Discussion:
No Napoleon III
Add Reply
Alex Milman
2017-06-04 20:25:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
2nd French Republic survives. As in OTL Louis Napoleon is elected President in
1848 but died in 1850 from the kidney failure (or some other disease). The Bonapartists don't have a leader and after period of a constitutional
turmoil the Republic settled down (with whatever constitution).

Possible areas of impact:

1. Unification of Italy - in 1849 the French troops led by Oudinot marched to
Rome to support the Pope. But if Louis Napoleon died in 1850, what would be
further French involvement (if any) in Italy? Would the prestige factor be
as important for the Republic as it was for the 2nd Empire? In other words,
would 2nd Republic go to war with Austria for the Italian cause?


2. Crimean War - not sure if the French Republic would have an incentive to
join such an exercise. Napoleon III needed a military glory to strengthen his
regime and was personally slighted by Nicholas I who refused to grant him an
appropriate addressing. Colonialist aspect of the issue (French influence in
Levant) may not be compelling enough for a republican government.


3. Unification of Germany - Would French Republic be considered by Bismarck
as a major obstacle to the final unification of Germany? Actually, would/could
it be such an obstacle and could the Franco-German War of 1870/1 be avoided
(peaceful unification of Germany)?

3.a. As a side question, could the Republic come with a more efficient military
model than Napoleon III? He was favoring a professional army (presumably,
loyal to him and to the glory of the Empire) but would not the universal
mobilization be more logical for the Republic?

[Funny enough, in his (rather idiotic) articles on the possible European wars
(written before the 1851's coup) Fritz Engels was writing that of course in the
case of such a war the republican government would go back to the experience of
the French Revolution by declaring an universal mobilization, which would be a
recipe for losing a war (well, few years later this "genius" explained in some
details how foolish is Moltke's plan and how Prussia is going to lose to Austria; he also expressed an opinion in mid-XIX that no further serious
progress in military technology is possible, etc.).]

4. Depending on #3: If there is no war of 1870, can WWI be avoided?
The Old Man
2017-06-05 23:49:12 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
2nd French Republic survives. As in OTL Louis Napoleon is elected President in
1848 but died in 1850 from the kidney failure (or some other disease). The Bonapartists don't have a leader and after period of a constitutional
turmoil the Republic settled down (with whatever constitution).
1. Unification of Italy - in 1849 the French troops led by Oudinot marched to
Rome to support the Pope. But if Louis Napoleon died in 1850, what would be
further French involvement (if any) in Italy? Would the prestige factor be
as important for the Republic as it was for the 2nd Empire? In other words,
would 2nd Republic go to war with Austria for the Italian cause?
2. Crimean War - not sure if the French Republic would have an incentive to
join such an exercise. Napoleon III needed a military glory to strengthen his
regime and was personally slighted by Nicholas I who refused to grant him an
appropriate addressing. Colonialist aspect of the issue (French influence in
Levant) may not be compelling enough for a republican government.
3. Unification of Germany - Would French Republic be considered by Bismarck
as a major obstacle to the final unification of Germany? Actually, would/could
it be such an obstacle and could the Franco-German War of 1870/1 be avoided
(peaceful unification of Germany)?
3.a. As a side question, could the Republic come with a more efficient military
model than Napoleon III? He was favoring a professional army (presumably,
loyal to him and to the glory of the Empire) but would not the universal
mobilization be more logical for the Republic?
[Funny enough, in his (rather idiotic) articles on the possible European wars
(written before the 1851's coup) Fritz Engels was writing that of course in the
case of such a war the republican government would go back to the experience of
the French Revolution by declaring an universal mobilization, which would be a
recipe for losing a war (well, few years later this "genius" explained in some
details how foolish is Moltke's plan and how Prussia is going to lose to Austria; he also expressed an opinion in mid-XIX that no further serious
progress in military technology is possible, etc.).]
4. Depending on #3: If there is no war of 1870, can WWI be avoided?
You forgot one more, Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph von Hapsburg (Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico) doesn't become emperor of Mexico and goes on to live a longer and probably more boring life in Austria. As he was thirty-four when he was executed, he will most likely have children. These MIGHT give Austria more heirs when Franz Ferdinand gets his Serbian bullet. His kids might even be closer in line to secession than FF himself.

