Congress of Vienna Punishes France

I was not answering you directly, just what I think would be the worse for France. You sometimes see maps where France loses all of Nord to the Netherlands, Lorraine and the Freche Compte to "Germany", an independent Bretagne, British Normandy (I have still no idea why the British would want that) and various border changes around Spain and Italy (but strangly not around Switserland).

Most of that seems illogical - if you give the Netherlands even MORE Catholics you get a situation where the minority nationality and minority religion is the ruling one, not too much of a strange thing in general, but something unknown in the Netherlands. Its going to be far more in danger of collapsing quicker even than OTL

The British won't want Normandy, or even Calais, as its not 1500 anymore. Perhaps at a push they might take Ushant. Was there any sort of independence movement among the Bretons at this period? I'm ignorant on that. Corsica, just possibly.

Spain would be a logical possibility in terms of territory (Navarre or Cerdagne) but not in terms of the country that is getting it. Sure, France was bogged down in Spain but it was the British who won the war there...

Now you could give some territory to Germany and Italy, but who ARE Germany and Italy? Any border areas in Italy is obviously going to Piedmont-Sardinia who have already come out of the war quite nicely with Genoa.

Would you set Lorraine up as independent, and if so doesn't it have to have a Habsburg king to be legitimate, and doesn't that just displace the Austrian Netherlands thing South a bit? If its not independent, then Austria will be pissed off, and who gets it? Prussia seems most likely, though perhaps you could add it to the Bavarian Palatinate, but Bavaria was supposed to be being punished not rewarded here

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Most of that seems illogical - if you give the Netherlands even MORE Catholics you get a situation where the minority nationality and minority religion is the ruling one, not too much of a strange thing in general, but something unknown in the Netherlands. Its going to be far more in danger of collapsing quicker even than OTL

The British won't want Normandy, or even Calais, as its not 1500 anymore. Perhaps at a push they might take Ushant. Was there any sort of independence movement among the Bretons at this period? I'm ignorant on that. Corsica, just possibly.

Spain would be a logical possibility in terms of territory (Navarre or Cerdagne) but not in terms of the country that is getting it. Sure, France was bogged down in Spain but it was the British who won the war there...

Now you could give some territory to Germany and Italy, but who ARE Germany and Italy? Any border areas in Italy is obviously going to Piedmont-Sardinia who have already come out of the war quite nicely with Genoa.

Would you set Lorraine up as independent, and if so doesn't it have to have a Habsburg king to be legitimate, and doesn't that just displace the Austrian Netherlands thing South a bit? If its not independent, then Austria will be pissed off, and who gets it? Prussia seems most likely, though perhaps you could add it to the Bavarian Palatinate, but Bavaria was supposed to be being punished not rewarded here

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

The point of my post was that I gave exaples of what I think would not happen for basicly the exact reasons you gave, although you often see it happening in various timelines or maps.
 
The point of my post was that I gave exaples of what I think would not happen for basicly the exact reasons you gave, although you often see it happening in various timelines or maps.

Sorry I was agreeing with you! I know they weren't your ideas.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Would you set Lorraine up as independent, and if so doesn't it have to have a Habsburg king to be legitimate, and doesn't that just displace the Austrian Netherlands thing South a bit? If its not independent, then Austria will be pissed off, and who gets it? Prussia seems most likely, though perhaps you could add it to the Bavarian Palatinate, but Bavaria was supposed to be being punished not rewarded here

I always liked the idea of an independent Alsace-Lorraine (only that part which became German in 1871, maybe plus Belfort) as a member of the German confederation. Just because I like to know how that would develop. Alsace, though, is pretty much the only independent entity I could imagine to be carved out of France.

Considering who should rule possible new entities, I think if the point really would be weakening France, then they wouldn't care who has a legitime claim on it. Maybe the Saxon king ends in Alsace (after all, he gets along well with the French, right ;)) and gets the Sarre as well, and on the other side the Prussians get the whole of Saxony against some further territorial corrections in the West.
 
1 Most of that seems illogical - if you give the Netherlands even MORE Catholics you get a situation where the minority nationality and minority religion is the ruling one, not too much of a strange thing in general, but something unknown in the Netherlands. Its going to be far more in danger of collapsing quicker even than OTL

The British won't want Normandy, or even Calais, as its not 1500 anymore. Perhaps at a push they might take Ushant. Was there any sort of independence movement among the Bretons at this period? I'm ignorant on that. Corsica, just possibly.

Spain would be a logical possibility in terms of territory (Navarre or Cerdagne) but not in terms of the country that is getting it. Sure, France was bogged down in Spain but it was the British who won the war there...

Now you could give some territory to Germany and Italy, but who ARE Germany and Italy? Any border areas in Italy is obviously going to Piedmont-Sardinia who have already come out of the war quite nicely with Genoa.

