I mean, having to rule Croats, serbs, montengranians, bosnians, hungarians, austrian-germans, italians,slavs, poles, czechs, romanians who all don't want to be a part of your empire is work enough.
@@johnpijano4786 actually Poles really enjoyed Austrian rule, because it was good In comparison to Prussian and Russian conquered parts, that is. While these two made great (but failed in the end) efforts to kill of Polish language and heritage, Austrians gave some extent of autonomy, mainly in regards to social life But they would much more like being independent whole entity again at the time, that's undisputed. Yet still, Galicia as it was known, was good enough for Poles to seek refuge from Prussian and Russian parts of former Poland
It's the "al" rebellion of 1793. Prince Al wanted to merge with Austria, was rebuffed, took some sympathizers from Vienna to Botany Bay to form Austr"Al"ia. From SNL General Knowledge Jeopardy - "It's not what you know, it's what you think you know".
Hungary has a 'Ministry of Truth' - hanging in the office of one of the guys in charge of the 'Ministry of Truth' is a map of Greater Hungary, on his desk is a bust of a WWII-era Hungarian Gendarme. These three things are totally true.
Austria: Let's Colonize the world Hungary: Why do you want do colonize? Our country has enough problem and our navy sucks Austria: Cuz everyone who's a great power does that Hungary: Ok, but only if it's in MY GARDEN(Balkan Peninsula) Austria: I mean let's go big, Explore Africa and Asia Hungary: Nah *scramble for africa occured* *year is 1,914* Austria: Please let me do this Hungary Hungary: Fine... >:C
I'm American and I find it absolutely hilarious that you put "however many there were at the time" for the stars on the US flag. That earned a definite "like"
@@catlovingtrio I'm sure that the History Matters creator could have done this too. However putting instead "however many there were at the time", is absolute comedic genius. As, with the exception of the last 62 years, the number of stars on the flag has mostly changed quite often. In fact it was 45 stars for just those 12 years, but before that it was 44 for 5 years. And before that it was 43 for only 1 year.
@@Mike-kc5ew Those frequent changes (plus humor value) are why so many other History Matters videos just have the word "stars" there. It's only in the 20th century that the US kinda ran out of territories to make into new states, so the number of stars on the flag settled down: 48 from 1912-59 and 50 from 1960 on.* The two most likely possibilities for new US states are probably Puerto Rico and Washington DC. But both places _heavily_ favor the Democratic Party in national elections, and DC statehood has possible constitutional implications.** So neither have much chance of passing anytime soon.*** * New stars are added on the 4th of July following the new state's admission. Alaska and Hawaii both became states in 1959, but Alaska's statehood came before July 4, and Hawaii's after. ** The 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution (ratified in 1961) gave DC as many Electoral College electors as it would have if it were a state, but no more than the least-populous state -- 3, in practice. If DC became a state, it would likely leave the Capitol Mall area and its government buildings as a much smaller Federal District. But by the 23rd Amendment, that district would still have 3 electoral votes, despite its only residents being the sitting President and any family members or staff who also live at the White House. Giving a dozen or so people a small state's worth of voting power isn't exactly fair, so DC statehood would likely need another constitutional amendment to repeal the 23rd. ***** Without some radical realignment of parties, a big-enough Democrat supermajority in both houses of Congress, or some other state(s) willing to let a Republican-majority area split off as _another_ new state, the Republican Party members in Congress will always use procedural maneuvering to block any attempts at PR or DC statehood.
Actually during the Mexican-American war some people in government were considering annexing all of Mexico in the war, but they decided to go against for multiple reasons. 1. It would be an administrative nightmare considering how much territory they would have to occupy at once and all the people they have to keep in control of. 2. The territory’s that America did take including Arizona, California, Utah, and New Mexico were relatively empty with hardly any people around at all except for some troublesome natives (this was actually why Mexico encouraged immigration into Texas in the first place so that their would be some people there and to keep the natives in check) so America taking those territories weren’t to much of a problem, had they have taken the more populated regions it would mean having to deal with the large Mexican population and all of the social problems that will come with it of taking in people of a different culture, spoke a different language, and a mostly followed the Catholic Church. 3. The biggest thing was the slavery debate, by the time of the war the northern and southern politicians had agreed on the Missouri compromise where all new states that were below the state of Missouri were set as slave states and all at or above Missouri’s geographic location were all free states, so if the U.S were to have token over all of Mexico at that time period it would mean that all of what is modern day Mexico can be set as Slave states which is the last thing the northern wanted as it would give the South a huge advantage in politics and risk the spread of slavery in the south including the possible enslavement of the Mexicans themselves. So after all of that, the government scrapped plans of annexing all of Mexico and just went with taking its mostly barren colonies west of Texas, to ignore the can of worms that would happen with the government.
I think Emperor Franz Joseph’s distaste for colonialism came from personal experience, after his brother Emperor of Mexico Maximilian I was murdered after French imperial shenanigans tried to place him on the throne of Mexico
Albeit official history agrees with you, most people I know recognize the theory that Maximilian I wasn’t killed. He was well-liked by the majority of the upper class Mexicans as he ended up being more liberal than the conservatives who actually put him in power, much to the dislike of the pro-American liberals of the time. It was simply that the president who succeeded him (Benito Juárez), following the orders of his American sponsors, ousted him from power first, destabilizing his regime by financing violent uprisings across the country; surely no American at the time would have found acceptable to share a border with an Austro-Hungarian “protectorate”. However, given both Benito and Max were Freemasons, and they couldn’t have each other killed, he basically allowed his escape through El Salvador, where he sought refuge before sailing back to Vienna, and eventually he died there. Upon inspecting his corpse after the execution by firing squad, his own mother claimed that it could not have been him, as there was no resemblance whatsoever. I recommend you to look up the story behind the Votive Church of the Virgin Mary in Vienna and the story of Justo Armas. See for yourself if the dates add up…
@@jesusizquierdo3831Maximilian passed the Black Decree - summary execution for anyone found engaging in guerilla warfare. Benito respected Maximilian on a personal level, but went through with the execution to send a message to any other would-be foreign imperialists.
@Jonathan Kimberley It's a CrashCourse History reference. "...except for the Mongols" is something you'd hear so often it became a joke. Everything that was considered impossible until then (or even later, for reference some say the next time such "lightning warfare" was seen after Subutai's death was in WWII with the German motorized forces) was not so for the Mongols.
I study history in Austria, and our professor who is specialized in new history (1492-1918) told us it was because Austria already had regions taking the role of colonies (the balkan), and that's why colonies simply weren't needed.
@@jorenbosmans8065 That‘s a hard one. I would say an occupied piece of land turns into a colony when the occupiers 1. select the type of government and 2. profit of the extraction of resources by 3. forcing the local population to extract said resources, directly or indirectly (or replace the local population by a preferred population, like the british did in the americas) But when we actually define the terminology things turn complicated, because i could easily name some current powers who have colonies by this definition, but if i would share my opinion, i would be vehemently attacked for it. Overall, you are better off not defining terminology like this one and just accepting whatever the current narrative in your region is. Your country says this and that is a modern colony, you also call it one, your country says this one is not a modern colony, then it isn‘t one (Edit: and yes, what i wrote is stupid, but most of the time it is easier to be a sheep than a thinking human being. Choice is yours)
@@tschabow5608 this was a mere detailed answer than I expected, but it makes an interesting one especially with the argument that your professor made about the Balkans fullfilling the role of a colony (without ever being called that I think). And I can understand that you are reluctant to get into how this can still apply to modern situations. But it is indeed an interesting thought. Thanks for your reply.
@@tschabow5608 In the sense of your 3-part definition, the Balkans and other Slavic parts of the Austrian monarchy (Bohemia, Galicia...) could be described as colonies at least in the Baroque era. In the 19th century, the point no. 2 was no longer true and the point no. 3 gradually stopped to be true too.
