PC: Could Joachim Murat keep his life and his reign after the Vienna Council?

Recently I visited my grandparents in my home city, Naples. There I had the opportunity of visiting the Palazzo Reale (royal palace) that was one of the residences of the Borbone of the Two Sicilies and later of the Savoia kings.

There I was much impressed by the work cabinet used by Joachim Murat during his brief reign. Its relative semplicity, the presence of scientifical instrument and books from enlightenement authors were a stark contrast to the opulence and farisiac displays of piety to be found in the others (in any case magnificent) rooms of the palace.

To cut a long story short I read something about the man and I must say that I really like his flamboyant personality and military skills[EDIT: reckless bravery more than skills actually].
This adds to my desire to find a way to improve the dismal destiny of the southern part of Italy, at least in an ATL

Therefore I have been tinkering for some time on a possible surviving Muratian Kingdom of the Two Sicilies TL.
However I am inexperienced at writing TLs, so I would like to humbly ask you, as experts in the field of uchronia, if this scenario could be plausible.

The main POD would be Murat biding his time after the escape of Napoleon from Elba and remaining in his Kingdom (I can't believe he could think Napoleon would have forgiven him after what he did!).
After all it was promised to him that he could keep it as a prize for his betrayal, if the restauration powers would keep their promise, that's really more doubtful.

It seems to me he was liked by the people, at least in the city, but obviously the clergy hated him, how could he avoid a new "sanfedista" revolt like the one that ended the 1799 republic?
Admitting he could survive, could he consolidate his reign? The Italian nationalists of the twenties and thirties would see him as a foreign usurpers or a champion of liberalism?

Comments and suggestions are very welcome!

He was certainly a character, that's for sure, although I'm not sure how good a ruler he could be. I guess it all depends on whether he can build support in other social classes. The Church might stop agitating against him once it's clear that the Bourbons are not coming back and if he moderates himself enough to look like a bulwark against those Evil Libruls. That could be difficult.

It could also be interesting to see a surviving Kingdom of Northern Italy under Eugene Beauharnais - he was more talented, politically and administratively; he could be probably more diplomatic than Murat, and possibly able to pretend to not be too liberal to survive in the post-Vienna milieu.

Porsenna said:

He was certainly a character, that's for sure, although I'm not sure how good a ruler he could be.

Click to expand...

Actually rather good I think: he enacted many reforms during his reign:
- Eradication of feudal laws and customs (the law was proclaimed in 1806 by Giuseppe Bonaparte, but it was Murat who decisively implemented it)
- Financial and tributary reforms shifting the burden of taxation from personal taxes towards land taxes. He also unified tolls and fees under a central, militarised administration.
Those reforms were successful in lowering the kingdom's debit from 35.000.000 Ducati to 840.000 ducati.
- Legislative reforms: introduction of the Code Napoleon with amendments to make it more suitable to the Neapolitan conditions.
- A program of public infrastructures building (hampered by lack of funds and time)
- Administrative reforms on the French model (but favouring Italian officials, also to distance himself from Napoleon)
- Army reform on the French model, with universal conscription: the farmers didn't like it, but such is their lot unfortunately

The real problem would be his political and diplomatical lack of skill, that combined with his rashness brought to war with the Austrians and the disaster at Tolentino.
Maybe his wife, who had connections with Metternich, could restrain him more.
Another problem could be that the Italian liberals loved him, seeing in him a potential liberator and unifier of Italy, but would perceive an alliance with Austria as a betrayal and might attack him, causing him to turn reactionary.

Eugene could do a better job? Probable! But my point his making a Murat led Kingdom of Naples survive and thrive.
Thanks for the answer in any case!

The Bourbons pretenders have to die or at least the male mature ones. Murat also gets Sicily somehow. At the Vienna congress the Coalition allow him to stay on the throne.

LeCHVCK I don't think it's necessary for the Bourbons to die off. In 1813-1814 Murat, after his betrayal of Napoleon is allied to Austria and his position on the throne is relatively stable.

However England is against him, because they still recognize only the Bourbons and have a strong interest in controlling Sicily (strategical position and natural resources).

Therefore I think that it could be possible to have the Bourbons remain in Sicily under British guarantee (and keep stirring up problems in Calabria organising the "Briganti" guerrillas...) while Joachim listens to his wife, doesn't overtly support Napoleon during the 100 days and at the Congress keeps his reign in continental Italy.

