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?