I can anticipate some kind of fortificated line being built, but - as you note - the French border is not very defensible.
There is also the overwhelming naval superiority of the ASE to be taken into account (granted that it's mostly British, but the other partners too will pull their weight) which would allow some freedom in planning amphibious operations and landings to bypass a possible stalemate on the borders. This is quite the case for a bridgehead west of Marseilles or in Gascony (in particular if the Basques show some stirring) as opposed to the more traditional landing points in Normandy or the Pas-de-Calais. I would assume that Russian mobilization would be quite slow, unless the war is planned well in advance. Even in this case though I would think that Russian mobilization can be discovered well in advance and proper countermeasures taken (and there is always the possibility of using Hungarians and Ottomans to take care of a couple of theaters such as the Danube and the Caucasus). The central position of German and Italy (which now share a border and should have good railway connections) and the above mentioned naval superiority should call for as well as allow a flexible strategy: if the Germans and Italians get stalemated, it's their fault. It might also start the other way around, with the Holy Alliance getting embroiled in Cuba with the USA, and the European theater starting later on. Lots of possibilities.
Yes, I can see your point why the ASE ought not to get stalemated in the Western front, and crush France relatively quickly. On second thoughts, however, there is also Spain to take care of, its presence gives rather more strategic depth and may stiffen the back of the Boulangists, so that they don't surrender when they lose the Paris-Lyon-Marseilles key triad, and most of France and Spain has to be swamped by ASE troops in order to get a surrender. Not to mention the fact that Boulangists are going to be even more stubborn about a surrender than 1868 French, probably getting close to Japanese levels. Of course, as we said, impending defeat is very likely to trigger revolutions in France and Spain alike, which would cripple the effectiveness of last-ditch defense. Nonetheless, when the ASE achieve a strategic breakthrough on French theater, they ought to start an operation to bring down Spain, too. I guess a combination of offensive from Portugal, a major landing in Catalonia and Valencia to exploit traditional Catalan restiveness. If these two offensives are done with sufficient numbers, while France is getting to its knees, they may be sufficient to bring down Spain, too, or maybe another landing in Andalusia may be warranted. As an aside, even if the bulk of the troops for these operations are British, I think the German-Italians can give some of theirs, too, since the ASE has most likely been in place for several years, when the big war war starts, I expect all kinds of military protocols for combined operations have been drawn by the High Staffs.
Nonetheless, even if the victory on the Western front would be reasonably quickly by lack of stalemate, and combined land-amphibious offensives (I think the ASE might even go for a double-punch landing in France, one in Normandy and one in Gascony or Languedoc, and another double-punch landing in Spain, Barcelon-Valancia and Andalucia, while I'm not convinced that landing in Calais would be all that beneficial for the ASE, the HA could easily rebuild a continous front by withdrawing from French Flanders; only if the HA and invaded Belgium and overrun most of it a landing in Calais would make real sense), I expect that Boulangist stubborness (even if ultimately limited by revolutions) and Franco-Spanish strategic depth would make at least six months, maybe nine, four in the best case necessary for complete victory in the Western front.
Factor at least another year at least to redeploy the bulk of ASE troops on the various Eastern fronts and wear down the Bear to submission. I expect Serbia and Romania to fare no better (rather worse, with Italy a major ASE player and attacking Serbia from Montenegro and Albania) than OTL, so the ASE would relatively quickly achieve a continous front from Poland to Bessarabia, where they can deploy their superior numbers when F-S goes down. Japan would pound in the Far East, and the Ottomans and ASE expeditionary coprs in the Caucasus, Persia, and Central Asia, even if those fronts could only play a secondary role, given the abominable logistics. The British can certainly lead the ASE in doing some landings in Ukraine and Estonia. General ASE advance would leventually cause Russian surrender, someplace between the Dnieper to the Don. And most likely a revolution in Russia, too. Even if the revolutions do not entirely make the job eaiser for the ASE, having Communist/Anarchist nests of subversion in great powers of theri borders would just spell a different kind of trouble for the ASE, so I think we have to factor another 3-4 months in France-Spain and 6-9 months in Russia for ASEoccupation troops shotting down revolutionaries and re-establishing order.
