Can the Second French Empire Survive?

Let us say Napoleon III does not interfere in Mexico and in the Ems Dispatch Adjunct is translated correctly and therefore not as insulting, therefore no franco-prussian war, at least not at that time. Napoleon III continues to reign until 1874, living a year longer because he is not depressed over the loss of his empire. Does the Prince Imperial smoothly ascend to the throne as Napoleon IV at 18 years old? Does he get overthrown?
 
No obvious reason why he should be overthrown - so long as he avoids a military defeat.

Nappy IV could possibly strengthen his position by marrying a Spanish or Italian Bourbon. With the death of the Comte de Chambord, many old Legitimists might then find him more acceptable than the Orleans line.
 
No obvious reason why he should be overthrown - so long as he avoids a military defeat.

Nappy IV could possibly strengthen his position by marrying a Spanish or Italian Bourbon. With the death of the Comte de Chambord, many old Legitimists might then find him more acceptable than the Orleans line.

Doubt it. Bonapartism was an anathama to the Legitimists. The House of Orleans is the proper heir upon the death of Chambord (assuming you agree that Philippe d'Anjou's could and did renounce his rights to the French throne). The majority of the old Legitimist party rallied to the Count of Paris when Chambord died, anyways. Only a small minority, the blancs d'Espagne, refused to accept the Count of Paris as heir.
 
Napoleon III continues to reign until 1874, living a year longer because he is not depressed over the loss of his empire.

Actually he didn't die of depression. He died from an operation to remove his (agonising) gallstones. Since this op then had an over 50% mortality rate, he had been putting it off until his son's eighteenth birthday, when he planned to abdicate. After his overthrow, of course, there was no more reason to delay.
 
Let us say Napoleon III does not interfere in Mexico and in the Ems Dispatch Adjunct is translated correctly and therefore not as insulting, therefore no franco-prussian war, at least not at that time. Napoleon III continues to reign until 1874, living a year longer because he is not depressed over the loss of his empire. Does the Prince Imperial smoothly ascend to the throne as Napoleon IV at 18 years old? Does he get overthrown?

The Ems dispatch was deliberately made insulting by Bismarck because he wanted a war against France in order to have the southern german States to join Prussia-led german federation.

So there would probably have been a war later. Bismarck was trying to create a conflict against France. This was his strategy for uniting Germany.
 
The Ems dispatch was deliberately made insulting by Bismarck because he wanted a war against France in order to have the southern german States to join Prussia-led german federation.

So there would probably have been a war later.

Only if the French government was stupid enough to fall into the trap.

How could Bismarck have known in advance that the French, after Prussia had conceded their demands, would promptly come back with an additional one? While no doubt aware in general terms that the Second Empire was run by a bunch of thickos, could he really have anticipated that they'd be that daft?
 
Actually he didn't die of depression. He died from an operation to remove his (agonising) gallstones. Since this op then had an over 50% mortality rate, he had been putting it off until his son's eighteenth birthday, when he planned to abdicate. After his overthrow, of course, there was no more reason to delay.

I know he died from post op complications from gallstones, but outlook affect survival rates, and anyway it was just a easy way to say he somehow lived until his son could reign without regent.


Doubt it. Bonapartism was an anathama to the Legitimists. The House of Orleans is the proper heir upon the death of Chambord (assuming you agree that Philippe d'Anjou's could and did renounce his rights to the French throne). The majority of the old Legitimist party rallied to the Count of Paris when Chambord died, anyways. Only a small minority, the blancs d'Espagne, refused to accept the Count of Paris as heir.

Personally I do not think it was within the law of France to renounce succession rights. The House of Capet and the House of France was one, and the Head of the House of Capet was King of France. Anyways that is a tangent sorry.



Yes Bismark might of engineered war eventually, but it might not of been as disastrous for France then. Long term with one smooth succession in the bank, could the Bonaparte keep their Empire by becoming largely ceremonial, or were they doomed no matter what? Lot of factors there.
 
Last edited:
I don't think its impossible for the Second Empire to survive, but its biggest problem isn't from the legitimists but from the left.

In our timeline the Third Republic stemmed the tide of left-wing agitation, splitting Republicans from Anarchists and Socialists and seeing them press against each other for power. In a surviving Empire, there is no reason for the two groups not to work together. The Republicans have much more in common with the socialists than with the regime.

