Franco-Italian War, No Franco-Prussian War

Bismarck historically was angling for a Franco-Prussian War, but what if the Italians bumble into a conflict over the French-protected Papal State before a War can break out?

The Italians pick a fight over Lazio. The Italian manage to take Lazio, but France seizes Elba, Sardinia, and Aosta from Italy.

The Papacy is relocated to Avignon. Conservative Catholics were an important part of the Bonapartist coalition, so I think this would aid Napoleon III's Regime. Papal Loyalists likely relocate to France. France probably has access to the Papal Zouaves now as well - perhaps they end up as something like a second Foreign Legion?


Bismarck proceeds to use the tumult to bring Baden into the North German Federation. Baden tried to join in 1869, but Bismarck opted to deny this in order to avoid antagonizing France.

This just leaves the issue of Palatinate. On the one hand, Prussia might want to deal with that exclave (perhaps handing it to Baden?) but on the other hand if France started a war over the place, it might be just the thing to pressure Bavaria into joining Germany.
 
France would obliterate Italy and force them to give up their claims to Rome. Bismark probably wouldn't even interfere since that might alienate the southern catholic German states. i would be surprised if Italy was even able to survive a war with France without fracturing into smaller states.
 
If this happens, Italy gets blasted, maybe even partitioned into three federal states under French suzerainty; Aosta Valley and western Liguria change hands, perhaps even Sardinia. The Pope gets back his Central Italy domains.

Bismark will just be more wary of the newly founded Catholic bloc.
 
I'm not quite sure. Would the rest of Europe tolerate France dominating Italy so heavily?

Sardinia seems like an easy grab for the French, as would the eastern slopes of the Alps. Splitting off southern Italy, especially after 75% of the Sicilians voted to be part of Italy, seems like a bridge too far.

Perhaps France annexes Sardinia and puts Napoleon III puts Bonapartes on the thrones of Naples and Sicily?
 
Last edited:
I'm not quite sure. Would the rest of Europe tolerate France dominating Italy so heavily?

But what "the rest of Europe" would amount to? In practical terms - North German Confederation (Prussia). 1st, it has the biggest and strongest army and 2nd, at some point Napoleon III was making noises regarding the "natural border" on the Rhine, which immediately raised Bismark's hackles.

I'm not sure if A-H circa 1869 (? start date of POD is not clearly identified) was ready for a major war on anybody's side, especially if there is no some tangible prize involved (at Italian expense).

Russia initially was all over the place. On one hand, there were personal pro-German sympathies on the "top" (including Alexander II) while OTOH, nobody wanted to destroy "European balance". Russian Chancellor Gorchakov kept trying to convince government of Napoleon III to agree to abolishing conditions of the Paris Treaty (forbidding Russia to keep fleet on the Black Sea) but unsuccessfully (Napoleon III considered this treaty one of his major diplomatic achievements). Bismark was much open minded on this subject so in 1866 a mutual agreement was achieved: Prussia will support Russia in cancelling Paris Treaty and Russia will not oppose creation of the North German Confederation. So by 1869 Russia was on Prussian side. As a side note, between 1871 (when Russia declared that it considers limitations of the Treaty null and void) and 1877 (when the Russian-Ottoman War started) nothing had been done to rebuild the Black Sea fleet (mostly due to Gorchakov's resistance) so the whole issue looks more than a little bit bizarre.

Britain could be important as #1 naval power (to whatever extent it would be important) but not as an independent land power on any European theater. IIRC, at that point Britain was pro-Prussian considering its growing power as a balance to strong France (well, there was no benefit of a hindsight available).

I'm not sure that Bismark would act as a British puppy so creation of a meaningful anti-French coalition would be up to him, no matter who comes with the initial idea. So, IMO, the key issue is a scenario under which Bismark is not viewing the 2nd Empire as the main opponent to the German unification. How about Napoleon III making explicit statements about his complete and unambiguous excitement regarding having one more empire in Europe based upon the "national principle" and blahblahblah? IMO, probability of such a move would be quite low but definitely not an absolute zero, especially if one keeps in mind that it was a recognized fact that in the case of a war French army would be outnumbered (and, if Nappy III had a clue, he could easily find out that with the existing mobilization system French army would be very seriously outnumbered on the initial stage of a war).
 
