WI: Prussia doesn't get so much territory post-Napoleonic wars

Prussia seemed to get a ridiculous amount of territory in the peace negotiations post-Napoleon. But what if the rest of the parties don't feel so generous, and instead make a new state in the Rhineland.
 
No one wanted a Rhine state because they were afraid it would become a French pupet.

Only option was giving it to a great power, the UK and Austria had other areas of interest and the Russians were too far from the Rhine, so the Prussians got the land and became the ones protecting the door to central Germany.
 
Last edited:
No one wanted a Rhine state because they were afraid it would become a French pupet.

Only option was giving it to a great power, the UK and Austria had other areas of interest and the Russians were too far from the Rhine, so the Prussians got the land and became the ones protecting thd door to central Germany.

They were happy for Savoy and Holland to be independent without becoming French puppets.
 
They were happy for Savoy and Holland to be independent without becoming French puppets.

Austria controlled northern Italy so they could block their advance into Italy and Holland got Belgium so that they could serve as the other gatekeeper and to keep France from the Rhine. No one wanted the possibility of having France on the Rhine and Russia had promised Prussia land in the west in exchange for the majority of their polish lands.
 
Last edited:
Austria controled northern Italy só they could block their advance into Italy and Holland got Belgium so that they could serve as the other gatekeeper and to keep France from the Rhine. No one wanted a possibility of having France on the Rhine and Russia had promissed Prussia land in the west in exchange for the majority of their polish lands.

Then why not give the Rhineland territories to Netherlands instead?
 
Then why not give the Rhineland territories to Netherlands instead?
One, the British didn't want an actual great power owning the excellent Dutch ports (which the Netherlands-with-Rhineland might well be); two, the Dutch were at least somewhat suspect allies after the whole Batavian Republic gig; three, integrating Belgium would be trouble enough (and as history proved, too much) for the Netherlands.
 
How about integrating the Rhineland with the British-owned (sort of) Hanoverian territories? Britain could potentially make some concessions elsewhere in exchange for this - preferential trade agreements, or giving up colonies or ports.

Of course, this would create massive complications in 1837, with Queen Victoria's accession - the differing succession laws in Hanover meant that it was split from the British Crown, and if this happened to the Rhineland holdings as well, then that would potentially be a very powerful German state on par with Prussia.
 
How about integrating the Rhineland with the British-owned (sort of) Hanoverian territories? Britain could potentially make some concessions elsewhere in exchange for this - preferential trade agreements, or giving up colonies or ports.

Of course, this would create massive complications in 1837, with Queen Victoria's accession - the differing succession laws in Hanover meant that it was split from the British Crown, and if this happened to the Rhineland holdings as well, then that would potentially be a very powerful German state on par with Prussia.
Britain didn't want continental commitments and the hanoverians tended to get rolled over in conflict with serious continental opponents.
While the prussians still had a reputation for punching above their weight even if that reputation had taken a hit in the Napoleonic wars.
 
One, the British didn't want an actual great power owning the excellent Dutch ports (which the Netherlands-with-Rhineland might well be); two, the Dutch were at least somewhat suspect allies after the whole Batavian Republic gig; three, integrating Belgium would be trouble enough (and as history proved, too much) for the Netherlands.
and four, if Prussia doesn't get the Rhineland they would have to get all of Saxony (which would anyway be their first choice).
 
Britain didn't want continental commitments and the hanoverians tended to get rolled over in conflict with serious continental opponents.
While the prussians still had a reputation for punching above their weight even if that reputation had taken a hit in the Napoleonic wars.

Actualy it was the post-1813 reputation that gave them those lands. The numbers that they gathered in 13-14 and their tenacity at Leipzig, 13-14 and the 100 days was what convinced most that they would be the best to guard the Rhine.
 
Actualy it was the post-1813 reputation that gave them those lands. The numbers that they gathered in 13-14 and their tenacity at Leipzig, 13-14 and the 100 days was what convinced most that they would be the best to guard the Rhine.
I said their reputation had taken a hit, not that it had evaporated, most didn't expect them to get whipped by Napoleon they way did .
 
Britain didn't want continental commitments and the hanoverians tended to get rolled over in conflict with serious continental opponents.
While the prussians still had a reputation for punching above their weight even if that reputation had taken a hit in the Napoleonic wars.

The other possibility is that Britain agrees to give up Hanover in order to unite it with the Rhineland, under a sympathetic monarch (another member of the dynasty, perhaps). This could be likely if Prussia was seen as a much less reliable ally due to the part they played in the wars - they left Austria out for the French in 1805, and switched sides due to an army mutiny in 1813 to join the Sixth Coalition. This sort of thing could leave them looking as perfidious as Britain, and not good ally material; Britain and potentially Austria might think a less powerful Rhenish-Hanoverian state a preferable option here. In some ways, Hanover's militarily unthreatening nature might be an asset - Austria's dominance over the German Confederation is confirmed, benefitting them; Britain gets a more reliable ally on the Continent (to do any fighting or German politics for them) and there's a small but significant counterweight against a resurgent France, that can hold them off for long enough for the Quadruple Alliance to form the Eighth Coalition and all pile in against France.
 
The other possibility is that Britain agrees to give up Hanover in order to unite it with the Rhineland, under a sympathetic monarch (another member of the dynasty, perhaps). This could be likely if Prussia was seen as a much less reliable ally due to the part they played in the wars - they left Austria out for the French in 1805, and switched sides due to an army mutiny in 1813 to join the Sixth Coalition. This sort of thing could leave them looking as perfidious as Britain, and not good ally material; Britain and potentially Austria might think a less powerful Rhenish-Hanoverian state a preferable option here. In some ways, Hanover's militarily unthreatening nature might be an asset - Austria's dominance over the German Confederation is confirmed, benefitting them; Britain gets a more reliable ally on the Continent (to do any fighting or German politics for them) and there's a small but significant counterweight against a resurgent France, that can hold them off for long enough for the Quadruple Alliance to form the Eighth Coalition and all pile in against France.
You would have to change Prussias contribution, flip flopping worked out fine for Bavaria.
 
