WI: January Uprising Incites a Multinational War

Okay, so was watching Discovery's Abandoned Engineering, and found out that in the mid-1860s, with the January Uprising in Poland, there were fears of a war between Britain and Russia printed in The Times.

Prussia and Russia were making nice at the Alvensleben convention, wherein Prussia offered to help crush the rebellion. The Poles, OTOH, were betting their farms on support by Napoléon III. The Prussians already (according to wiki) saw that a war with France was coming. Also, Austria's actions alienated it from Russia (Crimean War 2.0).


WI there HAD been a war in '63/'64? Would this butterfly the Seven Weeks and Franco-Prussian Wars as we know them? How would this play out? Would Franz Josef choose a side this time? Or just stay in port and sail forth to congratulate the winner?
 
The Austro-Prussian/Seven Weeks and Franco-Prussian Wars can't really be butterflied away, as they're both going to happen in some form sooner or later, as the logical outcomes of the issues raised by 1863 with regard to the German Question and, in turn, of an ascendant Little Germany's attempt to include the South German states. But the question is, as you said, whether those events as we know are butterflied away. Unless Franz Josef actively tries to mend bridges with the Russians, it's hard to not see them doing as they OTL and happily averting their gaze as the Prussians put their back into beating the Austrians. So the Austro-Prussian/Seven Weeks War probably shakes out more or less as it OTL, barring quantum mechanics causing the timing of the arrival of the Red Prince's army at Koniggratz to change. (Or, you know, Crimean War 2.0 raging until 1866. That'd probably have enough butterflies that Koniggratz wouldn't go off according to plan.)

With regard to the Franco-Prussian War, assuming Crimean War 2.0 ends before 1866 and the Austro-Prussian/Seven Weeks War goes off more or less as OTL, the butterflies for it depend a lot on what happened to the French during Crimea 2.0. Did they actually gain a little initiative while under fire, thereby butterflying away the passivity which allowed for the OTL tried-and-true Prussian tactic of bull-rushing French positions, getting repulsed, and then wheeling up Krupp guns? Or did the opposite happen, with the experience bolstering their faith in the power of rifled muskets on the defensive and breed even more of a visceral instinct to plop down and start plinking? And, for that matter, will tool that made the OTL cliche Franco-Prussian War battle possible -- the chassepot -- even be available? As the gun was brought into service in 1866-67, and the Crimean War 2.0 would be requiring significantly different priorities of the army in the years immediately prior to the finalization of the chassepot.

I've probably raised more questions than answered them. Natch. Short version, though, is that you probably can't stop the Austro-Prussian/Seven Weeks War with the January Uprising short of it sparking a general European war that somehow drags both Austria and Prussia into it. Franco-Prussian War is likely more negotiable in terms of butterflying, at least in the form we know it as.
 
Polish uprising makes would decrease propability of conflict between partitioners, not increase it. Franz Josef would not support rebels.
Without uprising Russia may join Prussia in war against Austria. If Austria is in danger of collapse France and UK would move to save it because Habsburg Monarchy was crucial for balance of power, maybe even Ottomans would join. Then Polish rebellion starts, when war already started.
 
Last edited:
I was thinking about something I read once, that complained that at least PART of the French problem (in the Franco-Prussian War) was that they hadn't fought a EUROPEAN army in a decade. Their tactics were out of date, their weaponry lagging, and when Napoléon III DID try to institute changes to this, they were too little, too late. So, if France intervenes, gets their ass handed to them by Prussia-Russia, would this incite the French to actually DO something about their military problem?

I'm guessing France supporting the rebels means that Austria's kneejerk reaction is to go for neutrality or support Russia. The second is a bad decision ("Austria fought two wars in the 20th century, but her army had never really emerged from the Napoleonic Wars"), but the first is still worse - since Austria's neutrality in the Crimean War gained it no friends on either side.

What would the consequences of Britain removing herself from her Splendid Isolation at this point be? Prince Albert's died, most of Victoria's daughters are still unwed, and the Holstein Question that led to the 7WW is on the table alread IIRC. Does Britain join Prussia (who Albert envisioned ruling over a liberal, united Germanh) or France in this war?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'm guessing France supporting the rebels means that Austria's kneejerk reaction is to go for neutrality or support Russia

I thought that the Austrian attitude at this time was more pro-Polish. Sure the Poles were rebels, but they were Catholic rebels.
 
I thought that the Austrian attitude at this time was more pro-Polish. Sure the Poles were rebels, but they were Catholic rebels.
Except a successful Polish rebellion against Russia might give ideas to the Poles in Galicia that Vienna would find unwelcome...
 
I thought that the Austrian attitude at this time was more pro-Polish. Sure the Poles were rebels, but they were Catholic rebels.
During November Uprising even Pope condemned rebellion of Catholic Poles against their Orthodox ruler. Franz Josef would see rebellion in the same light-Poles are rebels who oppose their monarch.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
I think for some reason, fair or not, the Russians thought the Austrians were too pro-Polish and insufficiently pro-Russian in this case. And St. Petersburg differentiated between the active support Bismarck's Prussia gave, and whatever it was that Austria was doing.
 
