PC: Austrian Rhineland, Russian Galicia

[Big Schwartz]

No one was worried about Russia taking Poznan because Russia already allocated what would be Poznan to Prussia at the Treaty of Kalisz in 1813 and reaffirmed it in August of 1814. The problem were strategic positions: the forts of Thorn & Krakow and Alexander himself. Russia annexing Thorn & Krakow would constitute a dangerous frontier for both Prussia & Austria. Alexander's somewhat belated sympathy for Polish aspirations, and his determination to impose his Polish ambitions on the other powers of Europe was a huge concern. He was also extremely vague in his plans as to not anger Russians at home and the future Polish subjects (which was mocked by Liverpool); this vagueness worried Austria & Britain about Russia's future goals. You have to look at it through the lens of the time: Russia had just annexed Finland, become possessed of sections of Galicia, incorporated Bessarabia, and now she was aiming for Krakow. This tumble of Russian aggrandizement was a logical fear.

Naive question: Is there a realistic scenario where they could say "tough shit, do something about it"? If Prussia and Austria somehow got further devasted by Russia and Russia less devasted by still enraged by Napoleon, couldn't Russia dictate the terms? I'm just baffled that everybody isn't already too exhausted by war to counter Russian ambitions. Or am I just vastly overestimating the potential of Russia's position?

The conversation so far seems like Austria is calling the shots.

Or is Russia concerned that once everybody recovers that it will be isolated in Europe, discounting whatever position they secured territorially? Perhaps if that's true, they could offset that by orchestrating future rivalries within the German confederation, ie endorsing Prussian annexation of Saxony. Just pondering, you know, alternate history and all.

 

[OxSpace]

Naive question: Is there a realistic scenario where they could say "tough shit, do something about it"? If Prussia and Austria somehow got further devasted by Russia and Russia less devasted by still enraged by Napoleon, couldn't Russia dictate the terms? I'm just baffled that everybody isn't already too exhausted by war to counter Russian ambitions. Or am I just vastly overestimating the potential of Russia's position?

Devastated by Russia? I assume you mean France? In which case you completely butterfly the CoV because Russia was not in a position by the time Napoleon's retreating army exited Russia that they could properly pursue them past Poland without allies. And even iotl, with Prussia, the two almost completely lost til the Armistice of Pleischwitz. An even weaker Prussia makes this more probable. Regardless, iotl Russia was the paramount land power after the collapse of Napoleon, with a standing between the Vistula and Wartha of 250,000 Russians and 38,000 Poles, and was also threatening northern Germany with a parts of the army in Holstein. On the flip side, the Prussian and Austrian forces were scattered across Germany and Italy. By 1814 though, Prussia was essentially a Russian client state. I mean, it's possible for Prussia to play its cards right and break out of it, but it's not in any position to fight Russia.

The thing is, no one wanted a new war. You're essentially playing a game of diplomatic russian roulette, which side will collapse first, or will the entire Congress fall apart?

I'm sure Russia could just flip off the rest of Europe, but you said it yourself:

Or is Russia concerned that once everybody recovers that it will be isolated in Europe, discounting whatever position they secured territorially

Alexander wanted his conquest to be recognized and legitimate. If he just unilaterally annexes it his prestige on the European stage would be completely shattered. It's not worth becoming a pariah state over it. The only other option was outright war, but I already addressed this.

could offset that by orchestrating future rivalries within the German confederation, ie endorsing Prussian annexation of Saxony.

Russia was Prussia's original benefactor to the annexation of Saxony. And after Frederick William's intervention, Prussia was fully aligned with Russia. This isn't alt history, this is just otl. To be fair though, they weren't trying to "endorse rivalries", but fulfilling promises in previous treaties (Bartenstein 1807, Kaliz 1813)

 

[TrickyApe]

The secret clause to potentially trade Illyria with Galicia was under the pretext that Napoleon won in Russia, at which point you completely butterfly the CoV.