All in all, a General War much less exhausting and crippling than our WWI, but neither a war as limited as the middle 1800s ones that redrew the map of Europe. It would still have definite socio-economic, political, and cultural impact. Maybe the best comparison might be the European equivalent of the ACW, not crippling to society but game-changing. Especially if the war is followed by founding of some European integration, the comparison is apt, I would say.
Catalonia and Brittany are almost a given; the Basques should also gain their own country - on both sides of the Pyrenees. I'd guess that Italy might go for the Balearic Islands (or at least some naval base there).
Yes to all. Catalonia would also get Valencia, too. Italy may get the Balearic Islands. The Basques would indeed make a bid for independence across the Pyrenees, even if I am very suspicious they would be prone to abuse their independence as bad as the Serbs. I guess that in a few years the ASE/CoE woudl be froced to stage a "police action" intervention to curb down the ethnic cleansings of French and Spanish citizens.
Creating an Occitania in south-west France might be a bit too ambitious, but I would not discount it completely. Belgium would get French Flanders, but I would think twice before giving Flemish Flanders to the Netherlands.
I fear that French nation-building has gone so far that a separate Occitania would be devoid of any vitality, and a separate Aragon would be not really different. However, Roussillon may be given to Catalonia, Italy may easily take French Riviera up to Toulon. Maybe Switzerland, esp. if it becomes a belligerant, might take Franche-Comptee (if they do not fear upsetting their internal balance between nationalities, which is dubious). Why do you oppose returning Flemish Flanders to the Netherlands ?
An allied occupation of what remains should take care of the situation in the immediate: how long troops will have to be stationed there will depend on the amount of guerrilla that the Boulangist/papists can manage to raise. My guess is not too much.
As well as snuffing out the inevitable far left insurrections and various civil unrest, as well as restoring a semblance of order, would take severla months at least. Likely at least another year at least would be necessary to allow the bulk of occupation troops to be withdrawn.
IMHO, he got his zenith in 1870: after the proclamation of the empire, the chancellor lost somehow his vision and made a significant number of myopic decisions (supporting the Habsburgs and relying too much on Russia chief among them). I can accept that the sub-par performance of Italy in the 1866 war may have heavily influenced his subsequent strategy.
I think we are in full agreement here. As a matter of fact, this TL is IMHO a very good way to put good Otto back on the right track up to the end and go in the history books as Germany's most revered national hero.
By the way, I know it is a bit of a clichè PoD, but what if we butterfly better British-German relations in removing the petty quarrels between British and German physicians, and so Frederick III may get early and effective treatment for his throat cancer and hence survive. Contrary to period expectations, I think that a more Anglophile and successful Bismarck and Frederick could develop a better working relationship than Bismarck and William, allowing both to manage the entrenchment of the ASE and possibly the full course of the General War up to Otto's death in 1898. Frederick would most likely remain emperor up to the late 1910s-early 1920s, given his family's typical longevity, overseeing the entrenchment of the CoE.
Don't look at me for maps: I'm all thumbs
And I'm only able to make minor edits to existing maps.
However, there is a broadly similar 1835 European map that a nice fellow did for my other TL, even the Balkan borders are all different. I shall give it a look to see if it can be edited into something adequate.
France will certainly be invited to the Hague conference, but this time I do not see a Talleyrand on their side.
Very true.
There might be an invitation extended to the pope too, but just an observer, and he might refuse it out of pique.
I think it would be far too provocative to Italy and Germany, and Britain and Russia would not support it, too. There is little precedent for it in the previous 1800s international congresses. I am not even sure that a papal representative took part in the Congress of Vienna, but even if he did, he was the wholly insignificant minor-country wallpaper. It would be too Middle-Age. Let the Boulangist King, strongman-Premier, and Foreign minister speak for him, too.
