WI the Franco-Prussian War went the other way?

[Airedale260]

There are several things to consider. Perhaps the most important one is that creating a separate kingdom is very different from annexing anything for yourself. Napoleon annexed stuff left and right, and created puppet states with little real autonomy. The West German state (Kingdom of Rhenania?) is not supposed to be a powerless French ally, but a geopolitical ally that will oppose Prussia out of its own self-interest.

In the interest of appearing as modest and un-greedy as possible, I would personally opt to decline any plans to annex the Saarland directly. It's appealing, but presenting youself as the paragon of virtue who is dutifully hemming in the belligerent upstart kingdom Prussia is far more important. It's Prussia whose martial drums are disturbing the harmonious concert of Europe, and you are simply acting to restore balance.

Well, when I mentioned the Saarland I meant that as “the most France could hope to grab” not that that would be what they actually get.

As far as creating a separate kingdom goes, given his uncle’s track record and then his own, I doubt the British would buy the excuse of “Oh it’s totally a separate kingdom” for the new state. Not when the country claiming this is their historical rival since 1066. Or Napoleon III’s other “brilliant” policies like a new Empire of Mexico and how well that went. The guy simply had no self-restraint when it came to trying to aggrandize France.

Plus the Prussians are going to be angry about their plans for a new Germany being thwarted and likely to bounce back much more quickly and with a chip on their shoulder. It might wind up with the Prussians swallowing their pride over a German state but who knows.

 

[stevep]

Guys

Interesting discussion. If somehow France won very big then the intelligent thing would be to try and dismantle Prussia itself, or at least deprive it of its western possessions. Setting up some western buffers such as a revived Rhine state - albeit probably a monarchy under those circumstance which is likely to start a race for who supplies the new monarch and restoring the independence of Hanover. The latter would be useful at winning some sympathy in Britain and reducing the risk of it being seen as some sort of anti-Protestant plot. Also if you added to them the provinces of Schleswig-Holstein that would boost them further and also isolate Prussia from the North Sea.

The issues here [apart from winning such a crushing victory] would be getting the balance right and not antagonizing or frightening too many other powers or populations. Can Napoleon III show enough diplomatic talent for this? Possibly he could get away with the Saar or swapping that for some deal for Luxembourg but it might be difficult winning such a victory and not making any territorial gains, especially since the win is no doubt going to be costly. There will be people urging him to go for the 'natural' borders of the Rhine and that would upset too many people including most Germans and Britain. That would be an equivalient of the Prussia annexation of Alsace-Lorraine in spades and almost certainly mean war with assorted future German states.

Its correct that the Westphalia region had differences, both religious and social/cultural with Prussia which makes detaching them practical if the defeat is crushing enough. This would also seriously weaken Prussia. It still has some important industrial capacity, especially in its part of Saxony and of Silesia as well as the Hanover region if they keep that so it would be a great power, which would mean tension with Austria as well as any western state or alliance that might be set up.

Britain and France were fairly friendly for much of Napoleon III's reign. There was the occasionally naval scare and since France was the only other great power with a significant base for most of this period plus French history as a potential hegemon so Britain had its cautious but relations were generally good. They cooled off rather after the intervention in Mexico to secure foreign debts turned into an French attempt to establish a puppet state. Also by 1870 both the Emperor and his regime were faltering somewhat and facing growing internal opposition. If he dies not long afterward, as a 'war hero' with a young new emperor it could stabilize but a new republic isn't impossible.

Having said all that, I do agree with Circle of Willis that such a French victory, or any really is unlikely without a clear and fairly drastic change some years before, seems virtually ASB. France might secure its border and probably annex the Saar but unless there was great internal unrest in Prussia leading to its division - which seems unlikely - your going to see continued Franco-German tension and probably a war a generation or two down the line, which could go either way.

Steve

 

[Husky_Khan]

In terms of Italy I would suspect that the French presence in Rome wouldn't last and that Italy would achieve a large scale level of unification. As such its likely to be another member of the Anglo-German alliance if such a balance of powers occurs, along with probably a modernising Japan for geographic reasons. Italy did perform badly but this was partly due to one of the worst C-in-C's in the war [which is saying something] Luigi Cadorna - Wikipedia and also due to a very poor position for offensive actions. Italy on the defensive might perform markedly better, at least in terms of holding off hostile forces and inflicting heavy losses.

