WI Louis Napoleon avoids Euro-American adventurism and does more Afro-Asian adventurism

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
What if Louis Napoleon skipped the adventures of starting the Crimean War, the War of Italian independence with Austria, the Mexican intervention and empire and avoid declaring war on Prussia.

Napoleon in this case takes the Bismarckian view that France is "satiated" in Europe. His main sop to domestic Catholic opinion is he chooses to have French troops remain the protector of the Pope in Rome and Lazio.

He also does not do anything more than a multilateral debt collection mission to Mexico, not sponsoring the Mexican empire.

However, to exercise his adventurist spirit, he accelerates French efforts to expand in all the areas France expanded to in the 1870s and 1880s and beyond.

So, this means seizing Tunis in the 1850s or 1860s and possibly going for Morocco later. Trying more expansion in sub-Saharan Africa, although success may be elusive until medical tech increases.

It also means accelerating campaigns in Indochina. In OTL Louis Napoleon secured Cochin-china and Cambodia and then France took a break in further expansion until the 1870s and 1880s. What if Louis Napoleon support campaigns to subdue central and northern Vietnam in the 1860s, and put them under French protectorate?

I think if the French are making the Indochina moves earlier, China will be less likely to go to war to oppose France, because it is dealing with the Taiping rebellion until the late 1860s and other regional rebellions until the middle 1870s.

I imagine the minimum British reaction would be to speed up their own competitive imperialism in Africa and Southeast Asia. At a maximum it could lead to competition getting out of hand.

Areas where France could possibly show a stronger hand overseas by being more placid in Europe could possibly be: more of sub-saharan Africa/Congo/Ethiopia. Libya and Egypt. Korea and Japan. Hawaii and the Pacific.

Even if France does not make an empire any more extensive than OTL's, the effects of an earlier consolidated French overseas Empire are interesting to contemplate. On the one hand, this may increase the net amount of time under French rule and deepen French cultural influence in colonies compared to OTL.

On the other hand, European colonialism and associated education and propagation of enlightenment/modern ideas had a way of spurring colonial demands for self-government and independence. Perhaps setting up a more thorough colonial administration in Tunis, Morocco and Vietnam in the 1860s means that by the 1920s or so, France is facing major ongoing insurgency problems in these colonies, or at least mass political agitation?

Your thoughts?
 
You'd need areas with catholic minorities, as this was the core of his colonial politic.

He'd probably go in the Levant, I'm not sure they have the full capacity to take the whole of Vietnam though, because of disease if anything else.

Probably more resources put in Japan too?
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
https://fr.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Expédition_française_en_Syrie
If done subtly enough I'd guess...
They also tolerated the Suez canal.

Of course let's remember that map filling colonialism is very much a result of the FPW, so instead of actually conquering land, Napoléon might just try to force regime changes, like in Mexico

Good point on map-filling colonialism. Although perhaps L. Nap could choose to invent it.

Also a reasonable point on British toleration. During L. Nap's reign, Britain did seem far more willing to indulge his initiatives than Russian initiatives.
 
Good point on map-filling colonialism. Although perhaps L. Nap could choose to invent it.

Also a reasonable point on British toleration. During L. Nap's reign, Britain did seem far more willing to indulge his initiatives than Russian initiatives.
They were a tad busy with the Great Game and the aftermath of the 1857 rebellion I'd guess.
Maybe they force the issue and we end up with an earlier partition of the Ottomans to disturb Russian plans?
 
He'd probably go in the Levant, I'm not sure they have the full capacity to take the whole of Vietnam though, because of disease if anything else.

Depending on when this happens, might a Franco-Greco-Russian alliance to dismantle and partition the Ottoman Empire, perhaps with a few other interested parties jumping in at some point as well, be plausible?
 
Depending on when this happens, might a Franco-Greco-Russian alliance to dismantle and partition the Ottoman Empire, perhaps with a few other interested parties jumping in at some point as well, be plausible?

Britain would never allow it, ESPECIALLY if France looks like it's going on a post-Crimean buddy up path with Russia. London was willing to indulge Nappy's expanding influence because he was doing yeoman service in support of British interests (IE checking the expansion of Russian influence, balancing the Germanies by providing a check on Austro-Prussian rivalries, keeping Slesvig-Holstein out of German hands), and creating a peaceful system of international and increasingly free commerce and trade. A Franco-Russian Alliance is her nightmare scenario, and you can bet she'll start mobalizing her connections on the Continent to keep Russia out of the Med. (Especially if its friends with the French navy) lest she risk every pressure point of the Empire being threatened at once.

If anything, Napoleon III would seem more inclined to try to clientize Constantinople as part of the spirit of co-operation with Britain. Then he could get British acceptance for Asian adventures. This aligns strongly with the 2nd Empire's standing pattern of trying to "fit" into Consort of Europe system t expand its reach without triggering an international reaction against her, utailization of "soft" power (Fincial leverage, military missions, inserting political advisors/client relations with minor states, large capital investments, ect.) to expand her markets in an "informal empire" without creating collision courses with other Great Powers, and general policy of not wanting to end up on the opposite side of any dispute via Britain and insuring she always feels accomindating (See the willingness to split the Suez Canal, for example, or not making the final hard push on Italy until she saw that British policy was shifting firmly in a pro-Unification direction, only going into Mexico as a joint project, ect.). If France wants to seek her glory on far-flung shores, the last thing she needs is resistance from the Ruler of the Waves driving up the risk and cost of every move.

