Not really, the difference is that austria won against prussia, but suffered a defeat in a greater war, altough the defeat was more political and economicly bad then territorialy. Meaning austria lost no land.@@madpig7120
Honestly, I think you should do a video on what if Prussian king did accept to become the German emperor in 1848, since that would have huge implications on everything after that. Like would new Germany intervene in Crimean war? Would they allow Italian unification? Would Franco-Prussian war happen earlier? Would this early Germany even intervene in 1848/49 revolutions in Austria? That would be one interesting timeline to explore.
Alt-hists involving an 1848 German unification are fascinating, but they might be tricky to engineer in the most straightforward of fashions. I'm pretty sure that accepting the crown would've triggered war - though granted, only Russia and Denmark were truly in a position to wage war with Prussia at the time, and only Russia could've done so alone. Important to keep in mind that within a year or so, Austria returned to capability to wage offensive war, and France is in a similar state. That really doesn't give Prussia and the rest of the 1848 German Empire much time to prepare. It's not just Frederick William IV's disdain for accepting a crown he did not believe was the Frankfurt Assembly's crown to give. It's also just the raw power politics situation in Europe at the time. Most of the plausibility I could envision would involve his son, the OTL eventual Kaiser William 1st to accept the crown as German emperor and abdicate his role as crown prince of Prussia in order to mollify surrounding nations. They could work closely hand-in-hand in practice, but officially, they'd remain separate states. It could be de facto unification, but not de jure unification. Further down the line, you could see a personal union being cemented by a dynastic marriage. The closest I can imagine a "natural" unification by non-military means for an 1848 German Empire uniting de jure with Prussia would be Frederick III being allowed to inherit both his grandfather's crown in 1861, and his father's crown in 1888. But would Frederick III even be the liberal reformer that modern historians love him for in this timeline? A huge part of his intellectual and philosophical development came from his time spent in the university town of Bonn, and his father softened on the notions of liberalism while spending time in England after having fled Berlin in 1848 - he had to flee Berlin because the citizens wanted him dead, for his role in commanding Prussian troops to fire grapeshot from cannons into the crowds of protestors/rioters/revolutionaries. So much of this particular alt-hist depends on the personalities of 3 specific royals of the Prussian dynasty, and 2 of those personalities were shaped greatly by the 1848 revolution themselves. In response to your question about the Crimean War, it's important to keep in mind that the OTL reasons for Austria and Prussia not intervening still apply. Russia had the capacity to logistically support massive armies in Eastern Europe, whereas their ability to fight in Crimea were limited. The interventionary stage of the Crimean War was effectively a limited war, because each side was operating what functioned as essentially expeditionary forces in a region far from their natural power centers and easy logistical trains. If Prussia and Austria had joined the war OTL or the German Empire (1848) had joined the war in this timeline, then they would've been the parties doing the majority of the fighting and dying. Russia could very well win the war in Eastern Europe, at the same time as simultaneously losing the war in the Black Sea. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a German power of Central Europe to join the Crimean War on the side of the British and French, unless Russia was already in a state of financial exhaustion, and they were just being opportunistic in seizing lands close to the border when Russia no longer had the finances to fund a large-scale war in Eastern Europe.
wait wait wait, i was in a military museum in Prague last weekend and there was a plaque near prussian and austrian rifles of the era displayed, claiming austria lost on tactics, because it was technically better armed, the rifles were better in all but one aspect - breach loading - faster reload speeds of the prussian rifles that were innaccurate, unreliable and less powerful - alas Austria engaged in close combat tactics despite having their advantage at range and disadvantage close up.
Austria also had superior artillery, but in all aspects. Prussia still had smooth bore mussle loading artillery. Krupp breech loaders came later. While austria had superior rifles breech loaders. In every battle the Austrians had decisive long range firepower advantage and only lost battles when they assaulted prussian infantry in rough terrain.
Exactly, this is what I tried to explain in my comment, I am disappointed by PH on this video, he clearly did no research on the conduct of the war to assert that the Austrian army was doomed to failure
Here is an example of Austrian tactics. As said here Austria had already agreed to give up Venice before the war even started. However rather than try to buy Italian neutrality by simply giving it to them or at least not sending armies to defend the territory and using them against Prussia, Austria decided to keep a large bulk of their army there and fight over it for "honour's sake". I mean.. they DID beat the Italians, of course they still had to give up the land so..
The Prussian rifles weren't inferior, only before the war, then after it started they developed into the first modern bolt action rifles almost immediately. The Prussians had breech loaders and could shoot farther, faster and more accurately than the Austrians which is why they won EVERY major battle. The place you saw was biased because it was their country once. But it's fake news. Even if you are right, that means the Prussians were so well trained that even with worse weapons they were able to be more accurate than the Austrians. But they were only less accurate because of smoke, if you could handle the smoke discharged by the breech you could aim the gun better than what the Austrians had. For example let's say the Austrians fired 8 shots out of 10 accurately, the Prussians were still doing 7 or 7.5 out of ten, but also getting 60 rounds a minute to Austrias 10 to 15 rounds a minute. The faster fire rate, better range and damage was well worth the very slight accuracy reduction. Otherwise why did we switch to the Prussian bolt actions later on instead of staying with the Austrian rifle muskets? Because the world saw and agreed that the breech loaded guns, despite being SLIGHTLY less accurate were better in every other way. Accuracy can be improved by training anyway. The Prussians were so much better trained that they could be more accurate than the Austrians even with less accurate guns.
It's overstated how bad austria really was. Most ethnicities were loyal and austrian litteracy rates amoung the minority groups were some of the best in europe. Only when they were litteraly starving did they actually break away.
Austria was bad from 1867-1914 because Hungary kept vetoing EVERYTHING “Want to go to war with Prussia during Franco-Prussian war” “vetoed by Hungary” “wanna do some economic reform?” Nah vetoed by Hungary
@@AdvancedGamer- It's true though. Austria-Hungary from 1867 to 1914 never had any violent revolutions unlike Russia and the Ottoman Empire. It also had far better literacy rates than the other two empires. The main reason why Austria-Hungary collapsed was because of food shortages. Farmers were conscripted, the Galician food production was stopped and the British naval blockade caused this. So Austria-Hungary was unable to import food from other countries and Germany itself was short on food. This caused protests everywhere in Austria-Hungary and also rapidly increased the desertion rates. "Austria was bad from 1867-1914 because Hungary kept vetoing EVERYTHING" Hungary opposing to help France was actually a good thing. Austria was still recovering from its defeat and Prussia made an agreement with Russia to get Galicia if Austria helped France. And about economic reforms, keep in mind that Hungary was the place where electrical industry was important (despite being a huge breadbasket). Austria-Hungary prior WW1 was the 3rd largest oil producer worldwide, had the 2nd largest European railway system (surpassing France and Britain, not counting Russia), had the 4th largest machine-building industry in the world and was the world's 3rd largest manufacturer and exporter of electric home appliances, electric industrial appliances, and power generation apparatus for power plants. A huge problem though was Hungary opposing more military spending for the inevitable Great War. It was one of the mainr easons why Austria-Hungary performed so poorly during WW1.
I do think it's important to remember that as long as Prussia holds Silesia, which is the most powerful industrial province in east-central Europe, they will have an advantage in wars like this. A more interesting way to achieve this kind of scenario could be to invert either the War of Austrian Succession or the Seven Years' War, as that would actually change the balance of power in Germany much more.