Austrian navy was quite formidable and won her battles against Italy in the Adriatic. As well as in WW1. But of course it was not of a size you would need to maintain a colonial empire. It was only to protect the Adriatic coasts. And this task was fulfilled with ease.
@@anto-sk4ce Italy has always had the worst military in Europe. The Navy being no exception. The only member of the Entent with a really formidable Navy was the U.K. with America a close second if you considered them part of the Entente.
To compete with the rising rival of italy and thanks to direct enthusiasm from Franz Ferdinand (yes, that one) the Austro-Hungarian navy was actually pretty formidable by 1914, with a respectable fleet of Battleships, Cruisers and destroyers. They were comparable to italy or russia, but of course due to the nature of the adriatic they were easily bottled up, and suffered from fuel shortages, much like italy in WW2.
@@valentintapata2268 I think I also remember reading somewhere that they put their best officers on their destroyers and torpedo boats right? I guess they had more faith in that kind of warfare?
They had 4 dreadnoughts and 8 pre-dreadnoughts for service in 1914.France also had 4.But France’s pre-dreadnought fleet was larger.Russia had not dreadnought until December of 1914 and İtaly had 3 dreadnoughts in the beginning of WW1.
1914: 1st rate navies were Britain, Germany, USA and France. 2nd rate navies: Russia, Japan, Italy and Austria. 3rd/4th rate navies: Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, Ottoman Empire, Greece, Brazil, Chile and Argentina.
My good friend Franz Joseph knew that Austrian colonies would not work for a simple reason: It would not be possible for Germany to send troops to help.
That's true. However, I think he didn't realize that by snatching up what would become the Belgian Congo, he could have used it as a penal colony for the ethnic separatists within his borders, giving them exactly what they wanted in the most ironic way possible.
Austria-Hungary always seemed like more of a cultural power in world history, rather than an economic or political one. Admittedly, I haven’t studied it much, but that was the impression I always got. While traveling through Prague, Vienna, and Budapest, they definitely seemed smaller (physically and metaphorically) than most Western European cities I’ve been to, but they had a beauty and charm that many others didn’t.
No, it was an actual power in world history. You need to study your Hapsburg dynasty, my friend. The only reason Austria-Hungary existed in the first place was because of the Hapsburgs. That family cobbled together this large empire over 600 years, much like the Ottoman family cobbled together the Ottoman Empire. The peak of Hapsburg, and thus Austrian, power came in the early 1500s, when Charles, a Hapsburg emperor, had control of Spain, half of Italy, the Low Countries, a few chunks of France and the Holy Roman Empire. He also had Austria, Bohemia and bit of Hungary. It was under this Hapsburg's reign that Spain conquered Mexico and Peru, and that the Spanish circumnavigated the world for the first time.
@@pdruiz2005 you are speaking of the Hapsburg dynasty's influence, but it is not equal to the power of the A.H. empire. Of course they have a lot in common no doubt, but still...
Not to forget that in 1864, after the french invasion of Mexico, the younger brother of Kaiser Franz Joseph I., arch duke Ferdinand Maximilian, became Kaiser Maximilian I. of Mexico. Until he was executed 3 years later, that is. Not technically a colony, and not successful either, but still.
Let's also not forget about Maria Leopoldina, first empress of Brazil. Not a colony, of course, since she was one of the key figures in the Brazilian struggle for independence.
Austria's colonies were all in Europe. I always understood it that the navy was actually not too bad but the empire was such a crumbling mess that large overseas empires wouldn't work.
@@Leo-uu8du In terms of size, yes. It was constrained by budget and the fact that the empire was fractured though (different construction methods in the two halves and lots of different languages on every ship). Still, it definitely couldn't just be ignored
AH Navy was built for riverline and coastline protection, which it excelled at. It wasn't a crappy blue water navy - it was an amazing brown water navy.
Actually, Austria had made a couple of colonial endeavours in the 18th century, but they both failed due to a combination of factors; after 1867, during Austria-Hungary, there was rather limited investment in the development, and expansion of the navy, as the Hungarian Parliament was prioritizing investment/spending money in Hungary, not in colonial pursuits.
My great-grandfather was in the AH-Navy during WWI. He served on the SMS Novara and was at the battle of the Otranto Straight were they sunk quite a few of Entente ships.
Lmao, the US flag XD For the record it would have been 45 stars in 1900. Oklahoma was admitted in 1907, New Mexico and Arizona in 1912, and Alaska and Hawaii in 1959.
Why didnt the Austro-Hungarian empire have any colonies? *Hungarians,Czechs,Polish, Slovaks,Croats,Serbs,Bosniaks, Romanians and Ruthenians* want to know your location
Austria had for a while a Colony on the Nicobar Islands, but it was deemed to not be likely to bring profits and given up after a few years in 1785. Strange enough, the traditional ruling house of the Nicobars still has relations to Vienna. And you underestimate the Austrian fleet, compared for example with the Spanish or Portugese or Belgian one, it wasn't half bad
@@bluemountain4181 They literally owned the entirety of indonesia and had the second largest navy in Europe after the British, third largest world wide at the time of the Berlin conference. Also an army equal sized to but better trained and equipped then the Austrian-Hungarian one
1. The netherlands were represented by Philipp van der Hoeven. (they were invited and have taken part) 2. Portugal was one of the initiators that there was such a conference in the first place. 3. Austria Hungary = noob? Austrias first written appearance was 996 while Portugals first written appearance was around 868 both quite old so i wouldn't call them a noob considering most other european countries are much younger.
It's a bit of a stretch, but we could say they tried in Mexico. When Napoleon III invaded Mexico in 1862, he chose the Austro-Hungarian prince Maximilian as emperor and Max had some troops from his home country with him. Had the invasion been successful, Max might have ruled an Austro-Mexican empire.
but the Austro-Mexican empire was real, though. again, a stretch, but a ruling Habsburg being the Emperador/Kaiser of Mexico makes that technically true
At the time, the Austro-Hungarian Empire wasnt a thing yet. It was still the Austrian Empire. The Austrian Empire was a entirely different entity from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. For example, Hungary wasnt an autonomous region like it was in Austria-Hungary, The Austrian Empire still existed except demoted to an equal autonomy to the Kingdom of Hungary in Austria-Hungary [shocker, I know].
Please, use google translate spanish to english. Hola, yo teorizo que si Maximiliano de Habsburgo hubiera logrado vencer a la república y a Benito Juárez, hubiera logrado consolidar Austriahungría su primer "colonia" en América, hubiera sido la joya de la corona de los habsburgo a nivel internacional, una parte de los mexicanos amaban a Maximiliano de Habsburgo y a Karlota de Bélgica, yo pienso que en una línea temporal alternativa, el II Imperio Francés colapsa, nace el Imperio Alemán, nace la monarquía dual de Austriahungría, U.S anda muy débil por la guerra civil para atacar a México, pero Maximiliano logra controlar todo México, encierra a Benito Juárez o lo convierte en primer ministro (se lo ofreció Maximiliano), mejora el ejército, expande México en centroamérica hasta las fronteras de Panamá (Parte de Colombia antes de 1903), desarrolla la economía, educación, Maximiliano durante su corto reinado logró implementar leyes que protegían a los nativos mexicanos y a su población en general, hubiera desarrollado una marina fuerte, aerea, México al ser rico en recursos naturales hubiera exportado a Austriahungría, México tenía millones de habitantes, un factor de unidad entre el alternativo México-Austrohúngaro es que tienen en su mayoría de población religión católica, habla español siendo un idioma fácil (más o menos), las lenguas indígenas tambié al estar registradas, durante la WW1 México-AH hubiera sido vital en las Power Centrals al hacerle batalla a U.S, enviar recursos a AH, y millones de mexicanos que amaran a Maximiliano y al imperio AH sacrificarían sus vidas por el kaiser y por Maximiliano, las cosas pudieron ser brutales en la WW1 con un imperio AH con una colonia gigante siendo México-Austrohúngaro. Saludos.