You'd have to play with it a bit. Maybe Napoleon decides to prepay, for some bizarre reason.

This scenario only induces a potential Russian penetration into Galicia, but the fact that Austria isn't in possession doesn't mean Russia will unilaterally annex it at the CoV, and if they did than that ruins any compromise laid out by OP. West Galicia was not particularly important to the Habsburgs and was only really a tool to limit Russian control in Poland, but Galicia in general was a useful buffer. This doesn't address my original complaint that Austria just abandons it for territory they didn't want (the Rhineland)

I'm not sure the Habsburgs wouldn't have been better off trading away Galicia and having a border at the Carpathians and no stake in the Polish question, but I certainly agree the Rhineland isn't a suitable trade. For one thing the Prussian territories there only had about a third of the population of Galicia. Even with a suitable swap, trading away a territory that's been under continuous Habsburg control and administration seems overly crass for 1815. Trading something that they only have a claim to is easier.

If they underperform, Napoleon wins. The 6th coalition came, multiple times, to failing.

Again, something to play with. Austria underperforms relative to overperforming Russians or Prussians. Something like that. Personally I'd rather do a little handwaving about a battlefield than change leader's minds for no particular reason.

 

[TrickyApe]

Naive question: Is there a realistic scenario where they could say "tough shit, do something about it"?

Actually fairly easily, though that's mostly apparent in 20/20 hindsight. All Russia and Prussia had to do was stick together and go home for Christmas in 1814, leaving the issue hanging. The famous treaty directed against them was written as a defensive alliance, and since Saxony and Poland were under Russian and Prussian occupation, an offensive alliance would be required. Nobody was actually about to go to war, for a lot of reasons. Everyone was broke, for one, except Britain and even Britain wasn't looking so healthy financially.

In a few months it would all be moot when the Hundred Days happen, and Britain realizes it needs Russia and Prussia more than it needs to quibble about borders in Eastern Europe. Austria isn't doing anything on its own.

Or is Russia concerned that once everybody recovers that it will be isolated in Europe, discounting whatever position they secured territorially?

That's pretty much what led to the OTL compromise, either the fear of isolation you mention or a more altruistic desire for allied unity and a lasting peace. Either way, that amity was more important that the territory to Russia and Prussia.

 

[vn6]

The Bourbons still want the natural frontier, ie the Rhine. That wasn't a Napoleonic invention.


The Ems, Weser, and Elbe rivers all run through Prussia territory. And to no surprise, none of them go into your hypothetical Austrian Rhineland. Economic incorporation goes way further than oral diplomacy.


No?
View attachment 846366


Yes, you are. Your immediate instinct is that Austria will extensively develop the Rhineland, that migrants from Austria proper will move to the Rhineland to develop the economy as they did from Silesia and the Prussias iotl, Not to mention that Prussia owns most of the coal AND now has all the Saxon deposits, way to go Austria.

Yeah, Joseph II, not Francis II or Metternich. Francis was far more interested in Italy. Metternich wanted to get away from the French frontier.

Okay, I agree you're right about the size of Prussian posessions but that was before Congress of Vienna. They doesn't have to get their Rhine lands like Austria didn't get their land in south-western Germany back.

And no, I'm not using hindsight. I'm just saying that having more land within German Confederation would be beneficial to Austria (even if it wouldn't develop as good as under Prussian rule). Certainly better than Galicia which was very poor country.

As for Bourbons and frontier on Rhine, post-Napoleonic France is internally very fragile regime as 1830 and 1848 has shown. I don't think would have war against all of German Confederation in mind.

 

[OxSpace]

They doesn't have to get their Rhine lands like Austria didn't get their land in south-western Germany back.

Two completely different circumstances. Austria wasn't denied Vorderösterreich, they just didn't make a serious attempt to get it back from Baden. Metternich had viewed the area as expendable for the larger settlement.