Regards,
John Braungart
Alex Milman
2017-06-06 00:48:41 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
Post by Alex Milman
2nd French Republic survives. As in OTL Louis Napoleon is elected President in
1848 but died in 1850 from the kidney failure (or some other disease). The Bonapartists don't have a leader and after period of a constitutional
turmoil the Republic settled down (with whatever constitution).
1. Unification of Italy - in 1849 the French troops led by Oudinot marched to
Rome to support the Pope. But if Louis Napoleon died in 1850, what would be
further French involvement (if any) in Italy? Would the prestige factor be
as important for the Republic as it was for the 2nd Empire? In other words,
would 2nd Republic go to war with Austria for the Italian cause?
2. Crimean War - not sure if the French Republic would have an incentive to
join such an exercise. Napoleon III needed a military glory to strengthen his
regime and was personally slighted by Nicholas I who refused to grant him an
appropriate addressing. Colonialist aspect of the issue (French influence in
Levant) may not be compelling enough for a republican government.
3. Unification of Germany - Would French Republic be considered by Bismarck
as a major obstacle to the final unification of Germany? Actually, would/could
it be such an obstacle and could the Franco-German War of 1870/1 be avoided
(peaceful unification of Germany)?
3.a. As a side question, could the Republic come with a more efficient military
model than Napoleon III? He was favoring a professional army (presumably,
loyal to him and to the glory of the Empire) but would not the universal
mobilization be more logical for the Republic?
[Funny enough, in his (rather idiotic) articles on the possible European wars
(written before the 1851's coup) Fritz Engels was writing that of course in the
case of such a war the republican government would go back to the experience of
the French Revolution by declaring an universal mobilization, which would be a
recipe for losing a war (well, few years later this "genius" explained in some
details how foolish is Moltke's plan and how Prussia is going to lose to Austria; he also expressed an opinion in mid-XIX that no further serious
progress in military technology is possible, etc.).]
4. Depending on #3: If there is no war of 1870, can WWI be avoided?
You forgot one more, Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph von Hapsburg (Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico) doesn't become emperor of Mexico and goes on to live a longer and probably more boring life in Austria. As he was thirty-four when he was executed, he will most likely have children. These MIGHT give Austria more heirs when Franz Ferdinand gets his Serbian bullet. His kids might even be closer in line to secession than FF himself.
And without the French invasion chances are that Porfirio Diaz may not became
President of Mexico retaining this position for 30 years. Probably no Mexican
Revolution and the following civil war.

Not sure that it would really matter which Hapsburg exactly would be a heir
to the throne unless FJI dies before 1914.

And if we go that side of the Atlantic, the twelve-pound cannon "Napoleon" was the most popular smoothbore cannon used during the war. In OTL it was developed
in 1853 under the auspices of Louis Napoleon who in this ATL is already dead
by that time.

Also, IIRC, it was Napoleon III who introduced the red trousers for the
French infantry. If true, his earlier death would prevent numerous "urological
wounds" of French infantry during the first stages of WWI (if it still happens):
the infantrymen had been tucking the skirts of their blue overcoats under the
belt thus creating a clearly seen red triangle with the top in a very vulnerable
place, a good target for the German infantry.

Paris would look quite different without a major re-planning carried during the
2nd Empire.
The Horny Goat
2017-06-06 10:07:15 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:49:12 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
You forgot one more, Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph von Hapsburg (Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico) doesn't become emperor of Mexico and goes on to live a longer and probably more boring life in Austria. As he was thirty-four when he was executed, he will most likely have children. These MIGHT give Austria more heirs when Franz Ferdinand gets his Serbian bullet. His kids might even be closer in line to secession than FF himself.
While it's a good catch Franz Ferdinand went to Sarajevo deputizing
for Franz Joseph - thus if he's not the heir why would he go?