The Empire was in crisis by the 1860s - having signed a free trade deal with the UK against the advise of its own manufacturers, being industrially behind the UK in terms of technology, and with the glory days of the 1850s a fast-fading memory.

Plus its worth bearing in mind that, as Napoleon III himself admitted, there were very few Bonapartists in the 1860s. He relied on a loose coalition of support that was fading fast by 1870. Whilst your scenario removes the tension of the Mexican disaster and the war with Prussia, it doesn't get rid of the serious political tensions that were causing the Bonapartist regime to weaken - Prince Pierre is still going to cause chaos by shooting Victor Noir and the regime is still hemorrhaging support from the streets and from major figures like Victor Hugo who had once backed it.

Whilst its not impossible for Napoleon III to stagger on into the 1870s I think honestly you would see a repeat of 1848 at some point, albeit with a larger part played by socialist groups.
 
The main challenge will be avoiding anything going catastrophically wrong. Nobody loved the Empoire, but not a lot of people had the energy to particularly hate it either, as long as it worked reasonably well. In that situation, if a state can provide economic success, political stability and a sense of fulfilled expectations, it can go on for a very long time. At some point, all the legitimacy it needs is inertia.

The problem is pulling it off. Napoleon III just doesn't strike me as someone who can do it. Can we give him a Talleyrand, or a Bismarck?
 
Only if the French government was stupid enough to fall into the trap.

How could Bismarck have known in advance that the French, after Prussia had conceded their demands, would promptly come back with an additional one? While no doubt aware in general terms that the Second Empire was run by a bunch of thickos, could he really have anticipated that they'd be that daft?

But the french government was stupid. It let itself being led into war by a small war-monter group of opinion makers and parisian chauvinist mob while it knew it still needed several years to put its army in level.

So if it fell on a trap, it would have fallen on an other trap.
 
But the french government was stupid. It let itself being led into war by a small war-monter group of opinion makers and parisian chauvinist mob while it knew it still needed several years to put its army in level.

So if it fell on a trap, it would have fallen on an other trap.



It certainly could have, but I don't see why it must. It took real hard work to get them to Sedan.
 
Sedan was the military conclusion of the war. Sudan was not the trap. The trap was the provocation that led the french infuriated bull to declare war. A war that It was not prepared to fight and which It fought with a quite significantly less troops than the Prussia-led german coalition.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
It's worth noting the French - eventually - made the correct

Let us say Napoleon III does not interfere in Mexico and in the Ems Dispatch Adjunct is translated correctly and therefore not as insulting, therefore no franco-prussian war, at least not at that time. Napoleon III continues to reign until 1874, living a year longer because he is not depressed over the loss of his empire. Does the Prince Imperial smoothly ascend to the throne as Napoleon IV at 18 years old? Does he get overthrown?

It's worth noting the French - eventually - made the correct strategic call regarding Mexico in 1867, so it is possible a more realistic understanding of France's strategic strengths and weaknesses may prevail in 1870...

That's not going to guarantee a smooth sucession, but it makes it much more likely.

Best,
 
But the french government was warned by its military attaché at Berlin who had sent alarming reports on the quality, the numbers of troops of the line, the equipment, the reserves (the landwehr) and the organization of the prussian army.

And however it went to a war it could not win because it was not prepared to and was hoping being joined by fantasmatic allies (Austria and Italy) that would only join in if the french turned out to be victorious.

France was run by incompetents.
 
Funny, I was just reading about this over the holidays.

A very interesting PoD would be France backing Austria during the 1866 Prusso-Austrian war, maybe by providing weapons in advance or opening another front?

Napoleon's position was also greatly weakened by Bismarck revealing he had an eye on Bavaria. If Napoleon tries to back Bavaria/Austria in 1866, he's in a much better strategic position with actual allies. The war did last long enough for allies to come in, it's just there weren't any
 
Napoleon III has to grow a brain and avoid alienating literally EVERY great power in the world before trying to pick a fight with Prussia. He managed to piss off the US, UK, Russia and Austria all before he picked a fight with Prussia.
 
