The Bonaparte-Habsburg Entente between the French Empire and the Austrian Empire is seen as one of the most consequential military alliance of the 19th century. It helped to form a lasting peace in most of Western and Central Europe in addition to the Balkans with its role in shaping the modern European landscape being seen by some to be as important as the Carolingian Partition of the Frankish Empire into West Francia, Middle Francia, and East Francia. While Austria lost its influence within Central Europe following the dissolution of the Holy Roman Empire and the formation of its modern successor, the Neo-Carolingian French Empire, it gained back lost lands in Silesia following the dismantling of Prussia into the Napoleonic client states of Ducal Brandenburg-Prussia and the Grand Duchy of Pomerania. Austria also gained a free hand within the Western Balkans, regaining its lands for Christendom after centuries of Ottoman rule.

The brief League of Three Emperors formed between the Russian Empire, French Empire, and Austrian Empire also worked to partition the decaying Ottoman Empire which had fallen into a Civil War after the last member of the House of Osmangolu was assassinated by disgruntled Jannisaries. While Russia eventually withdrew from this Triple Alliance, falling once again into the arms of Britain and its allies, Austria and France managed to grow closer as states. This was helped by things such as the marriage between Napoleon I and Marie Louise von Habsburg. Napoleon II who was the grandson of Emperor Franz was instrumental in improving relations with Austria.

But what if this alliance never came to pass? How would Europe have changed if say Austria had decided to move against Napoleon? Could Napoleon have taken on all of Europe even with his Empire? Would the Ottomans have been able to have saved themselves here? Would states like the Empire of Rhomania (which managed to retake Anatolia), or the Greater Kingdom of Armenia be able to achieve independence? If so, how large could they have gotten?
 
Would the Ottomans have been able to have saved themselves here? Would states like the Empire of Rhomania (which managed to retake Anatolia), or the Greater Kingdom of Armenia be able to achieve independence? If so, how large could they have gotten?
I don't think the Ottomans would have been able to save themselves considering their final days were a series of palace coups and assassinations where the Ottoman Dynasty essentially committed "suicide by infighting". In addition, two other states which were shaped during the fall of the Ottomans would be the Qajar Dynasty, which regained the western borders of the Safavid Empire to some degree via conquering Mesopotamia, even if they were never to reclaim the Caucasian territories of the Safavids, and the Sultanate of Egypt, formed by Muhammad Ali, the "Father of Modern Egypt", out of Egypt and most of the Levant, even if Muhammad Ali was forced to accept being a French satelite state (and "special privileges" in Jerusalem) in exchange for his realm being recognized. Both Egypt and Persia would benefit long-term from the collapse of the Ottomans as well with French support helping with Egyptian modernization in the 19th Century and Mesopotamian oil making Persia the most prominent oil power in the modern world (OOC: Iran and Iraq combined have about 350 billion barrels of oil combined).
 
Last edited:
It's possible that Austria wouldn't have unified Germany into the German Confederation; the Austro-French armies utterly broke Prussia, and meant Austria controlled all of eastern Germany, and so was the obvious choice for a unifier when German nationalists rose up against the Confederation of the Rhine in 1856.
 
It's possible that Austria wouldn't have unified Germany into the German Confederation; the Austro-French armies utterly broke Prussia, and meant Austria controlled all of eastern Germany, and so was the obvious choice for a unifier when German nationalists rose up against the Confederation of the Rhine in 1856.
And even then, the Austrians were somewhat reluctant to accept the crown of a unified Germany and had to swallow the "bitter pill" of splitting off Hungary and Croatia as a condition for the rebels offering them the crown.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
And even then, the Austrians were somewhat reluctant to accept the crown of a unified Germany and had to swallow the "bitter pill" of splitting off Hungary and Croatia as a condition for the rebels offering them the crown.
And Italy as well, but Austria managed to retain Tyrol.
 
