AHC: West European War as long and bloody as ACW, btwn 1818 and 1900

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
----

One option for a coalition war in Europe could be in the aftermath of the 1848 revolutions, even if they are mostly suppressed, could be this:

"After the Austrian Revolution was suppressed, an Austro-Russian war against the Ottoman Empire seemed imminent. The Emperors of both Austria and Russia demanded that the Sultan return Austrian rebels who had sought asylum in the Empire, but he refused. The indignant monarchs withdrew their ambassadors to the Sublime Porte, threatening armed conflict. Almost immediately, however, Britain and France sent their fleets to protect the Ottoman Empire. The two Emperors, deeming military hostilities futile, withdrew their demands for the surrender of the fugitives."

What if the Austrians and Russians mistakenly presumed the British and French are bluffing and attack the Ottomans, ending at war with the Ottomans, France Britain and Sardinia?

The Prussians can be aligned with Russia and Prussia for mainly ideological/monarchical solidarity (although I think the Austrians would have to grant the Prussians some sort of concessions within the context of German dualism to get committed Prussian help). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eastern_Question#Revolutions_of_1848

Alternatively, Prussia can keep itself neutral and insulate non-Austrian Germany and much of northern Europe from a war raging mainly in Italy, Balkans and the Black Sea area.

Or, Prussia, irritated by a lack of respect and concessions from Austria, can join the Franco-British-Ottoman-Sardinian alliance. The problem there is I see a major overmatch ending the war sooner with fewer casualties than the OP's challenge.

----

A second option could be Adolphe Thiers getting into a war in the 1840s by carrying out his threat to aid Muhammad Ali both directly and indirectly by invading the Rhineland. -- Or him doing an intervention in Spain, and having other European powers come in against him. --It would take the monarch having a different attitude for either scenario to happen.

"His policy of support for Muhammad Ali of Egypt in the Eastern crisis of that year led France to the brink of war with the other great powers. In addition, Thiers favored military intervention in Spain's civil wars, but all of these met with the disapproval of the king who supported a completely pacifistic foreign policy and he was soon dismissed from his post."

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adolphe_Thiers#July_Monarchy_of_King_Louis-Philippe
 
Wait - what has Spain to do with it? They are a secondary power, what have they to do with Italy? If they defend anyone againt France, they will get crushed by the French army.
Spanish Bourbons ran the Kingdom of Two Sicilies. Basically Spain ran south Italy, Austria ran North Italy, with the middle under varying degrees of influence from various powers.

Note that OTL, France supported Sardinia/Savoy against the Austrians, and basically stopped when it looked like Italy might get unified.

France is SUPPORTING the 'nationalists', just not enough to let them take more than Northern Italy from Austria. And cause confusion and increase French power. No French troops would engage Spanish ones, probably not even Austrian ones.

They carefully titrate support so the nationalists don't actually succeed.

Euhhh what? England against Prussia? WTF.
What's the problem? England supporting Hannover and liberal markets against a growing power of Prussia, which offers the threat of a continental hegemon?

France supports German unification? WTF 2.0
Nope, they're trying to PREVENT unification under the Prussians.
They'll settle for an impotent German confederation, as long as it's unwieldy and doesn't have much confederal power.

Austrians helps the liberals... Guess who, in 1848, was even more reactionary then Prussia? Austria!
True. But they hated the idea of Prussia taking over about as much. They did help reactionary rulers put down the liberals - but they also wanted to preserve those states from Prussian domination. Austria didn't mind a united Germany - but wanted it to happen under THEIR auspices, not Prussia's.

Note that 1848 was a crazy mix of nationalists and liberals. Austria doesn't mind the former; while France and Britain like the latter.


You should correct these littles mistakes.

Or maybe you should? :)
 
There is the reality that between 1853 and 1871, the following nations were in conflict:

Russia vs. Turkey, France, Sardinia, and Britain (with Austria on the sidelines but involved);
Italy and France vs. Austria;
Italy vs. The Papal States;
Austria and Prussia vs. Denmark;
Prussia and Italy vs. Austria (both with various smaller Allies)
Prussia/Germany vs. France

There was no such thing as Italy in 1859, and you've ignored the war between Piedmont and the Two Sicilies in 1860. One might also add Prussia vs. Denmark in 1848-1852 and Piedmont vs. Austria in 1848-1849.

Spanish Bourbons ran the Kingdom of Two Sicilies. Basically Spain ran south Italy, Austria ran North Italy, with the middle under varying degrees of influence from various powers.

Um, no. Not even slightly. This was true in the eighteenth century, but Spanish influence over the Two Sicilies in the nineteenth was minimal. Hell, the Carlist heir married King Ferdinand of the Two Sicilies' sister in 1850, which hardly suggests the Spanish had much influence there.
 
Top