Questions regarding Second French Empire

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
I have a few questions in regards to a feasibility check to a timeline I am working on.

First, concerning Arucania-Patagonia, is there a way to ensure its continued survival, or at least gain international recognition?

Secondly, how to ensure a Imperial victory and a more successful Mexican Empire under Maximillian I?

Thirdly, How to ensure a weakened Prussia and French sucessfully taking control of all (if not parts of) the Left Bank of the Rhine River?

and Finally, How to ensure Napoleon III's foreign policy goals in Italy are successful? I know he wanted to create a unified Italy, or rather a United Northern Italy free of Austrian influence, so it can be made into a pro-French camp. But would it be possible without it snowballing to the point where it became the Italy of today?
 
#1 At least, you must prevent the kidnapping of King Orélie-Antoine by the Chileans (it was literally a kidnapping).

#2 Unless the USA don't threaten France of war, the Imperials would surely face the same fate as IOTL. In my own TL 'War and Peace' (still in writing), I got around this difficulty by giving victory to the Conservatives in the Reform War (IOTL 1858-1861).

#3 Unrealistic given the state of French armies. I doubt that even Austria would accept. The biggest thing that Napoleon III could get is Luxembourg.

#4 Very hard to do.
In fact, Napoleon III never really wanted a united Italy: by the Secret Agreements of Plombières Piedmont was to be given only North Italy (Po valley) and a central Italian kingdom was to be created, and by the Armistice of Villafranca, a confederation presided by the Pope should have been created. The main problem of Napoleon III's Italian policy was that he was often put before the fait accompli by the Piedmont.
To have better relations between France and Italy, you should prevent the French interventions sent to save the remnants of the Papal states. In order to do so, you would have to prevent the Free Trade Agreement of 1860 from being signed, because this agreement made Napoleon III losing his supporters among the powerful industrials and forced to care about the Catholics; however, since Napoleon III was an adept of Saint-Simon, I doubt he would oppose the treaty.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
#2: While a Conservative Victory would have successfully averted a French intervention, would a monarchy still have formed in Mexico, or would it have remained a republic, albeit under centralized Conservative rule?

#3: Ouch, that seemed harsh. But wouldn't Austria be gunning to try and ensure its role as the dominant power in the German Confederation by weakening Prussia?

#4: And I assume trying to enforce the Armistice would defeat the purpose he sought to achieve when he was trying to create a divided, pro-French Italy.

As for the Free Trade Agreement (I believe it's the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty), I assume that it would not be possible to subvert this treaty unless he follows a more anti-British approach, which is not really a good idea long term, isn't it?
 
For #1, it seems very unlikely that the nation would have lasted long.
"King" de Tounens tried to get the attention of the French government at home. After some investigation, they declared him insane. It seems unlikely that an insane man would be capable of running a stable government or gaining international recognition for his country. Even if he truly was sane, he was still a lawyer with absolutely no experience in government and politics.

Even if he did manage to gather international recognition, and run a stable government system, there's just no way he'd be able to stand up to Argentine and Chilean incursions into the land. Remember, he'd be the leader of a bunch of tribesmen. They don't have the time to build up an economy, modernize the nation, and prepare the military before Argentina and Chile simply waltz in and take over.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Well even if the nation would not have lasted long, if it can survive with some diplomatic recognition, even if he had to get support from enemies of Chile and Argentina (more so Chile)
 
#2: While a Conservative Victory would have successfully averted a French intervention, would a monarchy still have formed in Mexico, or would it have remained a republic, albeit under centralized Conservative rule?

#3: Ouch, that seemed harsh. But wouldn't Austria be gunning to try and ensure its role as the dominant power in the German Confederation by weakening Prussia?

#4: And I assume trying to enforce the Armistice would defeat the purpose he sought to achieve when he was trying to create a divided, pro-French Italy.