Oh Garibaldis Ghost... Imagine Cadorna prosecuting offensives on two mountain fronts. Alongside the thirteen battles of the Isonzo River, we'll have a dozen more along the Vesubie in the Maritime Alps.

After a dozen Battles and half a decade the Italians will finally bombard Monaco to rubble and Cadorna can finally boast no Commander since Hannibal could've done more against such odds in such terrain!

 

[stevep]

Oh Garibaldis Ghost... Imagine Cadorna prosecuting offensives on two mountain fronts. Alongaise the thirteen battles of the Isonzo River, we'll have a dozen more alonf the Vesubie in the Maritime Alps.

After a dozen Battles and half a decade the Italians will finally bombard Monaco to rubble and Cadorna can finally boast no Commander since Hannibal could've done more against such odds in such terrain!

Unfortunately that sounds very much like Cadorna. As well as lacking any strategic ability that I can see off he seemed to have pretty much total contempt for the soldiers unfortunately enough to be under his command. I'm surprised, given the natural problems on the Isonzo and the Italian desires for territory in the Dalmatia region that they never tried landings there, which with Franco-British naval support might have had some impact, especially before Serbia and Montenegro were overrun.

At times if decently lead the Italians were able and willing to fight well and despite what Cardorna did to them they fought very bravely in the OTL battles so if they were defending Italy and with the Alps on their side across much of the border I don't see it being easy for any invader. They could be overwhelmed but it would take time and a lot of blood.

Steve

 

[StormEagle]

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is Russia. The Prussians and the Russians were rather friendly at this time, before the Germans decided to solidify their alliance with Austria-Hungary.

I find it entirely likely that if France is to draconian with its demands, Prussia might break off peace negotiations and try to convince the Russians to join the war on the side of the North Germans.

If that’s the case, the Prussian army can withdraw in good order and set up defensive lines around Berlin while the Russian army mobilizes and starts trickling west.

The French, therefore, would benefit from a softer treaty.

Something that won’t make Bismarck storm away from the negotiation table. Which demanding the almost the entirety of West Germany would almost certainly do.

 

[Buba]

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is Russia. The Prussians and the Russians were rather friendly at this time,

Simply Russia no likey neither France nor A-H.
France/Napoleon III - for the Crimean War and then inspiring the January Uprising in Poland;
A-H/Franz Josef - for expressing its gratitude for Russian intervention in 1849 to put down Hungarian Revolt by "backstabbing" Russia during the Crimean War. Then the January Uprising in Poland - if Austria did not somehow collude in its outbreak I'll eat my left sock; and once it was going armed volunteers heading towards the border passed through Cracow in armed groups ... it took Russia over a year of diplomatic protests for Austria to make some moves to close the border. Whereas Prussia? Mobilised its eastern Corps and closed the border for volunteers and arms smugglers inside days!
Oh - I forgot about the Accord in Olomunc in 1852 (or was it 1850?) where Russia forced Prussia to stand down from its aggrandisment designs at Austria's expense - Sankt Peterburg had good reasons to consider Franz Josef a piece of shit and to back Berlin against him.

Hence indeed - if Nappy the Lesser gets too greedy then Russia will wade in. Not that I see the French army as being capable of crossing the Elbe - it was rank and for it to win 1870 takes massive ASB intervention
The Russian army was rank too, and the treasury empty (Crimean War, January Uprising ... ), but Russia would had ground down the French. Do not equate the military and finances of the 2nd Empire with that of the 1st Republic/1st Empire.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Would France simply try and create a buffer State in West Germany and all of that juicy Rhineland? France swallowing swaths of it would probably offend the sensibilities of more then Prussia and while I don't know Napoleon III's desires I'd imagine he wouldn't be Napoleon enough to not grab too much and alienate potential future allies or create new enemies.

Having Austria and France maintain competing spheres of influence in Western and Southern Germany seem more sensible, and might pay off better if Bismarck is eventually booted from Prussian leadership.

On a different tangent a War between France, Russia, Austria (with Southern and Western German bits coming along) vs. Ottoman Empire, Prussia, and potentially Britain and Italy would be pretty wild. Plus there's so many Balkan states whose status may range from non-existence to beimg sovereign powers whose own interests and loyalties could shift rapidly in the lead up.

On the THIRD tangent...

The 800 pound gorilla in the room is Russia. The Prussians and the Russians were rather friendly at this time, before the Germans decided to solidify their alliance with Austria-Hungary.

