my first AHC: an Italian Empire in South-East Asia

Eurofed

Banned
Conversely, if it Austria who attacks first (this was the beginning of tiemtabled war), or if Prussia is diverted, any troops in that region are in a bad way. Vosges-Metz it is not. At best, the military value of the land cancels itself out, leaving us with many other reasons not to break up Bohemia.

If Prussia is on the offensive, they can invade Austria much more easily. If it is on the defensive, they can always pull out on the other side of the mountains. It still seems a strategic advantage. Moreover, the region has some significant economic value.

As you seem to acknowledge below, "merrily" can be taken to mean "reluctantly" and "when it was to his advantage" to mean "when the generals, the king, the nationalist liberals, and the state of Baden ganged up and told him so".

Whatever his reasons, OvB was not one to fall on his sword in shame if he was driven to break historical precedent for whatever reason.

The real desire of the King of Prussia and his generals, was, Taylor says, Austrian Silesia. That makes more sense both logistically and historically, has a better railway connection, contains some considerable coal deposits, and evokes Frederick the Great. The king and the generals loved Fred and were ambivelant at best about German nationalism.

Once Prussia is going to get Saxony, the step from Austrian Silesia to all of northern "Sudetenland" becomes quite narrow anyway. ITTL the Prussian-Italian alliance has done much better than OTL, bigger Italian claims are stoking the fuels of ambition for the king and generals, going from Austrian Silesia to Saxony and "Sudetenland" is quite a logical step which builds on and expands old Prussian ambitions. In the first place, they demand all of Bohemia-Moravia, then they scale down for fear of French intervention. Frankly, only Saxony and Austrian Silesia seem more than a bit too modest a gain given the scenario, just like Italy not getting Gorizia.
 

Eurofed

Banned
What, like IOTL?

But more so.

The idea of Britain dictating such punitive terms to a victorious America is beyond reason.

Of course, the possiblity of the all-wise and infallible British diplomacy overreacting (e.g. as it almost did during the Trent crisis, before the Prince Regent stepped in and moderated things) for once cannot be contemplated.

2) The unionist community was hit badly by WW1. There was of course no conscription in Ireland. The unionists - being very patriotic and warlike - at once volunteered in huge numbers. The loss of young men hit fertility (mixed marriages were rare and the pope said their children had to be raised Catholic).

In fact, the Irish war of independence happened after so many changes in the whole fabric of Irish society and intellectual life that they're not a useful comparison at all. Nearer the remark is the Battle of Ballingarry.

You may notice that AD1866 assumes that the Irish insurrection still fails and it is crushed. It's just that when faced with a long and difficult war overseas, and a nasty insurrection close at home, Britain tires out and settles for giving up part of Canada (southern Ontario and the yet largely unsettled western Canada), which America buys out.

Interesting; what's your source on this?

Something I read in Raimondo Luraghi's History of the ACW, when the peace negotiations between the North and South in early '65 are described.

"Trieste is Germany's only port on the southern seas." - Bismarck :p

You love that quip far too much, a foreign policy does not make. Fiume works just as well. :p
 
If Prussia is on the offensive, they can invade Austria much more easily. If it is on the defensive, they can always pull out on the other side of the mountains. It still seems a strategic advantage. Moreover, the region has some significant economic value.

Taking territory that you can't hope to defend is hardly wise - especially when there are many other reasons not to take it and, in fact, no reason at all to take it, since the territory doesn't politically exist.

As for economic value, Plzen has lots of economic value. So does Prague. So does Vienna.

Whatever his reasons, OvB was not one to fall on his sword in shame if he was driven to break historical precedent for whatever reason.

Quite: he was an arch-opportunist; however, I fail to see just who is it putting pressure on him here.

Once Prussia is going to get Saxony, the step from Austrian Silesia to all of northern "Sudetenland" becomes quite narrow anyway. ITTL the Prussian-Italian alliance has done much better than OTL, bigger Italian claims are stoking the fuels of ambition for the king and generals, going from Austrian Silesia to Saxony and "Sudetenland" is quite a logical step which builds on and expands old Prussian ambitions. In the first place, they demand all of Bohemia-Moravia, then they scale down for fear of French intervention. Frankly, only Saxony and Austrian Silesia seem more than a bit too modest a gain given the scenario, just like Italy not getting Gorizia.

The real gains of 1866 "seemed too modest for the scenario". That they felt snubbed over Austria was one reason the generals dug in their heels over Alsace. In 1866, they didn't have this motivation, Bismarck did not face pressure from nationalist opinion (which was divided on the war anyway), and there was a much more logical alternative going.

Where did "old Prussian ambitions" involve drawing ethnic lines over ancient kingdoms?
 
Last edited:
But more so.

Any reason? One can proclaim "but more so" about anything in pursuit of an agenda. Allow to me demonstrate: "The British spirit of bloody-minded stubbornness proves difficult to crack, as in IOTL, but more so. Therefore, Britain will never surrender."

Of course, the possiblity of the all-wise and infallible British diplomacy overreacting (e.g. as it almost did during the Trent crisis, before the Prince Regent stepped in and moderated things) for once cannot be contemplated.

So your counterexample is a case in which... yes, Britain did moderate her demands. It's also a case from the mid-war (when the Confederates were some kind of military power) andnot from just after the final Union victory. It's also a case of American state action rather than the action of a few rowdy unemployed people of Irish extraction. It's also not a case of dictating punitive terms to America over a silly-nonsense. In fact, it's not even a counterexample at all.

If you think that I consider our gang of leaders "infallible" you clearly haven't read much of what I've written on this forum. All I am asking is why a diplomatic service that proved itself not completely incompetant would do something that defies all common sense.

You may notice that AD1866 assumes that the Irish insurrection still fails and it is crushed. It's just that when faced with a long and difficult war overseas, and a nasty insurrection close at home, Britain tires out and settles for giving up part of Canada (southern Ontario and the yet largely unsettled western Canada), which America buys out.

I nonetheless object to the clear double-standard displayed here. After an unexplained PoD in favour of America just because, and after Britain reacts to it in the worst possible way just because, come some rather clear handwaves about Irish history.

Something I read in Raimondo Luraghi's History of the ACW, when the peace negotiations between the North and South in early '65 are described.

