Alternate History Thread IV: The Sequel

luckily being the most populous country in europe at the time goes a long way to compensating for that ;).
Sort of. Since nations aren't really in the habit of launching a real levee en masse yet (can't really harness the resources of the general populace quite yet), most of the French population still has nothing to do with the war effort, just like most of the British population and most of the various Germans who end up fighting France.

With respect to pure strategy, France is in the interesting position of being in an excellent defensive position but truly horrible for further conquest, because with the exception of the Alps (invading Italy is disgustingly easy for the French) the same barriers that keep enemies out of France can keep France out of the enemies. Interior lines are handy for fighting the many people who get pissed that France is trying to get bigger again too. But the advantage of interior lines doesn't matter when one enemy comes from the sea and the other from the land; sailors being fought as line infantry work pretty badly, and as Boney found out an amazing army isn't any good on the high seas (or even the infernal ditch).

So if France is screwing around in the Rhineland or wherever with Austro-Prussian armies, and she's also sending a fleet and an expeditionary force to Egypt to fight against the British, she may be able to man both of those forces to excess, but she can't pay for them.

All this doesn't matter though if France only has to deal with Egypt. Then we have something similar to the American Revolution strategically, with France just concentrating on the navy along with the Spanish and dispatching an expeditionary force far away. But where the Revolutionary War bankrupted France, this war would a) be fought without the aid of the Dutch, who took a bit extra hurtin' that the Brits normally would put on the French; b) be an attempted war of conquest, with the populace either ambiguous or openly hostile towards the French instead of towards the British; c) be fought without a sizable British force suffering from partisan warfare and the occasional pitched battle that really took their toll on British troops; d) even if victorious, would need to be consolidated, which would cost more money, and if the financial situation of France after the American Revolution and the wars in the mid-eighteenth century OTL was disastrous enough for a revolution (even with India picking up a lot of the slack), this revolution would be even worse. I guess this could help explain Friedrich III, maybe, but it still looks like awfully long odds.
 
Butterflies, or what's the reason for that?

Elizabeth's coup d'etat happened and succeeded to a large degree thanks to French intrigues - both the more direct ones and the whole arranging of a Swedish invasion. None of that would've happened in the absence of the War of Austrian Succession, I think.

How did Russia's dynastic system end up anyway?

Same old Romanovs, different branch. Also, no reform of the succession laws.

Why did the British let them do it, is more what I'm asking.

Long story short, they were distracted elsewhere before it was too late to do it well without losing out elsewhere. It's not as though people haven't done a lot of things that the British didn't exactly let them do. Also, the French takeover in Egypt occurred gradually and overtime; they only actually annexed it in the 1830s, with the full support of the Mamlukes.

They normally oughtn't be able to do both at the same time at all well

They didn't do it at the same time, you know. They did their utmost to avoid it (they were technically allied with Britain when fighting against Prussia, in the later wars I mean), and even now balancing their continental and thalassocratic concerns remains a headache.

What was that war anyway?

The Forty-Five was another rebellion that was pretty much aborted by the lack of a War of Austrian Succession. Though the Jacobite support base still declined with time, they had never suffered any such conclusive defeat, and when George III began mishandling things, the Jacobites launched an uprising. It started out so well (thanks mainly to British underestimation and division) that the French, already fighting the British in a separate undeclared war in India, decided to officially support the latest pretender and attempted to attack Britain. The British defeated the French fleet and subsequently routed the Jacobites as well, though. The war in India still went poorly, the French being fairly entrenched in the local system and aided by the Marathas, but in North America the new-born Albany Union has shown its worth, reversing what few successes the French had there early on and expelling them from the Ohio Valley. Ultimately both sides turned out to be quite unprepared for continued warfare, and signed a peace treaty that had France lose ground in America.
 
but in North America the new-born Albany Union has shown its worth, reversing what few successes the French had there early on and expelling them from the Ohio Valley.

You're kidding me, the Albany Union pulling her act together? :p Seriously, what were the chances of that? Even in the midst of the French and Indian Wars, many of the colonies were reluctant to aid the British and had to be financially motivated by Pitt before they did move to help :lol:
 
Here is my take on the male Maria Theresa PoD.

1) Countries outlined in the colour of a different nations are vassals/dependents/part of an international organisation lead by the other nation whilst countries outlined in white with the centre in another colour have de jure seperate indentity whilst being firmly under the thumb of the other power.

