A Mexican "Victory" 2.0: A Timeline

[galileo-034]

Have you kept the OTL dates for Napoleon III?
I know many peoples who often confuse the dates:
Louis-Napoleon is president of the Republic until late 1852 and not 1851;
the coup of 1851 was aimed to change the constitution for more powers for the president, and the empire is proclaimed only one year later.

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Hmmm; I'm not sure the Piedmontese would be able to defeat the Austrians single-handily. IOTL the Second Italian War of Independence was largely won by the French with the Italians playing little-to-no role in that campaign. As well the Austrians had a truly massive force already in theater compared to what the Piedmontese could even theoretically field.

Also, any Hapsburg-organized Italian state is likely to be led by either a Hapsburg prince, or the Pope himself, as the Hapsburgs continued to enjoy privileges in the naming of new Popes. However if Leopold isn't able to head the new state then Pius IX likely isn't either, if the 1848 Revolutions followed their OTL route.

As well why are the Papal Legations included in the new Italian state if Latium is not? It seems odd to partition the Papal States in such a way without an explanation.

Finally, I also don't understand why Austria would secede Venice to *Italy, especially after, somehow, losing Lombardy to Piedmont-Sardinia. Especially as the new Italian state isn't firmly under Hapsburg control. I understand Maximilian was a reformer and a liberal, but this seems to be too much even for him.

Seconded. The Austrian Empire appears weak and not worthy to be called a great European power.

[jycee]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Hmmm; I'm not sure the Piedmontese would be able to defeat the Austrians single-handily. IOTL the Second Italian War of Independence was largely won by the French with the Italians playing little-to-no role in that campaign. As well the Austrians had a truly massive force already in theater compared to what the Piedmontese could even theoretically field.

Also, any Hapsburg-organized Italian state is likely to be led by either a Hapsburg prince, or the Pope himself, as the Hapsburgs continued to enjoy privileges in the naming of new Popes. However if Leopold isn't able to head the new state then Pius IX likely isn't either, if the 1848 Revolutions followed their OTL route.

As well why are the Papal Legations included in the new Italian state if Latium is not? It seems odd to partition the Papal States in such a way without an explanation.

Finally, I also don't understand why Austria would secede Venice to *Italy, especially after, somehow, losing Lombardy to Piedmont-Sardinia. Especially as the new Italian state isn't firmly under Hapsburg control. I understand Maximilian was a reformer and a liberal, but this seems to be too much even for him.

Sorry to rain on your parade Otherwise I liked the update. Is the assassination of Franz Joseph an analogy to the 1853 assassination attempt?

Hey Geordie, thanks for the comments. My knowledge of the war is quite limited (I just know its basic outline from one book and wiki). I will take your input into consideration and perhaps edit the update. But my reasoning so far was the following:

The Republic is under firm Hapsburg control regardless of its form of government (it is a puppet state 100%) and perhaps in the very near future Leopold might be back; things are happening way too fast. (But I am not against editing the update and simply putting Leopold back in there from the beginning if it makes more sense. And perhaps it does for the Venice exchange).

Latinum, will be part of Italy soon. Like in OTL the revolutions in Ferrara, Bologna, and Romagna were just more successful earlier. With a Hapsburg led confederation (whether it is a republic or kingdom), it won't be hard to get the Pope to agree to some form of annexation soon. Though the Pope might retain some authority over Latinum itself.

Yes, it is a mess. But things are happening way too fast that changes here and there are not out of the question. Finally, yes it is an analogy to the 1853 attempt on Franz Joseph.

Originally Posted by galileo-034

Have you kept the OTL dates for Napoleon III?
I know many peoples who often confuse the dates:
Louis-Napoleon is president of the Republic until late 1852 and not 1851;
the coup of 1851 was aimed to change the constitution for more powers for the president, and the empire is proclaimed only one year later.

Dates are the same as OTL

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

Originally Posted by jycee

The Republic is under firm Hapsburg control regardless of its form of government (it is a puppet state 100%) and perhaps in the very near future Leopold might be back; things are happening way too fast.

The text of part III did not convey the Habsburgian predominance in the new Italian polity.

Originally Posted by jycee

(But I am not against editing the update and simply putting Leopold back in there from the beginning if it makes more sense. And perhaps it does for the Venice exchange).