I kinda would disagree, because of how fast this war was. It lasted barely over a month, so weapons produced at the start of the war probably never saw the frontline
Maybe napoleon the third and Austria could make a deal where France gets the West Bank of the rhine in return for support in Austrian expansion in the Balkans and a defensive alliance Napoleon had already supported the Habsburgs by putting a Habsburg in control of the 2nd Mexican empire
The French would never allow Prussia to be at their doorstep if they had managed to defeat it in a war. Im not sure France would try to absorb these territories, but they could simply make them small and inoffensive principalities again. To make sure they don’t have a frontier with a strong ennemy
I don't think one can state that France had "supported" Austria by letting a Habsburg rule over Mexiko as a French puppet. The Austrians were not very fond of the idea to begin with.
What if Russia had supported the Hungarian uprising of 1848? Could this have led to the complete unification of the Germans by the middle of the 19th century by Prussia and the domination of Russia in the Balkans?
Great video! I love such different timelines What about a "What if the Ottomans westernized/were competent?"? (They essentially rush Tanzimat, quit isolation, actively intervene in the european politics and, most importantly, actually care on getting european allies, like the Prussian or French)
Yup, that’s a great idea, considering that the ottomans could’ve easily done that (and that Possible History humiliated them way too much in his videos )
@@WashyTheChillestanyways ottomans could have but not “easily” done that also they couldn’t have expanded let’s be real no power in Europe would allow them to touch Vienna Edit: I meant take haha
@@AdvancedGamer-Considering that they have to let one of their wealthiest regions, Egypt became practically independent with them couldn't really do much about it, says a lot about their power
@@ryannathaniel9296 The Ottomans got beaten up by their own puppet state Egypt and needed to be bailed out by the European powers TWICE. This showed how weak the Ottoman Empire really was.
I honestly feel like a what if everything went perfect for Sweden/ Denmark would be more interesting as Norway was gone for a lot of that time and doing that would be unpredictable
Can you make a poll and video about how we would structure a constitution? Like the peace treaty borders videos, but instead of voting for borders we vote for constitutions. Like Question 1: Are the Head of State and Head of Government the same person? Question 2: Is the Head of Government elected by the Legislature, the People, appointed… Question 3: Is it a federation, confederation or centralised state etc? Etc. You could choose a real country at a specific moment in time and make it specific to that. Such as USA 1776, France 1793, West Germany 1949, France 1958, Afghanistan 2001 etc. Thanks
What if the Habsburgs integrated the Low Countries and Switzerland What if Bavaria united ALL of Germany (since I want a united Germany where Austrian and Prussian lands are included) Edit: I want the second one for a what if, I don’t care much for it politically
@@AdvancedGamer- it is certainly incredibly unlikely. It would require Napoleon’s France to never truly form, Bavaria to likely gain lots of power from then, and then to have them turn on Napoleon and join the coalition at the right time Edit: by incredibly unlikely I mean as unlikely as us discovering gunpowder by someone trynna create a philosopher’s stone
The wiki page for the battle of konigratz says if Austria actually pressed forward they could have won the battle and destroyed the Prussian army. Konigratz came down to the wire. If Italy was not in the war, the addition of south army would have won the war for Austria as the Prussian army was stuck with mountains to their back with no supplies, it wouldn't have been long, it would have ended just a little after it did in OTL, Austria isn't getting beaten around. In 1866 the quality of the 2 armies wasn't very different.
I highly doubt Austria would look for colonies in Africa. The emperor had no interest in colonies and most politicians in Austria Hungary believed it would be impossible to defend any colony, since their navy was terrible and they were locked in the Mediterranean.
Perhaps there was a way, if Austria wouldn't have joined Prussia in the Second Schleswig War in 1864, but instead attacked it during that war, Austria could have retained its position as the leading power in Germany. But probably Austria didn't expect that Prussia would turn against it only two years later.
17:32 This is silly historical determinism. Serbia was pro-Austrian until a decade or so before 1914, and Bulgarian affinity for Russia or Austria were contingent on which way Serbia went.
Love your scenario! I always considered it a great tragedy that Prussia was the one to unite Germany as their dominant militarism had many unfortunate consequences. I do, however have one slight disagreement with your assessment You described the military situation as hopeless for the Austrians. While it’s certainly true that factors like the Dreyse Needle gun or the greater authority of the Prussian general staff as well as an overall advantage in quality tipped the scales in Prussia’s favour, there were still some opportunities the greatly weaken them. -The fact that the planned linkup between Hanoverian and Bavarian forces never occurred, which would haven given them an advantage of about 5:3 over the western army of Prussia, thus allowing them to threaten supply lines of the main prussian forces in Silesia/Bohemia, was mainly down to Bavarian inaction and the lack of faith the Hanoverian King and leadership had in their position. This of course led to the whole Langensalza debacle. -The material advantage has not entirely on Prussias side. Austrian artillery was far superior, being rifled. Their cavalry has also been described as better, as evidenced by them covering the retreat at königgrätz and their heroic (although deadly) charge at the second battle of custozza. -Königgrätz itself was going well for the austrians roughly until midday. The battle was mostly lost due to insubordination and the useless skirmishs the austrians fought prior. It also showed that in a well prepared defensive, the advantage of the needle guns was somewhat lessened. -The Austrian strategy itself has also often been criticised, as the offensive plan, favoured by Archduke Albrecht, who beat the Italians in the South despite being numerically disadvantaged, would have called for defeating the Prussian armies seperately, before they could unite in Bohemia, as Moltke’s plan called for. This was historically of course dismissed, with the overly cautious Ludwig von Benedek being appointed to command the northern army despite his initial refusal to take the post. How well the Austrians would have fared on the offensive is hard to say, I personally wouldn’t bet on this offensive succeeding. The most pressing issue of the Austrian forces, in my opinion was their use of the utterly outdated “Stoßtaktik”, which saw their infantry charging the enemy in big formations. Ultimately, even the Prussian leadership was not sure of their victory until the afternoon of Königgrätz. Bismarck, as a famous anecdote goes, traveled to the field with a suitcase full of foreign currency, as he’d be ruined should the war be lost. I would be interested if you came across the points during your research. If not, I can hardly blame you, as the Brothers War is not that well known or popular.
Exactly, this is what I tried to explain in my comment, I am disappointed by PH on this video, he clearly did no research on the conduct of the war to assert that the Austrian army was doomed to failure
@@AdvancedGamer- No, Bismarck advocated not capturing Vienna because it would have upset the great powers and humiliated Austria too much, which is why the Prussian army continued on its way to Pressburg (Bratislava), chasing the Austrian army into modern day Slovakia. Anyway, the fact is that the Habsburgs were not doomed to failure, it was really misjudgments and poor decisions at the strategic level of operations that decided the fate of the war, this reminds me of the campaign of France in 1940, the French army was not doomed to failure, it was even better than the German army and Manstein knew it ("la premier armee du monde"), but it lost the early stages of the war due to errors of judgment and poor decisions
You should make a video on if Denmark won the 2nd Schleswig War. Unlikely scenario I know, but it'd be very interesting and I imagine Prussia losing such a humiliating defeat would actually have far more of an impact than one might think.
There's a HOI IV mod. called "Der Bruderkrieg" which is a similar setting. Though it starts in 1936 and Prussia is ruled by a Syndicalist leaning Hermann Goreing.
I don't like how the stronger nations just take over the smaler countries . For example Montenegro. A nation that beat the Ottomans countles times just gets in Austrias sphere of influence .
What if the ottomans won at vienna? What if the European holy league lost? What if the kingdom of Syria resisted the french and British? What if the papal state united italy?
Well, a Russian-Prussian alliance sure is terrifying... Even in their weakened role, I'm sure they'd have a great chance against the unstable as all hell Austria... And also I'm pretty sure Russia could very easily win Bulgaria over, especially with there being no second balkan war.
i always love austrian nationalist videos, this one and also prussia lost the seven years war, just the best! (other than videos of brazil, if he does a what if everything went perfect for brazil ill go crazy)
Great video, have you thought about making a scenario where Peter III doesn't come to power/doesn't fanboy over Prussia and wins the war, taking modern Kaliningrad?
