Territorial consolidation at the Congress of Vienna

[Eurofed]

Let's assume that at the Congress of Vienna, the great powers are more land-greedy and wish to ensure less political fragmentation in Western Europe than OTL (as better protection against France). They ditch the idea of restoring as much of the pre-Napoleonic status quo as possible, and just go for rough balance of power between themselves (princes that get dethroned as a result are deemed to have been too cooperative with Napoleon, or did not pull their weight in ther fight against him, and so are unworthy of restoration). France also gets an harsher peace than OTL, and has little say in the peace treaty.

Russia gets Finland, Congress Poland, Posen, Krakow, Galicia, and Bukovina.

Prussia gets Swedish Pomerania, Rhineland-Westphalia, Danzig, Saxony, Hanover, and Limburg.

Austria gets Tirol, Salzburg, Old Bavaria, Illyrian Provinces, Lombardy, Venetia, Modena, Papal Legations, Lucca, Tuscany, and Naples.

Sardinia-Piedmont gets Genoa, Corsica, and Parma.

Southern Netherlands, Lorraine, and Alsace form the Kingdom of Lorraine under the Wittelsbachs.

Franconia is established as a new German state under the Wettins.

Baden gets Rhenish Palatinate.

Britain gets a personal union with the Kingdom of Netherlands.

Sicily stays a separate state under the Bourbons.

Note: in the map, I used a grey line, same as the German Confederation border, to mark the Kingdom of Poland within Russia, not a dotted line as the other subkingdoms (Norway and Finland), for simplicity.

 

[Sift Green]

Did european monarchies always end up with disunited territories? I mean, did people plan for that or was that just a coincident resulting from a small number of families inheriting lands?

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Britain getting a personal union with the Netherlands at this point is very ASB. By the 18th century the House of Orange had become hereditary stadtholders; it's still far likelier that the Congress would return Willem I to his position.

Also, the Austrians actually wanted more contiguous territory; there's a reason why Joseph II wanted to exchange the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria.

 

[Codae]

Britain getting a personal union with the Netherlands at this point is very ASB. By the 18th century the House of Orange had become hereditary stadtholders; it's still far likelier that the Congress would return Willem I to his position.

The OP seems to be moving Hannover to the Netherlands so that Prussia can get Hanover.

But wasn't there a Hohenzollern claim to the Netherlands somehow? That would probably make a bit more sense than such wholesale redistribution.

 

[Eurofed]

Britain getting a personal union with the Netherlands at this point is very ASB.

It was in personal union with Hanover, and in this scenario it is swapping Hanover with the much more valuable Netherlands.

By the 18th century the House of Orange had become hereditary stadtholders; it's still far likelier that the Congress would return Willem I to his position.

The House of Orange has been deposed for 20 years, and this scenario assumes that the great powers care far less for such claims.

Also, the Austrians actually wanted more contiguous territory; there's a reason why Joseph II wanted to exchange the Austrian Netherlands for Bavaria.

Hmm, what about Austria gets Bavaria, and the Wittelsbach get Austrian Netherlands-Lorraine-Alsace ?

 

[SavoyTruffle]

The OP seems to be moving Hannover to the Netherlands so that Prussia can get Hanover.

But wasn't there a Hohenzollern claim to the Netherlands somehow? That would probably make a bit more sense than such wholesale redistribution.

That makes a lot of sense. Though the Hohenzollerns have a more immediate claim to Hanover, IIRC...

Hmm, what about Austria gets Bavaria, and the Wittelsbach get Austrian Netherlands-Lorraine-Alsace ?

That would not only make it easier for the Austrians to consolidate their holdings, but also for the Wittelsbachs to serve as a state strong enough to serve as a buffer against France (which is why the Netherlands were given to the House of Orange wholesale, and the Savoys restored their Piedmontese lands in OTL).

 

[Eurofed]

That makes a lot of sense. Though the Hohenzollerns have a more immediate claim to Hanover, IIRC...

True. And to Prussia, Hanover is more useful than Netherlands as it allows them to consolidate all their holdings in northern Germany in one contigous kingdom.

That would not only make it easier for the Austrians to consolidate their holdings, but also for the Wittelsbachs to serve as a state strong enough to serve as a buffer against France (which is why the Netherlands were given to the House of Orange wholesale, and the Savoys restored their Piedmontese lands in OTL).

