Second French Empire survives to present day?
- Thread starter Kermode
- Start date
Cuāuhtemōc
Banned
I thought they still had an empire 
, well sort of
Keeping Algiers as a permanent part of France would be a start.
, well sort of Keeping Algiers as a permanent part of France would be a start.
Susano
Banned
I thought they still had an empire
Keeping Algiers as a permanent part of France would be a start.
Ah, the amiguity of English... it isnt the colonal Empire which is meant but the stateform. The French Second Empire was 1849 (or 1850?) to 1870 (or did he hold out to 71?), under the rule of Napoleon III Bonaparte, a nephew of Napoleon I.
This would of necessity require either:
A: Prussia never engaging in the Franco-Prussian War or
B: Prussia losing the Franco-Prussian War.
B, while not impossible is not terribly likely. So, what could cause Prussia to never engage in the War? What I would suggest is losing or never fighting the Austro-Prussian War. And what could cause that? Why, Napoleon III making it clear to Bismark that France will defend Austria. Or the removal of Italy from the scene by having Napoleon III not help Sardinia-Piedmont unify it. Or perhaps Napoleon not deciding that invading Mexico was a jolly good idea in 1861..
In short, by having Napoleon III either be more competent in foreign affairs, or willing and able to leave those up to someone who was.
If that happened, there could be some very interesting butterflies, depending. Assuming the Empire liberalizes (as it must if it is to survive), it would easily become the longest-lived government since at least the Bourbons. World War I and hence World War II as we know them are certainly butterflied, since there is no French revanchist sentiment (for World War I) and possibly no united Germany nor Italy, either. That would certainly remove the Entente, and there may not be any semi-permanent mutual-security alliances ITTL. USA is likely to remain isolationist much longer. Possibly no Communist Revolution in Russia. So, this world is likely to be somewhat more liberal (in the long run) than OTL, but less so in the short run.
OTOH, an Empire is quite likely to be more interventionist than the Third Republic, which could cause interesting problems. It would be funny if this resulted in a Channel Pact down the line (with the Bonapartes eventually keeping the throne, of course).
As a side note, the Bonapartes eventually become one of the most prestigious dynasties in Europe. After all, they'll have actually been in power longer than just about any others except the Bourbons (in Spain and possibly in Naples), the Romanovs, the Habsburgs (if they survive), the Ottomans, and (irony of ironies!) the Bernadottes in Sweden. Possibly some minor German dynasties as well.
A: Prussia never engaging in the Franco-Prussian War or
B: Prussia losing the Franco-Prussian War.
B, while not impossible is not terribly likely. So, what could cause Prussia to never engage in the War? What I would suggest is losing or never fighting the Austro-Prussian War. And what could cause that? Why, Napoleon III making it clear to Bismark that France will defend Austria. Or the removal of Italy from the scene by having Napoleon III not help Sardinia-Piedmont unify it. Or perhaps Napoleon not deciding that invading Mexico was a jolly good idea in 1861..
In short, by having Napoleon III either be more competent in foreign affairs, or willing and able to leave those up to someone who was.
If that happened, there could be some very interesting butterflies, depending. Assuming the Empire liberalizes (as it must if it is to survive), it would easily become the longest-lived government since at least the Bourbons. World War I and hence World War II as we know them are certainly butterflied, since there is no French revanchist sentiment (for World War I) and possibly no united Germany nor Italy, either. That would certainly remove the Entente, and there may not be any semi-permanent mutual-security alliances ITTL. USA is likely to remain isolationist much longer. Possibly no Communist Revolution in Russia. So, this world is likely to be somewhat more liberal (in the long run) than OTL, but less so in the short run.
OTOH, an Empire is quite likely to be more interventionist than the Third Republic, which could cause interesting problems. It would be funny if this resulted in a Channel Pact down the line (with the Bonapartes eventually keeping the throne, of course).