Seceding western Venetia to a loyal Italian confederation is not bad idea, especially if Maximilian plans to focus on Germany.
After all, the OTL Austrian Empire was willing to secede Venetia to someone else, even before the Austrians lost the German War.
On the other hand, the Kingdom of Sardinia annexing the Lombardy, the oldest part of Vienna-ruled Italy is as likely as Mexico winning against the USA and annexing US-American territory.
The so-called First Italian War of Independence proved that the KoS can't win against the Austrian Empire, unless another great power is willing to back its claims.

[jycee]

Ok after further research this morning and taking your comments into consideration I have decided to declare the previous update non-cannonical. An edited update (I think I figured it out for the most part) will be posted later.

[jycee]

Ok this is the re-edited version of the update. It is staying like this, for the TL to continue.

Part III: Don’t Be Afraid of the Butterflies

Somewhere Across the Pond

At the end of Herrera’s first term, the tapatio general José Maria Yañes had been appointed several ambassadorships to Europe in an effort to gain further investment from the European powers. In Paris, Yañes met with José Pablo Martinez del Rio, an old Mexican monarchist who was still in the search of a European Monarch to accept the Mexican throne. Yañes was unable to persuade most of the monarchist lobby into swearing allegiance to the new administration, but he did find an unlikely ally in Salvador de Iturbide. [1] Salvador would later return to Mexico, and play an important role during the Civil War.

But as Mexico and the United States underwent the changes brought by the Mexican-American War, Europe was suffering a series of changes as well. In what was known as the 1848 revolutions, France went from being a monarchy to a republic and then again a monarchy, when the nephew and heir of Napoleon I ascended the throne as Napoleon III in 1851. Napoleon III would rule as Emperor of the French until his death in 1873. His rule would be marked by the return of France into the world stage, and a lively international policy; he spearheaded an allied action against Russia in the Crimean War and restored French presence in the Levant. [2]

Meanwhile the Austrian Empire had been reformed after weeks of revolts across its dominions. But even after the revolutions were subdued the whole country remained in passive resistance against the Emperor. Generally regarded as a radical reactionary Emperor Franz Joseph I took extreme caution in restoring the constitutional concessions that had been made prior to the 1848 revolutions. Change did not come fast enough; in 1848 the Emperor was assassinated by a Hungarian nationalist. As a result The crown passed onto his younger brother Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph who assumed the throne as Maximilian I. [3]

The Two Emperors

Through out the rule of Maximilian I, Austria took a radical turn away from autocracy. Maximilian approached the Hungarian nationalists with grief not revenge and laid out the path towards the creation of a federated monarchy. While many of his reforms were not popular with the Austrian nobility, the Empire continued a steady course towards a more democratic reformation. Internationally, Emperor Maximilian I abstained from entangling Austria further into the Balkans. And as close friend of the French Emperor, he supported France during the Crimean War. Although Austria’s military participation in war was null it was enough to avoid French participation later on in the war against Piedmont-Sardinia.

Italy Will Take Car of Itself…. Not.


The push for a unified Italian state began in 1815 with the Congress of Vienna and the end of the Napoleonic rule. However, The Austrian Empire, a multi-ethnic state by nature stood on its way since they directly controlled the predominantly Italian speaking Lombardy and Venetia. As rulers of a multi-ethnic Empire, the Habsburgs saw the growing nationalistic movements, including the existence of an Italian state as a direct threat to their rule. But after the Congress of Vienna secret societies such as the Carbonari (coal-burners) spread across Italy, provoking several revolutions through out the previous decades.

By 1848, the revolutions had been unsuccessful in driving the Austrians from Italy, but the Kingdom of Sardinia, by now the most influential of the Italian states had not abandoned all hope of aggrandizement. In 1852, Camilo di Cavour, a man with ambitious expansionist goals, became president of Turin’s Council of Ministers. Cavour saw that Sardinia would not be able to single-handedly add to its territory; instead, he hoped to secure aid from France. To do so, Cavour needed to provoke the Austrians into aggression by encouraging revolutionary activity within the Empire’s Italian provinces. [4]
But things did not work out as planned.

The Austrians turned out to be surprisingly patient in dealing with the Sardinian-inspired insurrections. When Sardinia did mobilize in the summer of 1859 it was then something of an admission of defeat. The Austrians were well prepared; they stopped the Sardinian advance into Venetia but failed to achieve the swift victory they expected. The campaign prolonged, but there was no way the small Italian Kingdom could compete against the Empire. Fearful that a long a bloody campaign could destabilize the peninsula even further and provoke intervention of other German states, Napoleon III pushed for a peace at this point.