0:30 Austria-Hungarians be like, that ships not sinking it’s just a very special submarine. That other one a special project to see if a ship can float upside down
It was smart not to pursue a colonial empire. The majority of colonies (with a notable and important exception being India) ended up costing their owners more than they ever brought in economic terms.
@@mebsrea Technically yes. Though the British Empire as a unit (even with India) cost the UK more to sustain than we got back directly. The secure slice of world trade however made it worth the expense... until 1945 at least when the US said "right: free trade everyone!", mooting the economic point for having an empire.
Jim Taylor Most importantly in my opinion, India provided a large proportion of British ground forces in Asia and the Mediterranean theater in both world wars.
The Franz Joseph Land worths mentioning. That archipelago was discovered by an Austro-Hungarian expedition which named it and laid claim on it in the name of the empire. Since however these islands are kinda cold and far away in the north, not much were done after. When the empire was dissolved after World War I, these islands were forgotten and simply omitted from the peace treaties. They were no man's land until the Sovietunion officially took posession of them in 1926.
Most imperial powers had a long tradition of smaller scale colonialism going on since the 1600s. Having a port with access to the world's oceans was an unspoken but required requirement if you wanted to join the club. So Austria-Hungary, which had ports with access to the Mediterranean, had to compete with nations like Great Britain and Italy, whose fleets could blockade their own fleet.
As I recall, there was even some hesitation within the empire to annex the Balkan territories. In truth, the Habsburg monarchy, being the defacto successors to the HRE, already had more than enough to deal with within their own territories. In an age of nationalism, the mutli-ethnic superstate held together by the flimsiest of medieval pretenses (personal rule of a monarch) was already teetering at the edge of credibility. While other European Empires coincided nicely with a national identity, England was "English", France was "French", Prussia managed to convince its neighbours that Germany was a thing, the Habsburg possessions were little more than the remnants of an ancient Christian feudal order. In a sense it's "overseas possessions" (if we take it to mean peoples and territories ruled by a monarch and an administration of a different ethnic and cultural composition than their own) was right next door. Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, Serbs, Slovaks, Slovenes, etc etc. were the "colonized" people of the German Austrians.
You say England was English. A slight correction, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (at that time) was a multi-national state. England was merely one part of that alongside Scotland, Wales and Ireland (Northern Ireland today). I think in the US (presuming you are American of course) there is some confusion surrounding the differences between England, Great Britain and the UK. The US war of independence, war of 1812 etc were conflicts fought against Great Britain not England. The original 13 colonies were started by England but they achieved independence from Great Britain. A key date in this was the 1707 Act of Union between the kingdoms of England and Scotland which created the new kingdom of Great Britain.
You made a mistake in the video,the Austro Humgarian empire did have a pretty decent fleet,not as strong as britain but on par with italy,russia,ottomans and maybe france
Mikayil Aliyev you clerly dont know history,imperial russia had one of the strongest navies in the world up until the battle of tsushima,italy had a decent fleet which could stand her ground in the medditerrenian and the ottomans had one of the strongest navies in the world in the 16,17,18 century,Austria Hungary before WW1 had the 4 largest fleet in the world
The AH navy was small but considered quite modern. It wasn’t developed to invade but was primarily defensive and exploratory in nature, having been used for several major research expeditions, and not really as a offensive force. I’m surprised there is no mention of the Ostend company, the sale of which is considered by most historians as having been an early and major reason for the lack of development of overseas trade (which was a driving force for most colonial expansion).
They did not have open ports their most important ports were in Italy now chiogiia and in Croatia which opened into the Mediterranean so it was defensive ports you couldn't have open ships sailing to the Indian Ocean without crossing their main rival the Ottomans and also the French who disliked the Austrians
Actually at some short point in history, Austria inherited the enitre spanish empire and it's colonies in America. But they quickly split appart again because that was quite heavy to manage.
Karl der 5te (Carlos III.). Aber die Habsburger Inzuchtspatzisauger haben das Spanische Reich in den Abgrund geführt. Karl the 5th aka Carlos III (in Spain). But those inbred Habsburger ran the Spanish Empire into the ground. The last one was a drooling r.tard, so Spain got stomped by Napoleon, suffered a serious of internal rebellions etc. and finally the Bourbons took over. Then the Leftists tried to ruin it some more, until they had their shit shoved in by the saviour of Spain, Franco.
@@pletskoo514 HRE Emperor Karl the Vth inherited the SPanish crown and was Emperor of the HRE as well as King of Spain and it's Empire. But he then split the inheritance and so the Spanish Habsburg line was "born"...
@@youtubemodsaresnowflakelef7692 It wasn't his to split. He claimed the Spanish inheritance, but Charles II of Spain had in fact given it to Philippe of Anjou (grandson of Louis XIV). War then broke out, with France/Spain on one side and everyone else on the other. The grand alliance finally was forced to recognize Philippe as the king (Felipe V) but Austria was given Belgium and most of Italy as compensation.
the minorities groups(south/west slavs, hungarians,etc) would inmigrante to the colonies, become a majority in the colony and declare independence and if they succeed, they would make a governement in exile in the new state because this could validate the claims in the european mainland ex:"Hungarian Western Sahara" (random name) claims the rightful land of it's people that are being opressed by the Austrian government
You forgot a key factor: Geography. Austria-Hungary had to go through the Adriatic and Mediterranean Seas to get anywhere. The most they could have colonized directly was along the coast of North Africa and perhaps the Levant if they wanted to. Austria-Hungary would have to cross these seas to get to the Atlantic Ocean, or them and the Red Sea to reach the Indian Ocean. Britain had the colonial power it had because they were based on large islands and placed an emphasis on its navy. Russia colonized Alaska but put most of its chips into contiguous expansion through much of Eurasia, putting as many klicks between its people and enemies as possible. Russia's size is its greatest strength but most of its coastline is north of the Arctic Circle and thus freezes over most of the year. France had quite a colonial empire thanks to having shorelines along the Atlantic Ocean, English Channel, and Mediterranean. The fact that they have plenty of rivers and fertile soil for growing crops helps a great deal. America became the superpower that it is today mainly because it borders THREE oceans and covers both hemispheres (American Samoa, though still within the tropics, is SOUTH of the Equator). We're a huge country, having one where at least thirty could fit if there were any meaningful basis for it. And because we're surrounded by so much ocean, we're well away from most powers that would threaten us.
Spain and Portugal also had colonial Empires themselves before the 19th century, which they lost a bit of it thanks to Napoleon for the same reason. Easy access to the world oceans.
I imagine that the Austro-Hungarians gave support to the Germans and their desire to get colonies so that, Imperial Germany would become stronger and be better able to prop up Austria-Hungary. Besides, Austria-Hungary had the Balkans to expand into and didn't need costly overseas colonies in order to have more territory.
Thank you for this video, as a Hungarian myself, I have never heard about our colonial efforts at school whatsoever! Though probably because these things are more related to Austria rather than Hungary as they had more influence on the politics of the empire than us. Interesting stuff!
So I just realised that after 1 year into constantly History Matters, binging EVERY SINGLE VIDEO - multiple times - and regularly checking in to see if a new video is out... That I hadn't subscribed! @historymatters I'm so sorry for this!