As a side note, the Bonapartes eventually become one of the most prestigious dynasties in Europe. After all, they'll have actually been in power longer than just about any others except the Bourbons (in Spain and possibly in Naples), the Romanovs, the Habsburgs (if they survive), the Ottomans, and (irony of ironies!) the Bernadottes in Sweden. Possibly some minor German dynasties as well.
Are these two possible, though? From my (admittedly limited) understanding, Napoleon III didn't like the Habsburgs, and very much wanted a unified Italy ...
Well, that's why I said you have to make Nappy either "more competent in foreign affairs, or willing and able to those up to someone who was [more competent]"
You would need to change Napoleon III's outlook on life.Or you could take the Susano route.
Another thing is, will the Bonapartes ITTL ever stop naming their heirs "Napoleon"? It would be nice to see some variety, you know!
my timeline has a surviving one , though my timeline only goes to the 1870's so far. In it the French succeed in their Mexican adventure, because of a post-Civil war resistance that leaves the US occupied.
, though my timeline only goes to the 1870's so far. In it the French succeed in their Mexican adventure, because of a post-Civil war resistance that leaves the US occupied.Well, Napoleon III was real screwy the way he handled things.
He helped Italy unify, thus pissing off Austria. Then sold Italy out by signing a peace with Austria at Italy's expense.
Further pissed Italy off by helping out the Papacy remain soverign over Rome for awhile.
Pissed Britain and the United States off by his adventure into Mexico.
So by the time he's taking on Prussia any potential allies have a reason not to help him.
Granted you're not going to unify Italy without making Austria mad in some way, so if you're going to may as well go all out. A full fledged unified Italy, forge a strong alliance with Bavaria as well. That way when war with Prussia does roll around, France has two strong allies that may turn the tide.
He helped Italy unify, thus pissing off Austria. Then sold Italy out by signing a peace with Austria at Italy's expense.
Further pissed Italy off by helping out the Papacy remain soverign over Rome for awhile.
Pissed Britain and the United States off by his adventure into Mexico.
So by the time he's taking on Prussia any potential allies have a reason not to help him.
Granted you're not going to unify Italy without making Austria mad in some way, so if you're going to may as well go all out. A full fledged unified Italy, forge a strong alliance with Bavaria as well. That way when war with Prussia does roll around, France has two strong allies that may turn the tide.
You missed one.
He p***ed off Russia by his open sympathy for the Polish rebels in 1863/4. Bismarck, of course, took a firmly pro-Russian line.
Making him more competent in foreign affairs is certainly possible, of course, I just think that changing those two specifically would be a rather big change to his character. Maybe I'm wrong?Well, that's why I said you have to make Nappy either "more competent in foreign affairs, or willing and able to those up to someone who was [more competent]"
I imagine the name will always remain popular, simply for the grandeur ... but after a few generations there may be a Napoleon-Louis, Napoleon-Jerome, or Napoleon-Joseph on the throne, and maybe an emperor without Napoleon in his name in modern times.
Something just occurred to me ... how possible is it that Napoleon III could cause the creation of an independent Vatican City?
Grey Wolf
Donor
If he was unable to find a suitable candidate for his Mexican adventure then France would have continued as one of the Maritime Powers in a joint blockade/enforcement, and not got any more deeply involved in Mexico than the others.