If you're looking for inflluence in the Balkans area, what about the possability to the power vacuem crated in Greece with the overthrow of King Otto? If Maximilian isen't in the wings for a Mexican Throne due to France falling in line with just making Juraez pay his debts, than perhaps they work to get a client king on the Greek throne, with an agreement with the UK to have Britain permenantly annex the Ionian Isles as a naval base? (A great place to keep an Eastern Med. squadrion to keep watch over the Straits in case Russia does something funny)? Of course, that alienates Russia, but France needs to pick a priority: good will with Britain and a freer hand in Asia and Africa (Which the context of the thread assumes) or good will with Russia and a check against potential rivals getting backed on land. Its Great Game time, so he really can't do both since the Lion and Bear are at eachother's throats.
 
Last edited:
Second Empire France fought a war with #@!* Korea, and as the OP noted did take over Vietnamese territory, so I don't think the premise of the post is that plausible. You can go with a cautious French foreign policy, in which case you probably need the July Monarchy or the Second Republic to continue, but I don't see how you get adventurism but in different areas.
 
Second Empire France fought a war with #@!* Korea, and as the OP noted did take over Vietnamese territory, so I don't think the premise of the post is that plausible. You can go with a cautious French foreign policy, in which case you probably need the July Monarchy or the Second Republic to continue, but I don't see how you get adventurism but in different areas.
Hé was also very active in Japan! There could be even more of a proxy war with the Brits in Japan actually
 
Second Empire France fought a war with #@!* Korea, and as the OP noted did take over Vietnamese territory, so I don't think the premise of the post is that plausible. You can go with a cautious French foreign policy, in which case you probably need the July Monarchy or the Second Republic to continue, but I don't see how you get adventurism but in different areas.

Expeditions in East Africa and deeper explorations into the Congo with the goal of claiming that basin seem like ideal targets: that dosen't bump up against British interests and could be considered high oppritunities for profit/resource availability. Especially if you can reach some better deal for condominium with Britain over Egypt: general agreement that the Horn and Zanzibar coastal areas along with Madegascar being French influenced while the British get the Nile Valley and enough of the interior for a secure trans-African railway if they want it. Then in Asia try to more deeply carve up China and, without Japan, more deeply pursue Korea.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
Second Empire France fought a war with #@!* Korea, and as the OP noted did take over Vietnamese territory, so I don't think the premise of the post is that plausible. You can go with a cautious French foreign policy, in which case you probably need the July Monarchy or the Second Republic to continue, but I don't see how you get adventurism but in different areas.

I agree and disagree - perhaps passive policy under a different regime is more likely (although the Bourbons did Algeria and the July Monarchy did more in Algeria and some stuff in the Pacific islands and African coasts).

But Napoleon could find a rationale for adventurism that is mainly overseas. He judges the continental situation as already close to ideal, and in addition to not wanting to disturb Britain, he also determines his country has no interest in disturbing its non-neighbors, Austria and Russia, owes no favors to Piedmont, and need not trouble with Prussia while it remains quiet. Meanwhile, more parts of overseas can be playgrounds wherever the British have not defined their interests super-specifically. In some ways it resembles how France managed to forego all continental ambitions and provocations after the 7 years war until the revolutionary wars, and in so doing, it was able to successfully intervene in America.

You could call it the "France has no white enemies" policy.
 
Last edited:
Mexico: This is more of a screw. French intervention United the nation of Mexico in a way few other things could. You see more pro-American regimes and even taking a part of Mexico, or two.

Congo would likely be divided between the British, Portuguese, and French.


Follow up campaign to take over Annam and Tonkin entirely in the 1860s instead of waiting till the 1880s as in OTL as mention and add more of China to it.

I think France going after Korea and aid to the Shogunate would be the most fun to look at. So is making Maximilian King of the Greeks.(Which would do wonders for them.)

Crimean War: It be another Russo-Turkish war a few years later, with the British supporting Turkey with troops to fight alongside the Ottomans and navy-land battles, and Russian a bit weaker. Russia and Austria's mutual friendship is saved.

Italy: He still likely get into Italy and Italian Nationalism. ( He was involved with the Carbonari after all.) Italy probably divided 3-way however. (Sardinia Northen Italy, Central Italian Kingdom, and Naples to the South.) Or something like that. (And because its fun giving a good slap to the face to the Hapsburgs and giving them night terrors.)
 
Follow up campaign to take over Annam and Tonkin entirely in the 1860s instead of waiting till the 1880s as in OTL as mention and add more of China to it.
I agree on the idea but you'd probably need to wait til the 70's, to take time for everyone to realize navigating on the Tonkin waterways ain't that free. It's not like Cochinchina was pacified either, most of the administrative body packed up and left after the conquest
 
I agree on the idea but you'd probably need to wait til the 70's, to take time for everyone to realize navigating on the Tonkin waterways ain't that free. It's not like Cochinchina was pacified either, most of the administrative body packed up and left after the conquest

Eh, true. Probably for the better.
 
Top