2) The German Empire (or South German Federation as the Prussians would say), Italy and the Crown of the federation of Magyars, Croats and Slovenes all have Habsburg monarchs as one might guess.

3) On Empires: The British American and British Australian Federations are equal members of the British Empire and have full internal control, and after the problems of the Indian War and the need of the metropol to focus on France it is more the cities of New England rather than Old England that drive Imperial institutions. The Empire of Mexico is ruled by a French Burbon and has rather a lot of French and Arcadian advisors as one might guess, ditto Colombia though he rarely spends time in Bogata prefering the safety of Mexico City. The French gains in India are rather recent.

Spoiler :
nomtba0.gif
 
I see some thematic similarities. ;) That said, your map seems much more multipolar. Did the Prussians get to use some OTL-like dynastic connections with Holland?
 
I had only like a few dozen lines of text before seeing your map, so it doubtless influenced mine.

I see some thematic similarities. ;) That said, your map seems much more multipolar. Did the Prussians get to use some OTL-like dynastic connections with Holland?

Indeed, William IV having only daughters in the ATL (William V being after the PoD) one of which married Frederick William of Prussia. There was a brief republican period, before the threat of France made them elect FW (an ATL version and rather abler) as stadtholder...something the Hohenzollern weren't going to give up (though prussian policies pretty much revitalized and later turbocharged the moribound Dutch economy and empire).

As to multipolarity...France is definately the foremost military power (Britain being greatly weakened by its losses in India and internal political problems), though as Russia and the British Empire (very much the British Empire, rather than Britain's empire) rapidly develops that may change who is number one, and Prussia (Prussia well aware of the difficulties of defending its huge empire) and the Hapsburgs have to dance a never ending diplomatic whirl to keep the French and Russians from allying and dividing europe. The Emerging powers of the American Republic and the Brazilian Confederation (the AR being much much weaker economically and very different than the OTL US though, and the Brazilians being considerable stronger) may tip the balance, as they both have beefs with pretty much every major power.
 
Dis, just a question. Is your hang up getting the British Empire to work? You seem to have devoted a lot of time and effort to studying it, anyway:

What Happened in China? I could ask specifics but will wait till you generalise the situation (go into detail :p).

What Happened to the USA?

Whats the Demographics of Argentina?


Whats Brazils position wrt Portugal. The French and British Empires?
 
Dis, just a question. Is your hang up getting the British Empire to work? You seem to have devoted a lot of time and effort to studying it, anyway:

Well, being British and having kicked round the anglosphere a good deal there is a lot that I've picked up, and define 'work' - this one is rather militarily weaker than the OTL and made quite a lot of screw-ups. lets say I'm more interested in the various ways things could have turned out.

What Happened in China? I could ask specifics but will wait till you generalise the situation (go into detail :p).

Delayed rebellion along taiping lines (charismatic leader with a peasant rebellion) which the British supported (there wasn't any Opium wars due to Britains Indian problems, the rebellion was over other things and general decline) to get back at the Ming and have a nice compliant market. The Rebellion did okay, which settled down into long war before the Russians firmly vassalised the Qing and they and the British drew up spheres of influence.

What Happened to the USA?

What USA? Thats the American Republic, a very different beastie ;).

Whats the Demographics of Argentina?

Irish, Italian and Polish descended populations form the majority, and its about twice as populous as the OTL (not exactly hard). Rather less Guranis and other native populations after some harsh guerilla wars (the dubious honour of inventing the concentration camp in this timeline goes to the Argentines with supporting roles played by the British foreign legion).

Whats Brazils position wrt Portugal. The French and British Empires?

Portugal: They don't care much for though there has been some reapproachment now that Portugal's fallen on hard times and has no chance of retaking Brazil.
French: They rather dislike due to France's Iberian and Spanish American policies and general militarism, also French naval attacks during Brazil's wars with its neighbours are a source of contention.
Britain: bit of a love-hate thing since Britain and BNA are by far the biggest investors, and supported Brazil in its independence and wars with France and Spanish America. but Britain also supports their great rival of Argentina even more closely, and is somewhat mean to the Mozambique's which has caused some bad blood.
The common Brazilian is rather fond of the Habsburg nations due to many of them emigrating from there, but the elite certainly doesn't want to get involved in Central Europe.
 
