PC: Beauharnais Grand Duchy of Frankfurt

[Kellan Sullivan]

I was pondering this idea for my TL "Bourbon Hostage". OTL Eugène de Beauharnais was promised various territories- Genoa, somewhere in the Ligurian Marches, a principality of the Ionian Islands etc etc- at the Congress of Vienna but never actually received anything. I was wondering why there was never any consideration of simply allowing him to retain the grand duchy of Frankfurt (minus the actual city/fortress of Frankfurt*). This is actually one of those decisions that is so simple it's difficult to believe nobody went for it. The OTL solution of garrisoning Frankfurt with half-Prussian and half-Austrian troops suggests that neither power particularly wanted the other to have it, Eugène would be "neutral", as it were- related to the Wittelsbachs, but not a Wittelsbach, French but not a Bourbon, and "supported" by the czar (whatever the support of Alexander I counted for), which meant Prussia (likewise supported) couldn't bitch too loudly.- but he'd already proved his capabilities as an administrator. And he did jump ship from Napoléon in 1814 on the understanding he would be compensated.

I also don't say he'd be given the entirety of the grand duchy at it's height- the principalities of Regensberg or Aschaffenburg could be spun off from essentially a secularized electorate of Mainz, or Eugène could be granted Wetzlar, Hanau and Fulda (the former principality of Nassau-Fulda)...lots of ways that it could be drawn. Not like Hesse-Darmstadt- the chief beneficiary of the dissolution of Frankfurt- played an outsize role in defeating Napoléon.

@DrakeRlugia @Basileus_Komnenos @Anarch King of Dipsodes @Nuraghe @isabella

*this was not an uncommon practice in the Holy Roman Empire, the archbishop of Cologne was not allowed to actually enter the city of Cologne, for instance.

 

[isabella]

That would be really interesting an a good solution for both him and the territory

 

[Nuraghe]

I was pondering this idea for my TL "Bourbon Hostage". OTL Eugène de Beauharnais was promised various territories- Genoa, somewhere in the Ligurian Marches, a principality of the Ionian Islands etc etc- at the Congress of Vienna but never actually received anything. I was wondering why there was never any consideration of simply allowing him to retain the grand duchy of Frankfurt (minus the actual city/fortress of Frankfurt*). This is actually one of those decisions that is so simple it's difficult to believe nobody went for it. The OTL solution of garrisoning Frankfurt with half-Prussian and half-Austrian troops suggests that neither power particularly wanted the other to have it, Eugène would be "neutral", as it were- related to the Wittelsbachs, but not a Wittelsbach, French but not a Bourbon, and "supported" by the czar (whatever the support of Alexander I counted for), which meant Prussia (likewise supported) couldn't bitch too loudly.- but he'd already proved his capabilities as an administrator. And he did jump ship from Napoléon in 1814 on the understanding he would be compensated.

I also don't say he'd be given the entirety of the grand duchy at it's height- the principalities of Regensberg or Aschaffenburg could be spun off from essentially a secularized electorate of Mainz, or Eugène could be granted Wetzlar, Hanau and Fulda (the former principality of Nassau-Fulda)...lots of ways that it could be drawn. Not like Hesse-Darmstadt- the chief beneficiary of the dissolution of Frankfurt- played an outsize role in defeating Napoléon.

@DrakeRlugia @Basileus_Komnenos @Anarch King of Dipsodes @Nuraghe @isabella

*this was not an uncommon practice in the Holy Roman Empire, the archbishop of Cologne was not allowed to actually enter the city of Cologne, for instance.