Maximilian needed a lot of persuasion and said "no" a lot - without Max, you have no Austrian or Belgian element to any expedition and it remains a Franco-British-Spanish one to get monies out of Mexico
Without Mexico, France is in a position to be more aggressive in posture in 1866 and the likelihood of Prussia risking war with Austria whilst France sits on the sidelines is much slimmer
No clash with Austria, means a greater likelihood of a NORTH German empire in time, with the Southern states remaining independent, and no united war against France
Bestt Regarrds
Grey Wolf
Maximilian needed a lot of persuasion and said "no" a lot - without Max, you have no Austrian or Belgian element to any expedition and it remains a Franco-British-Spanish one to get monies out of Mexico
Without Mexico, France is in a position to be more aggressive in posture in 1866 and the likelihood of Prussia risking war with Austria whilst France sits on the sidelines is much slimmer
No clash with Austria, means a greater likelihood of a NORTH German empire in time, with the Southern states remaining independent, and no united war against France
Bestt Regarrds
Grey Wolf
Susano
Banned
But France wouldnt side with Austria. Austria was still very much seen as the more powerful side, and the Prussian victory was a surprise. Napoleon IIIs OTL plan was to intervent when Prussia loses (!) and defend it, claiming the Rhine border in return. Now ith more troops at his disposal he might have had another plan, but I think hed still bet on Prussia losing. He might of course simply invade once a winner seems clear, but that would cause... major troubles in Germany. I dont think it would be quite as easy as matching military powers. As the 1866 war was also a war abuout leadership in Germany, a French invasion is just the sort of thing which could drive Austria and Prussia on the same side again, because neither would want to seem like collobrating with France...
This is an interesting WI. It always seems that the Second French Empire is doomed to fail. Granted, Napoleon III was rather incompetent.
That could be a great POD for a Franco-Prussian Alliance. Say for some reason, Prussia does begin losing the war. France then intervenes to help the Prussians in exchange for the Rhineland border. In the long term, I think the Germans will be pretty annoyed by that, but in the short term it would buy time for the Second French Empire by gaining an ally in Prussia.
A surviving Second French Empire.
Well, I see two POD, both with very interresting butterflies.
1. Bismark dies as a young man in one of his duels.
Since he was the driving force to unify Germany - even against the will of his King - there is no Prussian Austrian war and no Prussian French war.
If the war for Italian independence continues as per OTL with Sardinia Piemont losing more decicively in 1866 - as Austria does not need to split its army - France must either give up Italy or declare war on Austria.
As Napoleon III wanted to move the French border to the Rhine, one can expect that Bavaria, Baden, and other German states to join Austria, which after all beat Sardinia Piemont. Given that the idea of a German nation with Austria as a lead (Großdeutsche Lösung) was still a possibility, a unified South-Germany with Vienna as capital could be an outcome.
However, even without Bismark, Prussia would not go down quietly. Either they accept that the South is Austrian and form a North-Germany or go to war.
A French Prussian alliance in 1866 would be the outcome.
Austria would most likely loose the war.
France gets its Rhine border, Italy Venetien and South Tirol - the Italian speaking part - and Prussia all of North-Germany, while the southern German states might stay independent but dependent on Austria.
This French Prussian (later joined by Italy and the Ottoman Empire) alliance would last for a long time as the interrests of Napoleon III and Wilhelm I are compatable.
Germany still gets its colonies, as France would welcome its ally as buffer against England.
Willhelm II could build his fleet as the alliance would have only one enemy, England.
Austria would develope just as in the OTL dependent on Prussia or fall apart just as the Ottoman empire in Europe.
England would be without an ally or have only weak allies such as Russia or Austria.
WWI will most likely not happen at all, even if Ferdinand is killed in Sarajevo, esp if Austria falls apart.
And if there is a WWI it would see France, Italy, North-Germany and the Ottoman Empire against England and Russia - they would find a reason, everyone wanted a "cleansing" war.
2. Emperor Franz Joseph does not survive the assasination in 1853 and Maximilian becomes Emperor of Austia.
Austria would still lose against Sardinia Piemont in 1859, but Maximilian - far more progessive that Franz Joseph - would part with all the Italian possesions, as Bohemia and Hungary are far more important for the Empire.
Which means that in 1866 Austria has only Prussia to fight with. As it was in Maximilians interrest to modernise the armee and the fleet, Austria would have won.
This means that there is no German unification.
Maximillian, a admirer of french culture might support Napoleon III in his Mexico adventure, perhaps putting Philipp of Flanders, his brother in law, up as King of Mexico.