The Treaty of Cannes resulted in Piedmont-Sardinia admitting their provocation of the war but they did not gain nor lose any territory. This however did not stop the Austrian nobility from feeling humiliated, at least diplomatically; they expected a harsher peace to be forced upon Piedmont-Sardinia. As a result, Maximilian’s popularity with the court continued to dwindle. However, over the following months Maximilian helped restore the Hapsburg presence in the peninsula through the creation of the United Provinces of Italy, as an attempt to curb Sardinia’s growing influence in the region. Compromised of Tuscany, Parma, Modena, and the Papal Legations, the federation was meant to be led by the Tuscan Habsburgs. Leopold II had already been formally deposed; instead his son Ferdinand IV was named Regent.
The events left the Kingdom of Sardinia isolated. However, this would not be the end of the Italian Wars. Over the next decade the United Provinces would expand their borders to include the remaining of the Papal Legations (the Pope was granted temporal authority as Bishop of Rome by the Hapsburgs) and ultimately Lombardy and Venetia in 1871 after the Milan Accords, which also transformed the United Provinces into the Kingdom of Italy.
Meanwhile, in Naples and Sicily the tyranny of Ferdinand II sparked separate insurrections in Messina and Palermo. These rebellions were easily suppressed but, nevertheless, Francis II rule had been forever shaken. Both Italy and Sardinia greedily eyed the Sicilies, as a point of further expansion.

Flags of the Italian Kingdoms. The use of the tri-color shows how they all claimed legitimacy over the peninsula.

[1] Agustin de Iturbide’s grandson, although not the direct heir (that would be his cousin Agustin).
[2] Pretty much the same as OTL but without Nappy’s entanglement in Mexico.
[3] Yes, it is the same Maximilian. This is a Mexican TL after all so Maxie deserves his place in the sun as the only figure in Mexico’s history that truly loved Mexico for what it was.
[4] Italian unification up to here is the same as OTL. Just that this is a gross over-simplification.
[5] OK, I hope this is much more acceptable than the previous incarnation. My only concern is that Italy here would be much more powerful than Sardinia (I kinda wanted an even match for later on. But whatever we will see how it works out).

[jycee]

No comments on the revised version?

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by jycee

No comments on the revised version?

I'm assuming there is a large Hapsburg army stationed in the Italian Kingdom to prevent further insurrections, while Maximilian's government in Vienna is taking a rather soft-line approach towards the 'Italian Question' to court the moderate and liberal Italian patriots to rally around the new Kingdom. It sounds like Italy and Austria now operate under a dynastic union, which will have interesting consequences later down the line, especially in regards to the precedent it sets for other (large) ethnic minorities within the empire (I'm mainly thinking Hungarians here).

Also, as the Italian Kingdom is later expanded by wholly incorporating Latium, Venetia, and Lombardy, and the foundation for the kingdom was built upon former Tuscany, Parma, Modena, and the Papal Legations, does the Kingdom operate under a federal charter of some sort? Again, potentially interesting butterflies for Austria later down the line.

Finally, I assume that Florence is the central capitol of the Italian Kingdom. This could potentially have some interesting effects on the Italian language following a monarchist/Hapsburg-led unification, if that's the route you follow ITTL.

[Archangel]

It appears the Habsburgs may have a chance at uniting the peninsula under their domain in the future. And Maximilian lives!

[Iserlohn]

Three words and one additional one: I feel joy and subscribed!

[jycee]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

I'm assuming there is a large Hapsburg army stationed in the Italian Kingdom to prevent further insurrections, while Maximilian's government in Vienna is taking a rather soft-line approach towards the 'Italian Question' to court the moderate and liberal Italian patriots to rally around the new Kingdom. It sounds like Italy and Austria now operate under a dynastic union, which will have interesting consequences later down the line, especially in regards to the precedent it sets for other (large) ethnic minorities within the empire (I'm mainly thinking Hungarians here).

Also, as the Italian Kingdom is later expanded by wholly incorporating Latium, Venetia, and Lombardy, and the foundation for the kingdom was built upon former Tuscany, Parma, Modena, and the Papal Legations, does the Kingdom operate under a federal charter of some sort? Again, potentially interesting butterflies for Austria later down the line.