Fair enough. Still, the southern United States saw more serious anti-government terrorism than Young Ireland ever managed.

You love that quip far too much, a foreign policy does not make. Fiume works just as well. :p

I was merely responding to the idea that access to the Med was not an issue for Germany and that she'd trust Italy implicitly on that subject.
 
Last edited:

Eurofed

Banned
Taking territory that you can't hope to defend is hardly wise, especially when there are many other reasons not to take it and, in fact, no reason at all to take it, since the territory doesn't politically exist.

As for economic value, Plzen has lots of economic value. So does Prague. So does Vienna.

Remember that they are asking this as a compromise, and their initial request is Bohemia-Moravia. And Alsace-Lorraine didn't exist before 1871 either, it was carved out of historical provinces following ethnic lines.

The real gains of 1866 seemed too modest for the scenario. That they flet snubbed over Austria was one reason the generals dug in their heels over Alsace. In 1866, they didn't have this motivation, Bismarck did not face pressure from nationalist opinion (which was divided on the war anyway), and there was a much more logical alternative going.

Again, you ignore the effects of the PoD. Thanks to the Italian victory, Austria lies prostrate without any hope of a comeback, the king and generals are driven to ask more because of this and because they don't accept that Prussia is going to get less than their ally.

Where did "old Prussian ambitions" involve drawing ethnic lines over ancient kingdoms?

The expansion vector towards Saxony and Bohemia. Again, the ethnic line is a compromise since they don't get all of it.

Anyway, I repent of ever raising the issue of the Anglo-American war, that's a development of my TL that in all likelihood bears little meaning here, unlike the 1866 war. Let's drop the point, before it becomes total derailment.

I was merely responding to the idea that access to the Med was not an issue for Germany and that she'd trust Italy implicitly on that subject.

I still strongly doubt it was a *significant* issue, and anyway, if Germany gets Fiume, the issue is moot.
 
Last edited:
:D
Well, as a matter of fact, I did assume for AD1866 a PoD in 1861, either Cavour's survival (even if we did not credit the conspiracy theory, he died of an infectious disease, which is very easy to undo as a PoD) or the ATL rise of an Italian statesman as talented as Cavour after him, and I see no difficulty with doing so in this scenario as well. I mean, since the scenario involves a stronger Italy, why not going with one that is optimal for this goal, given the circumstances, and allows a decisive victory in 1866 ? Plus a decisive victory in 1866 allows other useful butterflies, such as pushing Prussia to make bolder claims than OTL, which starts it on the ultimate path to Grossdeutchsland, further weakens Austria and alienates it from Prussia/Germany, and makes France more hostile to the Italo-Prussian alliance. Last but not least, a decisive victory of the Italo-Prussian alliance on both fronts has a strategic and diplomatic symmetry I find absolutely fascinating. I do not understand the drive to go with the most minimal PoD when a slightly earlier one better fulfills the scenario.

Because I am trying to put together a reasonable TL rather than an Italian wank. I am fully convinced that the two decades from 1848 to 1870 decided the destiny of Italy for the next century, at least up to the end of the 2nd WW. The various components of the peninsula were not prepared for the magnitude of the insurrections in 1848, and no one in Italy had the capacity or the standing to lead: the hopes of March 1848 were drowned in blood before August was over. One might say that the beginning was less than auspicious, but the next decade proved otherwise: Cavour came to power with a vision tempered by a major dose of hard realism. He was great in preparing with patience and skill the diplomatic background for the war of 1859, but was even greater in reaping the fruit of the victory, which went well beyond and very much against the strategies of Napoleon III. Cavour died when he was most needed, in 1861. Whatever the cause of death, a number of illnesses of different nature had sapped his will to live and I don't think that giving him another 5-10 years in good health is a serious POD. No one had the charisma and the intelligence to continue his action, and the subsequent ministries were just plodding along and trying to cope with the many problems brought to the fore by the unification (first of all, the state deficit and the necessity to integrate different cultures and interests. Obviously the church enmity to the new state did not help at all, and the same applies to the insurrections in the south). In all honesty I doubt that the Italian situation in 1865 might have been much better, and must recognise that the Italian finances were much improved: therefore I have chosen not to have a POD in the 1861-65 period, but to give a lil nudge just close to the start of the war (the early resignation of Lamarmora from the prime ministry). I do believe it is quite a reasonable POD (if Italy was serious about the war, keeping the most famous general occupied with the Government was quite stupid), but at the same time I tried to avoid a Mary Sue situation where everything the Italians do turn into gold (mind, a string of Italian successes is not ASBish - archduke Albrecht was not cast in the mold of a Napoleon and the Italian fleet was more modern and strong than the Austrian one -, it is just unlikely given the poor preparation and integration of the Italian army and navy as well as the extreme scarcity of good commanders on the Italian side too). Therefore I went for minor changes, which anyway brought significant differences to the war: Custoza is almost a victory, Cialdini is quicker to move into Venetia and reaches the Isonzo early enough to lock the attention of Tegetthoff on the Friuli coast, there is some better preparation for the landing at Lissa. In the end, however, it is quite obvious that Europe is not ready to accept a complete and very sudden reshuffle of Central Europe: Bismarck is 100% right in ending the war as soon as possible, and imposing a lenient peace on Austria and Italy (luckily :D) is not in the condition to continue the war alone. However the war ends with a more creditable Italian performance and a better peace treaty (not only because Italy gets Trentino and Dalmatia in addition to Venetia, but because ITTL Austria has to sign the trety directly). The great unwashed public will certainly clamor against the "betrayed victory" and will damn the government for having stopped before gaining Trieste, Gorizia and Istria but who cares?



Eurofed, IBC: this is not a replay of "A different 1866", it is quite a different TL which happens to be located in the same temporal frame and to share some developments (which are quite likely shared by the group of TLs in which Italy performs better in 1866). There is no British-American war ITTL, no invasion of Canada and in general the pace will be a bit more sedated.
If you have to discuss again the TL of A different 1866 resurrect it.
Thanks.
 