I'm just saying that having more land within German Confederation would be beneficial to Austria

Based on what? You're fully aware that Austria had no interest centralizing the Confederation under Vienna, so what does more German land do to "benefit" Austria? We're talking about a territory that is 200km+ from Austria proper, you have to run through at least 3 different countries to reach it. You can probably bet that if the 1848 revolutions happen as otl, that the Rhineland would want to break from Austria, if they're even still apart of Austria at that point.

better than Galicia which was very poor country

The Austrian Netherlands was also wealthy but they gladly gave them up. And what Galicia lacks in wealth they make up in population and proximity to Vienna.

I don't think would have war against all of German Confederation in mind.

You have no idea what you're talking about. And that's besides the point, because your scenario makes the German Confederation moot as I've already described earlier.

 

[TrickyApe]

Is it possible that the Congress of Vienna decides the following:
- Austria gives up all of Galicia to Russia and gets Rhineland as a compensation,
- Russia creates Kingdom of Poland out of OTL Congress Poland and Galicia (or at least western Galicia),
- Prussia gets all of Saxony,
- Wettin dynasty gets Luxembourg as (unequal) compensation for loss of Saxony?

Going back to your OP, I get the impression that you're interested in telling a story about Germany and Austria, not Russia and Poland. We've been derailing that bit focusing on Galicia. Fortunately, I think you can drop the whole Galicia part, along with Wettin Luxembourg, and have a scenario within the realm of the plausible.

I've explained that I think it's possible for Russia and Prussia to prevail on Warsaw/Saxony as per their demands, albeit at the cost of some bruised feelings. Let Austria have some or all of the Rhine territory to assuage these feeling. Nobody else wants it except the House of Orange and the Netherlands has already gotten plenty without doing anything in particular for the allies. There's really no need to trade away Galicia, and that's the most implausible part of your scenario.

As has been explained, nobody wanted the Wettins anywhere near France. Either leave the King of Saxony landless, give him something in Italy at cost to the Pope, or if you decide Austria feels really badly about things, give him Salzburg. Although both Emperor Francis and the King of Bavaria apparently had inordinate attachments to that principality, so it would be awkward.

There. Now you can go forward and explore the effects on Germany and Austria. As regards Poland, I don't see a slightly bigger Congress Poland changing anything going towards 1830/31 or beyond.

 

[OxSpace]

and have a scenario within the realm of the plausible.

Only if you handwave Metternich's entire policy during the Congress. Austria gets an entirely indefensible Russo-Prussian frontier AND they get territory far away from their desired continuous polity; not to mention resuming their failed role of guarding Germany from future French aggression -- what was the point in throwing away the Austrian Netherlands if they're going to get lumped with the Rhineland. There's a reason Austria very quickly brought Bavaria under the fold in the administration of the Gemeinschaftliche Landes-Administrations-Kommission: they had no interest in the Rhinish territory long-term.

The only conceivable way for an Austrian Rhineland is if you completely flip Austria's foreign policy and have their wish to keep Belgium, so an extension of the Rhineland would reasonably make sense. But that raises the important question: how do you get rid of Metternich, how do you get rid of Emperor Francis, Britain has wanted to extend the Netherlands since 1798.

Prussia & Russia can stick their tongues out past the turn of the year, but they're going to become pariah states, the Congress has a high likelihood of just collapsing, and you're left with a Europe in a pre-Congress limbo state with no peace. And while the secret treaty was defensive in name, the actual intention of the treaty was indicative of a formal guarantee of Saxony's independence. So Prussia unilaterally annexing it would be tantamount to a declaration of war. This loophole doesn't really exist unless you have the three powers back down.

albeit at the cost of some bruised feelings

If only it was just some hurt feelings. Among other retaliations planned by Metternich was kicking Prussia out of the German Committee at Vienna; essentially prohibiting them from joining any future German Confederation. The entirety of Germany will be their enemy over an unlawful annexation, recognized by no one other than Russia.

the Netherlands has already gotten plenty without doing anything in particular for the allies

Because that wasn't the point. It was compensation for the loss of several of their colonies. And the Netherlands was defacto a British client state in 1814, so it was really an extension of Britain on that end.