So, if not for the Bonaparte-Habsburg Entente, how would the Fall of the Ottoman Empire have played out after the Ottomans committed "suicide by infighting"? Could Muhammad Ali or Ali Pasha have marched on Constantinople as many historians have speculated if not for the agreement?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
It is notable that Britain became a Republic during the mid-18th century. This Repubic encompassed the British Isle, Ireland, as well as a large swath of North America, including New England, New York, the Great Lake Region, and everything north of it (and eventually the whole Pacific Coast as well), and has remained so to these days. And more important, it is argued that the rise of the Republic following the English Civil War of 1742-1751 managed to stop North American colonies from breaking away. The Republic was very democratic by 18th century standards, since not only the landowners but also the rising middle-class were able to vote. It was not, however, a proper democracy until a century later.

The Republic also adopted a more laissez-faire foreign policy towards Europe, since it was kinda content with its huge swath of North American lands, not to mention other colonies in India, Malaya, the Caribbeans, and Australasia. It, however, made a pact with Russia to ensure that nobody would attack its holdings in North America and India.
 
Last edited:
It was not, however, a proper democracy until a century later.
With how the title of Lord Protector was shuffled around a few aristocratic and mercantile families for much of the 18th and early 19th centuries shows how oligarchic the early United Commonwealth of Great Britain (or as it is known today, the United Commonwealth of Great Britain, Ireland, America, and Australasia) was with clientelistic politics dominating the early United Commonwealth.
 
Last edited:
And even then, the Austrians were somewhat reluctant to accept the crown of a unified Germany and had to swallow the "bitter pill" of splitting off Hungary and Croatia as a condition for the rebels offering them the crown.
Well, those states (and North Italy) remained in personal union with Vienna; indeed, the German nationalists partly wanted them separate so they could have a captive market.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, those states (and North Italy) remained in personal union with Vienna; indeed, the German nationalists partly wanted them separate so they could have a captive market.
You mean Tyrol? Because Venetia and Lombardy went to Kingdom of Italy, which is a French ally anyway.
 
It's possible that Austria wouldn't have unified Germany into the German Confederation; the Austro-French armies utterly broke Prussia, and meant Austria controlled all of eastern Germany, and so was the obvious choice for a unifier when German nationalists rose up against the Confederation of the Rhine in 1856.
OOC: How would Germany unify against France here though? Many of its Kings are quite pro-French here like in Bavaria. Plus without the war in Russia destroying the French Army they Grand Armee would be able to crush any whiff of rebellion against it. What would happen to the various Bonapartist Client states which were quite loyal to Napoleon? Saxony in otl fought on for Napoleon almost to the bitter end. Plus the Bourgesoise of these places that Napoleon employed turned towards the 1848 revolution largely out of dissatisfaction towards the more aristocratic old order of Europe.

And Italy as well, but Austria managed to retain Tyrol.
OOC: Why would France suddenly roll over and let Austria do this when they've been the pre-eminent military power in Europe for so long? France surviving under the Bonapartes is the most populous and powerful nation in Europe now. With the added population and resources from the Rhineland, after the industrial Revolution, it becomes even stronger. Most of otl's German industrial might comes from the Rhineland after all. Also Napoleon had many Italian supporters as well with Italian nationalism being stemmed from the unified Kingdom of Italy he created.

With how the title of Lord Protector was shuffled around a few aristocratic and mercantile families for much of the 18th and early 19th centuries shows how oligarchic the early United Commonwealth of Great Britain (or as it is known today, the United Commonwealth of Great Britain, Ireland, America, and Australasia) was with clientelistic politics dominating the early United Commonwealth.
America is an ally of the Commonwealth of British Republics but not a member. Keep in mind that the monarchy still exists in Canada.
 
Last edited:

Thomas1195

Banned
America is an ally of the Commonwealth of British Republics but not a member. Keep in mind that the monarchy still exists in Canada.
Ah, the Confederation of Canada in the South, formerly the provinces of Carolinas, Georgia and Florida. Well, those slave regions, the Commonwealth simply did not want it.

