PC/WI: A Franco-Austrian alliance in 1866?

CaliGuy

Banned
Was a Franco-Austrian alliance in 1866 have been plausible?

Also, if so, how would this (specifically French involvement) have affected the Austro-Prussian War?
 
Was a Franco-Austrian alliance in 1866 have been plausible?

Also, if so, how would this (specifically French involvement) have affected the Austro-Prussian War?
Didn't France end up supporting Italy against Austria around that time?
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Didn't France end up supporting Italy against Austria around that time?
It did in 1859 but it also had a common interest with Austria in keeping Prussia down; after all, France wanted the Rhineland for itself.
 
It did in 1859 but it also had a common interest with Austria in keeping Prussia down; after all, France wanted the Rhineland for itself.
I don't think anyone who's trying to maintain the European balance of power will want France stretching to the Rhineland. If they ally with Austria to try to get it, Britain or Russia might have some cause for alarm. And Italy will obviously feel betrayed that France has abandoned them for Austria just as they were about to go to war for Veneto.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
I don't think anyone who's trying to maintain the European balance of power will want France stretching to the Rhineland. If they ally with Austria to try to get it, Britain or Russia might have some cause for alarm.

Well, France could try limiting its gains in this war.

And Italy will obviously feel betrayed that France has abandoned them for Austria just as they were about to go to war for Veneto.

That's a good point, actually!
 
I don't think anyone who's trying to maintain the European balance of power will want France stretching to the Rhineland. If they ally with Austria to try to get it, Britain or Russia might have some cause for alarm. And Italy will obviously feel betrayed that France has abandoned them for Austria just as they were about to go to war for Veneto.

Well, with hindsight it is clear that letting France control of Rhineland would have been the only way to check Germany economically and demographically from the middle of the 19th century to nowadays.
 
Well, with hindsight it is clear that letting France control of Rhineland would have been the only way to check Germany economically and demographically from the middle of the 19th century to nowadays.
Even if that's true, the European Great Powers could hardly have predicted that in 1866, before Germany even existed.
 
Even if that's true, the European Great Powers could hardly have predicted that in 1866, before Germany even existed.

Sure. This is why I mentioned hindsight.

And however the french government and military was quite aware of the flaws of the french military and had just began a military reform to catch up with Prussian standards.

But there's nothing you can do to prevent a stupid earthen pot to decide to collide against an iron pot when the machiavellian iron pot wants the stupid earthen pot to make such a move.
 
At the time Brittain was more alarmed by France and Napoleons meddling than anything else. See how they failed to act when Prussia destroyed them in 1870. So I think Prussia would get some support from there if France moved. Also Napoleon thought that he had a deal with Prussia and that he will get Belgium or Luxemburg in exchange of staying neutral. I dont have the time to check it now but i think that Prussia had some kind of arrangment with Russia too - Im sure it contained Russia remaining neutral but im not sure it didnt have anything in the case of France getting involved.

In regards of France and Italy: France had already betrayed Italy by not finishing the war against Austria and making a peace that left Venice in Austrian hands to begin with. They also had Rome occupied and had no intention of living - the support of the regime by the french catholics depended on it. Italy however very much wanted Rome so sooner or later they had to become the enemies of France as long as this situation existed.
 
Top