So, I saw this scenario on another alt-history site, and I was wondering if this is even remotely plausible? And what PoD might it require? Esp. since I'm not sure that dismembering the Ottoman Empire was not even a consideration at Vienna OTL.

With a PoD occurring during the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon is eventually defeated much the same way as OTL, but a postwar settlement is established that leads to a rather greater territorial consolidation in the hands of the great powers, more expansion for the early USA, and an harsher peace deal for France and Turkey. ITTL the great powers are not really interested in restoring the pre-1789 situation for its own sake, granting a lenient peace to defeated France, or keeping the Ottoman Empire alive. They instead push for a territorial settlement that benefits all of them first and foremost.

- Russia gets its OTL territories, plus Posen, Galicia, Moldavia, most of Wallachia, Ottoman Armenia-Assyria, and Persian Azerbaijan.

- Prussia gets its OTL territories without Posen, plus Saxony, Hanover, Palatinate, Luxemburg, Hesse, and Nassau.

- Austria gets its OTL territories without Galicia, plus Bavaria, Parma, Modena, Lucca, Tuscany, most of the Papal States except Latium, Oltenia, Bosnia, Serbia, and Albania.

- Alsace and Lorraine (all of it, not just the portion Germany took in 1871) are carved out in a Kingdom of Lorraine with the Wettin on the throne, Switzerland becomes a Kingdom of Burgundy with the Wittelsbach on the throne, both join the German Confederation. Franche-Comte is partitioned between Lorraine and Burgundy. Thuringia is consolidated into a Grand Duchy with the House of Hesse on the throne.

- The Kingdom of the Netherlands gets its OTL territories without Luxemburg, plus the French Flanders. France is more or less pushed back to its 16th century borders. Sardinia-Piedmont gets its OTL territories plus Corsica. The Pope keeps Latium. Italy becomes a confederation like Germany. Dynastic changes lead to an early dissolution of the personal union between Britain and Hanover, and the British ruling elites are not interested in having possessions on the continent. Denmark, Norway, and Sweden establish a dynastic union.

- Bulgaria and Greece merge into a Kingdom that gets Macedonia, Thrace, Crete, the Aegean Islands, the Turkish Straits, and Cyprus. Palestine and Lebanon are carved up in the restored Kingdom of Jerusalem. The Ottoman Empire loses all its possessions in Europe, Armenia-Assyria, Palestine, and Lebanon.

- Spain restores the Iberian Union with Portugal and gets Roussillon.

- the USA gets all its OTL territories, annexes Canada thanks to its victory in the war with Britain (which takes place in the 1800s) and gets Florida, Cuba, Hispaniola, Puerto Rico, Texas, California, the Southwest, and northern Mexico up to the Tropic of Cancer thanks to its successful intervention in the Spanish-American Independence Wars. It may acquire Louisiana much like the OTL way, or conquer it during the Napoleonic Wars. New Spain (central-southern Mexico and Central America) and New Grenada (Colombia and Venezuela) become client states of the USA. Brazil becomes an independent empire (and a client state of Britain) with the Braganza on the throne.

- Britain annexes the Dutch, French, and Portuguese colonies, the Boer states, and the Southern Cone (Argentina, Chile, Paraguay, Uruguay, southern Brazil).
 
I know Spain was a comparitively minor player at Vienna (the marquis de Labrador was their rep, I think), so would it be a case of they'd be bribed with an Iberian Union in exchange for abandoning their championship of the pope? (IIRC Spain was the only one who spoke for restoration of the papal states).

What's the likelihood of a Kingdom of Lotharingia being erected for the deposed king of Saxony? Another question regarding Saxony and the Wettins: Did Prussia want ALL of Saxony (ducal as well as electoral?) or only the king of Saxony's territories?

Switzerland being erected into a kingdom and handed to Bavaria seems likewise a bit of a stretch, although I've seen once or twice that the lands of presentday Switzerland get turned into a monarchy at Vienna (in one case, handed to the comte d'Artois). Was this ever considered (turning it into a monarchy) OTL? Or is this just a monarchist wetdream (if considerably less icky)
 
There’s very little chance that the USA annexes and holds all of Canada as a result of winning the War of 1812. In fact, I think they’re getting more territory than they might be able to hold: the nation is less than 40 years old at this point and its institutions aren’t nearly as stable as they’ll become later on.
 