In the alternate WWI, I think a potential American entry against the British, allying with both France and Germany, is extremely likely as well. An England/Austria vs France, Italy, Germany, Russia, and America is possible in a long term scenario.
also, when you divide Africa you missed the fact that France give up Egypt to Britain to gain an alliance. So in that timeline it is not possible that a victorious empire would let himself be
Would've been interested in seeing an anti Hungarian compromise with the Slavs as an option as well. More possible with both more Germans and a lot more Slavs. I think France giving up Rome in exchange for also capitulating to Italy seems crazy?
Every time the video showed an overview of the continent, I see a few lakes in Sweeden that literally look like eyes and a mouth that appear to be looking down at mainland Europe with a worried expression. And with how chaotic this particular timeline has become, i can't say I would blame it 😂
Even in the infantry the prussians being more modern is overstated. Austrian equipment was superior at long ranges. Austria historically knew of this, but igored the advantages of the german infantry, to their tetriment. All you would have to do to secure Austrian victory is have the Austrians play to their strengths. That is superior breech loading rifled artillery with better trained crews (prussia was still using smooth bore mussle loading artillery), and more effective infantry rifles at longer ranges. Avoiding fighting the prussians at close range. If we look a every battle in the war. Austrian artillery devistated the prussians, and only Austrian blunders of attacking the prussian infantry lost them the battle. For example at Königgrätzthe Austrians were actually winning the battle and almost compleltey crushed the prussians on no less than 2 ocassions during the battle. The Austrians then blundered with a infantry charge, which turned the tide infavour of the prussians.
What if the Germans prioritized a Russian alliance over an Austrian or ottoman alliance? Would this in turn diplomatically isolate Italy to side with Germany, Austria with France, and the ottomans with Britain? Could a German-Russian-Italian alliance defeat a French-Austrian-British-ottoman alliance?
@5:45 lol technically Germany and Austria were unified by an Austrian….just in 1938. Also on a more serious note, I don’t think you can realistically count out the British or Russians who have stakes and family ties to Prussia.
Maybe it's just because I've studied this particular scenario before myself, but I think you're way more off the mark than normal. First of all, you have made the classic mistake of forgetting that the minor powers also have autonomy. Even if everything in Austria goes as it did historically, the dynamics of the peace deal could still be shifted dramatically through the efforts of the German states. More German nations sided with Austria than Prussia, and all of the Kingdoms were on Austria's side. Historically, the army of the Kingdom of Hanover actually beat the Prussian in a field battle, and was only a few days from meeting up with the armies in Bavaria when it was forced to surrender. It would only take some minor changes to bring about a massive, unified anti-Prussia army in southern Germany. Secondly, you have forgotten who led these nations. If Vienna is under threat, Franz Josef is going to make peace, as he did historically, because he is far too cautious not to. If France gets involved, Wilhlem is going to make peace, because he is also far too cautious not to. This is not the absolute industrial warfare of WWI. And the Habsburgs are not going to be willing to do whatever it takes to win the way ideologically driven nations like the Union in the US Civil War or France in the Franco-Prussian War were. Thirdly, I think you're being too harsh on the Austrian Army. Yes, it was nothing compared to the Prussians, but no one was. The Austrian Army was a capable and competent force, led by okay-to-good officers, with bad doctrine. They handily beat the Italians on the southern front, and managed several draws in the Bohemian campaign against Prussia before the big decisive battle. They would NOT be losing men and material by the thousand in a desperate attempt to push Prussia back. Quite the opposite; their biggest problem was not using men wastefully, but being too cautious. So yes, the Prussian Army is better, and should win more often certainly. But it isn't quite totally one-sided, especially when you factor in the smaller German states.
I think their is two routes here depending one french/english relations: 1 : without the fear of Germany there is no France/England rapprochement and issue like the fachoda incident may degenerate (i mean the Uk got the cape to cairo but the french do not got the Dakar to Djibouti one) 2 Napoleon the third was in favor of good relation with the uk (not reciprocated though) and far less interested in colonies (other than prestige) and Napoleon the 4th was liked by England (irl he died fighting the Zoulous for england)and nearly married the daughter of Queen Victoria This second option is by far my favourite creating a sort of tacit Franco/English liberal monarchies world domination (BASED)
I think for the world War scenario at the end of this video I feel like britan would either be neutral or only be at war with the French, austria, ottoman compared to Russia, Prussia and italy. Mostly do to African and the Middle East which Britain can gain quite a lot . Also I think a major player in the war would most likely be hungry if they decide to go for independence during the war than Austria would most likely collapse and u would get peace treaty from it.
2:18 Good to know I'm not the only one who views the NGC as Prussia subjecting & transforming the rest of Germany north of the river main into Prussian vassals
I know that this notion would go against the entire point of this video, but I think it would be interesting to see an alt-hist where France does intervene in the Austro-Prussian war, but Prussia blows Austria out of the water every bit as rapidly and decisively as in OTL, and now Prussia is standing over the vulnerable lands of a defeated Austria, with a fully-mobilized army, as France is actively at war with them and making initial furtive attempts to invade and occupy the Rhineland. Part of why the Franco-Prussian war went the way it did wasn't just the overall superior fighting capability of the Prussian army, but the fact that French strategic planning was just so intellectually bankrupt. They had wildly inaccurate ideas about the speed of railroad war, for one, and they had no remotely realistic plan for how they would be able to actually subdue Prussia in the event of a war. It was basically just a "march armies into Germany, win a battle, and hope Prussia sues for peace" plan. Unlike Prussia against France (as well as against Austria), France didn't have a plan to BEAT Prussia, just to come out on top in negotiating a peace settlement on advantageous terms. I can't see France outright WINNING a war against Prussia in 1866, if Austria still loses as quickly as in OTL. I think this would be fascinating to explore, with Italy still joining the war, Austria getting smashed quickly, and then Prussia and Italy now fighting France in 1866. What I think would make the scenario so interesting is that Prussia would not have Southern Germany united with them against France, and pursuing an primarily offensive strategy against France and occupying the northeastern part of the country wouldn't be especially feasible, at least not in the first year of war. Prussia would lack the credibility to present itself as a uniter of German peoples when its war against France originated as a war against a fellow German state, and while it militarily occupies southern German states. This would be a war which would aggrandize Prussia and weaken both Austria and France, but perhaps might NOT solve the German Question. Assuming either a lenient or at least a non-severe peace treaty with Austria, there would remain two competing German great powers vying for influence and control in Germany, going forward into the final third of the 19th century, even as Prussia emerges as a the clear stronger power. I see a possibility of Prussia basically taking whatever it can get from its defeated foes, rather than mollifying Austria with a soft treaty, and this backfiring into a more permanent Franco-Austrian alliance against a Prussian-dominated - but not united! - German Confederation. The alternative possibility would be that the war would drag on into 1867, Prussia would think of its situation as desperate, and ally with Hungarian agitating forces in order to permanently break up the Austrian empire and annex German lands in the northwest of the realm. This was pushed for OTL by Wilhelm 1st, until Bismarck threatened to resign. In a timeline in which Prussia felt as if it had to permanently end a threat to its south in order to deal with an active war in France, this might be a desperate time which called for that very same desperate measure. A German unification in this timeline could be a Prussian Empire made solely of conquest, rather than a Prussian-led German Empire ascented to by at least the will of the princes ruling the southern German states. This would be not Germany under Prussian leadership, but Prussia directly ruling Germans withing the borders of the former German Confederation + eastern Prussian