Well I agree with @isabella that allocating a territory in the confederation to Eugène is an extremely interesting idea, especially in a delicate area like Frankfurt and its surroundings (even if now my brain is imagining a scenario in which Mainz gets similar treatment to Osnabruck post peace of Westphalia or Andorra in Otl, which is alternately governed by a secular and an ecclesiastical power) furthermore his being / having more or less contacts with the main families of Europe, could facilitate his promised compensation for his defection to Napoleon

 

[Iserlohn]

I was pondering this idea for my TL "Bourbon Hostage". OTL Eugène de Beauharnais was promised various territories- Genoa, somewhere in the Ligurian Marches, a principality of the Ionian Islands etc etc- at the Congress of Vienna but never actually received anything. I was wondering why there was never any consideration of simply allowing him to retain the grand duchy of Frankfurt (minus the actual city/fortress of Frankfurt*). This is actually one of those decisions that is so simple it's difficult to believe nobody went for it. The OTL solution of garrisoning Frankfurt with half-Prussian and half-Austrian troops suggests that neither power particularly wanted the other to have it, Eugène would be "neutral", as it were- related to the Wittelsbachs, but not a Wittelsbach, French but not a Bourbon, and "supported" by the czar (whatever the support of Alexander I counted for), which meant Prussia (likewise supported) couldn't bitch too loudly.- but he'd already proved his capabilities as an administrator. And he did jump ship from Napoléon in 1814 on the understanding he would be compensated.

I also don't say he'd be given the entirety of the grand duchy at it's height- the principalities of Regensberg or Aschaffenburg could be spun off from essentially a secularized electorate of Mainz, or Eugène could be granted Wetzlar, Hanau and Fulda (the former principality of Nassau-Fulda)...lots of ways that it could be drawn. Not like Hesse-Darmstadt- the chief beneficiary of the dissolution of Frankfurt- played an outsize role in defeating Napoléon.

*this was not an uncommon practice in the Holy Roman Empire, the archbishop of Cologne was not allowed to actually enter the city of Cologne, for instance.

Two notes before I give my two cents:

1) The arrangement between Cologne and the Arch-Bishopric of Cologne was that the city itself had successfully revolted against church rule, which led to the bishop establishing himself in Bonn instead. Fun fact, the university in Bonn is mostly located in the former palace of the archbishop! But yes, it was not uncommon for ecclesiastic states in the HRE to be named after cities they didn't control. The Prince-Bishopric of Lübeck is another example of this, though since 1586 it had been under a Lutheran administration...

2) Actually Hessen-Kassel was the main beneficiary of the end of the Grand Duchy of Frankfurt. Here are a few maps provided by the Landesgeschichtliches Informationssystem Hessen that nicely showcase what the region looked like from 1789 to 1821.

1789 - Pre-Revolution | 1803 - After the French annextion of the Rhineland | 1807 - After the formation of the Rheinbund | 1812 - The Grand Duchy of Frankfurt at its greatest extent | 1821 - After the restoration of the old order

Now, given this information, I do think that it'd be quite easy to give Beauharnais the former Grand Duchy of Frankfurt and the Principality of Isenburg, or most of it. These territories were very much in flux during that era and with his history in the region, Eugène would honestly be a legitimate candidate. The question that arises then is the matter of compensation. And for that one can, knowing how the Congress of Vienna worked, do a bunch of horse trading!

For one, as mentioned, most of these lands actually went to Hessen-Kassel, which had ceased to exist and was fully subsumed into the Kingdom of Westphalia. Certain territories, such as the city of Hanau, even were part of Hessen-Kassel before the war. Still, it's not like all of Hessen-Kassel's former territories were returned to them, e.g. Katzenelnbogen, which went to Nassau. So one could easily have Kassel regain Katzenelnbogen in whole or in part as an exclave as part of their compensation. Nassau in return could keep, or rather regain, the Siegerland (which went to Prussian Westphalia IOTL) or larger parts of what would become the post-war Prussian exclave districts of Braunfels and Wetzlar (after 1822 just Wetzlar, as both were merged). Also Kassel didn't mind exclaves, though they did sell most of their northern exclaves to Hannover not long after the Congress, but they did keep Schmalkalden and their part of Schaumburg until their very end. So keeping Katzenelnbogen seems very doable.

Wetzlar's environs might also provide good compensation for Hessen-Darmstadt, since it might be made to part with some of their possessions. Amt Itter, the exclaves bordering/inside Waldeck-Pyrmont would be an excellent choice, since it was under joint rule by Darmstadt and Kassel in the 17th century. Still, if Hessen-Darmstadt were to gain/keep Mainz and partition Isenburg along similar lines as it did IOTL with Hessen-Kassel, it may just be fine "as is", because Mainz was still up in the air during the Congress of Vienna, and Aschaffenburg, too. Another option for a possession Darmstadt could keep is (Sayn-)Wittgenstein, which it did gain in 1806 but ceded to Prussian Westphalia in 1815. It was a pretty poor region, but hey, minor states can't be that choosers.

