Louis Napoleon III's foreign policy

Throughout his reign, Napoleon II pursued a rather eccentric foreign policy. Some of his projects where rather succesful (the Crimea War, supporting Italian unification), while other projects failed miserably (his scheme for the America's). His most notable failure is probably being unable to contain Prussia, leading to his defeat in the Franco-Prussian War. For a while I've contemplated writing a timeline based on a more succesful (but plausible) foreign policy and the effects this would have on the world. However, I'm not completely sue how much Napoleon would have been able to accomplish at the same time, as having him succeed in one theater (Mexico for example) would mean less resources for other plans and campaigns.

Lets assume its 1860. The Holy Alliance between Russia, Prussia and Austria is shattered after the Crimea War, Italy is united because of the French Intervention and the Emperoris ready for a new campaign to increase French influence around the world. Where would his chances lie?


Asia
In reallife Napoleons interventions in Indochina where rather succesful, creating the foundations for the French protectorate over Indochina. He also supported the British during the Second Opium War, gaining a sphere of influence in Southern China.
An attempt to intervene in Korea (to avenge a murdered missionary) failed, because the taskforce send was too small and the French didn't make any serious attempt to open Korea just as China and Japan had been opened up to foreign trade. Could France have forced Korea to open up on its own?
In Japan the French military mission, which had trained the Shoguns troops, was expelled from the country in 1868 by Imperial decree. Could a more substantial French commitment (troops or weapons?) during the Boshin war have tipped the balance in the Shoguns favour?

America's
The Mexican intervention is known as one of Napoleons biggest defeats. Many sources I've consulted state that 1865 was a turningpoint , as the USA was able to support the Republican forces after the end of the Civil War. France withdrew a year later and the regime of Emperor Maximilian collapsed soon afterwards. Could there have been a way for the French to win this fight? Please avoid scenario's where the South wins the war, as some French divisions couldn't have turned that tide and I doubt the British would have intervened just because Napoleon wanted an Austrian Emperor on the Mexican throne.

Italy
Napoleon had a rather dual attitude towards Italy, first supporting its unification, yet later becoming the protector of a rump Papal State, after most of its lands had fallen into Sardinian hands. While his support for the papacy gained him the support of Catholics in France itself, it alienated the Italian nationalists. What would have been the wisest course of action?

Germany
Most people saw Napoleons inability to come to Austria's aid in 1866 as a major flaw. Napoleon toyed with the idea of asking Prussia for 'compensation' (Luxemburg and possibly Belgium) yet expected an Austrian victory. In the end Austria was defeated before any serious decision could be taken. Since the Prussian victory shocked Europe, I doubt there would have been much chance for a French intervention. Yet could a savvy diplomat have brokered an alliance with the humiliated Austrians? Could such an alliance have kept the Catholic South-German states (Baden, Württemberg, Bavaria, possibly Saxony) out of Prussia's sphere of influence?

Your thoughts?
 
I can't say much for Asia but in the America's if you want the French intervention in Mexico to succeed you either need a quicker victory in Mexico, or a prolonged American Civil War.

For a quicker victory in Mexico would help Napoleon III. The Battle of Puebla slowed the French down, delaying the capture of Mexico City by a year, and it also inspired the Mexican people to continue the fight. If you have a French victory at Puebla you get a quicker capture of Mexico City and a better chance of demoralizing the Mexican populace.France could also send more troops at the start, which could be the PoD that allows the French to win at Puebla.

For a Prolonged ACW, there are many threads already dedicated to that prospect. You best chance for French success in Mexico is for both of these to occur.
 
Then lets presume a French victory at Puebla (and proper followup) as POD for now.

How would the US react to an Imperial State, sponsored by a Great Power no less on its border? Guess that its very existence contradicts the Monroe Doctrine, but I doubt many Americans are willing to intervene in Mexico so soon after a Civil War, especially when we consider a longer Civil War. Would the Monroe Doctrine survive?
 
Then lets presume a French victory at Puebla (and proper followup) as POD for now.

How would the US react to an Imperial State, sponsored by a Great Power no less on its border? Guess that its very existence contradicts the Monroe Doctrine, but I doubt many Americans are willing to intervene in Mexico so soon after a Civil War, especially when we consider a longer Civil War. Would the Monroe Doctrine survive?

It would violate the Monroe Doctrine, however what must be understood about the Monroe Doctrine is that until after the American Civil War it was the British that were really enforcing it. IOTL the first instance of America actually enforcing the doctrine was against Napoleon III in Mexico.

Depending on what war time relations between the Americans and British are like, I can imagine after a successful French intervention in Mexico the Americans might actually increase its ties to Britain in opposition to the French.
 
I guess the British wouldn't be so keen on letting the French run rampant in the America's then. Can see a struggle between the French and Mexicans on one side and the US and Britain for favour and influence in Latin America.
 
