Harshest Congress of Vienna

What changes could be made so make the Congress of Vienna as harsh as possible to France following her final surrender? If the Powers decided to punish France as much as possible, just how much territory could be cut off?
 
What changes could be made so make the Congress of Vienna as harsh as possible to France following her final surrender? If the Powers decided to punish France as much as possible, just how much territory could be cut off?
At least Dunkirk for the Netherlands and Corsica for Sardina-Piedmont. Also the loss of all colonies. Alsace to some German nation, maybe Baden or Prussia?

After that a couple of less likely scenarios like independent Brittany or Lorraine. Dutch Artois, British or Dutch Calais, etc.

Still the most likely scenario in my opinion is just loss of Dunkirk, Corsica and the colonies.
 
That really wasn't what the Congress was about. It was about redrawing the map and setting things back to 1789 as much as they could. While Talleyrand certainly played a role in how lenient they were on France, I don't know if you can change it much more. Hell, Napoleon returned from exile and nearly reignited the Napoleonic Wars and still France was only punished by having to cede Savoy and Nice to Sardinia, host an occupation force, and pay a rather large indemnity.

You may be able to get some extra territorial concessions, but I find it... doubtful. Savoy and Nice had French speakers, but had a fair amount of Italians, too, so the return wasn't too awful. Anywhere else, things get muddled. The United Netherlands could possibly receive old (and we're talking old) pieces of the Spanish Netherlands--Lille, parts of Luxembourg ceded in the Reunion Chambers, ect. But these are French speaking. Likewise, maybe pieces of Alsace to Baden, as there as German speakers there, but people spoke French, too. I suppose also you could try to detatch Lorraine as an independent (Grand) Duchy as part of the German Confederation and hand it off to a Habsburg, but it just seems unlikely. And I only say possibly Grand since the Congress of Vienna was all about inflating up these tiny territories and if they did revive Lorraine it'd probably get a title upper too.

The Congress wanted Napoleon quashed, and France contained, too. But given the Bourbons returned following Napoleon's fall, they made a good bulwark against revolutionary tides and so many of the more conservative allies were disinclined to dismember France knowing they'd need her down the line.
 
That really wasn't what the Congress was about. It was about redrawing the map and setting things back to 1789 as much as they could. While Talleyrand certainly played a role in how lenient they were on France, I don't know if you can change it much more. Hell, Napoleon returned from exile and nearly reignited the Napoleonic Wars and still France was only punished by having to cede Savoy and Nice to Sardinia, host an occupation force, and pay a rather large indemnity.

This.

As a consequence, you'd have to make France even worse to get her more punished. Making Napoleon worse is possible - but wouldn't change much. I see two possibilities:
  • the French people put the new Bourbon king on the Guillotine once Napoleon returns, remembering everybody that its about the revolution, not Napoleon.
  • the Bourbons are as bad as Napoleon.
The first may be possible under the right circumstances, the last would need the Bourbons on the throne for some years before a second Congress of Vienna destroys the new Bourbon revolutionary France. Given the Bourbons IOTL this is highly unlikely, though.
 
This.

As a consequence, you'd have to make France even worse to get her more punished. Making Napoleon worse is possible - but wouldn't change much. I see two possibilities:
  • the French people put the new Bourbon king on the Guillotine once Napoleon returns, remembering everybody that its about the revolution, not Napoleon.
  • the Bourbons are as bad as Napoleon.
The first may be possible under the right circumstances, the last would need the Bourbons on the throne for some years before a second Congress of Vienna destroys the new Bourbon revolutionary France. Given the Bourbons IOTL this is highly unlikely, though.

What about if the King never flees Paris and manages to ride revolutionary war victories to popularity?
 
Wasn't the congress of Vienna about restoring the balance of power in Europe? Weakening France too mutch migh open the door to another potential hegemon.
 
Wasn't the congress of Vienna about restoring the balance of power in Europe? Weakening France too mutch migh open the door to another potential hegemon.

Exactly, and Castlereagh and Talleyrand (and Metternich, I think?) were in agreement on the idea that a severely weakened France was another way of saying "invitation to Russia to cement European superpower status".
 
Pretty much what everyone else already said.
Besides the few things that happenend to France in OTL ceding stuff like Dunkirk, Corsica, Roussillon or St. Pierre and Miquelon (the most insignificant French oversea possession, period) nothing more will come out of it.