The big problem, in my personal opinion, is how to get Bavaria on board. They had designs on the region, hoping to establish a big stretch of land covering cities like Aschaffenburg, Frankfurt, Fulda, Hanau, Heidelberg, Mannheim, and potentially Landau, Mainz, and Speyer, directly connected to Franconia and thus their core in Altbayern. Ideally all while keeping parts of their gains made at Austria's expense, such as Salzburg.

Bavaria would likely protest a bit too much if Aschaffenburg was taken away from them, but if they could still get Aschaffenburg and maybe get a more favorable division of the former Principalities of Hanau and Aschaffenburg, then OTL arrangements could still work out (as in Austria gets Salzburg and Bavaria establishes their post-1816 Pfalz in west of the Rhine).

Wetzlar itself however seems very unlikely to be given to Beauharnais again. It was an important fortress city and Prussia was intent on using it as part of their duty to defend the Rhineland, so giving that up seems unlikely unless they would get compensated elsewhere, such as what would become OTL's Bavarian Rheinpfalz possibly also including Mainz, or more of Saxony in the east. A smaller Kreis Wetzlar is very plausible, but yeah... There were three important cities for the defense of the Rhineland in the region, Frankfurt, Mainz, and Wetzlar, and Prussia will insist on controlling one directly and having access to at least a second one, otherwise its role as protector of the Rhineland would be in jeopardy.

Also, last but not least, the city of Frankfurt itself. Beauharnais may as well actually get it, as long as Prussia, Austria, and Bavaria gain the right to station troops there. But if he doesn't, maybe his grand duchy might get renamed, or it might not. Grand Duchy of Fulda doesn't sound bad either as a name, or Grand Duchy of Aschaffenburg in case he gets to keep that city.​

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Bavaria would likely protest a bit too much if Aschaffenburg was taken away from them, but if they could still get Aschaffenburg and maybe get a more favorable division of the former Principalities of Hanau and Aschaffenburg, then OTL arrangements could still work out (as in Austria gets Salzburg and Bavaria establishes their post-1816 Pfalz in west of the Rhine).

Bavaria already got almost the entirety of the grand duchy of Würzburg in 1815, as well as the former margraviates of Ansbach and Bayreuth in the 1790s/1800s* plus the grand duchy of Regensburg in 1810, not to mention Eugène is the king's son-in-law so it could be a nice "compromise" between Austria (who doesn't want Bavaria to get any more) and Bavaria who wants to not appear "greedy".

*Bavaria had traded their Rhenish territories for Ansbach and Bayreuth already, so I'm not sure they can re-establish themselves on the Rhine

 

[Iserlohn]

Bavaria already got almost the entirety of the grand duchy of Würzburg in 1815, as well as the former margraviates of Ansbach and Bayreuth in the 1790s/1800s* plus the grand duchy of Regensburg in 1810, not to mention Eugène is the king's son-in-law so it could be a nice "compromise" between Austria (who doesn't want Bavaria to get any more) and Bavaria who wants to not appear "greedy".

*Bavaria had traded their Rhenish territories for Ansbach and Bayreuth already, so I'm not sure they can re-establish themselves on the Rhine

I mean with the 1816 Treaty of Munich Bavaria very much did reestablish itself on the Rhine... Yes, Bavaria did effectively swap any rights they had to Jülich and Berg for their rights to Ansbach and Bayreuth. Though evidently Munich was very much interested in obtaining the more central parts of the Rhineland, if their desires to keep Salzburg were not honored by Vienna. For reference, the articles "1816 —Schicksalsjahr für Salzburg. Vom Ende des Fürsterzbistums bis zum Grenzeinsatz im Salzachkreis" and "Die Einverleibung Salzburgs durch Österreich 1816 . Ein Kapitel aus Metternichs deutscher Politik" by Kurt Anton Mitterer and Robert Landauer respectively contain this, as does Enno E. Kraehe's excellent "Metternich's German Policy, Volume II. The Congress of Vienna, 1814-1815".