2 Would you set Lorraine up as independent, and if so doesn't it have to have a Habsburg king to be legitimate, and doesn't that just displace the Austrian Netherlands thing South a bit? If its not independent, then Austria will be pissed off, and who gets it? Prussia seems most likely, though perhaps you could add it to the Bavarian Palatinate, but Bavaria was supposed to be being punished not rewarded here

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

1 Not that illogic, most parts of the French Nord Region were a part of the original Burgundian Netherlands and even a (very) small part, which wasn't a part of the Burgundian Netherlands spoke a local form of (West) Flemish. Perhaps a bit farfetched, but certainly at the time not that uncommon to justify territorial claims.
I see your concerns, however officially there was no official religion, which didn't mean that protestants and catholics trusted eachother. Furthermore there also was the problem of representation and the issue of the debt of the old Dutch Republic. However I agree that it could magnify the same problems as IOTL; protestants felt threatened by large catholic majority and catholic felt that the country was too protestant and that they were misrepresented (= underrepresented) (for instance in certain functions).

2 Lorraine (and Franche Comté (free county of Burgundy)), maybe including the Alsace could go to member of the house of Habsburg-Lorraine, either directly to Austria or two alternatives. These alternatives are: first, but unlikely to a new cadet branch or second and more likely to one of the Italian cadet branches (Modena or Tuscany) in exchange for their Italian territory (Modena or Tuscany). IMHO after reading your arguments, I think that both Prussia and Bavaria would be unlikely. Especially Bavaria, maybe Prussia, when Posen (Poznan) goes to Russia, but this region in particular will be difficult to accept (or even be insulting?) for Austria.
This leads to the question is Austria willing to station troops in Lorraine, since as the third army in Europe during that period they had the troops to do so.
If not, then an independent Lorraine (&Alsace?) could also be made a member of the German Confederation for at least a part of its territory.
 
Last edited:

Susano

Banned
That wasn't within the power of the actual Congress, which was called to settle the disposition of all the territory occupied by the Coalition in Germany, Italy, the Low Countries and so on. The frontiers and concessions of France were set by the Paris Treaty, and revised after Waterloo.
Well, the latter point is the important one. After the Hundred Days the French borders were minorly rearranged at two points (Hainaut and the Alsace/Palatinate border). Minimal, but it does show that the Treaty of Paris wasnt such carved in stone. Of course, if the UK remains the dominant alliued power then indeed France wont be punished. I agree that you most likely need Napoleon to win the Waterloo campaign, and then have the huge Russian army that was rolling westwards at that time mop him up. Pity, though, that this will also mean the end of Saxony... In any case, though, I dont think Russia and Prussia do greatly care wether France is crippled or not. Neither were all too focused on the whole balancde of power thing, so if this means more territory to pass around they just might agree to cripple France.

Indeed, and it;s important to realise that Prussia's power mushroomed in the industrial age when they got the jackpot in the Ruhr, Saar, and Upper Silesia. In the latter Napoleonic Wars, they were a 3rd rate power that by exceptional luck and effort got up to being a 2nd rate power.

They were already recigniced as a Great Power (if the youngest and the weakest) after the Seven Years War. Sure, Napoleon crippled the Great Power status, but by the time of the Sixth Coalition Prussia had more troops than any non-Great Power state again. I think one can say that they were a 1st rate power, temporarily demontaged to become a 2nd rate power, who however due to having again an exceptional army was speaking on the level of the 1st rate powers ;)

I was not answering you directly, just what I think would be the worse for France. You sometimes see maps where France loses all of Nord to the Netherlands, Lorraine and the Freche Compte to "Germany", an independent Bretagne, British Normandy (I have still no idea why the British would want that) and various border changes around Spain and Italy (but strangly not around Switserland).

Hehe, I once made such a map. Well, three maps set in that scenario, actually. Pity that it does require Russian-Prussian dominance. Seems like my idea of a Lorraine-Alsace-Franche Comte Kingdom of Burgundy as Habsburg secundogeniture, under Archduke Charles, is rather unrealistic :D
 
(...)

They were already recigniced as a Great Power (if the youngest and the weakest) after the Seven Years War. Sure, Napoleon crippled the Great Power status, but by the time of the Sixth Coalition Prussia had more troops than any non-Great Power state again. I think one can say that they were a 1st rate power, temporarily demontaged to become a 2nd rate power, who however due to having again an exceptional army was speaking on the level of the 1st rate powers ;)



Hehe, I once made such a map. Well, three maps set in that scenario, actually. Pity that it does require Russian-Prussian dominance. Seems like my idea of a Lorraine-Alsace-Franche Comte Kingdom of Burgundy as Habsburg secundogeniture, under Archduke Charles, is rather unrealistic :D

Furthermore some people also tend to forget, that at the time only Russia and France had a larger army than the Austrian Empire.

Do you mean archduke Charles, duke of Teschen? Anyway IMHO it might happen instead of a Habsburg Tuscany (instead of a Habsburg Modena is really unlikely), what I mean is that the former Habsburg Grand duke of Tuscany is made the king of Burgundy (or Lotharingia;)) instead (of regaining Tuscany).
Perhaps they decide to create a stronger state in central Italy?
 
