Austria Wins Austro-Prussian War?

He was before 1859, but things in 1866 had grown quite tense between Italy and France, {/quote]

Nonttehless, Nappy still held out for the surrender of Venetia as the price for his neutrality in an Austro-Prussian War. See AJP Taylor's Struggle For Mastery In Europe for an account of the diplomacy.

Since the italian army did not achieve anything relevant during the 1866 war, I think that the cession of Venice to Italy would be not reasonable, especially if we have to postulate a more begnine France towards Austria as one of the PODs to make 1866 an austrian victory

Being "more benign" changes nothing unless he was actually propared to go to war - which he wasn't
 
Nonttehless, Nappy still held out for the surrender of Venetia as the price for his neutrality in an Austro-Prussian War. See AJP Taylor's Struggle For Mastery In Europe for an account of the diplomacy.

I do not doubt your word on what Taylor wrote on his book, but if he wrote so, he just wrote something wrong.

The fact is a bit more complex.
As I said Nap3 had bargained the annection of Nice Savoy to France in exchange for the annection of Lombardy-Venice to Pidemont.
He grabbed Nice-Savoy in '59, but he did not fullfil his part of the contract, thus having them de facto but not de iure (in practice, they were militarly occupied territories).

Nap3 would probably be glad of some 1866-war outcome giving Venetia to Pidemont since that would make his position a little more legitimate on Savoy-Nice, but did not make any bargain about him.

It was Franz Josef, instead, that asked him to be a mediator.
Note that this was not because Nap3 could be viewed as a Italy-friendly power, but quite the opposite, because Italy at the time was hostile to him.
In practice, the figure of him as a mediator was a calculated insult that Franz Josef threw in the face of Vittorio Emmanuele, to stress the fact that Austria was not defeated by italian arms, and in order to get Venice, Italy had to gulp down its pride and bargain with France (which Italy was in bad terms with)
 
It was Franz Josef, instead, that asked him to be a mediator.

You mean after Koniggratz? I was referring to earlier. According to Taylor

"[Napoleon] said to Metternich 'give me guarantees in Italy in case you win and I will leave you free in Germany - - - If not, I would be forced to arm in my turn and eventually to intervene' - - - On 12 June [1866] France and Austria signed a secret treaty in Vienna. France promised to stay neutral and to try to keep Italy Neutral also; Austria promised to cede Venetia to France if she were victorious. In addition, she would have no objection to the creation of 'a new indeopendent German state' on the Rhine."

Seems clear enough to me.
 
You mean after Koniggratz? I was referring to earlier. According to Taylor

"[Napoleon] said to Metternich 'give me guarantees in Italy in case you win and I will leave you free in Germany - - - If not, I would be forced to arm in my turn and eventually to intervene' - - - On 12 June [1866] France and Austria signed a secret treaty in Vienna. France promised to stay neutral and to try to keep Italy Neutral also; Austria promised to cede Venetia to France if she were victorious. In addition, she would have no objection to the creation of 'a new indeopendent German state' on the Rhine."

Seems clear enough to me.

It is clear, the only problem is that it is false.
(Mind you, I am not saying you are a liar, but that Taylor is not depicting the reality of the time)

France had no direct claim on Venice (which was the italian war aim, instead).

Even assuming that a promise of sort was agreed on, notice the terms mentioned were not complied by france, since Italy was not kept neutral, but instead waged war against Austria.
Thus even under those conditions, Austria would not have been compelled to cede Venice.

As I told, the main reason for choosing nap3 was a question of pride: Franz Josef wanted to make clear that he had not beaten by the italian, and thus he was not forced to deal with them.
Prussians forced Austria to cede it since they were eager to make a peace and look westwards.
Italians were forced to gulp down their pride and sanction french possession Nice-Savoy.
 
:eek:Sorry to derail this in anyway, but I had to do a double take, I thought the title siad "What if Australia won the Austro-Prussian War"
 
Even assuming that a promise of sort was agreed on,

Well, Taylor gives the precise date for it. Is he supposed to have made it up?

notice the terms mentioned were not complied by france, since Italy was not kept neutral, but instead waged war against Austria.
Thus even under those conditions, Austria would not have been compelled to cede Venice.

On paper maybe, but if FJ wants Nappy to acquiesce in Austrian gains in Germany, he needs to satisfy him about Venice.

As I told, the main reason for choosing nap3 was a question of pride: .

No doubt - after Koniggratz - but Nappy had extracted the promise about Venetia long before that, at a time when he apparently still expected Austria to win.
 
The point I am trying to make is that there would be no reason for Italy to join these war in the situation depicted by Taylor (since it would reach its war aims anyway, even in the case of an Austrian victory).
The fact that OTL Italy DID wage war is quite an evident contradiction to Taylor theory.

And also it would make poor sense for Nap3 to give it to italy gratis, as a birthday present


On the other hand, if you consider the alternative explanation, it is easy to see that it made sense for a beaten austria to reaffirm its military superioprity on the little southern upstart (italy), even in defeat (and if possible, to sow further dissent between it and France).
And also it made sense to Nap 3 to legitimize his position in Nice Savoy
 
Last edited:
The point I am trying to make is that there would be no reason for Italy to join these war in the situation depicted by Taylor (since it would reach its war aims anyway, even in the case of an Austrian victory).
The fact that OTL Italy DID wage war is quite an evident contradiction to Taylor theory.

Italy hoped to get the Trentino and other bits as well as Venice. It had also committied itself by its secret deal with Prussia

[quoteAnd also it would make poor sense for Nap3 to give it to italy gratis, as a birthday present [/QUOTE]

It was a matter of prestige.

Nappy III was a fantasist, always dreaming of redrawing the map of Europe in the grand manner, like his uncle. You might say he played with maps the way other kids played with tin soldiers.

However, his achievements in that area were very limited. He came out of the Crimean War "ahead on points" but Italy was the only place where he had redrawn the map in a big way. Not in quite the way he planned - the redrawing had gone a lot further than he had envisaged - but it was still the only real sucess in all of Nappy III's pathetic career. He could not allow the Austrians to reverse it, however bad his relations with the current Italian government.

He also had the bizarre idea that the Italian question somehow mattered to France. He told a British diplomat that if he died with Venice still in Austrian hands, her would leave his son with "a volcano for a throne". Don't ask me why he thought that (his grip on reality was fitful) but apparently he did.
 
Sorry i posted in a defunt thread by mistake
i was replying to this same question in a new thread and got mixed up
 
Last edited:
Top