Long story short: is it possible, with a POD in 1750, to have an independent Switzerland with a Hapsburg as a king by 1800?
Hapsburg Switzerland?
- Thread starter SeptimusMagistos
- Start date
No.
Considering that by 1750 the confederation has existed for over 400 years as a pretty solid republican entity(or entities, considering how decentralized it is). While it could be conquered by the Hapsburgs, I suppose, it's extremely unlikely that an independent Hapsburg monarchy would last long so long after it was overthrown, either by the Swiss themselves(probably because any monarchy would be a huge blow to the decentralization they had going) or by another country invading and wanting to cut loose Hapsburg allies.
Now, excuse me while I RAGE about the very idea of Hapsburg Switzerland.
Considering that by 1750 the confederation has existed for over 400 years as a pretty solid republican entity(or entities, considering how decentralized it is). While it could be conquered by the Hapsburgs, I suppose, it's extremely unlikely that an independent Hapsburg monarchy would last long so long after it was overthrown, either by the Swiss themselves(probably because any monarchy would be a huge blow to the decentralization they had going) or by another country invading and wanting to cut loose Hapsburg allies.
Now, excuse me while I RAGE about the very idea of Hapsburg Switzerland.
Yeah, I was afraid of that. So now I either have to figure out a plausible non-Hapsburg king, or else abandon the idea of having a figure with the moniker of 'Clock King' in my TL.
Decisions, decisions.
Decisions, decisions.
I would go with abandoning it altogether, sorry. Not only is that kind of... well, silly, for a realistic title(although I give you points for awesomeness), but around 1750, Switzerland was extremely decentralized(the modern confederation started in 1848, with the revolution and even now the federal government has far less power than most federal republics) and politics in the cantons were widely divergent. While some of the Catholic cantons had strong ties with Austria, it was never in a "we want the king back" situation, it was just a big Catholic ally nearby that could back them up if worst came to worst.
I suppose you might be able to get a politician getting the moniker though if he managed to enforce a stronger federal government over the cantons. That's never been a particularly popular thing, though(see the below point), so most likely outside places would be calling him that. And I'm not sure that it would necessarily be complimentary in every usage...
He did meddle with it: the Helvetian Republic. Which was extremely unpopular, largely because it was a centralized republic. A small amendment helped lessen that by loosening the structure, but it was at best a delaying measure. I hardly think a monarchy, unpopular idea already after being independent of Europe's silly inbred aristocrats for god knows how long, would be any more likely to preserve the cantons' political seperation.Maybe have Napoleon fiddle with it like he did Italy? Or give it to Louis after he annexes Holland?
If the latter, maybe then have Louis negotiate with the Allies to keep his throne after Napoleon's fall. If you have Napoleon fall at al.
If Napoleon never falls, maybe. But that's a tenuous hold on the throne at best, and bought with French arms enforcing the rule. Hardly a way to endear yourself to a populace.
So, sorry, Hapsburg. No monarchy for you!
Mm. Napoleon's no good.
I guess the idea's going to be a no-go. Though I'll see if I can convincingly shoehorn the politician thing in...
I guess the idea's going to be a no-go. Though I'll see if I can convincingly shoehorn the politician thing in...
usertron2020
Donor
Interested in a POD of 1635? Because I think that's what Eric Flint's going for in his 1632verse. If you just want to read it, as opposed to write it, that is. He seems to be leaning towards making the youngest Duke of Saxe-Weimar make a try for the job, but a German Lutheran? He's (Flint) has never said it in so many words, but it wouldn't be half as wild as some of the things he's done. Maybe an earlier POD, before decentralization has really taken effect?
Psst, the decentralized state of affairs in 1750 was actually better than the past. Switzerland's cantons were more or less independent of each other for a very long time. Switzerland's entire history has been a tug-of-war between the desires of canton-rights and the need for a little more centralization(HRE microcosm, kind of, except less confusing...sometimes). The Helvetic Republic was the biggest turning point to show compromise between tradition and modernity could be done(and we had to be dragged to that idea kicking and screaming), but up until that point the cantons' views on each other were "we don't like you, but we like everyone else even less".
And I wouldn't trust the 1632-verse as a realistic set-up, personally.
I don't know about that far. Around 1291 when the first forest cantons rebelled would be the best time. Preferably before it, but there's also a time a few years later (I forget which year) where the Hapsburgs tried to reconquer it. That could also be a good time. It has to be a quick crushing and reabsorption of Switzerland at the beginning of its time, though.
