French annexation of Mount Lebanon 1860

Is it possible for the French to using their objective of preventing the massacre of Maronite Christians being slaughtered by the Druze as a pretext to conquer and annex Mount Lebanon during the 1860 massacre? The Maronites have had a strong pro-French way about them since the Crusades and I'd figure that they would have little to no issue with French rule.
 
Unlikely from the perspective of French policy objectives at the time. Surely they had, in theory, the power to do so, but lacked the will, and the diplomacy involved would be... complicated.
Especially as it would be taken by others (such as Russia) as the signal that Ottoman borders are not inviolable anymore, which would in turn raise very high eyebrows in London. And Napoleon III was seeking good relations with Britain.
Paris and London had both acted as de facto guarantors of Ottoman territorial integrity, most recently in the Crimean War, and France in particular had strong ties with the Porte and feared Russian encroachment there (which is precisely why the fought the Crimean War).
Blatant landgrab at the Porte's expense would go against deeply rooted policy objectives and would put France at odds with Britain.
Also, at the moment France had more pressing concerns in Italy.

It is true that Napoleon III was a relatively erratic personality and very ambitious, so perhaps he go for it at a whimsy. But probably some irritated telegrams from Whitehall would stop him if he chose a course leading to annexation.
It is true, however, that the Maronites would be probably be mostly fine with French rule.
 
Unlikely from the perspective of French policy objectives at the time. Surely they had, in theory, the power to do so, but lacked the will, and the diplomacy involved would be... complicated.
Especially as it would be taken by others (such as Russia) as the signal that Ottoman borders are not inviolable anymore, which would in turn raise very high eyebrows in London. And Napoleon III was seeking good relations with Britain.

Could you have a situation like Egypt or Bosnia, in which the territory is still technically Ottoman, but is 'merely' occupied and/or administered by France?
 
Could you have a situation like Egypt or Bosnia, in which the territory is still technically Ottoman, but is 'merely' occupied and/or administered by France?

Sure you can, but it won't sit well with anyone anyway. It would be pretty clear what the endgame would be.
 
Interesting scenario. Maybe in the long run it would become integrated as a department of France. One might perhaps also see immigration of people from France. As a French protectorate it might not need more territory as a buffer, as an attack on the area would be seen as an attack on France. If France had been able to get acceptance for taking control of the area (which might be the hard part), it might also lead to an earlier division of the Ottoman Empire, or at least parts of it. Maybe it could happen as part of an international conference.
 
There isn't a way to have this happen without the Ottoman Empire starting to disintegrate. Or, rather, would it be easier to have the Ottoman Empire start to weaken (perhaps from a Russia victorious in the Crimean War?) where the other European powers write the Ottomans off as dead, and as such they just go ahead and start picking pieces off of it rather than propping it up.
 
Could you have a situation like Egypt or Bosnia, in which the territory is still technically Ottoman, but is 'merely' occupied and/or administered by France?

That's more likely (and easier to pull off) than an outright annexation. The question is what Palmerston's price would be.
 
The Crimean War began because the Russians wanted the same kind of privilege, the Capitulations that France got as a result of the French-Ottoman alliance under François I, and used some clause of a previous treaty to extract it.
In 1860, French intervention wasn't only motivated by the protection of christians in the region, it was legally based on the Capitulations that made France the protector of christian (Catholic I think) minorities.

An annexation would contradict French intervention against Russia to preserve Turkish integrity.
 
The Crimean War began because the Russians wanted the same kind of privilege, the Capitulations that France got as a result of the French-Ottoman alliance under François I, and used some clause of a previous treaty to extract it.
In 1860, French intervention wasn't only motivated by the protection of christians in the region, it was legally based on the Capitulations that made France the protector of christian (Catholic I think) minorities.

An annexation would contradict French intervention against Russia to preserve Turkish integrity.

Yes, precisely this.
On the other hand, consistency and similar trivialities have rarely been allowed to get in the way of landhungry conquerors bringing civilization.
But in this particular case, a French attempt to control/administer the area, even under a convenient legal framework where the place remains under Ottoman suzerainity, would be extremely poorly received in European capitals and pose serious problems within France itself.
 
If the other great powers got compensations elsewhere, I don´t think it would be impossible for France to get acceptance for taking control of the area.
 
Top