The French saw the Prussian victory in Königgrätz as a blow to their interests, thus Revanche pour Sadowa.

But having the Austrians win, even win big, is far from impossible. Vienna has already agreed not to seek total dominance of Germany. At most, they will ask for Silesia, recreate pre-1815 Saxony and give parts of the Prussian Rhineland to France and to the Archdukes of Tuscany and Modena. Maybe Hanover can translate its victory at Langensalza into the acquisition of some small bits, like Minden and perhaps Lauenburg. Schleswig-Holstein will likely get an Augustenburg duke.
Russia will diplomatically speak against a further dismemberment of Prussia.

Having gained the Saar/Trier area, and possibly the option to buy Luxemburg, France will have made a visible gain from intervening in German affairs. I doubt that they will seek another war there in the next few years.

OTOH, Napoleon III might see this outcome as an invitation to further meddle in the affairs of the German states. Who knows, he might even see it as his historic mission to create a second Rheinbund by pushing both Austria and Prussia out of the Third Germany.
 
But having the Austrians win, even win big, is far from impossible. Vienna has already agreed not to seek total dominance of Germany. At most, they will ask for Silesia, recreate pre-1815 Saxony and give parts of the Prussian Rhineland to France and to the Archdukes of Tuscany and Modena. Maybe Hanover can translate its victory at Langensalza into the acquisition of some small bits, like Minden and perhaps Lauenburg. Schleswig-Holstein will likely get an Augustenburg duke..

Wow, Prussia-screw much? Can Austria, after one victory even demand so much?

That said, how would Austria divvy up the Rhineland between it's cousins? And also, why would it restore Saxony, AFAIK, Saxony was more in the Prussian camp (perhaps because of it's shrinkage at Vienna)?
 
Wow, Prussia-screw much? Can Austria, after one victory even demand so much?

That said, how would Austria divvy up the Rhineland between it's cousins? And also, why would it restore Saxony, AFAIK, Saxony was more in the Prussian camp (perhaps because of it's shrinkage at Vienna)?


Saxony was certainly not in the Prussian camp in 1866. In fact it was the only one of Austria's allies to cooperate effectively with her. Indeed King Wilhelm was eager to annex all or part of Saxony, and it was only saved by Franz Josef's stubborn refusal to make peace on any terms that didn't preserve its integrity. It was included in the North German Confederation, but much against its wishes.

As to Prussia, much depends on how badly beaten it is. If it loses Koniggratz, Elbe and First Armies are probably destroyed. The question is what happens to Second Army. If it tries to come to the other armies' rescue, it could well arrive too late and be defeated separately. That leaves Prussia totally at Austria's mercy. However, if Friedrich is more ruthless, he can leave the other armies to their fate and retreat hastily to Upper Silesia, whence his own army can be moved by rail to cover Berlin. In that case he has more bargaining power, though still at a disadvantage.

The attitude of France will also be crucial. Nappy III may not care much about Silesia or Schleswig-Holstein, but he will certainly be keen to see Prussia ejected from the Rhine. So Austria can count on his support as far as the Rhenish provinces are concerned. OTOH, if Second army gets away, Prussia might do better elsewhere, maybe losing only the Catholic half of Silesia, and perhaps even getting S-H as compensation.
 
Wow, Prussia-screw much? Can Austria, after one victory even demand so much?

That said, how would Austria divvy up the Rhineland between it's cousins? And also, why would it restore Saxony, AFAIK, Saxony was more in the Prussian camp (perhaps because of it's shrinkage at Vienna)?

Well, I meant a really big defeat. Moltke took a gamble with the use of three armies converging only for the battle, and it could have gone horribly wrong.

I don't think anyone had a concrete plan beyond "compensate the Italian branches somwhere outside of Italy". That would have been a topic for later negotiations, with the only probably rule that Ferdinand IV of Tuscany gets about three times as much new subjects as Franz V of Modena, because that is the population ratio of their pre-loss domains.
The Rhineland just seems the most probable, especially as Napoleon III would certainly prefer smallish duchies there instead of a Prussian province.

You're mistaken about Saxony. It was the closest ally of Austria and the only German state to fully put its army under Austrian command. If the Austrian side wins at Königgrätz, then the 23,000 Saxon troops will have had a part in that.
 
Top