I find it entirely likely that if France is to draconian with its demands, Prussia might break off peace negotiations and try to convince the Russians to join the war on the side of the North Germans.

If that’s the case, the Prussian army can withdraw in good order and set up defensive lines around Berlin while the Russian army mobilizes and starts trickling west.

What IS the State of the Russian military between 1870 and say... 1900 or so. I only recall one of their fifty Wars with the Ottoman Empire in the 1870's I think which they won IIRC but involved a great deal of purchased Winchesters incurring a great deal of Russian casualties.

I'll look it up later.

 

[StormEagle]

Would France simply try and create a buffer State in West Germany and all of that juicy Rhineland? France swallowing swaths of it would probably offend the sensibilities of more then Prussia and while I don't know Napoleon III's desires I'd imagine he wouldn't be Napoleon enough to not grab too much and alienate potential future allies or create new enemies.

Having Austria and France maintain competing spheres of influence in Western and Southern Germany seem more sensible, and might pay off better if Bismarck is eventually booted from Prussian leadership.

On a different tangent a War between France, Russia, Austria (with Southern and Western German bits coming along) vs. Ottoman Empire, Prussia, and potentially Britain and Italy would be pretty wild. Plus there's so many Balkan states whose status may range from non-existence to beimg sovereign powers whose own interests and loyalties could shift rapidly in the lead up.

On the THIRD tangent...



What IS the State of the Russian military between 1870 and say... 1900 or so. I only recall one of their fifty Wars with the Ottoman Empire in the 1870's I think which they won IIRC but involved a great deal of purchased Winchesters incurring a great deal of Russian casualties.

I'll look it up later.

Napoleon III wasn’t exactly known for his intelligence or his lack of ambition. He thought he had the same ability as Napoleon I, when he didn’t have the ability of that mans pinky finger.

Any plan that relies on Napoleon III’s forward thinking and intelligent planning, is a plan destined for failure.

Also, the state of the Russian military wasn’t that bad until the embarrassment of the Russo-Japanese War.

It wasn’t fantastic in terms of quality or anything, mostly used at that stage to crush ethnic rebellions, but it’s Russia. They have the manpower to drown most opponents if they absolutely have to.

And they’d be fighting beside the Prussians in such a scenario. Which means Prussian leadership, or at least advice, combined with Russian manpower.

 

[Navarro]

On a different tangent a War between France, Russia, Austria (with Southern and Western German bits coming along) vs. Ottoman Empire, Prussia, and potentially Britain and Italy would be pretty wild. Plus there's so many Balkan states whose status may range from non-existence to beimg sovereign powers whose own interests and loyalties could shift rapidly in the lead up.

It'd be more like France and Austria v. Prussia, Russia and Italy (maybe with Britain).

 

[Circle of Willis]

Great discussion, everyone. Re: Napoleon III's ability, to my understanding he wasn't totally incompetent - indeed he seems to have been a pretty capable domestic ruler who greatly modernized the economy, expanded the French rail network and renovated Paris. It's true that his regime was in danger at times before 1870, but he navigated those problems by reforming the early absolutist Bonapartist monarchy into a parliamentary, semi-constitutional one. This way, he was able to retain popularity (as proven by his 1870 plebiscite where his reforms were approved by over 80% of the population) and even co-opt figures like Emile Ollivier (his last prime minister) who had previously been opposed to him, leaving the 'irreconcilable' republican types like Jules Ferry alone in the cold.

Of course, foreign affairs was a totally different story where the Emperor, to put it charitably, had a reverse Midas touch. But by 1870 the lesser Nappy wasn't long for the world anyway, as his health worsened through the 1860s to the point where he could barely ride a horse and he constantly suffered from gallstones, and he died from the latter in 1873. Foreign policy in the empire would've been directed not just by him but also by his wife Eugenie, an anti-Prussian ultramontane with very traditional views on how a monarch should behave (she was reportedly outraged when her husband surrendered at Sedan instead of fighting to the death IRL) who had been one of the foremost advocates for a 'short victorious war' to shore up the Bonaparte regime's popularity and who he appointed as his regent when he made his ill-advised decision to lead the French army directly. Since, as discussed, it seems very unlikely that France would be able to score an absolutely crushing victory over Prussia and doing so would open a can of worms the French would absolutely prefer remain closed, I think Eugenie would've been satisfied with the Saarland & securing the survival of the Bonapartist throne with her actually short and victorious war.