Finally, I assume that Florence is the central capitol of the Italian Kingdom. This could potentially have some interesting effects on the Italian language following a monarchist/Hapsburg-led unification, if that's the route you follow ITTL.

Hungarians will look at it as a way to get a better deal but it is not quite a precedent. While Italy is in dynastic union, Austria and Italy won't fall into personal union. Plus how long the Hapsburgs last in Italy might change things, originally I had them so that they don't come back, but due to comments above I opted to slow things down in Italy for now.

Italy has some sort of Federal Charter, with the later additions having some sort of extra autonomy. Not sure how much of an example it would be, the minorities in Austria might want to push for further Federalization.

Florence is the capital at first, but it will likely change to Rome after Latinum is annexed. However it will not be immediate upon annexation and even the Florence will still have more importance than in OTL.

Originally Posted by Archangel

It appears the Habsburgs may have a chance at uniting the peninsula under their domain in the future. And Maximilian lives!

Yes he lives! And there will be another "Austrian" who is admired in Mexico (has a somewhat important street named after him in Mex City in OTL), making his debut later on. And he will bring change.

Originally Posted by Iserlohn

Three words and one additional one: I feel joy and subscribed!

Thanks! Glad to have you onboard.

[von Adler]

Very interesting. I wonder how the lack of a War of Italian Unification will affect the Austrian military - on one hand, morale might be better and the prestige of the army untainted, on the other hand, the reform work done after Solferino (switching out old muzzle-loaded smoothbore artillery for more modern and long-ranged rifled artillery, among other things) would perhaps be much slower.

It will cause interesting effects for 1866 (if that comes). Perhaps Napoleon III and Maximilian will ally against Prussia?

[Iserlohn]

Bumping for good measure!

[Josephus]

There is a Mexikoplatz in Vienna, Austria. Curiously, not in remembrance of Maximilian, but to honor Mexico as the only nation that protested the 1938 Anschluß in the whole League of Nations.

[Grand Prince Paul II.]

Originally Posted by jycee

[5] OK, I hope this is much more acceptable than the previous incarnation. My only concern is that Italy here would be much more powerful than Sardinia (I kinda wanted an even match for later on. But whatever we will see how it works out).

I wouldn't worry too much.
You can justify an "even match" between the Kingdom of Italy and Piedmont-Sardinia through a) an alliance between the Piedmont-Sardinia and the Two Sicilies (the KoI would be forced to fight a two-front war) and b) a huge French-supported Piemont-Sardinian military build-up (France would try to prevent an united, pro-Habsburgian Italy).

[jycee]

Originally Posted by Grand Prince Paul II.

I wouldn't worry too much.
You can justify an "even match" between the Kingdom of Italy and Piedmont-Sardinia through a) an alliance between the Piedmont-Sardinia and the Two Sicilies (the KoI would be forced to fight a two-front war) and b) a huge French-supported Piemont-Sardinian military build-up (France would try to prevent an united, pro-Habsburgian Italy).

Yeah that is what I was thinking to go with. And thanks for the pointers. Might ask for some advice later.

[wolf_brother]

Originally Posted by jycee

Yeah that is what I was thinking to go with. And thanks for the pointers. Might ask for some advice later.

Further if you're trying to avoid a Franco-Austrian War over Italy, as it appears you are, you could have Britain support the Two Sicilies - she had strong ties to Sicily in particular, viewing it as a) strategically important that it was held by a (small) neutral power, and b) vitally important to British industry for its bat guano deposits, which were used in making gunpowder.

[jycee]

Originally Posted by wolf_brother

Further if you're trying to avoid a Franco-Austrian War over Italy, as it appears you are, you could have Britain support the Two Sicilies - she had strong ties to Sicily in particular, viewing it as a) strategically important that it was held by a (small) neutral power, and b) vitally important to British industry for its bat guano deposits, which were used in making gunpowder.

You sir just solved half my problems on how I wanted this TL to evolve. Thank You.

Next update should be done by the end of the weekend.

[jycee]

Update:


A House Divided

“Like the James K. Polk presidency before his, John M. Clayton’s administration is generally considered to have been widely ineffective in managing the increasing sectionalism plaguing the nation and mostly responsible for sparking the Southern War of Independence. In his defense, Clayton’s position had been rendered impotent from the moment he took office; it had been the Liberty dominated Congress and Cabinet alongside the uncooperative Southern secessionists that had fractured the nation, not the apathy of a single man.” - The Powder Keg, Looking Back on The Wars of Southern Independence.


