certainly, I have heard and read this fact from multiple sources, in particular being Italian, from local historians, but among foreign authors I can suggest David Laven's essay : Venice and Venetia under the Habsburgs: 1815-1835 or this site
PC: Alt-Congress of Vienna (failure of Prussia)
- Thread starter vn6
- Start date
certainly, I have heard and read this fact from multiple sources, in particular being Italian, from local historians, but among foreign authors I can suggest David Laven's essay : Venice and Venetia under the Habsburgs: 1815-1835 or this site
Thanks.
Edit: That would make Austria's total GDP with Italy higher than Russia's if the data I give are correct.
Last edited:
Metternich wouldn't take this. The problem with the scenario is that Metternich was a really smart foreign minister, but let's say he gets moved out. Russia didn't want Galicia anyway, it was a poor province, and Austria needed it to protect Hungary so they would only give it up to an independent Poland they knew wouldn't be hostile. So you have to change the deal, let's say this new foreign minister quickly supports Russia gaining Congress Poland unlike Metternich who fought back, he'd also have to give some secret approval of Russian gains against the Ottomans. That's the only way I can see this happening in a way that isn't totally unrealistic.
I've never actually seen PPP figures for the period; even the basic GDP figures I've seen look a bit like fingers in the wind. Interesting.
I was speaking more in terms of military power. That's also kind of nebulous over a time period - certainly France in 1815 after Waterloo was in no position to fight and there was a time mid-century when the lack of railroads and other transportation essentially neutralized Russian capacities. In general though France regularly beat Austria during the Napoleonic period and do so again in 1859, while Russia mobilized far more soldiers in 1814-15 and again a century later.
The PPP figures I've got from wikipedia and they're estimates by Paul Bairoch.
I'm not very konwledgeable on 1859 war but AFAIK forces of France/Savoy and Austria were roughly equivalent and the defeat happened because Austrian soldiers were completely untrained.
As for 1814-15, Austria had only part of its prior territory back then while Russia had 100 %. Century later Russia's GDP got much higher according to the estimates I reference.
Britain will be opposed because they want to expand the Netherlands, which they will no longer be able to do if Austria keeps Belgium. This coupled with already suspicious developments in Italy regarding British influence was more than enough to attract the attention of Vienna. Prussia and Russia had already in September of 1813 agreed to reconstruct Austria as much as they could to their 1805 apogee, the same as Prussia. The effect of this is that Austria no longer owned Belgium, Milan, or Tyrol for a matter of fact. This is why territories like Illyria, Tyrol, Venice, and Lombardy were considered compensation even though logically most of this was already Austrian at one point. Whether or not any of these powers went through with any serious opposition is irrelevant, because the potential alone without any hindsight was enough to force Vienna's hand to get guarantees for their designs in Italy.
Parliament is volatile enough that British foreign policy is not entirely reliable.
I wouldn't be surprised if Castlereagh's instructions altered quite a bit if Austria retained Belgium.
It wasn't entirely unfound. After the collapse of the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy, Milan became a hotbed of Jacobinism. Before that, Austria wasn't even occupying Lombardia or had any guarantee that they would reclaim it. The phobia among ministers was enough to persuade the allied powers to consent to Austrian occupation.
The Netherlands don't need to be strengthened if they aren't in the line of French expansionism. Britain sees more interests in having two GP in the first line against the French.
I don't understand this phrase.
For the moment there is one person as prime minister and the foreign minister is discussing at Vienna, they will remain for all the time the Congress of Vienna continues.
Castlereagh had full powers to sign any agreement he wanted and he didn't receive a lot of instructions from home.
Also didnt Metternich and the tzar have a really bad relationship? As in it nearly came to a duel between them? I also seem to recall that Metternich absolutly refused to even have bilateral talks with him after a point.
This would not be conductive of them allying themselves on the conference.
This would not be conductive of them allying themselves on the conference.
Which is exactly why Britain was fashioning the Netherlands to be a GP. Britain does not want Austria in Belgium anymore, since the government of Pitt the Younger (reference the Grenville proposals in 1798). The Netherlands was nominally an independent and liberated nation, but the de-facto situation of the matter was that the Dutch were a British client state. Antwerp was too strategic to give it back to the Austrians, who were evidently incapable to defending it.
When you're unaware of a situation & all the parties involved, it forces your hand; ie, Austria requesting guarantees for their designs in Italy.
And?
Not true, there's loads of free sources that display letters between Liverpool and Castlereagh regarding which direction he should be taking. Castlereagh's policy changed throughout the Congress. He was initially receptacle to letting Prussia annex Saxony if they turned on Russia but Parliament was not in favor of letting Saxony be wiped off the map of Europe so he changed course even before FWIII intervened. Castlereagh was also recalled to Parliament to make sense of his decisions during the Congress because he did not really have "full powers".