Once Napoleon III is dead and 1874 comes, the Prince Imperial will have attained his majority and been able to rule personally. From what I've read, Napoleon IV was cut more from his greatuncle's cloth than his father's, being a highly charismatic and gallant - if also hot-headed and rash - soldier who was historically well-liked by the British court (where he'd taken refuge after the fall of the 2nd Empire), made friends easily and was popular with the ladies. So long as he avoids Zulu assegais ITL, and with such a personality & the popularity he'd likely enjoy between his natural charisma & the successful FPW, I don't think he'd have any problem maintaining the Second Empire unless he loses an alt-WW1. Whether his youthful recklessness would translate to a Wilhelm II-esque propensity to alienate everyone around him as he gets older is an open question, it's not like he lived long enough IRL for us to know what he'd have been like as a ruler of anything, but personally I don't think it's too likely; at the least, Nappy IV doesn't seem to have any physical or psychological issues that would give him as horrible an inferiority complex as Kaiser Bill had IOTL.

As for foreign alignments for a Franco-Prussian rematch that snowballs into alt-WW1, I think that would also depend on when such a rematch happens. If it takes place in the 1870s or early 1880s, I think the Russo-Prussian alliance (with Italy as a third leg, possibly Britain too if Eugenie & Napoleon IV have been extremely reckless) battling a Franco-Austrian team is likely indeed. Unless the British are sufficiently alarmed at the prospect of the Russians & Prussians becoming masters of the continent to help the latter, I think that would end in a Russo-Prusso-Italian victory, perhaps even a quick one at that; the French army got some much-needed reform & modernization in the years following the FPW, which built on the reforms it was trying to adopt immediately before that disaster, but it can't possibly defeat all those opponents alone, and Austria-Hungary's army ( as well as those of the South German states) really doesn't seem like it'd be up to the task of fighting Prussia and Russia simultaneously at any point in the 19th-20th centuries.

However outside of the maximally-victorious scenario where they carve out 'Rhenania' either as a client kingdom or for themselves directly, I don't see a lasting Second French Empire being quite as powerful and menacing as the German Empire could be and was historically, so it's probably not enough to get Britain and Russia to set aside their differences - British support for the Turks, Russian ambitions against said Turks, and the Great Game the two had going - like they did IOTL against Germany, particularly if Alexander II still dies and is succeeded by the firmly anti-German & pro-French Alexander III. So to elaborate on my earlier thoughts, IMO it's more likely that Russia realigns toward France (and grudgingly Austria) for a war that kicks off anywhere between the late 1880s and 1914, while Prussia would pick up Britain (which I don't think would take the possibility for a resurgent Bonaparte hegemony in the west and Russian dominance in the east well at all) and the Ottomans to compensate.

As an aside, in the event of such a war I think the US would be inclined to neutrality at least at first, much as was the case historically. But I really don't see the Imperial French Navy being able to defeat both the Royal Navy above the seas and Prussian U-boats beneath it, so they wouldn't even have the ability to provoke the US with a blockade of the European continent (and Maximilian's Mexico has already fallen by 1870 so they don't have a ground presence to threaten America either) - while the 'Allies' of this alt-WW1 certainly could. If the Americans elect a sufficiently aggressive president, whether it's TR or someone else, could they be inclined to join the war on the French side over the Anglo-Prussian threat to their merchant shipping and go for Canada & the Caribbean? (Would be a way to get the Pacific War a couple decades early too I suppose, if Japan remains friendly with Britain and hostile to Russia as they were historically between the mid-19th century and WW1)

 

[Skallagrim]

Regarding my proposals for a West German state: it should be noted that I'm simply assuming French competence. Such would be required to achieve a clear victory in the first place, after all. The premise -- at least to the extent required -- seems shaky to me, obviously.

If France is competent enough to achieve a clear victory, I don't think that an ambitious approach is somehow a hopeless gamble. Prussia may want to drag Russia in, but that would mean a Big European War. That's exactly what the Concert of Europe is supposed to prevent. If France wins, negotiations are the logical conclusion. If Prussia, rejecting the French proposal, seeks to massively escalate the war, that won't meet British approval. Quite the contrary. Which in turn means that Russia may actually prefer to bow out, because, as it happens, it's not their land on the line.