Ultimately Bavaria was uninterested in maintaining "poor" parts of the Rhineland, like OTL's post-1816 Pfalz or the long past their prime United Duchies of Jülich-Berg. Of course the latter would become an important component in Prussia developing its own genuine industrial sector, that only really started booming in the 1860s, but none of the diplomats present at the various peace conferences and congresses in the 180s and early 1820s was able to foresee this.

So, ultimately, Bavaria was interested in establishing a sizable territory for itself with immediate benefits. Mainz and Frankfurt were rich cities and thus appealing, as were other local fortresses, since they could potentially generate revenue through fees for hosting Prussian or Austrian troops. Salzburg, including the Berchtesgadener Land, were interesting to Bavaria because of their salt production. Austria's counteroffer of extensive Rhenish holdings got rejected, which is why the 1816 Treaty of Munich was even necessary.

Here's a passage from Koene about the state of negotations between Austria and Bavaria in March 1815:
"The result of these labors was a plan that offered Bavaria, besides two-thirds of Salzburg; Hanau; Isenburg; parts of Fulda; and a compact amalgam of territory taken from Württemberg, Hesse-Darmstadt,and Baden; most importantly much of Baden's Neckar circle, the roughequivalent of the old right-bank Palatinate. Because the plan offered no frontage on the Rhine, however, and counted mediatized souls at one-half rather than one-third, Wrede still balked, in hopes df adding Mannheim and Heidelberg to the booty. As additional leverage he refused, despite Metternich's pleas, to resume negotiations on the Bund until the territorial question was settled." [page 337]

Bavaria was greedy. And while yes, knowing that a likely ally of Munich would rule Frankfurt might reduce their demands somewhat, it's still likely that they'd roughly end up with the same territory they did IOTL, with similar arrangements made to kick the question of Baden's portions of the former Electorate of the Palatinate in the likely event of a succession crisis there down the road, though maybe with reduced financial compensation.​

 

[Iserlohn]

I do wanna bump this because I found a few more passages from various books on what Eugène de Beauharnais suggested for himself as German possessions and what others suggested for him:

Kraehe's "Metternich's German Policy, Volume II. The Congress of Vienna, 1814-1815" states that in late February 1815 that Metternich offered to Bavaria "the partition of Salzburg [...], Hanau, Frankfurt, a few bailiwicks in Fulda, and very substantial parts of Baden, Württemberg, and Hesse-Darmstadt. An establishment for Prince Eugène at Speyer was the only trans-Rhine teritory involved." (p. 315) Emphasis there is mine.

Iccording to Thierry Lentz's "1815. Der Wiener Kongress und die Neugründung Europas" (Chapter XI, don't have page numbers because the EPUB file I have sadly lacks them), Beauharnais suggested himself that he would be fine with a "last refuge to a duchy on the left bank of the Rhine, such as Trier or Zweibrücken". Trier of course went to Prussia's Rhineland, while Zweibrücken would become the western edge of the Bavarian Palatinate. Zweibrücken also was, it should be noted, the domain his father-in-law Maxiliam ruled during his wife's childhood and which he lost to France in 1797.

This is also mirrored on page 299 of "Rites of Peace. The fall of Napoleon & The Congress of Vienna" by Adam Zamoyski. On page 552 he also claims that Prince Eugène was ultimately offered the Principality of Pontecorvo after Joachim Murat's failed Neapolitan War, though without sufficient assurances for him to actually take up the offer. As a side note, Zamoyski also explicitly mentions Corfu and the Ionian Islands as a genuine option for Beauharnais. He also, interestingly and as even more of an aside, mentions Corfu as an option for Marie Louise instead of the temporary solution in Parma chosen IOTL, potentially even allowing her son Napoleon II to inheret the relatively remote island chain.