Hmmm.

Might France assent to a German Empire if Bismarck looked the other way regarding Palatinate and domination of Italy?

On the other hand, I would think it'd be more likely that an international congress would be called to limit France's gains against Italy.
 
If this happens, Italy gets blasted, maybe even partitioned into three federal states under French suzerainty; Aosta Valley and western Liguria change hands, perhaps even Sardinia. The Pope gets back his Central Italy domains.

Bismark will just be more wary of the newly founded Catholic bloc.
Didn't the Italians have a previous Alliance with the Prussians during the Seven Weeks War in 1866? (Austro-Prussian War) If I recall, the Austrians pounded the Italians in the south but lost to Prussia at Konnigratz in the north with the Italians reaping the rewards for being allied to the victorious Prussians and gaining Venetia. Was the alliance still in place or had both sides ended the alliance? If it was still in place, would that have given Bismarck an excuse to join in and attack France in the north ultimately achieving his goals of unifying Germany under Prussian rule?
 
Hmmm.

Might France assent to a German Empire if Bismarck looked the other way regarding Palatinate and domination of Italy?

Can's tell about Italy but Bismark's position regarding any German territory was quite clear: it should be in Germany. Not sure how would he be considering Alsace if all other issues are settled to his satisfaction.
 
Last edited:
Didn't the Italians have a previous Alliance with the Prussians during the Seven Weeks War in 1866? (Austro-Prussian War) If I recall, the Austrians pounded the Italians in the south but lost to Prussia at Konnigratz in the north with the Italians reaping the rewards for being allied to the victorious Prussians and gaining Venetia. Was the alliance still in place or had both sides ended the alliance? If it was still in place, would that have given Bismarck an excuse to join in and attack France in the north ultimately achieving his goals of unifying Germany under Prussian rule?

That mutual assistance treaty was for 3 months, that's it. It was a momentary cooperation of convenience, and only existed because France had given it's blessing to the affair
 
That mutual assistance treaty was for 3 months, that's it. It was a momentary cooperation of convenience, and only existed because France had given it's blessing to the affair
Just curious, did the French give their blessing because, like most of Europe, they thought the Austrians would beat the Prussians? And an Austrian victory over both "rivals" of the French would only strengthen Napoleon III's positions?
 
Just curious, did the French give their blessing because, like most of Europe, they thought the Austrians would beat the Prussians?

That, and Bismark gave a handshake agreement that in exchange for neutrality he'd look the other way in regards to ambitions in Belgium and Luxembourg on the part of the French as considering a more pro-French settlement to conditions on the Left Bank than they otherwise would. Plus Nappy wasent opposed to Italy getting Venice
 
Could an extensive war in Italy, while victorious, highlight some of the shortcomings of the French army enough that Napoleon III pushes for reform? Might have some repercussions in later conflicts with the Prussians.
 
Nobody in the italian goverment will support that move because they perfectly know that France will beat them hardly; Garibaldi was stopped by italian troops in his invasion of Lazio for this reason.
Naturally if some coordinated action with Prussia is another matter
 
Could an extensive war in Italy, while victorious, highlight some of the shortcomings of the French army enough that Napoleon III pushes for reform? Might have some repercussions in later conflicts with the Prussians.

To overcome the political loadstone of the Legislative Assembly's increased opposition to forgein entanglements and the budgetary issues of already implimenting the 1860's reforms? Possibly, but it's an uphill battle. Bismark is doing everything he can to work France into diplomatic isolation while maintaining Prussia's fair broker reputation. He'd need to find some way to cast Prussia as threat, which would require admitting his own glorious Imperial army might not be up to snuff, which might be taken as a signal by Prussia that it's time to act...

And he's still got that signed note talking about France wanting to take parts of Belgium to leak to the international press. I can't imagine London would respond well to that. With the pressure taken off her south though with Italy being knocked out the Habsburgs might be willing to listen to try to set up a "quartintine" to protect Bavaria and Wurttembourg. That broader front and more cautious approach means Prussia would have to mobalize against multiple enemies, dulling the advantage in speed of raising her conscription and railway system provided, and the French would be coming in with an actual strategy rather than making things up as they go along. In a long war, pop.numbers and economy are on the sideof the Empire
 
Top