There’s very little chance that the USA annexes and holds all of Canada as a result of winning the War of 1812. In fact, I think they’re getting more territory than they might be able to hold: the nation is less than 40 years old at this point and its institutions aren’t nearly as stable as they’ll become later on.

Agreed here. Way too much way too early, especially as Louisiana isn't populated yet.

If anything, 1812 means more favorable borders in the north at "most". Furthest Maine border, etc. Perhaps add on a claim to the Oregon territory as well, since the region hasn't been settled by either of the powers. (and by the Oregon Territory, I mean the US one, not the whole 54 40 line). That could lead to the US ending up with more later on, but the Louisiana purchased doubled the size of the country, and even that was sketchy. Everything else more than doubles it again.

As for the Caribbean, "maybe" Cuba? Not sure how/why Spain gives it up.
 
What I want to know is what the Hell the Americans are even doing at Vienna? And why is a congress to decide the future of Europe, redrawing boundaries in the Middle East and on the far side of the world? Not to mention, where the Hell is everyone's favourite bishop of Autun to stop France being carved up like a Thanksgiving Turkey!:openedeyewink:
 
To be fair, I didn't notice that this wasn't your original idea, @JonasResende . The scenario just seems a little bit out there in general, which after rereading OP, I see you think so as well (especially vis-a-vis the Ottomans). That said...

What I want to know is what the Hell the Americans are even doing at Vienna?

Members of the 24th & 1/2 Coalition?

Seriously, either the British manage to bring them onto their side during the Quasi-War (not undoable) but also manage to tie up forces and eventually send a detachment or two to Europe.

Most likely, though, join the British and take out all of Louisiana (not hard; take St. Louis and New Orleans and you've got the majority of it). But, after that, I imagine they'd peace out. i don't see them conquering any of the islands in the French Caribbean before the British would, and it wouldn't be of interest to them as it is. To our eyes, it might not seem logical to leave them be, but Louisiana is a massive gain for the young nation; it alone should be enough.

After that, I imagine there could be some preferential deals with the British, and perhaps the US is more aggressive during the Barbary wars, drawing the Ottomans themselves into the conflict. I'm not sure the Ottomans would do so, however; if the British and the US are on friendlier terms, and are potentially cooperating...

Although I'm now imagining some Anglo-American-Sicilian fleet fighting the Ottomans in the Med around that time frame.

Anywho, back to border talk: perhaps with the lack of aggression, combined with favorable actions by the US, the 49th parallel could be pushed a few minutes (or even a degree) north of its current location? If you push it 18 minutes north, and extend that line to the Pacific in the future, that would put Vancouver in the US. Lots of butterflies later on.

But I stand by my initial conjecture. The US could take Louisiana, by purchase or by invasion. They could likely wrangle a better border in Minnesota, and a little less likely the border in Maine. They might even manage a sole claim to at least a portion of the Oregon Country with joint occupation of the rest at best. But i'm not sure why they want the rest of it now, though. (most of those border adjustments would even come after the war, at a convention, not unlike the OTL one. it only involves the US and Britain, in the end).

And why is a congress to decide the future of Europe, redrawing boundaries in the Middle East and on the far side of the world?

To be fair, the Ottoman Empire was considered a European state, and historically the entire Mediterranean rim was associated with Europe in some manner. But I don't see why Persia is being forced to give up Azerbaijan, or why that's being done. Same with the other parts of the Ottoman Empire. Sure, if the Ottomans aligned themselves with the French, I could see Greece and Bulgaria possibly coming into existence earlier, along with Wallachia and Moldavia gaining their independence... i just don't see why they would align themselves with the French, unless they are carrying out a joint invasion of Russia?

However, I don't see the Russians getting all of Poland, as originally the whole purpose of the partitions was so that no one nation would have a majority of the former Polish territory. That completely goes against the original spirit of the treaty.

