What if Alsace-Lorraine was awarded to a German State after Waterloo?
- Thread starter stubear1012
- Start date
I'm not sure whether that was really that much of an issue - particularly after the 100 days. The House of Bourbon was a weak ruler for everybody to see given that Napoleon landed with negligible forces and took back power even though he managed to lead France into ruin.
However, you are completely right that the majority of Great Powers did not want to weaken France overly much to not disturb the balance of power. Nevertheless, the principles of restauration were not adhered to completely. For example, nobody thought about reviving Venice, and France did loose more than they had in the Sarre and Palatinate anyway. Another point to consider is that tit effectively came down to what the 5 big powers decided, whereby Prussia was a distinct 5th. If Austria had sided more on the Prussian-Russian side, or if the French would negotiate worse (say Talleyrand dies before the Congress), the peace could easily have been harsher on France.
Thus I think it would be possible that France looses a bit more than they did historically with some minor changes. France over the recent decades even before the Revolution managed to fight for hegemony and sometimes came close. France without Alsace would still be a formidable power, and could be expected to become the strongest continental power soon. Loosing Alsace would therefore not change the balance of power.
On the other side, this is not that much of an issue. As you said France could gain something in what later became Belgium, or something in Western Switzerland, or in Savoy or Nice in exchange for Alsace.
Now assuming Alsace is taken out, the neighbouring states are Prussia, Bavaria and Badenia. If none of these should get it, which I find rather likely, you'd need a POD that necessitates the establishment of a new princedom for a family that lost their home.
The main interesting point here is long-term: how would alsace-Lorraine develop if it was part of the German confederation since 1815? Of course, I'd find it most interesting if it were independent.
You are mistaken on the role of Talleyrand. Talleyrand did not save any territory that France could have lost. It was not negotiable.
What Talleyrand did - and it was a big achievement - was reintegrating France in the concert of european big powers (Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia) that were quarelling about how the borders of Europe should be changed outside the french case on which the allies had concluded an agreement in 1813. He was able, thanks to the willingness of Britain, to have France appear as a disinterested player.
Contrary to the propaganda of the coalition, it had never been a question of principle. They all were imperialist powers, like France. That's why Austria kept Venetia which it had initially gained through the treaty of Campo Formio with a certain young Napoleon Bonaparte. Russia wanted to push west and wanted a bigger part of Poland than it had had in 1795. Prussia agreed to take Hanover from Britain, and then wanted compensations if possible in Saxony but this was a casus belli for Austria so it finally had Rhineland, ...etc.
What Talleyrand did - and it was a big achievement - was reintegrating France in the concert of european big powers (Britain, Russia, Austria and Prussia) that were quarelling about how the borders of Europe should be changed outside the french case on which the allies had concluded an agreement in 1813. He was able, thanks to the willingness of Britain, to have France appear as a disinterested player.
Contrary to the propaganda of the coalition, it had never been a question of principle. They all were imperialist powers, like France. That's why Austria kept Venetia which it had initially gained through the treaty of Campo Formio with a certain young Napoleon Bonaparte. Russia wanted to push west and wanted a bigger part of Poland than it had had in 1795. Prussia agreed to take Hanover from Britain, and then wanted compensations if possible in Saxony but this was a casus belli for Austria so it finally had Rhineland, ...etc.
What if Alsace is included into the German Confederation, but kept in a PU with France? (Like for instance Luxembourg, Hannover and Holstein & Lauenburg)
It would still be a Bourbon restauration, but to punish French republicans it would be ruled separately (de facto proably still from Paris).
To balance influences there are German confederation troops garrisoned in certain forts, but Alsace is still within the French customs system.
(Sorry for the hijack
, I know the question was for a german state but i couldn't help myself)
It would still be a Bourbon restauration, but to punish French republicans it would be ruled separately (de facto proably still from Paris).
To balance influences there are German confederation troops garrisoned in certain forts, but Alsace is still within the French customs system.
(Sorry for the hijack
, I know the question was for a german state but i couldn't help myself)What about giving Alsace Lorraine to Austria.
As I previously mentioned : the deal was bringing France back to its 1792 borders. Not to a smaller area. There would be no agreement in the coalition under other terms. And without agreement, there basically is no victory.
You also understand that all belligerents were exhausted. They neither wanted nor could afford the even bigger costs that such a strategy would require.
But why?
You said that deal was made in 1813. So they had to fight Napoleon again. Hence France proved to be still a great power with all they had in their 1792 borders. Before that deal they made it explicit to Napoleon that any further offer would have harsher terms. So why did they cede to make harsher offers in spite of France (and Napoleon) coming back? Even if they did not want to punish France - which is something that could be changed and actually is rather surprising given that they had to fight so long, and then again - France remained a threat, and was seen as such, as reflected in the results of the Congress of Vienna, for example the fortresses to be manned by the German confederation. Within this line of thought, weakening an obviously still strong France a bit more sounds plausible to me. Please, if you have further details, share with us!
Last edited:
The goal was not to have France cease being a great power. It was not in the interest of Austria or Britain who feared Russia's expansionism.
They did not want to punish France more than they actually did because they calculated that it was not in their interest.
They did not consider that France was overpowerful in its 1792 borders. I think it is russian Statesman Nikolaï Roumiantsev who wrote that France's expansion under Napoleon far exceeded France's power and capacity. It was due to exceptional circunstances and it would naturally back down with time.
They considered that France was necessary for them to maintain the balance of powers in Europe and to contain Russia.
And no country was in capacity to impose his tantrum.
Everybody feared Russia who appeared as the continental giant in 1814/1815. Both England and Prussia needed France.
And you'll notice that from 1815 on, France always complied with Britain's vital interests (the only temporary exception being the Fashoda crisis). Britain had won once and for all , could not be defeated by France and France aknowledged this fact and made it a cardinal principal of her foreign policy.
Austria needed someone sharing her interest in preventing unification of Germany under Prussia's lead.
They did not want to punish France more than they actually did because they calculated that it was not in their interest.
They did not consider that France was overpowerful in its 1792 borders. I think it is russian Statesman Nikolaï Roumiantsev who wrote that France's expansion under Napoleon far exceeded France's power and capacity. It was due to exceptional circunstances and it would naturally back down with time.
They considered that France was necessary for them to maintain the balance of powers in Europe and to contain Russia.
And no country was in capacity to impose his tantrum.
Everybody feared Russia who appeared as the continental giant in 1814/1815. Both England and Prussia needed France.
And you'll notice that from 1815 on, France always complied with Britain's vital interests (the only temporary exception being the Fashoda crisis). Britain had won once and for all , could not be defeated by France and France aknowledged this fact and made it a cardinal principal of her foreign policy.
Austria needed someone sharing her interest in preventing unification of Germany under Prussia's lead.