 

[TrickyApe]

Only if you handwave Metternich's entire policy during the Congress. Austria gets an entirely indefensible Russo-Prussian frontier AND they get territory far away from their desired continuous polity; not to mention resuming their failed role of guarding Germany from future French aggression -- what was the point in throwing away the Austrian Netherlands if they're going to get lumped with the Rhineland.

I agree Austria had little interest in the Rhine. Not no interest at all. Metternich did make tentative efforts to retrieve the Vorlande but found dislodging Baden impractical. Hence my proposal to park the Italian branches of the family there and take their territories, but OP prefers an Austrian Rhine and I don't see why Austria wouldn't take these territories if they came at no cost.

There's a reason Austria very quickly brought Bavaria under the fold in the administration of the Gemeinschaftliche Landes-Administrations-Kommission: they had no interest in the Rhinish territory long-term.

Austria wanted to interest Bavaria in the Rhine because they needed it to accept some sort of compensation and give back Tyrol and Salzburg. Austrian-Bavarian relations were not entirely harmonious at this time.

Prussia & Russia can stick their tongues out past the turn of the year, but they're going to become pariah states, the Congress has a high likelihood of just collapsing, and you're left with a Europe in a pre-Congress limbo state with no peace. And while the secret treaty was defensive in name, the actual intention of the treaty was indicative of a formal guarantee of Saxony's independence. So Prussia unilaterally annexing it would be tantamount to a declaration of war. This loophole doesn't really exist unless you have the three powers back down.

It certainly requires some brinksmanship but with hindsight we all know that one of these three powers (France) was about to collapse and suffer regime change and a second (Britain) would certainly see its interests differently in light of the need to get rid of Napoleon a second time. Under the circumstances, I don't find it at all improbable that Austria would swallow its unhappiness and take some sort of compensation. What's the alternative? Ally with Napoleon and either let him reform the Rhine Confederation if he wins or get stomped down by Russia and Prussia, probably backed by British subsidies, if they win? The Hundred Days throws everything up into the air, and not to Austria's advantage.

 

[OxSpace]

Metternich did make tentative efforts to retrieve the Vorlande but found dislodging Baden impractical.

I already spoke on this earlier.

I don't see why Austria wouldn't take these territories if they came at no cost.

Again, the same reason they ditched Belgium. I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself on this point. The Rhine being inhabited by Germans is irrelevant.

Austria wanted to interest Bavaria in the Rhine because they needed it to accept some sort of compensation and give back Tyrol and Salzburg. Austrian-Bavarian relations were not entirely harmonious at this time.

Austria was not enticing Bavaria by setting up a condominium in their occupation zone, the whole point was the seamless transition in administration because Austria had intended to force this territory onto Bavaria one way or another. Bavaria had already ceded Tyrol & Voralberg to Austria, for which they were compensated with Wurzburg & Aschaffenburg. Francis was already talking about war (whether or not he was serious is up for debate) if Bavaria did not yield on Salzburg. Of course, in retrospect, Bavaria got the better end of the bargain.

It certainly requires some brinksmanship but with hindsight we all know that one of these three powers (France) was about to collapse and suffer regime change and a second (Britain) would certainly see its interests differently in light of the need to get rid of Napoleon a second time.

Napoleon's return will not wipe away the British public opinion that any annexation of Saxony by Jan 1815 was illegal. And if the Tories want to remain in power, it's in their best interest to maintain such a stance. Plus, Wellington is not a part of the appeasement faction.