For Austria, that's going to be an Italian empire soon enough. Direct annexations are not going to happen in Italy aside from Venice, and they'd be better off long term without it as part of the empire proper. Same with the rest of the Balkans. This would also mean deposing the Bavarians which, while were considered treacherous and allies of the French, would mean removing one of the biggest opponents to Prussian/Austrian domination.

Eesh. there's not much of a North Germany left at all. Are we presuming they get all that in "addition" to the Rheinland? Also, why eliminate the Swiss Confederation? Restore them and strengthen them, sure, maybe make them friendlier, but they were hardly friends to the French. Put a Wittelsbach on the throne of a larger Palatinate that includes parts of the southern Rheinland, perhaps, if Bavaria must become Austrian. I just see Prussia gaining way too much compared to OTL (and only giving up Posen)

Perhaps the one thing that might have been a good idea is a Kingdom of Lorraine/Burgundy. It makes sense, but would be French dominated. If necessary, don't attach anything to switzerland, and add Franche-Comte. Just remember that part of the balance of power involves making sure that France isn't completely weakened and can put up a fight against the new powers. With Prussia strengthened so, the argument would be to maintain a stronger France, not a weaker one.

if Europe was more divided even than OTL, perhaps we could see this Lotharingian Kingdom be reborn, but all in all, it's likely to fall very soon and be reabsorbed into France. (kinda like the Saarland, in a sense)
 
The US got superbly lucky in 1803 as is. This is, quite frankly, pushing American luck.

I'd debate about how lucky it is they got all of Louisiana like they did, but it was quite fortunate that they could purchase it from someone who didn't want/need it (though the US is in a better position than British North America or New Spain to control the upper Mississippi and, in the end, control the mouth of it). I just like how this is the Congress of Vienna and still the thing we're talking about is 'Murica. Shows what the most extreme portion of it is.
 
Members of the 24th & 1/2 Coalition?

Seriously, either the British manage to bring them onto their side during the Quasi-War (not undoable) but also manage to tie up forces and eventually send a detachment or two to Europe.

Most likely, though, join the British and take out all of Louisiana (not hard; take St. Louis and New Orleans and you've got the majority of it). But, after that, I imagine they'd peace out. i don't see them conquering any of the islands in the French Caribbean before the British would, and it wouldn't be of interest to them as it is. To our eyes, it might not seem logical to leave them be, but Louisiana is a massive gain for the young nation; it alone should be enough.

After that, I imagine there could be some preferential deals with the British, and perhaps the US is more aggressive during the Barbary wars, drawing the Ottomans themselves into the conflict. I'm not sure the Ottomans would do so, however; if the British and the US are on friendlier terms, and are potentially cooperating...

Although I'm now imagining some Anglo-American-Sicilian fleet fighting the Ottomans in the Med around that time frame.

Anywho, back to border talk: perhaps with the lack of aggression, combined with favorable actions by the US, the 49th parallel could be pushed a few minutes (or even a degree) north of its current location? If you push it 18 minutes north, and extend that line to the Pacific in the future, that would put Vancouver in the US. Lots of butterflies later on.

But I stand by my initial conjecture. The US could take Louisiana, by purchase or by invasion. They could likely wrangle a better border in Minnesota, and a little less likely the border in Maine. They might even manage a sole claim to at least a portion of the Oregon Country with joint occupation of the rest at best. But i'm not sure why they want the rest of it now, though. (most of those border adjustments would even come after the war, at a convention, not unlike the OTL one. it only involves the US and Britain, in the end).

Oversight forgiven. But I was reading the other day that America struggled to be able to produce enough arms for the allies and their own guys when they joined the First World War, not to mention that the Americans had the added difficulty of shipping soldiers across the pond. Here, America is smaller than it was in 1917, and Britain might not be so fond of lending Brother Jonathan a few of Nelson's arms to bring her soldiers across the pond. Plus America, cause this is the only way I can think of that she could end up expanding in every direction - must have been fighting against the French in Europe, the Spanish in Mexico/Latin America/Caribbean and the British in Canada - all more or less at the same time! At 1812-1815's borders? Did anyone else read and think it must've been space bats?