Hey, nice video, but I wanted to point one thing out about the Austrian-Hungarian navy. I haven't read up on this recently so please take this with a grain of salt and check out more info on it yourself if you're curious. Anyways, the Austrian-Hungarian navy was bulked up at least in the period of time leading up to WW1. This wasn't a huge difference, but it did make the Austrian navy competent and surprisingly modern enough that the British had to respect their territorial waters a bit or be at risk of losing ships It was hardly enough to be able to project force with, but I think it's worth pointing out because it's a heck of a lot better than buying used ships from other countries and then watching them sink as soon as they go to sea. :p
The reason they couldnt had a colonial empire is because of their geographical position,if they wanted something in west africa they needed to pass the gibraltar and fight spain,Spain would just block the strait,if they wanted in east africa they would have to fight italy who had a big portion of east africa and would block the austro-hungarian navy in the adriatic
For about a year between 1877-1878, the Austrian-Hungarians had a possession in North Borneo through their Hong Kong Consul Baron Gustav von Overbeck who tried to promote it as a colonial possession to the Austro-Hungarians, Germans and Italians. None of them took him up on it and North Borneo was sold to Alfred Dent of the UK who founded a charter company to rule North Borneo.
Merchant to Franz : Can we have an overseas empire?
Franz: No, we already have an empire at home.
"Empire at home": an absolute mess
Empire at home: *Gunshot*
@@JB-xl2jc imagine if that would start a global war that killed millions
Empire at home:
@@loaf_ve IKR, that would be fun, but would never happen
AHE: “We don’t want to deal with the hassle of colonies.”
Peace conference: “How about a random road in China?”
AHE: “SOLD!”
993
Lmfao
I mean, having to rule Croats, serbs, montengranians, bosnians, hungarians, austrian-germans, italians,slavs, poles, czechs, romanians who all don't want to be a part of your empire is work enough.
@@johnpijano4786 actually Poles really enjoyed Austrian rule, because it was good
In comparison to Prussian and Russian conquered parts, that is.
While these two made great (but failed in the end) efforts to kill of Polish language and heritage, Austrians gave some extent of autonomy, mainly in regards to social life
But they would much more like being independent whole entity again at the time, that's undisputed. Yet still, Galicia as it was known, was good enough for Poles to seek refuge from Prussian and Russian parts of former Poland
Ehh, no, actually, it wasn't JUST a simple road. It was actually a small portion of the city. So, more than one road, then.
I think this is the first History Matters video I’ve watched that didn’t include a special thanks to James Bisonette.
Or Spinning Three Plates. Or Kelly Moneymaker, for that matter. Something must be wrong.
party boi-co was first?! 😄😥
They forgot to pay their dues.
Truly a disappointment
Whatever happened to filthy oink oink
Austria-Hungary: "BEHOLD, OUR COLONIAL EMPIRE"
*a road*
2:25 yea that made smile on my face:)
@Master Yoda "laugh in British"
They had a colony in China
@@howardthealien2606 Yes. A road. In China
@Master Yoda Yes, I agree
Next Video:
"Why Australia split off from Austria"
Why Australia rip off Austria*
@@mr.ramfan8100 lol you dont get the joke
It's the "al" rebellion of 1793. Prince Al wanted to merge with Austria, was rebuffed, took some sympathizers from Vienna to Botany Bay to form Austr"Al"ia.
From SNL General Knowledge Jeopardy - "It's not what you know, it's what you think you know".
@@Eza_yuta hahahahahaha Damn, dude😂😂😂😂😂😂
Your an idiot!!
‘Why didn’t Austria have any colonies’
*Hungary wants to know your location*
*The Balkans want to know your location*
Hungary has a 'Ministry of Truth' - hanging in the office of one of the guys in charge of the 'Ministry of Truth' is a map of Greater Hungary, on his desk is a bust of a WWII-era Hungarian Gendarme. These three things are totally true.
Austria: Let's Colonize the world
Hungary: Why do you want do colonize? Our country has enough problem and our navy sucks
Austria: Cuz everyone who's a great power does that
Hungary: Ok, but only if it's in MY GARDEN(Balkan Peninsula)
Austria: I mean let's go big, Explore Africa and Asia
Hungary: Nah
*scramble for africa occured*
*year is 1,914*
Austria: Please let me do this Hungary
Hungary: Fine... >:C
@@fuzzydunlop7928 Greater Hungary maps can be found anywhere. It's a very common thing.
@@fuzzydunlop7928 Greater Hungary maps can be found anywhere. It's a very common thing.
"It liked to eat Balkan countries"
Literally, the royal family every night would sit down, and have a piece of Bosnia for dinner
There was no balkan countries at the time. It was a wasteland after the ottoman empire.
@@gvl1260 Montenegro already independent in 1878, Greek in 1821, Serbia in 1882, and Romania in 1881. That at least 2 years before Berlin Conference.
@@gvl1260 Your history knowledge is total crap.
Right until Franz Josef and his wife choked to death on the table, and no one bothered to save them.
@@MasonGreenWeed I think he meant development wise. The Ottomans didn't develop it very well under their later reign
Showing a mongol as an exception. You have class good sir.
I don't get the joke. :?
OneAngryCat
Well in this YT channel CrashCourse history there’s this running gag where everything is impossible in history except for the Mongols.
@@xaviersaavedra7442 i was thinking of the mad baron, ungern von sternberg. The reincarnation of gengis khan.
Xavier Saavedra ”cue the mongol-tage”
@@dogmeatgeneral-6628 me too :D
Austro-Hungarian empire for sure had a beautiful flag.
It's the same one as modern day Austria ....
Flo Punkt ...
That was the naval flag
Flo Punkt pretty sure there isnt any green and a crown on modern day Austria’s flag .. but then again what do i know xd
Yeah, that's the Hungarian half.
I'm American and I find it absolutely hilarious that you put "however many there were at the time" for the stars on the US flag. That earned a definite "like"
I did some Googling. It took less than a minute, and I learned there were 45 States at the time.
@@catlovingtrio I'm sure that the History Matters creator could have done this too. However putting instead "however many there were at the time", is absolute comedic genius. As, with the exception of the last 62 years, the number of stars on the flag has mostly changed quite often. In fact it was 45 stars for just those 12 years, but before that it was 44 for 5 years. And before that it was 43 for only 1 year.
It was indeed a top tier joke.
@@Mike-kc5ew Those frequent changes (plus humor value) are why so many other History Matters videos just have the word "stars" there. It's only in the 20th century that the US kinda ran out of territories to make into new states, so the number of stars on the flag settled down: 48 from 1912-59 and 50 from 1960 on.*
The two most likely possibilities for new US states are probably Puerto Rico and Washington DC. But both places _heavily_ favor the Democratic Party in national elections, and DC statehood has possible constitutional implications.** So neither have much chance of passing anytime soon.***
* New stars are added on the 4th of July following the new state's admission. Alaska and Hawaii both became states in 1959, but Alaska's statehood came before July 4, and Hawaii's after.
** The 23rd Amendment to the US Constitution (ratified in 1961) gave DC as many Electoral College electors as it would have if it were a state, but no more than the least-populous state -- 3, in practice. If DC became a state, it would likely leave the Capitol Mall area and its government buildings as a much smaller Federal District. But by the 23rd Amendment, that district would still have 3 electoral votes, despite its only residents being the sitting President and any family members or staff who also live at the White House. Giving a dozen or so people a small state's worth of voting power isn't exactly fair, so DC statehood would likely need another constitutional amendment to repeal the 23rd.
***** Without some radical realignment of parties, a big-enough Democrat supermajority in both houses of Congress, or some other state(s) willing to let a Republican-majority area split off as _another_ new state, the Republican Party members in Congress will always use procedural maneuvering to block any attempts at PR or DC statehood.
Because James Bissonette didn't sponsor them, just like this video.
So basically...because they were the Austro-Hungarian Empire?
right they already had a empire
@@DrShocktopus the only well known one was Bosnia which pissed off Serbia and a certain Gavrello Princip
@@DrShocktopus They colonised like 1/5 of the Balkans (only Croatia and Bosnia
@@tonis1167 Also Vojvodina
@@2712animefreak
Voivodina is north of the danube so geographically it is not part of the Balkans.