Eurofed

Banned
LK, I get your point about the PoD. However, allow me an aside for the record: I just don't buy your argument about Cavour. He was just 51 when he died, and it happened out of an infectious illness, presumably malaria, followed by poor treatment (bleeding), which was only performed because his regular doctor was not available. There was no degenerative disease involved, and the circumstances that led to his death are highly vulnerable to chance. Hence I cannot buy that he did not have another 5-10 years of life in him if his illness bout is butterflied away.

I get your argument, then are we going to make IBC happy for once and lower Prussia's extra war gains to Saxony and Austrian Silesia for this TL, if Italy just gets Trento and Dalmatia as its own extra gains ?

As I said, I regret ever bringing the issue of American stuff to this thread, sorry.
 
Last edited:
If i understand the original map, Egypt here is regarded as Vice-Realm under Ottoman nominal rule yet.

I apologize for the other wrong statements, so i put the now more correct map:

Edit:
Tunisia yet in nominal control of OE (but after 1871 Italy had legitimate rights while France was forced to renounce); Ajeh now made as Italian protectorate; New Guinea now painted all as uncivilized; made less definited dutch holdings in Borneo and spanish holdinds in Mindanao, and made blank Bali-Lombok, Flores and Sandalwood.

Naturally we didn't talk of this, but it is obvious that after the fall of France Italy also took Rome in 1871.

An alternative Italy who had a more successful history may be start to develop grandeur dreams: for example the retrieving of Holy Land (also to restabilish relations with the Church), or contending the Balkans to AH and Russia (Bosnia, Montenegro, Albania, maybe also Macedonia...). Italy had all the interest to grab the possible to OE (but that scenery probably push OE to British hands in the end). So i think the years 1871-1878 see Italy concentrated to two fronts: Balkans and SE Asia.

In the meanwhile we must also considered the both Aceh and Cambodian situation: how Italy will organize these territories?

In 1870 Egypt is considered an "autonomous vassal" of the Ottomans, same status as Tunisia. There is obviously a significant presence of the British and the French (the latter are building the canal) but it is not a formal protectorate.

Italy does not really need to look for adventures in the Balkans: it has to clean house first of all, build the necessary infrastructures at home and industrialise; second, Italy has (or is going to have pretty soon) a colonial policy, centered on Tunisia (settlers colony) and Far East (Aceh, Cochinchina, China trade), which promises better returns than piss-poor countries like you mentioned (Montenegro, Albania, Macedonia :eek:). At this stage, the best possible outcome for Italy is to prop up the Ottomans, and make an effort to penetrate the OE commercially (and hopefully industrially in a generation or so). Not to mention that the surging of nationalistic expectations in the Balkans would be a threat for Italian Dalmatia. With the eastern coast of the Adriatic in Italian hands there is no need for further acquisitions, the Adriatic can be closed at will. So, economic penetration, an effort to make Zara, Spalato and Ragusa the terminals for the Balkan commerce, some protections extended to christians in the Balkans are ok; the main goal however is to prop the Ottomans and to avoid pan-slavic penetration by Russia or Austrian adventures in Bosnia and Serbia.

The French possessions in Indochina are quite limited: just a protectorate over Cambodia and another over Cochinchina (there was almost a government crisis in Paris in 1859 when Renault established the Cochinchina protectorate, since land acquisition in the region was not sanctioned by policy). If/when Italy gets these 2 protectorates, there will be no change and certainly no direct rule.
a map of the establishment over time of French Indochina is attached: I would expect that Italian behaviour will be similar.

French_Indochina_expansion.jpg
 
LK, I get your point about the PoD. However, allow me an aside for the record: I just don't buy your argument about Cavour. He was just 51 when he died, and it happened out of an infectious illness, presumably malaria, followed by poor treatment (bleeding), which was only performed because his regular doctor was not available. There was no degenerative disease involved, and the circumstances that led to his death are highly vulnerable to chance. Hence I cannot buy that he did not have another 5-10 years of life in him if his illness bout is butterflied away.

I get your argument, then are we going to make IBC happy for once and lower Prussia's extra war gains to Saxony and Austrian Silesia for this TL, if Italy just gets Trento and Dalmatia as its own extra gains ?

As I said, I regret ever bringing the issue of American stuff to this thread, sorry.

Cavour was almost certainly suffering from malaria, even if there have been a lot of rumors about syphilis (possibly spread by his enemies), not to mention the wild conspiracy theory (poisoning). Maybe he might get another lease on life, maybe not: my point is that Cavour was debilitated by the superhuman efforts that were required from him by the unification process, of which he was certainly the puppet master. Aside from this, I am not even sure that Cavour would have survived the very different political environment created by the election of the unitary parliament, or that he might have done better than Rattazzi in any case. There were huge problems, and Cavour did not have a magic wand.

Prussian gains: IMHO, Bismarck made the right choice IOTL and is likely to do the same ITTL. Prussia has achieved its goal: the expulsion of Austria from German politics. On top of this OVB has annexed some luscious real estate in Northern Germany and has created a Confederation where he's the recognised ringmaster. Why go for more? annexing Austrian lands or Saxony does not change the plus side, and can create problems. The key is not just winning but also managing the victory :D
 
I personally stick more to LK ideas but however you have all the rights to bring the american question EF and promove your statements.

But i think we pushed too hard on the European question, developing a discussion towards a too alterate Europe that surely i find interesting but i think it diverged too much to the original objective of the thread.

Anyway i suggest yes to alternative alliances but no to extreme territorial changes in Europe, specially on the AH situation; as i said let it live until WWI.

About the pope question: Italy invaded Papal State after France's fall, i don't see in this case a fleeing pope.
 

Eurofed

Banned
LK and RD,

OK, ITTL we may then go with a minimalist divergence.

1866: PoD as described by LK, in the peace treaty Prussia makes same gains as OTL, while Italy gets Veneto, Friuli, Trentino, and Dalmatia. Italo-Prussian alliance is reaffirmed after the war. Prussia establishes the North German Confederation with the other German states north of the Main.

1867-68: France attempts to buy Luxemburg from Netherlands, which Prussia vetoes. Attempts to mediate a compromise fail and tension rises between Prussia and France over the issue. Embolded by vicroty with Austria, Italy covertly supports Garibaldi's attempt to liberate Rome from Papal yoke. Garibaldi invades the Papal States with a volunteer corps. He defeats Papal mercenaries and the French garrison, proclaims the annexation of Rome to Italy. The Pope fails to flee to France and holes up in the Vatican. Italy refuses France's request to return Rome to the Pope. France declares war to Prussia and Italy over the issues of Luxemburg and Rome.