holdings, and perhaps border territories seized from France. Isolated in near-totality on the European continent, this Prussia would be vulnerable to Russia and a vengeful France, and would be desperate to maintain the sole ally of Italy which it held during this far-more-ruinous Austro-Franco-Prussian war. Likely Savoy and Nice would go to Italy, and Italian claims on Istria, South Tyrol, and Dalmatia would be supported by Prussia. Prussian policy would've been reactive and desperate for reasons of national survival, and by the time Bismarck could ensure some degree of control over events, the hand he'd be holding would be highly constrained. Due to Italy's economic vulnerabilities to Britain during this era, as well as the enhanced enmity between Italy and France, which would of course be shared by Prussia, the grand strategy picture would be fairly easy for Prussia to perceive. I think that pursuit of a rapproachment with Britain would be a foreign policy goal of Bismarck's, whether or not it could be reasonably achieved - my bet would be on no, at least not in the short-term. A swifter, more aggressive Franco-Russian alliance would arise in response, and these two factions would compete in Hungary and the Balkans. The newly-enlarged empire would be in an extremely risky spot for at least the first decade or so, and I could easily imagine something like the Ottoman famine of 1876 (which led to the OTL Russo-Turkish war of 1877) triggering a conflict which would cause the downfall of this Prussian empire. It would be greatly overextended. If it managed to survive, simply by masterfully avoiding any conflicts for a few decades, then the future can start looking a little brighter. I don't think that any serious British softening towards Prussia would occur during the first decade or two, but as competition with France heats up during the era of new imperialism, as well as competition with Russia over Central Asia and towards Russian aims at taking the Turkish straits, we could see some degree of loose alignment taking shape, particularly as the liberal Frederick III and his British wife, Princess Victoria, become more influential within the Prussian court as the emperor ages. If Frederick III deosn't happen to develop throat cancer (idk, maybe some mysterious man in a long brown cloak tells him that he doesn't want to smoke any deathsticks and he instead wants to go home and rethink his life), then I could see this POTENTIALLY develop into a situation of strategic stability, as Prussia liberalizes and consolidates its position as the preeminent European - though not so much global - power. If he dies in 1888 and his hothead son takes over, like in OTL, then... I just can't see an overextended state like this timeline's Prussia managing to NOT stumble into a ruinous war, with someone with the personality of Wilhelm II in charge. An overly-ambitious Prussia who seizes (most of) German land by force of arms is a fascinating topic, but as more of an empire than as a legitimate nation-state, I think it would have a long, narrow path towards consolidation, without something going horribly wrong. If this Prussia can make it for two generations without a major war, then maybe we'd just have a HUGE Germany to the present day. But if I had to bet, I'd think that they'd overextend and get bopped.
I truly think that in that timeline an Austrian-British alliance is extremely likely. Both empires are not really interested in upsetting the European balance of power and with Austria likely being mostly focused on consolidating her empire, Great Britain could continue her focus on the colonies in relative peace, knowing that their ally on the continent would stop others from meddling. In contrast to the German Empire, Austria also never wanted to challenge Britania ruling the seas. And now with such an alliance being established, I think that conflict between Russia and Austria is a whole less likely to escalate into full blown war as it did in our timeline. Keep in mind a major driver of WW1 was the warmongering Prussians' fear of Russia modernizing, and they thought the only solution to stop that was war. I doubt the Austrians would follow the same logic and instead, most likely knowing that if all else fails they have Britain as their ally, seek diplomatic solutions for conflicts arising with Russia.
Alt-History involving Austria is uncommon so this is really interesting. Great video as always.
A fair insight, given what is in the surface of the iceberg of alternate worlds
There's a hoi4 mod called der bruderkrieg. It's about if Austria won the Austro-Prussian war
Or it's just a "if austria hungary survived"
Not really, the difference is that austria won against prussia, but suffered a defeat in a greater war, altough the defeat was more political and economicly bad then territorialy. Meaning austria lost no land.@@madpig7120
that is such a good mod@@goldensword777
Honestly, I think you should do a video on what if Prussian king did accept to become the German emperor in 1848, since that would have huge implications on everything after that. Like would new Germany intervene in Crimean war? Would they allow Italian unification? Would Franco-Prussian war happen earlier? Would this early Germany even intervene in 1848/49 revolutions in Austria? That would be one interesting timeline to explore.
That a great scenario ❤❤
Alt-hists involving an 1848 German unification are fascinating, but they might be tricky to engineer in the most straightforward of fashions.
I'm pretty sure that accepting the crown would've triggered war - though granted, only Russia and Denmark were truly in a position to wage war with Prussia at the time, and only Russia could've done so alone. Important to keep in mind that within a year or so, Austria returned to capability to wage offensive war, and France is in a similar state. That really doesn't give Prussia and the rest of the 1848 German Empire much time to prepare. It's not just Frederick William IV's disdain for accepting a crown he did not believe was the Frankfurt Assembly's crown to give. It's also just the raw power politics situation in Europe at the time.
Most of the plausibility I could envision would involve his son, the OTL eventual Kaiser William 1st to accept the crown as German emperor and abdicate his role as crown prince of Prussia in order to mollify surrounding nations. They could work closely hand-in-hand in practice, but officially, they'd remain separate states. It could be de facto unification, but not de jure unification. Further down the line, you could see a personal union being cemented by a dynastic marriage.
The closest I can imagine a "natural" unification by non-military means for an 1848 German Empire uniting de jure with Prussia would be Frederick III being allowed to inherit both his grandfather's crown in 1861, and his father's crown in 1888.
But would Frederick III even be the liberal reformer that modern historians love him for in this timeline? A huge part of his intellectual and philosophical development came from his time spent in the university town of Bonn, and his father softened on the notions of liberalism while spending time in England after having fled Berlin in 1848 - he had to flee Berlin because the citizens wanted him dead, for his role in commanding Prussian troops to fire grapeshot from cannons into the crowds of protestors/rioters/revolutionaries.
So much of this particular alt-hist depends on the personalities of 3 specific royals of the Prussian dynasty, and 2 of those personalities were shaped greatly by the 1848 revolution themselves.
In response to your question about the Crimean War, it's important to keep in mind that the OTL reasons for Austria and Prussia not intervening still apply. Russia had the capacity to logistically support massive armies in Eastern Europe, whereas their ability to fight in Crimea were limited. The interventionary stage of the Crimean War was effectively a limited war, because each side was operating what functioned as essentially expeditionary forces in a region far from their natural power centers and easy logistical trains. If Prussia and Austria had joined the war OTL or the German Empire (1848) had joined the war in this timeline, then they would've been the parties doing the majority of the fighting and dying. Russia could very well win the war in Eastern Europe, at the same time as simultaneously losing the war in the Black Sea. It doesn't make a whole lot of sense for a German power of Central Europe to join the Crimean War on the side of the British and French, unless Russia was already in a state of financial exhaustion, and they were just being opportunistic in seizing lands close to the border when Russia no longer had the finances to fund a large-scale war in Eastern Europe.
The only way I can think of that happening is if Fredrik III ascended far earlier than OTL, and I'm not sure when he gained his more liberal views.
I would like a video on this
There was already a video made on this
wait wait wait, i was in a military museum in Prague last weekend and there was a plaque near prussian and austrian rifles of the era displayed, claiming austria lost on tactics, because it was technically better armed, the rifles were better in all but one aspect - breach loading - faster reload speeds of the prussian rifles that were innaccurate, unreliable and less powerful - alas Austria engaged in close combat tactics despite having their advantage at range and disadvantage close up.
