Effects of Austrian victory in 1859.

I've been mulling this concept over in my head and I was wondering what the effects of an Austrian victory during the Second Italian war of Independence would be? I wanted to work on a time line but I haven't really gotten a good idea of what to do with it or where to go with it. For Example I'm not sure which POD to choose, should my POD be pre-1859 or actually during the conflict its self? So hopefully I'll start a time line at some point, any and all help and links to information would be appreciated.
 
Last edited:
Ferdinand Max remains as Viceroy of Lombardy-Venetia and is not therefore available to be suggested as a candidate for the Mexican throne to Napoleon III ?

I agree there are more widespread outcomes than this, but this is the first that came to mind

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 

67th Tigers

Banned
I've been mulling this concept over in my head and I was wondering what the effects of an Austrian victory during the Second Italian war of Independence would be? I wanted to work on a time line but I haven't really gotten a good idea of what to do with it or where to go with it. For Example I'm not sure which POD to choose, should my POD be pre-1859 or actually during the conflict its self? So hopefully I'll start a time line at some point, any and all help and links to information would be appreciated.

The Austrians had a really good tactical system, but it was compromised by language problems and lack of training. A simple change to the regiments "language of command" (always German) being set as the "language of instruction" would work wonders.

Also, an Austrian victory would shift the French military to a firepower rather than shock dominated mode of combat. It may also cause an Austrian victory in 1866 (assuming it happens), since OTL a decisive shift towards shock tactics occurred in the Austrian army, and the Austrian Lorenz is a much better rifle than the Dreyse and ranges above 100 yds.
 

Susano

Banned
Well, in 1866 Austria was seen as the favourite anyways. And thats bad news for Germany, considering now Napoleon III can execute his plans...
 
The Austrians should have been able to defeat the French and Sardinians quite easily, but a timid commander and badly organized army meant their numerical superiority went unused.

Radetzky probably was spinning in his grave during the war.

As for the consequences, beyond the immediate effect of Austria retaining Lombardy and Italy being stillborn, it's interesting too speculate on what Nappy III would experience in the wake of a failed war. Being personally in command of a failed war, it's quite possible he would face a revolution or coup. That would have major consequences for the process of German unification.

Napoleon III was the best French leader that Bismarck could wish for, responding to all German stimuli in the desired way. With him (presumably) out of the way, a more thoughful French leader probably won't conspire to dismember Belgium, losing all foreign support during a war with Prussia.
 

Susano

Banned
Napoleon III was the best French leader that Bismarck could wish for, responding to all German stimuli in the desired way. With him (presumably) out of the way, a more thoughful French leader probably won't conspire to dismember Belgium, losing all foreign support during a war with Prussia.

Argh, not this again!
 
The Austrians had a really good tactical system, but it was compromised by language problems and lack of training. A simple change to the regiments "language of command" (always German) being set as the "language of instruction" would work wonders.

Also, an Austrian victory would shift the French military to a firepower rather than shock dominated mode of combat. It may also cause an Austrian victory in 1866 (assuming it happens), since OTL a decisive shift towards shock tactics occurred in the Austrian army, and the Austrian Lorenz is a much better rifle than the Dreyse and ranges above 100 yds.

I was thinking about that actually, one idea was how would this effect not only the French but Prussian and British armies as well. I assume this war would also show how artillery can turn the tide of any battle. Though I need information on infantry, cavalry, and artillery tactics used by both sides, also if anyone can provide some reading recomendations on European politics at the time it would be much appreciated.
 
Well, in 1866 Austria was seen as the favourite anyways. And thats bad news for Germany, considering now Napoleon III can execute his plans...

What was his plan again? Help Prussia defeat Austria and annex the entire (or just Prussian) rhineland? Would the Prussians even accept that? Or was the plan kick Prussia while it is down and just conquer the Rhineland?
 

67th Tigers

Banned
What was his plan again? Help Prussia defeat Austria and annex the entire (or just Prussian) rhineland? Would the Prussians even accept that? Or was the plan kick Prussia while it is down and just conquer the Rhineland?

?

Napoleon III supported Prussia in 1866, not Austria. In fact the possibility of a war with Prussia didn't really start to rear its head until about 1868.
 

Susano

Banned
I'm not sure of the context here- could you explain this comment?
1. Bismarck didnt plan for Geman unification. What he wanted was to strengthen Prussia, and to that end his politics were successfulyl aimed at destroying the Austria-dominated German Confederation and creating a Prussia-Dominated North German Confederation. The German unficiation thing just sort of happened as consequence of the German-French War which...
2. Bismarck did NOT provoke. Lets remember France delcraed the war, and that over a banality! Theres no way Bismarck couldve foreseen that, and furthermore, already 1867 he avoided going to war with France (Luxembiurg Crisis) and in 1869 he turned down Badens wish for joining the NGC in order not to provoke Badens neighbour France. And...
3. With or without Nappy-3, why would Britain sympathise with France? Thats this anti-German iconography created by British WW1 propaganda that sees Germany as the eternal evil of Europe that the other powers would rally to check. But as a matter of fact, France was seen as THE continental great power of the time, not Prussia. The victory of the German state sin the German-French War was a surprise to most of the world, and as said it was France who was the aggressor anyways, so why would any European state sympathise with it even sans Napoleon III?

What was his plan again? Help Prussia defeat Austria and annex the entire (or just Prussian) rhineland?
Yeah. He thought Prussia would that mnassively lose (not that unrealistic, basically teh war was Prussia versus Germany...) that France coudl be Prussias life saver and hence demand about everything from it...That didntq uite work out when Prussia won, and that was the reason why Prussia made no demands on Austria - because Bismarck wanted a quick peace so as to not give Napoleon III a chance to get out of his confusion.
 
I think they could have won in 1859 had they struck down the Piedmontese before the French could cross the Alps. However, it would by a pyrrhic victory as they would have bankrupted themselves in the continuing effort to hold down, Italy, Hungary and Germany simulataneously. It was military defeats that caused the impetus for (imperfect) reorganization that allowed the empire to move on and survive for the next 50 years. In competition for mastery of Germany, Austria may be hobbled by uprisings in Hungary unless it addresses that issue.
 
Top