's what we do. Wack stuff since 300 bc.
Eh. Your king was reluctant to even join in the Franco-German war... starting the whole thing that Bavaria doesn't see itself as gem fan but as its own state. Nah
@@andrewklang809 Prussians are not the whole German, tbh. It was after 1871 seen as that, but I mean, there was this legend of the country (or land?) of thinkers and poets. It had to come from somewhere.
If the the Austrian Empire joined the Crimean war on the side of the Russian Empire, then the Great War would’ve been VERY different…
Not to mention the prussian-austrian war for germany itself. Germany may never have been united properly if this had been the case.
@@BrutusAlbion I like to think that Germany would still have united, since nationalism was trendy during the late 19th century, but it would have been smaller, weaker and feeling surrounded by France, Austria, and Russia. Probably leading it to ally with England and Italy in the future.
@@BrutusAlbion but maybe Bismarck would have found another way to get his Empire after all. He was a strategic mastermind when it came to understanding the motives of the great power and exploting those for his advantage. After all he was able to win all these wars needed for unification without getting Great Britain or Russia involved as his enemey
@@NoBudjetFilms alternatively maybe the prussians would have been crushed and the austrians created a greater germany?
Then germany proceeds to dominate central european politics without the whole ... cough .... genocides ...
@@herrsan I like to think that Bavaria could have preserved its independence.
People tend to not be aware that even today Bavaria would be among the top ten most populated nations in Europe.
I assume the smaller states might have been absorbed by Prussia eventually, but Bavaria possibly not.
Those videos are just so greatly made. They are short (which I kinda hate, but due to the fact they are really good), yet so to the point and they also have his humor which is subtle yet hilarious sometimes. And the fact he does not take sponsorships is the best thing. History Matters, in my opinion is the Best history UA-camr. This man deserves a place on at least ArmchairHistoryTV if no streaming service takes him.
This video is sponsored by James Bisonette.
Plot twist: in Chinese "Raid Shadow Legend" is actually pronounced "James Bisonette".
Dude has no sources ever though
@@Skorpychan don forgett kelly moneymaker
@@Skorpychan the thanking of the patreons does not bother me because it is at the end of the video. I also would not be not be mad if all sponsorhips were at the end of the video because I can just leave. I don't care about your stupid mobile pay2win game, streaming platform, earbuds, browser, ball care product, vpns or other type of bullshit.
"Because Prussia and Austria-Hungrary were saving their powder. For each other."
Also RIP Franz Joseph (1848-1916). And that was just his reign.
Fun fact: My family had a Prussian ancestor who immigrated to America (with his wife IIRC) in 1866. We're not entirely sure, but we suspect he may have done it partially to avoid being conscripted to fight in that war against Austria. If indeed that is the case, what a crafty move.
@@thunderbird1921 Prussia military made it a great power, i doubt it, wars were expected in nineteen century Europe.
I love when History Matters covers topics that aren't talked about a lot
Yeah, I didn’t know Britain offered Prussia land
@@windykingdom6153 Always easy to offer land that you don't control, yet.
By far one of the best reasons to subscribe to this channel!
@@Alex-wt6kp True, definitely
Which raises the obvious question. Why? Why aren't these topics discussed more?
Russia: *helps Austria with Hungarian Rebels in 1849*
Austria: *stays neutral during Crimean War 1853-1855 and forces Russian troops out of Walachia and Moldova, thus causing Russian Defeat in War*
Russia: *supports Prussia against Austria in 1866*
Austria: *Shocked Pikachu Face*
Don't forget they also refused to help Austria against France in 1859 during the War of Italian Unification. The result is that Napoleon III and Victor Emmanuel II bulldozed Franz Joseph and utterly humiliated him for the most part.
@@thunderbird1921 Ooffff
Well not realy support Prussia just stay neutral. The Prussian army realy did not need any help.
Although Prussia winning does lead directly to an united Germany and forces Austrias interest to the Balkans, which realy ends up ending the Russian empire in WWI. So arguably by not helping Austria the Russian empire did an oopsie.
_"Dude, I thought you had my back!"_
_"I did. It's where I store my knives."_
@@BuriedFlame That’s clever
Always love to immediately watch a video immediately uploaded. Ever consider a video on French Guiana? (Why didn't they declare independence etc?)
Or why are Melilla and Ceuta still Spanish territories in Africa?
Ya!
