WI: No Austro-Hungarian war of 1848-49?

[Fehérvári]

After the revolution in Vienna on 13th March, 1848, two days later, the Hungarian Diet sent a delegation led by Lajos Kossuth to Vienna to discuss, and make him sign their proposed "ten points" and appoint Lajos Batthyány as Prime Minister.
These ten points were the followings:
-Responsible ministries, (All ministries and the government must be elected by the parliament)

-Freedom of the Press (The abolition of censure and the censor's offices)

-Popular representation (by democratic parliamentary elections, the abolition of the old feudal-esque diet, which based on the estates)

-The political reincorporation of Transylvania

-Right of public meeting, (freedom of assembly and freedom of association)

-Absolute religious liberty, the abolition of the (Catholic) state religion

-Universal equality before the law (The abolition of separate laws for the common people and nobility, the -abolition of the legal privileges of nobility)

-Universal and equal taxation, (abolition of the tax exemption of the nobility)

-The abolition of the Aviticum(, which made many lands of the nobility unalienatable, thus the nobles couldn't use them as coverage when taking loans.)

-The compulsory abolition of serfdom and bondservices, with state financed compensation to the landlords.

The King, Ferdinand V, at first didn't want to sign these, but after the news of the revolution in Pest (15th March) reached Vienna on the next day, he signed it eventually and appointed Lajos Batthyány as the first Prime Minister of Hungary.

Following the establishment of the Batthyány government, many reforms were enacted, which are commonly refered as the April Laws.

Further reading:
https://hu.wikipedia.org/wiki/1848-49-es_forradalom_és_szabadságharc

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hungarian_Revolution_of_1848

My question is, what could happen and how could change matters regarding both Hungary and the Habsburg Monarchy in the future, if the Habsburgs don't try to reverse the reforms in Hungary? Let's say the Italian war is longer and more demanding than OTL, and the Habsburgs (weither Ferdinand or Franz Joseph), can't deal with Hungary until it's too late and becomes too risky. If the attack of Jelacic still takes place, for the sake of the POD, let's say his army is crushed and he himself captured in the battle of Pákozd.

So what do you think, how could such early political and economical reforms in Hungary change the XIXth and XXth century on the levels of Hungary, Habsburg Monarchy, Europe?

 

[Fehérvári]

No interest?

 

[Tibi088]

One of the biggest point of dispute between the new constitutional hungarian government and the Vienna government was the Italian wars. Hungary refused to send troops to fight the Italian revolution for a long time as it should have according to the constitution. However its understandable that they didnt want to fight other revolutionaries that were fighting for similar goals than themselfs. It was also pretty likely that they would be the next on the list after Italy if the revolution there was crushed. OTL this happened however I dont know the Habsburg side of the story - how did it factor for them that Hungary refused to send troops in time? But seeing their absolutistic tendencies I believe that they would have tried to revoke the hungarian constitution anyway.

After Jellasic attacks I think is mostly too late to avoid the conflict. I dont think he attacked without the knowledge of Vienna and after he was beaten he was chased by the hungarian army to the border near Vienna. The hungarians stopped because they were unsure if they should chase him in austrian territory. They spent 2 weeks arguing and finally crossed the border just to be defeated a few days later by Schwehat at the 30th of October. After the hungarian army crossed the austrian border I dont think you can avoid the fighting. However I dont think that Jellasic would have attacked if the Emperor had forbidden him to.

So to avoid fighting between Austria and Hungary you have to avoid Jellasic attack.

Regarding the future:
I think Kossuth wouldnt push for independence if he could have the constitutional Hungary left alone. However whats the POD that makes the Habsburg accept such an arrangement this early?

Kossuth was much more liberal than any hungarian government before maybe 1945? or even 1990? So a Hungary led by him would be a vastly different place than the pre WWI Hungary of OTL. We would surely see a much wider suffrage. Let me share one of my favorites of his debate with Széchenyi in this regard from the early 1840's. Széchenyi asked Kossuth how he could thinking of giving voting right to people who sent even their own Savior to die on the cross. Kossuth countered if it was the will of the people that Jesus should die than he had to die. Basically he put the people above Jesus. He would also try to reach a compromise with the national minorities. On foreign policy: he was heavily russophobic and anglophile. He was also hugely popular so he would be in power for a very long time.

I cant guess what happens with the Austrian side and the Empire without a clear POD.

 

[Fehérvári]

One of the biggest point of dispute between the new constitutional hungarian government and the Vienna government was the Italian wars. Hungary refused to send troops to fight the Italian revolution for a long time as it should have according to the constitution. However its understandable that they didnt want to fight other revolutionaries that were fighting for similar goals than themselfs. It was also pretty likely that they would be the next on the list after Italy if the revolution there was crushed. OTL this happened however I dont know the Habsburg side of the story - how did it factor for them that Hungary refused to send troops in time? But seeing their absolutistic tendencies I believe that they would have tried to revoke the hungarian constitution anyway.