2:21 "however many there were at the time" should be the new American flag, we would never have to worry about changing the flag ever again.
Conquering Mexico and Central America would permanently end the immigration debate, and Panama would be an infinitely more defensible border...
The usa flag today instead of 50 stars it should just say "50 stars" instead
Actually during the Mexican-American war some people in government were considering annexing all of Mexico in the war, but they decided to go against for multiple reasons. 1. It would be an administrative nightmare considering how much territory they would have to occupy at once and all the people they have to keep in control of. 2. The territory’s that America did take including Arizona, California, Utah, and New Mexico were relatively empty with hardly any people around at all except for some troublesome natives (this was actually why Mexico encouraged immigration into Texas in the first place so that their would be some people there and to keep the natives in check) so America taking those territories weren’t to much of a problem, had they have taken the more populated regions it would mean having to deal with the large Mexican population and all of the social problems that will come with it of taking in people of a different culture, spoke a different language, and a mostly followed the Catholic Church. 3. The biggest thing was the slavery debate, by the time of the war the northern and southern politicians had agreed on the Missouri compromise where all new states that were below the state of Missouri were set as slave states and all at or above Missouri’s geographic location were all free states, so if the U.S were to have token over all of Mexico at that time period it would mean that all of what is modern day Mexico can be set as Slave states which is the last thing the northern wanted as it would give the South a huge advantage in politics and risk the spread of slavery in the south including the possible enslavement of the Mexicans themselves.
So after all of that, the government scrapped plans of annexing all of Mexico and just went with taking its mostly barren colonies west of Texas, to ignore the can of worms that would happen with the government.
Yea, that part had me laughing pretty good. Good stuff indeed
@@seannolan9857 Defensible against what?
I think Emperor Franz Joseph’s distaste for colonialism came from personal experience, after his brother Emperor of Mexico Maximilian I was murdered after French imperial shenanigans tried to place him on the throne of Mexico
Albeit official history agrees with you, most people I know recognize the theory that Maximilian I wasn’t killed.
He was well-liked by the majority of the upper class Mexicans as he ended up being more liberal than the conservatives who actually put him in power, much to the dislike of the pro-American liberals of the time. It was simply that the president who succeeded him (Benito Juárez), following the orders of his American sponsors, ousted him from power first, destabilizing his regime by financing violent uprisings across the country; surely no American at the time would have found acceptable to share a border with an Austro-Hungarian “protectorate”.
However, given both Benito and Max were Freemasons, and they couldn’t have each other killed, he basically allowed his escape through El Salvador, where he sought refuge before sailing back to Vienna, and eventually he died there. Upon inspecting his corpse after the execution by firing squad, his own mother claimed that it could not have been him, as there was no resemblance whatsoever.
I recommend you to look up the story behind the Votive Church of the Virgin Mary in Vienna and the story of Justo Armas. See for yourself if the dates add up…
Maximilian's execution was a mistake, Juarez had been spared before during the war and he did not do the same, I really hate that guy
@@jesusizquierdo3831Maximilian passed the Black Decree - summary execution for anyone found engaging in guerilla warfare.
Benito respected Maximilian on a personal level, but went through with the execution to send a message to any other would-be foreign imperialists.
Maximilian could have been to Mexico what Pedro II was to Brazil.
@@LeifWarner Evidently not a good enough message given how much Mexico is now the United States’s cheap whore
*BEHOLD OUR COLONIAL EMPIRE SPANNING AN ENTIRE 2,000 FT, OR IN OTHER WORDS A WHOLE 6 BLOCKS! YES.*
believe it *WOOOOWWWWW OMFG*
I mean I would have liked to...
If you could have just one larger colony where would you want it?
Romulus Numa in the balkans
Austria would just be more cucked
You had a piece of China though!
@@antonio2170 Wanna fight over the isonzo river again?
"there was an exception"
*shows a mongol*
An amazing reference
Cue the MongolTage!
Cause it makes so much sense you know.
Exception Inception
@Jonathan Kimberley It's a CrashCourse History reference. "...except for the Mongols" is something you'd hear so often it became a joke. Everything that was considered impossible until then (or even later, for reference some say the next time such "lightning warfare" was seen after Subutai's death was in WWII with the German motorized forces) was not so for the Mongols.
@@agustinl2302 well they liked mobile warfare even back when they were called "Prussia"
I study history in Austria, and our professor who is specialized in new history (1492-1918) told us it was because Austria already had regions taking the role of colonies (the balkan), and that's why colonies simply weren't needed.
Kind of makes me wonder: at what moment does a piece of land taken by another country become a colony?
@@jorenbosmans8065 That‘s a hard one. I would say an occupied piece of land turns into a colony when the occupiers 1. select the type of government and 2. profit of the extraction of resources by 3. forcing the local population to extract said resources, directly or indirectly (or replace the local population by a preferred population, like the british did in the americas)
But when we actually define the terminology things turn complicated, because i could easily name some current powers who have colonies by this definition, but if i would share my opinion, i would be vehemently attacked for it. Overall, you are better off not defining terminology like this one and just accepting whatever the current narrative in your region is. Your country says this and that is a modern colony, you also call it one, your country says this one is not a modern colony, then it isn‘t one
(Edit: and yes, what i wrote is stupid, but most of the time it is easier to be a sheep than a thinking human being. Choice is yours)
@@tschabow5608 this was a mere detailed answer than I expected, but it makes an interesting one especially with the argument that your professor made about the Balkans fullfilling the role of a colony (without ever being called that I think).
And I can understand that you are reluctant to get into how this can still apply to modern situations. But it is indeed an interesting thought.
Thanks for your reply.
The Balkans are a colony even today.
@@tschabow5608 In the sense of your 3-part definition, the Balkans and other Slavic parts of the Austrian monarchy (Bohemia, Galicia...) could be described as colonies at least in the Baroque era. In the 19th century, the point no. 2 was no longer true and the point no. 3 gradually stopped to be true too.
Austrian navy was quite formidable and won her battles against Italy in the Adriatic. As well as in WW1. But of course it was not of a size you would need to maintain a colonial empire. It was only to protect the Adriatic coasts. And this task was fulfilled with ease.
Wait italy didn't sank like 2 dreadnoughts
@@anto-sk4ce, Leopold did not say the Austro-Hungarian Navy did not have any losses, he said they accomplished their mission.
@@marktercsak9728 yes but the entente had a stronger navy
@@anto-sk4ce Italy has always had the worst military in Europe. The Navy being no exception. The only member of the Entent with a really formidable Navy was the U.K. with America a close second if you considered them part of the Entente.
@@winnienguyen4420 france had a good navy and italy too, italy challenged very well austria in ww1 in all fronts
Austria-Hungary: I have a road in Tianjin, what do you have ?
Leopold II: Well the whole of Congo is my backyard so
Hey, OK, to be fair, Austria-Hungary had another concession in Shanghai, and also occupied parts of Peking after the Battle of Peking in 1900z
What is personally owning a huge portion of an entire continent and all its citizens abnormal?
To compete with the rising rival of italy and thanks to direct enthusiasm from Franz Ferdinand (yes, that one) the Austro-Hungarian navy was actually pretty formidable by 1914, with a respectable fleet of Battleships, Cruisers and destroyers. They were comparable to italy or russia, but of course due to the nature of the adriatic they were easily bottled up, and suffered from fuel shortages, much like italy in WW2.
Austro-Hungarian school for navy officers was also one of the best in the world. Navy Personnel was mostly (at least % wise) Slovenian and Croatian.
@@valentintapata2268 I think I also remember reading somewhere that they put their best officers on their destroyers and torpedo boats right? I guess they had more faith in that kind of warfare?