This thread seems a little bare. I'm currently working on an alternate history, and I'll post it up here as I finish the sections. As always, criticism and help in keeping it plausible if wanted. :)

Arms of War

POD: 1709; The Battle of Malplaquet does not end with the decimation of Marlborough and the Prince of Savoy’s armies, thus opening the road to Paris.

Part I.

The Battle of Malplaquet was one of bloodiest battle of the War of the Spanish Succession, with the armies of the Grand Alliance, under the Duke of Marlborough and Eugene of Savoy facing off against French forces under the Duc de Villars. Beginning with an attack in the early morning by Austrian troops, the shell-shocked French army was forced to surrender and flee the field by the late afternoon, leaving de Villars in control of a decimated army in which to defend northern France. Shortly after victory at Malplaquet, the armies of Marlborough and Savoy occupied Mons.

The campaign season of 1709 was slowly coming to an end; it was it was clear that the northern fortresses of Vauban had been breached, and there was little keeping the forces of the Grand Alliance from Paris, and causing havoc in Northern France. Louis XIV, the very king who had forced all of Europe to cow in the 1670s and 1680s, was slowly coming to realize that his kingdom was reaching its breaking point. Likewise, de Villars, hero over the Camisard revolt of 1704, had sustained heavy wounds at Malplaquet, dying only a few short days after the conclusion of the fabled battle [1]. The Sun King now lacked a suitable commander to defend his northern frontiers. The Kingdom of France now stood in a perilous position, facing the hostile forces of Marlborough and Savoy in the north, while in Spain the Bourbonic cause was held up by French arms, facing a resurgent Austriacist cause in the wake of French defeat at Malplaquet.

The 1710 campaign season opened with the push of Marlborough and Eugene’s armies into northern France, much to the dismay of Louis XIV. Owing to the death of de Villars, command of French forces in Northern France were assumed by the Duke of Burgundy, Louis, who despite some experience in warfare, was considered lackluster compared to de Villars in persecuting a war against the Grand Alliance. The incompetence of the Burgundy allowed Marlborough much leverage over French forces, scoring victories at Bouchain and securing the fortresses of Cambrai and Valenciennes, which were considered vital in clearing the passage down the Oise, which would open the entrance into Paris. The French army under the Duke of Burgundy was humiliated following Bouchain, and retired to Paris for the inevitable battle against the forces of Marlborough. Louis XIV, angered and upset at his grandson’s failure to stall the advance of the armies of the Grand Alliance, ordered the movement of the French court from the Palace of Versailles to the Château de Blois in the Loire Valley. Given Versailles’ lack of fortifications, Louis XIV knew it was indefensible, and hoped to avoid causing damage to the vast project, which had cost France so many millions.

In Spain, the Bourbonic cause was also under heavy strain. The Grand Alliance victory at Malplaquet had renewed the Austriacist cause, bringing in supporters to the Archduke Charles from across Catalonia. The French troops in Spain, under the Marquis de Bay supported the Spanish forces of the Marquis de Villadarias. These troops faced off against Anglo-Austrian-Dutch forces, under the command of personalities such as Guido Starhemberg and Lord Stanhope. The armies of the Grand Alliance proceeded with fury during the summer of 1710, scoring major victories at Almenara and Saragossa. These victories, coupled with allied troops in France slowly marching on Paris, were enough to arouse Austracist partisans in Castille. By September Philip V as forced to flee a hostile Madrid for Valladolid and shortly after the Archduke Charles took a city that gleefully welcomed him as their legitimate king [2].

The troubles in both France and Spain put Louis XIV in a difficult position. Relieving the Duke of Burgundy from his post of defending Paris, the French King called the Duc de Vendôme from his estates; in hopes he might spare Paris of the humiliation of occupation. Likewise, the Duc of Boufflers, a veteran of the Battle of Malplaquet was sent to Spain in hopes to reverse gains made during the summer. Despite the appointment of these competent generals to their posts, it came all too late; just as the Grand Alliance in Madrid was drawing up plans for a 1711 campaign to dislodge Philip V from Valladolid, the army of Marlborough and Savoy had reached the walls of Paris, preparing for a battle of the French capital.

Paris was well fortified, and although the army defending it was in tatters, it was under the command of the Duc de Vendôme, considered quite competent, compared to de Villars as one of the greatest military minds France had in this time in trouble. It took no time for the Allied armies to commence an assault against the French capital, seeking to avoid a pitched battle with Vendôme, to quickly seize the city and gain an advantage over the French.