Although, Hapsburgs that are never driven out of Switzerland might not grow to the extent they did IOTL. Butterflies from that have the potential to be pretty huge.
I largely agree with Jord. But with a PoD around 1400, it is still possible to make Habsburg the dominant power in OTL's Switzerland (again), while at least they already have gained Austria.
Perhaps it is even possible to coordinate the course of events so that one Habsburg will become Emperor; however, this does not guarantee for a long-standing and strong dynasty as IOTL. It is uncertain whether the Habsburgs would gain Hungary and/or Bohemia in this TL, not to speak of Burgundy.
_____________
As a completely different idea, it would as well be possible that the Confederation breaks up, and its component are in danger of being sucked into surrounding powers. The Reformation is a brilliant occasion for this (in fact, it is amazing that the Confederation as a political entity has survived it). And Habsburg is, of course, one of the sufficiently powerful neighbours who might grow appetite (along with France, Savoy, bishoprics as Basel (still outside Switzerland), perhaps even former members going expansionist, and also some minor entities might hope for a share).
One thought. WI Philip III of Spain dies young, either while still Infante, or shortly after his accession to the throne, ie before his children start being born?
His immediate heir is his sister Isabella, but she never had children, so after her the throne passes to the Dukes of Savoy, descended from her younger sister. Given the enormous prestige of the Habsburg name, the Savoys probably adopt it, so we get a House of Habsburg-Savoy instead of Habsburg-Lorraine.
This leaves Switzerland virtually surrounded by Habsburg territory, either Spanish or Austrian, so they would be well placed to absorb it.
His immediate heir is his sister Isabella, but she never had children, so after her the throne passes to the Dukes of Savoy, descended from her younger sister. Given the enormous prestige of the Habsburg name, the Savoys probably adopt it, so we get a House of Habsburg-Savoy instead of Habsburg-Lorraine.
This leaves Switzerland virtually surrounded by Habsburg territory, either Spanish or Austrian, so they would be well placed to absorb it.
Well... It could be possible if either Sardinia Piedmont or Austria invaded Switzerland, then i could see the Hapsburg s putting one of their family members on the throne. Otherwise I agree with the other posts, it's a no go.
Yes, I'll admit it's not too difficult for the Hapsburgs to take power over Switzerland, especially by military force. The problem is that if the confederation's been independent for long enough it's hardly going to be a very loyal territory, and even if it is conquered there's little incentive for it to be set up as an independent Hapsburg territory instead of just having it swallowed by, say, Austria.
I hadn't thought of this, but it does seem the most likely way to get any of this going. The Reformation was a very chaotic time, and the Swiss confederation did pretty much cease to exist for a few years in it(the cantons pretty much stopped sending representatives to meet at all), so if they never reconcile, the Hapsburgs could take advantage.
But again, I don't see why they'd set up an independent Switzerland with a Hapsburg on the throne.
See the above points. Hapsburg-conquered Switzerland is fairly easy to get, but to have an independent Hapsburg ruled Switzerland, instead of a conquered territory ruled directly from Vienna, is far more difficult. Switzerland's national identity(if you can really call it that at the time) was attached to the idea of the weak confederal government and strong cantons, so a probably centralized independent kingdom makes even less sense because it would be a pretty unstable kingdom at best and of no benefit to the Hapsburgs.
So, I think the most likely result here after conquest would be either Switzerland being forced to independence again in a few years(by foreign anti-Hapsburgs or by their own rebellion) or, more likely, simply being ruled from Vienna.
Or you could go with what they were pushing for in the Catholic cantons IOTL 1800's and have the Hapsburg and Papal support for the conservative, traditional forces in the Catholic cantons basically making Switzerland into a weak Hapsburg puppet. Far more beneficial to them than forcing a king on the throne.
So then what is Austria directly annexes the Swiss and then turns it into some sort of duchy, like the duchy of Milan. Otherwise if they directly annex the Swiss republic and incorporate it into the Austrian empire maybe they can convince France to let them keep half of Swiss republic and give the other half to France thus easing the tensions between France and Austria, and in this way the swiss area would come under control of the Habsbug Monarch who ruled Austria.
True there will be revolts
, but couldnt they be put down?True. And if there will be a Switzerland Reborn before Reformation, then it is likely to include some part of German Swabia.
So...your plan is to...invade a neutral nation that acts as a buffer between Austria and its mortal enemy France, thereby gaining a few miles of mountains, rebellious citizens, and absolutely no natural resources. Then giving half that territory to your previously mentioned mortal enemy, thereby making you share a border with them.
