How does Germany unite? With Bismark around a franco-prussian alliance is not possible. Unless theire is a big threat to both country.
As I mentioned before, Russia is a good candidate for its large size.
How does Germany unite? With Bismark around a franco-prussian alliance is not possible. Unless theire is a big threat to both country.
But that's off-topic anyway.
I'm an ideas guy, you come up with detail.
What if Napoleon III decided to ally with Bismark instead of fighting against him?
You mean, by giving up any french interest in Europe, and being considered as a traitor (even more) by royalists and republicans?
What if Napoleon III decided to ally with Bismark instead of fighting against him?
Until the 1866 war relations between France and Prussia were quite cordial.
Nappy III wanted to be the neutral middleman between Prussia and Austria, but Prussia made too soon peace with Austria, so Nappy could NOT reap rewards for negotiating a piece - so in away France felt "Betrayed" (Revance pour la Sadowa).
You need a POD in the Battle of Königgrätz where Austria performs better (keeping the army intact) so that the war is longer and Nappy could play saviour of the peace and getting a few territories as reward.
Austria had defeated Italy in 1866 in both land and sea battles. Radetzky could have moved the southern army to the northern battlefield, which would put his experienced army (+experienced general) against the prussians = this would probably be enough to persuade Bismarck that he needed a neutral to negotiate a peace.
Of course this would keep the "German" question unresolved and Nappy would be allied not with Germany, but with Prussia and Allies. Leaving Austria either alone or as ally of Russia (if russia can froget about Austria not helping in the Crimean war). Possibly with territory gained in Italy and NO united Italy.
If we look at the colonial process afterward I could see UK joining with Russia and Austria.
Maybe Russia joins the French Prussian side and we Have UK + AH allied.
What if Napoleon III decided to ally with Bismark instead of fighting against him?
I guess the most possible scenario would be this: Austria allies with Russia, forcing France and Prussia to become allies to deal with this massive threat. Good?
Wait, Italy was already united in 1866 and it would take a Austrian victory of quite gigantic proportion to undo THAT, especially because Napoleon himself was supporting it. Unless you count continued independence of the rump Papal states and possibly Austrian Veneto as not united Italy.Until the 1866 war relations between France and Prussia were quite cordial.
Nappy III wanted to be the neutral middleman between Prussia and Austria, but Prussia made too soon peace with Austria, so Nappy could NOT reap rewards for negotiating a piece - so in away France felt "Betrayed" (Revance pour la Sadowa).
You need a POD in the Battle of Königgrätz where Austria performs better (keeping the army intact) so that the war is longer and Nappy could play saviour of the peace and getting a few territories as reward.
Austria had defeated Italy in 1866 in both land and sea battles. Radetzky could have moved the southern army to the northern battlefield, which would put his experienced army (+experienced general) against the prussians = this would probably be enough to persuade Bismarck that he needed a neutral to negotiate a peace.
Of course this would keep the "German" question unresolved and Nappy would be allied not with Germany, but with Prussia and Allies. Leaving Austria either alone or as ally of Russia (if russia can froget about Austria not helping in the Crimean war). Possibly with territory gained in Italy and NO united Italy.
If we look at the colonial process afterward I could see UK joining with Russia and Austria.
Maybe Russia joins the French Prussian side and we Have UK + AH allied.
I guess the most possible scenario would be this: Austria allies with Russia, forcing France and Prussia to become allies to deal with this massive threat. Good?
A more apt question is how would you tweak European history in the 1700s that by the the latter half of the 19th century, Nappy III and Bismarck have the same level of special relationship that "Merkozy" Merkel and Sarkozy does today? You can have newspapers of the era refer to Nappy and Bismarck as "BisNap." Ok sounds dumb but you get the idea.
If you tweak in the 1700s, the most likely outcome is that neither of these guys is ever born, or in a position of power. To have a Napoleon III, you'd necessitate a Napoleon I...
If the idea is to have a very stable, close, long-standing alliance between France and Prussia regardless who is running the show, I'd go with avoiding the Westminster Treaty of 1756. Prussia remains a French ally, and Kaunitz's politicy fails. The long standing Franco-Austrian rivalry remains in place, and probably the equivalent of the Seven Years War is fought with the old alliance system. This is the premise for impressive Franco-Prussian success on the Continent, which in turn solidifies the alliance by showing it works and is worth it. Maybe Prussia annexes Hannover, thus cementing enduring hostility with Britain. I am not sure what happen next, but probably the butterflies from this are enough to have a very, very different French Revolution, and probably a different American Revolution as well.