I was thinking that there is a possibility to have the Roman issue as a spark to ignite the G-I-F war. IOTL the Luxembourg crisis of 1867 was almost at the same time of the last Garibaldine attempt to free Rome: IOTL Garibaldi entered Latium with some 8,000 Volunteers at the end of October 1867, but the French had reinforced their forces in Rome and Garibaldi got a smack on the nose on his way to Rome and bottled up in the village of Mentana, where he was ultimately defeated by the French-papal forces. ITTL the start might be the same; however once Garibaldi is stopped on the way to Rome, an Italian army might come to the rescue and trounce the french-papaline forces again at Mentana, with the pope fleeing Rome on a French ship on the eve of italian entry in the city. Nappy would get a bloody nose just after the debacle in Mexico, and this might make him very reluctant to step back in the Luxembourg crisis; or he might decide to find some glory in putting the upstart Italians in their place. Whatever happens, the guarantee between Italy and Prussia would be invoked, and the ultimate result would be the same. Note also that IOTL the London conference on Luxembourg was mostly engineered through the efforts of the Austrian Foreign minister: ITTL the weight of A-H in diplomatic circles would be much less.
I had thought of the Mentana crisis, too, as a big step on the way to the F-G-I War, and I commend your idea. However, I would still use the Luxemburg Crisis, too, as a war trigger (because it allows Germany to claim it at the peace table). So I propose to use both Mentana and Luxemburg in rapid sequence as a double war trigger. Dates for both have to be moved around a bit, but nothing that cannot be easily done by butterflies.
Napoleon III makes his offer to buy Luxemburg, trying to capitalize on Bismarck secret half-true promises of support. Strong opposition by German nationalist public opinion binds him to intransigence. In the meanwhile, Garibaldi makes his move to liberate Latium form Papal yoke, he is largely successful at first (stronger following from big Italian success in 1866), so Italian kingdom does not intervene immediately, but France quickly dispatches a large expeditionary corps and kicks Garibaldi out, restoring Papal rule. Italian nationalist public opinion is incensed, turning wholly anti-French. Napoleon III is emboldened by the support of French catholics and nationalists and renews claims on Luxemburg, asking for the withdrawal of Prussian garrison from the grandduchy. Prussian and Italian governments wholly support each other to protest French claims on Luxemburg and French "occupation" of Rome. Half-hearted attempts by the other powers to call conference flounder in the heated atmopshere. The issue quickly escalates to a French declaration of war on Prussia, immediately followed by an Italian declaration of war on France. Britain and Russia frown on apparent renewal of Napoleonic expansionism, so they remain neutral. Austria, given its sorry state from the 1866 crushing defeat, makes clumsy half-hearted attempts to support France, but the wave of patriotic German nationalism that follows French declaration of war sweeps Austria, too, stalemating such attempts and seeding the first stirrings of the anti-Habsburg revolution. When war starts, Italian troops invade Latium and kick out the Pope and the French garrison.
It looks fine, with a caveat: I don't see a Habsburg prince (cooperative or not) on the Vienna throne. The same Habsburg might get the throne of Bohemia: if he's a minor even better, since there might be a council of regency under local nobles. The question is who's getting Austria: by preference it should be a Catholic prince, and not from Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen (who're getting Hungary). Someone from the Wittelsbach? Otherwise the guy who got Bulgaria might be put on the Austrian throne, and another candidate for Bulgaria would be easier to find.
Hmm, I see your reasoning, but then I think that putting a Wittelsbach on the thrones of Bavaria and Austria alike would be frowned upon by the Prussians, it would make them too strong within the German Empire.
Following your other suggestion, we may rearrange the dynastic list as follows:
Slovenia: your Ferdinand suggestion is fine.
Bosnia: a Savoy-Aosta.
Bohemia subkingdom: a cooperative Habsburg.
Austria subkingdom: Alexander of Battenberg.
Hungary-Croatia: a Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen.
Montenegro: as OTL, or maybe a minor Italian noble.
Bulgaria: a Saxe-Coburg-Gotha (maybe the same fellow that took throne after Alexander).
Serbia: as OTL.