Perhaps if Maximilian's children are too young to go in 1914 but that
seems unlikely given his age. In this case I would guess late teens
through mid-20s - but I emphasize that's a guess.
The Old Man
2017-06-06 17:39:03 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:49:12 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
You forgot one more, Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph von Hapsburg (Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico) doesn't become emperor of Mexico and goes on to live a longer and probably more boring life in Austria. As he was thirty-four when he was executed, he will most likely have children. These MIGHT give Austria more heirs when Franz Ferdinand gets his Serbian bullet. His kids might even be closer in line to secession than FF himself.
While it's a good catch Franz Ferdinand went to Sarajevo deputizing
for Franz Joseph - thus if he's not the heir why would he go?
Perhaps if Maximilian's children are too young to go in 1914 but that
seems unlikely given his age. In this case I would guess late teens
through mid-20s - but I emphasize that's a guess.
I was thinking along the lines of his children being born about 1870 (he was executed in 1867), so the eldest would be about 44 in 1914 with the youngest maybe about 30 or so.

Regards,
John Braungart
Alex Milman
2017-06-06 20:01:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:49:12 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
You forgot one more, Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph von Hapsburg (Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico) doesn't become emperor of Mexico and goes on to live a longer and probably more boring life in Austria. As he was thirty-four when he was executed, he will most likely have children. These MIGHT give Austria more heirs when Franz Ferdinand gets his Serbian bullet. His kids might even be closer in line to secession than FF himself.
While it's a good catch Franz Ferdinand went to Sarajevo deputizing
for Franz Joseph - thus if he's not the heir why would he go?
Perhaps if Maximilian's children are too young to go in 1914 but that
seems unlikely given his age. In this case I would guess late teens
through mid-20s - but I emphasize that's a guess.
I was thinking along the lines of his children being born about 1870 (he was executed in 1867), so the eldest would be about 44 in 1914 with the youngest maybe about 30 or so.
OK, being the children of the 2nd brother, they'd have a priority over FF (son
of a junior brother) and we can make any number of the wild guesses about
political ideas of the unborn people but it would not make any change in
overall policies of A-H, Serbia and Russia so what potential difference could
their existence make?
The Old Man
2017-06-06 22:21:55 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Old Man
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:49:12 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
You forgot one more, Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph von Hapsburg (Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico) doesn't become emperor of Mexico and goes on to live a longer and probably more boring life in Austria. As he was thirty-four when he was executed, he will most likely have children. These MIGHT give Austria more heirs when Franz Ferdinand gets his Serbian bullet. His kids might even be closer in line to secession than FF himself.
While it's a good catch Franz Ferdinand went to Sarajevo deputizing
for Franz Joseph - thus if he's not the heir why would he go?
Perhaps if Maximilian's children are too young to go in 1914 but that
seems unlikely given his age. In this case I would guess late teens
through mid-20s - but I emphasize that's a guess.
I was thinking along the lines of his children being born about 1870 (he was executed in 1867), so the eldest would be about 44 in 1914 with the youngest maybe about 30 or so.
OK, being the children of the 2nd brother, they'd have a priority over FF (son
of a junior brother) and we can make any number of the wild guesses about
political ideas of the unborn people but it would not make any change in
overall policies of A-H, Serbia and Russia so what potential difference could
their existence make?
That's like asking what difference would Kaiser Frederick III having survived longer than 100 days as Kaiser. Max's kids might have been more liberal than Franz Joseph (although it's hard to see him giving them any responsibility in the duties of the crown). However, if FF, as a high-ranking noble (but NOT heir to the throne) is murdered by the Black Hand, the crisis isn't as severe and Austria might be willing to bring Gavril in for a fair trial, followed by a speedy execution and let it go at that.