Yes, this is a great plan.
Sorry, but the idea's just not realistic. There's no reason why Austria would do as you suggest, especially if it would benefit France as well. It just seems like one of Eurofed's anti-balkanization dreams, not like a realistic plan for the time.
Well sure they can. But for how long? By 1750, there is a Swiss national identity, if only in the sense of it being "We're not like the rest of these morons that surround us"(think Canada, but more xenophobic, and they're only being polite because you have business with them), and the Hapsburgs have a poor record with those areas. A majority, or at least a plurality, I can't remember right now, of the population is Protestant being absorbed by the arch-Catholic power. And, just to add to that, I'll remind you of the whole decentralization issue, mountainous terrain, and the fact that your ruling house is the same one they rebelled against to make that national identity.True there will be revolts
So, to recap: Can Switzerland be conquered? Yes. Is it really worth the effort, though? Big resounding no. Austria gains nothing except another title on the belt and a pain in their own ass, losing a valuable buffer, and a decent amount of troops in the invasion/occupation. Switzerland's not really the impenetrable fortress that some believe it to be, but it's nothing to sneeze at and far more importantly, there's nothing worth all that effort in the area.
I know that this site has a collective hard-on for monarchy everywhere, but there are some places and situations where it is not feasible for silly expansionist dreams. Switzerland is one such place. If you're going to invade, you better have a damn good reason or you'll regret it further down the road, and I've yet to see a reason in this thread.
So then what is Austria directly annexes the Swiss and then turns it into some sort of duchy, like the duchy of Milan. Otherwise if they directly annex the Swiss republic and incorporate it into the Austrian empire maybe they can convince France to let them keep half of Swiss republic and give the other half to France thus easing the tensions between France and Austria, and in this way the swiss area would come under control of the Habsbug Monarch who ruled Austria.
True there will be revolts
If - somehow - the Swiss got invaded then no, it wouldn't be turned into a "Duchy of Helvetica". The territory would be divided up and added to other Austrian territories - part to the County of Tyrol, part to Vorarlberg, etc. This would have the effect of dividing up the country so it would be less likely to all rebel at once, and it has the effect of not creating some large new territory to be administered when it actually makes it more efficient to use chunks of the state to unite the Austrian exclaves along the Swiss border. It's not as if the Austrians had a positive relationship with the Swiss, so they'd be in no hurry to appease them.
No land would go to France. "Donations" of territory just didn't happen, aside from as dowries of in peace treaties. It might ease tensions, yes, but (from the Austrian perspective) what right did France have to any of the land Austria had fought hard to win? And why should Austria have to give something up to make a rival feel better? Suggesting that you should hand out land to appease a rival was a tacit admission that you felt you couldn't beat them in a war, and that was a psychological faux pas of the highest order. For that matter, giving a rival land was also a faux pas, as it invariably made them stronger - if the grant of land would be a negative to France - for instance if France knew it would be a handful to keep hold of - they would simply refuse the offer anyway. All in all, this ain't gonna happen.
There would be revolts. It's a given. Can Austria put them down? Well, yes, but remember why the Swiss won their independence in the first place. The terrain is shockingly bad for waging a war on the offence. It's also brilliant for defenders. Armies can be isolated and left with nowhere to run and with all supplies cut extremely easily by small units of men because the mountain passes leave you with only ever two choices on which way to travel - forward, or back the way you came. It's fantastic ground for ambushes. All in all, it's just a defensive paradise.
There's one thing this WI is missing though: what on earth is the casus belli? Why on earth would Austria get away with going to war with the Swiss? Post the 30 years war, there's just no motive for war, and simple land-grabs in Europe only happened where one state could manufacture a legitimate reason to cover up for the illegitimate land-grab. Considering the way that the Swiss were hardly the most active participants in war (they tended to just hire out mercenaries rather than get involved, and hiring mercenaries is NOT legitimate grounds for war) there's really just no sensible reason for Austria to do this all.
Conclusion: set the POD back in the medieval era when the Swiss were actually at war with the Austrians.
This is something that has always intrigued me. Switzerland has been consistently anti-monarchy, or certainly anti-Habsburg, while Tyrol, just down the road and, superficially at least, a similar sort of country, evolved exactly the opposite way. Any thoughts as to why?
I agree with you, what i said before was pretty stupid
. Yeah only in the medieval era could Austria truly conquer Swiss, but even then, from what iI heard about the Swiss, they would eventually revolt and succeed in driving out the Austrians, since the Swiss lands are well suited for a defensive war.