I don't find it at all improbable that Austria would swallow its unhappiness and take some sort of compensation

It's not about compensation, it's about abandoning all your prestige. Austria by January 1815 was not going to throw away its influence in the German states to appease Prussia. Because recognizing the unilateral annexation is as good as geopolitical suicide for German hegemony. Austria would rather the entire Congress end and no treaty come about than yield in this regard. It's either Prussia getting Saxony or the Tsar getting Poland, but not both, and it needs to be earlier than the turn of the year.

What's the alternative? Ally with Napoleon and either let him reform the Rhine Confederation if he wins or get stomped down by Russia and Prussia, probably backed by British subsidies, if they win? The Hundred Days throws everything up into the air, and not to Austria's advantage.

Napoleon is going to get stomped by the Allies regardless. Russia and especially Prussia are not going to let Napoleon on a 7th rampage simply because the Great Powers have not come to a settlement. The alternative is the 100 days makes Prussia realize they're in no position to fight (especially considering they're on the front lines of the Waterloo campaign) and compromises on Saxony. But considering any extreme heighten on war, this can easily butterfly Napoleon's escape from Elba.

 

[TrickyApe]

Again, the same reason they ditched Belgium. I don't know how many times I need to repeat myself on this point. The Rhine being inhabited by Germans is irrelevant.

They ditched Belgium for compensation, not just because they didn't like that part of Europe. They were always trying to ditch Belgium for compensation. They tried to ditch Belgium roughly 40 years earlier through a trade with the Bavarians but didn't actually follow through because they weren't able to close the deal and get anything in return. Earlier than that, they promised it to France in the 7 Years War for help recovering Silesia. No Silesia, no transfer of Belgium.

Even at Campo Formio, after Austria had been stomped, they formally traded it for Venice. That's essentially the situation restored in 1815. They never found Belgium to be worthless, just strategically undesirable.

So if Austria is offered Cologne and Trier, without being asked to surrender Galicia or any other territories in return, there's no reason they won't accept.

Francis was already talking about war (whether or not he was serious is up for debate) if Bavaria did not yield on Salzburg. Of course, in retrospect, Bavaria got the better end of the bargain.

It seems as if Francis and Metternich were talking about a lot of wars. One wonders if their support among Bavaria and the other German states vs. Prussia and Austria would have been as solid as you suggested earlier.

Napoleon's return will not wipe away the British public opinion that any annexation of Saxony by Jan 1815 was illegal. And if the Tories want to remain in power, it's in their best interest to maintain such a stance. Plus, Wellington is not a part of the appeasement faction.

Britain is not going to prioritize Saxony over forming a coalition to remove their great enemy in France. Nor are Russia and Prussia going to rush to war with France while their erstwhile allies are still arming against them for the aftermath. By far the most likely turn of events is a compromise where everyone gets something of what they wanted before Napoleon reappeared, not one in which everyone just gives Metternich everything he wants because he's so good at being stubborn. The second most likely outcome is failure to form a coalition at all, and then Napoleon gets to stay in power. At that point everything is up in the air, far more than Saxony.

It's not about compensation, it's about abandoning all your prestige. Austria by January 1815 was not going to throw away its influence in the German states to appease Prussia. Because recognizing the unilateral annexation is as good as geopolitical suicide for German hegemony.

Let's not be so dramatic. Austria accepted many unfavorable treaties between 1797 and 1809. States were created and destroyed. It's realism and it enabled Austria to continue as a going concern. Historians tend to look back on the era after 1815 as something completely different to that before, but at the time it would have been just one more treaty, one more turn in the game. Maybe the following period wouldn't be as stable as OTL without the willingness Russia and Prussia showed to back down in 1814 but that doesn't make an alternative outcome unthinkable.

Austria would rather the entire Congress end and no treaty come about than yield in this regard. It's either Prussia getting Saxony or the Tsar getting Poland, but not both, and it needs to be earlier than the turn of the year.

Austria may want this and on its timescale, but I already explained that nobody was actually about to declare war and march to liberate Saxony, much less Poland, at the end of 1814. I suppose the host has the prerogative to close the session, but I don't think many other participants would react well to that. Nobody actually wanted to go to war again. If the Congress ends, then the next Congress happens somewhere else after the Hundred Days, with or without a surviving Napoleon participating, and the issues are settled there.