True as well. Deem it done, as soon as I can update the OP.

 

[I Blame Communism]

Let's assume that at the Congress of Vienna, the great powers are more land-greedy

They were exceedingly land-greedy. Having looted the church, the old oligarchic republics, any monarchy that didn't suit them, and of course Poland, they still wanted more! However, the greed of each one cancelled the others out, except in the case of Britain: we were greedy for land outside the Europe and grabbed it, whilst sticking up for the rights of trampled Poland, of course.

and wish to ensure less political fragmentation in Western Europe than OTL (as better protection against France).

I doubt France wants that, and they had a better negotiating position than anybody else. I would note, by the way, that the frontier of France were decided in 1814. The later amendment was not very drastic.

Political fragmentation? Europe was more united behind the cause of Pope, King, Hangman or local culturally-appropriate PC alternatives than at any time between Charlemagne and the EEC.

(For clarity, I would note that the 'Pope' in above formula is an ideological construct and not the actual Pope. They didn't have time for that guy.)

They ditch the idea of restoring as much of the pre-Napoleonic status quo as possible, and just go for rough balance of power between themselves (princes that get dethroned as a result are deemed to have been too cooperative with Napoleon, or did not pull their weight in ther fight against him, and so are unworthy of restoration).

That idea was partly a ruse from Talleyrand, partly a lengthy shaggy-dog joke. After Britain ransacked the Dutch empire whilst vetoing the reconquest of Spanish America, after Prussia dispossessed the Sovereign Abbess of Unterwiedlingssochengewurdlniederpfeffergoltzstein without saying sorry, after Austria guzzled up Salzburg and Venice, after Russia ate Finland and Poland, it had ceased to be funny.

If it hadn't been for the cynical diplomacy of France, the Congress might have left a Bonaparte on the throne, just in case such empty-handed representatives of The World That Was as the Pope, the Imperial Free Knights and Cities, and the Republic of Genoa hadn't gotten the message.

It was only necessary to justify annexing Saxony because Saxony was actually extant.

France also gets an harsher peace than OTL, and has little say in the peace treaty.

France was ideally placed to play the other powers off against each-other, being in no position to make blatant demands of her own. With a bunch like the Sixth Coalition, sowing dissension was a job that did itself.

Russia gets Finland, Congress Poland, Posen, Krakow, Galicia, and Bukovina.

Prussia gets Swedish Pomerania, Rhineland-Westphalia, Danzig, Saxony, Hanover, Limburg, and Rhenish Palatinate.

Austria gets Tirol, Salzburg, Illyrian Provinces, Southern Netherlands, Lorraina, Alsace, Lombardy, Venetia, Modena, Papal Legations, Lucca, Tuscany, and Naples.

Sardinia-Piedmont gets Genoa, Corsica, and Parma.

Britain gets a personal union with the Kingdom of Netherlands.

Sicily stays a separate state under the Bourbons.

So...

Russia and Prussia get something for nothing, enacting a scheme that they never prevailed on the other powers and then grabbing an extra kingdom or two.

Austria swaps its territories for one that it didn't want (Belgium) and several that were completely dependent on it anyway.

France gets nothing for something.

Britain takes over an independent nation of a few million people. IOTL, we refused to take Dunkirk onto our hands.

 

[Eurofed]

In your opinion, should Austria get just Old Bavaria, or Franconia as well ? So far, I assumed the former, and split off Franconia as a new German state. Perhaps the Wettins can get it.

 

[SavoyTruffle]

Franconia as a consolation for the Wettins losing the entirety of Saxony could work.

Could your POD be a Talleyrand-less Congress? After all, he made sure that France would get a very good position in the end.

 

[Eurofed]

However, the greed of each one cancelled the others out, except in the case of Britain: we were greedy for land outside the Europe and grabbed it, whilst sticking up for the rights of trampled Poland, of course.

ITTL Austria, Russia, and Prussia all benefit, so the greed of each ones supports the other. Britain gets something rather valuable (Netherlands and its colonies) and France is not in a position to say anything. It is not too difficult to put France is a position to say anything (Talleyrand is thrown under a bus, and Napoleon crushes the Anglo-Dutch at Waterloo and is later defeated by the Austro-Prusso-Russians).

I doubt France wants that, and they had a better negotiating position than anybody else. I would note, by the way, that the frontier of France were decided in 1814. The later amendment was not very drastic.