So Austria's lack of action is a no-go here. Russia sees it as pro-Polish, so does that mean that Austria, sort of by default, will end up on the same side as France? Because I can't see Austria being too delighted with the idea of Russian influence in the former PLC increasing. How might Vienna react to being (as they perceive it) edged out in favour of St. Petersburg/Berlin
 
I've been reading up on the Venetian Question and this bit caught my eye:

"...The Venetian Question became critical in 1863 when the Polish Revolt gave Napoléon another opportunity to approach Austria on the subject while seeking her co-operation against Russia. In an ambitious plan to remake the map of Europe on a large scale, he proposed an Austro-French alliance which would have involved a war with both Prussia and Russia and destroyed the unification of Italy. Napoléon told Metternich:
"'In case events in Poland force you to evacuate Galicia, I offer you exclusive preponderance in the East and material compensation to be designated by yourself...If the definitive settlement of the Italian question (King of Naples, Pope and Piedmont) should require the surrender of Venetia, I would support your attempts at preponderance in Germany.'
"...The Austrian government seriously considered this proposal and called Metternich to Vienna for consultation."

So, the Polish Uprising could've strangled Italian Unification in its cradle, since Napoléon supported Leopoldo II of Tuscany's candidature to the Neapolitan throne by '63, though Metternich believed (wrongly) he would've preferred a Murat cousin, and the Empress Eugènie was in favour of a Bourbon "restoration".

How might this Franco-Austrian vs Russo-Prussian War have played out? Given how Prussia wiped the floor with both Austria and France before a decade had passed. And how might Italy, being cut in three have fared in the years to come?
 
Whom would UK support? On both sides traditional rival (France and Russia) and ally (Prussia and Austria).

Russia is the bigger threat in the 1860's (The Great Game is in full swing), and were on a fairly strong Detante trend with France. Given the chance to clip Russia's wings somewhat and balance power in Southern/Eastern Europe, I'd say they weigh in on France's and Austria's side at least in spirit.
 
I'd be interested in this 3-way split of Italy. Would the (Northern) Italians be fine with just being told to give the pope back his provinces in return for a Venetia they might/might not get from Austria? And what would stop them from mounting another war to take those States from the Pope? (besides being regarded as the pariah of Catholic Europe).

Though a Habsburg kingdom of Naples would be cool. Anyone seems like a better choice than Francesco II. I'm just not sure how likely it would be though.
 
Whom would UK support? On both sides traditional rival (France and Russia) and ally (Prussia and Austria).

Well, according to the article I read, Lord Clarendon was foreign minister in the mid-1860s, and he regarded the Austrians wanting what they did (the papacy restored and enlarged, as well as the return of the central Italian duchies) as completely ridiculous. Cowley/Crowley?? was the British minister in Paris and he was in favour of Britain coming down on the French side in support of Italy, but this was after Napoléon had stopped offering a threeway split of the country, and the Italians were offering to buy Venetia or get it via plebiscite from Austria.

Russia is the bigger threat in the 1860's (The Great Game is in full swing), and were on a fairly strong Detante trend with France. Given the chance to clip Russia's wings somewhat and balance power in Southern/Eastern Europe, I'd say they weigh in on France's and Austria's side at least in spirit.

Italy offered to take Venetia over from Austria in return for Austrian gains in Silesia (Austria still wanted all of Silesia), or in the Danubian Principalities. However, by the time Austria (the foreign ministry refused to consider the Venetian Question until they had no other choice, and by then Italy had already signed a treaty with Prussia - whom they distrusted) was willing to deal, the offer was off the table. Britain seems - at least in the mid-1860s to have swung against Austria for the reason mentioned above, but that was OTL. Here, they might decide France is the horse to back. And certainly, until Prussia did beat Austria, the Austrian government seemed to apparently have a rather euphoric view that they would be able to beat the "upstarts" no problem.

I'd be interested in this 3-way split of Italy. Would the (Northern) Italians be fine with just being told to give the pope back his provinces in return for a Venetia they might/might not get from Austria? And what would stop them from mounting another war to take those States from the Pope? (besides being regarded as the pariah of Catholic Europe).

Though a Habsburg kingdom of Naples would be cool. Anyone seems like a better choice than Francesco II. I'm just not sure how likely it would be though.

Me too. That's why I thought this would be fun. It's not only the future of Poland that this uprising could affect, since we could be looking at three countries in the Italian peninsula instead of one. But I agree with you, Spain (for what it's worth) might back their cousins in Naples - what'll be fun is if by 1870 the Bourbons don't reign anywhere in Europe (Spain they got deposed in the Glorious Revolution, France in 1830/1848, Parma's gone AFAIK, and now the Austrians are eyeing Naples to give to Leopoldo II), but it seems a little unlikely, what with Eugènie in their corner at the Tuileries.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Well, according to the article I read, Lord Clarendon was foreign minister in the mid-1860s, and he regarded the Austrians wanting what they did (the papacy restored and enlarged, as well as the return of the central Italian duchies) as completely ridiculous. Cowley/Crowley?? was the British minister in Paris and he was in favour of Britain coming down on the French side in support of Italy, but this was after Napoléon had stopped offering a threeway split of the country, and the Italians were offering to buy Venetia or get it via plebiscite from Austria.

In the 19th century Britain seemed to positively coddle Italian demands, supporting Italian gains, never allowing Italian (or Piedmontese) losses in Europe. Why was this?
 
If Austria is really successful UK is going to side with Hohenzollerns to prevent Prussia's collapse. In best case I think Austria could gain most of Silesia and southern parts of Russian Poland to straighten border.
 
In the 19th century Britain seemed to positively coddle Italian demands, supporting Italian gains, never allowing Italian (or Piedmontese) losses in Europe. Why was this?

Balance of Power: Italy was a non-threat as the bottom-tier power, and its ambitions were a useful baton to wave at/ consideration other powers needed to take into account which limited their ability to upset the Pax Brittanica.
 
Top