To be honest it's quite straightforward. If they were to declare independance, they would still be under American influence and thus not really independent foreign policy wise. They would also lose the social benefits of being a part of France, they receive free healthcare, good workers right... They wouldn't have these social programs if they were independant seeing how costly they are
@@Martin-wt9co It's a sound argument but then why didn't other similar places think like that? For example Suriname declaring independence from the Netherlands?
@@Martin-wt9co Even more straightforward : they are culturally French. With some minor differences of course, but not any more than between Paris and the South-West. It doesn't make too much sense to declare independence from a nation you feel like you belong to/with. Same goes with all other territories France has retained across the globe.
As the papers of the time wrote about Austrian occupation of Romanian provinces(Russian at the time):
"The Austrians impressed the world with their ingratitude."
Love this kind of wit.
no ingratitude when it comes to Russia. i am Romanian and to be fair i would rather speak German than Magyar or some Slavic dialect.
@@porphyry17 haha
@@porphyry17 It seems that you didn't hear of such thing like the policy of magyarisation of transylvanian Romanians that that was executed by Austrians, lmao. This would've happen with all Romanians as well if Moldova and Walachia were annexed to Austria. So you wouldn't be speaking german, you would just be servants and bootlickers of austrians and hungarians
@@alexandrs7594 i knew about that. i am just imitating the Germans that always make "top's of civilisations". "i would like to remain German and if not at least Latin", "if not Latin then Magyar" and "if not Magyar than Slavic". that is, the Russians did not want to respect the cultures they annexed(language, identity) or their faith, they, like the magyars, wanted them absorbed to their "great countries"
Franz Josef is the kind of ruler you sometimes get in Crusader Kings who lives so damn long that it actually becomes a sort of problem. Like everything is good while he is around, there's decent stability, but so many heirs die that succession gets weird with a grandson or grand nephew taking the throne.
Paradox of paradox.
not directly related but the Mughal empire(India) also suffered this problem. The last Great Mughal that is Aurungzeb ruled for around 49 years and died at 88 years. So his successor was pretty much a 63 year old man and was succeeded by a line of old emperors with poor administrative abilities and short reigns leading to further instability in the empire.
Even more surprisingly, the Kingdom of Hawaii declared neutrality too, despite being able to win the war for either side of their choosing through their contributions alone
Unfortunately for the Hawaiians, it was still several decades before lobbing pineapples at the enemy became useful.
One day ck3 will be large-scale enough that I can play a pacific island that intervenes and decides European wars, but that day is not yet.
@@dome2919 This will be CK4 or another ck3 mod like the one that added china
@@leoe.5046 The Hawaiian orthodox crusade for the Queen-bishopric of Brazil. I'll hold out hope to make it happen someday soon
@@Generaallucasthe fact that it was all for nothing and they were still colonised by the US is kinda sad. And now they've basically been assimilated and almost lost their language and culture because the USA, despite acknowledging that the invasion was illegal, still kept Hawaii
Some questions I’d like to see videos on (whether or not I already know the answers doesn’t matter, I just think they’d make for interesting videos)
- Why does Brunei exist?
- What’s the difference between Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia?
- Why does Nauru exist (why wasn’t it grouped into the Federated States of Micronesia?)
- What happened to the Old Prussians?
- Why is Guam not part of the Northern Mariana Islands?
- Why did the Federal Republic of Central America break up?
- Why does Bulgaria claim North Macedonia?
- Why does Bahrain exist?
- Who are the Knights of Malta?
- What happened to the Romans in North Africa?
- Why is there a Jewish Island in Tunisia?
- Why did Indochina break up (not from the French, I mean just as a whole, dividing into Cambodia, Laos, and both Vietnams)?
- How did Thailand avoid colonization?
- Why doesn’t Finland want East Karelia (this could acknowledge Russia’s habit of Russifying territories to discourage its original owners from wanting them back)?
- Who claimed to be the Third Rome (I know Russia did, but many may not know the Ottomans, Papal States, Italy, the HRE, and the French have claimed it too)?
Ottomans at least had the same lands as the eastern empire
Yes, and what happened to Macronesia, Leuconesia and Mononesia?
"Why does monaco exist"
- Why does Brunei exist?
Was independent before the British annexed it and remained so after
- What’s the difference between Micronesia, Melanesia, and Polynesia?