In fact, if Prussia responds like this, it increases the chances of the other powers agreeing with France and imposing restrictive measures on Prussia. The best thing Prussia can do, upon being defeated, is:

A) recognise the situation as soon as it becomes evident and get an armistice in place ASAP, to keep the French out as much as possible while negotiations take place, and;

B) dedicate all efforts to diplomacy, reminding everybody (esp. Britain) that it was the ambitions of France -- and of a Bonaparte at that -- which led to the Concert of Europe in the first place.

This would give Prussia good odds of minimising French success when it comes to imposing its preferred settlement. On the other hand, since we've established that France is being competently run in this scenario, it doesn't rule out France spinning the better narrative, and getting its way. The question of who gets to rule "Rhenania" would be important. It has to be someone the British perceive as friendly to Britain, and not a French lap-dog. (On the other hand, it pretty much has to be a Catholic, which narrows down the list considerably, and it really helps if it's a German instead of some foreigner, legitimacy-wise.) If the new monarch is someone who vocally supports the notion of embracing a parliamentary system based on that of Britain, that should help, too. (Both with the British and with the 'Rhenanian' population.)


As far as latter-day alliances go: regardless of how succesful French plans end up being, we'll be looking at France and Austria (plus the Ottomans and the South German states and -potentially- Rhenania) versus Prussia and Russia (plus Italy, Greece, and all inhabitants of the Balkans who hate the Turks and/or Austrians). I don't think Franco-Russian alliance is somehow a given. Prussia let its alliance with Russia lapse in OTL; no way they do that in the ATL. They'll do everything to keep that, because alliance with Austria just isn't an option. Austria has acted to break Prussia's imperial ambitions, and knows that true Prussian success is inevitably going to be a threat to Austria now. Russia, in turn, sees Austria as the enemy far more than Prussia. So while Russia was happy enough to see the Dreikaiserbund end in OTL, in this case, it'll actually have reason to value its anti-Austrian alliance with Prussia.

Where Britain ends up is the big question mark. As I mentioned before: they'll side against whichever side looks to be the most aggressive would-be hegemon of all Europe. If such a side emerges, and especially if the other side is willing to pledge moderation in any peace deal, Britain will enter against the threatening hegemonic side.

 

[Buba]

I don't think Franco-Russian alliance is somehow a given. Prussia let its alliance with Russia lapse in OTL; no way they do that in the ATL. They'll do everything to keep that, because alliance with Austria just isn't an option.

I've seen a book on WWI quote a high level Russian (anonymous, IIRC) to some important German - "you ditch Austria and we drop France" - this in July 1914.
Even if such sentiment falls into the se non e vero e ben trovato category I agree that a Paris-Vienna Axis of Evul! would do wonders for an ardent friendship between Berlin and Sankt Peterburg.
Prussia and Russia do not have conflicts of interest (unless they invent one ).
Russia has spheres of influence conflicts with Austria - over Balkans and with France - over Ottoman Empire/Middle East.
Prussia here has an axe to grind with France and Austria - hence Russia/Prussia are a match made in heaven.
Of course, there also is Perfidious Albion on the sidelines ...

 

[Circle of Willis]

Huh, I wasn't aware the Russians' hatred for Austria ran that deeply, nor that they were still relatively close to Germany even after the reign of the anti-German Alexander III. A Russo-Prusso-Italian alliance does seem like it'd still comfortably have the upper hand over the Franco-Austrian one - A-H would be surrounded on three sides and its lackluster army still unlikely to be able to hold for long against the far better German and Russian ones, coupled with Italian assistance, and after they're dealt with it's a matter of overwhelming the isolated France.

Seems like in such a scenario Britain would step in on the latter's behalf to uphold the continental balance of power then, unless the Prussians & Russians avoid pushing too hard (admittedly highly unlikely if Wilhelm in particular is heading the revanchist Prussians and Nicholas II still thinks this is his big chance to become Tsar of All Slavs) and/or Napoleon IV antagonized them too much in the lead-up to this alt-WW1. A Franco-Anglo-Austrian 'Entente' would be a much more even match for the Berlin-Saint Petersburg-Florence Gang.

On a related note, a scenario where Britain does end up allying with France to prevent Russo-Prussian hegemony seems to me one where Italy would be (even more) ridiculously doomed, since now in addition to their second front against France they'd also have to deal with the British attacking them through the Mediterranean. The sort of reasonably quick and non-hegemony-making peace Britain would be content with would likely depend on which of the encircled 'weakest links in the Entente/Allied chain' breaks first, Austria or Italy, and my guess would be the latter - under such circumstances I'd be beyond stunned if Italy survived the first year of the war.