Austria also had superior artillery, but in all aspects. Prussia still had smooth bore mussle loading artillery. Krupp breech loaders came later. While austria had superior rifles breech loaders. In every battle the Austrians had decisive long range firepower advantage and only lost battles when they assaulted prussian infantry in rough terrain.
Exactly, this is what I tried to explain in my comment, I am disappointed by PH on this video, he clearly did no research on the conduct of the war to assert that the Austrian army was doomed to failure
Here is an example of Austrian tactics. As said here Austria had already agreed to give up Venice before the war even started. However rather than try to buy Italian neutrality by simply giving it to them or at least not sending armies to defend the territory and using them against Prussia, Austria decided to keep a large bulk of their army there and fight over it for "honour's sake". I mean.. they DID beat the Italians, of course they still had to give up the land so..
Yes, you're correct. There are big video about this war on Real Time history channel, including comparison of armaments.
The Prussian rifles weren't inferior, only before the war, then after it started they developed into the first modern bolt action rifles almost immediately. The Prussians had breech loaders and could shoot farther, faster and more accurately than the Austrians which is why they won EVERY major battle. The place you saw was biased because it was their country once. But it's fake news. Even if you are right, that means the Prussians were so well trained that even with worse weapons they were able to be more accurate than the Austrians. But they were only less accurate because of smoke, if you could handle the smoke discharged by the breech you could aim the gun better than what the Austrians had. For example let's say the Austrians fired 8 shots out of 10 accurately, the Prussians were still doing 7 or 7.5 out of ten, but also getting 60 rounds a minute to Austrias 10 to 15 rounds a minute. The faster fire rate, better range and damage was well worth the very slight accuracy reduction. Otherwise why did we switch to the Prussian bolt actions later on instead of staying with the Austrian rifle muskets? Because the world saw and agreed that the breech loaded guns, despite being SLIGHTLY less accurate were better in every other way. Accuracy can be improved by training anyway. The Prussians were so much better trained that they could be more accurate than the Austrians even with less accurate guns.
Austrians in the past:
Austrians today: „we speak Austrian“
After WW2 Austrians were basically brainwashed to not be German anymore.
Austrians in the future: we speak autism
We have a different name for Button mushrooms though😢
@@PedroCosta-po5nu we dont speak hungarian doe
Austrians in the future: *something incomprehensible in Swiss*
Back off Prussian
The South will rise again
You could’ve worded that better
@@ahfa2010 Nah he's good, keep your American sensibilities to yourself.
@@ahfa2010he meant what he said…but what’s this about Prussia?
@@amongdrip8073the ‘Merican Civil War was one of the most influental wars of the 19th century, its not an “American Sensibility”
@@cryopex9976 Don't Care, dogging someone for a statement that vaguely offends you in a completely arbitrary way is childish and pathetic.
It's overstated how bad austria really was. Most ethnicities were loyal and austrian litteracy rates amoung the minority groups were some of the best in europe. Only when they were litteraly starving did they actually break away.
lol “literally starving” 💀💀💀
Austria was bad from 1867-1914 because Hungary kept vetoing EVERYTHING
“Want to go to war with Prussia during Franco-Prussian war” “vetoed by Hungary” “wanna do some economic reform?” Nah vetoed by Hungary
Hungary vetoing everything seems to be a recurring theme...
@@AdvancedGamer- It's true though. Austria-Hungary from 1867 to 1914 never had any violent revolutions unlike Russia and the Ottoman Empire. It also had far better literacy rates than the other two empires. The main reason why Austria-Hungary collapsed was because of food shortages. Farmers were conscripted, the Galician food production was stopped and the British naval blockade caused this. So Austria-Hungary was unable to import food from other countries and Germany itself was short on food. This caused protests everywhere in Austria-Hungary and also rapidly increased the desertion rates.
"Austria was bad from 1867-1914 because Hungary kept vetoing EVERYTHING"
Hungary opposing to help France was actually a good thing. Austria was still recovering from its defeat and Prussia made an agreement with Russia to get Galicia if Austria helped France. And about economic reforms, keep in mind that Hungary was the place where electrical industry was important (despite being a huge breadbasket). Austria-Hungary prior WW1 was the 3rd largest oil producer worldwide, had the 2nd largest European railway system (surpassing France and Britain, not counting Russia), had the 4th largest machine-building industry in the world and was the world's 3rd largest manufacturer and exporter of electric home appliances, electric industrial appliances, and power generation apparatus for power plants. A huge problem though was Hungary opposing more military spending for the inevitable Great War. It was one of the mainr easons why Austria-Hungary performed so poorly during WW1.
@@TheAustrianAnimations87 violent revolutions? I was boutta say Russia only had 1905 revolution lol since 1917 revolution was after 1914
I do think it's important to remember that as long as Prussia holds Silesia, which is the most powerful industrial province in east-central Europe, they will have an advantage in wars like this. A more interesting way to achieve this kind of scenario could be to invert either the War of Austrian Succession or the Seven Years' War, as that would actually change the balance of power in Germany much more.
I mean if France joined the Austrians then well Prussia might have been screwed tbf
Vic3 brainrot
I kinda would disagree, because of how fast this war was. It lasted barely over a month, so weapons produced at the start of the war probably never saw the frontline
Maybe napoleon the third and Austria could make a deal where France gets the West Bank of the rhine in return for support in Austrian expansion in the Balkans and a defensive alliance
Napoleon had already supported the Habsburgs by putting a Habsburg in control of the 2nd Mexican empire
They also expected the Austrians to win the brothers war
The French would never allow Prussia to be at their doorstep if they had managed to defeat it in a war.
Im not sure France would try to absorb these territories, but they could simply make them small and inoffensive principalities again. To make sure they don’t have a frontier with a strong ennemy
I don't think one can state that France had "supported" Austria by letting a Habsburg rule over Mexiko as a French puppet. The Austrians were not very fond of the idea to begin with.
*That is a hoi4 mod**
*I am not lying*
Great video I’ve been waiting for this one
Today we learned about "Austro-Prussian War" in school during history lesson, the same day you released the video. Such an intresting coinsidence
What if Russia had supported the Hungarian uprising of 1848? Could this have led to the complete unification of the Germans by the middle of the 19th century by Prussia and the domination of Russia in the Balkans?
Yes yes yes!
I want to see that scenario!
even neutral
This is a video I never get tired of
As a huge prussia fan , its the opposite
Oh, sorry
BEST VIDEO ON YOUR CHANNEL!! 💪💪💪💪
This is an interesting alternate path for the Austro-Prussian war. Especially with this nation I keep hearing in the video called ‘Belgium’ existing.
Your videos are really awesome.
Amazing video
Great video! I love such different timelines
What about a "What if the Ottomans westernized/were competent?"? (They essentially rush Tanzimat, quit isolation, actively intervene in the european politics and, most importantly, actually care on getting european allies, like the Prussian or French)
Yup, that’s a great idea, considering that the ottomans could’ve easily done that (and that Possible History humiliated them way too much in his videos )
@@WashyTheChillestwhat? He’s saying the truth the ottomans were too weak by 1800s honestly
@@WashyTheChillestanyways ottomans could have but not “easily” done that also they couldn’t have expanded let’s be real no power in Europe would allow them to touch Vienna
Edit: I meant take haha
@@AdvancedGamer-Considering that they have to let one of their wealthiest regions, Egypt became practically independent with them couldn't really do much about it, says a lot about their power
@@ryannathaniel9296 The Ottomans got beaten up by their own puppet state Egypt and needed to be bailed out by the European powers TWICE. This showed how weak the Ottoman Empire really was.
What if Norway Won the Austro-Prussian War?
(Please do a what if everything went perfect for Norway scenario)
Yes
But everything has already gone perfect for Norway
Through most of their history it at least medieval they were under a personal Union not the best for them.