Different ethnic and linguistic groups
- Why does Nauru exist (why wasn’t it grouped into the Federated States of Micronesia?)
idk
- What happened to the Old Prussians?
Genocide
- Why is Guam not part of the Northern Mariana Islands?
idk
- Why did the Federal Republic of Central America break up?
Overly centralized in Guatemala, which at the time was the richest part
- Why does Bulgaria claim North Macedonia?
Has ethnic Bulgarians
- Why does Bahrain exist?
Was independent before the British annexed it and remained so after
- Who are the Knights of Malta?
Descendants of Crusaders
- What happened to the Romans in North Africa?
Conquered by the Vandals and then the Arabs
- Why is there a Jewish Island in Tunisia?
I didn't even know this existed
- Why did Indochina break up (not from the French, I mean just as a whole, dividing into Cambodia, Laos, and both Vietnams)?
Different languages and ethnic groups
- How did Thailand avoid colonization?
Buffer state between British Burma and French Indochina
- Why doesn’t Finland want East Karelia (this could acknowledge Russia’s habit of Russifying territories to discourage its original owners from wanting them back)?
Answered your own question
- Who claimed to be the Third Rome (I know Russia did, but many may not know the Ottomans, Papal States, Italy, the HRE, and the French have claimed it too)?
Technically only Russia but the rulers of the Ottoman and Holy Roman Empires claimed to be Roman Emperor and Mussolini and Napoleon LARPed as one
"Why doesn’t Finland want East Karelia"
There is a small minority of Finns who do. Most of us don't, because, I would guess:
(1) Practically everyone was evacuated from the lost territories (East Karelia plus small patches elsewhere along the eastern border), so Finns have no strong ethnic connection to its present-day inhabitants.
(2) Finland has plenty of land for its citizens, being one of the least densely-populated countries of Europe, so there's no pressure for more Lebensraum, so to speak.
(3) Several wars have been fought over the eastern border of Sweden, later that of Finland, over the centuries. In the extremely unlikely case that Finland was able to get back East Karelia (= IteuctFwatgbEK), that would just set up pressure for a new war, especially as the border would again be within artillery range of St. Petersburg.
(4) IteuctFwatgbEK, restoring its infrastructure and environment to present-day Finnish standards would be enormously costly, after the tender mercies of 80 years of Russia.
(5) IteuctFwatgbEK, unless Russia were to perform a mirror-image evacuation, Finland would have a huge minority population of formerly Russian citizens, most of whom do not speak Finnish, nor have any emotional connection to the nation they'd find themselves in.
(6) Russia really, really doesn't want to give up any of its territory (see the southern Kuril Islands), so it would be silly to antagonize it with pointless demands.
(7) It's been 78 years since the territories were lost, so for most of us, the matter is dusty history.
As everyone knows, Prussia is known for its legendary pacifism.
The main principle of Prussian foreign policy was to never, ever go to war against Russia.
Napoleon forced them to do so in 1812 but they changed sides at the end of the year.
Blood and iron... how peaceful!😉
The lessons they learned during the thirty years war became ingrained in them. Only a strong army and a strong state can stop the devastation that the 30 years war caused, and neutrality sucks. They became the opposite of Switzerland
@@Mr33500 how can neutrality suck if Switzerland got rich and had peace from it
@@ivangarcia1327 More or less due to treaty obligations and the fact that both tended to hate Austria more than each other would lead me to believe so as well. Had Germany left Austria and Joined Russia after the collapse of the Treaty of the Three Empires it might have turned out different. Especially with the Italians probably joining them as well.
I'd love a "How did Thailand avoid colonisation" video.
Edit: When I asked for the video, I did it because I like the format and his voice. So please, don't reply with the answer. I already know the basics
I second this
I'm sort of surprised there isn't one already.
It was in the French sphere of influence, as I'm not mistaken. Maybe France thought that was enough and they didn't feel the need to make it an official colony
The French did not want to share another colonial border with Britain (did not want French Indoshina to border the British Raj or currently Myanmar) also I think the Siamese played them off each other and may have made concessions to stay independent
There are a few videos on yt about it but I agree it would be nice to see his simplified take on it
Mostly to remain as a buffer state between British India and French Indo-china. Neither sides didn’t want to directly border one another so Thailand was left relatively alone to keep the borders separate. It's the same reason Afghanistan has that random stretch of land sticking out like sore thumb, they were given the land so the Russian empire and Britsih India didn’t directly border with each other.