The Battle of Paris opened in September of 1710 (shortly after the capture of Madrid by the Grand Alliance), with the Grand Alliance armies quickly overwhelming French troops in Romainville. Vendôme, although a skilled commander, could not sufficiently rally French troops, worn by war and recent loses, both in France and abroad. After several days of attempting to hold the city, Vendôme surrendered and handed the city over to Marlborough, much to the sorrow of Louis XIV, who exclaimed, “The end of the war is coming, although not in our favor.” The greatest insult to French prestige came after the capture of Paris, when Marlborough occupied the Palace of Versailles a few days after. Wishing to show the French their defiance for refusing to come to peace in 1708, Marlborough allowed the palace to be looted by his troops, settling it aflame after. When the news of the burning of Versailles reached the ears of Louis XIV, the old King was broken, and pressed by his war-weary councilors, agreed to seek terms of peace with the Grand Alliance.

While the flames of war still raged in Spain, plans were coming together at the Hague, in hopes of ending the war.

[1] In OTL de Villars was wounded at Malplaquet.

[2] In OTL Archduke Charles occupied an empty and hostile Madrid. With the Grand Alliance converging on Paris, and recent victories in Spain, it’s natural that some of the Spanish aristocracy might see the changing tide and switch alliances before it’s too late.
 
INTRUSION: Why is Drake Rlugia's post so unworthy of comments? :(

I would post some feedback if I was qualified to do so!
 
POD: 1709; The Battle of Malplaquet does not end with the decimation of Marlborough and the Prince of Savoy’s armies, thus opening the road to Paris.
This presumes that the point of the Grand Alliance was to take the fight to the French capital. That wasn't typically the style of warfare in those days, after all. IMHO Marlborough would have used a victory at Malplaquet to consolidate a strong position in northern France, nullify the Ne Plus Ultra lines entirely, and use his position inside French territory to force Louis to sue for peace. Maintaining your army on the territory of your enemy was a fantastic way to keep war costs low after all. The fortress system Vauban came up with sort of makes an advance on Paris foolhardy at best right now as well. It's more of a Napoleonic thing to march on Paris right now, in any event, not a Marlboroughnic one. But, assuming he does decide to go for it...
Drake Rlugia said:
facing a resurgent Austriacist cause in the wake of French defeat at Malplaquet.
The effect shouldn't be immediate; the French in Spain will only suffer morale issues, not numerical ones, for the 1709 campaigning season.
Drake Rlugia said:
Owing to the death of de Villars, command of French forces in Northern France were assumed by the Duke of Burgundy, Louis, who despite some experience in warfare, was considered lackluster compared to de Villars in persecuting a war against the Grand Alliance.
I would think that Boufflers would exercise actual control, since he isn't a terrible commander. Or perhaps they would allow Vendôme to return.
Drake Rlugia said:
Louis XIV, angered and upset at his grandson’s failure to stall the advance of the armies of the Grand Alliance, ordered the movement of the French court from the Palace of Versailles to the Château de Blois in the Loire Valley. Given Versailles’ lack of fortifications, Louis XIV knew it was indefensible, and hoped to avoid causing damage to the vast project, which had cost France so many millions.
I was under the impression that Paris was sufficiently fortified to constitute a good barrier to an Allied attack on Versailles from the north - the city would just get in the way. Too, it would be difficult to cross the Seine. In fact, the entire river system north of Paris is perfect to try to stop an enemy army - the French did it in August and September 1914 after all, and Napoleon had a field day there in 1814. One would think that Boufflers would be smart enough to do that, or at least persuade Burgundy to do so.
Drake Rlugia said:
By September Philip V as forced to flee a hostile Madrid for Valladolid and shortly after the Archduke Charles took a city that gleefully welcomed him as their legitimate king [2].
Why Valladolid and not, say, Barcelona or Toulouse? Seems to be the wrong direction to run away in any event.
Drake Rlugia said:
The troubles in both France and Spain put Louis XIV in a difficult position. Relieving the Duke of Burgundy from his post of defending Paris, the French King called the Duc de Vendôme from his estates; in hopes he might spare Paris of the humiliation of occupation. Likewise, the Duc of Boufflers, a veteran of the Battle of Malplaquet was sent to Spain in hopes to reverse gains made during the summer.
Ah, there we are. One wonders why it wasn't done sooner.
Drake Rlugia said:
The Battle of Paris opened in September of 1710 (shortly after the capture of Madrid by the Grand Alliance),
That was fast. Marlborough is going to have POS supply lines, virtually no rear area security, probably no siege train, and the siege itself would drag on into winter. He'd probably back off and try this next year.