 

[Buba]

Huh, I wasn't aware the Russians' hatred for Austria ran that deeply, nor that they were still relatively close to Germany even after the reign of the anti-German Alexander III.

I could be a demographic of one and very wrong
Looking at the wiki it seems that Russia was quite friendly to France once Nappy was kicked out (francophilia has as long and as strong tradition in Russia as germonophilia ), and I'd guess that due to balance of power issues and/or hopes of France agreeing to Russian Balkan/ME plans, but relations soured over Congress of Berlin '78 (guess why ).
AFAIK Russia became BFF with France over being ditched by Berlin for Vienna and Germany wooing London. Soft French loans smoothed things too

 

[Skallagrim]

Huh, I wasn't aware the Russians' hatred for Austria ran that deeply, nor that they were still relatively close to Germany even after the reign of the anti-German Alexander III. A Russo-Prusso-Italian alliance does seem like it'd still comfortably have the upper hand over the Franco-Austrian one - A-H would be surrounded on three sides and its lackluster army still unlikely to be able to hold for long against the far better German and Russian ones, coupled with Italian assistance, and after they're dealt with it's a matter of overwhelming the isolated France.

Seems like in such a scenario Britain would step in on the latter's behalf to uphold the continental balance of power then, unless the Prussians & Russians avoid pushing too hard (admittedly highly unlikely if Wilhelm in particular is heading the revanchist Prussians and Nicholas II still thinks this is his big chance to become Tsar of All Slavs) and/or Napoleon IV antagonized them too much in the lead-up to this alt-WW1. A Franco-Anglo-Austrian 'Entente' would be a much more even match for the Berlin-Saint Petersburg-Florence Gang.

On a related note, a scenario where Britain does end up allying with France to prevent Russo-Prussian hegemony seems to me one where Italy would be (even more) ridiculously doomed, since now in addition to their second front against France they'd also have to deal with the British attacking them through the Mediterranean. The sort of reasonably quick and non-hegemony-making peace Britain would be content with would likely depend on which of the encircled 'weakest links in the Entente/Allied chain' breaks first, Austria or Italy, and my guess would be the latter - under such circumstances I'd be beyond stunned if Italy survived the first year of the war.

As I interpret it, the Russian view of Austria was not some rabid hate, but simply the adversity that results from clashing interests. Russia and Austria both had strategic objectives in South-Eastern Europe, and those were distinctly at odds. The last time they really tried to come to a mutually satisfactory attempt was when they jointly fought the Ottomans... before the French revolution. (And that ended in disaster. And even if it hadn't, I'm pretty sure they'd have fallen out over their very differing ideas of a proper post-war settlement.)

Conversely, Russia had no such natural conflict with Prussia. Especially not if Prussia has been slighted in the West and is pointing any and all expansionist ambitions 100% in that direction.

I agree that a Russo-Prusso-Italian pact would probably have a clear strategic advantage in a future war, although it depends on just how much France thrives. If the defeat of Prussia is a huge triumph that secures Bonapartist rule, and Napoleon IV is a capable monarch, we could see France getting a big boost. Still, I'd put money on the Russo-Prusso-Italian alliance having the edge. Which probably means that Britain intervenes on the Franco-Austrian side, and that makes it a short war. Presumably with a generally white peace.

Two possible outcomes: one, this war then determines the state of things, and the balance of power normalises. Two, Russia and Prussia go full revanchist and you get a World War II equivalent down the line... with Britain on their list of enemies, and therefore firmly in the camp of their opponents.

 

[stevep]

Great discussion, everyone. Re: Napoleon III's ability, to my understanding he wasn't totally incompetent - indeed he seems to have been a pretty capable domestic ruler who greatly modernized the economy, expanded the French rail network and renovated Paris. It's true that his regime was in danger at times before 1870, but he navigated those problems by reforming the early absolutist Bonapartist monarchy into a parliamentary, semi-constitutional one. This way, he was able to retain popularity (as proven by his 1870 plebiscite where his reforms were approved by over 80% of the population) and even co-opt figures like Emile Ollivier (his last prime minister) who had previously been opposed to him, leaving the 'irreconcilable' republican types like Jules Ferry alone in the cold.