But considering any extreme heighten on war, this can easily butterfly Napoleon's escape from Elba.

Anything can butterfly anything, but chances are a more public Allied disunity is only going to encourage Napoleon to return to France and embolden his supporters there.

 

[oofo]

If Saxony is annexed, the Wettins would probably be compensated with the Papal Legations instead of Luxembourg. It sounds weird, but the idea was seriously considered.

 

[Nuraghe]

If Saxony is annexed, the Wettins would probably be compensated with the Papal Legations instead of Luxembourg. It sounds weird, but the idea was seriously considered.

I didn't know, it's a very intriguing idea ( how far would the Wettins have governed the legations ?, only in Romagna or are Marche and Umbria also included ? ) this would make Italy a territory more under Hapsburg control ( since these new territories will have to be defended from both internal and external aggressions )

 

[OxSpace]

They ditched Belgium for compensation, not just because they didn't like that part of Europe. They were always trying to ditch Belgium for compensation. They tried to ditch Belgium roughly 40 years earlier through a trade with the Bavarians but didn't actually follow through because they weren't able to close the deal and get anything in return. Earlier than that, they promised it to France in the 7 Years War for help recovering Silesia. No Silesia, no transfer of Belgium.

Even at Campo Formio, after Austria had been stomped, they formally traded it for Venice. That's essentially the situation restored in 1815. They never found Belgium to be worthless, just strategically undesirable.

So if Austria is offered Cologne and Trier, without being asked to surrender Galicia or any other territories in return, there's no reason they won't accept.

You wrote so much yet you completely missed the point. Austria needing compensation was never being argued, it's why they wanted to get rid of it in the first place.

One wonders if their support among Bavaria and the other German states vs. Prussia and Austria would have been as solid as you suggested earlier.

Bavaria will align with Austria over Prussia any day. Bavaria has been taunting Prussia the entire Congress and was Saxony's most vocal supporter. They were advocating war with Prussia months before the Polish-Saxon crisis really nosedived. They also joined the secret treaty iotl despite the Salzburg issue not being resolved. The rest of the German states are not going to align with Prussia either.

Britain is not going to prioritize Saxony over forming a coalition to remove their great enemy in France.

No one said that, or you completely misread what I wrote.

Nor are Russia and Prussia going to rush to war with France while their erstwhile allies are still arming against them for the aftermath.

What a terribly incorrect statement. A resurgent Napoleon is a direct threat to Prussia, they're going to join. Russia isn't even needed, because even iotl they took positions in Wurttemberg as a reserve. Prussia is not going to shoot its own foot to spite the others.

Let's not be so dramatic.

It's not theatrics.

but that doesn't make an alternative outcome unthinkable.

Never argued such, only that it will not align with OP's in any way.

If the Congress ends, then the next Congress happens somewhere else after the Hundred Days, with or without a surviving Napoleon participating, and the issues are settled there.

And how does it play out any different than the previous Congress if Prussia does not negotiate and Russia stays loyal to Prussia at the cost of it's diplomatic standing? Prussia desperately wants Austria's approval on the annexation of Saxony, and it's highly unlikely without war that Austria would give it to them at this stage. You're implying that Napoleon returning will make Britain give up on the balance of power, for Austria to succumb to a completely impractical frontier, and France to revoke its policy of legitimacy -- all without a war. You're better off having no Congress than all three falling into place.

is only going to encourage Napoleon to return to France and embolden his supporters there.

Such intention is worthless when the Royal Navy gets back onto a war footing in Europe, making Napoleon's already impractical maneuver to get to France even less likely of succeeding.

 

[OxSpace]

It sounds weird, but the idea was seriously considered.

It was also very "seriously" denied.

and not even the Prussians were "serious" either ("he" being Humboldt)

Sure it was considered, but not seriously.