All in all, it's a good idea, to have Louis lose the War of the Spanish Succession by more (about bloody time, what with these "grab the Rhineland" bits :p), although in some of the technical details it suffers a bit. I'm still a bit confused as to why the Allies went after Paris.
INTRUSION: Why is Drake Rlugia's post so unworthy of comments? :(

I would post some feedback if I was qualified to do so!
If you *were* qualified to do so. And you call yourself a native English speaker. :p And you are so qualified IMHO. This isn't a white tower, it's the Internet.
 
I don't really have much to add, other than that it seems a bit of a stretch that Madrid would become hostile to the Bourbons. Some nobles might defect, sure, but Castillian nobility as a whole is not known for its flexibility, and though the tides may be turning in the greater war I rather doubt that the Habsburgs could hope to successfully advance into Castille. Their forces were weakened and the population in the west would be hostile. Although it could make for an interesting future diplomatic crisis, as the British were no more happy to have the Habsburgs rule Spain than they were with the Bourbons.

Either way, Spain should be pretty interesting, and under interesting I mean it's going to fall apart.
 
PoD: Henry Clay is for some reason unable to intervene in the exchanges of John C. Calhoun's Nullification Act and Andrew Jackson's Force Act, with the most likely result being an earlier Civil War.
 
An earlier and shorter civil war, I think. Would any of the other states have followed South Carolina's example had it seceded? Even if most of them did, while the North doesn't have such an overwhelming industrial advantage as in the OTL Civil War, the South doesn't have any Mexican War veterans, or Texas, or sheer righteous indignation and readiness to fight that was built up over all those years of crisis.

Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that they won't abolish slavery after the rebellion is put down either, though it would likely be weakened and could be abolished in a more peaceful way a few decades later. It certainly wouldn't be able to expand. Incidentally, I can't but wonder if Texas would not be put off by this civil war and its political aftermath; I think it might decide to strike out on its own, possibly with the help of particularly indignant war refugees.
 
I'd agree to the first parts, but Texas is sort of moot, in my opinion. For all the (admittedly not wholly undeserved) bluster of Texans about their state, I don't give it good odds on remaining independent under most scenarios for terribly long--between Mexico and America it just doesn't really work in the long run.
 
Possibly; then again, Mexico isn't very good at staying intact. The Texans shouldn't have too much trouble conquering breathing space there, if they survive the first decade or so.
 
Possibly; then again, Mexico isn't very good at staying intact. The Texans shouldn't have too much trouble conquering breathing space there, if they survive the first decade or so.
Maybe, but they run into the problem then of appearing a much juicier target to the United States, which in that general time frame had no problem whatsoever with imperialism and, as evidenced by California, was quite ready to conduct machinations to annex territory.

It can go either way in its effect, but I'd say an equal number of scenarios wind up with the United States stronger overall (by virtue of a less devastating Civil War and reconstruction et al) as they do with it being weaker. Most of both probably wind up with a weaker Mexico.

Also related to Andrew Jackson: if the Supreme Court had been more clever in dealing with him and had opposed his move to resettle Indians by instead doing something radical, like say, granting them citizenship (likely after he had defied them), the difference in Anglo-Indian relations could be pretty interesting.
 
Maybe, but they run into the problem then of appearing a much juicier target to the United States, which in that general time frame had no problem whatsoever with imperialism and, as evidenced by California, was quite ready to conduct machinations to annex territory.

So, Texan-American War somewhere in the late 1840s/early 1850s? The Texans would have both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Confederacy taken to ridiculous extremes. The Americans will probably have a hard time of winning that war, at least at first, but the experience should pay off well.

And if Texas survives until the late 1850s or so, Napoleon III will likely get involved as well, allying with local revanchists to subdue Mexico...

Dachspmg is right, I do keep having the French do the same things over and over again in every single timeline. :( In my defense, Napoleon III is pretty predictable that way, and the French did have some prior dealings with Texas if memory serves.