Prussia and Russia were the two additional powers that had also had to be contained from that point on after all.
 
That really wasn't what the Congress was about. It was about redrawing the map and setting things back to 1789 as much as they could. While Talleyrand certainly played a role in how lenient they were on France, I don't know if you can change it much more. Hell, Napoleon returned from exile and nearly reignited the Napoleonic Wars and still France was only punished by having to cede Savoy and Nice to Sardinia, host an occupation force, and pay a rather large indemnity.

You may be able to get some extra territorial concessions, but I find it... doubtful. Savoy and Nice had French speakers, but had a fair amount of Italians, too, so the return wasn't too awful. Anywhere else, things get muddled. The United Netherlands could possibly receive old (and we're talking old) pieces of the Spanish Netherlands--Lille, parts of Luxembourg ceded in the Reunion Chambers, ect. But these are French speaking. Likewise, maybe pieces of Alsace to Baden, as there as German speakers there, but people spoke French, too. I suppose also you could try to detatch Lorraine as an independent (Grand) Duchy as part of the German Confederation and hand it off to a Habsburg, but it just seems unlikely. And I only say possibly Grand since the Congress of Vienna was all about inflating up these tiny territories and if they did revive Lorraine it'd probably get a title upper too.

The Congress wanted Napoleon quashed, and France contained, too. But given the Bourbons returned following Napoleon's fall, they made a good bulwark against revolutionary tides and so many of the more conservative allies were disinclined to dismember France knowing they'd need her down the line.

I agree with most of it, even that most parts of the Former Spanish Netherlands conquered by France spoke Romance French dialects (Walloon, Picardian), except the region mentioned by Pompejus, the region around Dunkerque (Duinkerken in Dutch), which spoke a Flemish Dutch dialect. (In early medieval times the 'language border' between Romance and Germanic dialects was near Lille (Rijssel), Béthune (Bethune), Montreuil, Étaples (Stapel), so in places like Calais (Kales), Gravelines (Grevelingen) and Boulogne-sur-Mer (Bonen; that had already changed towards the end of the middle ages) there used to be a (West) Flemish dialect spoken; however most of that had already changed before 'Vienna').
Furthermore the kingdom of the United Netherlands & the Grand duchy of Luxembourg already had French and/or Romance dialect speakers.
This, restoration of the Burgundian Netherlands border with France, obviously is the maximum king-merchant William I could hope for in this harshest possible congress of Vienna.
Any Belgian revolution/rebellion ITTL will be even more interesting.

OTOH I agree, that this isn't what IOTL congress of Vienna was about.
 
What about handing over more French colonies to Britain in return for Austria getting some more territory in Germany and Russia getting more of Poland. With Britain, Austria and Russia onboard no one else could interfere.
 
What about handing over more French colonies to Britain in return for Austria getting some more territory in Germany and Russia getting more of Poland. With Britain, Austria and Russia onboard no one else could interfere.

Again, Vienna was about restoring the old order, to the best of their abilities. It was not a map game to be shuffled at whim. Prussia eyed Saxony and Russia desired the Grand Duchy of Posen, yet both powers were bebuffed by a secret alliance consisting of Austria, Britain, and France. Switch around the countries and territories: Austria for Bavaria, or perhaps France for her post-1792 borders at the Rhine, and you'd see the remaining Great Powers turn against them to quash their ambitions.

Vienna was about compromise; it was not the Versailles of a century later. There's a reason why despite Vienna's failures, it ushered in a greatly peaceful period on the continent, while Versailles punished the losers and saw yet another war break out that was even more costly.
 
That really wasn't what the Congress was about. It was about redrawing the map and setting things back to 1789 as much as they could. While Talleyrand certainly played a role in how lenient they were on France, I don't know if you can change it much more. Hell, Napoleon returned from exile and nearly reignited the Napoleonic Wars and still France was only punished by having to cede Savoy and Nice to Sardinia, host an occupation force, and pay a rather large indemnity.

You may be able to get some extra territorial concessions, but I find it... doubtful. Savoy and Nice had French speakers, but had a fair amount of Italians, too, so the return wasn't too awful. Anywhere else, things get muddled. The United Netherlands could possibly receive old (and we're talking old) pieces of the Spanish Netherlands--Lille, parts of Luxembourg ceded in the Reunion Chambers, ect. But these are French speaking. Likewise, maybe pieces of Alsace to Baden, as there as German speakers there, but people spoke French, too. I suppose also you could try to detatch Lorraine as an independent (Grand) Duchy as part of the German Confederation and hand it off to a Habsburg, but it just seems unlikely. And I only say possibly Grand since the Congress of Vienna was all about inflating up these tiny territories and if they did revive Lorraine it'd probably get a title upper too.