Yeah, you might be right, maybe agreeing to send troops to Italy earlier might have a significant impact. It would be interesting to hear the Austrian pov as well though.

After Jellasic attacks I think is mostly too late to avoid the conflict. I dont think he attacked without the knowledge of Vienna and after he was beaten he was chased by the hungarian army to the border near Vienna. The hungarians stopped because they were unsure if they should chase him in austrian territory. They spent 2 weeks arguing and finally crossed the border just to be defeated a few days later by Schwehat at the 30th of October. After the hungarian army crossed the austrian border I dont think you can avoid the fighting. However I dont think that Jellasic would have attacked if the Emperor had forbidden him to.

So to avoid fighting between Austria and Hungary you have to avoid Jellasic attack.

Well, I thought, if the fight with Jelacic is still unavoidable, then a crushing victory (not just minor skirmish like OTL) at Pákozd, from where Jelacic could nowhere to retreat, (because he's captured) could still lead to a sceniario, where the conflict with Austria is still avoided.

Regarding the future:
I think Kossuth wouldnt push for independence if he could have the constitutional Hungary left alone. However whats the POD that makes the Habsburg accept such an arrangement this early?

Kossuth was much more liberal than any hungarian government before maybe 1945? or even 1990? So a Hungary led by him would be a vastly different place than the pre WWI Hungary of OTL. We would surely see a much wider suffrage. Let me share one of my favorites of his debate with Széchenyi in this regard from the early 1840's. Széchenyi asked Kossuth how he could thinking of giving voting right to people who sent even their own Savior to die on the cross. Kossuth countered if it was the will of the people that Jesus should die than he had to die. Basically he put the people above Jesus. He would also try to reach a compromise with the national minorities. On foreign policy: he was heavily russophobic and anglophile. He was also hugely popular so he would be in power for a very long time.

While Kossuth was indeed influencal, the Batthyány government mainly compromised the supporters of Széchenyi's ideas and of the centrists, it wouldn't be Kossuth, who would be in power (only partially). Pushing for independence is not even considered by any of the political elite at this time, even in OTL '49, it was an unpopular idea. Wider suffrage is ofcourse is more than possible, but I don't think the Habsburgs or even the home elite would let the politics shift too much towards liberalism.

Kossuth and most of the political elite believed in the idea of civic nation, so I don't think the minorities would get wider minority rights as OTL 1868 (with better execution though). Ofcourse they would still enjoy full-right citizenship (like in OTL).

I cant guess what happens with the Austrian side and the Empire without a clear POD.

Earlier or later, we might come up with something

 

[Vanity 6]

No offense to any nationality but when it comes to a Magyar imperium w/o Austria, I have to say I am a skeptic. @ 1849, it is a poor, agrarian country with large swaths of territory containing dissenting people. The city folk that are around are German and Jewish. It is going to stumble. Faced with some dire alternatives (Russian intervention?, Failed State? Financial ruin?), I suspect the political elite will run back into the arms of Vienna and you have an Ausgleich type deal by 1850. That's not a bad thing--it was a good deal for Hungary. They had broad autonomy and were half of a great power.

 

[Fehérvári]

No offense to any nationality but when it comes to a Magyar imperium w/o Austria, I have to say I am a skeptic. @ 1849, it is a poor, agrarian country with large swaths of territory containing dissenting people. The city folk that are around are German and Jewish. It is going to stumble. Faced with some dire alternatives (Russian intervention?, Failed State? Financial ruin?), I suspect the political elite will run back into the arms of Vienna and you have an Ausgleich type deal by 1850. That's not a bad thing--it was a good deal for Hungary. They had broad autonomy and were half of a great power.

Well, you are right, Hungary needed Austria, but without Hungary, Austria would face problems as well. But, actually this question doesn't play in this sceniario, since we are discussing 1848, and not 1849, so there's no break between Austria and Hungary. The difference between 1848 and 1867 is that there's no real union between Austria and Hungary just personal union, so there are no common ministries. Still, the monarch held significant power both in Austria and Hungary, so the cooperation between these two states are given.

Actually, this POD's main effect would mainly be the earlier modernisation of Hungary (and probably of Austria as well) and the more succesful integration of minorities in Hungary. These changes could lead us to very different XIXth and XXth century events compared to OTL though.

 

[Vanity 6]

I agree, once the Italian, German and Hungarian questions were settled (by defeat unfortunately), the Habsburg lands (both Austria and Hungary) enjoyed its belle époque. So I often wonder about the three questions being settled through smart diplomatic and political moves and compromises during 1848-1850. Earlier modernization, no disastrously expensive wars. Maybe more advantageous outcomes: Maybe an independent Bavaria, preserved Grand Dukes and Dukes with local authority in Italy. A proto-EU of France, Italy, Germany, Austria-Hungary. Why not?