WI The French Second Empire Is More Successful?

The setting is about the year 1875 to 1880. As opposed to the historical failure of Napoleon III, he found himself rather successful here. Prussia was defeated in the Franco-Prussian War, and lost the Rhineland. In additional wheelings and dealings, Napoleon has also found himself the master of Belgium, a small part of the Netherlands, Luxembourg and the Bavarian Palatinate. The small German states have been reorganized into moderately-sized units and exist largely under his protection. To the south, Napoleon has managed to assist the creation of an Italy, which for now is an uneasy ally- the continued existence of the Papal States in truncated form is a major issue for them, however.

Prussia has lost much of its most valuable territory, but has gained some compensation by annexing all of the small states of Northern Germany, giving it, for the first time in its history, a completely cohesive state territory. Also, the defeat and humiliation of Bismarck and his cohorts has led to an extensive liberalization of Prussia- which is now, truly, a constitutional monarchy with equal and universal suffrage. Austria, save for the losses of Italy and the German Confederation, remains intact and in the midsts of reorganization- will it be a German Reich, a German/Magyar Dual Monarchy or a federalized state under a constitutional monarch?

Meanwhile, to the east, Russia has largely recovered from the shocks of the Crimean War and its aftermath and looks to increase its influence to the west, but particularly to the south, where the tottering Ottoman Empire remains fair game- or so Russia believes. And what of Britain? Despite facing a colossus across the Channel- yet again, it retains a heavy maritime advantage and its vast colonial empire. The Second Empire has not yet menaced Britain directly, but that may very well change.

Should it come to war, who will Britain ally with? The Italians are, nominally at least, allies of the French. The Austrians are concerned with their own affairs. Prussia is a natural and congenial friend, and desires vengeance against France- Der Rhein ist ein deutscher Fluß! But is Prussia strong enough for the challenge? Britain's minor allies lack the strength to make an appreciable difference to the balance.

And what of Russia? That eastern colossus that, in many ways, menaces Britain- through India, just as much, if not more than France does. It is scarcely a generation since Britain and France warred together against Russia, and the Russian memory is long.

Perhaps it is unnecessary. Perhaps the Second Empire is not so insatiable as the first. But, with Europe drifting more and more under the control of the revived Bonapartes and with French businessmen, explorers and colonists expanding through North Africa, the Middle East and Indochina - a defeat which, after all, was in large part due to Napoleon's diplomatic scheming- perhaps it is time for the British Lion and the Gallic Rooster to go to war again.

Second Empire.GIF
 
Last edited:
I'm confused: if the POD begins (or has its first major effect) in a French victory in the Franco-Prussian War, how does the US lose the ACW? If the POD is earlier, allowing Napoleon III to be stronger, more confident, and more successful, then the FPW shouldn't happen.

However, I have a hard time seeing Britain wait that long to check the rise of a concentration of power in Europe which destroys the balance of power which supports British hegemony. Letting France acquire a Rhine border overturns about 200 years of British diplomacy and grand strategy.
 
I'm confused: if the POD begins (or has its first major effect) in a French victory in the Franco-Prussian War, how does the US lose the ACW? If the POD is earlier, allowing Napoleon III to be stronger, more confident, and more successful, then the FPW shouldn't happen.

However, I have a hard time seeing Britain wait that long to check the rise of a concentration of power in Europe which destroys the balance of power which supports British hegemony. Letting France acquire a Rhine border overturns about 200 years of British diplomacy and grand strategy.

Good point, I just edited it to get rid of that confusing reference to the Confederacy. Let's keep the POD at a solid French victory in the Franco-Prussian War ...

What would the British do to prevent such a thing in the event of an overwhelming French victory over the Prussians?
 
Good point, I just edited it to get rid of that confusing reference to the Confederacy. Let's keep the POD at a solid French victory in the Franco-Prussian War ...

What would the British do to prevent such a thing in the event of an overwhelming French victory over the Prussians?

First, I think they'd consider a unilateral French declaration of the border a very aggressive act. Indeed, such an act flies in the face of "The Concert of Europe." The Germans got around this when they declared the formation of the German Empire because they were nominally declaring the amalgamation, freely chosen by individual states. The French would be seizing territory (that would be very tricky to hold, given the sentiments of its residents).

Next, Britain routinely indulged in "war scares" throughout the mid to late 19th Century, many of them against France. If France truly does act unilaterally, rather than cunningly manipulate events a la Bismark, then the British may take action. Of course, the only action they could take would be a blockade, because a startling French victory means the French army is highly competent and the British Army would certainly be the weaker force.

Of course it's slightly hard to get one's head around a 2nd Empire and a Napoleon III that isn't obsessed with keeping Britain friendly. Nonetheless, this is for good reason: the British reaction to a rising upstart to the European order in the case of France was compounded by France's sheer proximity to Britain. A German Empire doesn't look to be much of a naval threat (and indeed seems to take care of some pesky problems of the German statelets). A strong French Empire is just across the Channel, with her hand as it were instantly at Britain's throat and access to the Mediterranean along with colonial interests with which to threaten Britain's own power abroad.

Hence, I suppose France could take strong aggressive action, but IMO it will trigger a quick and lasting shift in British attitudes toward France, unlike the response to German's rise OTL.
 
First, I think they'd consider a unilateral French declaration of the border a very aggressive act. Indeed, such an act flies in the face of "The Concert of Europe." The Germans got around this when they declared the formation of the German Empire because they were nominally declaring the amalgamation, freely chosen by individual states. The French would be seizing territory (that would be very tricky to hold, given the sentiments of its residents).