If the Austrians want to keep it, it's not like they can demand them to leave.
All GP outside France aren't in a position to threaten Austria's designs for Italy.
While Parliament may influence them, the ones who will decide on Britain's court of action aren't that volatile.
I agree that he doesn't have absolute powers but he is the one doing most of the choices and as long as it's reasonable he can pass trough what he wants. I very much doubt there will be enough pressure at home to force him to get Austria out of Belgium.
The problem is that Britain can align with Russia & Prussia in regards to reconstructing Austria to its 1805 limits. The legality here is that Austria no longer posses the Austrian Netherlands & so would need approval from the other powers. Not like the Austrian army was even the ones to occupied the Belgian departments during the Sixth Coalition, it was Prussia & Britain. An Austria that wants Belgium back would view it as compensation.
From a military pov, maybe not, but the point has always been diplomatic.
Parliament can put pressure on the cabinet & they did when they recalled Castlereagh.
The near two decades of war with France would very well enable them to secure avenues where they aren't in a position of danger. Antwerp and the Scheldt being in better hands was a huge part of British foreign policy. It's why Britain really couldn't have stayed out of WW1 if Germany is invading Belgium. Not simply because of diplomatic treaties but because the Belgian ports were widely seen as the perfect starting point to invade Britain itself.
Britain allying itself with the ones who are actively trying to destroy any balance of power doesn't seem very plausible.
Russia with its Polish ambitions and Prussia with its German ambitions don't seem to be the kind to contest Austria and its North Italy ambitions, and Britain is likely still more inclined to ally itself with Austria than with Prussia and, especially, Russia.
They joined WW1 because they wanted to, Belgium was only the excuse.
Back to the Congress, Britain's options are ally itself with the Austrians against Russian expansionism and accept the Austrian Netherlands or ally itself with Russia and Prussia and take down the Austrians who are key in Britain's desire for a stable Continental Europe. IMO GB is more likely to still ally itself with Austria.
With hindsight, yes. Besides that, Britain was the one pushing Prussia past the Rhine onto a border with France. It also makes sense to cooperate with Prussia in regards to Hanover. Mutual understanding can lead a long way. Russia was indeed a wild card, but Alexander's plans weren't well know at the moment & it's more than likely any Belgian issue would be resolved prior to the Polish-Saxon crisis.
Your perspective is too narrow. Just because Russia nor Prussia have any stakes in Italy doesn't mean they would or wouldn't contest it. If it's a means to weaken a rival then it makes total sense to object to their ambitions.
You have to realize that Castlereagh's instructions were to not get involved in another European war at all cost. At the end of the day, they're going to put their interests first which was containment of future French aggression--not Russian. This also does not paint the full picture. Britain aligning, at that moment, with Prussia & Russia doesn't mean they're going to completely throw Austria under the bus at any turn. The feared Russian expansion that you say Britain would not align with was actually appeased iotl, which ultimately led to Prussian designs for Saxony down the drain because Alexander got mostly what he wanted: a kingdom of Poland under a PU with the Russian Emperor, notwithstanding a few exceptions (such as losing the fortresses of Krakow and Thorn). I'm sure if Prussia were the one, and not Russia, to take steps to finding an agreement first, then "Congress Poland" would probably not be a thing and more of Saxony would've been Prussian.
Once Prussia's and Russia's ambitions become clear to everyone the British and Austrians will ally themselves.
Prussia and Russia are more busy advancing their own ambitions than objecting to what happens in Italy.
So what are the British going to do risk a war to get the Austrian Netherlands under the rule of the Netherlands which is for the moment a British puppet. It still isn't quite what they want.
In my opinion, Francis and Metternich should have been less orthodox and more pragmatic in the sense of knowing the peace with Prussia was not going to last. That's why they should have accepted the Bavaria-Belgium deal and let Prussia eat Saxony.
At the end of the day, the King of Saxony was seen as a traitor, anyway, so he getting nothing would have not caused a big ruckus among the great powers.
Austria getting the Electorate of Bavaria would have united both Austria proper and Further Austria, killing two birds with one stone.
This is implying the Austrians doesn't yield to Britain's demands prior. And again, Britain's desires are in the west; they're only able to effectively intervene in Poland & Saxony because their most pressing desires had already been consented.
And Austria is more busy in Belgium and Italy to object what is happening in Poland & Saxony, right? You can't have it both ways.
It's exactly what they want. Britain doesn't have to directly position itself on the continent and a friendly nation now owns the most existential threat to the British isles. Nothing about an Austrian restoration would calm the minds of Britain.