To be fair, the Ottoman Empire was considered a European state, and historically the entire Mediterranean rim was associated with Europe in some manner. But I don't see why Persia is being forced to give up Azerbaijan, or why that's being done. Same with the other parts of the Ottoman Empire. Sure, if the Ottomans aligned themselves with the French, I could see Greece and Bulgaria possibly coming into existence earlier, along with Wallachia and Moldavia gaining their independence... i just don't see why they would align themselves with the French, unless they are carrying out a joint invasion of Russia?

Fair enough.

However, I don't see the Russians getting all of Poland, as originally the whole purpose of the partitions was so that no one nation would have a majority of the former Polish territory. That completely goes against the original spirit of the treaty.

For Austria, that's going to be an Italian empire soon enough. Direct annexations are not going to happen in Italy aside from Venice, and they'd be better off long term without it as part of the empire proper. Same with the rest of the Balkans. This would also mean deposing the Bavarians which, while were considered treacherous and allies of the French, would mean removing one of the biggest opponents to Prussian/Austrian domination.

Eesh. there's not much of a North Germany left at all. Are we presuming they get all that in "addition" to the Rheinland? Also, why eliminate the Swiss Confederation? Restore them and strengthen them, sure, maybe make them friendlier, but they were hardly friends to the French. Put a Wittelsbach on the throne of a larger Palatinate that includes parts of the southern Rheinland, perhaps, if Bavaria must become Austrian. I just see Prussia gaining way too much compared to OTL (and only giving up Posen)

Basically the only scenario I could somehow see something similar - not necessarily this precise situation - (Wittelsbachs being deposed in Bavaria, Prussia swallowing Saxony, and Russia getting all of Poland) occuring would be if Maximilian I, like the king of Saxony doesn't jump ship from Napoléon and Prussia proves to be a better ally to the coalitions (maybe Luise of Mecklenburg surviving?)

I asked this question once, but it never gained any traction, so I'll pose it again, now that you've raised the point: The Wittelsbachs lose Bavaria in 1815 (as said, maybe they don't jump ship fast enough), but keep the Palatinate and parts of the southern Rhineland. In my idea they got the former Austrian Netherlands as well when the Belgian Revolt occurs. Would it be possible that they absorb/get absorbed by the Wettin kingdom of Lorraine through repeated marriage alliances between the two states?
 
Why the hell would Portugal,accept the Iberian Union?The portuguese royal family was in Brasil at the time and kept the Portuguese empire whole. Also D.Joāo VI was successfully negotiating the marriage of the portuguese crown prince with Austrian archduchess Leopoldine and giving Austria full access to Braz,which was very favorable viewed by Matternich at the time.
 
Last edited:
Sending archduchess Leopoldine to Brazil,is vital for the independence of the country,even more to keep the Brazilian territory unified,instead of spliting like the Spanish colonies.Dona Leopoldina was probably the most influential and important woman in Brazilian history.
 
Why the hell would make Portugal,accept the Iberian Union?The portuguese royal family was at Brasil at the time and kept the Portuguese empire hole. Also D.Joāo VI was successfully negotiating the marriage of the portuguese crown prince with Austrian archduchess Leopoldine and giving full access to Brazil to Austria,which was very favorable viewed by Matternich at the time.
Agreed, Portugal; Britain’s oldest Allie, accepts Spanish Rule? Never!
Wellingtons men will be in Lisbon again....
 
So, I saw this scenario on another alt-history site, and I was wondering if this is even remotely plausible? And what PoD might it require? Esp. since I'm not sure that dismembering the Ottoman Empire was not even a consideration at Vienna OTL.

The 1st rule of Vienna was to keep 1789 borders in Europe. So dismembering the Ottomans will not help. Especially Austria will protest against it. Hard to believe but Austria's existence relied on the unity of the Ottomans. The revolutionary mind and Russian influence was far more dangerous.

The Russian war was over in 1812/1813 with the Ottomans and Persians. The deal was done. If anything should have happen it should have been Moldavia getting Besserabia back.
 
To be fair, I didn't notice that this wasn't your original idea, @JonasResende . The scenario just seems a little bit out there in general, which after rereading OP, I see you think so as well (especially vis-a-vis the Ottomans). That said...