As for the Free Trade Agreement (I believe it's the Cobden-Chevalier Treaty), I assume that it would not be possible to subvert this treaty unless he follows a more anti-British approach, which is not really a good idea long term, isn't it?
#2 The Republic had suffered from a chronic instability and therefore surely discredited in the opinion of the Conservatives.
The failure of the First Mexican Empire was seen as the result of the lack of experience of Agustin Ist; so, should the Empire be restored, a member from a great European dynasty would be required as monarch.
#3 Remember the outcry of indignation IOTL against the cession of Luxembourg, a so small German land (or considered as German), to France.
#4 During all his reign, Napoleon III followed an absolute rule in foreign policy: 'not to upset the British'; he doesn't want the fate of his uncle... He even attempted to have them as good allies (expeditions of Crimea and China, Cobden-Chevalier Treaty, support during the Trent Affair...).

For #1, it seems very unlikely that the nation would have lasted long.
"King" de Tounens tried to get the attention of the French government at home. After some investigation, they declared him insane. It seems unlikely that an insane man would be capable of running a stable government or gaining international recognition for his country. Even if he truly was sane, he was still a lawyer with absolutely no experience in government and politics.

Even if he did manage to gather international recognition, and run a stable government system, there's just no way he'd be able to stand up to Argentine and Chilean incursions into the land. Remember, he'd be the leader of a bunch of tribesmen. They don't have the time to build up an economy, modernize the nation, and prepare the military before Argentina and Chile simply waltz in and take over.
Orélie-Antoine was declared insane by the Chileans who wanted to discredit him, not by the French.
The Mapuches were previously able to resist to Spanish invasion; because of the Spaniards, they modernized, they developed new agricultural technics, a united army... They had shown a great capacity of adaptation and would surely have modernized again if they had had time to do it.
As I've already written:
After the Spaniards conquered Chile in 16th century, they encountered heavy resistance from the Mapuche people. In 1641, after a century of unsuccessfull attempts of conquest, Spain finally recognized the independence of Araucania by the treaty of Killen which settled the Biobio river as border; this independence was strenghtened by 28 other treaties signed between 1641 and 1803. These treaties were followed by development of regular trade and diplomatic relations (a Mapuche embassy in Santiago is attested during the Santiago Agreement of 1774).
But, during the first half of 19th century, this was challenged when the Spanish colonies of Chile and Rio de la Plata became independent.
To safeguard their independence, the Lonkos (Mapuche leaders) imagined to establish a united Mapuche kingdom and offer the crown to an European in order to secure foreign help. The National Council of Lonkos then summoned in the fall of 1860 the Koyog Fütha, a civilian-military-religious Mapuche assembly to discuss the idea (the Koyog Fütha was usually convened only to discuss about matters of national importance for the Mapuches). The proposal of creating a kingdom became especially liked when the machis (priest or priestess) revealed a prophecy about a white man coming to fight alongside of the Mapuches and defend them (delivered during a Nguillatun, one of the most important religious Mapuche ceremonies: the prophecy was delivered by the ngechalmachife who interpreted the 'message' sent during the trance of a machi; in my opinion, the prophecy was very convenient for the Lonkos).
On November 17th, a constitution was drafted, giving officially birth to the Kingdom of Araucania and Patagonia. The new hereditary monarchy, even if the King was granted great power, was parliamentarian with a Kingdom's Council, formerly the Council of Elders, and a State's Council, formerly the National Council of Lonkos.
The Mapuches choose Antoine de Tounens, a French adventurer in contact with the Lonkos who had told him of their project for some times.
Thus, on November 20th, the French became Fütha Apo Toki, King of the Mapuches, under the regnal name of Orélie-Antoine I (previously, in wartime, the National Council appointed a Toki to lead the unified Mapuche armies; thus, the king is a Toki for life and the office becomes hereditary).
As for Chile and Argentina, keep them busy at north.
In my TL, the Spaniards use Araucania as a supply base during the Spanish-South American War and force Chile to subscribe to the treaty of Killen of 1641 which fixes the border on the Bio-Bio river and recognize the Mapuche as independent.
 