Of course, foreign affairs was a totally different story where the Emperor, to put it charitably, had a reverse Midas touch. But by 1870 the lesser Nappy wasn't long for the world anyway, as his health worsened through the 1860s to the point where he could barely ride a horse and he constantly suffered from gallstones, and he died from the latter in 1873. Foreign policy in the empire would've been directed not just by him but also by his wife Eugenie, an anti-Prussian ultramontane with very traditional views on how a monarch should behave (she was reportedly outraged when her husband surrendered at Sedan instead of fighting to the death IRL) who had been one of the foremost advocates for a 'short victorious war' to shore up the Bonaparte regime's popularity and who he appointed as his regent when he made his ill-advised decision to lead the French army directly. Since, as discussed, it seems very unlikely that France would be able to score an absolutely crushing victory over Prussia and doing so would open a can of worms the French would absolutely prefer remain closed, I think Eugenie would've been satisfied with the Saarland & securing the survival of the Bonapartist throne with her actually short and victorious war.

Once Napoleon III is dead and 1874 comes, the Prince Imperial will have attained his majority and been able to rule personally. From what I've read, Napoleon IV was cut more from his greatuncle's cloth than his father's, being a highly charismatic and gallant - if also hot-headed and rash - soldier who was historically well-liked by the British court (where he'd taken refuge after the fall of the 2nd Empire), made friends easily and was popular with the ladies. So long as he avoids Zulu assegais ITL, and with such a personality & the popularity he'd likely enjoy between his natural charisma & the successful FPW, I don't think he'd have any problem maintaining the Second Empire unless he loses an alt-WW1. Whether his youthful recklessness would translate to a Wilhelm II-esque propensity to alienate everyone around him as he gets older is an open question, it's not like he lived long enough IRL for us to know what he'd have been like as a ruler of anything, but personally I don't think it's too likely; at the least, Nappy IV doesn't seem to have any physical or psychological issues that would give him as horrible an inferiority complex as Kaiser Bill had IOTL.

As for foreign alignments for a Franco-Prussian rematch that snowballs into alt-WW1, I think that would also depend on when such a rematch happens. If it takes place in the 1870s or early 1880s, I think the Russo-Prussian alliance (with Italy as a third leg, possibly Britain too if Eugenie & Napoleon IV have been extremely reckless) battling a Franco-Austrian team is likely indeed. Unless the British are sufficiently alarmed at the prospect of the Russians & Prussians becoming masters of the continent to help the latter, I think that would end in a Russo-Prusso-Italian victory, perhaps even a quick one at that; the French army got some much-needed reform & modernization in the years following the FPW, which built on the reforms it was trying to adopt immediately before that disaster, but it can't possibly defeat all those opponents alone, and Austria-Hungary's army ( as well as those of the South German states) really doesn't seem like it'd be up to the task of fighting Prussia and Russia simultaneously at any point in the 19th-20th centuries.

However outside of the maximally-victorious scenario where they carve out 'Rhenania' either as a client kingdom or for themselves directly, I don't see a lasting Second French Empire being quite as powerful and menacing as the German Empire could be and was historically, so it's probably not enough to get Britain and Russia to set aside their differences - British support for the Turks, Russian ambitions against said Turks, and the Great Game the two had going - like they did IOTL against Germany, particularly if Alexander II still dies and is succeeded by the firmly anti-German & pro-French Alexander III. So to elaborate on my earlier thoughts, IMO it's more likely that Russia realigns toward France (and grudgingly Austria) for a war that kicks off anywhere between the late 1880s and 1914, while Prussia would pick up Britain (which I don't think would take the possibility for a resurgent Bonaparte hegemony in the west and Russian dominance in the east well at all) and the Ottomans to compensate.

As an aside, in the event of such a war I think the US would be inclined to neutrality at least at first, much as was the case historically. But I really don't see the Imperial French Navy being able to defeat both the Royal Navy above the seas and Prussian U-boats beneath it, so they wouldn't even have the ability to provoke the US with a blockade of the European continent (and Maximilian's Mexico has already fallen by 1870 so they don't have a ground presence to threaten America either) - while the 'Allies' of this alt-WW1 certainly could. If the Americans elect a sufficiently aggressive president, whether it's TR or someone else, could they be inclined to join the war on the French side over the Anglo-Prussian threat to their merchant shipping and go for Canada & the Caribbean? (Would be a way to get the Pacific War a couple decades early too I suppose, if Japan remains friendly with Britain and hostile to Russia as they were historically between the mid-19th century and WW1)

I have some doubts about the last bit. If allied to Britain any Prussian/N German state is unlikely to develop or use subs much as their the weaken of the inferior fleet. Its more likely that France, which has a history of thinking of commerce warfare as a counter to Britain's naval superiority, might develop a sub force. Prussia is likely to concentrate its naval strength in a counter to the Russian Baltic fleet, either to match it if the economy develops as OTL or to restrain it until British support arrives. This also raises the issue of more naval conflict in the Baltic which could have impacts on the Nordic states although I suspect they would seek to stay neutral if they could avoid it unless one of the two monarchs there had a real rush of blood to the head.