They had 4 dreadnoughts and 8 pre-dreadnoughts for service in 1914.France also had 4.But France’s pre-dreadnought fleet was larger.Russia had not dreadnought until December of 1914 and İtaly had 3 dreadnoughts in the beginning of WW1.
Valentin Tapata That is mostly Croatian and some Slovenians.
1914: 1st rate navies were Britain, Germany, USA and France. 2nd rate navies: Russia, Japan, Italy and Austria. 3rd/4th rate navies: Spain, Sweden, the Netherlands, Ottoman Empire, Greece, Brazil, Chile and Argentina.
Austria-Hungary: we got a colony
The colony: --> .
A ROAD
My good friend Franz Joseph knew that Austrian colonies would not work for a simple reason: It would not be possible for Germany to send troops to help.
That's true. However, I think he didn't realize that by snatching up what would become the Belgian Congo, he could have used it as a penal colony for the ethnic separatists within his borders, giving them exactly what they wanted in the most ironic way possible.
My Empire really sucks at this point my Kamerad!
@Aryan Verma I think you misunderstood my words, Herr Hitler. "Ethnic separatists" referred only to actual terrorists of non-German stock.
Oof
That was savage...
Austria-Hungary always seemed like more of a cultural power in world history, rather than an economic or political one. Admittedly, I haven’t studied it much, but that was the impression I always got. While traveling through Prague, Vienna, and Budapest, they definitely seemed smaller (physically and metaphorically) than most Western European cities I’ve been to, but they had a beauty and charm that many others didn’t.
No, it was an actual power in world history. You need to study your Hapsburg dynasty, my friend. The only reason Austria-Hungary existed in the first place was because of the Hapsburgs. That family cobbled together this large empire over 600 years, much like the Ottoman family cobbled together the Ottoman Empire. The peak of Hapsburg, and thus Austrian, power came in the early 1500s, when Charles, a Hapsburg emperor, had control of Spain, half of Italy, the Low Countries, a few chunks of France and the Holy Roman Empire. He also had Austria, Bohemia and bit of Hungary. It was under this Hapsburg's reign that Spain conquered Mexico and Peru, and that the Spanish circumnavigated the world for the first time.
@@pdruiz2005 you are speaking of the Hapsburg dynasty's influence, but it is not equal to the power of the A.H. empire.
Of course they have a lot in common no doubt, but still...
Not to forget that in 1864, after the french invasion of Mexico, the younger brother of Kaiser Franz Joseph I., arch duke Ferdinand Maximilian, became Kaiser Maximilian I. of Mexico. Until he was executed 3 years later, that is. Not technically a colony, and not successful either, but still.
Wtf? I never heard that in class!
@@ileanahes4100 No recuerdo 🤷♂️
Let's also not forget about Maria Leopoldina, first empress of Brazil. Not a colony, of course, since she was one of the key figures in the Brazilian struggle for independence.
Next episode why didnt luxembourg have a colonial empire.
It was dangerous enough without them
it had a galatic empire, but those damm rebels put a end to that
Steven Wills I think it’s pretty obvious why. They were already too OP
Because they were landlocked, duh
@@kelseiilive6115 Nah mate that's a conspiracy Luxembourg is a island in the pacific.
they didn't use skillshare
Hsj Bah or gramar
Excuse you! How dare you forget Austro-Hungary's greatest colony: Franz Josef Land!
thats right! it also gives access to the ocean
Well… it was named for Franz Josef but it was actually never Austro-Hungarian.
No it wasn't. The AH Govmnt. said they don't want the land, but a Hungarian explorer discovered it, hence the name.
It's nice that the Russians kept its original name
@@martinhorvath4117 De hogy is, a felfedezést egy osztrák vezette és csak egy magyar volt benne a csapatban.
Country: Why are you invading me?
Me playing EU4: 1:22
I love the open arms and BEHOLD in 2:28.
Austria's colonies were all in Europe.
I always understood it that the navy was actually not too bad but the empire was such a crumbling mess that large overseas empires wouldn't work.
Actually AH had one of the best navies in the world during that time.
@@Leo-uu8du In terms of size, yes. It was constrained by budget and the fact that the empire was fractured though (different construction methods in the two halves and lots of different languages on every ship). Still, it definitely couldn't just be ignored
AH Navy was built for riverline and coastline protection, which it excelled at. It wasn't a crappy blue water navy - it was an amazing brown water navy.
Actually, Austria had made a couple of colonial endeavours in the 18th century, but they both failed due to a combination of factors; after 1867, during Austria-Hungary, there was rather limited investment in the development, and expansion of the navy, as the Hungarian Parliament was prioritizing investment/spending money in Hungary, not in colonial pursuits.
@@mariusmatei2946 interesting. I wasn't aware of that. Where were they planning to colonise?
Nice Crash Course reference, my man!
I missed it. Please cite.
oh, the mongols? ha ha
@2:13 LOL
2:21 45 stars, if you're curious.
Colonies
Austria Hungary: *We don't do that here*
yeah
Except for Bosnia and Herzegovina which saw the most brutal colonialist rule of all time.
I believe when Miklós Horthy was questioned about why they had no colonies he basically said they just didn't think about it nor did they care
TBH the Austrio-Hungarian navy was punching above its weight during WWI.
My great-grandfather was in the AH-Navy during WWI. He served on the SMS Novara and was at the battle of the Otranto Straight were they sunk quite a few of Entente ships.
It really wasn't though, Italy didn't have that much of a strong navy and neither really used their navy anyway.
2:21
Why does that joke seem so familiar...?
Because John green and crash course history
@@victorviereck4117 John Green does the History, not Hank.
I belive it was 48
Because the British already spilled the tea so safe *harbor* was lost for them
@Sir Panda
It's harbour m8 >:(
When he walked up with a sign saying “hello savage” I died
*"Hello Savages"*
You couldn't be more accurate.
Lmao, the US flag XD
For the record it would have been 45 stars in 1900. Oklahoma was admitted in 1907, New Mexico and Arizona in 1912, and Alaska and Hawaii in 1959.
Lol I didn’t even notice it. Thanks for pointing it out.
almost got Upper Canada, and Lower Canada too, but couldn't sustain it
.
That was a good tea-sprayed-on-the-monitor moment.
What about Puerto Rico ?
Why didnt the Austro-Hungarian empire have any colonies? *Hungarians,Czechs,Polish, Slovaks,Croats,Serbs,Bosniaks, Romanians and Ruthenians* want to know your location
Those weren’t colonies, they were states integrated with Austria
Gluten Free you didnt get the joke
And Slovenians
And Italians
Jakub Šmelka Yeah. Apparently if it’s in Europe it can’t be a colony. 🙄
I love the history of austria-hungary, and this video is amazing
>Be austria
>CASUS BELLI ADMIT HEGEMONY NOW
Austria had for a while a Colony on the Nicobar Islands, but it was deemed to not be likely to bring profits and given up after a few years in 1785. Strange enough, the traditional ruling house of the Nicobars still has relations to Vienna. And you underestimate the Austrian fleet, compared for example with the Spanish or Portugese or Belgian one, it wasn't half bad
They had a few "factories" in India about the same time, but got pushed out.
Fun fact. During the 17th century, Austria technically had the largest colonial empire, due to Habsburg Spain
Eh maybe besides the Qing but you could be right
Now talk about why the Dutch weren’t invited to the Berlin conference to decide on European colonies in Africa!