It can go either way in its effect, but I'd say an equal number of scenarios wind up with the United States stronger overall (by virtue of a less devastating Civil War and reconstruction et al) as they do with it being weaker.

I think it would certainly be less disparate in the bad sense of the word, and the South would certainly be better off for it in the long term.
 
Would any of the other states have followed South Carolina's example had it seceded?
I don't think so.
das said:
Incidentally, I'm pretty sure that they won't abolish slavery after the rebellion is put down either, though it would likely be weakened and could be abolished in a more peaceful way a few decades later.
Also true. There's not even close to the kind of abolitionist sentiment in the 1830s as there is in the 1850s and '60s. The Missouri Compromise will probably go out the window, though.
das said:
Incidentally, I can't but wonder if Texas would not be put off by this civil war and its political aftermath; I think it might decide to strike out on its own, possibly with the help of particularly indignant war refugees.
It does seem to be ripe for that, yes. The problem, as previously stated, is keeping it alive. Especially against a United States with a theoretically trained army with experience in squashing small states/would-be nations.
as they do with it being weaker.
Why would the US end up being weaker?
Symphony D. said:
Also related to Andrew Jackson: if the Supreme Court had been more clever in dealing with him and had opposed his move to resettle Indians by instead doing something radical, like say, granting them citizenship (likely after he had defied them), the difference in Anglo-Indian relations could be pretty interesting.
Marshall has a much better opening in this TL because Jackson will be damaging his standing in the South with the attack on South Carolina. He wouldn't be able to afford the complete loss of support that Indian removal would bring, and may abandon the effort relatively rapidly. Let's just combine the two ideas.
So, Texan-American War somewhere in the late 1840s/early 1850s? The Texans would have both the strengths and the weaknesses of the Confederacy taken to ridiculous extremes. The Americans will probably have a hard time of winning that war, at least at first, but the experience should pay off well.
If Texas isn't squashed in its infancy in the '30s - which is the best option for the United States - yeah. The Texans won't have much of a chance of winning, though. IMHO their economic problems in the event of a blockade - a far easier operation for the US Navy - would be so disgusting that they'd fold in two years or less. One might actually look to the Native American tribes to assist the US if Jackson's removal policy doesn't go through. Probably would get some significant partisan activity on the part of the Texans, but again the natives could be handy help there. Comanches and Kiowa didn't much like the Republic of Texas after all, and they'd probably be perfectly willing to help the US...
das said:
And if Texas survives until the late 1850s or so, Napoleon III will likely get involved as well, allying with local revanchists to subdue Mexico...

Dachspmg is right, I do keep having the French do the same things over and over again in every single timeline. :( In my defense, Napoleon III is pretty predictable that way, and the French did have some prior dealings with Texas if memory serves.
I don't see Texas surviving that long without some kind of Turtledovian deus ex machina. But yeah, since the French were one of the first countries to recognize Texas, and since they were one of the parties that was interested in keeping the US from acquiring Texas (IIRC they sent a mediator to Mexico City during the crisis over the annexation in 1845 to help redraw the borders) they'd probably make good friends. Assuming Napoleon III comes to power and that Italian assassin actually pops up and makes that near miss.

Hey, I'm predictable, too; I never actually finish my timelines and I always do something that ends up being beneficial to the Greeks, Romans, Eastern Romans, Germans, or whatever...should stop that sort of thing. If I ever start writing again.
das said:
I think it would certainly be less disparate in the bad sense of the word, and the South would certainly be better off for it in the long term.
Not the Old South, thank God. :p But yeah, agreed.
 
The Texans won't have much of a chance of winning, though.

True, but if we define victory as survival as a sovereign state, the chances are slightly higher that the Americans won't be able to finish them off in one go. Still, I agree that even that outcome is a stretch.

IMHO their economic problems in the event of a blockade - a far easier operation for the US Navy - would be so disgusting that they'd fold in two years or less.

Didn't the Mexicans try to blockade them in OTL? Then again, I guess that even back then the American fleet was way better than the Mexican one. Still, remember that naval technology is considerably less advanced than in the OTL Civil War.

Assuming Napoleon III comes to power and that Italian assassin actually pops up and makes that near miss.

It might be better if he doesn't, and Napoleon is less obsessed with Italy and more obsessed with the New World as a result (maybe have him unsuccessfully shot by a visiting American/Mexican?).
 
Back
Top Bottom