Blockading France would of course be more difficult than for Germany, as it has an access route via the Bay of Biscay which isn't naturally blocked by Britain geographically, with close blockade being impractical given WWI type technology. Plus you also have to think about the Med in this scenario, albeit that Austria is unlikely to be a major naval power and Britain has to consider helping the Turks in the Black Sea. Also have to consider assorted colonial positions as France is will have a larger empire than Germany had OTL so you have issues such as French N Africa especially to consider. Assuming Britain is still in charge in Egypt - which is not certain by any means there could be a hell of a lot of conflict in the Med region.

Steve

 

[Husky_Khan]

I'd just like to say Russia siding against France would be boring. If we want maximum long term casualties and trauma they need to be on the side of the HOLY ALLIANCE (+France -Prussia) and that's doubly so if perfidious Albion and swarthy Italians join up with Prussia.

If we're going to have a proper World War the first time around it can't be one of these bumps in the road where only tens or hundreds of thousands died like those puny conflicts we had between 1848 and 1904.

Unless the outcome of the Great War is in doubt until the very end it can't be called a Great War.

 

[stevep]

If just like to say Russia siding against France would be boring. If we want maximum long term casualties and trauma they need to be on the side of the HOLY ALLIANCE (+France -Prussia) and that's doubly so if perfidious Albion and swarthy Italians join up with Prussia.

If we're going to have a proper World War the first time around it can't be one of these bumps in the road where only tens or hundreds of thousands died like those puny conflicts we had between 1848 and 1904.

Unless the outcome of the Great War is in doubt until the very end it can't be called a Great War.

Well unless someone win's an early knock-out blow or the non-British side has developed some version of the Boach-Haber process their going to lose, probably within a year or two. Although Russia would probably accept a limited defeat as invading deep inside it would be pretty much pointless.

 

[Jarow]

Well, in the leadup to this timeline's WW1, we have two main groups of opponents: France-Prussia and Russia-Austria (possibly in control of southern Germany). Either combination of the two groups should be reasonable, though from what other people are saying Prussia+Russia and France+Austria seem most likely.

Ottoman Empire just wants to not collapse, but is an opponent to both parts of the Austria/Russia conflict. In real life, they were friendly with Germany, Britain, and France, so they could still end up neutral or on either side.

Italy wants territory that belongs to Austria, which is what led to them joining the Allies. They'll almost certainly align against them.

Britain just wants there to not be a winner on the continent. Given the weaker Prussia instead of the German Empire (and evidence of France being stronger than Prussia given their victory), Russia and France likely seem the more important threats. If the alliance setup was Russia+France, they'd probably align with Prussia, but harder to say if they split up.

The United States wants to make money, and keep their continents as free of European Empires as they can achieve. Neutrality is going to be their goal, unless someone decides to provoke them.

So I'd guess that it'd end up with Russia, Prussia, Italy, and possibly the Ottoman Empire against France and Austria (not including various lesser powers on each side). Assuming things actually line up like this, Britain would likely end up joining France and Austria to balance things a bit. Though, it's also possible other significant changes happen. Perhaps some of the minor powers become significant. Perhaps Spain joins France instead of maintaining neutrality. Perhaps Denmark and Sweden ally with Prussia, or the Netherlands and Norway with Britain. So many potential butterflies between the two events, and nothing saying it has to have the same cause or happen at the same time (could be earlier, could be later, could have the exact same things happen but the alliances unfold differently).

 

[Buba]

Spain was mentioned - a different France may have bearing on the IIIrd Carlista War.
Maybe French intervention to put Carlos on the Spanish throne? Or maybe France backs the Republic?
Or breakup of Spain into Castille (republic? King Afonso?) and Aragon-Biscaya/Navarra (King Carlos)?
Even a shorter Carlista War - four years in OTL - changes the playing board as Spain will be less damaged i.e. stronger.
Also - changes in Spain = different course of events in Cuba and Philippines ...