Probably because they weren't a great power in the 1800s
Hint: Boer Wars
@@bluemountain4181
That's rubbish, Portugal was even weaker then either the Netherlands or Austria-Hungary and still got their fair share in Africa
@@bluemountain4181 They literally owned the entirety of indonesia and had the second largest navy in Europe after the British, third largest world wide at the time of the Berlin conference. Also an army equal sized to but better trained and equipped then the Austrian-Hungarian one
1. The netherlands were represented by Philipp van der Hoeven. (they were invited and have taken part)
2. Portugal was one of the initiators that there was such a conference in the first place.
3. Austria Hungary = noob? Austrias first written appearance was 996 while Portugals first written appearance was around 868 both quite old so i wouldn't call them a noob considering most other european countries are much younger.
0:00 Why does it looks so freaking good? Damn, along with the German Empire, Austria-Hungary had the most sexy borders in the whole history.
The Great Overseas Austro-Hungarian Empire!
An amazing 150 Acres in Tianjin😂
Hey at least they got some overseas territority
It's a bit of a stretch, but we could say they tried in Mexico. When Napoleon III invaded Mexico in 1862, he chose the Austro-Hungarian prince Maximilian as emperor and Max had some troops from his home country with him. Had the invasion been successful, Max might have ruled an Austro-Mexican empire.
but the Austro-Mexican empire was real, though. again, a stretch, but a ruling Habsburg being the Emperador/Kaiser of Mexico makes that technically true
At the time, the Austro-Hungarian Empire wasnt a thing yet. It was still the Austrian Empire. The Austrian Empire was a entirely different entity from the Austro-Hungarian Empire. For example, Hungary wasnt an autonomous region like it was in Austria-Hungary, The Austrian Empire still existed except demoted to an equal autonomy to the Kingdom of Hungary in Austria-Hungary [shocker, I know].
Please, use google translate spanish to english. Hola, yo teorizo que si Maximiliano de Habsburgo hubiera logrado vencer a la república y a Benito Juárez, hubiera logrado consolidar Austriahungría su primer "colonia" en América, hubiera sido la joya de la corona de los habsburgo a nivel internacional, una parte de los mexicanos amaban a Maximiliano de Habsburgo y a Karlota de Bélgica, yo pienso que en una línea temporal alternativa, el II Imperio Francés colapsa, nace el Imperio Alemán, nace la monarquía dual de Austriahungría, U.S anda muy débil por la guerra civil para atacar a México, pero Maximiliano logra controlar todo México, encierra a Benito Juárez o lo convierte en primer ministro (se lo ofreció Maximiliano), mejora el ejército, expande México en centroamérica hasta las fronteras de Panamá (Parte de Colombia antes de 1903), desarrolla la economía, educación, Maximiliano durante su corto reinado logró implementar leyes que protegían a los nativos mexicanos y a su población en general, hubiera desarrollado una marina fuerte, aerea, México al ser rico en recursos naturales hubiera exportado a Austriahungría, México tenía millones de habitantes, un factor de unidad entre el alternativo México-Austrohúngaro es que tienen en su mayoría de población religión católica, habla español siendo un idioma fácil (más o menos), las lenguas indígenas tambié al estar registradas, durante la WW1 México-AH hubiera sido vital en las Power Centrals al hacerle batalla a U.S, enviar recursos a AH, y millones de mexicanos que amaran a Maximiliano y al imperio AH sacrificarían sus vidas por el kaiser y por Maximiliano, las cosas pudieron ser brutales en la WW1 con un imperio AH con una colonia gigante siendo México-Austrohúngaro. Saludos.
0:30 Austria-Hungarians be like, that ships not sinking it’s just a very special submarine. That other one a special project to see if a ship can float upside down
XD
Hmm... it would have been interesting to see Austro-Hungarian West Sahara.
Moroccans speaking German is very epic
@@braincoolo9399 i am an moroccan who is speaking german.. Thanks for the compliment.
It was smart not to pursue a colonial empire. The majority of colonies (with a notable and important exception being India) ended up costing their owners more than they ever brought in economic terms.
@@mebsrea Technically yes. Though the British Empire as a unit (even with India) cost the UK more to sustain than we got back directly. The secure slice of world trade however made it worth the expense... until 1945 at least when the US said "right: free trade everyone!", mooting the economic point for having an empire.
Jim Taylor Most importantly in my opinion, India provided a large proportion of British ground forces in Asia and the Mediterranean theater in both world wars.
I love the fact you put famous artworks at the end of your vids but put it in your own style
The Franz Joseph Land worths mentioning. That archipelago was discovered by an Austro-Hungarian expedition which named it and laid claim on it in the name of the empire.
Since however these islands are kinda cold and far away in the north, not much were done after. When the empire was dissolved after World War I, these islands were forgotten and simply omitted from the peace treaties. They were no man's land until the Sovietunion officially took posession of them in 1926.
And I think this island is still called Franz Joseph Land !
Wair, where is it then?
@@USSFFRU It's an archipelago in the Arctic Ocean, north of the Russian mainland.
why didn't you get colonies?
Austria-Hungary: You think we should add ANOTHER ethnicity into our empire?? Are you MAD?!?
Man, that upside down dinghy and the sinking destroyer.... Golden!
1:30 Yeah, tell those pesky Austro Hungarians!
Man, the sarcasm in this video is OOOOOOH
I laughed way to hard at the “stars” on the American flag 😂
Because Austria wasn't Hungary for colonies.
lol that’s a good one
Austria-Hungary: We will colonize Balkan
Serbia: No, you won't
Most imperial powers had a long tradition of smaller scale colonialism going on since the 1600s.
Having a port with access to the world's oceans was an unspoken but required requirement if you wanted to join the club.
So Austria-Hungary, which had ports with access to the Mediterranean, had to compete with nations like Great Britain and Italy, whose fleets could blockade their own fleet.
Next video:
Why there is no border between japan and hungary.
Is this some kind of Hungarian meme?
Üdv uram!
02:13
Hey, I understood that reference.
As I recall, there was even some hesitation within the empire to annex the Balkan territories. In truth, the Habsburg monarchy, being the defacto successors to the HRE, already had more than enough to deal with within their own territories. In an age of nationalism, the mutli-ethnic superstate held together by the flimsiest of medieval pretenses (personal rule of a monarch) was already teetering at the edge of credibility. While other European Empires coincided nicely with a national identity, England was "English", France was "French", Prussia managed to convince its neighbours that Germany was a thing, the Habsburg possessions were little more than the remnants of an ancient Christian feudal order. In a sense it's "overseas possessions" (if we take it to mean peoples and territories ruled by a monarch and an administration of a different ethnic and cultural composition than their own) was right next door. Hungarians, Czechs, Poles, Serbs, Slovaks, Slovenes, etc etc. were the "colonized" people of the German Austrians.
While the habsburgs roots are in switzerland^^. Oh 2 years ago? Sorry I even answered
You say England was English. A slight correction, the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland (at that time) was a multi-national state.
England was merely one part of that alongside Scotland, Wales and Ireland (Northern Ireland today).
I think in the US (presuming you are American of course) there is some confusion surrounding the differences between England, Great Britain and the UK. The US war of independence, war of 1812 etc were conflicts fought against Great Britain not England.
The original 13 colonies were started by England but they achieved independence from Great Britain. A key date in this was the 1707 Act of Union between the kingdoms of England and Scotland which created the new kingdom of Great Britain.
Sounds like the America of today.
"however many there were at the time" BEST. FLAG. TEXT. EVER! Genius way to save you a few minutes and efficiently make joke at the same time
Europe: "Did you have any colonies in Africa or beyond?"
Austria-Hungary: "Yes... but actually no"
For any curious, there were 45 states in the Union at the time of the Boxer Rebellion.
Still a good joke, though.
pridelander06
Why I’m keeping seeing you?
It had some islands in India as colonies
Nicobar Islands
You made a mistake in the video,the Austro Humgarian empire did have a pretty decent fleet,not as strong as britain but on par with italy,russia,ottomans and maybe france
ah yes, Italy, Russia and Ottomans with their *mighty* navies.