Fun fact: The second country to know and get invited to the Crimean War was Egypt. The Ottomans sent Egypt a message three months prior to the start of the war asking them to prepare a military contingent for a possible war with Russia.
Egypt, was an Ottoman dominion so they were automatically included whether any of its population fought in it or not
@@sajt6619 Sort of. Egypt had a frenemy relationship with the Ottoman Empire. It was technically part of it, but it was also autonomous. Sometimes it fought on the side of the Ottomans, such as when suppressing the Greek rebellion. Sometimes it fought against the Ottomans, like the two times Egypt almost conquered the heart of the Ottoman Empire, before being forced back by combined European powers both times.
@@adamesd3699 dude, the khediv of egypt, or the "governor" was a Turk from Kavala, part of Greece today. Its not like autonomous egypt was a republic or anything that people of egypt had any say in anything they did. Hence saying "egypt did this, that" just sounds inaccurate. Ottoman empire was inefficient to the point that some of their subordinates did not obey orders and at times openly rebelled. This cant be accredited to nations as we understand today having anything to do with the events that transpired. That is my point. In internatiinal view, it was governed by Ottomans and what kind of grip they had on their land is another story.
He wasn't a Turk, he was an Albanian.
Egypt was considered de facto independent after Ali Pasha took power.
These videos keep me alive. Thank you my friend. Though you do not know me, your work is appreciated and loved.
Austria: Declines to join war
“Russia will remember that.”
Franz Joseph staying relevant for 70 years is just so insane it always amazes me. Imagine Eisenhower or Mao Tsetung coming back for a round two today.
Man was unbelievably unlucky (with such bad luck only being topped by Blessed Karl)
and still stood there like a rock, kicking until the last second.
To think about Franz Joseph's reign is like imagining what if Elizabeth the II had a leading role in politics, since she started her reign, until the present day
What if Hitler and Stalin came back for round two today?
No, thank you
@@evanclarke5561 If Hitler had returned, he would have had no support.
If Stane had returned, there are two options.
1. The Russian government sends military to beat him and kill him.
2. The military does not kill Stalin, but brings him to power. The economy is growing. Mass rallies in the countries of the former socialist bloc.
If he lived a few more years, he could have seen his empire get dismantled. I guess he should be happy he kicked the bucket when he did.
1:35 “yes he lived that long” LOL. A sentiment shared by many history lovers.
Care to explain, because I don't know the whole context
@@vladconstantinescu2370 he was still alive and ruling at the beginning of WWI
"Yes, he lived that long"
No, the writers didn't just forget about him
"Yes, he lived that long"- Every person in the Austrian Hungarian Empire, probably.
BEFORE Queen Elizabeth II
If he died sooner WW1 would maybe be avoided.
I believe the alienation of Austria from Russia following the Crimean War was the largest reason the assassination of Archduke Ferdinand led to WWI. If Austria were still a close ally of Russia, Russia may have been able to mediate a peace between Austria and Serbia in 1914, or at least stayed out of the fight. They may have intervened as protector of the Slavs, but I think the chances would be severely reduced. No Russian entry into the war would have meant no German entry, which would mean no French entry, and so on. The dominoes simply don't seem as likely to fall. Russia may have even supported Austria in the war with Prussia, which may have even led to an Austrian-dominated Germany! All European history would be entirely changed from that point forward, and 20th century world history might have been drastically different.
Edit: I'm not trying to say WWI would never have happened. Only that the assassination would not be the inciting event, and the alliances may have been different.
They would have found another reason to fight.
The more you go back in past, the more likely it is for relatively minor differences to have a drastic effect on outcome. For example, what if Romans hadn't recovered after being sacked by Gauls in 3rd century BC, or what if the battle of Cannae had actually weakened Rome. In that case, Austria, Prussia and France wouldn't have even existed in the way we know them.
So in the end it all was Franz Joseph's fault ... as an Austrian myself I wished the monarchy would have come up with another leader. His direct ancestors Karl and Otto von Habsburg where much wiser people, but it was already too late for them.
@@mal_dun At the same time, one may also say that by siding with Russia, he would've alienated the 2 strongest European powers at the same time. While he was not a great ruler, it's always more complicated than it seems.
FINALLY ! someone like me !
That Franz Joseph transition was awesome!