Nationalist fervor sweeps Germany and Italy, southern German states side with Prussia. Fraught with internal tensions heightened by the 1859 and 1866 defeats, Austria fails to join France despite previous alliance talks. Domestic tensions are only somewhat lessened when a constitutional compromise reforms the empire to become a confederal union of Austria and Hungary, and concedes a degree of autonomy to Czechia and Croatia within the respective halves of the union. This stabilizes the Habsburg state enough to prevent a collapse, although it remains rife with nationalist tensions, not the least the growing Pan-German movement.

The Prussian army crushes the French army in a series of battles and overruns northeastern France up besiege Paris; the Italian army is able to capitalize on their ally's victories to achieve a strategic breakthrough in the Alps and overruns southeastern France up to besiege Lyon and Marseilles. Napoleon III is overthrown, after a stubborn resistance the French republican provisional government is forced to sue for peace. The German empire is proclaimed when south German states join the NGC.

The Commune insurrection occurs in Paris, Lyon, Marseilles, and is crushed by French regular forces with Italo-German support. According to the peace treaty, Germany annexes Alsace-Lorraine and Luxemburg (which it buys from Netherlands with part of the French reparations), Italy annexes Nice, Savoy, and Corsica. France recognizes an Italian sphere of influence in Tunisia, French Indochina and French shares of the Suez Canal company are ceded to Germany and Italy.

1869-70: Germany and Italy renew their alliance for a 20-year period, the so-called Dual Alliance or Central Powers bloc. France and Austria sign their own alliance, which shall be later known as the Dual Entente.
 
Last edited:
LK and RD,

OK, ITTL we may then go with a minimalist divergence.

1866: PoD as described by LK, in the peace treaty Prussia makes same gains as OTL, while Italy gets Veneto, Friuli, Trentino, and Dalmatia. Italo-Prussian alliance is reaffirmed after the war. Prussia establishes the North German Confederation with the other German states north of the Main.
There is complete agreement on this.

1867-68: France attempts to buy Luxemburg from Netherlands, which Prussia vetoes. Attempts to mediate a compromise fail and tension rises between Prussia and France over the issue. Embolded by vicroty with Austria, Italy covertly supports Garibaldi's attempt to liberate Rome from Papal yoke. Garibaldi invades the Papal States with a volunteer corps. He defeats Papal mercenaries and the French garrison, proclaims the annexation of Rome to Italy. The Pope fails to flee to France and holes up in the Vatican. Italy refuses France's request to return Rome to the Pope. France declares war to Prussia and Italy over the issues of Luxemburg and Rome.
Here I have a couple of issues or three :D:

TTL has seen a late POD, which has changed for the good the Italian performance of the war, but it has not solved the problems of united Italy. The performance of the Italian army has not reached Napoleonic peaks, even if in the end they did their job. However military attaches will comment negatively on the poor coordination, training and integration of the military units, on the lack of artillery doctrine and on the unsufficient planning of the war.
The navy has apparently performed much better, but there has been no real battle: the Italians have reduced Lissa professionally enough and have successfully managed the landings in Dalmatia, but in both cases they have not been confronted by an enemy fleet.
The government is still weak: while the outcome of the war has been better, the consevative majority is deeply divided on regional basis: in particular the two strongest factions (the Piedmontese and the Lombardo-Emilian) don't see eye-to-eye on a number of issues. There will also be an uproar in parliament on the "vittoria tradita" (betrayed victory) and a stronger push for taking Rome (but I also think that Napoleon might reinforce the French garrison in Rome). The Roman Question will become even more heated when it will be leaked that the Pope has secretly sent a letter to Franz-Joseph, blessing the armies of catholic Austria in their struggle against "an excommunicated king and a protestant king" and that in June Ferdinand of Borbone (the former king of Naples) was in Rome at the Austrian embassy, preparing an insurrection of the south (happened IOTL too: IMHO it was a bit harebrained and in any case the passive behavior of Archduke Albrecht after Custoza made the point moot).
Last but not least, both the king and the Piedmontese faction are still favoring the French alliance (in OTL 1869 there were serious talks of an alliance between France, Italy and Austria against Prussia: luckily the Hungarian prime minister was vehemently opposed, Franz Joseph was lukewarm and the Italian public opinion was 100% against the idea)
Italy needs some time to sort out its problems on the military side, and needs a change of government too (but not the Left replacing the Right: the only way to stability is to recreate the Cavourian "connubio" of the moderates on either side). Ten years would be great, 5 years acceptable, 3 years will have to do: less than that doesn't work.

Funnily enough, Bismarck too needs time to prepare the diplomatic background and make sure that the southern and eastern flanks are safe. This requires both an understanding with Russia (as per OTL) and a secret treaty with the southern German states outside the Confederation (OTL) or a treaty with Italy: I wonder if the failure in setting up the secret treaty (or at least the failure of having a treaty with Bavaria) would not smooth down the Italo-German relations.

I do believe that OTL timeframe is the shortest possible, which means that the Franco-German war will come in 1870.

Nationalist fervor sweeps Germany and Italy, southern German states side with Prussia. Fraught with internal tensions heightened by the 1859 and 1866 defeats, Austria fails to join France despite previous alliance talks. Domestic tensions are only somewhat lessened when a constitutional compromise reforms the empire to become a confederal union of Austria and Hungary, and concedes a degree of autonomy to Czechia and Croatia within the respective halves of the union. This stabilizes the Habsburg state enough to prevent a collapse, although it remains rife with nationalist tensions, not the least the growing Pan-German movement.
I have no problem with this scenario, with the only doub being the Hungarian reaction to the Slavs being recognised as the third leg of the empire, on a par with Germans and Hungarians. Would a Hungarian secession be too Asbish? I was thinking of Hyngary plus Transilvania, the Banat and the Slowak lands.

The Prussian army crushes the French army in a series of battles and overruns northeastern France up besiege Paris; the Italian army is able to capitalize on their ally's victories to achieve a strategic breakthrough in the Alps and overruns southeastern France up to besiege Lyon and Marseilles. Napoleon III is overthrown, after a stubborn resistance the French republican provisional government is forced to sue for peace. The German empire is proclaimed when south German states join the NGC.