All of these offers, excluding Speyer and Marie Louise in Corfu, are also mentioned as serious possibilities in the Beauharnais biography "Napoleon's Viceroy" by Carola Oman, published in 1966.​

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

@Nuraghe @isabella @Iserlohn @Basileus_Komnenos

out of curiosity, Spain was the only one at the Congress in favour of restoring the papal states, but what were the plans in the event that they weren't restored? Tuscany getting Emilia and Naples getting Spoleto would likely be the biggest beneficiaries, maybe Modena getting the duchy of Ferrara back? Or was there another idea?

 

[Nuraghe]

@Nuraghe @isabella @Iserlohn @Basileus_Komnenos

out of curiosity, Spain was the only one at the Congress in favour of restoring the papal states, but what were the plans in the event that they weren't restored? Tuscany getting Emilia and Naples getting Spoleto would likely be the biggest beneficiaries, maybe Modena getting the duchy of Ferrara back? Or was there another idea?

In reality France and Austria were also in favor of the return of papal authority to Italy ( at least in Lazio ) but were more willing to negotiate for the rest of the territory, in particular they were in favor of any small changes to the boundaries of the State of the Church, whether it will further their interests in the region and its continued stability

 

[TrickyApe]

@Nuraghe @isabella @Iserlohn @Basileus_Komnenos

out of curiosity, Spain was the only one at the Congress in favour of restoring the papal states, but what were the plans in the event that they weren't restored? Tuscany getting Emilia and Naples getting Spoleto would likely be the biggest beneficiaries, maybe Modena getting the duchy of Ferrara back? Or was there another idea?

The idea of Austria taking the Legations came up (and was rejected) several times. I don't see much logic in giving more territory to the tiny states. I don't really even understand why Austria didn't just take Tuscany and Modena for itself instead of giving them to cadets that would perform poorly over the next 44 years.

 

[isabella]

The idea of Austria taking the Legations came up (and was rejected) several times. I don't see much logic in giving more territory to the tiny states. I don't really even understand why Austria didn't just take Tuscany and Modena for itself instead of giving them to cadets that would perform poorly over the next 44 years.

Because that cadets were the legitimate rulers of said lands, Tuscany had been established as as possession to be kept separate from Austria, while the Emperor had no claim on Modena (plus the displaced rulers were his own younger brother and the brother of his third wife)

 

[TrickyApe]

Because that cadets were the legitimate rulers of said lands, Tuscany had been established as as possession to be kept separate from Austria, while the Emperor had no claim on Modena (plus the displaced rulers were his own younger brother and the brother of his third wife)

The once and future Grand Duke of Tuscany was the Grand Duke of Wurzburg from 1803 until the Congress of Vienna, while the last pre-Congress Duke of Modena had surrendered his claims in return for a new Duchy of Breisgau. You might as well give them these territories; they'd signed away their Italian rights in the Treaties of Luneville and Pressburg.

Legitimacy is a nebulous concept and varies depending on which date you want to start with. It also came and went with the convenience of the Powers. Ask the people of Venice, Genoa, or Ragusa about legitimacy. Or Poland, if the start date of legitimacy is 1789 or 1793 rather than, say, 1801 or 1803 Or all the mediatized German princes who stayed that way. It really shouldn't be overemphasized in the Vienna settlement.

 

[Iserlohn]

out of curiosity, Spain was the only one at the Congress in favour of restoring the papal states, but what were the plans in the event that they weren't restored? Tuscany getting Emilia and Naples getting Spoleto would likely be the biggest beneficiaries, maybe Modena getting the duchy of Ferrara back? Or was there another idea?

Here are a few thoughts I have, which can probably be used to construct a plausible no-Papal States scenario:

For one, in The Rites of Peace, apparently Murat was willing to compromise with the Papacy on his desire to expand his Kingdom of Naples by only annexing the areas of Marche that were "Ancona and its vicinity", as a means to get Papal recognition. This would have led to the Papacy keeping the province of Camerino. In general, from what I've seen of contemporary maps, there was no great distinction between Umbria and Marche. Still, this proposal would have likely allowed for the Papacy to keep Rimini and Urbino, giving it a narrow land bridge to the Adriatic, a direct border with San Marino, and a direct border to the "Legations" of Bologna, Ferrara, and Ravenna.