Members of the 24th & 1/2 Coalition?

Seriously, either the British manage to bring them onto their side during the Quasi-War (not undoable) but also manage to tie up forces and eventually send a detachment or two to Europe.

Most likely, though, join the British and take out all of Louisiana (not hard; take St. Louis and New Orleans and you've got the majority of it). But, after that, I imagine they'd peace out. i don't see them conquering any of the islands in the French Caribbean before the British would, and it wouldn't be of interest to them as it is. To our eyes, it might not seem logical to leave them be, but Louisiana is a massive gain for the young nation; it alone should be enough.

After that, I imagine there could be some preferential deals with the British, and perhaps the US is more aggressive during the Barbary wars, drawing the Ottomans themselves into the conflict. I'm not sure the Ottomans would do so, however; if the British and the US are on friendlier terms, and are potentially cooperating...

Although I'm now imagining some Anglo-American-Sicilian fleet fighting the Ottomans in the Med around that time frame.

Anywho, back to border talk: perhaps with the lack of aggression, combined with favorable actions by the US, the 49th parallel could be pushed a few minutes (or even a degree) north of its current location? If you push it 18 minutes north, and extend that line to the Pacific in the future, that would put Vancouver in the US. Lots of butterflies later on.

But I stand by my initial conjecture. The US could take Louisiana, by purchase or by invasion. They could likely wrangle a better border in Minnesota, and a little less likely the border in Maine. They might even manage a sole claim to at least a portion of the Oregon Country with joint occupation of the rest at best. But i'm not sure why they want the rest of it now, though. (most of those border adjustments would even come after the war, at a convention, not unlike the OTL one. it only involves the US and Britain, in the end).



To be fair, the Ottoman Empire was considered a European state, and historically the entire Mediterranean rim was associated with Europe in some manner. But I don't see why Persia is being forced to give up Azerbaijan, or why that's being done. Same with the other parts of the Ottoman Empire. Sure, if the Ottomans aligned themselves with the French, I could see Greece and Bulgaria possibly coming into existence earlier, along with Wallachia and Moldavia gaining their independence... i just don't see why they would align themselves with the French, unless they are carrying out a joint invasion of Russia?

However, I don't see the Russians getting all of Poland, as originally the whole purpose of the partitions was so that no one nation would have a majority of the former Polish territory. That completely goes against the original spirit of the treaty.

For Austria, that's going to be an Italian empire soon enough. Direct annexations are not going to happen in Italy aside from Venice, and they'd be better off long term without it as part of the empire proper. Same with the rest of the Balkans. This would also mean deposing the Bavarians which, while were considered treacherous and allies of the French, would mean removing one of the biggest opponents to Prussian/Austrian domination.

Eesh. there's not much of a North Germany left at all. Are we presuming they get all that in "addition" to the Rheinland? Also, why eliminate the Swiss Confederation? Restore them and strengthen them, sure, maybe make them friendlier, but they were hardly friends to the French. Put a Wittelsbach on the throne of a larger Palatinate that includes parts of the southern Rheinland, perhaps, if Bavaria must become Austrian. I just see Prussia gaining way too much compared to OTL (and only giving up Posen)

Perhaps the one thing that might have been a good idea is a Kingdom of Lorraine/Burgundy. It makes sense, but would be French dominated. If necessary, don't attach anything to switzerland, and add Franche-Comte. Just remember that part of the balance of power involves making sure that France isn't completely weakened and can put up a fight against the new powers. With Prussia strengthened so, the argument would be to maintain a stronger France, not a weaker one.

if Europe was more divided even than OTL, perhaps we could see this Lotharingian Kingdom be reborn, but all in all, it's likely to fall very soon and be reabsorbed into France. (kinda like the Saarland, in a sense)

Greece and Bulgaria will not become independent. The British, Austrians and French did not wish for it until public opinion forced them to do so in 1827. Russia and Austria getting land makes even more sense.

War was declared due to French promises. It went horrible after Selim III and Alemdar Mustafa's death during the chaotic 1807/1808 era. The Ottomans lost by 1810. The war was over by 1812. No Vienna partition for that.
 
Top