The Congress wanted Napoleon quashed, and France contained, too. But given the Bourbons returned following Napoleon's fall, they made a good bulwark against revolutionary tides and so many of the more conservative allies were disinclined to dismember France knowing they'd need her down the line.

I think you're putting a bit too much emphasis on the language spoken in the territories which might have been transferred. This is not a modern treaty, or even the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. This is the very early 19th century, and the powers conducting this conference are old style monarchies. The powers at the Congress of Vienna wouldn't have given a rat's ass about such considerations. You didn't take territory in those days because you were "reuniting your people who have suffered under unjust foreign rule." You took territory because you were a greedy, powerful nation and YOU COULD.
 
I would suspect Prussia had already gotten more than enough as far Austria was concerned without including Alsace-Lorraine.
 
I think you're putting a bit too much emphasis on the language spoken in the territories which might have been transferred. This is not a modern treaty, or even the Treaty of Versailles in 1919. This is the very early 19th century, and the powers conducting this conference are old style monarchies. The powers at the Congress of Vienna wouldn't have given a rat's ass about such considerations. You didn't take territory in those days because you were "reuniting your people who have suffered under unjust foreign rule." You took territory because you were a greedy, powerful nation and YOU COULD.

These were old style monarchies yes, but they were also old style monarchies attempting to recreate old style monarchial borders. This meant 1789 and the borders that existed before. The Allies aren't going to disember France simply because they could. They saw what a greedy, powerful nation could do: France under Napoleon. Vienna was about containing that and creating a balance of power to prevent future conflicts. They weren't about to punish France any further issues. There are very limited areas that France could be further dismantled without running into issues. You'd be taking away regions that had been French for decades, if not more. Language is unimportant as the patois is still important, but nationalism has already started to exist. These men viewed themselves as French. Why would the Congress rip these lands away from France to reward them to potential buffers?

I can only see the Netherlands gaining parts of the Pas-de-Calais, if only because the United Neth existed solely as a French buffer. Bulking up the Germans along Alsace and Lorraine would be nothing. These regions would be easily overrun by France, no issue, and would probably wish to be reunited with them. Ditto with some ideas in this thread like an independent Brittany -- it's just not viable. These people viewed themselves as Breton, yes, but they were French as well. There existed no consciousness for such a state to be form.
 
You could cede French Navarre and Rousillon-Cerdagne to Spain. I'd say give them France-Comte too but I doubt they'd want it back!

Britain could have got Pondicherry etc

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
You could cede French Navarre and Rousillon-Cerdagne to Spain. I'd say give them France-Comte too but I doubt they'd want it back!

Britain could have got Pondicherry etc

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

I can see a change in colonial holdings in a harsher Vienna (such as Sweden keeping Guadeloupe, ect), but on the continent, unlikely. Spain could maybe make some flimsy claim at Cerdagne, but Franche-Comte and Lower Navarre are definitely out of the question. The Spanish minister at Vienna was an idiot anyways. No way he'd even be able to pull off Cerdagne.

A harsher peace on France would not be gutting her territorially, but rather institutioning a rather large indemnity, a larger occupation force, less lenience with her colonies, ect. They'd pretty much always agreed to recognize her 1792 borders. It said nothing about her (paltry) colonies though. But I'm not sure if handing Guadeloupe to Sweden while Britain swallows the rest will do much damage. Pondicherry was just an outpost. Of course, without Guadeloupe and Martinique, the economy of Bordeaux will suffer, but that's just one city...

Harming her economically is really the one reason, rather than territorially. 1815 isn't 1918. France isn't Wilhelm II's Germany. Sure, it crisscrossed Europe, but it wasn't seen as an embodiment of autocracy against democracy. In 1815, the European monarchies were despotisms and autocracies. Britain was merely a merchant oligarchy disguised as 'democracy.' So there was no need to punish France, but merely ensure she could not do what she did in 1792-1815 ever again. And she didn't.
 

OS fan

Banned
Talleyrand was a master of diplomacy. Remove him from the equation (maybe Napoleon has him killed when he tries to negotiate with the enemy on his own), and France might have been punished worse.
 
Top