Last edited:
Well, the latter point is the important one. After the Hundred Days the French borders were minorly rearranged at two points (Hainaut and the Alsace/Palatinate border). Minimal, but it does show that the Treaty of Paris wasnt such carved in stone. Of course, if the UK remains the dominant alliued power then indeed France wont be punished. I agree that you most likely need Napoleon to win the Waterloo campaign, and then have the huge Russian army that was rolling westwards at that time mop him up. Pity, though, that this will also mean the end of Saxony... In any case, though, I dont think Russia and Prussia do greatly care wether France is crippled or not. Neither were all too focused on the whole balancde of power thing, so if this means more territory to pass around they just might agree to cripple France.

I'd beg to differ. The Russians had big ambitions - southward ones. They pretty much already saw us as their strategic rival, and raised merry hell over "maritime rights" at the Congress. What interest did they have in a crippled France? A reasonably strong France was no threat to them, but it was a useful check on British naval power.
 

Susano

Banned
I'd beg to differ. The Russians had big ambitions - southward ones. They pretty much already saw us as their strategic rival, and raised merry hell over "maritime rights" at the Congress. What interest did they have in a crippled France? A reasonably strong France was no threat to them, but it was a useful check on British naval power.

Well, that turned out splendid, seeing with whom France sided in the Crimean War, eh? Of course that could not have been forseen with certainity at Vienna, but then again neither could be said with certainity that France would be a naval check to the UK. Of Obviously Russia wouldnt have a special interest in a crippled France, I think they simply would not care.

Jan: Yes, him. Of course, seeing that he wasnt exactly popular at court, that might make things even more improbable, but he is the next senior Habsburg next to the Emperor, the Grand-Duke and their respective (still minor) sons. Tuscany and Modena both keep their lands. Thats all we need, the Tuscan line gets reshuffled once more, as if Salzburg and Würzburg had not been enough as is! ;) Who else would get Tuscany? Bourbon-Parma? Why should they regain "Etruria", they only got it by the grace of Napoleon, after all.
 
Well, that turned out splendid, seeing with whom France sided in the Crimean War, eh? Of course that could not have been forseen with certainity at Vienna, but then again neither could be said with certainity that France would be a naval check to the UK. Of Obviously Russia wouldnt have a special interest in a crippled France, I think they simply would not care.

In rational terms it might not have been much to Russia either way, but we are talking about Alexander I, remember. This is the man who's chivalrous play-acting allowed the Waterloo campaign to happen in the first place.
 

Susano

Banned
In rational terms it might not have been much to Russia either way, but we are talking about Alexander I, remember. This is the man who's chivalrous play-acting allowed the Waterloo campaign to happen in the first place.

True, but cant this be turned around in some way? Could he get some irrational mood to punish France?
 
Shame they didn’t remember that in Paris in 1919.

Cook

The problem is that the situation was vastly different.

For one thing with the collapse of both the Russian and Austrian empires meant that there was no real option of a balance of power position. It was either seek to cripple Germany to prevent it being a threat or leave it effectively militarily predominant on the continent. Especially given the human and economic damage Germany had done to France there was little hope of a purely western military counter.

Also the wider political and social situation was different. While the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars had been long and costly compared to earlier conflict they were not massively so and followed a century of frequent conflicts. WWI came after nearly a century of large scale peace and shattered illusions over human progress. Also it was vastly more destructive in only 4 years. As such there was a major need for someone to be blamed and it was the defeated Germans who fitted the bill.

Another factor was that the French conflict had been triggered by drastic social change, i.e. the French revolution. While Napoleon basically turned the clock back in many ways during his empire he continued to be a symbol of radical social change. As such, tired after the war the victors wanted security and stability. Hence one of their chief aims was to strengthen the position of the restored Bourbon monarchy, to reduce the danger of France being a new source of disorder and chaos.

In 1918 things were vastly different. The defeated central powers had been socially very similar to their opponents. There could have been a desire to strengthen the infant republic in Germany but too much bitter feeling and mistrust for this to come about. However there was no basis for 'restoring' a former regime as a way of getting stability.

Steve

Steve
 
True, but cant this be turned around in some way? Could he get some irrational mood to punish France?

Yes, if France continues to fight even after Napoleon and the other Bonapartes became a non-issue. France was not punished as much as post WWI-Germany because Napoleon, not the French nation itself was the main foe of the Sixth Coalition.
 
Last edited:
Yes, if France continues to fight even after Napoleon and the other Bonapartes became a non-issue. France was not as much as post WWI-Germany because Napoleon, not the French nation itself was the main foe of the Sixth Coalition.

Yes, but at least partly this is because of different times. The Entente Powers also turned Wilhelm II in a symbol during WWI even though in reality he, but also Tsar Nicholas, had lost control of the whole situation to the military....

Anyway, back to Napoleon, to only Bonaparte, which might have done that is the infant Napoleon II and only because of his father. However if there would have been more nationalistic feelings on all sides, which partly started becoming more important because of the Napoleonic wars, the various coalitions might have turned Napoleon into the symbol of France...
 
Last edited:
Top