The Commune insurrection occurs in Paris, Lyon, Marseilles, and is crushed by French regular forces with Italo-German support. According to the peace treaty, Germany annexes Alsace-Lorraine and Luxemburg (which it buys from Netherlands with part of the French reparations), Italy annexes Nice, Savoy, and Corsica. France recognizes an Italian sphere of influence in Tunisia, French Indochina and French shares of the Suez Canal company are ceded to Germany and Italy.
Yes, more or less the idea is this. I would prefer that Napoleon would attack Italy, after Rome has been annexed (by internal insurgency plus Garibaldi volunteers) and Prussia declares war as per the mutual defense treaty with Italy.
BTW, I believe that it is much better for Italy if the Pope leaves Rome: it would significantly simplify the political game and would be a big plus long-term.

1869-70: Germany and Italy renew their alliance for a 20-year period, the so-called Dual Alliance or Central Powers bloc. France and Austria sign their own alliance, which shall be later known as the Dual Entente.

Yes, again more or less so. Problem is that the more the TL progresses the more alternative avenues open, for good or for bad. I'm not 100% sure that Austria will still be under the Habsburg when the next European war comes (whenever it may be :D), nor that UK and/or USA will be a part of it.
France may be a reactionary kingdom or a communist republic or a western-type republic: in all case they will be revanchists, but the form of government will also shape their behavior.
 
TTL has seen a late POD, which has changed for the good the Italian performance of the war, but it has not solved the problems of united Italy. The performance of the Italian army has not reached Napoleonic peaks, even if in the end they did their job. However military attaches will comment negatively on the poor coordination, training and integration of the military units, on the lack of artillery doctrine and on the unsufficient planning of the war.
The navy has apparently performed much better, but there has been no real battle: the Italians have reduced Lissa professionally enough and have successfully managed the landings in Dalmatia, but in both cases they have not been confronted by an enemy fleet.
The government is still weak: while the outcome of the war has been better, the consevative majority is deeply divided on regional basis: in particular the two strongest factions (the Piedmontese and the Lombardo-Emilian) don't see eye-to-eye on a number of issues. There will also be an uproar in parliament on the "vittoria tradita" (betrayed victory) and a stronger push for taking Rome (but I also think that Napoleon might reinforce the French garrison in Rome). The Roman Question will become even more heated when it will be leaked that the Pope has secretly sent a letter to Franz-Joseph, blessing the armies of catholic Austria in their struggle against "an excommunicated king and a protestant king" and that in June Ferdinand of Borbone (the former king of Naples) was in Rome at the Austrian embassy, preparing an insurrection of the south (happened IOTL too: IMHO it was a bit harebrained and in any case the passive behavior of Archduke Albrecht after Custoza made the point moot).
Last but not least, both the king and the Piedmontese faction are still favoring the French alliance (in OTL 1869 there were serious talks of an alliance between France, Italy and Austria against Prussia: luckily the Hungarian prime minister was vehemently opposed, Franz Joseph was lukewarm and the Italian public opinion was 100% against the idea)
Italy needs some time to sort out its problems on the military side, and needs a change of government too (but not the Left replacing the Right: the only way to stability is to recreate the Cavourian "connubio" of the moderates on either side). Ten years would be great, 5 years acceptable, 3 years will have to do: less than that doesn't work.

Less 5 years are the minimum for the reform, but we must remember that real life often don't respect our wish. Follow me, the better performance in the war made Bismark more warm on an alliance with Italy and soo the two crisis of Rome and Luxemburg happens, so he decide well if the first time with Austria has gone so well...try again and call Rome for an Alliance against Napoleon III. The italian governament, still divided see an incredible occasion, resolve the Roman question (here more urgent than in OTL), unite the various factions in a short victorious war and put in the mix a little of victory disease, after all we have put the hated austrian in their place isn't it? In this case i see an italian performance just a little better than the OTL performance against Austria but in this case France fight a two front war so is screwed and Italy gain what we decided. Here enter Bismark, he see that Italy still got problem but as a truly stastesman and a man who always plan ahead, he see a lot of potential in the alliance so propose to send advisor and officialize the alliance between the two newest nation in Europe. Sometimes losing is better than winning because permit to analyze your performance and see what is the problems so you can resolve it.



I have no problem with this scenario, with the only doub being the Hungarian reaction to the Slavs being recognised as the third leg of the empire, on a par with Germans and Hungarians. Would a Hungarian secession be too Asbish? I was thinking of Hyngary plus Transilvania, the Banat and the Slowak lands
.

Maybe the old emperor after the debacle retire or is retired and someone more dinamic is put in his place. Is difficult but the AH empire can survive and reform, IMHO will ever remain divided and not really cohesive, but a very good head of state and timely reform can give him decades and transform in a nasty enemy, frankly there is nothing like hate and revenge for stimulate change and unity. Or maybe from the ashes of the Hasburg empire will born an hungarian nation, aggressive and expansionist wil surely clash with the German and Ottoman Empire.

Yes, more or less the idea is this. I would prefer that Napoleon would attack Italy, after Rome has been annexed (by internal insurgency plus Garibaldi volunteers) and Prussia declares war as per the mutual defense treaty with Italy.
BTW, I believe that it is much better for Italy if the Pope leaves Rome: it would significantly simplify the political game and would be a big plus long-term.

Yes if the Pope leaves Rome politic in Italy will be very semplyfied but frankly i don't see it, Pio IX was a very stubborn man, i doubt he will choose exile or leave his throne to that godless italian

Yes, again more or less so. Problem is that the more the TL progresses the more alternative avenues open, for good or for bad. I'm not 100% sure that Austria will still be under the Habsburg when the next European war comes (whenever it may be :D), nor that UK and/or USA will be a part of it.
France may be a reactionary kingdom or a communist republic or a western-type republic: in all case they will be revanchists, but the form of government will also shape their behavior.

