PC: Alt-Congress of Vienna (failure of Prussia)

[OxSpace]

Ok, I understand all of this but with Belgium/Rhineland/Westphalia Austria might just concentrate on the Reich while Prussia is weaker. Plus Austria would be arguably richer than Russia, and in better position to handle the debt.

Austria doesn't have the luxury of just focusing on Germany. Vienna cannot just ignore Russia as you're implying. Vienna also has interests in Italy, the Balkans, Eastern Europe. You're also overestimating the hostility of the Austro-Prussian enmity at this point--Vienna and Berlin are defacto defensive allies via Act IX. I don't know why you keep bringing up debt, every nation in Europe had debt and financial problems to deal with. Prussia was still in debt when they joined the Sixth Coalition. Besides that, even if we imply Austria is "richer", that means very little in wake of a war with Russia directly on your border.

On side note, do you think Austria getting Belgium+Luxembourg without giving up anything else is possible if only Austria wants it?

No. If Austria wanted Belgium they'd have to give up Venice. If they want Venice too they have to give up something else.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

No. If Austria wanted Belgium they'd have to give up Venice. If they want Venice too they have to give up something else.

Venice was essentially an Austrian puppet before the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars and no other GP than Austria had interests in Italy.

 

[OxSpace]

Venice was essentially an Austrian puppet before the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars and no other GP than Austria had interests in Italy.

That's beside the point. This is also a period where Austria has lost Belgium to Revolutionary France, so in a sense, the new "Venetian Province" was compensation for the aforementioned. Other powers, such as France & Britain had interests in Italy.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

That's beside the point. This is also a period where Austria has lost Belgium to Revolutionary France, so in a sense, the new "Venetian Province" was compensation for the aforementioned. Other powers, such as France & Britain had interests in Italy.

It would've been Austrian regardless, they didn't get Belgium back because they Austrians didn't want to not because they couldn't've; Britain didn't have desires in Northern Italy and France wasn't in a position to oppose this.

 

[OxSpace]

It would've been Austrian regardless, they didn't get Belgium back because they Austrians didn't want to not because they couldn't've; Britain didn't have desires in Northern Italy and France wasn't in a position to oppose this.

No no, Austria 100% ceded Belgium for Venice. This was the case in Campo Formio:

Which Austria was more than willing to confirm, as you said, they didn't want it:

(Toward an Understanding of Europe: A Political Economic Précis of Continental Integration)

(The Development of Modern Europe Volume I)
As far as Britain, their desires in Northern Italy would involve the situation directly along the French border but there were many in Parliament that had sympathies with the ancient Merchant Republics. France was persistent on the restoration of the cadet Bourbons in various Italian polities, most notably Two Sicilies.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

No no, Austria 100% ceded Belgium for Venice. This was the case in Campo Formio:

In 1797, that was a very different situation than in 1814-15.

Which Austria was more than willing to confirm, as you said, they didn't want it:

(Toward an Understanding of Europe: A Political Economic Précis of Continental Integration)

(The Development of Modern Europe Volume I)

Austria didn't want it, however regardless of the Austrian Netherlands they would've gotten Venice either as a puppet state or as an annexed territory, there was no need to compensate Austria, they decided to give up on their territory, it was only way to make it seem more acceptable; Lombardy-Venetia was already Austrian-aligned in 1792 so it was very much giving back the territories they had before 1792.

As far as Britain, their desires in Northern Italy would involve the situation directly along the French border but there were many in Parliament that had sympathies with the ancient Merchant Republics. France was persistent on the restoration of the cadet Bourbons in various Italian polities, most notably Two Sicilies.

There also was a massive anti-slavery movement in Britain, which in the end amounted to empty promises.

 

[OxSpace]

In 1797, that was a very different situation than in 1814-15.

That's not the point, it's simply the precedent for the trade that happens in 1814

Austria didn't want it, however regardless of the Austrian Netherlands they would've gotten Venice either as a puppet state or as an annexed territory, there was no need to compensate Austria, they decided to give up on their territory, it was only way to make it seem more acceptable; Lombardy-Venetia was already Austrian-aligned in 1792 so it was very much giving back the territories they had before 1792.

And this is all based on what, exactly? There was no need to compensate Austria other than the fact that Austria was compensated for the loss of the Austrian Netherlands as proven by the excerpts. So I'm very confused why you're persisting that "there was no need to compensate" or "they weren't compensated". Whether or not Austria did or didn't want the Austrian Netherlands is irrelevant. The fact of the matter here is that they gave it up and because of the loss of souls and territory, they were compensated elsewhere, ie, Venice. Venice being aligned or a puppet or any other form geopolitical vassalage is beside the point. This is just an example of the pieces perfectly aligned.