His wife Princess Charlotte was a good friend of Napoleon III wife Eugenie.
Maximilian knows that Prussia will be back and forges an alliance or at least a non aggression treaty Russia and a full alliance with France.
Napoleon was no friend of the Hapsburgs, but I think that Maximillian was of a different caliber than the rest of the family and he would have made it work.
And with France promising the Papacy its independence (a very interesting butterfly by itself) - constantly threatend by Italy - Austria could serve to Napoleon III advantage.
As Austria has no interest in colonies France would get larger parts of Africa or might get pissed of with England for not getting enough - again, very interesting butterlfy.
Prussia has only one chance, an alliance with England and evt. Italy.
However I doubt that England would care about what happens in Germany. And even if, France and Austria guarantee that the balance of power does not change in Europe. Who needs Prussia?
So in another war Prussia stands more or less alone.
Napoleon would get his Rhine border and Austria evt. the Groß-deutsche Lösung.
Well, I see two POD, both with very interresting butterflies.
1. Bismark dies as a young man in one of his duels.
Since he was the driving force to unify Germany - even against the will of his King - there is no Prussian Austrian war and no Prussian French war.
If the war for Italian independence continues as per OTL with Sardinia Piemont losing more decicively in 1866 - as Austria does not need to split its army - France must either give up Italy or declare war on Austria.
As Napoleon III wanted to move the French border to the Rhine, one can expect that Bavaria, Baden, and other German states to join Austria, which after all beat Sardinia Piemont. Given that the idea of a German nation with Austria as a lead (Großdeutsche Lösung) was still a possibility, a unified South-Germany with Vienna as capital could be an outcome.
However, even without Bismark, Prussia would not go down quietly. Either they accept that the South is Austrian and form a North-Germany or go to war.
A French Prussian alliance in 1866 would be the outcome.
Austria would most likely loose the war.
France gets its Rhine border, Italy Venetien and South Tirol - the Italian speaking part - and Prussia all of North-Germany, while the southern German states might stay independent but dependent on Austria.
This French Prussian (later joined by Italy and the Ottoman Empire) alliance would last for a long time as the interrests of Napoleon III and Wilhelm I are compatable.
Germany still gets its colonies, as France would welcome its ally as buffer against England.
Willhelm II could build his fleet as the alliance would have only one enemy, England.
Austria would develope just as in the OTL dependent on Prussia or fall apart just as the Ottoman empire in Europe.
England would be without an ally or have only weak allies such as Russia or Austria.
WWI will most likely not happen at all, even if Ferdinand is killed in Sarajevo, esp if Austria falls apart.
And if there is a WWI it would see France, Italy, North-Germany and the Ottoman Empire against England and Russia - they would find a reason, everyone wanted a "cleansing" war.
2. Emperor Franz Joseph does not survive the assasination in 1853 and Maximilian becomes Emperor of Austia.
Austria would still lose against Sardinia Piemont in 1859, but Maximilian - far more progessive that Franz Joseph - would part with all the Italian possesions, as Bohemia and Hungary are far more important for the Empire.
Which means that in 1866 Austria has only Prussia to fight with. As it was in Maximilians interrest to modernise the armee and the fleet, Austria would have won.
This means that there is no German unification.
Maximillian, a admirer of french culture might support Napoleon III in his Mexico adventure, perhaps putting Philipp of Flanders, his brother in law, up as King of Mexico.
His wife Princess Charlotte was a good friend of Napoleon III wife Eugenie.
Maximilian knows that Prussia will be back and forges an alliance or at least a non aggression treaty Russia and a full alliance with France.
Napoleon was no friend of the Hapsburgs, but I think that Maximillian was of a different caliber than the rest of the family and he would have made it work.
And with France promising the Papacy its independence (a very interesting butterfly by itself) - constantly threatend by Italy - Austria could serve to Napoleon III advantage.