Humm a great war with the Entente formed by a communard France, an authocratic Russia and an aggressive hungary kingdom united by fear, revenge, hate and manifest destiny against the Central powers (German Empire, Kingdom of Italy and the Ottoman Empire...reformed or propped by the other two allies), seem interesting:cool:


For the role of the UK, well eurofed has said that she was not initially worried by the new kids on the block because she perceveid them more as land power, but Italy has a navy, not too much but enough to start some senseless paranoia in London (italian ships packed by teutonic soldiers :eek: run for the hill) and after the fall of France is fear grown ever more, so there is the possibility of an alliance against the upstart nation, but depend on what type of government is in charge in Paris .
Maybe when the Khedive is forced to sell is share of Suez, London permit Paris to buy it ( to regain a strategic position and for prestige of course) so she can play the German-italian block against France and have a more free hand and naturally for mantain the balance of power.

So long and thank you for the fish
 

Eurofed

Banned
Lots of interesting points here. Now, LK and LD, this is my reasoned opinion about your arguments:

Regardless of how well Italy performs in the 1866 war, the Italian ruling elites are going to be rightfully terrified of fighting France without Prussia's backing, and would go out of their way to avoid it. So the main issue becomes whether ITTL Bismarck would be willing to fight by the time the Luxemburg and Rome crises arise, or not. I am qute skeptical that butterflies arising from a good Italian performance in 1866 would drive Napoleon and Garibaldi (whom the Italian government had little political control upon) to delay their bids on Luxemburg and Rome, if anything quite the contrary. Would the Italian government use police force to stop Garibaldi's organization of his ragtag volunteer army ? IOTL, they did not dare, since he was terribly popular as the only Italian general to reap victories against Austria; ITTL his victories would be rather less outstanding in comparison. I dunno if this would give the Italian government enough political capital to nip Garibaldi's attempt in the bud without excessive backlash. This is more or less the only way he can be kept available as a proxy against the Pope in later years. Otherwise, if Italy doesn't yet have Prussian backing for a war against France, they would do as OTL, give Garibaldi a free hand but no support behind a screen of plausible deniability and hang him to dry when the French defeat him. If Garibaldi fails in 1867, after previous defeats in 1849 and 1862, he's not going to try again in 1870, and liberation of Rome would hence by done at the hands of Italian regular army once the war starts, as IOTL.

This means that either OvB chooses to fight in 1867, or Luxemburg likely unfolds as IOTL, and the Mentana expedition is either delayed for 3 years by political butterflies, and hence may still be the casus belli, or happens just like OTL. In the latter case, if war occurs in 1870, the Spanish succession issue is still going to be the most likely casus belli. Now, the main candidates for the Spanish throne were an Hohenzollern and a Savoia, and with a strong Prussian-Italian alliance, both candidatures are going to be equally unacceptable to Napoleon III, and Bismarck is still likely to be able to make France freak out and become the aggressor in either case, just as it would happen with Luxemburg and Rome.

About the main issue, whether OvB would fight in 1867, my reasoned guess is that if Italy got the 1861 PoD and hence seized a full victory in 1866, he would dare to fight in 1867, the benefits of fighting France with such a strong ally seem to outweigh the risks of not having fully secured the diplomatic backing of Russia and the South German states. He would probably have to rush the effort to secure such a backing, but since both Russia and the South German states were already leaning towards Prussia (and would do more so if Austria looks even weaker than OTL in 1866), it does not seem to be too difficult.

Conversely, if Italy got the 1866 PoD and hence made a decent but not stellar performance in 1866, it is more likely that he would prefer to defer the war till he has secured all the points of his diplomatic network to secure the support of Russia and the South German states, like LK argued.

However, ITTL I do not really think that a pro-French faction in the Italian ruling elite is ever going to be a significant factor, unlike OTL: the king and the 'Piedmontese' faction were not idiots, if the Prussian-Italian alliance has worked quite well in 1866, and OvB hence confirms it, they are not going to switch alliances for the heck of it, even more so since France has turned hostile to Italy about the Roman question.

As it concerns the fate of Austria-Hungary, LK, I was not arguing for the creation of a Quadruple Monarchy, and the elevation of the Germans, Hungarians, Czechs, and Croats, to an equal level of confederal autonomy. While theoretically possible and it would ensure the Habsburg empire the highest degree of long-term stabilization, I deem such an outcome the by far least likely one of the Austrian political crisis, because it would require a degree of statemanship, foresight, and political courage that was sorely lacking in the Habsburg leadership. Rather, I was arguing that a slightly modified form of the OTL compromise might occur, full confederal autonomy to Hungary, a limited degree of subordinate federal autonomy to Croatia, and its ATL extension to Czechia. This would appease the Czechs to a limited degree like the Croats IOTL, and gain a measure of opportunistic support from them for the A-H status quo, if the Habsburg grow to deem Pan-German nationalism a significant threat ITTL.

However, ITTL I do regard the dissolution of the Habsburg empire as the most likely outcome, closely followed by an Ausgleich compromise even less stable than IOTL. Another possible but even less probable and stable outcome would be the return to the 1849-60 model after the constitutional attempts of 1860-65, a reactionary absolutist centralized monarchy, propped by conservative Habsburg loyalists and the opportunistic support of the Czechs and Croats to counter German and Magyar nationalism. However it would be a regime strongly opposed by liberals, German nationalists, and Magyar nationalists, with Habsburg loyalism much more discredited than in 1849 by 1859-66 military defeats, and so it would be very instable. The Quadruple Monarchy is the least likely possible outcome of all.

On the other hand, LD, I deem the scenario of an independent Hungary turning revanchist-expansionist and hostile to the German-Italian bloc as quite unlikely. In the mid-late 19th century, the Magyar ruling class consistently showed a deep committment to the preservation of their hegemony in the traditional borders of the Kingdom of Hungary, and, if at all possible, in the union with Croatia as well. Conversely they showed very little ambition to expand that hegemony beyond those borders and limited loyalism to the Habsburg, except insofar as the empire was opportunistically seen as a prop to support that hegemony. If Hungary becomes independent, it is almost sure to identify PanSlav and Romanian irredentism as its main enemy, and seek the support of those great powers that may support Hungary against it. Greater Germany and Greater Italy, as they would inevitably form ITTL alongside from the dissolution of the Habsburg empire, would likewise oppose Slav irredentism in their own territories, so a stable alliance is quite likely on this basis between Germany, Italy, and Hungary. Also because of this support, Hungary is almost sure to keep control of its minorities, and quite likely Croatia as well. Likewise, an independent Hungary is very very unlikely ever to show any kind of revanchism about Cisleithania. An hostility between Germany-Italy and Hungary is realistically only going to happen if Budapest seeks the patronage of Russia to prop up its own little empire, and Germany-Italy and Russia turn antagonistic, but since Russia is also quite likely to play the PanSlav card against the Ottomans at some point, this is much less likely to happen.

