How Far Did Austrian Influence Over Germany

To what extent did Austrian influence over Germany survive the upheavals of the years 1848-50?
The revolutions of 1848-9 impacted Austria’s previously dominant political power significantly. With the Austrian chancellor Metternich fleeing from power in March 1848 and revolutions resulting in chaos that threatened the extinction of any future Austrian influence, the crippling state’s main focus was to supress anything that could jeopardize its weakened power even further, rather than establishing any plans to increase dominance. However certain events such as the failure of the Erfurt union, the humiliation at Hesse-Cassel and the meeting at Olmutz tightened Austria’s grasp by an almost transfer of power from Prussia to Austria and enabled it to begin a process of re-establishing previously existing influence and attempt to supress any Prussian political advantages. Eventually Austria’s newly found power would be put to the test as it started to draw up future plans for an even greater Austrian hold than had previously existed prior the upheavals. These plans, such as a ‘zollunion’ and the establishment of alternative custom unions can truly reveal the extent of Austria’s influential survival.
Austria did manage to start to reinforce
influence due to its formation of a counter Prussian union which would result in support from many previously Prussian supporting states. After Prussia’s king Fredrick William IV refused to accept the imperial crown offered by the Frankfurt parliament, he decided that he would draw up plans of a German Federal Reich which would exclude Austria. Prussia eventually formed a “three king’s alliance” or “Erfurt’s Union” in 1849, which included Saxony, Hanover and many smaller states that were ‘bullied’ into joining. Firstly, this prompted Austria to put forward its own idea for a Grossdeutchland after being able to supress the Hungarian upheavals. Then this success and the idea of a greater political influence resulted in large states such as Hanover and Saxony deserting Prussia and joining the support for Austria. These events show that Austria’s influence over Germany was still certainly present and that it didn’t have to force its support as Prussia did. Schwazenberg was then able to summon the old German Confederation Diet in Frankfurt in May 1950, to be met with a positive response. This quick restoration of power suggests that Austrian political dominance was not entirely lost and that this Austrian-led Frankfurt diet, now on par with the Prussian-led Erfurt parliament, was quickly becoming a catalyst to enable Austria to show Frederick William that its influence was still existent in Germany.
Prussia’s humiliation at Hesse-Cassel is also another event that highlights the extent of which Austria’s influence over other German states was still present. A crisis in the smaller state Hesse-Cassel resulted in it asking the Austrian-led Federal Diet for help instead of Prussia’s Erfurt parliament. This would have weakened Prussian authority over Germany and suggests that even though Austria had only recently supressed the revolutions, other states were still very heavily influenced and controlled by Austria. The events at Hesse-Cassel also show Prussia’s inability to go to war with Austria. After Radowitz urged Fredrick William to prepare for war, the strong power Russia intervened and warned Prussia that it would support Austria, resulting in Prussia backing down and accepting defeat. This then shows how not only did Austria still exert influence and power upon Germany but also that it was very capable of causing fear among enemy states such a Prussia. This is critical when measuring the extent in which Austria could control and dominate others using other factors to influence Germany instead of general economic strength which it lacked at that time.
This sudden increase in control caused by the events in Hesse-Cassel leads on to the third way that demonstrated the extent in which Austria’s influence survived. Due to Prussia’s defeat, a meeting between Mantueffel and Schwarzenberg was arranged at Olmutz on the 29th of November 1850. Prussia eventually agreed to abandon its Union plan and agreed to organise a conference of states to discuss the future of Germany. This was a significant Austrian success, not only did Austria catch up with Prussia but the fact that it now had a say in future important German decision making also shows the extent in which Austria would always be seen as a vital state that should always play a part in German politics. This demonstrates its influence again, and is showing traits of power that existed before the upheavals.
However, Austria’s influence over Germany was limited; this is shown in two important failures of political authority.
Firstly, after Olmutz, Schwarzenberg put forward his plans for an ‘Austrian-dominated middle Europe’ which would include 70 million people from all of the German states. This idea was not accepted among the smaller states and it would mean that their power would be decreased so that larger states, such as Austria, could increase in power. This meant that many states chose to support Prussia’s plan to return back to the status quo which existed before. The failure of being unable to influence other states to support Austria’s plan shows that although it could control certain situations its power could only go so
far.
Secondly, Austria proposed a plan of a “zollunion” in 1849. It was intended to be an extended customs union between Austria and the Zollverein. However this political move to improve and boost Austria’s poor economy again failed. It was unable to maintain an efficient army and by the end of the Crimean war it was very financially vulnerable, whereas Prussia’s economy was radically developing in the industrial revolution. This suggests that although Austria did still have a certain influence over Germany after the upheavals, it did not have complete domination. I believe that if Austria proposed such a plan before the revolutions, it would have been more successful, this shows that some of Austria’s influence over Germany was weakened.
To conclude, I believe that its influence survived to a limited extent but that Austria would have always been considered as one of the most dominant states. Whether this was due states fearing Russian intervention or Austria’s own political tactics, it is clear that after the upheavals a considerable amount of influence did survive as Austria was successful in regaining a lot of political power in a very short amount of time and with ease. However it is also clear that although Austria was able to control and influence smaller states such as Hesse-Cassel, it was unable to control all German states as a whole. This shows that although enough influence survived so that smaller states were still under Austrian control, the dominance that existed before the upheavals which enabled Austria to control vast numbers of states seemed to fade during the revolutions. I believe that ultimately the basis for the surviving Austrian influence was based on a lack of faith in Prussia but many states were not yet ready to fully trust or commit to being under Austria’s control or future Austrian political plans for an united Germany.