Mikayil Aliyev you clerly dont know history,imperial russia had one of the strongest navies in the world up until the battle of tsushima,italy had a decent fleet which could stand her ground in the medditerrenian and the ottomans had one of the strongest navies in the world in the 16,17,18 century,Austria Hungary before WW1 had the 4 largest fleet in the world
french navy was probably larger and more formidable overall but the austro hungarian fleet wasn't to bad though
Well done boys, quite interesting topics you're picking that's the way to success
Your videos are straightforward and I like that
The AH navy was small but considered quite modern. It wasn’t developed to invade but was primarily defensive and exploratory in nature, having been used for several major research expeditions, and not really as a offensive force.
I’m surprised there is no mention of the Ostend company, the sale of which is considered by most historians as having been an early and major reason for the lack of development of overseas trade (which was a driving force for most colonial expansion).
Because their empire was continental? And contiguous?
They did not have open ports their most important ports were in Italy now chiogiia and in Croatia which opened into the Mediterranean so it was defensive ports you couldn't have open ships sailing to the Indian Ocean without crossing their main rival the Ottomans and also the French who disliked the Austrians
Actually at some short point in history, Austria inherited the enitre spanish empire and it's colonies in America. But they quickly split appart again because that was quite heavy to manage.
Karl der 5te (Carlos III.). Aber die Habsburger Inzuchtspatzisauger haben das Spanische Reich in den Abgrund geführt.
Karl the 5th aka Carlos III (in Spain). But those inbred Habsburger ran the Spanish Empire into the ground. The last one was a drooling r.tard, so Spain got stomped by Napoleon, suffered a serious of internal rebellions etc. and finally the Bourbons took over.
Then the Leftists tried to ruin it some more, until they had their shit shoved in by the saviour of Spain, Franco.
can you explain?
@@pletskoo514 HRE Emperor Karl the Vth inherited the SPanish crown and was Emperor of the HRE as well as King of Spain and it's Empire.
But he then split the inheritance and so the Spanish Habsburg line was "born"...
@@youtubemodsaresnowflakelef7692 It wasn't his to split. He claimed the Spanish inheritance, but Charles II of Spain had in fact given it to Philippe of Anjou (grandson of Louis XIV). War then broke out, with France/Spain on one side and everyone else on the other. The grand alliance finally was forced to recognize Philippe as the king (Felipe V) but Austria was given Belgium and most of Italy as compensation.
This video is an answer to a question I didn't know I was wondering.
I love your channel keep up the great stuff!!
"Underwater battleships is a good idea"
-Austria Hungary
I read "Why didnt the Austria-Hungarian Empire have any colours?" Sounded interesting tbh xd
I have another question. When will you continue that British history series?
When they leave the EU.
That one atom of China they had:
*Am I a joke to you?*
I love how you inserted 'however many there were at the time' on the American flag at 2:21
But What If Austro-Hungary...Established Colonies?
the minorities groups(south/west slavs, hungarians,etc) would inmigrante to the colonies, become a majority in the colony and declare independence and if they succeed, they would make a governement in exile in the new state because this could validate the claims in the european mainland
ex:"Hungarian Western Sahara" (random name) claims the rightful land of it's people that are being opressed by the Austrian government
@@uruguaylusitano5797 African Slavs? LMFAO
Play Victoria 2 and do it
My homeland used to be a colony. Luckily the Japanese left
Yeah, then the soviets took over
I live in a territory that used to be part of Austria-Hungary.
fuck japanese gay empire
@@aldhizak the sun always rise s on the Japanese empire
@@kaderpdi1982 i love when a trash is talking
As a czech citizen, I think Austria-Hungary already had colonies, but in Europe.
Transylvania, Slovakia etc.
@@gigikontra7023 Yes, the whole Hungary was a sort of colony of Vienna.
That BEHOLD panel killed me
Different were those times where you could run a historical entity like this without the support of James Bisonette
It's cuz the leader of Austria was too busy visiting places which are likely to kill him
And fucking family members
But it wasn't the leader of Austria-Hungary who got killed it was his heir.
*Australia
*Australia
@@kaderpdi1982 Yo, stop plagiarizing pleb.
You forgot a key factor: Geography. Austria-Hungary had to go through the Adriatic and Mediterranean Seas to get anywhere. The most they could have colonized directly was along the coast of North Africa and perhaps the Levant if they wanted to. Austria-Hungary would have to cross these seas to get to the Atlantic Ocean, or them and the Red Sea to reach the Indian Ocean. Britain had the colonial power it had because they were based on large islands and placed an emphasis on its navy. Russia colonized Alaska but put most of its chips into contiguous expansion through much of Eurasia, putting as many klicks between its people and enemies as possible. Russia's size is its greatest strength but most of its coastline is north of the Arctic Circle and thus freezes over most of the year. France had quite a colonial empire thanks to having shorelines along the Atlantic Ocean, English Channel, and Mediterranean. The fact that they have plenty of rivers and fertile soil for growing crops helps a great deal. America became the superpower that it is today mainly because it borders THREE oceans and covers both hemispheres (American Samoa, though still within the tropics, is SOUTH of the Equator). We're a huge country, having one where at least thirty could fit if there were any meaningful basis for it. And because we're surrounded by so much ocean, we're well away from most powers that would threaten us.
Spain and Portugal also had colonial Empires themselves before the 19th century, which they lost a bit of it thanks to Napoleon for the same reason. Easy access to the world oceans.
I imagine that the Austro-Hungarians gave support to the Germans and their desire to get colonies so that, Imperial Germany would become stronger and be better able to prop up Austria-Hungary.
Besides, Austria-Hungary had the Balkans to expand into and didn't need costly overseas colonies in order to have more territory.
No
I just cannot with the placard saying “hello savage” lmao
the comedy in this is amazing
Thank you for this video, as a Hungarian myself, I have never heard about our colonial efforts at school whatsoever! Though probably because these things are more related to Austria rather than Hungary as they had more influence on the politics of the empire than us. Interesting stuff!
2:38
*"No Dutch"*
Continents besides Europe: *exist*
European empires: IT'S FREE REAL ESTATE
So I just realised that after 1 year into constantly History Matters, binging EVERY SINGLE VIDEO - multiple times - and regularly checking in to see if a new video is out...
That I hadn't subscribed!
@historymatters I'm so sorry for this!
Hey, nice video, but I wanted to point one thing out about the Austrian-Hungarian navy. I haven't read up on this recently so please take this with a grain of salt and check out more info on it yourself if you're curious.
Anyways, the Austrian-Hungarian navy was bulked up at least in the period of time leading up to WW1. This wasn't a huge difference, but it did make the Austrian navy competent and surprisingly modern enough that the British had to respect their territorial waters a bit or be at risk of losing ships
It was hardly enough to be able to project force with, but I think it's worth pointing out because it's a heck of a lot better than buying used ships from other countries and then watching them sink as soon as they go to sea. :p
The reason they couldnt had a colonial empire is because of their geographical position,if they wanted something in west africa they needed to pass the gibraltar and fight spain,Spain would just block the strait,if they wanted in east africa they would have to fight italy who had a big portion of east africa and would block the austro-hungarian navy in the adriatic
1:49 "Austrian Half"
Implying everything that wasn't Hungary was Austria.... Okay
Basically it was Austrian ruled. Czechia, Galicia etc were under the jurisdiction of the Imperial Council.
For about a year between 1877-1878, the Austrian-Hungarians had a possession in North Borneo through their Hong Kong Consul Baron Gustav von Overbeck who tried to promote it as a colonial possession to the Austro-Hungarians, Germans and Italians. None of them took him up on it and North Borneo was sold to Alfred Dent of the UK who founded a charter company to rule North Borneo.
I love the running through the meadow animation in every video
So, basically Courland (Latvia) had a bigger colonial empire than the Austro-Hungarian empire.