Somewhat different Congress of Vienna

Could France have been forced to give up more land? How about give Corsica to Kingdom of Sardinia(which also gets Monaco), gives up Westhoek to the Netherlands, swaps Alta Cerdanya(which is in Iberian Peninsula) for Aran Valley(outside Iberian Peninsula) and Spain also gets Andorra, but gives back Olivenca to Portugal. The great powers decide to get rid of enclaves and of microstates too so Lichtenstein is annexed by Austria,Switzerland gets Busingen and Campione and Luxembourg is annexed to the Netherlands, rather than being in personal union and still in the German Confederation. Moresnet also goes to the Netherlands. How realistic is all this?
 
While it's not impossible, it's not really likely.

It would have defeated the purpose of Congress of Vienna : which was bound to both restpre the pre-revolutionnary order in Europe, and to contain the French potential to engage its neighbours in a series of war.

Restoring France in its Ancien Régime's borders (with some small additions) was an important part of both of this, and also legitimized that Austria and Prussia took the lion's share of territorial redistribution which was directly issued from Napoleonic geopolitical meddling (especially in Germany).
The Treaty of Paris of 1815 was already, on this regard, an harsher punishment as the 1814 draft did included more territory for France (some fortresses in Belgium, Landau, part of Sarre and Savoy) and no occupation of the territory as it happened eventually.
For Great Powers ,and especially Britain that was really about preventing the appearance of a continental challenger and that didn't want to switch France for Prussia, and actually preferred to keep France relativelty strong to keep the balance on, there was limited to none reason to carve out more.

Now, if you had (unlikely, but not impossible, again) a third Napoleonic revival or a revolutionary (or percieved as so) revolt in France in the immediate aftermath of 100 Jours (you might need no Louis XVIII for that, and an even more rigid Charles X), then you'd probably see France undergoing an harsher peace in 1816, with significant losses.
 
But the territorial changes I mention are not that harsh and wont make France weaker. Giving back Corsica would take them out of Italy and Britain had objected the annexation of Corsica. Westhoek is a part of Flanders and not that big. The Netherlands had asked for French Flanders. It also takes from France a North Sea port that could be dangerous for Britain. The other changes make sense in getting rid of weak and small states and of enclaves. It also fixes the Franco-Spanish border to actually follow the main chain of the Pyrenees and compensates Spain for Olivenca. You could also give Pheasant Island back to Spain.
 
But the territorial changes I mention are not that harsh
It would be harsher than the IOTL treaties.

and wont make France weaker
Strategically? It would, even if not crippling : lost of control of the northern borders and northern harbours would represent a geo-strategical setback maybe more important than the loss of Alsace in 1871, giving it would let open the road to Picardy and Champagne, without any real line to fall on.

Giving back Corsica would take them out of Italy
French intervention never came from Corsica, tough, but rather from the Alpine passes : Corsica itself would be a really poor jumpgate to Italy and interested France and Britain rather for its position in Western Mediterranean Sea. While not a crippling blow, the loss of Corsica would certainly impair France mediterranean policy and giving it to Sardinia would rather help Austria than Britain in the middle-run.

You could also give Pheasant Island back to Spain.
I agree it would be largely unconsequential for French position.
On the other hand, it would be as well for Spain.

The point of settling on giving Spain an empty island of 0,006 82 km2 (that's what is basically an alluvion island didn't disappear is essentially due to its memorial status), without bridge, which is technically neither in French or Spanish holding at this point (it became a condominium in the late XIXth) is a bit lost on me, I admit.
 
Come on, the only northern port lost would be Dunkirk. How can that be a great loss for France?
First, the loss of a continental port litterally gives away control of your own coast. This is why Pale of Calais or Siege of La Rochelle were things.
We could as well wonder why China ever felt pissed about giving Hong Kong : it's just an harbour, right?

Then, French Flanders is not restricted to Dunkerque, but a whole border region which was strategically important for France since litterally centuries at this point.
 
First, the loss of a continental port litterally gives away control of your own coast. This is why Pale of Calais or Siege of La Rochelle were things.
We could as well wonder why China ever felt pissed about giving Hong Kong : it's just an harbour, right?

Then, French Flanders is not restricted to Dunkerque, but a whole border region which was strategically important for France since litterally centuries at this point.
Dunkirk is a small harbour and I did not say all French Flanders, but only the northern part called Westhoek. It would perhaps make France weaker, but they also gave up a region around Philllipville and Saarlouis. You would not need to have the strongest possible France, after the Napoleonic wars.
 
Dunkirk is a small harbour
You keep missing the point : giving an harbour, no matter how small, is an important strategical issue when it comes to control the coast as such harbour becomes sort of revolving door on it for anyone controlling it and their allies.
It's not the most problematic strategical blow ever, but it's relevant enough that getting rid of it is a general principle of continental powers. Period.