I honestly feel like a what if everything went perfect for Sweden/ Denmark would be more interesting as Norway was gone for a lot of that time and doing that would be unpredictable
Denmark Norway, Kalmar Union and Sweden norway
Can you make a poll and video about how we would structure a constitution? Like the peace treaty borders videos, but instead of voting for borders we vote for constitutions.
Like Question 1:
Are the Head of State and Head of Government the same person?
Question 2:
Is the Head of Government elected by the Legislature, the People, appointed…
Question 3: Is it a federation, confederation or centralised state etc?
Etc.
You could choose a real country at a specific moment in time and make it specific to that.
Such as USA 1776, France 1793, West Germany 1949, France 1958, Afghanistan 2001 etc.
Thanks
Marking my footprint here rn while im early.
Neat stuff
What if the Habsburgs integrated the Low Countries and Switzerland
What if Bavaria united ALL of Germany (since I want a united Germany where Austrian and Prussian lands are included)
Edit: I want the second one for a what if, I don’t care much for it politically
Not possible for “what if Bavaria” one but the first one was possible probably
@@AdvancedGamer- it is certainly incredibly unlikely. It would require Napoleon’s France to never truly form, Bavaria to likely gain lots of power from then, and then to have them turn on Napoleon and join the coalition at the right time
Edit: by incredibly unlikely I mean as unlikely as us discovering gunpowder by someone trynna create a philosopher’s stone
@@TherealMatthias1998 nah I don’t even know if it’s possible 💀💀💀
It’s like saying what if Spain united Germany 💀💀
@@AdvancedGamer- there was the spanish Netherlands, so they could do it 🤷🏻♂️
@@TroyDaboi2005 I mean techincally
Edit: less possible than Bavaria uniting Germany togigh 💀💀💀
Now you should do "What if France won the Franco-Prussian War?"
Videntis did a video about it.
@@Catarigue I don't like Videntis much, I like Possible History's content more
@@NovikNikolovicpossible history videos is like "any shit can happen".
@@alexzero3736 that's the fun part
France likely Take Wallonia and rhine and later we have WW1 With North germany,balkans,italy and russiaX France,ottomans and austria
The wiki page for the battle of konigratz says if Austria actually pressed forward they could have won the battle and destroyed the Prussian army. Konigratz came down to the wire. If Italy was not in the war, the addition of south army would have won the war for Austria as the Prussian army was stuck with mountains to their back with no supplies, it wouldn't have been long, it would have ended just a little after it did in OTL, Austria isn't getting beaten around. In 1866 the quality of the 2 armies wasn't very different.
I love this channel 😻
Lovely video
Wait what
If Austria joined the ottomans at 13:05? My God what a terrifying front line would that be
13:55 that is picture from year 1946 from deportation of Germans from Czechoslovakia.
When will you do the 'Carthage wins Second Punic War' video?
Apie ką tu? Neaiškus komentaras.
This video is beautiful
I highly doubt Austria would look for colonies in Africa. The emperor had no interest in colonies and most politicians in Austria Hungary believed it would be impossible to defend any colony, since their navy was terrible and they were locked in the Mediterranean.
True
Please be quiet.
@@Rofflestomper ?
@@Catarigue he’s lying or being stupid and saying the opposite of what the video said. The video made by an actual historian.
@@Catarigue I also suggest someone who’s stupid enough to only reply “???” Should also be quiet.
Perhaps there was a way, if Austria wouldn't have joined Prussia in the Second Schleswig War in 1864, but instead attacked it during that war, Austria could have retained its position as the leading power in Germany. But probably Austria didn't expect that Prussia would turn against it only two years later.
17:32 This is silly historical determinism. Serbia was pro-Austrian until a decade or so before 1914, and Bulgarian affinity for Russia or Austria were contingent on which way Serbia went.
Nice!
Love your scenario! I always considered it a great tragedy that Prussia was the one to unite Germany as their dominant militarism had many unfortunate consequences. I do, however have one slight disagreement with your assessment
You described the military situation as hopeless for the Austrians. While it’s certainly true that factors like the Dreyse Needle gun or the greater authority of the Prussian general staff as well as an overall advantage in quality tipped the scales in Prussia’s favour, there were still some opportunities the greatly weaken them.
-The fact that the planned linkup between Hanoverian and Bavarian forces never occurred, which would haven given them an advantage of about 5:3 over the western army of Prussia, thus allowing them to threaten supply lines of the main prussian forces in Silesia/Bohemia, was mainly down to Bavarian inaction and the lack of faith the Hanoverian King and leadership had in their position. This of course led to the whole Langensalza debacle.
-The material advantage has not entirely on Prussias side. Austrian artillery was far superior, being rifled. Their cavalry has also been described as better, as evidenced by them covering the retreat at königgrätz and their heroic (although deadly) charge at the second battle of custozza.
-Königgrätz itself was going well for the austrians roughly until midday. The battle was mostly lost due to insubordination and the useless skirmishs the austrians fought prior. It also showed that in a well prepared defensive, the advantage of the needle guns was somewhat lessened.
-The Austrian strategy itself has also often been criticised, as the offensive plan, favoured by Archduke Albrecht, who beat the Italians in the South despite being numerically disadvantaged, would have called for defeating the Prussian armies seperately, before they could unite in Bohemia, as Moltke’s plan called for. This was historically of course dismissed, with the overly cautious Ludwig von Benedek being appointed to command the northern army despite his initial refusal to take the post. How well the Austrians would have fared on the offensive is hard to say, I personally wouldn’t bet on this offensive succeeding.
The most pressing issue of the Austrian forces, in my opinion was their use of the utterly outdated “Stoßtaktik”, which saw their infantry charging the enemy in big formations.
Ultimately, even the Prussian leadership was not sure of their victory until the afternoon of Königgrätz. Bismarck, as a famous anecdote goes, traveled to the field with a suitcase full of foreign currency, as he’d be ruined should the war be lost.
I would be interested if you came across the points during your research. If not, I can hardly blame you, as the Brothers War is not that well known or popular.
Exactly, this is what I tried to explain in my comment, I am disappointed by PH on this video, he clearly did no research on the conduct of the war to assert that the Austrian army was doomed to failure
lol the brothers war tbf was very short war and people overlook it for the Franco-Prussian war
@@fireandblood8142I mean tbf they did nearly take Vienna in 5 weeks so…
@@AdvancedGamer- No, Bismarck advocated not capturing Vienna because it would have upset the great powers and humiliated Austria too much, which is why the Prussian army continued on its way to Pressburg (Bratislava), chasing the Austrian army into modern day Slovakia. Anyway, the fact is that the Habsburgs were not doomed to failure, it was really misjudgments and poor decisions at the strategic level of operations that decided the fate of the war, this reminds me of the campaign of France in 1940, the French army was not doomed to failure, it was even better than the German army and Manstein knew it ("la premier armee du monde"), but it lost the early stages of the war due to errors of judgment and poor decisions
@@fireandblood8142 yes but if Austria was gonna push back why should Bismarck care about taking Vienna if they’re really pushing back? Think
You should make a video on if Denmark won the 2nd Schleswig War. Unlikely scenario I know, but it'd be very interesting and I imagine Prussia losing such a humiliating defeat would actually have far more of an impact than one might think.
There's a HOI IV mod. called "Der Bruderkrieg" which is a similar setting.
Though it starts in 1936 and Prussia is ruled by a Syndicalist leaning Hermann Goreing.
I don't like how the stronger nations just take over the smaler countries . For example Montenegro. A nation that beat the Ottomans countles times just gets in Austrias sphere of influence .