Regards,
John Braungart
Alex Milman
2017-06-07 15:07:38 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Old Man
Post by Alex Milman
Post by The Old Man
Post by The Horny Goat
On Mon, 5 Jun 2017 16:49:12 -0700 (PDT), The Old Man
Post by The Old Man
You forgot one more, Ferdinand Maximilian Joseph von Hapsburg (Emperor Maximilian I of Mexico) doesn't become emperor of Mexico and goes on to live a longer and probably more boring life in Austria. As he was thirty-four when he was executed, he will most likely have children. These MIGHT give Austria more heirs when Franz Ferdinand gets his Serbian bullet. His kids might even be closer in line to secession than FF himself.
While it's a good catch Franz Ferdinand went to Sarajevo deputizing
for Franz Joseph - thus if he's not the heir why would he go?
Perhaps if Maximilian's children are too young to go in 1914 but that
seems unlikely given his age. In this case I would guess late teens
through mid-20s - but I emphasize that's a guess.
I was thinking along the lines of his children being born about 1870 (he was executed in 1867), so the eldest would be about 44 in 1914 with the youngest maybe about 30 or so.
OK, being the children of the 2nd brother, they'd have a priority over FF (son
of a junior brother) and we can make any number of the wild guesses about
political ideas of the unborn people but it would not make any change in
overall policies of A-H, Serbia and Russia so what potential difference could
their existence make?
That's like asking what difference would Kaiser Frederick III having survived longer than 100 days as Kaiser.
Not at all: as a Kaiser he had a power but even FJI's own son had close to
none so you are comparing apples and oranges.
Post by The Old Man
Max's kids might have been more liberal than Franz Joseph (although it's hard to see him giving them any responsibility in the duties of the crown).
Which would not make a serious difference as long as he was an emperor.
Post by The Old Man
However, if FF, as a high-ranking noble (but NOT heir to the throne) is murdered by the Black Hand, the crisis isn't as severe and Austria might be willing to bring Gavril in for a fair trial, followed by a speedy execution and let it go at that.
A rather pointless speculation: who said that, not being a heir, he would be
on that trip or a target? Anyway, he would be still an archduke, a member of
the imperial family, not just "a high-ranking noble".

Gavrilo Princip got a fair trial and a sentence of 20 years: by law, he was
too young to be executed, so this part of your schema simply shows that you
are not familiar with the subject of speculation (:-)).

It is quite clear that the whole episode had been used by the A-H government
as an excuse for attack on Serbia and assassin himself was quite unimportant
in a greater schema of things: there was a powerful lobby led by the Chief
of the General Staff Franz Xaver Joseph Conrad Graf von Hötzendorf who
argued that a (successful) preventive war against Serbia is the only way to
save multi-national A-H empire (typically for the militaries of that period
he was not considering implications like the Russian entry into the conflict
and conflict's escalation into WWI). He was influential enough not to be
dismissed by FJI even after all Austrian failures in WWI, this was done only
by Karl I of Austria.

Not that assassination attempts were something unique: there was unsuccessful
one earlier at the same day and there were attempts on FJI himself so it was
just a matter of which one would succeed and/or which one would be used as an
excuse.
Rich Rostrom
2017-06-09 19:53:00 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
rather pointless speculation: who said that, not being a heir, he would be
on that trip or a target? Anyway, he would be still an archduke, a member of
the imperial family, not just "a high-ranking noble".
Gavrilo Princip got a fair trial and a sentence of 20 years...
It is quite clear that the whole episode had been used by the A-H government
as an excuse for attack on Serbia and assassin himself was quite unimportant
in a greater schema of things...
All quite true - the big point is whether the assassination
of an archduke who is _not_ the heir to the throne would be
a plausible excuse for Austria to force a war. As it was,
most people (even Kaiser Wilhelm at one) thought Austria was
overdoing it.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2017-06-09 20:14:37 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
rather pointless speculation: who said that, not being a heir, he would be
on that trip or a target? Anyway, he would be still an archduke, a member of
the imperial family, not just "a high-ranking noble".
Gavrilo Princip got a fair trial and a sentence of 20 years...
It is quite clear that the whole episode had been used by the A-H government
as an excuse for attack on Serbia and assassin himself was quite unimportant
in a greater schema of things...
All quite true - the big point is whether the assassination
of an archduke who is _not_ the heir to the throne would be
a plausible excuse for Austria to force a war. As it was,
most people (even Kaiser Wilhelm at one) thought Austria was
overdoing it.
Of course, but with the prevailing bellicose party probably any excuse would
do (BTW, would FF go on that trip if he was not a heir?). Ironically, FF was
actually a proponent of a softer approach to Serbia so it seems that BOTH sides
had been glad that he was killed.

