AHC: Austria wins 1859 war against Piedmont and France

I was more thinking: if the Austrian tactics leave the Prussians with heavy losses (but still a victory) will the Prussians reform their infantry tactics in response, and will their reforms be good ideas when it comes time to fight the French?
In Denmark the Prussian senior commanders still aren't fully won over to the new system, but I don't see a war with Austria as doing anything other than confirming Prussian tactics. The heavy losses will be on the Austrian side, but without suicidal bayonet charges they will be lower (e.g. instead of 5,719 to 1,112 at Nachod they might get away with 3,000).

In 1870, the Prussians went into the war expecting to be able to use their infantry as they had in 1866: the first unit into battle engages the enemy, and subsequent waves move to left and right to feel for the enemy flank. That causes them heavy casualties, but - and this is the reason the Prussians keep winning- they're able to change tactics mid-way through the war to leverage their artillery superiority instead. The only real tactical difference as a result of the Austrian experience is that the Prussians might be a little less overconfident.
 
In Denmark the Prussian senior commanders still aren't fully won over to the new system, but I don't see a war with Austria as doing anything other than confirming Prussian tactics. The heavy losses will be on the Austrian side, but without suicidal bayonet charges they will be lower (e.g. instead of 5,719 to 1,112 at Nachod they might get away with 3,000).

In 1870, the Prussians went into the war expecting to be able to use their infantry as they had in 1866: the first unit into battle engages the enemy, and subsequent waves move to left and right to feel for the enemy flank. That causes them heavy casualties, but - and this is the reason the Prussians keep winning- they're able to change tactics mid-way through the war to leverage their artillery superiority instead. The only real tactical difference as a result of the Austrian experience is that the Prussians might be a little less overconfident.

Interesting...

So if Austria did win the 1859 war, and loses the 1866 war, does that mean that Italy gets off to a slower start, but gets Venice and Milan from the Hapsburgs in 1866? Or does Italy never get off the ground as a concept?

Because Austria being pushed out of Germany, but remaining a force in a balkanized Italian peninsula is a rather interesting scenario...

fasquardon
 
Last edited:
If Austria wins teh 1859 war (keeping Milan - one of the most prosperous provinces BTW)) you probably won't get a war of 1866 and 1870 - at least not one as we know it.

For one part Austrai is stronger (better finances)

Italy probably does not get united (most of unification was BECAUSE of the 1859 war - winning Austria will prop up the HAbsburg/Burbon states of Italy. Wondering if France takes Savoy and Nice ? - this would especially be humilatin for Turin.

IF a "German" war comes it will be quite different - Bismarck won't have an Italian ally (the best he can expect is insurrections and maybe the Savoyards try to help.

You would have to rewrite the History completely... Winged Flutterthings - you know ;)
 
Does Prussia still try to mobilise during this 1859?

It was the problems which arose during the mobilisation which triggered the Prussian Army reforms, which caused the conflict between Wilhelm I and Parliament, which in turn brought Bismarck to power. Room for quite a few butterflies here.
 
Lets assume the POD is Solferino a long and bloody battle.

OTL:
Near 3 pm the French reserves, formed by Canrobert’s 3rd Corps and the Imperial Guard under Regnaud, attacked Cavriana, which was defended by the Austrian I Corps under Clam-Gallas, finally occupying it at 6 pm and thereby breaking through the Austrian center. This breakthrough forced a general retreat of both Austrian armies.

Lets assume the Austrians hold Cavriana - thus the battle is a tactical sucess for Austria

Napoleon - even OTL - gets tired of the war - you get a status quo ante peace...

I assume the Prussians had OTL and TTL much to do with France readyness to make peace, but having won or lost the last (big) battle is making THE difference.
 
Even if Solferino is a tactical draw, the Austrians would anyway retreat toward the Quadrilateral. Lombardy was considered lost and Austria had no appetite to mount up a counteroffensive.
It's possible that the Allied forces would lose some more men, but it would not affect the outcome.
In a way Nappy found it easier to agree to an armistice after a victory, even one in name only (which is the definition of tactical victory :rolleyes:). Going back to France with the tail between his legs it would have been a bit difficult for a Bonaparte.
The desire to end the war was dominant also for Franz Joseph. Lombardy was lost, and also the Habsburg princes from the duchies had all been forced to flee the insurrection. The hope to put the cork back into the bottle was a feeble one, and this was demonstrated by the lack of reactions on the Austrian side when the restoration of the expelled princes come to nothing (even if it was included in the conditions of the Zurich treaty).
 
I doubt that even after a minor victory the Austrians would retreat - and it would not agree to OTLs conditions of Zurich.

That means the Battle goes on and Austria wins (OP says Austria wins ;)).

OTL the German Confederation moblised 350k troops so if Austria holds out a little longer the defeat is averted - which in turn enables the HAbsburgs to hold on their Secundogenitures.

After a victory all looks different - ;)
 
If Austria has the stomach to hold, they can always hole up in the Quadrilateral and wait for the German Confederation to wake up and do something. AFAIK half of the troops were promised but never started toward the border and the other half (the Prussian one) had so many problems during the mobilization that they were still quite far away from the border, even more from a possibility to begin offensive actions.

The point is that neither side can win decisively Solferino. Whatever happens on the field, both armies are exhausted and will retreat from the field.

The challenge is to find a way for the Austrians to win the war of 1859, but sometimes (quite often IMHO) these challenges simply do not work out.
 
If Austria has the stomach to hold, they can always hole up in the Quadrilateral and wait for the German Confederation to wake up and do something. AFAIK half of the troops were promised but never started toward the border and the other half (the Prussian one) had so many problems during the mobilization that they were still quite far away from the border, even more from a possibility to begin offensive actions.

The point is that neither side can win decisively Solferino. Whatever happens on the field, both armies are exhausted and will retreat from the field.

The challenge is to find a way for the Austrians to win the war of 1859, but sometimes (quite often IMHO) these challenges simply do not work out.

Another pod could thus be that the Bund troops have less problems with mobilizing and aid Austria faster, stomping France :)

Sorry, I like stompjng France
 
Another pod could thus be that the Bund troops have less problems with mobilizing and aid Austria faster, stomping France :)

Sorry, I like stompjng France

It's not just a matter of mobilizing. Prussia had major problems with both doctrine and logistics (artillery was quite backward, and infantry tactics were Napoleonic ones with vintage smooth-bores) and had not been in any war since 1815. The other states were even worse. The failure in the mobilization of 1859 was good news for Prussia because it showed the necessity of reforming the army and led to von Doorn's reforms.

No problem with the curb-stomping of France. It's just that I do like to curb-stomp Austria even better :D and Austria was on borrowed time since 1848.
 
Top