What better negotiating position ? They were the defeated party, and it is quite easy to butterfly away what bargaining power they had IOTL.

That idea was partly a ruse from Talleyrand, partly a lengthy shaggy-dog joke.

To throw Talleyrand under a bus is quite easy.

Russia and Prussia get something for nothing, enacting a scheme that they never prevailed on the other powers and then grabbing an extra kingdom or two.

In this scenario, Austria benefits too, so it supports the scheme.

Austria swaps its territories for one that it didn't want (Belgium) and several that were completely dependent on it anyway.

The edited version gives them stuff they wanted (Bavaria) and valuable stuff that was not so much dependent on them (Naples).

France gets nothing for something.

You ought to recognize that Talleyrand's OTL feats are the exception and not the rule.

Britain takes over an independent nation of a few million people. IOTL, we refused to take Dunkirk onto our hands.

Britain is swapping personal union with Hanover, that benefited the UK little, with one with the economically and strategically far more valuable Netherlands.

 

[Typo]

ITTL Austria, Russia, and Prussia all benefit, so the greed of each ones supports the other.

Do you understand the concept of a zero-sum game and why it applies here?

What better negotiating position ? They were the defeated party, and it is quite easy to butterfly away what bargaining power they had IOTL.

This is just outright false without partitioning France

 

[Eurofed]

Franconia as a consolation for the Wettins losing the entirety of Saxony could work.

Ok. Wettin Franconia shall be.

Could your POD be a Talleyrand-less Congress? After all, he made sure that France would get a very good position in the end.

So far, I've been assuming the tentative double PoD of Talleyrand dying before 1814 and Napoleon crushing the Anglo-Dutch at Waterloo, with the Prussians not taking part at the battle, and being later defeated by the Austro-Prusso-Russians.

 

[I Blame Communism]

ITTL Austria, Russia, and Prussia all benefit, so the greed of each ones supports the other. Britain gets something rather valuable (Netherlands and its colonies) and France is not in a position to say anything.

This is if we assume that states measure their power, resources, and security by distilling all the ink of their colour from off the map, putting it in a phial, and seeing how high a mark it reaches. They in fact do not.

Russia and Prussia, as I say, get even more than what they wanted IOTL - which was sufficient to turn everyone against them and force them to climb down. Austria swaps territory for other territories she neither needs (controlling some of them already in practice) nor wants and sees the balance of Europe deranged in favour of rivals.

It is not too difficult to put France is a position to say anything (Talleyrand is thrown under a bus, and Napoleon crushes the Anglo-Dutch at Waterloo and is later defeated by the Austro-Prusso-Russians).

Is Talleyrand killed before or after the Paris Treaty? Who takes his place in the negotiations? If yes to the first question, what treaty takes the place of Paris and in what circumstances is it signed? Paris, need I remind you, was basically the tsar's idea, not ours. What is the fate of Napoleon under this treaty, which would determine whether there was a Waterloo campaign at all?

What better negotiating position ? They were the defeated party, and it is quite easy to butterfly away what bargaining power they had IOTL.

Bargaining power was precisely what France did not need. Bargaining power, I can tell you as someone who's shopped for souvenirs in India, is what the buyer needs. France was, being defeated, not out to buy anything. France was in the position of the market official with the authorised measures. Having no cynical territorial interests of her own, she could use legitimacy as a device and was free to play every rival off against another.

To throw Talleyrand under a bus is quite easy.

And remove the only negotiator for whom the pretence of legitimacy was a help and not a hindrance? Anyway, any intelligent Frenchmen would have seen the benefits of playing to legitimacy.

In this scenario, Austria benefits too, so it supports the scheme.

In what way does Austria benefit? Do you not think that if Prussia and Russia could have won Austria over by simple bribery, they would have done it?

The edited version gives them stuff they wanted (Bavaria) and valuable stuff that was not so much dependent on them (Naples).

Naples was dependent on Austria (what else do you call it when Austrian troops kept the king on his throne?), could not threaten any Austrian interest, and had nothing much to gain by collaborating with Austria's enemies. Austria had Naples precisely where she wanted it: that was the price for ditching Murat.

You ought to recognize that Talleyrand's OTL feats are the exception and not the rule.

Which rule? I am familiar with only two rules of 19th century great-power diplomacy:

1) Every man for himself and devil take the hindmost.