Those three already were considered "conquêtes consommées" due to the Treaty of Tolentino in 1797, meaning they were more bargaining chips than anything else. Forli would be up in the air in this scenario, either potentially being seen as a logical extension of the northern three Legations, or as the northernmost section of the Marches. Austria also originally planned to annex Ferrara into the Kingdom of Lombardo-Veneto, and only agreed to cede it to the Papal States after the acte finale was already signed. Austria's interest in Ferrara was to have as many useful forts in northern Italy, with Sardinia-Piedmont acting as the first shield against future French incursions, and forts like Ferrara (or Ravenna, Austria apparently wasn't picky) and Piacenza acting as the next line of defense.

I also have seen MANY proprosals for the Legations being floated for Maria Luisa of the House of Bourbon (as a more befitting temporary exile until the death of Marie Louise of the House of Habsburg), Prince Eugène Beauharnais, and the King of Saxony in the event of his kingdom being carved up and absorbed mostly by Prussia.

Regarding the idea of Austria annexing more of Italy wholesale, I think that it was still in Vienna's best interest to establish client states, both to ease administration (assuming local competency) and to establish a parallel structure to the German Confederation in the long term. Also prestige. I know that Bavaria was very much interested in having Beauharnais take up a crown in Italy to basically act as a second Wittelsbach monarchy, and I believe that Austria, while a great power, was still in favor of the idea of having a circle of Habsburg-ruled states around.

Now in a situation where the Papal States are not restored at all, or at most a Vatican City solution is implemented, that the fate of Lazio really depends on a variety of factors: 1) Joachim Murat's survival, both literally and figuratively, as King of Naples, 2) the question of Bourbon compensation in Parma and/or Tuscany, and 3) Austria's priorities.

Now IOTL Austria already did a minor pivot away from Germany. They chose to swap exclaves like Breisgau and a future territory in the Rhineland for a contiguous territory, and they put a lot of effort into ensuring a sizable presence in Italy. They didn't get a protectorate over the Ionian Islands, something that was discussed with the British, and they didn't annex as much of the Papal Legations as they originally planned. Plus they were made responsible to pay for Maria Luisa and her temporary domains in Lucca, something they had hoped to avoid. But Vienna could definitely make a stronger pivot towards the Adriatic, and Rome and the Lazio would be a key element in that.

I could imagine some horse trading that involves Austria forgoing Tuscany (or at least Lucca, Florence, Pisa, and Piombino), Lunigiana, and Parma in exchange for control over the Lazio and the Marches. A Latin Kingdom under a Habsburg cadet branch. If it were to include the historic lands of Siena and the Stato del Presidi, it might be a perfect substitute for Ferdinand III.

Now if Murat manages to stay in power in Naples, that of course too can only happen with Habsburg graces. He might gain parts of Marche, or maybe not. But he could act as a secondary enforcer of Vienna's will in the Mediterranean.

Parma, including the fortress of Piacenza, could become the northern extension of a new Bourbon Kingdom of Etruria. Modena could gain the northern Papal Legations, as well as Guastalla and Forli.

Now if Murat were to still fall, then I could see the Habsburg's Latin Kingdom gain Abruzzo from the Bourbons in return to recognize the merger of Naples and Sicily into Two Sicilies, which would also leave all of Marche with the Latin Kingdom.

Additionally, if the Papacy were to cease having its own state, I could actually see Gallicanism making a genuine resurgence. IOTL even a German delegation of Catholics, led by von Dalberg and the Bishop of Constance, advocated for the creation of a Catholic Church of Germany only loosely affiliated with Rome, during the Congress. Though at that time Austria was torn on the idea, fearing that Austria might be excluded from such a "German" church. But with a southern pivot... They might be fine iwth that.​

 

[TrickyApe]

Regarding the idea of Austria annexing more of Italy wholesale, I think that it was still in Vienna's best interest to establish client states, both to ease administration (assuming local competency) and to establish a parallel structure to the German Confederation in the long term. Also prestige. I know that Bavaria was very much interested in having Beauharnais take up a crown in Italy to basically act as a second Wittelsbach monarchy, and I believe that Austria, while a great power, was still in favor of the idea of having a circle of Habsburg-ruled states around.
​