Am I the first viewer? Video Idea: "Why wasn't the Kievan 'Rus restored after the Mongol Invasion?" I like your vids! :)
I was the first comment
that'd be a very short video lmao
@@giogio51592 I don't know, there has to be some explaination.
@@doodledeviser well the reason is that all rus principalities were weak as hell and completely under control of the golden horde, they literally weren't able to do anything, but pay tribute to the nomads and pray that it ends someday. besides, if we're talking about kievan rus specifically, kiev was razed to the ground by the mongols, for eastern slavs it's pretty much like the fall of rome, novgorod stayed fairly strong up north, but it wasn't the same
It was eventually restored in a sense. The Muscovites had asperations to restore the Rus', and one of their titles was even "Emperor of Rus'", and it's why they adopted the name of Russia afterwards, but it had nothing to do with the original Kievan Rus' and there was no likeness between them other than Russia, eventually, occupying all of the Rus' (White Rus', Little Rus', Great Rus', and Black Rus').
"When you invite one European party to a war, it’s only polite to invite them all."
I love the humor of this show.
I really like the topics you cover.
The Swedish/Norwegian king wanted to retake Finland but I always heard there were two reasons that never took place. They didn't get guarantees from Britain and France that they would help keep Finland as theirs later. And that the Finnish people (although they were Swedish subjects half a century before) had accepted their new overlord and probably would not support the troops.
Finland had lots of autonomy, the czar reigned as grand duke of Finland or something, they had an own parliament etc, so I think most Finns liked it better than during the rather incompetent rule from Stockholm during the 18th Century. But then Alexander III mucked it up with a russification campaign and the independence movement got strong.
My first thoughts were Prussia and Austria also had the most to lose if the war went sour. Also Austria and the Ottoman empire couldn't be better enemies.
Quite right. Both of the countries if joining would have been expected to do most of the land fighting for their side. (as they would have been right at the border of one side to the other) And at least the austrians could not afford that at the time. (in all the ways you can think of... Having still not finished to bring the empire fully in order again, and not having enough men and money) Lot's of what Austria didduring that war was bluffing. This way the western allies couldn't send that many troops, and not do a big scale attack over the european mainland, and the russians also had to scale down their troopsizes a little like he mentioned in the video.
No, Austria was in this era the strongest supporter of Ottoman territorial integrity other than Britain because it feared southern Slavic / Romanian nationalism. It only got serious about territorial expansion on the Balkan after it was pushed out of Italy and Germany. This video overstates Austrian aspiration to integrate the Danube principalities. Its goal was to prevent a united Romanian state that could lay claim to Transylvania and the means to achieve this was to force them back under Ottoman rule (where high Austrian influence would have been guaranteed because of its economic ties to the region and the weakness of the High Porte). However, keeping the principalities separated failed when Moldova and Wallachia both elected the same guy, Alexandru Ioan Cuza, to be their hospodar (prince). Austria couldn't intervene due to the beginning of the Austro-Sardinian war.
@@Daniel-eh1lr Wrong
@@drakegod84 What is "wrong" about that? My professor at least was fine with my presentation I gave about this topic at university. If you're interested, literature I used included:
- D.W. Baumgart, Der Friede von Paris 1856, Munich/Vienna 1972
- G.J. Bobango, The Emergence of the Romanian National State, New York 1979
- W.G. East, The Union of Moldavia and Wallachia, New York 1973
- B. Jelavich, Russia and the formation of the Romanian national state, Cambridge 1984
- B. Marinescu, Romanian-British Poitical Relations 1848-1877, Bucharest 1983
- T.W. Riker, The Making of Roumania, New York 1931
- V. Roman, Rumänien im Spannungsfeld der Großmächte 1774-1878, Offenbach 1987
@@Daniel-eh1lr Is that the austro-sardinian war that helped Piedmont-Sardy start a united italy, or a sepearate war? My timeline's a little wonky
I really enjoy your content and I want to see it keep on publishing but I really miss your longer videos. Please reconsider posting some longer videos sometimes. But in the end I'm just happy to see your videos, thank you.
Just found out about this channel! History and Humor = priceless combination. Absolutely love the videos!
Just wanna say i love your vids, best history channel on yt
Love these. Would love to see one on the history of the Greek Dodecanese islands.
History Matters posting on a Sunday? A surprise to be sure, but a welcome one.
