Yes, but at the same time, they also have belligerent neighbors waging war so they be still try and modernize the arm for defensive purposes, especially being a vulnerable state where they could be attacked by the vultures.
Earlier Fall of the Second French Empire = No Franco-Prussian War?
- Thread starter CountDVB
- Start date
Yes, but at the same time, they also have belligerent neighbors waging war so they be still try and modernize the arm for defensive purposes, especially being a vulnerable state where they could be attacked by the vultures.
There is also the possibility of that the search for a Spanish King would play out differently. Napoleon III did meddle quite a bit in it IOTL, and that obviously wouldn't happen here. It is also possible that there would be no king at all and a Republic would be declared instead. Republicanism was quite strong in Spain (and a republic would be declared 3 years later IOTL) and the presence of a French Republic would likely embolden Republicans in Spain. Thus the cause of the diplomatic crisis itself might well be removed.
That does sound plausible and it would be interesting for a Spanish Republic to come out of that instead. I reckon they'd ally with France. How would Prussia react to that?
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Really? Because Nappy III tried to do precisely that between 1865 and 1870 historically, with all his greater executive power, greater political acceptability of militarism, lack of socital/military disruption from regime change, ect. He still coulden't get the resources to do more than start cycling in modern rifles. Add that to the fact that the new Republican regeime is bound to have fewer (and individually less influential) advocates for greater military power and professionalization (As opposed to the "People's army" concept that held the passions of Long Nineteenth Century French Republicans) and the fact that you'll be starting from a lower base number/level of preparedness than the Imperial government and I highly doubt you'd get the even higher expenses of modernizing the artillery, constructing railroads for military purposes, ect.
Furthermore, how belligerent was Prussia acting, really? She'd partaken in fewer wars than France, Britain, or Russia, and the ones that she did (The Schleswig Wars and Austro-Prussian Wars) were internal German affairs in which Prussia's causes had a solid international acceptance and diden't overly upset any regional balance of power. It was Bismark's diplomatic policy doing its job in having kept their metaphorical "Bad Boy" score low, whereas France through her constant meddling and flip-flopping had diplomatically isolated herself. If anything, France looked like a vulture during the mid 1800's, in the sense that she jumped in (In Italy, Mexico, North Africa, over compensation in the Low Counteries during the Austro-Prussian War, ect.) during moments of weakness out of naked greed. A Republican France is only in a better position than the Empire to align with the Italians, and THAT would preclude any continued reproachment with Austria since Rome and Vienna's interests are intrinsically opposed
All of that definitely makes a lot of sense and would definitely justify France wanting to do things to stay our of the war.
However, there was an opportunity for Austria and Italy to actually have been in an alliance together with France as noted here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Austro-Prussian_War#Austria's_desire_for_revenge
What are your thoughts on this? I'm not trying to correct anyone or anything. I'm juat trying to figure out what would be the likely events to happen, especially since there is alot going on and plenty of opportunities for things to go in a different direction.
Max Sinister
Banned
Austria didn't want to meddle in the Franco-Prussian War IOTL until France would have won a major battle. If Sedan had gone the other way... And as long as the French were in Rome, public opinion was against joining France.
Apropos Sedan: Anyone ever read Zola's novel, "Le debacle"? The way France lead the war was a joke. The soldiers weren't bad, but during the novel, the officers have them march back and forwards as if they had no plan. But meanwhile the newspapers mock the Prussians who supposedly are starving and marching barefoot...
Apropos Sedan: Anyone ever read Zola's novel, "Le debacle"? The way France lead the war was a joke. The soldiers weren't bad, but during the novel, the officers have them march back and forwards as if they had no plan. But meanwhile the newspapers mock the Prussians who supposedly are starving and marching barefoot...
FillyofDelphi
Banned
Even without the geopolitical questions (Not the least of which being the "Roman Question" would have already been solved if the Imperial regieme fell) , I think there's a very simple question one needs to ask: can the still young and fragile Republic afford to give greater glory, legitimacy, and power to the (largely anti-Republican) army by sending it out to engage in a successful offensive war against the nation's great rival? I'd say no; the government in Paris would be scared stiff about the conquering hero returning home and parlaying his success into a resurgence of conservative power and reputation, via the ballot box or popular coup, and rolling back the still recent reforms. This would especially be the case if propaganda/perception saw this as a broadly Catholic move against the attempted hegemony of Catholic-phobic, Protestant Prussia, which no doubt would be the message the Church institutions themselves would be hammering home.