A changed battle outcome is often a good POD, but I've suggested some other elements:

a. Policies solidifying his natural base of support among conservatives (if Maximilian had been persuaded to be display a more characteristically Habsburg flexibility about his high-minded "liberal autocrat" inclinations).

b. Construction of a substantial Imperial army (facilitated if he had solid conservative support) early enough to make an impact against the liberal forces. Maximilian was an admirable man in many ways and did inspire great personal loyalty to the end.

c. More French troops by 1863 for a major push would have helped, as well as steady recruitment of foreign soldiers for a Mexican "foreign legion."

Had the Imperialists rather than Republicans made gains in 1865, would US demonstrations on the border have had any effect or would they even have been tried? If things went better, would Napoleon have withdrawn support on the eve of Austro-Prussian conflict?

As it was, the US army was rapidly demobilizing in 1865-1866 down to a nominal strength in 1867. Even with the weak historical position of Maximilian in 1866, would there have been political support to in the US to sustain more than supplying Juarez, saber-rattling on the border, and a brief expedition?
 
America's
The Mexican intervention is known as one of Napoleons biggest defeats. Many sources I've consulted state that 1865 was a turningpoint , as the USA was able to support the Republican forces after the end of the Civil War. France withdrew a year later and the regime of Emperor Maximilian collapsed soon afterwards. Could there have been a way for the French to win this fight? Please avoid scenario's where the South wins the war, as some French divisions couldn't have turned that tide and I doubt the British would have intervened just because Napoleon wanted an Austrian Emperor on the Mexican throne.

In my own timeline, although Lincoln will still be president in 1865, I propose having an very pro-French Commander of the Armies who is waiting in the wings as his likely successor. A pro-French commander can ensure the military department commanders in Texas and the southwest strictly prohibit gun running and other supplies to the Juaristas. In OTL Grant, through I think Sheridan in Texas, ensured a steady flow of war surplus to the Juaristas at the end of the Civil War.
 
Napoleon 3's problem is similar to Maximilians, he has no legitimacy (not unquestioned anyway) and can't decide whether to be liberal or conservative and ends up alienating both at various points; and if successful raises the spectre of his uncle.

But to throw some up. The US could in some circumstances live with an Autocratic Mexican Empire with local legitimacy with close relationships to France, but not a french possession, but how much it helps France is another matter. It really depends on Sir Garnets scenario or something like it. The US position after any ACW is likely to be more bluster and support for Juarez than actual intervention.

Napoleon could with a domestic price support Liberal Italy vs the Pope

A drawn Koniggratz, which is feasible, would give Nappy 3 a chance to intervene on Austria's side.

The French could intervene in Korea more strongly but opening Korea is not the same as dominating or colonising it. A French Intervention after the General Sherman incident could help mend relations with the USA for a short while.

He gets as friends dependent and chaotic Mexico with conservative catholic bent. Austria, ditto, a Liberal ?anti clerical Italy, a quasi colonial dependency half way around the world.

And in the process France has in the longer term at least, pissed off the USA, Japan, Prussia, German Nationalists of most kinds, Russia, the Catholic Church, Britain.

Not necessarily a good trade.
 
I don't know whether Napoleon III's Italian policy was that successful. He wanted to humble Austria (worked), also acquire a bit of land for France (worked too), but he didn't want a big national state next door. Remember what he had planned originally: An Italian federation, headed by the pope.
 
In my own timeline, although Lincoln will still be president in 1865, I propose having an very pro-French Commander of the Armies who is waiting in the wings as his likely successor. A pro-French commander can ensure the military department commanders in Texas and the southwest strictly prohibit gun running and other supplies to the Juaristas. In OTL Grant, through I think Sheridan in Texas, ensured a steady flow of war surplus to the Juaristas at the end of the Civil War.
The Mexican Emperor was actively calling for Confederates to come over the border to settle and fight for him. There could be a second Texas for all we know, if it actually worked.
 
The Mexican Emperor was actively calling for Confederates to come over the border to settle and fight for him. There could be a second Texas for all we know, if it actually worked.

Its a tidy solution for the US. Get rid of lots of hostile unreconstructed (or unreconstructable) rebels out of the southern states. Max gets militarily experienced officers (and perhaps enlisted men too) with a more "liberal" turn of mind politically (and to be clear I mean more liberal in comaparitive terms to Mexican conservatives! And I refer to the rebels generally. There are of course a couple of fire-eating exceptions who make Mexican catholic Conservatives look like Anarcho-Socialists!).

If you don't like Mr.Lincoln's new US you know where you can go - Mexico!

However I agree that any Mexican Empire will have to be "independent". I cannot see the US tolerating French troops stationed there indefinitely no matter how friendly the US and France might be.
 
Last edited:
I was reading my copy of Encyclopedia Britannica on my computer the other day, and it mentioned that Nap III was in talks with the then President of Ecuador about the creation of a "Kingdom of the Andes", though nothing much seemed to come of it.

There's a mention of it here, here and even on the board from a few years back.
 
I was reading my copy of Encyclopedia Britannica on my computer the other day, and it mentioned that Nap III was in talks with the then President of Ecuador about the creation of a "Kingdom of the Andes", though nothing much seemed to come of it.

There's a mention of it here, here and even on the board from a few years back.
I would ignore that man, given some of the comments both in the posts and after the end of it.
 
Top