France and Germany Friends

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?

An alliance would also mean no German Alsace-Lorraine (that will disappoint a few nationalist, but even IOTL the German Empire mainly annexed it for military reason (the nationalist element was 'a bonus' at least for some).)

The interesting question from the German part of this premise is how does Germany (re-) unite ITTL?
Edit: I just saw that Xgentis raised the same question.
 
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.
 
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?
 
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?

That would be possible only if Russia ceases to see the Ottoman Empire as her rightful private playground. That is rather unlikely, since the Straits are sort of very vital for Russian interests.
It not impossible to have more cordial relationships between the two, but some degree of rivalry was entrenched into the essential geopolitical interests of both in the post-1815 situation. If Russia succeeded in expanding into the Balkans, Austria's survival as a great power was at stake. If Russia did not secure the Straits somehow, her own Great Power status was in question too. Double bind.
The best way I see it happening, is keeping the Ottomans scary, that requires a POD quite early in the century at least. Say, the Russo-Turkish war of 1806-1812 goes very badly for the Russians... but there would be Napoleonic butterflies all around then.
 
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.
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.
By the way, Radetzky was long dead at this time.
 
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?

Of course, a Austro-Russian alliance is a very plausible consequence of a Franco-Prussian one, especially if the latter includes Italy.
But I don't see it as a trigger.

The only way I see to have a Russia and Austria as allies without messing with the Balkans is a "rump Holy Alliance" concept where the two are the only conservative powers left in Europe and are forced to join in order to stall the rampant Revolution.
This entails no Bismarck is in charge in Prussia, and probably no Napoleon, or a rather different one, as well.
In almost any other scenario I can think of, both powers would pick someone else as the ally of their choice, especially after the Crimean War.
Well, now, IF the Crimean War comes to be seen as "Liberals Attack", Austria may be somehow inclined to support Russia diplomatically, though Russian occupation of the Danubian principalities isn't going to be received any kindly in Vienna no matter what.
Some sort of more successful '48 seems a good starting point. Revolution winning in Prussia, but stalled in Austria thanks to the Russian arms?
The Crimean war would be deifferent then, with Russia scaried as hell with a Liberal power at her Polish door, so that she dares not to occupy the principalities or does so in cooperation with Austria somehow. Now there could be a general war involving Italian Unification, German Unification and Oriental issues, all put together, at some point, expanding out of this alt-crimean war? Who would Britain pick as her worst enemy (Russia, most likely)?
 

Titus_Pullo

Banned
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.
 
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.
 
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.

It should be more likely that after the War of Austrian Succession, Austria does not ally with France, allowing the Franco-Prussian alliance to remain intact.
 
Top