As Austria has no interest in colonies France would get larger parts of Africa or might get pissed of with England for not getting enough - again, very interesting butterlfy.
Prussia has only one chance, an alliance with England and evt. Italy.
However I doubt that England would care about what happens in Germany. And even if, France and Austria guarantee that the balance of power does not change in Europe. Who needs Prussia?
So in another war Prussia stands more or less alone.
Napoleon would get his Rhine border and Austria evt. the Groß-deutsche Lösung.
Last edited:
I think with 2nd Empire surviving we can get an earlier WW1. After all, Napoleon III worked towards alliance with Russia, and it was January Uprising in Congress Poland and the reactions it caused in french popular opinion that derailed the project. Which, BTW, went through in 1893 (the Russo-French alliance, I mean). Without uprising in Congress Poland we may see a war between Denmark+Sweden+Russia+France+Italy against Prusia+Austria in 1864.
I have a few remarks about your suggested PODs.
1 Which part of the Rhine Border is going to France? Do you mean (more or less) the OTL modern day border of France, because to the North this area definitely German, so this wouldn't sit well with in the time of nationalism; and I do not need to remember you, that even the (French) Alsace is a disputed region. (The Alsace only stopped being a disputed region after 1945.)
About Austria, I can see them giving up the kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, but South Tirol, even the Italian speaking part, for centuries was a part of the lands of the Austrian Habsburgs. So I'm not convinced that Italy would have made more territorial gains than in OTL 1866.
2 What all part of the Italian possessions of the Austrian Empire? I would agree Austria might have given up the kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia, although they will want to have something in return, if they let it go peacefully, however all the other Italian speaking parts of the Austria Empire are most likely to stay with the Austrian Empire.
And about the Großdeutsche Lösung instead of the Kleindeutsche Lösung, Prussia must be convinced to join, otherwise one ends up with a different Kleindeutsche Lösung.
1. I left the Rhine border a bit vague as it would open several butterflies. But without Bismark, I think that Alsace would be a fair price for France's support in building a unified Northgerman state. Something that Nap III and Willi I could both accept.
One could argue that Napoleon III could have pissed of the Prussians by demanding more. This would lead evt. to a conflict down the line, probably with Willhelm II. But there is now a North-Germany, some independent Southern German states and a weak Austria. There are more gains in appeasing France and taking the rest of German speaking Europe. After that, a unified Germany can still go for the "French part of Germany". Also, nationalism being what it is, would cause France serious troubles - revolutions.
Without Bismark there would be nobody to stop Willhelm I from taking pieces out of Austria. I think that they would have no choice but to give Italy ALL the Italian speaking parts of Austria -something that France would ask for, even if Austria defeated Sardinia Piemont initialy. Austria would be left weak and ready for unrest, joining the Ottoman Empire as the weak men of Europe. thus leading to the eventual collaps from within and the annexation of the German speaking parts of Austria to the German Empire.
2. I would go with the - or very close to - the 1914 borders, thus making the 1866 war between Italy and Austria unneccessary and removing the dispute with France. Maximillian was far more intertested in Hungary and Bohemia - were the money was - and realist enough to know that if he keeps some part of Italy he only asks for another war. Plus it is a small price if it gives him peace and friendship with France.
By 1866 the French-Austrian alliance would be firmly established and Italy would stay out of the war, having no gain from it. It would be more interesting for Italy to seize the Papacy while France is busy in Germany, but that is another story.
The Großdeutsche Lösung would follow eventually with the fall of Prussia - Willhelm II would have gone to war with Austria-France, even and probably all by himself. This would have given Austria the opportunity split Prussia appart and to form a different Germany , very likely a more federal union than the "original", perhaps a United States of Germany with Bohemia, Hungaria, and the Balkanstates as Free-states within.
That would of course depend on how old Maximilan will become. If he reaches the same age as his brother he would make it until 1918. Enough time to establish a USG.
Last edited: