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

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

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*

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.

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

You could’ve worded that better

​@@arabfromramla Nah he's good, keep your American sensibilities to yourself.

@@arabfromramlahe 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.

Yes yes yes! I want to see that 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

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.

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

Videntis did a video about it.

@@CatarigMaTt 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

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 💀💀💀

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.

True

Please be quiet.

@@Rofflestomper ?

@@CatarigMaTt he’s lying or being stupid and saying the opposite of what the video said. The video made by an actual historian.

@@CatarigMaTt I also suggest someone who’s stupid enough to only reply “???” Should also be quiet.

Vicky 2 or Vicky 3?

Vic2 reference

Bro is in VIC 2

I did it in vc

I'm pretty sure they could have formed a united Germany, but I feel like historically speaking this wouldn't really be the style of the Habsburgs, like I'm pretty sure they rather build up complicated dynasties to diplomatically bind countries to them than actually annex them like Prussia did. If I remember correctly they did always differentiated between different dynasty possessions quite well

Wait what

Nice

Actually?

@@AdvancedGamer- yep

Apie ką tu? Neaiškus komentaras.

Syndicalist confederation of Greater Germany

Austrians are ethnic Germans.

Sphere of influence is also a result of ecconomy. Montenegro simply doesn't have the ability to hold off ecconomic power.

@@matthiuskoenig3378true

I believe he’s dutch

How lol

Jk

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

They didn’t give up Egypt they gave up Sudan So Uhm yeah

Your the first

Praise be to the first.

and the person who actually got first award goes to...