I think the reasons for the war could have been a bit more fleshed out. The whole "defender of Christianity" might have been part of the excuse, but the main thing was that the colonial powers wanted Russia far from the Mediterranean and their potential colonies. GB wanted Russia weaker to it would not threaten their Indian possessions either.
Austria had ambitions in the Balkans, and were afraid Russia would eat them up as they were populated by Slavs. But Austria owed pretty much its existence to Russia saving it from Napoleon as well, and leaving their traditional ally quickly made them Germany's b!tch.
This was interesting and comical as always lol. Thank you. I would be very interested to see more videos on the Crimean War on UA-cam in general.
Stay well out there everybody, and God bless you, friends. ✝️ :)
I am a big fan of your videos! Could you please make one on the war of 1812? I know you are unlikely to see this but I hope you do.
So playground. So, so playground.
Or, recess, in N. Am.
This is a great channel. Thanks for, um, it.
Do one about why Finland was given autonomy in the Russian Empire 🇫🇮
Probably Britain's fault
This was a gift for loyalty and a sign of friendship. Of course Finland had to ruin it and screw Russia when it needed help and chose to suck German d*ck twice to then lose the war 2 times in a row and tell everyone that they won. What a story lol
Fun Fact :France sent more troops (310 000) than the Ottomans (235 000) ,only 34.71% of the troops were from the Ottomans
There was 676 000 troops (Add UK ,110 000 + Piedmont-Sardinia ,21 000)
Austria-Hungary feels like it's playing the game as a great power when it certainly is not, pretentiously aspiring to territory it obviously cannot conquer, and sacrificing an alliance it desperately needed. It's so disconnected from reality, it looks like when you give your brother a controller that ain't plugged and just let him think he is having fun in multiplayer cuz you just can't be bothered.
Just Austria in that day and age.
One note it is just the Austrian empire at this point. The Hungarians get their rights after Prussia kicks their ass in 1866.
First, Austria-Hungary didn’t exist during the Crimean war, second the Austrian and Austro-Hungarian empires were great powers during their entire existences, able to exert influence on neighbors, like in southern Italy and Bosnia. You have it all wrong
Theres something missing here... See russia helped (they played a very big part, but weren't alone to praise) in stopping the hungarian revolution in austria, but that didn't mean austria by the time of the crimean war was able to fight on either side. This was no computer game where you take a med pack and you are back with 100% health in the fight in a second or two.
They did practically try to bluff both sides into thinking they were a force to reckon with, but they couldn't join even if they wanted. The empire wasn't fully stabilized again by that time and that uprising had cost a lot of money and material thanks to the fighting. So they lacked everything and tried to make the others think they could be joining either side at any moment. In a way this was their try to preserve the country and focus on internal stabilization.
(show weakness and you get attacked by all sides in that time)
If they had joined russia, they would have been expected to do the main land fighting against france and italy, and they neither had the manpower or the materials and money to do so. Same for the other side. (if they joined the western allies) The two central empires if joining would have been expected to do the brunt of the dying on the battlefield for the side they joined.
@@Gagegehris Great power sure, but a great power i decline, like the Ottomans.
I have heard a little bit about the Crimean War, and I learned quite a bit from this video! For instance, not only did I learn that the Russian Emperor was the protector of Christians of the Ottoman Empire before the war, but I also learned about Austria's armed neutrality! Thanks for the video!
I love this analysis! It seems as if Austria clearly had much in the long-run to fight for diplomatically even though no territory changed hands. And Prussia had great Baltic and northern support on both sides for this conflict as well; yet wisely sidestepped it to weaken France in its own ambitons! These subtle denouements of world history are very important! 🇦🇹🇦🇹 🇩🇪 🇩🇪
Are historical conflicts between France, Germany and Austria just Germans hating on themselves?
love ur content my friend :)
0:57 Sounds exactly like what is happening this year...
Russia: Bro I need your help
Austria: Aight who’s involved?
Russia: Ottomans, Britain and France
Austria: Lol nah I’m good my G, you do you yeah safe
Russia: Oi nah cuz I’ll remember this 😡
*1886*
Russia: Yo Prussia my bro I heard you needed help against Austria 😈
Prussia: 😳
Austria: 😨
Request for a “what if” episode about Austria and Prussia joining.
Have you heard of WWII?.