You would have to change Prussias contribution, flip flopping worked out fine for Bavaria.

That is a good point - making Prussia contribute less to the 1813 war would be one way of going about it. There are alternatives, though - one way would be for Prussia to claim all of Saxony at the Congress and for nobody to care too much about the Saxons (maybe if they continued their support for Napoleon for longer, or if more emphasis was placed on it),meaning that everyone feels that Prussia has quite enough land from this.
An interesting alternative would be for the actions of General Yorck - the Prussian general who joined the Russians in 1812, and persuaded the government to follow suit - to be reviled, as an example of treachery driven by nationalism. Metternich could certainly make something of that.
 
That is a good point - making Prussia contribute less to the 1813 war would be one way of going about it. There are alternatives, though - one way would be for Prussia to claim all of Saxony at the Congress and for nobody to care too much about the Saxons (maybe if they continued their support for Napoleon for longer, or if more emphasis was placed on it),meaning that everyone feels that Prussia has quite enough land from this.
An interesting alternative would be for the actions of General Yorck - the Prussian general who joined the Russians in 1812, and persuaded the government to follow suit - to be reviled, as an example of treachery driven by nationalism. Metternich could certainly make something of that.
Well yeah the easiest way to have the Prussians not on the Rhine is to have the Russians get their way and have the Prussians get all of Saxony and lose poznan, if this does ultimately lead to Hanover gaining the Rhineland and they manage to keep and develop it then you get a third significant power in Germany.
Which is interesting to say the least.
I don't see how you could get Yorck reviled, especially considering that his actions were ultimately beneficial.
 
That is a good point - making Prussia contribute less to the 1813 war would be one way of going about it. There are alternatives, though - one way would be for Prussia to claim all of Saxony at the Congress and for nobody to care too much about the Saxons (maybe if they continued their support for Napoleon for longer, or if more emphasis was placed on it),meaning that everyone feels that Prussia has quite enough land from this.
An interesting alternative would be for the actions of General Yorck - the Prussian general who joined the Russians in 1812, and persuaded the government to follow suit - to be reviled, as an example of treachery driven by nationalism. Metternich could certainly make something of that.

The King of Prussia had ordered his arrest when he joined the Russians, but Yorck staid in East Prussia, where Stein had gathered control and used the East Prussian Estates to rise the Landwher against Napoleon. So in February you had two Prussian positions, East and West Prussia were under Russian control and were gathering men, and the King in Silesia not knowing what to do next.

Metternich couldn't go nothing to that because he's own position in early 1813 had been to wait despite the Coalition asking Austria to join.

When the Prussian King made the deal in late February, Prussia was already guaranteed to gain land at the expense of the French allies and even if they get the all of Saxony the problem of who will guard the Rhine will still exist and the problems during the 1815 negotiations would still exist.
 
Note that the Prussians were rather dissatisfied with the OTL Vienna settlement
It is only with hindsight that we see the value of the territory- the lands being major industry and orienting Prussia towards German unification.
 
I don't see how you could get Yorck reviled, especially considering that his actions were ultimately beneficial.

His actions were certainly beneficial, and it would be unlikely - but there is a case to be made that he betrayed his country for nationalist interests, and then persuaded the rest of the country to join his cause. That's potentially a pretty dangerous precedent to set - Austria would be very worried about that happening to one of their generals, especially a Hungarian one, and rewarding Prussia for Yorck's actions comes dangerously close to legitimising nationalist mutiny.

Another thought - what if Napoleon didn't return for the Hundred Days? Prussia's reputation, whilst not bad, doesn't get the boost from their role at Waterloo, and there's less of a fear of a resurgent France, so the Great Powers are prepared to give the Rhineland to Hanover on the condition that there's still a whole bunch of treaties surrounding it. A more competent Louis XVIII (sounds extremely unlikely, I know, but in fairness it would have been difficult for him to be less competent) might be able to assuage the fears of France a bit, with Talleyrand's help, meaning that the Congress of Vienna isn't sufficiently scared of France to try and turn Prussia into a buffer state.
 
Some new general's or nobles are needed if a state is to be established in the Rhine. For the Prussian plans with Saxony and Poland... Was it that the Russians took Posen from Prussia and Galicia from the Austrians, so Prussia would get all of Saxony and the Dutch got the northern Rhine? Can't imagine why the Austrians wouldn't like that, though perhaps there were implications they outright annexed Northenr Italy or the southern Rhine when getting Belgium or something. What was going to be done with the King of Saxony? He gets nothing for not abandoning Napoleon? I think the Austrians or others would have been more understanding, especially if some leak showed how the King of Prussia was trying to stay with France. But I am getting off topic, perhaps. Have Denmark manage to switch sides back soon enough, so Denmark and Sweden keep much of the land stretching from Oldenburg to Meklenburg. Maybe the Dutch someone how manage to get the Napoleonic King they liked back or he was deemed acceptable and placed in control of the Rhine Valley. Unlikely, I know. Maybe Germany keeps the all the land they got in Poland and the Russians instead get valuable lands in Germany placed under Romanovs?
 

longsword14

Banned
Yorck was held up as the model for the patriotic Prussian soldier. The king was paralysed about taking action, while the Russians expected support from the Prussians, Yorck decided to take things into his own hands thus acting as the trigger that led to Prussia joining the fight again.
 
Top