OTOH, if an alternative heir is being killed, would FF be able to moderate
the following Austrian policy toward Serbia? The party arguing that the annexations and a little victorious war are the only way to preserve A-H was
very strong and earlier occupation of Bosnia only strengthened their hand
(Russia caved then so it will probably cave now and A-H will look stronger
after a victory over Serbia).
The Horny Goat
2017-06-10 00:05:11 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Fri, 9 Jun 2017 13:14:37 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
Of course, but with the prevailing bellicose party probably any excuse would
do (BTW, would FF go on that trip if he was not a heir?). Ironically, FF was
actually a proponent of a softer approach to Serbia so it seems that BOTH sides
had been glad that he was killed.
OTOH, if an alternative heir is being killed, would FF be able to moderate
the following Austrian policy toward Serbia? The party arguing that the annexations and a little victorious war are the only way to preserve A-H was
very strong and earlier occupation of Bosnia only strengthened their hand
(Russia caved then so it will probably cave now and A-H will look stronger
after a victory over Serbia).
I'd be highly surprised if FF could have stabilized the situation
AFTER the heir had been assassinated - how influential are Will and
Harry (e.g. they're NOT the heir to the British throne)

I appreciate the role of the Austro-Hungarian throne in 1914 is not
equivalent to the UK throne in 2017 but on the other hand I remember
the furor during the Brexit campaign when one of the British tabloids
false reported that the Queen had come out for 'leave'.

In the context of 1914 I could see FF as heir being influential with
respect to the murder of the 2nd in line but a FF who was 2nd in line
to the throne wouldn't be particularly influential and wouldn't
magically become influential just because the Archduke ahead of him
had been murdered.
t***@go.com
2017-06-08 22:07:24 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
2nd French Republic survives. As in OTL Louis Napoleon is elected President in
1848 but died in 1850 from the kidney failure (or some other disease). The Bonapartists don't have a leader and after period of a constitutional
turmoil the Republic settled down (with whatever constitution).
1. Unification of Italy - in 1849 the French troops led by Oudinot marched to
Rome to support the Pope. But if Louis Napoleon died in 1850, what would be
further French involvement (if any) in Italy? Would the prestige factor be
as important for the Republic as it was for the 2nd Empire? In other words,
would 2nd Republic go to war with Austria for the Italian cause?
2. Crimean War - not sure if the French Republic would have an incentive to
join such an exercise. Napoleon III needed a military glory to strengthen his
regime and was personally slighted by Nicholas I who refused to grant him an
appropriate addressing. Colonialist aspect of the issue (French influence in
Levant) may not be compelling enough for a republican government.
3. Unification of Germany - Would French Republic be considered by Bismarck
as a major obstacle to the final unification of Germany? Actually, would/could
it be such an obstacle and could the Franco-German War of 1870/1 be avoided
(peaceful unification of Germany)?
When you talk about someone named in our time line
'Napoleon III' dying in 1850 and then start talking
about German Unification this is going to have very
severe effects because you are talking about 20 years
of time.

When you talk about this situation I think it is more
than feasible that it is going to have very, very,
very severe effects.

For instance, in this time line not the second Schleswig War
which happened over a decade later but the first Schleswig War
was still going on. No London Protocol of 1852 had yet been
signed so the grounds for the second war had not come into
existence.