As it concerns the Pope, I would assume that if Rome is liberated by Garibaldi, the Pope is most likely to react as he did in 1848-49 and flee Rome, whileas if the Italian army liberates the Papal states, he is most likely to do as IOTL and hole up in the Vatican.

As it concerns France, I deem a Communard republic to be kinda ASBish, since, even if the French regular forces fail to suppress the insurrection by various feasible butterflies, German-Italian occupation troops are still going to be deep within French territory, on the outskirts of all or most of the revolutionary strongholds in fact, and I can see no valid political reason why Bismarck and the Italian government would let a far left revolution triumph on their borders and become a dangerous example and nest of subversion for their own peoples. Quite differently from an European intervention to crush the 1789 or 1917 Revolutions, ITTL the Italo-German repression of a Commune revolution in France would take relatively little military effort. But I agree that France shall always be revanchist, even more so than OTL since it suffered humiliation at the hands of, and lost territory to, Germany and Italy alike. But I agree that in all likelihood it is going to become either a reactionary kingdom or a republic, and the from of government is going to shape its behavior.

LD, the German and Italian navies in the 1860s-1870s were trivial in comparison to the Royal Navy, no sensible British leader is ever going to deem them a serious threat. TTL 1866-1870 victories simply switched the places of Germany & France and of Italy & Austria in the European pecking order, and made the Berlin-Rome duo the new main European land power in the place of Russia, after Napoleon and before the Crimean War, and France, after the CW. It is no ground to go into senseless paranoia, since the new wunderkind duo has much less ability to threaten British interests than either France or Russia, nor is their rise a seeming deadly threat to the balance of power. Britain in 1870 is strongly focused on building up and managing its empire, largely uninterested in continental affairs unless a bid for hegemony of Napoleonic latitude arises or Russia seems about to achieve a substantial advantage in its ongoing strategic rivalry with the British Empire in the Balkans, Middle East, and Central Asia. British attitude towards the Berlin-Rome duo is largely going to be shaped by their attitude towards Russia, friendly if they support its containment, hostile if they support its expansion.

Bismarck would never do, or allow his Italian sidekick to do (nor would the liberal Italian ruling elite have the megalomania to defy their main ally), anything that would give London a plausible reason to turn paranoid, i.e. threaten British interests in the Middle East. German-Italian seizure of Suez Canal shares is going to raise a few eyebrows in London, but the British allowed French-Egyptian control of the Canal without freaking out, and the French naval power was a much more credible potential threat to UK interests than German-Italian one. If anything, you may expect a diplomatic charm offensive by Bismarck to soothe UK nerves about Suez; an Anglo-German-Italian agreement to redistribute the Suez Canal shares on an equal basis between the three powers is quite possible, before or after the financial collapse of Egypt, and so is even an Italo-German-British protectorate of Egypt. Anyway, Britain has no reason to weaken its own share of control over Suez by giving part of it to France.
 
Last edited:
Less 5 years are the minimum for the reform, but we must remember that real life often don't respect our wish. Follow me, the better performance in the war made Bismark more warm on an alliance with Italy and soo the two crisis of Rome and Luxemburg happens, so he decide well if the first time with Austria has gone so well...try again and call Rome for an Alliance against Napoleon III. The italian governament, still divided see an incredible occasion, resolve the Roman question (here more urgent than in OTL), unite the various factions in a short victorious war and put in the mix a little of victory disease, after all we have put the hated austrian in their place isn't it? In this case i see an italian performance just a little better than the OTL performance against Austria but in this case France fight a two front war so is screwed and Italy gain what we decided. Here enter Bismark, he see that Italy still got problem but as a truly stastesman and a man who always plan ahead, he see a lot of potential in the alliance so propose to send advisor and officialize the alliance between the two newest nation in Europe. Sometimes losing is better than winning because permit to analyze your performance and see what is the problems so you can resolve it.
Hold your horses, it's not so easy when there is a host of social and economic problems to solve and a country to integrate together (for comparison, Bismarck also achieved unification in three steps - wars with Denmark, Austria and France - but Prussia was much more dominant in the Germanies than Piedmont was in Italy, and before declaring the empire he could go through the Zollverien, the German Confederation and the Northern German Confederation: a much more reasonable pace, even if ultimately everything fell in place in just 6 years). However I agree that Italy will manage much better ITTL than it happened IOTL, and the outcome of 1866 is certainly encouraging. After that, either one uses a magic wand (quite sloppy IMHO) or otherwise there must be at least an attempt to justify a different chain of events.



.

Maybe the old emperor after the debacle retire or is retired and someone more dinamic is put in his place. Is difficult but the AH empire can survive and reform, IMHO will ever remain divided and not really cohesive, but a very good head of state and timely reform can give him decades and transform in a nasty enemy, frankly there is nothing like hate and revenge for stimulate change and unity. Or maybe from the ashes of the Hasburg empire will born an hungarian nation, aggressive and expansionist wil surely clash with the German and Ottoman Empire.
The "old emperor" was in his thirties :D: IOTL he went on to reign for another 50 years. In the end I think the Ausgleich is the default situation. However ITTL the Hungarians will be more rambunctious, the German nationalists will be more vocal, and the Slavs will not accept so easily to get always the short end of the stick. Overall it will be a weaker Austria-Hungary.