Sphere of influence is also a result of ecconomy. Montenegro simply doesn't have the ability to hold off ecconomic power.
@@matthiuskoenig3378true
Welcome to 19th century politics.
Please do a video "what if everything went perfect for Italy"
idea for a video: What if the April uprising of the Bulgarians was successful?
What if the ottomans won at vienna?
What if the European holy league lost?
What if the kingdom of Syria resisted the french and British?
What if the papal state united italy?
Interesting...
Austria is and always has been my favorite European nation, i love this video
The random "Сечас" or whatever on 9:40 is killing me
video suggestion What if harold defeated william in hastings?
so, this is basically the What if everything went perfect for the Austrian Empire video.
You should make a "what if everything went perfect for macedonia video"
Imagine living all that time ago and having to memorize the German states for a test 💀
Hey PH (if u see this) I love your accent- where’s it from?
I believe he’s dutch
Well, a Russian-Prussian alliance sure is terrifying... Even in their weakened role, I'm sure they'd have a great chance against the unstable as all hell Austria... And also I'm pretty sure Russia could very easily win Bulgaria over, especially with there being no second balkan war.
Could you do a Danish video around the time 1801or1807/ napoleon era
Video idea: What if everything went perfect for Australia?
best alt history channel
this is just the scenario in that HOI4 mod "Der Bruderkrieg: An Austrian Victory"
Nice
Actually?
@@AdvancedGamer- yep
i always love austrian nationalist videos, this one and also prussia lost the seven years war, just the best! (other than videos of brazil, if he does a what if everything went perfect for brazil ill go crazy)
PH can you do what if Australia won the great emu wars?
Do a what if everything went perfect for portugal (1414-1580 or further)
How lol
Jk
Great scenario:)
I think you should make a video about what if everything went perfect for egypt
Suggestion: What if Egypt won the second Egyptian-Ottoman war
Yo Possible History Please Do What If Joseph Stalin Lived Longer!
12:03 someone has to turn this in to a meme!
Guess we're gonna have german painter instead of austrian one
Syndicalist confederation of Greater Germany
Austrians are ethnic Germans.
Finish your ever empire in history series bro
You should make a video where Britian was very lucky
Great video, have you thought about making a scenario where Peter III doesn't come to power/doesn't fanboy over Prussia and wins the war, taking modern Kaliningrad?
What Music is at 10:00 ?
Minor mistake at 2:21
The Italians took Veneto out of the war yet its shown like if it was still Austrian
what if everything went perfectly for Albania
What if Portugal joined the central powers?
I want part 2
What if the Congress of Vienna decided to reinstate Louis Napoleon as King of the Netherlands?
In the alternate WWI, I think a potential American entry against the British, allying with both France and Germany, is extremely likely as well. An England/Austria vs France, Italy, Germany, Russia, and America is possible in a long term scenario.
Cool
also, when you divide Africa you missed the fact that France give up Egypt to Britain to gain an alliance. So in that timeline it is not possible that a victorious empire would let himself be
They didn’t give up Egypt they gave up Sudan
So Uhm yeah
Could you make video on "What if everything went perfect for Mexico"?
(Daniel here) YES! One of My favorite scenarios! Thanks! ❤️❤️❤️❤️
Bro who tf is daniel
Day 14 asking for "What if Everything Went Perfect for Romania"
Would've been interested in seeing an anti Hungarian compromise with the Slavs as an option as well. More possible with both more Germans and a lot more Slavs.
I think France giving up Rome in exchange for also capitulating to Italy seems crazy?
Every time the video showed an overview of the continent, I see a few lakes in Sweeden that literally look like eyes and a mouth that appear to be looking down at mainland Europe with a worried expression. And with how chaotic this particular timeline has become, i can't say I would blame it 😂
8:00 didn't entente already won WW1?
Could be a planned April Fools thing, where he acts like the Central Powers actually did win WW1 and is exploring an althist Entente victory.
2:52 I have to disagree here. Austria had more modern artillery by a significant margin. And Austrian cavalry was superior.
Infact both battles the Austrians lost they came very close to winning even according to the prussian sources
Even in the infantry the prussians being more modern is overstated. Austrian equipment was superior at long ranges. Austria historically knew of this, but igored the advantages of the german infantry, to their tetriment. All you would have to do to secure Austrian victory is have the Austrians play to their strengths.
That is superior breech loading rifled artillery with better trained crews (prussia was still using smooth bore mussle loading artillery), and more effective infantry rifles at longer ranges.
Avoiding fighting the prussians at close range.
If we look a every battle in the war. Austrian artillery devistated the prussians, and only Austrian blunders of attacking the prussian infantry lost them the battle.
For example at Königgrätzthe Austrians were actually winning the battle and almost compleltey crushed the prussians on no less than 2 ocassions during the battle.
The Austrians then blundered with a infantry charge, which turned the tide infavour of the prussians.
What if the Germans prioritized a Russian alliance over an Austrian or ottoman alliance? Would this in turn diplomatically isolate Italy to side with Germany, Austria with France, and the ottomans with Britain? Could a German-Russian-Italian alliance defeat a French-Austrian-British-ottoman alliance?
How do you make your thumbnails
18:56 I'm not too sure if an independent polish state is likely as this might cause trouble in austrian polish majority regions
Germany did the same thing in our timeline even though they had Polish majority regions. What's stopping Austria doing this?
could you do what if everything went right for Austria
If you read this your are not number one and not the first here.
But I am first here to comment to your comment
Dangit.
Nooooo :(((
Noted
Nobody asked
@5:45 lol technically Germany and Austria were unified by an Austrian….just in 1938.
Also on a more serious note, I don’t think you can realistically count out the British or Russians who have stakes and family ties to Prussia.
Scenario Idea: What if Genoa didnt sell Corsica to France and Napoleon became an Italian General instead?
What? Bro that’s a stupid idea he wouldn’t be able to do anything
Also Corsica was revelling and would have became independent therefore he’d be Corsican general not genoan
Corsica would have been independant.
@@dano4996 nah
Cap
can you do a what if Poland and Bohemia united in the middle ages?
Can you do "What if everything went perfect for Serbia"
Maybe it's just because I've studied this particular scenario before myself, but I think you're way more off the mark than normal.
First of all, you have made the classic mistake of forgetting that the minor powers also have autonomy. Even if everything in Austria goes as it did historically, the dynamics of the peace deal could still be shifted dramatically through the efforts of the German states. More German nations sided with Austria than Prussia, and all of the Kingdoms were on Austria's side. Historically, the army of the Kingdom of Hanover actually beat the Prussian in a field battle, and was only a few days from meeting up with the armies in Bavaria when it was forced to surrender. It would only take some minor changes to bring about a massive, unified anti-Prussia army in southern Germany.
Secondly, you have forgotten who led these nations. If Vienna is under threat, Franz Josef is going to make peace, as he did historically, because he is far too cautious not to. If France gets involved, Wilhlem is going to make peace, because he is also far too cautious not to. This is not the absolute industrial warfare of WWI. And the Habsburgs are not going to be willing to do whatever it takes to win the way ideologically driven nations like the Union in the US Civil War or France in the Franco-Prussian War were.
Thirdly, I think you're being too harsh on the Austrian Army. Yes, it was nothing compared to the Prussians, but no one was. The Austrian Army was a capable and competent force, led by okay-to-good officers, with bad doctrine. They handily beat the Italians on the southern front, and managed several draws in the Bohemian campaign against Prussia before the big decisive battle. They would NOT be losing men and material by the thousand in a desperate attempt to push Prussia back. Quite the opposite; their biggest problem was not using men wastefully, but being too cautious. So yes, the Prussian Army is better, and should win more often certainly. But it isn't quite totally one-sided, especially when you factor in the smaller German states.
