AHC: Franco-German alliance in the xix century

If Queen Victoria married a Russian Prince a Russian-British allience could form and a German-French allience would have been formed to counter that.Austria Hungary would probably side with the French and the Germans while Italy or the Italian States would side with Russia and the British.

There will not be a british-russian alliance in the 19th century because Russia was Britain's main strategic rival from 1815 on to the late 19th century. This was called the great game. And Britain's main strategic goal was containing Russia.
 
What if Napoleon wins, his son continues to rule France and his brother Jerome - Wesphalia? After Napoleon's death Jerome (or his successors) cold become a little bit more independent and go on gathering all the little Germanies. Then, both branches of House Bonaparte conclude some sort of Family Compact, but on mote equal footing than in Napoleon I's times.
 
Provided of course that you believe the Napoleonic wars had actually incremented the male population in France :rolleyes:
The demographic transition happened too, but strangely enough France continued to be a prosperous country as well as one of the major European powers

The Napoleonic wars certainly caused France to lose a lot of young men (not that other nations didn't lose a lot, too), but by the time of the 1870s that really shouldn't have mattered anymore - this was now a couple of generations past that.

The more significant issue was that French women were giving birth to fewer children than their counterparts elsewhere in Europe. Now, by 21st century standards, they were still extremely fertile (fertility was generally in the 3.5 - 4.0 range) but given that infant mortality was so much higher back then, this birth rate was only a little over the replacement rate, and so France's population just crept upward, by about a million per decade.

France had begun the century with a much higher population than its neighbors, so it could survive several decades with relatively low growth rates without seeming to lose military strength. As late as 1870, it had about the same population as Germany. But Germany's population was booming and continued to do so the rest of the century, so that by 1900 it had about 15 million more people.
 
The Napoleonic wars certainly caused France to lose a lot of young men (not that other nations didn't lose a lot, too), but by the time of the 1870s that really shouldn't have mattered anymore - this was now a couple of generations past that.

The more significant issue was that French women were giving birth to fewer children than their counterparts elsewhere in Europe. Now, by 21st century standards, they were still extremely fertile (fertility was generally in the 3.5 - 4.0 range) but given that infant mortality was so much higher back then, this birth rate was only a little over the replacement rate, and so France's population just crept upward, by about a million per decade.

France had begun the century with a much higher population than its neighbors, so it could survive several decades with relatively low growth rates without seeming to lose military strength. As late as 1870, it had about the same population as Germany. But Germany's population was booming and continued to do so the rest of the century, so that by 1900 it had about 15 million more people.

The reference to the high death toll which France suffered during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars was to make the point that France was quite able to overcome it (as well as an occupation, a dramatic defeat, a bad government who turned the clock back to pre-1789) and remain a major European power. I'm well aware of the demographic crisis and the relatively lower birth rate, as well as the fact that population growth in Germany was higher, but this limitation did not significantly affect the capacity of France to stay in the top tier of the European powers and 100 years after Waterloo to fight successfully another major war which required a very high rate of conscription.
 
The issue with france is that their growth was slower that neighboor alongside migration too but still that is not up to topic.

In general you need both france and germany to work together, as france maybe got in a worse to actual shooting wars with the british and now wanting help are able to get germany, as say before the earlier germany unify the sooner france will learn better not to meddle with their neighboor, the rest you need something, a common enemy, like british or russians...
 
If you want that France and Germany make an alliance you could choose many dates

First i would say 1848 : If in the spring of nations german nationalist didn't failed and took the power they could make an alliance with french because they were pro-french and Napoleon III was for german unification but wanted some territories like Italian case so maybe Germany go in war and let him buy Luxemburg it could be a good solution with this kind of promise he could even helped them in war.

Second i would say Austro/prussian war : Many adivsor wanted that Napoleon III choose Austrian side But he never wanted, if ever they had succeeded maybe a Germany would be create by an Austria that would be allied with France

For 1870 cas scenario maybe an Austria deal, Bismarck that fear french revanchism could pressure of not to seek any concession andiIn place instead posed Germany as protector of the Bonapartism like example didn't recognize the third republic and put Napoleon IV in the throne and proposed an alliance as in the case of Austria.

Else not Ems telegram or Bismarck pro-french diplomacy by example if he let Napoleon buy Luxemburg and promise him Belgium in exhange of his alliance.

But i will not see a war against England in XIXth century Napoleon III and his son were pro-england for many reasons but maybe after because some colonialist dispute.
 
Your challenge, should you choose to accept it, is to have an alliance between France and Germany in place by 1900, with a POD no earlier than 1815.