Calling Dunkerque "only a small harbour" makes me thing you didn't put half the tought to your OP you might have wanted to : it was an important trade and military center since the late XVIIth century, one of the main harbours of French navy since Louis XIV, to not mention its role in maritime trade.

And frankly, if it was so unimportant, nobody would have mattered with annexing it in first place ITTL.

and I did not say all French Flanders, but only the northern part called Westhoek.
Westhoek is a relatively recent concept that didn't existed as such in early XIXth. You could as well have asked an Sardinian annexation of Arpitania.
You'd have no real reason, at this point, to dissociate Flandre flaminguante to the rest of French Flanders.
It would perhaps make France weaker, but they also gave up a region around Philllipville and Saarlouis.
I'm not sure you read the posts you answer there : I specifically mentionned the loss of Sarre between the treaties of 1814 and 1815 to point that, in the case of a third treaty of Paris due to revolt or any other happenance, you might see France loosing territories compared to 1815.
Now, in the context of IOTL Congress of Vienna, I wouldn't see it happening for all aformentioned reasons.

You would not need to have the strongest possible France, after the Napoleonic wars.
You'd be kind to stop the strawman argument there.
If you took the time to read my posts, you'd see that I pointed two things : one was that Great Powers wanted to return as much as possible to pre-revolutionary status-quo which implies not crushing France (the only Great Power that really argued a bit of this was Prussia, but it was the most weak of the five), and second that the point was to preserve the geopolitical status on the continent which did implied as well to not screw French positions.

Either disagree or agree but don't strawman it.
 
Westhoek is the northern part of French Flanders and is a geographic unit, in between two rivers and the North Sea. I think the Dutch knew and cared that it was Dutch speaking. It would make France vulnerable to a Dutch or later Belgian invasion. How dangerous for France. lol
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
I'd have to agree with what LSCatilina in that you're ignoring the reason as to why the Congress of Vienna restored France and took the other actions they did, as well as what strategic results your suggestions would have on France and how they go against the CoV's goal which was, primarily, Britain's goal because the CoV's protocols & actions were written mostly by the UK Foreign Secretary of the time, Viscount Castlereagh.

A better (i.e. more plausible) way to alter the outcome of the CoV is to keep Tsar Alexander I of Russia out of the orbit of Klemens von Metternich, Chancellor of the Austrian Empire and redirect who influences Russia on which way to fall in future decisions where the various later Congresses do things like allow France to invade Spain, or how free a hand Austria would have on the Italian peninsula.
 
I can see this getting completely bogged down, so I will try to add some areas where the CoV could conceivably acted differently, while staying within the objectives outlined so well by LS Catalina above. And I know nothing of the detailed diplomatic history of 1814-15, so I welcome corrections on any of these points.

I will try to list them in order of importance.

1. Different King for France than Louis XVIII, with Napoleon II under a regency being the most obvious alternative.

2. Different arrangement for what became Belgium than they came up with. Give it to Prussia?

3. Prussia gets Saxony.

4. Prussia DOES not get the Rhineland. Actually the frontiers of Prussia turn out to be completely malleable.

5. No German Confederation or alternatively, a much weaker German confederation.

6. Russia gets green lighted to take as much territory away from Turkey as it can. As a token to show the other powers are serious about this, Russia gets the Ionian islands.

7. Russia takes some territory in Germany, maybe Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark.

8. In return for either or 6. or 7. you don't see the OTL Russian gains in Poland and/ or Finland

9. The only Bonapartist King to keep his throne IOTL was Bernadotte. More/ other/ different Bonapartist marshals and relatives keep their throne, with Napoleon II being the big one.

10. Fernando VII of Spain is persuaded to abdicate a second time because people realize they need someone there with more grip. Don Carlos becomes King of Spain.

11. Either no restoration of the Papal States OR the Pope gets the Papal States back plus some other isolated Papal territories, such as Avignon, Benevento and/ or Parma.

12. For that matter no duchy or a different duchy for Marie Louise, for example, Lorraine?

13. The Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy survives, though it would have to be under Hapsburg control. OK you can give it to Eugene and it falls under effective Wittlesbach control, but where do you compensate Austria. The title either goes to Franz, or to Napoleon II/ Marie Louise.

14. Either/ or the Savoyards and/ or Sicilian Bourbons are screwed. IOTL they got pretty much everything they could have hoped for. No real legitimacy purpose was served by giving the Savoyards Genoa, for example.

15. For that matter, they can restore either/ or the Genoese and/ or Venetian Republics, or convert them to monarchies as needed or desired.

I get the impression that most of this stuff wasn't even considered, but it all would have fit in with squaring the circle between the Bonapartist arrangements, which were considered to have worked pretty well except for the monster France part, and the 1789 frontiers.
 
They really could have screwed the Bourbons, on the grounds you want Kings but they have to be competent at the job. Its amazing that the Bourbon dynasty wound up keeping a throne in the 21st century and the Hapsburgs didn't.
 