#2 It seemed to me that the Second Mexican Empire could have survived with:

a. Policies solidifying a conservative base of support (if Maximilian had been persuaded to not pursue his high-minded "liberal autocrat" inclinations).

b. Construction of a substantial Imperial army (facilitated if he had solid conservative support) early enough to make an impact against the liberal forces.

c. More French troops by 1863 for a major push and steady recruitment of foreign troops for a Mexican "foreign legion."

Establishing substantial control rather would I think have foreclosed credible US threats of intervention in 1865-1866.

The US army was rapidly demobilizing in 1865-1866 down to nominal strength in 1867. The troops in the field may have been ready to fight (rather than return home) but would there have been political support to sustain more than supplying Juarez, saber-rattling on the border, and a brief expedition?

#3. Putting Maximilian on the Mexican throne was in large part a gesture to Austria from France. A great what-if of the mid-19th century is the possibility of Austria swallowing its pride and making common cause with the parvenu French Emperor against Prussia. Austrian ascendancy east of the Rhine and French ascendancy (even if not annexations) west of it? It has a geopolitical logic to it. The sticking point would be keeping Cavour and Italy in check, which would distance Italy from France.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
So essentially, don't have Maximillian alienate his conservative supports with a liberal policy and that could be an alternate method to a surviving Empire.

That would probably provoke some reaction from the U.S. however, it depends on if would have enough money left over to finance an expedition of that scope.
 
Orélie-Antoine was declared insane by the Chileans who wanted to discredit him, not by the French.

He was declared insane by both, actually.


The Mapuches were previously able to resist to Spanish invasion; because of the Spaniards, they modernized, they developed new agricultural technics, a united army... They had shown a great capacity of adaptation and would surely have modernized again if they had had time to do it.

But that's the problem-they didn't have the time. The Argentinians and Chileans were right on their doorstep and could have marched in at any second. Even if they couldn't start military expeditions to the south immediately, the Mapuche would have 10-20 years max to prepare themselves. I doubt that would be enough.
 
#3 is easy, simply have the French intervene in the Austro-Prussian War, as they nearly did IOTL. Napoléon III changed his mind about the invasion literally the night before the troops were to go forward, due to a bad dream he had. He was a highly superstitious man. Simply give the emperor a good night's rest and boom, the French are across the Rhine before the Prussians can react.

#4 will require a new Pope; Pius IX's reactionary views will simply make him unacceptable, no matter what, to the Italian nationalists, especially after his hard right turn in the Springtime of the Peoples. At the same time though Napoléon III can't simply turn his back on Rome without invoking some serious domestic unrest - the monarchist might even try for a coup. A potential POD here is for Pius to die in 1855 during his accident at the convent of Saint Agnese, and then have a more liberal successor elected to the Pontifical Throne.

Also, in regards to #2, even if the US intervened, the French navy would have wiped the floor with the USN of the times.
 
#3 is easy, simply have the French intervene in the Austro-Prussian War, as they nearly did IOTL. Napoléon III changed his mind about the invasion literally the night before the troops were to go forward, due to a bad dream he had. He was a highly superstitious man. Simply give the emperor a good night's rest and boom, the French are across the Rhine before the Prussians can react.

#4 will require a new Pope; Pius IX's reactionary views will simply make him unacceptable, no matter what, to the Italian nationalists, especially after his hard right turn in the Springtime of the Peoples. At the same time though Napoléon III can't simply turn his back on Rome without invoking some serious domestic unrest - the monarchist might even try for a coup. A potential POD here is for Pius to die in 1855 during his accident at the convent of Saint Agnese, and then have a more liberal successor elected to the Pontifical Throne.

Also, in regards to #2, even if the US intervened, the French navy would have wiped the floor with the USN of the times.
French intervention in the Austro-Prussian war is an underused pod.
 

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
#3: I remember you telling me this before, however, what gains would the French have should their intervention on the Austrian side against Prussia? I recently saw that acquisition of the whole Left Bank would be impractical, and there would be some serious complaints if they even try to gain tiny Luxembourg.

#4 I can live with, I assume there should be some cardinals OTL that were liberal leaning and could possibly help allieviate both the hard-headed Christians and the Italian Pan-Nationalists in that matter.
 
Top