Yes if the Pope leaves Rome politic in Italy will be very semplyfied but frankly i don't see it, Pio IX was a very stubborn man, i doubt he will choose exile or leave his throne to that godless italian
IOTL there was a strong party in Rome (including a sizable number of Cardinals and the order of Jesuits) in favor of leaving Rome: given the way Italy will take Rome and - as you say - the fact that Pius IX is quite a stubborn man, my money is on the pope leaving Rome :D



Humm a great war with the Entente formed by a communard France, an authocratic Russia and an aggressive hungary kingdom united by fear, revenge, hate and manifest destiny against the Central powers (German Empire, Kingdom of Italy and the Ottoman Empire...reformed or propped by the other two allies), seem interesting:cool:
Everything is possible, but I feel that a Russophile Hungary is a bit too much to ask


For the role of the UK, well eurofed has said that she was not initially worried by the new kids on the block because she perceveid them more as land power, but Italy has a navy, not too much but enough to start some senseless paranoia in London (italian ships packed by teutonic soldiers :eek: run for the hill) and after the fall of France is fear grown ever more, so there is the possibility of an alliance against the upstart nation, but depend on what type of government is in charge in Paris .
Maybe when the Khedive is forced to sell is share of Suez, London permit Paris to buy it ( to regain a strategic position and for prestige of course) so she can play the German-italian block against France and have a more free hand and naturally for mantain the balance of power.

So long and thank you for the fish

I believe that hell has to freeze before UK allows the Khedive's shares to be purchased by France. As a matter of fact, I believe that Germany and Italy will be considerate enough not to oppose the British purchase. It would also be quite possible that Egypt will become an Italo-British protectorate (as it almost did IOTL).
As far as the European situation is concerned, I would expect that Disraeli will be pretty cold: however, an Europe dominated by the French Empire would be even less attractive (Nappy's ambitions in Belgium, Luxembourg and Rhein region were not exactly well received in London).
The Italian navy will never be a serious threat to the British (at least in the foreseable future). I think that the key here will be a joint Italo-German guarantee of the Straits against Russia: as a matter of fact both Italy and Germany have no interest in having the Russian in the Mediterranean, and should be quite willing to prop up the Ottomans.
When Gladstone gets the prime ministry, the situation should become even more cozy (Disraeli was always a bit paranoiac about the Red sea)
 
Hold your horses, it's not so easy when there is a host of social and economic problems to solve and a country to integrate together (for comparison, Bismarck also achieved unification in three steps - wars with Denmark, Austria and France - but Prussia was much more dominant in the Germanies than Piedmont was in Italy, and before declaring the empire he could go through the Zollverien, the German Confederation and the Northern German Confederation: a much more reasonable pace, even if ultimately everything fell in place in just 6 years). However I agree that Italy will manage much better ITTL than it happened IOTL, and the outcome of 1866 is certainly encouraging. After that, either one uses a magic wand (quite sloppy IMHO) or otherwise there must be at least an attempt to justify a different chain of events.

Oh I totally agree with you, just saing that a mix of victory disease and the classic solution of a internal crisis (a short victorious war) united at a more pressing Rome problem, can make the italian politician accept the idea of a war with France with Prussia (Bismark has luxemburg, but i agree that he will attack only if he feel ready, just saying if he say go, Florence will probably say OK)...i never said that's a smart move just a possible move (and in RL we had see enough of this idiocy), in this case i think that the performace of the italian armed forces will be on the OTL 1866 war, and in this case it will be the motivation for the reforms probably aided by Prussia...sometiems in the long term from screwed up decision one can obtain good thing



.

The "old emperor" was in his thirties :D: IOTL he went on to reign for another 50 years. In the end I think the Ausgleich is the default situation. However ITTL the Hungarians will be more rambunctious, the German nationalists will be more vocal, and the Slavs will not accept so easily to get always the short end of the stick. Overall it will be a weaker Austria-Hungary.

The emperor IMHO was born old:D in the way of thinking sense, probably the humiliation is the spark for a more dynamic or refomist party to take the rein. I wholy agree that the Hungarians will be very very vocal on getting more authonomy and the slavs will be not very happy, unfortunely i don't know any AH noble or politicians with enough carisma to pull a total reform of the empire and mold it in a more modern nation (in the sense that i have not that knowledge of AH history:eek:)



IOTL there was a strong party in Rome (including a sizable number of Cardinals and the order of Jesuits) in favor of leaving Rome: given the way Italy will take Rome and - as you say - the fact that Pius IX is quite a stubborn man, my money is on the pope leaving Rome :D

I think is one of the thing that can go either way


Everything is possible, but I feel that a Russophile Hungary is a bit too much to ask

Russophile no it will be at ASB level, more on the tune 'the enemy of my enemy is my friend...for now', an oldie but goldie, basically the same reason why Italy joined with Austria in OTL Central Powers

I believe that hell has to freeze before UK allows the Khedive's shares to be purchased by France. As a matter of fact, I believe that Germany and Italy will be considerate enough not to oppose the British purchase. It would also be quite possible that Egypt will become an Italo-British protectorate (as it almost did IOTL).
As far as the European situation is concerned, I would expect that Disraeli will be pretty cold: however, an Europe dominated by the French Empire would be even less attractive (Nappy's ambitions in Belgium, Luxembourg and Rhein region were not exactly well received in London).
The Italian navy will never be a serious threat to the British (at least in the foreseable future). I think that the key here will be a joint Italo-German guarantee of the Straits against Russia: as a matter of fact both Italy and Germany have no interest in having the Russian in the Mediterranean, and should be quite willing to prop up the Ottomans.
When Gladstone gets the prime ministry, the situation should become even more cozy (Disraeli was always a bit paranoiac about the Red sea)

Yes for a matter of fact the italian navy will be no a problem for the UK in the short and medium period, or that Italy and Germany will be not crazy enough to antagonise London, but when reality and fact have posed a problem for a good fit of national paranoia?:rolleyes:
For the purchase i mean a three way co-propriety (Italy-German block, France and UK, with maybe Italy sell some of his share for financing colonial effort, naval buid-up or the economic modernisasion of the south, with every part possessing a third...i see that situation evolve after a crisis when all the party tries to purchase the Khadive share so a diplomatic solution is chosen).
Frankly i see as the standard british politic in continental europe to shift is support between the two powers so none can achieve total dominance.
BTW i love to see a communard france arise from the defeat, it will be interesting, as i said an alliance between this new France and an authocratic Russia it will be...awkard, but i think that all the nation in europe freeze, think that the revolutionary and napoleonic war are come back with a vengeance and gang up France just to be in the safe side

So long and thank you for the fish
 
Top