It would prob be Austria+Prussia+Russia vs everyone else in Europe, with Sweden-Norway siting It out
@@leonardorivelorivelo9253 Russia didn't have anything interesting to give Prussia. Meanwhile, have you seen what Prussia stood up for if they had joined the Allies? Prussia saw everything they received in the partitions of Poland as core territory. Your argument for them joining Russia is... land in France? With which they had a minuscule border, granted only by the Rhenish exclave? Your scenario is odd to me when the most plausible seems UK+France+Sweden+Prussia+Ottomans+Sardinia vs Russia+Austria.
☝️😉
One of the best UA-cam channels out there!
Can you do a video on Finlands role in ww2 and what happened afterwards?
When they called upon each other, Austria and Russia respectively both said, "new phone who dis?"
Emperor Franz Joseph
Me: "He lived that long."
"Yes he lived that long."
Great mind reading lol honestly if britian is in another war now, people in the future will think that way about Queen Elizabeth being in WW2
I love your channel keep up the great stuff
1:02
The more things change the more they stay the same.
Fun fact: here in little New Zealand at the bottom of the world, even we've heard of Franz Josef! We have a town and a glacier named after him, even ("Franz Josef" and "Franz Josef Glacier", respectively. We're a creative bunch)
The map is wrong!
Russia did not posses Outer Manchuria at this time 3:00.
It’s called Dalny Vostok
@@strodion2105 No.
@@TheLordRichard
Ok ;)
U rodnoy zemly Dalnevostochnoy
Broneboy udarny bataljon!
Great video.
Can you do a video about the Turkish war of independence?
Thank you for video sir
Crimean War: *Allows for business opportunities and weakening regional rivals to be defeated later*
Prussia and Austria: "Let them fight."
Similar to Ukraine & Russia since Feb. The only difference is Ukraine is much smaller than Russia so the USA is sending targeting information and lots of weapons/ammunition with training & spare parts.
@@brianjonker510 USA is getting immense amount of info on the actual Russian conventional force capabilities. Supporting Ukraine is a tiny price to pay for the info.
Just waiting to see a 3 second video of Frank Joseph living that love
Prussia: Oh dear another war in Europe.
Also Prussia: So how can I benefit from this?
Every country basically
Nice video.
Is it just me or is the portrait behind the emperor of Russia at 0:31, seem, just a little wide?
These are just the best videos
"It's emperor, Franz Joseph. Yes he lived that long"
Truely long enough for an emperor of a great power turn into the head of the joke of Europe (Austro-Hungarian Empire)
Queen Victoria was another you could joke about for similar reasons. She came to power in 1837 (born in 1819) and lived to see the 20th Century.
Austria-Hungary was in no way the joke of Europe, it was still regarded as one of the great 5, with Italy being seen as a potential member of a great 6 and the Ottomans being viewed as an empire in decline. A contemporary caricature about the triple alliance shows the view European states had of Austria Hungary quite well, with Austria and Germany toasting to their new alliance, with Italy struggling to reach up with its glass to join in the toast. The idea of a weak and inefficient Austria-Hungary mostly stems from post WW1 propaganda done by British and French historians
2:18 Why is Norway covered by Sweden? Hadn't Norway been independent from the start of the nineteenth century? What am I missing?
Think they did a video on that but Norway was in a union with Sweden from 1814-1905.
@@Fika_Break I understand that but I can't think of an instance when a personal union resulted in a country being removed from the map.
Norway and Sweden were roommates
@@iamaveryepicman771 Roommates with benefits?
Russia: We are very disappointed in your decision.
Germany and Austria: Crimea River
Hi I‘m a great fan thanks for your hard work and for making this videos my weekly History lesson
Can you do how did the British Empire react to Cromwell taking power
very well done video. I think you should make a video about 7 years war.
Credits to History Matters, for allowing me to impress my family/friends with my "history knowledge" 😅
1:35 Nice transition!
It’s always wild to me that Franz Joseph led Austria from the Revolutions of 1848 all the way to WWI
I dig these quick humorous simplistic takes ao wars/history, but the comment section is pure gold.
The Crimean War always reminds me of Mackinder's words: “Who rules East Europe commands the Heartland; Who rules the Heartland commands the World Island; Who rules the World Island commands the World.”
I hope you know that this idea is severly outated
@@martonszucs8887 Not really. Mackinder may be old but his ideas about the heartland are still relevant, even if the rimland has shown itself to be more valuable than the heartland
@@tastyfalcon1788 soviet union?
