Survivality of the Empires

With quicker Entente or Central Powers victory or even WWI never happens itself, which of these empires will survive up to present day?:

Austro-Hungarian Empire
Russian Empire
Ottoman Empire
British Empire
French Empire
German Empire
Italian Empire
 
Last edited:
The Ottoman Empire is really the only one.

Germany and Italy could remain Monarchies, but they'd still eventually lose their colonial holdings.

By that time Russia was already to far gone to have remained an Empire, though it does'nt necessarily mean it's destined to go Communist.
 
Last edited:

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
With quicker Entente or Central Powers victory or even WWI never happens itself, which of these empires will survive up to present day?:

Austro-Hungarian Empire
Russian Empire
Ottoman Empire
British Empire
French Empire
German Empire
Italian Empire

I'm going with no WW1:
Austria- Hungary- Hard, reforms were needed, but not likely. Without WW1 they'll survive a decade or two longer.

Russia- A big Russia is very plausible, the Czars hanging around is not

Ottoman Empire- Without WW1 they can very well survive, especially if there's a Third Constitutional Era, which in my opinion is quite plausible since I doubt the Young Turk Dictatorship would last.

British Empire- At some point Imperialism and Colonialism would end

French Empire- At some point Colonialism and Imperialism would end.

German Empire- Same as above about Colonies, the monarchy would probably survive.

Italian Empire- See Germany
 
If CPs win or no WW1, Hohenzollern Empire will last indefinitely and Austria-Hungary will last as long as Germany wants it to, since she will intervene if necessary to prevent her ally's collapse.

The colonial empires will go at some point, though whether by 2010 is uncertain. After all, Portugal's overseas empire held on to the 1970s, bigger powers may hold on longer if they want to.

Russia will blow up sooner or later, almost for sure.

Ottoman Empire will survive as long as great powers can't agree on how to carve it up. All its territorial losses since at least the Crimean War have been due to external attack, not internal revolt, and there's no reason to expect this to change. If it can avoid foreign war it can survive ok.
 
Last edited:
Interesting...

It's an interesting question (or series of questions). On the assumption of no general European conflict (though that doesn't rule out another round or two in the Balkans in the 1920s for example).

The British Empire was arguably at its zenith in 1914 - it had seen off the Boers and events in India had really not developed. The economic damage and dislocation of war and the resulting socio-political changes undermined the Imperial structure so much that it was arguably broken beyond repair as soon as 1918.

Without conflict, it's hard to see how tensions within southern Africa and the Indian Sub-Continent wouldn't manifest themselves over time. Indeed, one could argue that in the absence of European conflict, British attentions would turn increasingly toward attempts to maintain control in India and south Africa which could become even more unpleasant than they would in OTL.

On the other hand, without the experience of WW1, Australia, Canada and New Zealand might well continue much as before.

Those who think that the conflict would prevent social/political change and evolution are plain wrong - conflict accelerates change, absence of conflict doesn't prevent it. European societies were developing beyond the autarchies that were trying to control them and as 1989 showed, there would come a point when the gulf between rulers and ruled would be such as to lead to some form of revolution, violent or peaceful.

It's arguable that any German revolution could be either violent or peaceful, t would depend on so many factors. It would mean an end to Junker Prussian domination certainly and would perhaps be recognisable as Weimar Germany without the stigma of war.

It's hard to see Austria-Hungary surviving for long and the best scenario would be a managed transition to a federation of semi-independent states and the worst an outright civil war. The internal cohesion of Russia is also not to be assumed - what can be assumed is that any post-Imperial structure wouldn't initially be democratic as is understood in the West but could be an authoritarian Govenrment with a figurehead Tsar.
 
With quicker Entente or Central Powers victory or even WWI never happens itself, which of these empires will survive up to present day?:

Austro-Hungarian Empire
Russian Empire
Ottoman Empire
British Empire
French Empire
German Empire
Italian Empire

Probably none. Growing education of the Empire's subjects and rise of a national conscience would doom them all.
 
The colonial empires (British, French, German, Italian) would all, with qualifiers for remnants and Commonwealths, go out eventually. As Stodge says, their were places that were already stirring, most importantly India, and that would start the dominoes falling.

Empires in the monarchical sense could all last in my opinion - even the Russian. The regime of Nicholas II was ineffectual, but not all of the things that could replace it would necessarily do away with the monarchy, though it might become a bit Japanese.

The Ottomans could last if they were able to get through the diplomatic shenanigans surrounding the capitulations, as a monarchy and a multu-ethnic state.

Austria-Hungary probably could last until today in some form, although it's not the most likely thing.
 
I wouldn't say that decolonisation is inevitable for all empires.

The two major things that made it happen so fast OTL:
-communist block giving support to liberation movements
-anticolonialist USA dominating western politics
could be butterflied away / reduced in strenght without 2 world wars.

Germanies colonies were sparesly inhabitated and have today a population of 85-90 millions. Germany itself has a population of 81 millions. Without territorial looses and world wars it could easily be 100 millions, so that the population of the metropole would still outnumber those of the colonies.
German-East-Africa alone acounts for roughly 60 million people, so if that gets independent Germany could stomach the economic and politcal costs of keeping the other colonies forever. The Polish minority would probably give the German goverment bigger headaches.
Its also likely that a lot of people from the colonies migrate to Germany for work creating further bonds.

I think more or less the same is true for the Italian (and maybe Spanish) Empire. Their colonies were too small and unpopulated to ever achieve independence on their own / be a so big drain that they would have to give them up.

Ironically the only Empires that were bound to collapse due to the "population bomb" once the colonial peoples "awoke" were the French and British ones (ok Portugese and maybe Dutch & Belgian too).
 