Well, the French would've pulled out of Rome to get in Italy's good graces while also focusing at home, at elast for the time being.
Well, at the same time, youy have to consider that the army themselves had to fight in a war on behast of the monarchy in the Americas that led to them losing all influence in the Americas via losign France's American colonies to the US and Mexico along with the soured relations. That alongside the loss may have some of the military side more with the Republicans since they fought a large war in the name of imperialism, all for nothing except defeat and damaging relations with someone they regarded as an ally.
I would like to thank both of you for all the hard work and information you have been providing for this! I'm just trying to see all the possible routes and how everything that could happen, so I just want everyone to take as much as we can into account.
Not sure I agree: the Imperialistic (litterally ran by a king/emperor) Prussia coming to get the Revolutionary France, the IIIrd Republic couldn't get better PR if they tried.
This is Valmy 2.0. Even if the army as a whole is a conservative institution, it would be loyal to the State (see WWII).
Another point, a revolution might see some of the more conservative (i.e: old) elements of the army gone and people with real competence rise up
Well, if it is Austro-Prussian War, maybe Austria and Italy could arrange a deal with France or something later down the line when Prussia is taken care of.
Otherwise, it looks like the Franco-Prussian War would be averted unless Bismarck had another plan he could try
The Russian treaty come and i doubt Austria would deal with italy after 1866.
With a republican france there is not plan, as either leopold is spanish king without issue and without Nappy III, luxemburg crisis did not happen, that was the prerequisite for F-P war.
Butterflies fellas
And the prussian hate here is disgusting.
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
I could see a France joining a war against Prussia if they didn't think the Prussians would lose. Bismarck was shattering the balance of power set up by the Treaty of Vienna but he was setting it up in Prussia/Germany's favor instead of towards the French. You just have to find a way to convince the French of this before it is too late.
As you say if they could win it but why regardless? you're keeping ceteris paribus just because, heck we could get something like a prussian/france alliance with this set of butterflies too.
PoeFacedKilla
Banned
You're keeping the balance of power constant because countries like France and Britain (especially Britain, but also probably most lesser powers) are vested in it to keep continent wide wars from breaking out, Britain could probably be convinced much easier than France and you might be able to get them to support France financially or be the ones to push a Republican France to war. I agree that a Franco-Prussian alliance could come out of that, but it's also just as likely that France wants to nip the Prussian's in the bud since it should be obvious a united Germany is a threat to France.
Butterflies, Britain didn't care at the time(and was busy in east asia) plus even without Nappy III blunders, the things in central europe were just 'business as usual' the myth of balance of power is false as britain played everybody agaisnt everybody too.
So i cant' think anything, without Nappy III is like a choose your own adventures...anything can happen now. the banned beer used a similar POD(a prussia busy in east asia) .
In all honesty, a Franco-Prussian alliance was one of the ideas I had, but I wasn't too sure if it would be plausible. Like, would Bismarck be up for it? France's leader of the time would probably still be Adolphe Theirs, so that gives us something of a starting point. Prussia would have to reassure France alot with deals and such over that they (Prussia) won't be trying anything to them.
From how I would see it, when the news hits on France now being a Republic, it will cause Bismarck and Prussia to begin planning differently as well as the rest of Europe. I don't know what to do with Napoleon III (maybe he ends up taking over Corsica as his own area or something
)Depend Prussian goals, if france decided that colonial game in east asia worth over some squables at central europe they could negotiated an 'Insurance' like treaty and when german unify in scheduele, they would not care, maybe that would help prussia/germany in colonial game or later if Russia have design over future Austria-Hungary, there a lot of posibilities.
Not sure if France would not to be in the colonial game for East Asia. On the one hand, they did lose everything in the Americas to the USA and Mexico. On the other hand, people may begin rejecting colonialism earlier since they saw it as nothing more but a pain in the ass that brought trouble to them.
So there's alot of valid possibilities then?