I can see this getting completely bogged down, so I will try to add some areas where the CoV could conceivably acted differently, while staying within the objectives outlined so well by LS Catalina above. And I know nothing of the detailed diplomatic history of 1814-15, so I welcome corrections on any of these points.

I will try to list them in order of importance.

1. Different King for France than Louis XVIII, with Napoleon II under a regency being the most obvious alternative.

2. Different arrangement for what became Belgium than they came up with. Give it to Prussia?

3. Prussia gets Saxony.

4. Prussia DOES not get the Rhineland. Actually the frontiers of Prussia turn out to be completely malleable.

5. No German Confederation or alternatively, a much weaker German confederation.

6. Russia gets green lighted to take as much territory away from Turkey as it can. As a token to show the other powers are serious about this, Russia gets the Ionian islands.

7. Russia takes some territory in Germany, maybe Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark.

8. In return for either or 6. or 7. you don't see the OTL Russian gains in Poland and/ or Finland

9. The only Bonapartist King to keep his throne IOTL was Bernadotte. More/ other/ different Bonapartist marshals and relatives keep their throne, with Napoleon II being the big one.

10. Fernando VII of Spain is persuaded to abdicate a second time because people realize they need someone there with more grip. Don Carlos becomes King of Spain.

11. Either no restoration of the Papal States OR the Pope gets the Papal States back plus some other isolated Papal territories, such as Avignon, Benevento and/ or Parma.

12. For that matter no duchy or a different duchy for Marie Louise, for example, Lorraine?

13. The Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy survives, though it would have to be under Hapsburg control. OK you can give it to Eugene and it falls under effective Wittlesbach control, but where do you compensate Austria. The title either goes to Franz, or to Napoleon II/ Marie Louise.

14. Either/ or the Savoyards and/ or Sicilian Bourbons are screwed. IOTL they got pretty much everything they could have hoped for. No real legitimacy purpose was served by giving the Savoyards Genoa, for example.

15. For that matter, they can restore either/ or the Genoese and/ or Venetian Republics, or convert them to monarchies as needed or desired.

I get the impression that most of this stuff wasn't even considered, but it all would have fit in with squaring the circle between the Bonapartist arrangements, which were considered to have worked pretty well except for the monster France part, and the 1789 frontiers.

AFAIK, Alexander I was willing to sponsor a Beauharnais Genoa, and Metternich approached Eugène three times between 1810-1815 via his father-in-law about dropping Napoléon and in exchange getting land somewhere.

The Austrians wanted Napoléon II, the British wanted Louis XVIII and Alexander wanted either the duc d'Orléans or a Napoleonic marshal (IDK why I think it was Bernadotte).

The French and Austrians were the main reason that Prussia DIDN'T get Saxony. I know Britain's usually lumped with it, but I can't see what Britain would gain/lose by Prussia getting it, so I think they merely opposed it on principle.

To the OP, I read somewhere that there was a plan with Corsica for it to be taken from France and handed to the Habsburg grand duke of Tuscany, who would then have the royal title of "King of Corsica".
 

Bytor

Monthly Donor
1. Different King for France than Louis XVIII, with Napoleon II under a regency being the most obvious alternative.

I don't think so. Napoleon II under a regency would be seen a legitimising N1's conquests which is the opposite of what Britain and the rest of the Coalition wanted. The Bourbon's were the only viable, plausible possibility for the renewed Kingdom of France in a return to the status quo

4. Prussia DOES not get the Rhineland. Actually the frontiers of Prussia turn out to be completely malleable.

Yeah, but who else would it be given to? Prussia already has Cleves and the parts of what became the Westphalian Province, and you can't give it to France

5. No German Confederation or alternatively, a much weaker German confederation.

No, it's got to happen. The existence of the German Confederation was recognised as being essential to the stability of Central Europe. Without fettering the desires of both Prussia and Austria together in the Deutscher Bund like that you're pretty much making inevitable wars larger than the Punctation at Olmütz or the Austro-Prussian War that would be guaranteed to spill outside of Germany and pull everybody back into a continental war again.

6. Russia gets green lighted to take as much territory away from Turkey as it can. As a token to show the other powers are serious about this, Russia gets the Ionian islands.

Outside of the Caucasus, Britain would never have allowed that as a threat to their Mediterranean supremacy.

7. Russia takes some territory in Germany, maybe Schleswig-Holstein from Denmark.

Russia was pretty adamant about Danish indivisibility in later decades, based on the House of Romanov's relationship with the houses of both Oldenburg and Holstein-Gottorp, so I cannot see them supporting reassigning either of those two duchies, even to themselves.

10. Fernando VII of Spain is persuaded to abdicate a second time because people realize they need someone there with more grip. Don Carlos becomes King of Spain.

No, he was too much of an absolutist jackass, convinced of his divine rights which is why he went back on his grudging acceptance of ruling under the 1812 constitution. You don;t really have the opportunity to kick him out until thr revolution in 1820 at eventually inspired the 100,000 Sons of St. Louis invasion by France.
 
Top