French Korea?

Is it possible that, in 1866, France's campaigns against Korea end up escalating, and result with France making Korea a protectorate or colony? If so, how would this happen? What would be the results?
 
I think the effects upon Japan's rise would be interesting to say the least.

I was thinking the same thing. Maybe it would bring Japan and France closer? Franco-Japanese alliance, anyone?

That being said, Russia would likely have no one left to turn to but Germany, as conflicting interests with Japan could drive them away from France as well. I could see it polarizing the powers into France-Britain-Japan vs Germany-Russia-Italy(-Austria Hungary?).
 
france and Japan were quite close OTL, during the Meiji era they helped them build their navy and later their air force.

I think on the contrary a French conquest of Korea would rather bring tensions between the two countries : Japan want Korea after all.
 
The 1866 'campaign' was one of those accidental colonial wars that weren't meant to happen and never went anywhere. So you'd need a follow-up on that, somewhat like the US' punitive expedition to Korea in 1871 was a response to 1866's General Sherman Incident, with the French sending a larger fleet (1866's mission only featured some 800 men; the majority of them Fusiliers Marins taken from the French mission stationed in Japan, and only seven ships) and ultimately being able to defeat the Koreans and sail up the Han River and take Seoul.

As to affects on Korea, it becomes a French protectorate, likely with Ganghwa Island directly under French administration.

As to effects on Japan, well, the imperialists likely loose the Meiji War, or if they are successful on Honshū than the alt-Republic of Ezo is able to hold out with French backing.
 
Last edited:
Well the French will need more than one gunboat...

:confused:

In 1866 the French had one frigate, Guerrière; two avisos (a kind of sloop), Kien–Chan and Déroulède; two gunboats, Lebrethon and Tardif; and two corvettes, Laplace and Primauguet.
 
So far this all assumes the rest of Europe just sits back and watches while the French give themselves a large, populous, and fairly wealthy colony.

For all that it was less valuable than a position in China or even Japan, it's still a major shift in the Great Game. Korea was dead in the sights of Russian expansionist ambitions in East Asia, for example, and they'll not be amused if they perceive themselves cut off.

The British in turn would be highly opposed to French acquisition of Korea if the French and Russians were friendly. Unless the two were at odds, it would leave the pair dominating northeast Asia. And combined with the French presence in Indochina, London would seriously consider the risk of East Asia falling in its entirety under Franco-Russian influence. Which would, of course, be unacceptable.

And even assuming that none of the Powers intervene to prevent the French acquisitions, that doesn't mean they'll do nothing. If one power is biting off a big colony, the others will feel compelled to do much the same. This could possibly result in an earlier partition of China into spheres of influence and/or see the Powers (at least Russia and Britain, with Germany likely making demands late in the game) snatching up what free bits still exist. Japan, Thailand, and the available bits of China, like Taiwan and Hainan, would be especially vulnerable.
 
France's chances of getting Koreia are very slim. First off it will piss off Japan who France has been building good relations around that time. Second it will piss Russia since they consider Koreia to be in there SOI. (Remember this is prior to the Russo-Japanese war). Third it pisses off Britain to the point where they might support Prussia in the Franco-German war which might prove disasterous to France.
 
:confused:

In 1866 the French had one frigate, Guerrière; two avisos (a kind of sloop), Kien–Chan and Déroulède; two gunboats, Lebrethon and Tardif; and two corvettes, Laplace and Primauguet.

Ooops brain was stupid there.

I got the one ship that ran aground confused with the whole expedition.
 
I think a French conquest of Korea would be more important to the West's interaction with China than Japan. As it came at the end of the Taiping rebellion one of the successful Qing generals like Li Hongzhang could relatively easily raise a new army from the Taiping veterans and march on Korea then the French would have a much larger scale conflict on their hands, one which they would probably lose and then there would be a return to the status quo antebellum.

If the French won and sacked Beijing then it would probably lead to another unequal treaty. If the French shared the spoils and secured greater rights for all the colonial powers then that would be alright but if they just secured them for themselves, which would be less likely considering the history of the unequal treaties, then that would definitely turn Britain against France.