There also was a massive anti-slavery movement in Britain, which in the end amounted to empty promises.

You're comparing apples to oranges. Territorial legitimacy is far more pressing to the interest of European courts than slavery was.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Ngl Prussia being left out doesn't make much sense unless Napoleon makes it irrelevant by utterly gutting it so much that it's basically a rump state. Napoleon at one point considered it, but he sort of relented out of concern for Russia, and partly because of his own personal admiration of Frederick II. Napoleon actually doing this changes the war entirely and it might just buttefly away his downfall to begin with.

Prussia in otl was a client state in all but name for Tsar Alexander, so he had every interest in including them at the table.

 

[TrickyApe]

Prussia in otl was a client state in all but name for Tsar Alexander, so he had every interest in including them at the table.

It wasn't really though, despite Russia and Prussia being close allies at a particular point in time and on several important issues. Prussia always retained the option of an independent foreign policy and that was the basis for Metternich's plan for an Austro-Prussian bloc to resist both east and west.

However, a weaker Prussia might be forced into the role of an actual client, making an interesting motivation for some of the changes being suggested.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

That's not the point, it's simply the precedent for the trade that happens in 1814

At the Congress of Vienna every agreement made from 1792 onwards was not very relevant,

And this is all based on what, exactly? There was no need to compensate Austria other than the fact that Austria was compensated for the loss of the Austrian Netherlands as proven by the excerpts. So I'm very confused why you're persisting that "there was no need to compensate" or "they weren't compensated".

Campo Formio was a peace deal which the Austrians had to accept after being crushed by the French, annexing Venice was only a way to save the face but objectively it lost a lot of territory just to annex a puppet.
At the Congress of Vienna Austria didn't want to get the Austrian Netherlands back, otherwise it would've been in their hands; the "compensation" was only a way to make it sound better than "we are annexing a territory on which we had designs for territories", Venice would've been Austrian regardless.

Whether or not Austria did or didn't want the Austrian Netherlands is irrelevant. The fact of the matter here is that they gave it up and because of the loss of souls and territory, they were compensated elsewhere, ie, Venice. Venice being aligned or a puppet or any other form geopolitical vassalage is beside the point. This is just an example of the pieces perfectly aligned.

Venice being a puppet is very much on the point, they are only gaining back what was already theirs not being compensated for not wanting to retain the Austrian Netherlands.

You're comparing apples or oranges. Territorial legitimacy is far more pressing to the interest of European courts than slavery was.

Britain didn't really do anything to prevent the Austrians from getting Venice-Lombardy, sympathies in Parliament didn't change much.

 

[OxSpace]

At the Congress of Vienna every agreement made from 1792 onwards was not very relevant,

They were relevant, this is much more obvious in Germany.

At the Congress of Vienna Austria didn't want to get the Austrian Netherlands back, otherwise it would've been in their hands; the "compensation" was only a way to make it sound better than "we are annexing a territory on which we had designs for territories", Venice would've been Austrian regardless.

Again, this is based on what exactly? Venice (& Lombardy/Milan) was occupied during the Sixth Coalition, not liberated to the Austrian Empire. Unilateral annexation was not going to be approved by the other powers the same way Prussia never annexed Saxony after Russia transfer the occupation to them, or the Russian occupation of Poland. The Treaty of Paris had already laid out the expansion of the Netherlands & because Austria was more than willing to pawn off the Austrian Netherlands, they used it as leverage to legitimize the annexation of Venice as suitable compensation. There was no sugar coating and "Venice would've been Austrian" is based on nothing.

Venice being a puppet is very much on the point, they are only gaining back what was already theirs not being compensated for not wanting to retain the Austrian Netherlands.

This is not how is played out. Austria, legally, knew Venice was not theirs so it was declared as compensation.

Britain didn't really do anything to prevent the Austrians from getting Venice-Lombardy, sympathies in Parliament didn't change much.

Of course they didn't because they were more invested in expanding the Netherlands than saving Venice. I was only pointing out Britain had interests in Northern Italy, not that they were going to actively oppose Austria.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

They were relevant, this is much more obvious in Germany.

They took a map of 1792 and discussed over it, by 1814 Austria did not have Venetia or Lombardy under its rule so Campo Formio was largely irrelevant.

Venice (& Lombardy/Milan) was occupied during the Sixth Coalition, not liberated to the Austrian Empire

And?

Unilateral annexation was not going to be approved by the other powers the same way Prussia never annexed Saxony after Russia transfer the occupation to them, or the Russian occupation of Poland.

The other GP didn't care about Austria's Italian ambitions which is why they let them do it IOTL, the reason why Saxony wasn't annexed was because Austria wanted it alive to show they were the protector of the German states and to have a buffer with Prussia and Poland wasn't annexed is because of fear of Russian expansionism not because it was morally wrong or something.