2) Don't be hindmost.

Talleyrand adhered to both religiously.

Britain is swapping personal union with Hanover, that benefited the UK little, with one with the economically and strategically far more valuable Netherlands.

Britain is swapping a lump of European territory in which there was much sentimental interest and which did at least give us a voice in German affairs for an independent-minded people and commercial competitor at a time when we would rather have had as few European commitments as possible and turned down the opportunity to acquire more.

 

[Eurofed]

Russia and Prussia, as I say, get even more than what they wanted IOTL - which was sufficient to turn everyone against them and force them to climb down.

Except in this scenario, Austria benefits, too.

Austria swaps territory for other territories she neither needs (controlling some of them already in practice) nor wants and sees the balance of Europe deranged in favour of rivals.

Austria is getting a lot of contigous territory which consoldates its control of southern Germany and Italy, including stuff it fought a war in 1777 to get (Bavaria), and the balance of power is not deranged. It is resetted.

Is Talleyrand killed before or after the Paris Treaty? Who takes his place place in the negotiations? If yes to the first question, what treaty takes the place of Paris and in what circumstances is it signed? Paris, need I remind you, was basically the tsar's idea, not outs. What is the fate of Napoleon under this treaty, which would determine whether there was a Waterloo campaign at all?

Why don't you try to answer those questions yourself, in a way that fulfills the scenario ?

And remove the only negotiator for whom the pretence of legitimacy was a help and not a hindrance?

The pretence of legitimacy gets in the way of the scenario, so screwing it fulfills the desired outcome.

Anyway, any intelligent Frenchmen would have seen the benefits of playing to legitimacy.

It is hardly difficult to replace Talleyrand with someone much less talented.

In what way does Austria benefit?

It becomes a solid block of domains stretching southern Germany, Italy, and Hungary, fulfilling its aspiration to territorial continuity. All the lands it controls are fairly valuable.

Do you not thing that have Prussia and Russia could have won Austria over by simple bribery, they would have done it?

I'm sure that in the proper circumstances, it was feasible.

Naples was dependent on Austria (what else do you call it when Austrian troops kept the king on his throne), could not threaten any Austrian interest, and had nothing much to gain by collaborating with Austria's enemies. Austria had Naples precisely where she wanted it: that was the price for ditching Murat.

Argue as much as you want, Naples was a valuable land and direct possession is more beneficial than loose vassaldom. It not has been that long since Austria fought two wars to gain and keep Naples (wars of Spanish and Austrian succession), among other things.

Britain is swapping a lump of European territory in which there was much sentimental interest and which did at least give us a voice in German affairs for an independent-minded people and commercial competitor at a time when we would rather have had as few European commitments as possible and turned down the opportunity to acquire more.

You are being contradictory here, if Britain wants as few European committments as possible, it does not care nor need to have a voice in German affairs. Anyway, to bring a commercial competitor under control may be quite rewarding, ask any CEO. Sentimental interest what ? Britain lost Hanover in 1837 without batting an eye.

 

[Emperor Qianlong]

There is something in that map makes no sense. Who controls Franconia?

 

[Eurofed]

There is something in that map makes no sense. Who controls Franconia?

It is a new German state, ruled by the Wettins (they swapped Saxony for Franconia, just like the Wittelsbach swapped Bavaria for Burgundy and the English Kinds Hanover for Netherlands).

 

[Emperor Qianlong]

It is a new Kingdom, ruled by the Wettins.

That's very unlikely, in my opinion, if not outright ASB. I also think it's pretty unlikely for Austria to gulp up Old Bavaria and the Prussia to gulp up the Rhenish Palatinate.

 

[Eurofed]

That's very unlikely, in my opinion, if not outright ASB.

What's so strange ? Throne-swapping happened all the time in the 18th century. They lose Saxony to Prussia, and get Franconia as a consolation prize. Since they were in the doghouse for being Napoleon's allies, it is a generous deal.

I also think it's pretty unlikely for Austria to gulp up Old Bavaria

They fought a war to get it in 1777. Only this time, Prussia is getting enough boons of its own to get along with the trade.

and the Prussia to gulp up the Rhenish Palatinate.

It seemed natural since they own Rhineland. The other suitable recipient would be Baden.

 

[Eurofed]

On second thoughts, I changed Rhenish Palatinate to go to Baden.