I think their is two routes here depending one french/english relations:
1 : without the fear of Germany there is no France/England rapprochement and issue like the fachoda incident may degenerate (i mean the Uk got the cape to cairo but the french do not got the Dakar to Djibouti one)
2 Napoleon the third was in favor of good relation with the uk (not reciprocated though) and far less interested in colonies (other than prestige) and Napoleon the 4th was liked by England (irl he died fighting the Zoulous for england)and nearly married the daughter of Queen Victoria
This second option is by far my favourite creating a sort of tacit Franco/English liberal monarchies world domination (BASED)
You should make a video on if the first Bulgarian empire managed to overthrow the eastern Roman’s
I think for the world War scenario at the end of this video I feel like britan would either be neutral or only be at war with the French, austria, ottoman compared to Russia, Prussia and italy. Mostly do to African and the Middle East which Britain can gain quite a lot .
Also I think a major player in the war would most likely be hungry if they decide to go for independence during the war than Austria would most likely collapse and u would get peace treaty from it.
2:18 Good to know I'm not the only one who views the NGC as Prussia subjecting & transforming the rest of Germany north of the river main into Prussian vassals
I know that this notion would go against the entire point of this video, but I think it would be interesting to see an alt-hist where France does intervene in the Austro-Prussian war, but Prussia blows Austria out of the water every bit as rapidly and decisively as in OTL, and now Prussia is standing over the vulnerable lands of a defeated Austria, with a fully-mobilized army, as France is actively at war with them and making initial furtive attempts to invade and occupy the Rhineland.
Part of why the Franco-Prussian war went the way it did wasn't just the overall superior fighting capability of the Prussian army, but the fact that French strategic planning was just so intellectually bankrupt. They had wildly inaccurate ideas about the speed of railroad war, for one, and they had no remotely realistic plan for how they would be able to actually subdue Prussia in the event of a war. It was basically just a "march armies into Germany, win a battle, and hope Prussia sues for peace" plan. Unlike Prussia against France (as well as against Austria), France didn't have a plan to BEAT Prussia, just to come out on top in negotiating a peace settlement on advantageous terms. I can't see France outright WINNING a war against Prussia in 1866, if Austria still loses as quickly as in OTL. I think this would be fascinating to explore, with Italy still joining the war, Austria getting smashed quickly, and then Prussia and Italy now fighting France in 1866.
What I think would make the scenario so interesting is that Prussia would not have Southern Germany united with them against France, and pursuing an primarily offensive strategy against France and occupying the northeastern part of the country wouldn't be especially feasible, at least not in the first year of war. Prussia would lack the credibility to present itself as a uniter of German peoples when its war against France originated as a war against a fellow German state, and while it militarily occupies southern German states.
This would be a war which would aggrandize Prussia and weaken both Austria and France, but perhaps might NOT solve the German Question. Assuming either a lenient or at least a non-severe peace treaty with Austria, there would remain two competing German great powers vying for influence and control in Germany, going forward into the final third of the 19th century, even as Prussia emerges as a the clear stronger power. I see a possibility of Prussia basically taking whatever it can get from its defeated foes, rather than mollifying Austria with a soft treaty, and this backfiring into a more permanent Franco-Austrian alliance against a Prussian-dominated - but not united! - German Confederation.
The alternative possibility would be that the war would drag on into 1867, Prussia would think of its situation as desperate, and ally with Hungarian agitating forces in order to permanently break up the Austrian empire and annex German lands in the northwest of the realm. This was pushed for OTL by Wilhelm 1st, until Bismarck threatened to resign. In a timeline in which Prussia felt as if it had to permanently end a threat to its south in order to deal with an active war in France, this might be a desperate time which called for that very same desperate measure. A German unification in this timeline could be a Prussian Empire made solely of conquest, rather than a Prussian-led German Empire ascented to by at least the will of the princes ruling the southern German states.
This would be not Germany under Prussian leadership, but Prussia directly ruling Germans withing the borders of the former German Confederation + eastern Prussian holdings, and perhaps border territories seized from France. Isolated in near-totality on the European continent, this Prussia would be vulnerable to Russia and a vengeful France, and would be desperate to maintain the sole ally of Italy which it held during this far-more-ruinous Austro-Franco-Prussian war. Likely Savoy and Nice would go to Italy, and Italian claims on Istria, South Tyrol, and Dalmatia would be supported by Prussia. Prussian policy would've been reactive and desperate for reasons of national survival, and by the time Bismarck could ensure some degree of control over events, the hand he'd be holding would be highly constrained.
Due to Italy's economic vulnerabilities to Britain during this era, as well as the enhanced enmity between Italy and France, which would of course be shared by Prussia, the grand strategy picture would be fairly easy for Prussia to perceive. I think that pursuit of a rapproachment with Britain would be a foreign policy goal of Bismarck's, whether or not it could be reasonably achieved - my bet would be on no, at least not in the short-term. A swifter, more aggressive Franco-Russian alliance would arise in response, and these two factions would compete in Hungary and the Balkans. The newly-enlarged empire would be in an extremely risky spot for at least the first decade or so, and I could easily imagine something like the Ottoman famine of 1876 (which led to the OTL Russo-Turkish war of 1877) triggering a conflict which would cause the downfall of this Prussian empire. It would be greatly overextended.
If it managed to survive, simply by masterfully avoiding any conflicts for a few decades, then the future can start looking a little brighter. I don't think that any serious British softening towards Prussia would occur during the first decade or two, but as competition with France heats up during the era of new imperialism, as well as competition with Russia over Central Asia and towards Russian aims at taking the Turkish straits, we could see some degree of loose alignment taking shape, particularly as the liberal Frederick III and his British wife, Princess Victoria, become more influential within the Prussian court as the emperor ages.
If Frederick III deosn't happen to develop throat cancer (idk, maybe some mysterious man in a long brown cloak tells him that he doesn't want to smoke any deathsticks and he instead wants to go home and rethink his life), then I could see this POTENTIALLY develop into a situation of strategic stability, as Prussia liberalizes and consolidates its position as the preeminent European - though not so much global - power. If he dies in 1888 and his hothead son takes over, like in OTL, then... I just can't see an overextended state like this timeline's Prussia managing to NOT stumble into a ruinous war, with someone with the personality of Wilhelm II in charge. An overly-ambitious Prussia who seizes (most of) German land by force of arms is a fascinating topic, but as more of an empire than as a legitimate nation-state, I think it would have a long, narrow path towards consolidation, without something going horribly wrong. If this Prussia can make it for two generations without a major war, then maybe we'd just have a HUGE Germany to the present day. But if I had to bet, I'd think that they'd overextend and get bopped.
How do you get so accurate historicsl maps?
I truly think that in that timeline an Austrian-British alliance is extremely likely. Both empires are not really interested in upsetting the European balance of power and with Austria likely being mostly focused on consolidating her empire, Great Britain could continue her focus on the colonies in relative peace, knowing that their ally on the continent would stop others from meddling. In contrast to the German Empire, Austria also never wanted to challenge Britania ruling the seas.
And now with such an alliance being established, I think that conflict between Russia and Austria is a whole less likely to escalate into full blown war as it did in our timeline. Keep in mind a major driver of WW1 was the warmongering Prussians' fear of Russia modernizing, and they thought the only solution to stop that was war. I doubt the Austrians would follow the same logic and instead, most likely knowing that if all else fails they have Britain as their ally, seek diplomatic solutions for conflicts arising with Russia.
Anything that happend from 1900s onwards was the cause of things that mostly happen in 1801 to 1899
Everybody's gangster till PH says 'it is very well possible...'