1868: King Wilhelm IV of Prussia (OTL Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany) dies of pneumonia, aged 71; succeeded by his son Friedrich III.

1870: Bismarck attempts to engineer war with France, without bothering to consult King Friedrich, and is sacked.

1871-1876: Friedrich pursues German unification, in alliance with German liberals, but faces obstruction by France.

1877: Grand Duke Frederick I of Baden has an idea: win French support for German unification by offering a dynastic upgrade to the House of Bonaparte; to wit, marriage with the House of Hohenzollern. Friedrich's eldest daughter, Charlotte (b. 1860), will marry Napoleon III's son (b. 1856). In return, France will back unification and Friedrich's elevation to the rank of Emperor. The two young people go along, and the marriage is reasonably successful (three sons, two daughters). Even Britain supports the alliance, as Charlotte is Queen Victoria's granddaughter, and will now rank with her as Empress. (A famous 1888 photographic portrait of Victoria, her daughter Kaiserin Victoria, and grand-daughter Impératrice Charlotte is titled "Three Empresses".)

Everybody gets along fine for many years.
 
First i would say 1848 : If in the spring of nations german nationalist didn't failed and took the power they could make an alliance with french because they were pro-french and Napoleon III was for german unification but wanted some territories like Italian case so maybe Germany go in war and let him buy Luxemburg it could be a good solution with this kind of promise he could even helped them in war.
citation-needed.jpg

Keep in mind this was barely 7 years after the Rhine crisis , which served to whip up nationalist fervor on both sides. Additionally, keeping Germany divided had been French policy for hundreds of years and given how otl turned out I would be rather suprised if Napoleon III. of all people was pro German unification.

Second i would say Austro/prussian war : Many adivsor wanted that Napoleon III choose Austrian side But he never wanted, if ever they had succeeded maybe a Germany would be create by an Austria that would be allied with France

In 1866 the French intervention in Mexico was still ongoing and even if France had been willing to intervene in Germany despite its commitment in Mexico, the deceisive battle of the war barely 3 weeks into the war.

For 1870 cas scenario maybe an Austria deal, Bismarck that fear french revanchism could pressure of not to seek any concession andiIn place instead posed Germany as protector of the Bonapartism like example didn't recognize the third republic and put Napoleon IV in the throne and proposed an alliance as in the case of Austria.

Bismark did not want to annex A-L, but was forced to bow down to the strong pressure from both military and nationalists. Even if he could have somehow avoided taking A-L the Bonapartist regime was doomed by that point and German occupation troops trying to prop it up would make it even more unpopular.

Else not Ems telegram or Bismarck pro-french diplomacy by example if he let Napoleon buy Luxemburg and promise him Belgium in exhange of his alliance.

In return for what exactly? France would get Luxemburg (considering the otl backlash that was very unpopular idea) and on top of that the entirety of Belgium one of the most industrialized nations in Europe, in return for the dubious prospect of a French alliance?
 
1868: King Wilhelm IV of Prussia (OTL Kaiser Wilhelm I of Germany) dies of pneumonia, aged 71; succeeded by his son Friedrich III.

1870: Bismarck attempts to engineer war with France, without bothering to consult King Friedrich, and is sacked.

1871-1876: Friedrich pursues German unification, in alliance with German liberals, but faces obstruction by France.

1877: Grand Duke Frederick I of Baden has an idea: win French support for German unification by offering a dynastic upgrade to the House of Bonaparte; to wit, marriage with the House of Hohenzollern. Friedrich's eldest daughter, Charlotte (b. 1860), will marry Napoleon III's son (b. 1856). In return, France will back unification and Friedrich's elevation to the rank of Emperor. The two young people go along, and the marriage is reasonably successful (three sons, two daughters). Even Britain supports the alliance, as Charlotte is Queen Victoria's granddaughter, and will now rank with her as Empress. (A famous 1888 photographic portrait of Victoria, her daughter Kaiserin Victoria, and grand-daughter Impératrice Charlotte is titled "Three Empresses".)

Everybody gets along fine for many years.

I doubt Europe would stay peaceful for meny years, since tye very close blood relationships between crowned heads in otl didn't avoid the horrors of ww1...

That said, yours looks like a reasonable TL, but how would the question of Luxembourg be solved?
 
I dont agree with those who assume that avoiding the annexation of Alsaice or a mild peace altogether would solve the Dranco-german amnity.

France had the Great Nation idea and a lot of pride. They lost all that in 1870. They loose that even if they dont loose Alsaice and the peace is mild. Allying Germany shortly after is impossible for them. And later another problem is that Germany at a later point will be that much stronger than France and France would be a junior partner in an alliance. Hard to imagine it would accept that.
 