 

[TrickyApe]

Gotcha. Britain is going to refuse to negotiate with Russia and Prussia to remove Napoleon, and perhaps even subsidize a coalition of Napoleon and Metternich to remove Prussia from Saxony, because that's clearly the most important point to Lord Liverpool and the British public. Bavaria is going to go war with Prussia, even though Austria is arming to take Bavarian territory by force. Nothing anyone does or says can change the outcome of the great Metternich's genius.

 

[OxSpace]

Gotcha. Britain is going to refuse to negotiate with Russia and Prussia to remove Napoleon, and perhaps even subsidize a coalition of Napoleon and Metternich to remove Prussia from Saxony, because that's clearly the most important point to Lord Liverpool and the British public. Bavaria is going to go war with Prussia, even though Austria is arming to take Bavarian territory by force. Nothing anyone does or says can change the outcome of the great Metternich's genius.

If you couldn't make your strawman any less obvious.

 

[vn6]

Two completely different circumstances. Austria wasn't denied Vorderösterreich, they just didn't make a serious attempt to get it back from Baden. Metternich had viewed the area as expendable for the larger settlement.


Based on what? You're fully aware that Austria had no interest centralizing the Confederation under Vienna, so what does more German land do to "benefit" Austria? We're talking about a territory that is 200km+ from Austria proper, you have to run through at least 3 different countries to reach it. You can probably bet that if the 1848 revolutions happen as otl, that the Rhineland would want to break from Austria, if they're even still apart of Austria at that point.


The Austrian Netherlands was also wealthy but they gladly gave them up. And what Galicia lacks in wealth they make up in population and proximity to Vienna.


You have no idea what you're talking about. And that's besides the point, because your scenario makes the German Confederation moot as I've already described earlier.

Okay, I was somewhat badly informed. Thanks for for your input and information you've shared.

I just don't understand one thing - why the Rhineland would break off Austria when it didn't leave Prussia?

Also what would you say about another idea: Austria gets Parma (and Genoa) while duke of Parma takes Luxembourg? Russia gets parts of Galicia (Tarnopol and Brody) to support this idea. Still impossible?

 

[vn6]

If Saxony is annexed, the Wettins would probably be compensated with the Papal Legations instead of Luxembourg. It sounds weird, but the idea was seriously considered.

Who would get Rhineland and Westphalia then?

 

[vn6]

Going back to your OP, I get the impression that you're interested in telling a story about Germany and Austria, not Russia and Poland. We've been derailing that bit focusing on Galicia. Fortunately, I think you can drop the whole Galicia part, along with Wettin Luxembourg, and have a scenario within the realm of the plausible.

I've explained that I think it's possible for Russia and Prussia to prevail on Warsaw/Saxony as per their demands, albeit at the cost of some bruised feelings. Let Austria have some or all of the Rhine territory to assuage these feeling. Nobody else wants it except the House of Orange and the Netherlands has already gotten plenty without doing anything in particular for the allies. There's really no need to trade away Galicia, and that's the most implausible part of your scenario.

As has been explained, nobody wanted the Wettins anywhere near France. Either leave the King of Saxony landless, give him something in Italy at cost to the Pope, or if you decide Austria feels really badly about things, give him Salzburg. Although both Emperor Francis and the King of Bavaria apparently had inordinate attachments to that principality, so it would be awkward.

There. Now you can go forward and explore the effects on Germany and Austria. As regards Poland, I don't see a slightly bigger Congress Poland changing anything going towards 1830/31 or beyond.

Thanks for your answers.

Are you sure Prussia wouldn't want both Rhineland and Saxony if Russia gets Greater Poland (Wielkopolska)? From what I've read that was the plan (Greater Poland to Russia, all of Saxony to Prussia) but I don't know what was being discussed about the Rhineland.

Good ideas with giving Wettins something in Italy or Salzburg.