If you consider what was actually going on at the time it is
entirely feasible that the French Republic could consider
the war to be a war of independence against the Danish monarchy
in favor of the German Confederation. A French Republic might
consider the German Confederation to be more legitimate than
either the kings of Prussia, Austria, or Denmark, and a partial
form of independence. In theory this could be considered an
alliance with Prussia but in the long term the Republic of France
could then strengthen the Confederation itself and reduce either
Prussia or Austria to meddle in its affairs without another
very major player in the organization of the Confederation itself.

If France changes sides this could degenerate into a war between
Republican France and the U.K.

Then it is difficult to say what might happen next. A U.K. victory
could mean that if Ernest Augustus of Hanover dies at about the same
time then the Hanoverians might consider our time line's blind
king George V of Hanover to be inadequate to act as monarch and
the net result of the war could be an Act of Union between the former
United Kingdom and the Kingdom of Hanover in the U.K. parliament
under Victoria as well as in Hanover.

However a French victory could make it impossible for Prussia
to meddle in Confederation affairs in the same way as in our
time line. A French Republic might consider the Prussian king
to be an illegitimate monarch specifically because he was a
monarch, like many of the other petty princes of Germany.

If we are now talking about the middle 1850s our time line's
Austro-Prussian war is still about a decade into the future
in an alternate time line where major changes have occurred.

In our time line France did not intervene on the side of
Austria specifically because of a deal made with a Napoleon III
who in this time line was neither called Napoleon III and had
died over a decade earlier.

It is very difficult to predict whether something like the
Austro-Prussian war could still happen at about the same
time or not or if something like a Franco-Prussian war could
happen even later.

These are contemplations about the later 1860s,
but if we talk about the early 1860s, there is
still the possiblity of either France or the U.K.
entering the U.S. Civil War if it still happens at
about the same time under similar circumstances, on
either side, degenerating into a world war much
like the Seven Years War, with as far reaching
consequences.
Post by Alex Milman
3.a. As a side question, could the Republic come with a more efficient military
model than Napoleon III? He was favoring a professional army (presumably,
loyal to him and to the glory of the Empire) but would not the universal
mobilization be more logical for the Republic?
[Funny enough, in his (rather idiotic) articles on the possible European wars
(written before the 1851's coup) Fritz Engels was writing that of course in the
case of such a war the republican government would go back to the experience of
the French Revolution by declaring an universal mobilization, which would be a
recipe for losing a war (well, few years later this "genius" explained in some
details how foolish is Moltke's plan and how Prussia is going to lose to Austria; he also expressed an opinion in mid-XIX that no further serious
progress in military technology is possible, etc.).]
4. Depending on #3: If there is no war of 1870, can WWI be avoided?
Like earlier, 1870 is a long time from 1850, and
a lot of differences could add up by then.