I do think Metternich shared your idea about client states, and the idea of "buffers" pops up frequently in literature about Austria in this period. However I think Paul Schroeder's analysis is more correct:

But from the standpoint of Italy's general function as an intermediary body between France and Austria, Austria's acquisition of Lombardy-Venetia proved both too much and too little. It virtually forced Austria to lead and organize Italy, yet did not really empower her to do so. Lombardy-Venetia was not big enough as a power base to give Austria control of the whole peninsula, yet too big for the comfort of others, especially Piedmont and the Papal State.

The cadet states in Italy in particular were more trouble than value to Austria over the next half-century. Tuscany was reasonably successful but never displayed much loyalty to Austria or helped out in a crisis. Modena was just a disaster that always required Austrian help without giving in return. The only state that tried to be useful to Vienna was Parma, ironically, since this arrangement was never really a Habsburg idea.

 

[Nuraghe]

In reality France and Austria were also in favor of the return of papal authority to Italy ( at least in Lazio ) but were more willing to negotiate for the rest of the territory, in particular they were in favor of any small changes to the boundaries of the State of the Church, whether it will further their interests in the region and its continued stability

Furthermore, it should not be forgotten that Pius VII was considered by Italians as a heroic and " patriotic " figure for his resistance to the pressure posed by the Napoleonic regime, so much so that his return to Rome was almost a procession where at every stage, the people they competed to celebrate the Pope, so they would not be very happy to see the only independent "Italian" ruler who continued to challenge the French ( as opposed to the Bourbons and Savoys, who took refuge in the islands ) being literally cheated out of his possessions to favor the interests of the powers, therefore I would go with extreme caution in imagining the total disappearance of the Papal State, certainly we could see small changes to the borders, but the entire partition would be a big no !

 

[Historymaster]

The idea of Austria taking the Legations came up (and was rejected) several times. I don't see much logic in giving more territory to the tiny states. I don't really even understand why Austria didn't just take Tuscany and Modena for itself instead of giving them to cadets that would perform poorly over the next 44 years.

As a Tuscan I would say, perform poorly is a wrong statement. They performed greatly.

 

[Nuraghe]

As a Tuscan I would say, perform poorly is a wrong statement. They performed greatly.

I fully agree, the Grand Duchy was by far the pro-Habsburg buffer state, more than capable of maintaining and defending itself with its own forces, unlike Modena, where the duke was expelled by the population on at least 3 occasions, complete with a clear request on the part of the Modenese to be annexed to the Lombardo - Veneto, which was addressed to Metternich, certainly also the State of the Church could create problems for Austria ( in particular under Leo XII and Gregory XVI, two arch-reactionary pontiffs who in comparison make Pius IX seem post 1848, a rookie in the field ) but otherwise as long as Francis I lived ( the original Checco ) , there were no serious uprisings against the Habsburg government in northern Italy ( except for 1821 and 1831, which were extremely planned by the Carbonari in a disorganized and fragmented manner )

 

[TrickyApe]

As a Tuscan I would say, perform poorly is a wrong statement. They performed greatly.

I agree, it seems as though Tuscans had good reason to be happy with their Habsburg Grand Dukes. From Vienna's perspective on the other hand, if Austria was truly looking for clients, Tuscany must have been disappointing though.

Modena, on the other hand, must have disappointed everyone.

 

[Iserlohn]

@TrickyApe @Nuraghe @Historymaster

So I presume you all would agree that an expansion of Lombardy–Venetia into Modena and possibly the Papal Legations of Bologna, Ferrara, Forli, and Ravenna would have been a better path for Austria to take in addition to re-establishing Habsburg rule in Tuscany? That enlarged area under direct Habsburg rule, bordering Sardinia, Parma, Tuscany, the Papal States, and San Marino, seems controlable to me.