Britain was already the main proponent of maintaining the status quo with the Qing because they had the biggest share of the Chinese market from a free market standpoint so they did not want separate spheres of influence. China's importance would mean that Prussia and Britain would both be very eager to ally with Japan. It also would make them more willing to ally with the Qing and another defeat could pressurise the Qing to modernise. They probably wouldn't centrally but the different warlords might get greater power and autonomy and modernize their respective provinces and private armies.

Nonetheless I think the French would include all the other major powers in such an unequal treaty which would be just another defeat for China and I don't think would have macro-historical importance.
 
Nah, of all interested parties, I'd put the near Chinese last in terms of a military intervention. The Chinese navy of the time would be hard pressed to register an effect on the French beyond momentarily distracting them with all the pretty exploding ships. Sure they could march their non-modernized army along a circuitous inland path and overwhelm the (likely small) French forces. The cost would be real and the supply lines long, but sure, they could do it.

And it would even be worth the burst in prestige.... Until the French committed their fleet, humiliated China in China, and took something for their troubles (Admittedly, probably not Korea).
 
So far this all assumes the rest of Europe just sits back and watches while the French give themselves a large, populous, and fairly wealthy colony.

For all that it was less valuable than a position in China or even Japan, it's still a major shift in the Great Game. Korea was dead in the sights of Russian expansionist ambitions in East Asia, for example, and they'll not be amused if they perceive themselves cut off.

Was that true in 1866? They certainly had their eye on Korea in 1904, but that's still a long way off.


The British in turn would be highly opposed to French acquisition of Korea if the French and Russians were friendly. Unless the two were at odds, it would leave the pair dominating northeast Asia. And combined with the French presence in Indochina, London would seriously consider the risk of East Asia falling in its entirety under Franco-Russian influence. Which would, of course, be unacceptable.

In 1866 Franco-Russian relations weren't great. France had been a bit too sympathetic to the recent Polish revolt.
 
Was that true in 1866? They certainly had their eye on Korea in 1904, but that's still a long way off.

In 1866 Franco-Russian relations weren't great. France had been a bit too sympathetic to the recent Polish revolt.

The great powers were interested in whatever their opposite numbers were interested in. If one got Korea, the others would want to prevent it or get matching gains.
 
The great powers were interested in whatever their opposite numbers were interested in. If one got Korea, the others would want to prevent it or get matching gains.

Perhaps, in that case, the Anglo-Japanese alliance might form sooner? Maybe we'd see a quad-polar Far East-France and Korea, Britain and Japan, Russia, and China.
 
In terms of Japan's position, if you get a competent person in charge of the French diplomatic effort they might get Japan's support if they do something like offer them equal status (to France) in terms of trading, resources and related matters.

In general though, I don't think the other Great Powers, save Russia would care that much, none of them but Russia had any interest in North-East Asia (apart from China as a whole) by that point, so apart from ensuring the French don't dominate ALL of Eastern Asia or China, I doubt they'd do much.

Now, having said that I could see Indochina developing differently; during the time period being talked about here France only had a very small portion of the region, and it was a very recent gain (almot all of Frances gains from then on were after 1885), and with Korea they may not be as interested in expanding to the same degree, so for instance France may only expand at the expense of Annam and Luang Prabang and not take the bites out of Thailand that they did IOTL.
 
In terms of Japan's position, if you get a competent person in charge of the French diplomatic effort they might get Japan's support if they do something like offer them equal status (to France) in terms of trading, resources and related matters.

In general though, I don't think the other Great Powers, save Russia would care that much, none of them but Russia had any interest in North-East Asia (apart from China as a whole) by that point, so apart from ensuring the French don't dominate ALL of Eastern Asia or China, I doubt they'd do much.

Now, having said that I could see Indochina developing differently; during the time period being talked about here France only had a very small portion of the region, and it was a very recent gain (almot all of Frances gains from then on were after 1885), and with Korea they may not be as interested in expanding to the same degree, so for instance France may only expand at the expense of Annam and Luang Prabang and not take the bites out of Thailand that they did IOTL.

Given that London was still opposed to the French getting too much of Africa as late as the 1890s, I don't buy it. If they'd be inclined to squabble over money sinks of negligible strategic importance with a country largely friendly for eighty years.... It boggles the mind that they'd not do the same 30 years earlier, with France under a Bonaparte and on the verge of bookending China, one of the most strategically and economically valuable locations in the world.
 
Top