Reviewing this before posting, it seems feasible that the name
'Napoleon III' might have been used before he became emperor
but it is difficult to say how much of an official name that was.
It is also feasible that there might not have been much difference
in the First Schleswig War but there were also a lot of other
phenomena that went on between then and 1870.
Rich Rostrom
2017-06-09 20:51:20 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Alex Milman
2nd French Republic survives. As in OTL Louis
Napoleon is elected President in 1848 but died in
1850 from the kidney failure (or some other
disease). The Bonapartists don't have a leader and
after period of a constitutional turmoil the
Republic settled down (with whatever constitution).
Interesting WI.
Post by Alex Milman
1. Unification of Italy - in 1849 the French troops led by Oudinot marched to
Rome to support the Pope. But if Louis Napoleon died in 1850, what would be
further French involvement (if any) in Italy? Would the prestige factor be
as important for the Republic as it was for the 2nd Empire? In other words,
would 2nd Republic go to war with Austria for the Italian cause?
France might feel sympathy for Italy, but the Republic, perhaps not so much
for the House of Savoy. French intervention on behalf of Italy is unlikely.
(Minor knock-on: France does not acquire Haute-Savoie and Nice from Piedmont.
Italy keeps more of the Riviera, and Monaco is an enclave in Italy, not France.)
Also, ISTM that Republican France would be, if not anti-clerical, insufficiently
pro-clerical to continue intervening in Italy for the Pope. "President Bonaparte"
did it in 1849, but would any later Presidents?
Post by Alex Milman
2. Crimean War - not sure if the French Republic would have an incentive to
join such an exercise. Napoleon III needed a military glory to strengthen his
regime and was personally slighted by Nicholas I who refused to grant him an
appropriate addressing. Colonialist aspect of the issue (French influence in
Levant) may not be compelling enough for a republican government.
ISTM that France's reduced clericism would bear against adventures in the Levant,
and that in turn would obviate the clash with Russia.
Post by Alex Milman
3. Unification of Germany - Would French Republic be
considered by Bismarck as a major obstacle to the
final unification of Germany? Actually, would/could
it be such an obstacle and could the Franco-German
War of 1870/1 be avoided (peaceful unification of
Germany)?
The first question is whether Republican France _would_
oppose German unification. Idunno; one could look for
any discussion of the subject in the French liberal and
radical press during the Second Empire.
Post by Alex Milman
3.a. As a side question, could the Republic come
with a more efficient military model than Napoleon
III? He was favoring a professional army
(presumably, loyal to him and to the glory of the
Empire) but would not the universal mobilization be
more logical for the Republic?
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. N III's army
included a very large reserve which was to be mobilized
in case of war.
Post by Alex Milman
4. Depending on #3: If there is no war of 1870, can WWI be avoided?
The knock-ons proliferate.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.

http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
Alex Milman
2017-06-10 13:39:43 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
2nd French Republic survives. As in OTL Louis
Napoleon is elected President in 1848 but died in
1850 from the kidney failure (or some other
disease). The Bonapartists don't have a leader and
after period of a constitutional turmoil the
Republic settled down (with whatever constitution).
Interesting WI.
Post by Alex Milman
1. Unification of Italy - in 1849 the French troops led by Oudinot marched to
Rome to support the Pope. But if Louis Napoleon died in 1850, what would be
further French involvement (if any) in Italy? Would the prestige factor be
as important for the Republic as it was for the 2nd Empire? In other words,
would 2nd Republic go to war with Austria for the Italian cause?
France might feel sympathy for Italy, but the Republic, perhaps not so much
for the House of Savoy. French intervention on behalf of Italy is unlikely.
(Minor knock-on: France does not acquire Haute-Savoie and Nice from Piedmont.
Italy keeps more of the Riviera, and Monaco is an enclave in Italy, not France.)
Also, ISTM that Republican France would be, if not anti-clerical, insufficiently
pro-clerical to continue intervening in Italy for the Pope. "President Bonaparte"
did it in 1849, but would any later Presidents?
Post by Alex Milman
2. Crimean War - not sure if the French Republic would have an incentive to
join such an exercise. Napoleon III needed a military glory to strengthen his
regime and was personally slighted by Nicholas I who refused to grant him an
appropriate addressing. Colonialist aspect of the issue (French influence in
Levant) may not be compelling enough for a republican government.
ISTM that France's reduced clericism would bear against adventures in the Levant,
and that in turn would obviate the clash with Russia.
Post by Alex Milman
3. Unification of Germany - Would French Republic be
considered by Bismarck as a major obstacle to the
final unification of Germany? Actually, would/could
it be such an obstacle and could the Franco-German
War of 1870/1 be avoided (peaceful unification of
Germany)?
The first question is whether Republican France _would_
oppose German unification. Idunno; one could look for
any discussion of the subject in the French liberal and
radical press during the Second Empire.
My impression was that NIII was too much into trying to play NI and
making France the leading continental power in Europe as a way to
strengthen his regime. Not sure if any realistic republican government
would have the same attitudes. OTOH, the united Germany COULD be considered
a potential threat to <whatever>.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
3.a. As a side question, could the Republic come
with a more efficient military model than Napoleon
III? He was favoring a professional army
(presumably, loyal to him and to the glory of the
Empire) but would not the universal mobilization be
more logical for the Republic?
Six of one, half a dozen of the other. N III's army
included a very large reserve which was to be mobilized
in case of war.
When Marshal Adolphe Niel became minister of war he started reforms
which included (almost) universal conscription but these reforms began
only in 1867 and were not completed by 1870. It was expected that eventually
France would be able to field up to 800,000 with the additional 400,000 of
Garde Mobile (absolutely inadequately trained). The "nucleus" consisted of
approximately 400,000 soldiers (regulars and those who served seven years).
It seems that in 1870 the whole system was a mess, especially mobilization
mechanism: the soldiers had to travel all across France to join their units
with a lot of a resulting confusion.

