No restoration of France as Great Power 1815

Susano

Banned
You could also create a Burgundy in South France there the original Burgundy lay.
700 years past. More or less immdiatly after it joined the HRE Arelat (the original Burgundy) more or less lost its shape and was fulyl absorbed. So,, rather unlikely.

Yes, Napoleons return "spoiled" what was shaping up to be a war between Britain, Royalist France and Austria on one hand and Prussia, Russia and Bonapartist French on the other.
Eh, all Ive read just said that the Congress dragged on endlessly, and that Nappys return brought the fear of god into the delegates, who under that shock came to an agreement. Might well be we see rather an endlessly dragged Congress instead of a war (of course, if Congress doesnt conclude anything, France keeps all her pre-revolutionary territories by default, as in the meanwhoile they were still administering them).
 
As for the latter, it is well possible with foreign powers backings aid region/state. As for the former, Britanny maybe would not have minded, hence the suggestion. It certainly makes more snee then taking Normany or Acquitaine for historical reasons, heh.

If areas don't want to be independent, they are unlikely to be opposed to re-absorbtion into France. This isn't to say that areas of France couldn't be set up to be independent, but if they are themselves militarilly insignificant it seems likely they shall crumble the moment France makes the effort to reclaim them. Maintaining a sizable army on the border of France isn't practical for any European power. The costs would be considerable. In the early 19th century, France can only be reliably defeated by a coalition of powers and these powers have more pressing concerns than keeping the Franche-Comte for example independent. With this in mind it seems difficult to imagine such states sustaining their independence with any longevity.

However, you are overlooking that Germany had about no areas that wanted to be independant, either, and yet all were, and somehow that setup survived for 56 years after the Congress.

Do you really believe Germany had no area which wanted to be independent in 1815? The king of Prussia declined the crown of 'Germany' in 1848. There were quite a few areas which didn't want to be subservient to other areas. Beyond some high blown rhetoric in the afterglow of victory were any practical measures put forward to create a German nation in 1815? Regardless Germany had been disunited for centuries in a manner which France had not. Removing territories which had been French for several hundreds of years is unlikely to be easy.

I do not think any great power would really directly take French territory, but independant states could be set up on French territory, and those would have a chance at surviving. At the time France has dragged itself out of the Napoleonic Devastation, so have Prusisa, Austria and Russia - the Holy Alliance decidcated to keep the Order of Vienna. And in such a TL the independance o fthe enw states would be part of that Order.

If you believe Prussia, Austria and Russia will remain united and in a position to intervene against France at the drop of a hat then I suppose your right. I don't imagine they will do so. They all have their own priorities and they are not likely to remain fast friends.

I also reckon that France will (based on the fact she did) recover swifter from the wars than the other powers. She may fall behind once industrialisation starts kicking in throughout Germany, but thats half a century away. Its easier for France to act against states a stones throw from Paris than for Berlin or Vienna to aid them, let alone far off Russia.
 

Susano

Banned
Do you really believe Germany had no area which wanted to be independent in 1815? The king of Prussia declined the crown of 'Germany' in 1848.
Beyond some high blown rhetoric in the afterglow of victory were any practical measures put forward to create a German nation in 1815?
You seem to miss the entire point of both the Metternichian Vienna system and the German revolution in 1848. The latter was was a democratic, nationalist, pan-germanist movement against the undemocratic, particularist princes. So, citing the opinion of the Monarchs is in this case not a good argument. That movement had already existed befor,e it just exploded in 1848. To be exact, the entire point of Vienna was to create a sytsem to keep the the nationalist-democratic movement (which among other things of coruse wanted an united Germany) DOWN.

And apart from that, 1850 he did attempt to unify Germany in the German Union (also called Erfurt Union in the history books as the diplomatic negotations took place in Erfurt). The point was that 1848 was a revvolution by the people, and accepting the crown wouldve meant accepting democracy. Erfurt was about Prussia (who had smashed down the revolutione verywhere, and hence the other states [read:Monarchs] looked to it as protector) uniting Germany in a non-democratic state.

So not only do your examples completly miss the point by a 180°, one even is flat out wrong ;)
Really, there was no part of Germany with an own national sentiment. At most there was loyality to the ruling house and disdain for the democratic compnent in the democratic-nationalist movement, but no own national sentiments. Hence the situation would be directly comparable.

In France, you could as well have a state with the entirety of the population disgrunted, and the state surviving on a loyal army, police and administrtaion apparatus (a small group of people by comparision, that is) supressing any dissent. That was the way it worked in Germany - you could even say that was what the German Confederation was about. It never faced an external enemy, so the mutual protetcion pact parts proved to be unencessary. But it was all about coordination of the supression of the nationalist-democraztic movement (and you can bet those two factors would combine in France, too).

Now, if some of those states carved out of formerly french territory become part of the German Confederation (Alsace, Franche Comte, Lorraine [which ahd only been French sicne 1766 anyways), they would be within the same coordination - and even to states outside that the same mechanism could be applied.

If you believe Prussia, Austria and Russia will remain united and in a position to intervene against France at the drop of a hat then I suppose your right. I don't imagine they will do so. They all have their own priorities and they are not likely to remain fast friends.
IOTL, Prussia, Austria and Russia more or less remained at least informally allied up to the Crimean War. At several points in time, those three conservative Great Powers formed one bloc to the other bloc consisting of the two progressive Great Powers, the UK and France.
 

Thande

Donor
IOTL, Prussia, Austria and Russia more or less remained at least informally allied up to the Crimean War. At several points in time, those three conservative Great Powers formed one bloc to the other bloc consisting of the two progressive Great Powers, the UK and France.
Sometimes called the Three Emperors' League or the League of the Three Black Eagles, I believe.
 

Susano

Banned
Sometimes called the Three Emperors' League or the League of the Three Black Eagles, I believe.

Yes, The Holy Alliance and The Three Emperors League were formal executions of that alliance, though the latter (as the name tells) was when Germany already was united. But that makes it a even more glaring example on how long on this contact went...
 
Stating 'The German princes opposed unification but it was supported by the people' is quite a step back from 'no region wanted to be independent'. Well atleast to my mind. In 1815 the Princes have the power.

The princes wanted to retain their sovereignity. This naturally means they didn't want to lose it by joining some pan-German state which would be a completely new phenominon and one for which most of the questions of how it would function had not yet been answered.

Personally I would debate whether or not you can argue pan-German nationalism existed in the same manner in 1815 to 1848 but I think it is drifting away from the point.

In 'Germany' you had little central authority. The HRE was ended and the Emperor had little clout beyond his personal dominions. 'Germany' was split oddly with both Austria and Prussia having considerable say and yet many extra-German possessions. In France, regardless of how badly beaten, you will have a centre. Paris will remain 'France'. The King of France, whoever he is, is unlikely to accept or desire areas that were once his by right to remain independent in the manner of which the German princes did.

The French did get rid of their monarchs. We have OTL's 19th century as evidence. It seems far more likely that the French king, rather than seeking to 'keep the population down' in order to keep his own power down rather goes along with the people to reclaim the lost territories. If he does not he risks revolution. It might be a war but it could well be a limited war and one in which France is in a good position to win.

Surely the Crimean war is a good example of just how meaningless this alliance between Prussia, Austria and Russia was? It served to keep Poland down, but when it comes to proper expensive wars against France the Alliance will almost certainly split. With the alliance split it seems inevitable to me that France will recover her lost territories. I have already outlined why all powers are busy elsewhere so I won't repeat it.
 

Susano

Banned
Wait, what? Now youre not making sense on several layers:

First you claim the newly independant states would not survive because nobody wants them independant anyways - so that they would succumb to public pressure. When I then point out the same was true for the German states, but they did not succumb, you suddenly make points not about the people, but the princes? Err, what?

Of course the new princes in France woudl also want to keep their souvereignity, or at the very least the Conference would have the good sense to install people who will. Hence, really, it would be the very same situation.

And second, that the French managed to install a republic again IOTL means the French are somehow... inherently more able to create a Republic than the Germans and hence the similarities dont apply? What?
 
First you claim the newly independant states would not survive because nobody wants them independant anyways - so that they would succumb to public pressure. When I then point out the same was true for the German states, but they did not succumb, you suddenly make points not about the people, but the princes? Err, what?

I don't think I mentioned public pressure explicitly, or if I did I don't think I meant it.

What I meant is that in France you will have a central state focused on Paris. This state will desire to reclaim all territories which are French. It will only be prevented from doing so through force. These independent French States are going to be too weak to oppose Rump France unless they receive substantial backing from other European great powers. There is a reasonable arguement that 'the people' there wouldn't be interested in maintaining their own independence, but its a minor point. I then drew the arguement that the other European powers would be busy elsewhere and would not give the backing nessasary to keep the independent regions independent. Thus they would fall back into France. I offered a time scale of about a decade maybe two.

Of course the new princes in France woudl also want to keep their souvereignity, or at the very least the Conference would have the good sense to install people who will. Hence, really, it would be the very same situation.

Again, I think we have differing views on the German Confederation and the 1848 revolutions so our interpretations differ. I don't doubt that someone who has been named king of Lorraine (as an example) will have every intention of trying to keep himself as king of Lorraine. Will he lay down his life for it though? Will he be able to find people willing to lay down their lives for Lorraine? Will he avoid the cultural pull of Paris?

In Germany the system worked since the Princes were all supporting each other. Even Austria or Prussia didn't want to merge into a unified 'Germany'. For the most part they didn't even want to conquer and annex other German states. This is not the same as in France. The centralized French State will want to reclaim the lost territories, it will not care about whether it knocks over some newly crowned princes.

It is easier for France to create a republic since you have a centralised state with one government. Knock it over and there you go. In Germany you have to knock over all of those Princes (who by and large support each other) to get a unified Germany when all of them are opposed to it. This is harder to do.
 

Susano

Banned
Ah, I see. Well, as said, the German Confederation also was a mutual defense pact. Of course, ironically, it faltered the one moment that pact was activated, but that was because the agerssor came from within (Prussia, 1866). And, also as said, the GC was all about preserving the Order of Vienna - fof which the new states would be patr of. And both the aofrementioned three eastern great powers and the GC were very stringent about that. Would they go to war with France over this? Given their OTL actions - yes.

It wouldnt just be France versus those states. It would be France versus an entire host of further states, at the very least the GC, if not Russia, too. Well, in short - you said the situation in Germany worked because the Princes supported each other. That is true. Well, the new states or at leats some of them could very well become part of that system.

And I dont doubt that a King or Grandduke of Lorraine would be able to recruit soldiers. It doesnt take nationalist fervor for that, it doesnt even take nationalist fervor to keep them loyal and in line, just very hard drilling if necessary, as they did do IOTL in the 18th century. As for Paris cultural pull, this is not the time of Versailles. Cultural significance did not translate into politics anymore - hell, even n the 18th century it wasnt so anymore, that really is a baroque thing.

Oh, and as for Prussia or Austria not wanting to conquer German states - 1850 (Efurt Union) and 1866. As said.
 
I agree that small new states taken from French territory are going to have a difficult time maintaining their independence without support from the other powers. There would be substantial underground movements in these principalities to reunite with France, which would certainly get support from Paris. This outside state support would make them stronger than their counterparts in other parts of Europe. My guess is that these new states would be lucky indeed to survive to the mid-19th century unless the other European powers were really committed to propping them up - which is not impossible, but I don't think that it's very likely.

If the allies wanted to push France out of great-power status, it might make more sense to take heavy reparations, limit the size of the French army and navy by treaty, and annex territories around the edge of France directly to larger states. These measures would still have the same problems of enforcement, though - how willing would the rest of the European powers be to send their armies against France if the French government, years later, breaks the terms that were forced on it? Would neighboring nations like Spain, Prussia, the Netherlands, and Sardinia/Savoy really want to take territory from around the edges of France, especially Prussia and the Netherlands, which had already gotten large and densely populated territories that were mainly Catholic outside of France?
 

Susano

Banned
Undegrround movement? This is the 19th century, well before guerilly movements became widespread! No, popular opposition and even unrest there would be, but as said, it would be like the one in the German states. Though the sure to come (I agree on this) outside help to these movements by Paris will of course aid them greatly. No, those states would stand and fall with the eastern powers - if the revolution take sthem down (sucessful 1848), nothing will contain revolution in the new states, but if not, it is supressed.

As for direct annexation, that would make for some awkward borders at some point...and somehow, heavy reperations/military restrictions seem somehow anachronistcially out of place to me, too, morelike a late 19th century/20th century thing. Though maybe thats just me...
 
Call me cynical but I really don't see Russia going to war with France in the late 1820's-30's over some affair west of the Rhine. Defence pacts are good on paper to discourage war but they have a tendency to break down when actually called upon unless both sides have a pressing reason to get involved.

Could France defeat the German Confederation in 1830~? It would be touch and go, but given the distances involved she doesn't need a great victory. A second Valmy or fighting to a stalemate may well be enough. I don't see Austria or Prussia (let alone the other German states) being willing to risk alot to defend the small newly independent principalities.

And I dont doubt that a King or Grandduke of Lorraine would be able to recruit soldiers. It doesnt take nationalist fervor for that, it doesnt even take nationalist fervor to keep them loyal and in line, just very hard drilling if necessary, as they did do IOTL in the 18th century. As for Paris cultural pull, this is not the time of Versailles. Cultural significance did not translate into politics anymore - hell, even n the 18th century it wasnt so anymore, that really is a baroque thing.

Cultural pull in matters of pure culture might be a thing of the past, but economics is as strong as ever. The longer the states remain within the GC, the more they will be inclined to stay, but I don't think 'Rump France' will wait that long. Lorraine may be able to recruit soldiers, the question is whether enough can be recruited to make a real dent on any French invasion force. This will require substantial manpower and money. It seems unlikely they would overly trouble the force which could be raised by 'rump France' and as such they will need help from outside if 'Rump France' intends to annex them.

All in all its a question of timing. For me these states will be short lived. France will act within a decade or two. 'Germany' is in a much weaker position at that time than she would be thirty years later, when nationalism and industry have grown considerably over a generation. My point about Austria and Prussia (and most debates about the German confederation) applies for this time period, 1815-1830~, not somewhere between 1848-1871. To my mind its quite a different situation.
 
Assuming [Handwavium] some kind of Weaker France -- A-L broke off, Corsica to Tuscany [they had a historical claim], Etc.

I see France spending the next 25-30 years getting it's self back into shape.

This butterflies away the Algeria adventure in 1834. So no French North Africa.
This gives Italy [instead of France] Tunisia in the 1880's.
This means no Italian Libya, leading to Tunisia being lots more Italian ATL, than it was French OTL.
 
Top