I don't remember clearly but it seem that many member of revolution of 1848 were pro french like Friedrich Hecker that go in Paris and based many of his work about french ideas I could also talk about "la légion des démocrates allemands" (book Passe Et Mediatations Tome Troisieme sorry it's in french but you could consultate freely) or German Democratic Legion it was a unit of volunteers formed under the leadership of the socialist poet Georg Herweg and composed of German exiles in Paris who marched at the beginning of the German revolution of 1848-1849 to the Grand Duchy of Baden they get help of french.
If you want i could search another info about it but it will take some time

keeping Germany divided had been French policy for hundreds of years and given how otl turned out I would be rather suprised if Napoleon III. of all people was pro German unification.


Yep it was but Napoleon III had another diplomacy he was in favor of nationalism and helped it (look Italy or Romania) but he want in exchange took some territories like Savoy and Nice, by example he promised neutrality in Austro-prussian war in echange of Luxemburg and belgium (look luxemburg crisis)

In 1866 Édouard Drouyn de Lhuys almost convinced Napoleon to put 80 000 near of border but Napoleon resigned for the reason you quoted but it could be an otl.

In 1870 yep i'm agree for Bismarck policy, he didn't want it but no i don't agree Bonapartist were still popular it's part of dark legend many of bonpartists people couldn't present themself in election (1871 decree Citizenship and Wars: France in Turmoil 1870-1871 decrre of Gambetta repelaed few day before elction make almost nobody bonapartist could present in election) but they still make good score were they present themself. Republcian make rural election after because they would elect monarchist and bonapartit deputies.

In return for what exactly? France would get Luxemburg (considering the otl backlash that was very unpopular idea) and on top of that the entirety of Belgium one of the most industrialized nations in Europe, in return for the dubious prospect of a French alliance?

Yep for many reason first balanced power to avoid England become antigerman, second end franco-england alliance, third they have same objective they want colony and their rival was England, after it could be a move make before 1870, maybe Luxemburg was sold during Austroprussian war and Prussia didn't want in war just after... you could find many reasons
 
Well, 5000 franc is not really an overwhelming gesture of support, but you are of course right that many of the German 1848 revolutionaries (particularly those with republican leanings) were inspired by french republicanism. However, even if the revolution of 1848 were to succeed it would have resulted in a constitutional monarchy and structurally a Germany and France are still strongly predisposed for rivalry.

Napoleon being in favor of nationalism in the case of Italy or Romania does not mean he is in favor of German nationalism. He was willing to stay out of the conflict because of the consessions you mentioned, but I don't think he believed that this would lead to an united Germany.

Still, alliances in the 19th century were not necessarily long lived and allowing your neigbor (which had a habit of waging war on your territory) to strengthen itself without offering you anything in return seems like stretch. Additionally, at that point (1870) there was no British-French alliance and if we still assume that Bismark is in charge Germany won't be interested in colonies. Additionally, what tibi088 said is also a concern France won't be happy with playing second fiddle to Germany forever.
 
The reference to the high death toll which France suffered during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars was to make the point that France was quite able to overcome it (as well as an occupation, a dramatic defeat, a bad government who turned the clock back to pre-1789) and remain a major European power. I'm well aware of the demographic crisis and the relatively lower birth rate, as well as the fact that population growth in Germany was higher, but this limitation did not significantly affect the capacity of France to stay in the top tier of the European powers and 100 years after Waterloo to fight successfully another major war which required a very high rate of conscription.

I'm not sure that the many war dead were responsible for France's demographic slowdown, as opposed to the social and hence demographic changes wrought by the French Revolution. Even then, in the late 19th century, France did reasonably well. It might have had a low birth rate, but it was a rich country.

I wonder if it might be possible for France to ally itself with a German state not based on Prussia or Austria. What if Bavaria, for instance, led a movement of the Third Germany? This would be a German state and conceivably a powerful one, a useful buffer against the Prussians and Austrians, but not necessarily--well, not immediately--strong enough to rival France.
 
I doubt Europe would stay peaceful for meny years, since tye very close blood relationships between crowned heads in otl didn't avoid the horrors of ww1...

There were no wars among the Great Powers of Europe from 1871 to 1914. There were wars between Russia and Turkey, and Russia and Japan and Italy and Turkey, all on the fringes. Several major crises were averted without war. The Great Powers had pretty much abandoned war as a useful method to advance national interest, unless it was against a weak or remote target.

Germany was the great exception. The victory of 1870, and the militaristic sentiments of Wilhelm I and Wilhelm II, led to Germany becoming confident of imposing its will by force. Without Germany's determination to push the Sarajevo incident into a general war, there would have been no Great War.
 
Top