It is an assumption that an earlier republican government would introduce
some kind of an universal conscription as opposite to Napoleon's preference
of a smaller professional army (in OTL only Austro-Prussian War was a
wakeup call) so that by 1870 there would be more reservists then in OTL. It is
anybody's guess if a republican government also would prefer "united France"
approach (which meant that the units had been composed from the people all
over France, making mobilization a Hell) to the regional style one, as in Prussia.
Post by Rich Rostrom
Post by Alex Milman
4. Depending on #3: If there is no war of 1870, can WWI be avoided?
The knock-ons proliferate.
--
The real Velvet Revolution - and the would-be hijacker.
http://originalvelvetrevolution.com
The Horny Goat
2017-06-10 21:59:14 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:39:43 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
My impression was that NIII was too much into trying to play NI and
making France the leading continental power in Europe as a way to
strengthen his regime. Not sure if any realistic republican government
would have the same attitudes. OTOH, the united Germany COULD be considered
a potential threat to <whatever>.
While I agree with you he tended to think that way any suggestion that
Prussia in 1848 was remotely like Prussia in 1806 was crazy. Any
parallel between Prussia 1866 or 1870 and any time during 1789-1815 is
crazier yet.

That said I agree with you on his perceptions and say that obviously
that meant trouble for France.

One of the best stories on Napoleon III I read was CS Forrester's last
Hornblower story (The Last Encounter) when on a dark rainy night a
very wet and bedraggled Frenchman turns up at long retired Admiral
Hornblower's door asking for his help in getting back to France. He
says his name is Napoleon and Hornblower sends away an "obviously
deranged Frenchman" into the night. Forrester slowly unmasks who his
Frenchman is and only at the very end of the story does the reader
realize that no the man doesn't think he's Napoleon I but III shortly
bfore he becomes president of France.

Highly recommended.
Alex Milman
2017-06-11 14:32:29 UTC
Reply
Permalink
Raw Message
Post by The Horny Goat
On Sat, 10 Jun 2017 06:39:43 -0700 (PDT), Alex Milman
Post by Alex Milman
My impression was that NIII was too much into trying to play NI and
making France the leading continental power in Europe as a way to
strengthen his regime. Not sure if any realistic republican government
would have the same attitudes. OTOH, the united Germany COULD be considered
a potential threat to <whatever>.
While I agree with you he tended to think that way any suggestion that
Prussia in 1848 was remotely like Prussia in 1806 was crazy. Any
parallel between Prussia 1866 or 1870 and any time during 1789-1815 is
crazier yet.
I have no idea why are you using these parallels and what they have to do
with the issue. Practically any country at almost any time would have at
least some concerns if its neighbor is growing in territory and strength
but degree of such a worry would depend on "self-positioning" of the country.
NIII was trying to make 2nd Empire the leading power in Europe (which was not
necessarily a sustainable idea) but ATL 2nd Republic may be more concerned
with the internal issues and as a result not to pay too much attention to the
German affairs.
Post by The Horny Goat
That said I agree with you on his perceptions and say that obviously
that meant trouble for France.
That meant trouble to the 2nd Empire but would not necessarily be the case
for the 2nd Republic if it is less "imperialistic".

Loading...