@@theceoofpoland8648 What about it? It was the state that killed Russia and prevented the heartland from becoming the center of world politics
@@tastyfalcon1788 it controled all of eastern europe through either direct control and puppet regimes. Surely it's collapse discredits this "heartland" theory?
The Russians never forgave the Austrians for ratting on them in the Crimean War; they helped save Vienna’s bacon in 1849 and backed them up in the 1850 confrontation with Prussia (the Hesse Crisis). Vienna’s last chance to defeat Prussia, which they let slip away but which convinced Berlin to get ready for war with Austria. In 1859 and 1866 there’d be no Russian backup for Austria.
The Piedmontese joined the war because like many other people they thought Austria would honour its alliance with Russia, that would have allowed to open a second front against the two Empires in Northern Italy. That didn't happen because Franz Joseph (who had assume power few years before) unlike his predecessors was anti- Russian and wanted hegemony in the Balkans. His decision back then planted the seed of WWI.
Aw hell yeah im here right when it uploaded
Can you do “Why didn’t Japan conquer Thailand in World War II?” please
im pretty sure thailand was an ally of japan, and got some land from burma and french indochina, until they had to give it back. im not 100% sure, or you mean like why ally them instead of invasion, and the answer is to save resources and manpower
They didn't need to. A short demonstration to prove they could and would was all that was necessary for the Thais to let Japan through en route to Malaya and Burma, Japan's real goals. Japan didn't need Thailand's resources, only their "co-operation".
Between China and Britain they knew they couldn't hold onto it.
That's easy, Britain's fault.
God dayum i actually had no clear idea on the why on this behaviour and hobestly forgotten about Hungarian revolution ! Thanks !
Interestingly despite making basically the same decision the outcomes would be totally different. For Prussia it turned out to be exactly the right call, while it would proof disastrous for Austria
0:08 Small mistake: by the time the revolutionnary wars started, France had already annexed the inclaved Comtat Venaissin.
QUESTION 1:52 Pardon my ignorance, but who is the dude in the painting and why was his picture vandalized with another mustache and devil's horns????????? 🤣😈
I don't know who that is. But using common sense, it's pretty clear that it was the Ottoman Sultan
Either Suleyman the Magnificent or Mehmed IV, both tried to take Vienna
Funny as hell. Kudos to you and your crew. I love my history served up with a side of humor. Thanks!
0:43 had me burst out laughing
"Franz Joseph Yes He Lived That Long" makes for a great honorary title.
Because James Bisonette is the Grima Wormtongue of Franz Joseph.
All very topical 👍
The sad thing is that Austrian’s move was clever since it helped end the war and prevent it from becoming too bloody/expensive for both sides yet somehow came out of it the biggest loser…
Sometimes, good guys come last.
Nope, Austria move contributed directly to WW1.
It was certainly smarter for Austria not joining it, since it would've caused an earlier collapse of the Austrian Empire.
Nice video
this guy is literally the prequel of nearly any alternative history
"..it's only polite to invite everyone else." LMAO I never realized that !
Did the 1848 German revolution have anything to do with them staying out? Did it weaken their national strength?
The 1848 Revolutions weakened Austria, since Hungary broke away and they needed Russia to help them retake it (Austria also had revolts in Italy). As for Kleine Deutschland, the revolts weren't really a military disaster. Once the revolutionaries realized it wasn't going anywhere, they either calmed down or moved to the Americas. The Prussian army didn't really get hurt, since it didn't really have to do much.
Just my two cents: National strength isn't the right way to think about this. The monarchic states themselves came out on top and consolidated against the (pan-German) democratic movements, which were too weak and fragmented. So very broadly speaking, on the one hand you have pretty "strong" and internally relatively stable German states, which probably could have shouldered a war like that, but on the other hand the popular mindset was not very hungry for a far-away war like that and also both society and states much more absorbed with solving the German question first. I assume this is also another reason why Prussia didn't join the war. Besides the promise of territorial gains being spurious anyway, it would have caused pointless troubles and rivalry with Russia, while Prussia wanted/needed to focus on German lands and the German question.
I was the first person in the world to see this video
If James Bisonette would’ve sponsored Prussia they surely would’ve joined the war.
Just a thought. I feel like you should slow down on your speech in these videos. I find myself having to rewind a few times to grasp everything. Maybe aiming for a minute or so more on videos to account for slower speech? Just a thought. But I love your videos.