Norway for Swedísh Pommerania for East Friesland for Lauenburg?
Well, that was not one large swap - that is, it was in the end, once the Treaty was established, but it were several steps. Besides, Sweden already had conquered Norway, that wasnt sokething the Conrgess decided - the Congress only looked for ways to at least symbolicalyl compensate Denmark.
Hannover was to swap land with Prussia, Lauenburg for East Frisia. Meanwhile, Denmark was to be compensated with Swedish Pommerania. Only when both was agreed on did Denmark and Prussia agree to swap Lauenburg and Swedish Pommerania.
Even if the Congress of Vienna fails to reach a conclusive agreement, I think it's more likely that the European powers will work out some kind of shaky peace rather than go to war again. As other posters have suggested, it might end up being a series of separate bilateral treaties rather than one broad peace settlement.
But no conclusive series. Some powers are too opposed, also ideologically, and some just have a grudge with current arrangments.
Prussia and Russia might agree to give all of Saxony to Prussia in return for Russia getting more of western Poland.
There IS no more western Poland. At that point, Prussian Poland directly borders the Neumark, which is part of Brandenburg already. And I doubt Prussia would give up West Prussia, it is its landbrigde to East Prussia, after all.
Austria probably wouldn't like this, but they're not likely to go to war over it.
Im not so sure. They seemed ready to do so IOTL 1815, and 1866 again. They like to have their buffer against Prussia...
Belgium going to Prussia doesn't seem very likely - Prussia was already getting a lot of valuable new territory (more than OTL with all of Saxony being absorbed), and I doubt the Prussian elite wanted to absorb another Catholic area on top of the Ruhr and northern Rhineland. Most likely, Belgium either goes with the Netherlands as in OTL, or it is given to one of the smaller German princely dynasties.
For what? Prussia will NOT simply gift Belgium away. In 1814 they occupied and administred Belgium, it was theirs. Without a conclusive reordering of Europe, theyll want to have something in return for it. And what could the Netherlands offer? And in 1815 the Rhineland was NOT valuable. It was quite a lucky happenstance for Prussia that it then became so valuable wth the Ruhr or whatnot, but this is 1815 - the Rhineland is rural, and comparably backwards (after suffering for centuries by all the tariff barriers of the ministates there). Sure, other powers might grumble about Prussia gaining valuable Belgium, but I doubt they will go to war over that.
It could even be given to Austria, but I remember reading somewhere that Austria was not interested in taking it back since it was considered too separated from the rest of Austria and too close to France to effectively defend.
They gained Lombardo-Venetia in compensatiom for it in Vienna... of course, in 1814, they already hold that. But then again, they can consider the Platainate and Fulda, which they also hold, as compensation.
There will also probably not be a Russian-Austrian-Prussian friendship based on common conservative principles.
On the contrary. Without a conclusive agreement at Vienna, the porgressive western Great Powers will stand even more opposed to the conservative eastern Great Powers. The result will at the very leats be closer Russian-Prussian ties, and maybe even closer Russian-Prussian-Austrian ties (if Austria can get over Saxonys fate).
Only if the British and (IIRC) the Austrians and Spaniards get their way. I believe the Prussians and Russians wanted some sort of new Bonaparte leader, possibly some situation like you mention.
Really? They wanted a Bonaparte? How... odd.
A few people have said that they don't think a new outbreak of war is realistic. But bear in mind that this is not like the later World Wars: the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars had been going on almost continuously for a quarter of a century, and indeed the century before that had seen more years in which major European wars were being fought than years of peace. War was a way of life to many people, indeed the peace was rather unpopular in some sectors of British society (traders who had grown rich from the blockade of Europe, naval captains who wanted prize money, soldiers whose regiments would be disbanded, etc.) Perhaps less so in continental Europe, which had been more battered by armies criss-crossing over it for decades, but it's not like starting up WW1 again in 1919...
I agree. In the 18th and 17th century there were by far more wartimes than
peacetimes. But since the late 17th century, those wars did not really devastate the lands anymore (with exceptions, like what the French did to the Palatinate...). War was a fatc of life, but one that hardly touched the civilian population. Of course, one has to say that changed a lot in the French revolution, with the levee en masse, which basically all German states adapted, too, in in the reforms of the Rhine Cofnederation era. And the Revolutionary and Naoleonic Wars were devastating, in how they, well, depleted the manpower ressoruces, if not the land (or even that, in Russia).
Still, OTOH, the Coalition Wars were won more or less in the fashion of the old 18th century cabinet wars, so the states might simply operate on that assumption. I dont think war weariness will be any factor, in any case.