The Treaty of Paris had already laid out the expansion of the Netherlands & because Austria was more than willing to pawn off the Austrian Netherlands, they used it as leverage to legitimize the annexation of Venice as suitable compensation.

That's what I said, what's your point?

There was no sugar coating and "Venice would've been Austrian" is based on nothing.

Venice was in the Austrian sphere before the 1792, there's no way Austria would abandon its Italian ambitions when it's on the winning side of the conflict.

This is not how is played out. Austria, legally, knew Venice was not theirs so it was declared as compensation.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

 

[OxSpace]

They took a map of 1792 and discussed over it, by 1814 Austria did not have Venetia or Lombardy under its rule so Campo Formio was largely irrelevant.

Which is why Austria was not the rightful owner of Venice. I only brought up Campo Formio as a precedent. Other treaties past 1792 were relevant though, which is why Bavaria was allowed to keep Ansbach & Prussia was given Berg. But that is besides the point, before you feel the need to argue every point.

And?

And it exemplifies the fact that these territories were to be handed out via the collective powers, not something Austria just automatically got back or could take on a whim. Lombardy was under a General-Governorship.

The other GP didn't care about Austria's Italian ambitions which is why they let them do it IOTL,

They let Austria do it because Austria provided them a waiver of the Austrian Netherlands. They didn't let them do it just because they didn't care.

the reason why Saxony wasn't annexed was because Austria wanted it alive to show they were the protector of the German states and to have a buffer with Prussia and Poland wasn't annexed is because of fear of Russian expansionism not because it was morally wrong or something.

The point of those examples was to signify the desire for legitimacy in annexation, not the schematics of why one or the other did or didn't take place.

That's what I said, what's your point?

Except it's not because you don't believe Venice was legitimate compensation for the Austrian Netherlands per this entire argument.

Venice was in the Austrian sphere before the 1792, there's no way Austria would abandon its Italian ambitions when it's on the winning side of the conflict.

This says nothing about whether or not Venice was compensation. This point is irrelevant.

I don't understand the point you're trying to make here.

That Venice was not "theirs".

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

And it exemplifies the fact that these territories were to be handed out via the collective powers, not something Austria just automatically got back or could take on a whim. Lombardy was under a General-Governorship.

Lombardy was Austrian before, while it may not be automatic that they are given back in theory, in practice there is no way it wouldn't've.

They let Austria do it because Austria provided them a waiver of the Austrian Netherlands. They didn't let them do it just because they didn't care.

Who is going to oppose Austrian dominance in Northern Italy when it was such before 1792? The other 3 GP in the Congress of Vienna gained something, they can't oppose the return of the pre-war status quo in Italy nor are they willing to.

The point of those examples was to signify the desire for legitimacy in annexation, not the schematics of why one or the other did or didn't take place.

Legitimacy is nice if you have it but you can very much live without it, if Metternich saw it in Austria's interests then he would've done it.

Except it's not because you don't believe Venice was legitimate compensation for the Austrian Netherlands per this entire argument.

I was saying that Austria just used the excuse of compensation, I still don't understand your point.

That Venice was not "theirs".

On paper? No. In practice? It was their puppet. Who would oppose the annexation of the territory? It's not in Russia's, Prussia's or Britain's interests and France is not in a position to prevent it and even if they don't annex it it still will be in their sphere.

 

[OxSpace]

Lombardy was Austrian before, while it may not be automatic that they are given back in theory, in practice there is no way it wouldn't've.

Well in practice, there was more focus on circumstance. Austria was willing to cede Milan in hopes of getting Eugene on their side like they were able to with Murat so they'd be able to focus on Napoleon. When the dust settled, you'd be right.

Who is going to oppose Austrian dominance in Northern Italy when it was such before 1792? The other 3 GP in the Congress of Vienna gained something, they can't oppose the return of the pre-war status quo in Italy nor are they willing to.

The same Austrian dominance that collapsed under the Revolution? Giving up Venice to Vienna's desire in exchange for the Austrian Netherlands kills two birds with one stone.

Legitimacy is nice if you have it but you can very much live without it, if Metternich saw it in Austria's interests then he would've done it.

If it were that simple than the entire Congress would've collapsed on the first week. No power, great or small, would willingly become a pariah state.

I was saying that Austria just used the excuse of compensation, I still don't understand your point.

Yes, exactly, an "excuse". So you still don't believe that Venice was a legitimate form of compensation.

Who would oppose the annexation of the territory? It's not in Russia's, Prussia's or Britain's interests and France is not in a position to prevent it.

Austria itself. Because they want to make sure their annexation is legitimate.

 

[EasternRomanEmpire]

The same Austrian dominance that collapsed under the Revolution?