This might however also require some border changes, though. The Garfagnana, Lucca, the Lunigiana, and Massa-Carrara would likely be divvied up in this case, likely just between Parma-Piacenza and Tuscany, especially if Parma were given directly to the House of Bourbon-Parma. Generally I'd say one could just directly attach the lands of the Napoleonic Principality of Lucca to Tuscany, giving them the Garfagnana, Massa-Carrara, and Lucca. Maybe expand it a bit further with (most of) Fivizzano, Viano, and Fosdinovo. The rest could then go to Parma, as compensation for Guastalla going to Lombary-Venetia. Maybe Sardinia-Piedmont gains some small bits of it, too, like Cavanella, Rocchetta, and Suvero. [See this map as reference]

The Pope wouldn't be happy at losing the Legations again, but given the Treaty of Tolentino and how stable that border was from 1797/98 to 1808, it would make sense for Austria to push for that. After all, they were both wealthy and would make Austria's direct Italian territory very defensible thanks to several forts and the Apennine Mountains forming a natural border. Additionally, with their territory expanding southwards, I could see them not using Milan as capital in this scenario, maybe picking Mantua instead? It'd be very centrally located and it's still a very defensible city, with it being part of the Quadrilatero and being near to Guastalla, too, which may just become the fifth fortress in this system.

I also found this passage by Guglielmo Ferrero in his 1941 book "The Reconstruction of Europe. Talleyrand and the Congress of Vienna 1814-1815" interesting and related, since it summarizes the views of the people of Tuscany at the time:

"But Tuscany was a different case. The Grand Duke had ceded it by a formal treaty to France, who, by formal treaty, had ceded it to the Duke of Parma. [...] The former Grand Duke of Tuscany, Ferdinand [...] had in September, just before the opening of Congress, without any authorization, motu proprio, returned to the Palazzo Pitti and resumed the government of Tuscany. The population had welcomed him and obeyed him as their legitimate sovereign. And so he was, if not by letter of the treaty, by virtue of the 'ancient law of posession', which Talleyrand had acknowledged to be one of the foundations of legitimacy, comparing it to the interpretation of common law. An absence of thirteen years had not made the people of Tuscany forget their ancient dynasty and the peaceful prosperity which they had enjoyed under its government. Everyone in Tuscany knew the latter, and no one knew the treaties and the distant powers which, since 1801, had twice changed the regime without in the least troubling to find out what were the desires and interests of the people." (p. 198-199)​

 

[Neoteros]

I was pondering this idea for my TL "Bourbon Hostage". OTL Eugène de Beauharnais was promised various territories- Genoa, somewhere in the Ligurian Marches, a principality of the Ionian Islands etc etc- at the Congress of Vienna but never actually received anything. I was wondering why there was never any consideration of simply allowing him to retain the grand duchy of Frankfurt (minus the actual city/fortress of Frankfurt*). This is actually one of those decisions that is so simple it's difficult to believe nobody went for it. The OTL solution of garrisoning Frankfurt with half-Prussian and half-Austrian troops suggests that neither power particularly wanted the other to have it, Eugène would be "neutral", as it were- related to the Wittelsbachs, but not a Wittelsbach, French but not a Bourbon, and "supported" by the czar (whatever the support of Alexander I counted for), which meant Prussia (likewise supported) couldn't bitch too loudly.- but he'd already proved his capabilities as an administrator. And he did jump ship from Napoléon in 1814 on the understanding he would be compensated.

I also don't say he'd be given the entirety of the grand duchy at it's height- the principalities of Regensberg or Aschaffenburg could be spun off from essentially a secularized electorate of Mainz, or Eugène could be granted Wetzlar, Hanau and Fulda (the former principality of Nassau-Fulda)...lots of ways that it could be drawn. Not like Hesse-Darmstadt- the chief beneficiary of the dissolution of Frankfurt- played an outsize role in defeating Napoléon.

@DrakeRlugia @Basileus_Komnenos @Anarch King of Dipsodes @Nuraghe @isabella

*this was not an uncommon practice in the Holy Roman Empire, the archbishop of Cologne was not allowed to actually enter the city of Cologne, for instance.

Now this would've been cool.

Beauharnais in Genoa, and Murat in Naples, even cooler.