Yes, the Pacific Coast and Great Plain provinces in the West eventually decided to form their own nation, thus we have America.

However, New England, New York, Pennsylvania, Greater Ontario (the whole Great Lake region you know), the Maritimes and Quebec remained with the Commonwealth. In fact, the centre of the Commonwealth eventually shifted from London to New York.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Would states like the Empire of Rhomania (which managed to retake Anatolia)
Oh, the "Empire" of Rhomania, the meme nation. I mean, these days, outside of Italy and Balkan/Anatolia, it is remembered mostly through Internet memes, rather than school history books.

So why is this the case? Well, the "Empire" of Rhomania was extremely brutal, incompetent and corrupt to a comical degree. I mean, the last Emperor Constantine XIII spent a boatload of tax money to build a personal room made of pure gold inside his palace. He also spent most of his time feasting, drinking and whoring. And there were loads of scandals and embezzlements commited by the royal family during his reign - the biggest one was perhaps the Komnenos shipyard scandal - where 20 cruisers sank immediately after being launched in 1870 - decades later, it was discovered that the royal family stole the money used to fund the cruiser construction. Also, even as late as 1880, right before its fall, the "Empire" of Rhomania executed prisoners using guilottine. And for the last Empress Helena, well, she had a huge treasure of jewellery and gold (again bought using tax money from Greek people). Worse, there were horror stories about Empress Helena bathing in virgin blood.

This "Empire" sealed their own fate after going to war against Kingdom of Italy over Cyprus in 1878-1880 and got wrecked totally, during which it lost all of its navy. The Emperor quickly surrendered after Italian ships reached Constantinople. The Greco-Italian War was remembered as the War of Mutual Destruction, as both monarchies went bankrupt after that, and both were overthrown a year later and replaced by two new republics which last to the modern days. The "Empire" of Rhomania went down in the history as one of the empires with the shortest reign - although most agreed that it was just an empire in title only.

In the aftermath of the Greco-Italian War in 1880, Manchester Guardian editor William Ewart Gladstone observed the state of the "Empire" and commented that: "At an end their rule is, and not short enough it was!". One month after that, the "Empire" was overthrown by Greek liberals and was replaced by Republic of Greece and the royal family fled to Canada - the same also happened with Italy.
 
Last edited:
OOC: How would Germany unify against France here though? Many of its Kings are quite pro-French here like in Bavaria. Plus without the war in Russia destroying the French Army they Grand Armee would be able to crush any whiff of rebellion against it. What would happen to the various Bonapartist Client states which were quite loyal to Napoleon? Saxony in otl fought on for Napoleon almost to the bitter end. Plus the Bourgesoise of these places that Napoleon employed turned towards the 1848 revolution largely out of dissatisfaction towards the more aristocratic old order of Europe.
OOC: I don't know, figure it out, I left plenty open. A lot can change in a few decades.
 
OOC: What should become of Arabia during the Fall of the Ottoman Empire? Should Muhammad Ali's Egypt grab the Hejaz or would the First Saudi State survive ITTL?
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Along with a Giray-ruled Sultanate controlling most of Anatolia outside the Aegean Coast and Greater Armenia.
Ah, the rump Turkish state.

Note that the Commonwealth actually indirectly supported the revolutionaries in Italy and Rhomania. You know what, the royal armies still used bolt-action rifles, whereas the rebels had Maxim machine guns, and a lot of those new guns (we all know where they were manufactured). And it is believed that there were also English military "observers" wearing normal clothes as well. Basically the Commonwealth used a completely different strategy to exert its influence.
 
Ah, the rump Turkish state.
Full of anger towards Greece as well with Turkish schoolchildren having maps of Turkey with a "black stain" on the Ionian coast of Anatolia in their schools even to this day (they're not dumb or crazy enough to claim Constantinople and the straits though).
 
Last edited:
Top