Next, Britain routinely indulged in "war scares" throughout the mid to late 19th Century, many of them against France. If France truly does act unilaterally, rather than cunningly manipulate events a la Bismark, then the British may take action. Of course, the only action they could take would be a blockade, because a startling French victory means the French army is highly competent and the British Army would certainly be the weaker force.

Of course it's slightly hard to get one's head around a 2nd Empire and a Napoleon III that isn't obsessed with keeping Britain friendly. Nonetheless, this is for good reason: the British reaction to a rising upstart to the European order in the case of France was compounded by France's sheer proximity to Britain. A German Empire doesn't look to be much of a naval threat (and indeed seems to take care of some pesky problems of the German statelets). A strong French Empire is just across the Channel, with her hand as it were instantly at Britain's throat and access to the Mediterranean along with colonial interests with which to threaten Britain's own power abroad.

Hence, I suppose France could take strong aggressive action, but IMO it will trigger a quick and lasting shift in British attitudes toward France, unlike the response to German's rise OTL.

I would imagine the British would try to find allies in Continental Europe- the Prussians have their grudges, and the Austrians might not want to border French-dominated German satellites all that much, and the Italians might want a crack at the remainder of the Papal States. If France formed an alliance with Russia, the result could either be a balance of terror or an early World War I.
 
How did Tunisia end up French, Cyprus British and Crete Greek? When did Montenegro crush Turkey by force of lack of numbers to get an Adriatic shore? What's up with the coloring of Spain, Morocco and Greece, does it signify French influence? What happened to Schleswig-Holstein? Shouldn't Russia have subdued the Muslim resistance in Ciscaucasia by now?

It's all Françwank anyway.
 
Last edited:
How did Crete end up Greek and Cyprus British? What's up with the coloring of Spain, Morocco and Greece, does it signify French influence?

It's all Françwank anyway.

Um, um ... the French forced the Ottomans to give Crete to the Greeks, in exchange for being allowed to lease naval facilities there. This caused the British to obtain Cyprus to counter the French bases in the Eastern Mediterranean. :eek:

And I thought a timeline in which post-Napoleonic France was successful might be a good change, but maybe it wasn't the most brilliant thing I've ever conceived. Oh well.
 
A french victory at 1870 is unlikely to end in French annexation of the Rhineland, although moving the border further east, or annexing the Saar, might not be out of the question.

Another possibility is Napoleon III setting up a Catholic alliance with Italy, Austria and the South German statelets, giving Austria nominal authority amongst the Germans (Bavaria et al) while remaining the big dog in the whole thing through sheer force of arms.

Belgium is unlikely to be absorbed by France, at least not entirely, although Wallonia might not be too far fetched.

After that though, there might not have been too big a difference between a longer lasting Empire and what eventually became the 3rd Republic, since Napoleon had already started a liberalization of the empire. The greatest change would be in Germany, which would remain divided but not nearly as shattered as before (and I can't see Prussia obtaining hegemony over North Germany if they lose badly to France).

It would be interesting though if France forced Prussia to give up the Rhineland, setting up a puppet kingdom in the region. Similar effect economically on Prussia but without the diplomatic implications.

EDIT: If a Bonaparte ends up on the Spanish throne, the scenario might be more interesting still.
 
Um, um ... the French forced the Ottomans to give Crete to the Greeks, in exchange for being allowed to lease naval facilities there. This caused the British to obtain Cyprus to counter the French bases in the Eastern Mediterranean. :eek:

And I thought a timeline in which post-Napoleonic France was successful might be a good change, but maybe it wasn't the most brilliant thing I've ever conceived. Oh well.

Well, you could change a lot in the restored Bourbon kingdom and potentially avoid the 2nd Empire all together. Somewhere out there, Fearless Leader has a TL going about Haiti: in it, France goes through a revolution in the 1820s or so as a result of having invaded Haiti. He hasn't detailed it yet, but it looks as if the greater conflagration will allow the establishment of a parliamentary monarchy with a Bourbon on the throne, sewing the seeds of a stable polity.

Then of course, there's how you define success. If Napoleon III, as some have suggested, managed simply to defeat Prussia and thus forestall a Bismarkian German Empire headed by Prussia, then he could well play a few diplomatic cards to maintain the status quo in the German states for a bit longer and confound any attempt to establish a state larger enough to contest hexagonal France. Such a policy isn't outwardly aggressive and won't persist for too long (the German people will react, but their reaction may take a form that allows France to play the peacemaker rather than conqueror).

In other words, a France that is stable and well-governed enough to manage a balance of power in the Germany (a hard task mind you) ends up becoming powerful without looking too aggressive from Britain's point of view.
 
I haven't done much w/France yet in my CoHE TL, but in it France has been blessed with political stability and wise leadership from Parliament and the throne (Bourbon kings). Indeed political stability and wise leadership along with a clear definition of what "success" is, are essential to having a successful France in the 2nd half of the 19th Century.
 
I haven't done much w/France yet in my CoHE TL, but in it France has been blessed with political stability and wise leadership from Parliament and the throne (Bourbon kings). Indeed political stability and wise leadership along with a clear definition of what "success" is, are essential to having a successful France in the 2nd half of the 19th Century.

I was just wondering what European politics and the Congress system would look like in CoHE. :D
 
Top