It lost against France just as the rest of Europe, the score of all other countries from 1792 onwards isn't brilliant either.

If it were that simple than the entire Congress would've collapsed on the first week. No power, great or small, would willingly become a pariah state.

Did Prussia need legitimacy when it wanted to annex all of Saxony? I agree that it is important but not the only factor.

Yes, exactly, an "excuse". So you still don't believe that Venice was a legitimate form of compensation.

It was going to be Austrian anyways so I don't consider it compensation.

Austria itself. Because they want to make sure their annexation is legitimate.

It's not like it particularly hurts their legitimacy, even the compensation thing is not legitimate if you actually look at it but nobody cares.

 

[OxSpace]

Did Prussia need legitimacy when it wanted to annex all of Saxony? I agree that it is important but not the only factor.

Considering they backed down and agreed to the limited terms for Saxony when faced with a (farce) coalition after they threaten war if they couldn't annex all of it. I'd come to the conclusion that legitimacy was everything. If legitimacy was ultimately a non-issue, there wouldn't have been a Saxony after 1815.

It was going to be Austrian anyways so I don't consider it compensation.

The courts in Vienna did not know that.

It's not like it particularly hurts their legitimacy, even the compensation thing is not legitimate if you actually look at it but nobody cares.

But Austria did care, because they do not want to set a precedent.

 

[vn6]

Austria doesn't have the luxury of just focusing on Germany. Vienna cannot just ignore Russia as you're implying. Vienna also has interests in Italy, the Balkans, Eastern Europe. You're also overestimating the hostility of the Austro-Prussian enmity at this point--Vienna and Berlin are defacto defensive allies via Act IX. I don't know why you keep bringing up debt, every nation in Europe had debt and financial problems to deal with. Prussia was still in debt when they joined the Sixth Coalition. Besides that, even if we imply Austria is "richer", that means very little in wake of a war with Russia directly on your border.


No. If Austria wanted Belgium they'd have to give up Venice. If they want Venice too they have to give up something else.

That's Austria's problem exactly - focusing on too many things. As long as Russia gives Austria freedom of sailing down the Danube and through the straits, I don't see vital Austrian interests in the area. Creation of new nation states at the Balkans was exaggerated as a dagner - they and Austria did co-exist for years and conflict with Serbia wasn't the only cause of war (and comes partially from Austrians' mistake of taking Bosnia).

IMO Austria should focus primarily on Germany and Italy, maybe it would succeed if it didn't piss off Russia in Crimean War.

Okay about Venice/Belgium. But it Venice is compensation for Belgium, then where's compensation for lost Polish lands (3rd partition) or Further Austria? Could Belgium be such a compensation?

 

[TrickyApe]

Okay about Venice/Belgium. But it Venice is compensation for Belgium, then where's compensation for lost Polish lands (3rd partition) or Further Austria? Could Belgium be such a compensation?

The 3ed Partition took place well after 1789, so if the point is to restore the prerevolutionary situation (which came and went as a goal according to the interests of the powers involved and shouldn't be exaggerated), then New Galicia was superfluous. Further Austria was more than compensated for by the secularizations of Salzburg and the smaller principalities.

The problem with your argument here is the assumption that Metternich and Emperor Francis left something major on the table at Vienna and could gain something more just by bringing up old claims. Metternich actually negotiated very strongly and very well and Austria received more in terms of territory and population when comparing the 1812 and 1815 situations than any other power. Getting an additional valuable consideration like Belgium would require trading away something else or alternately a TL that puts Austria in a stronger position coming into the conference, perhaps through better military performance or internal problems in Russia or some other major state.

 

[vn6]

The 3ed Partition took place well after 1789, so if the point is to restore the prerevolutionary situation (which came and went as a goal according to the interests of the powers involved and shouldn't be exaggerated), then New Galicia was superfluous. Further Austria was more than compensated for by the secularizations of Salzburg and the smaller principalities.

The problem with your argument here is the assumption that Metternich and Emperor Francis left something major on the table at Vienna and could gain something more just by bringing up old claims. Metternich actually negotiated very strongly and very well and Austria received more in terms of territory and population when comparing the 1812 and 1815 situations than any other power. Getting an additional valuable consideration like Belgium would require trading away something else or alternately a TL that puts Austria in a stronger position coming into the conference, perhaps through better military performance or internal problems in Russia or some other major state.

In Poland no pre-1789 order was restored though and partitions weren't a direct consequence of the revolution.

I feel like Austria should have gotten more. Prussia's territory pretty much doubled compared to 1812, Austria's didn't.

I may be wrong but likely Austria had the highest debt (I've only got comparison from 1866 when it was 5 times higher than Prussia's debt; in 1837 payments of interest on debt accounted for 45 % of Austrian budget's receipts.) With such a burden, the compensation at the congress was really low.