WI: Italy joins Franco-Prussian War on France's side

Why would Italy do that though? I mean they don't border 'Germany' and, as French railways weren't anywhere near as developed as Prussia's were getting troops across to the frontline though France would be a pain. I doubt Austria would let Italy go through its land either.

If Italians got through the French frontline they'll probably just be cannon fodder, if the Austrians let them through they'll be more of an annoyance for Prussia, and possibly make the war a far more close-run thing, but I can't see the Italian Army - famed for its rather lackluster history - doing much to Prussia.
 
To repay France for assisting their unification, I would guess. France might have to promise to withdraw from the Papal States to get Italian support though.

They had to do that anyway, and for the same reason the Italians aren't going to join the new Third Republic in a war already lost just because it's nice they stopped defending the Papal States.
 
Could Italy siding with France convince Austria to throw its hat in the ring on France's side? If so Italian troops could be shipped up threw France and Austria.
 
Could Italy siding with France convince Austria to throw its hat in the ring on France's side? If so Italian troops could be shipped up threw France and Austria.

Honestly Italians hated Austria so much them joining on Frances side very well could be a deal breaker for Italy (because Italy working in a way that benefits Austria means that 90% of their irredentist claims are that much harder to achieve).
 
The King and the piedmontese entourage were always pro-french and France was our greatest commercial patner at the time; the only two thing who blocked an alliance were the Rome question and Nappy III overeager and usually clumsy diplomacy in Italy.
There were brief but serious talk of enter the war at the side of France...but with Rome still defended by French troops was very difficult politically.
If some agreement can be reach, troops can be sent and frankly an alliance with France is more sensible towards our irredentistic objective over Austria-Hungary...and butterfly away the disastrous policy of Crispi.
 
Could Italy siding with France convince Austria to throw its hat in the ring on France's side? If so Italian troops could be shipped up threw France and Austria.


Only if it butterflies away Sedan - which is pretty unlikely.

After his defeats in 1859 and 1866, Franz Josef is pretty cautious, so he won't move until he can be sure of joining the winning side. After Sedan, that will be Prussia, so if he does anything it will be to attack Italy.
 
To repay France for assisting their unification, I would guess. France might have to promise to withdraw from the Papal States to get Italian support though.
IMO it'd be more likely Italy would join with Prussia in this case, seeing as it wasn't long beforehand that it was the Prussians who allowed Italy to annex Lombardy and Venetia. Also Italy would be more likely to want Nice and Savoy back, and seeing as France had to withdraw troops from the Papal States anyway...
 
Honestly Italians hated Austria so much them joining on Frances side very well could be a deal breaker for Italy (because Italy working in a way that benefits Austria means that 90% of their irredentist claims are that much harder to achieve).

Given the construction used at the treaty of Prague of 1866, where Austria ceded Venetia to France, who in turn gave it to Italy. To avoid a direct transfer, also Austria, though defeated by Prussia had won against Italy.

Anyway having a neighbour with 'Irredentist' claims on lands you consider traditionally yours, never can be good for relations; in short the feeling was mutual.
 
The King and the piedmontese entourage were always pro-french and France was our greatest commercial patner at the time; the only two thing who blocked an alliance were the Rome question and Nappy III overeager and usually clumsy diplomacy in Italy.
There were brief but serious talk of enter the war at the side of France...but with Rome still defended by French troops was very difficult politically.
If some agreement can be reach, troops can be sent and frankly an alliance with France is more sensible towards our irredentistic objective over Austria-Hungary...and butterfly away the disastrous policy of Crispi.

You're right when you say that the king and the Piedmontese aristocracy were pro-French. However there was a couple of other major obstacles that made the alliance proposed by Nappy politically unfeasible: the first was the inclusion in such an alliance of Austria-Hungary (which was the goal of Nappy since the early 1860s and was picked up again in earnest after the 1866 war), the second one was the Italian parliament, which had been reshuffled after the annexation of Veneto and which would have blocked any serious attempt to set up a tripartite alliance with France and Austria.

What Nappy wanted in truth was an Italian guarantee of neutrality (which was a condition precedent set up by the Austrians to enter the war on the French side): unfortunately neither Nappy was willing to concede Rome nor the Austrians were ready to entertain any territorial concession (Trento?).
And in any case the Hungarian parliament was very strongly against another war in Germany.

Frankly I do not see any benefit in terms of irredentist claims by an Italian participation (as very junior partner) in a Franco-Austrian alliance. I'm quite doubtful about economical benefits either: the great agricultural crisis of the 1870s would have come anyway, and France and Italy would not have been able to set up mutually agreeable economic terms.

IMHO the best possible ally for Italy would have been Great Britain, and in second instance Prussia. In either case, keeping out of the Franco-German war (but without giving formal reassurance to either party) was the best practical solution since at least made it possible to occupy Lazio and Rome.
 
Top