I actually would be curious to see if Italy could hold onto Libya in the long run. Assuming they could avoid losing any wars long enough, the settler population will continue to rise. I believe Mussolini and Balbo were aiming for a making it majority Italian by 1960. Hell, once the Italian population gets above forty percent I have a hard time seeing it being let go.

As far as my research goes, once the colony was pacified (unfortunately involving a lot of ethnic cleansing) the Italian government was able to make most of it relatively stable. Once oil can be profitably drilled out, I see Italian investment skyrocketing.

Am I horrifically off track here? I am an unabashed Italo-phile and I love me some nice Italowanks, and while I think the Italians get kinda short-changed on this site, they did have a lot going against them.
 
Am I horrifically off track here? I am an unabashed Italo-phile and I love me some nice Italowanks, and while I think the Italians get kinda short-changed on this site, they did have a lot going against them.

You are not.
Lybia is a desert country with 6 million inhabitants. We would all have long forgotten their existence if it wasn't for the oil and the stylish leader.
Even the Italian army should be able to keep that under control ;).
And the oil makes it worth to do that.
 
Could Franz Ferdinand successfully reform Austria-Hungary into a "United States of Central Europe" with a figurehead monarch? Hungary would probably protest violently as they only really believed in freedom and autonomy for Hungarians, while the Austrians were more amiable to compromise.
 
Portugal had almost pacified Angola and Mozambique before the Carnation Revolution; it was Guinea that was causing the biggest problems. Maybe a Commonwealth structure including Angola, Mozambique, Sao Tome, Cabinda, and Cape Verde is established.

Libya has already been discussed, though there would be a sizable and troublesome minority resistance. Eriteria is also possible; in 1939, the majority of the city of Asmara was Italian, and over 10% of the country; the settler population had also increased from five thousand to seventy five thousand in five years. Somalia is also possible, though it was not as popular a destination for settlers (Still had large increases however). Ethiopia would be the question mark for the Italian Empire, and likely would have devolved back into independence (if Italy did decide for another go in this case).

Algeria is possible, not probable, but possible. It would require an effort on the part of the French similar to the Italians in Libya, but even then would suffer from a native Algerian insurgency.

Spanish Morocco if properly colonized, in its entirety. That's about it I think.
 
It's funny how Empire, the dominant form of civilised government for 4000 years, is now despised.
 
I remember reading somewhere that 20% of Libya's population at the time was Italian (I'll search for the link). I think that it is fairly possible that the area could turn into sort of an "Italian Hawaii," given its low population levels and closeness to the mother country. With some more immigration to the area, it could be loyally Italian. Mussolini had plans for the area to be considered "Greater Italia."

I can't see them holding on to their other provinces indefinitely, though. Ultimately, the only ones I can see lasting are Russia (not with the autocratic czar, though) and the Ottomans.
 
Sargon the Great formed an Empire in 2300BC, and the same area was under Imperial rule in the 1930s. I wouldn't call that fleeting and temporary. Nor would I call Byzantium's tenure of 1000 years more or less fleeting or temporary.
 
With quicker Entente or Central Powers victory or even WWI never happens itself, which of these empires will survive up to present day?:

Alright, Let me think here.

Austro-Hungarian Empire
You need reforms for Austria-Hungary to survive. The only person that had the will and the power to go through with those reforms was the guy who got shot, starting the war. So WW1 would need to be delayed or not happen.

Russian Empire
Once again, reform is needed. Preventing Russia from going communist is surprisingly easy, but keeping the Czar in power is much harder. If Russia keeps the monarchy intact, expect the Czar to have much less power.

Ottoman Empire
Week, but surprisingly stable. Might recover some of its past strength after oil is discovered in its land, but it will never regain the balkans.

British Empire
Maybe, the British economy was designed to keep the Home Islands strong, and the colonies week. Almost all of its industry was in the Home Islands, so it can't fight a modern war with someone capable of reaching that industry and survive completely intact. Keeping control over India will ether become impossible, or become one of the most repressive parts of the empire. Also, without WW1, conflict with the rising U.S.A. is still possible.

French Empire
WW1 was Frances last war as a true great power, and France never really recovered from it. The French Empire controlled several places that were originally independent nations, Vietnam in indochina for instance. Several of these peoples would remember their independence, and would want it back. So I don't think they can keep much south of the sahara.

German Empire
Easily. If Germany wins WW1 or if WW1 doesn't happen, the German monarchy will stay in power. The german colonial empire was sparsely populated, and their weren't that many pre-existing states in those areas, so they will be able to keep those for as long as they are willing to defend them.

Italian Empire
Well, keeping the Italian monarchy is easy. Their Colonial empire? Well, that wasn't very big, so theoretically it should be easy for them to control. Unfortunately, Italy had a tendency to invade Ethiopia, which wasn't good for them at all. If the don't have any misadventures in Ethiopia, I could picture them keeping most of their empire.
 

Grey Wolf

Gone Fishin'
The question is not simple because there are two logical sustainable paths to imperial survival that not all posters are considering - 1. is the dominion model of the British Empire, the other the assimilation model of the French

There is no reason why a British Empire comprised of dominions granted self-government within the empire over the century could not survive. Under this model, Malaya, Nigeria, Rhodesia, East Africa etc could be moved up to dominion status over time.

As for France, they integrated their colonies into their democratic process, with Algiers, Senegal etc sending deputies to the French national assembly

The Ottoman Empire is at a good place in a no-war 1920s but that doesn't mean that it will stay that way. There are still tensions, and localised rivalries but if we assume NO great war arises then sure they survive more or less intact because it would take a great war to dismember them

INHO Germany may well go the British route over time for its colonies

The problem for the Habsburgs are not the minorities but the Hungarians and to that end I don't see the empire holding together

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top