By 1856, the country was soundly divided both politically and geographically; Clayton’s Whig Party had disappeared from the political scene; as the party had proved vastly incompetent in dealing with the country’s fractures. Increasingly Northerners and abolitionists had defected to the Liberty Party, making the newly fledged party a force to be reckoned with.

That year, the Liberty convention resulted in a long and strenuous debate and several indecisive ballots. It was expected that party founder, Salmon P. Chase, would receive the nomination. But after much deliberation John C. Fremont emerged as the Party’s presidential candidate.

Fremont provided an interesting candidature. After the Mexican American War, Fremont had become a key factor in the admission of Nevada as a free state. However, despite being an abolitionist, Fremont was also an ardent speaker in favor of expansion; like many Southerners, Fremont felt the Treaty of Havana had cheated the United States out of its rightful claim over California. Running alongside Fremont, for vice-President, was Horace Greeley, founder of the New York Tribune, which was used as the Party’s primary mouthpiece during the campaign.

Running against the Fremont-Greeley ticket were the Southern remnants of the Democratic Party, who thought of themselves as the true descendants of Jefferson’s Democratic-Republicans, and had since re-imaged the Party as the Republican Party. In reality, the Party was made up mostly of secessionist Southerners, who after their convention in Nashville, Tennessee (the first to be held outside the original thirteen colonies) were openly campaigning for the peaceful secession of the Southern Sates. Nevertheless, the Republicans, avoided the nomination of ardent secessionists like Yancey or Davis, and opted instead to nominate Howell Cobb, who had remained a Unionist until the midterm elections, and Joseph Brown from Missouri.

A third party, mostly made up of by moderate Whigs from the Upper South who felt disenfranchised by what they found to be extremist views, was organized under the leadership of John Bell, from Tennessee, and Sam Houston. The Union Party nominated Bell for the Presidency with Joseph Lane, form Indiana, as his running mate.

The Last Migraine of John M. Clayton

The election of 1856 was a curious matter. During the campaigning, several Southern States were already holding popular referendums on whether or not to secede. Out of these initial referendums only South Carolina and Texas came out overwhelmingly in favor of secession. However, as a response to the referendums violence soon erupted across several Southern states.

The Federal government was taken aback by the sudden eruption of violence. Though most of the riots had been somewhat tame, a particularly bloody confrontation in Carthage, Missouri between the pro-slavery residents and an abolitionist militia, led by John Brown forced President Clayton to use the army stationed in order Kansas to quell it down. This use of Federal troops against US citizens was the drop needed to spill the glass. On September 21st, two weeks after the occupation of Carthage, a convention in South Carolina issued a declaration of secession similar to the Declaration of Independence, listing the grievances the state held with the federal government. A month later Georgia and Texas followed suit. The Texan declaration of independence was surprisingly lengthy, listing the failure of the federal government to live up to the annexation agreement, and protect the settlers along the frontier.

And thus the 1856 Presidential campaign was rendered mostly irrelevant before the elections could be held. Only the Libert Part, with the use of Greeley’s New York Tribune, was able to rapidly adjust its campaign. And as expected, the Liberty Party swore to maintain the Union by any means necessary and accused the Southern leaders of “hotheaded and rash action”.

Amidst this chaos, the 1856 elections were held. Ballots were withheld in seceded states to avoid further confrontations. And while Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana did hold elections, referendums for secession were also held alongside them. All three states voted strongly in favor of secession and the Republican ticket. For the most part the rest of the campaign went as expected; that is divided amongst geographic lines, with only Tennessee and Indiana going to Bell’s Union Party.

With the election of John C. Fremont, Alabama, Mississippi, and Louisiana seceded before the end of the year. While Florida, Arkansas, and Missouri followed shortly afterwards. A referendum in Memphis Tennessee voted in favor of secession, but the Nashville government still somewhat pro-Union declared it invalid. Nevertheless, plebiscites will be held though out the Spring in the remaining Southern states.

[Darth_Kiryan]

So. Arkansas, Missouri, Alabama, Mississippi, Texas, Louisiana, Georgia, South Carolina and Florida have formed the confederacy.
Tennessee remains in the union camp.
Virginia, Maryland, Kentucky and North Carolina have yet to decide. Might be an interesting civil war.