Yanez de Gomera said:

Eugene could do a better job? Probable! But my point his making a Murat led Kingdom of Naples survive and thrive.
Thanks for the answer in any case!

Click to expand...

No, I was more thinking about having both of them. Post Revolutionary Italian Team Up! The Savoys would probably get marginalised in their mountain valleys.

Porsenna said:

No, I was more thinking about having both of them. Post Revolutionary Italian Team Up! The Savoys would probably get marginalised in their mountain valleys.

Click to expand...

That's a very interesting idea, and probably one way of achieving an early unification of Italy. I have to think about that, but probably won't follow this way: I think that at the time Italian nationalism was limited to tiny sections of the population and won't be enough to keep the reign of Italy from falling. The reign of Naples instead is geographically relatively more secure (farther from Austria and France) and if it could survive the Congress of Vienna I think it would be able to consolidate. My question is: is it possible for Murat to keep his kingdom, or would the intrigues of the British and of Talleyrand be enough to ruin it at the Congress? After all Bernadotte kept Sweden and he was also a Marechal of Napoleon...

napoleon comes home

instead of trying to regain France, Napoleon just goes the short distance from Elba to Corsica. French soldiers would mutiny if they moved against Napoleon. Only England could send a force against him. The other powers, remembering the habit of perfidious Albion to keep for themselves the places they liberated, refuse to get on board.
So Nappy ends up as a duke of Corsica.

Murat was too ambitious and duplicitous - and more importantly very unsubtle about - to maintain a kingdom. The only way he maintains Naples is at the Austrian's pleasure and not only were they planning to dethrone him because they didn't trust him but he outright confirmed their suspicious by immediately raising troops to help Napoleon (who he had formally betrayed) before Napoleon was ready. His wife was the only one with any sense of survival skills and knew they needed to stay with the Allies to maintain Naples. He was also a war-monger who wanted to unite all of Italy under his rule - and he didn't really care who knew it (not even the Savoys were so blowhardy). He asked the Pope for safe passage for his armies during the Hundred Days saying he no ulterior plans when the Pope (who had given sanctuary to the Bonapartes and was close to Cardinal Fesch and Mama B.)very well knew this was the very same Murat who had written letter after letter telling Nap the Pope had to be dethroned and kept captive and the Papal States destroyed. Yet he still expected everyone to go along with him. The idea that the Frenchmen turned German Duke of Berg turned 2nd hand King of Naples (after Joseph went to Spain) would be the person to "unify" all of Italy was preposterous. No one particularly LIKED Murat. Not even the Italians. And as for him being "enlightened", in another era, he would be tried for war crimes for his brutal and bloody actions in Spain.

Eugene, however, a man who was married into the Bavarian Royal Family with blue-blood in his veins, a decent, moderate, fellow, liked pretty much by every side (even some of the Allies like Alexander I wanted him to have a throne somewhere) was a much more intriguing person to unify Italy. Let's say if the Austrians had given him the Dukedom of Milan.

Well... I am aware of the shortcoming of my man. The atrocities in Spain were really awful and also the treatment of the brigand problem in Calabria was extremely cruel, with generals getting surnames like "sterminatore" (exterminator).

However I think he is the best man to give a chance to southern Italy to develop in a more positive way: that would be my actual goal, not an earlier Italian reunification.

As to Eugene, he had enough problems with the Italian factions in Milan and was too linked to France: even if the kingdom of Italy had survived 1814, I don't see how Eugene could avoid implying himself with Napoleon (his de facto adoptive father) during the 100 days and thus losing the kingdom.

Whereas the ambiguity of Joachim means that it is by no means certain that he would launch his doomed crusade to free Italy from the Austrians. Slightly different circumstances could have lead him to tergiversate for some weeks more and then maybe survive.

Yanez de Gomera said:

Well... I am aware of the shortcoming of my man. The atrocities in Spain were really awful and also the treatment of the brigand problem in Calabria was extremely cruel, with generals getting surnames like "sterminatore" (exterminator).

However I think he is the best man to give a chance to southern Italy to develop in a more positive way: that would be my actual goal, not an earlier Italian reunification.

As to Eugene, he had enough problems with the Italian factions in Milan and was too linked to France: even if the kingdom of Italy had survived 1814, I don't see how Eugene could avoid implying himself with Napoleon (his de facto adoptive father) during the 100 days and thus losing the kingdom.

Whereas the ambiguity of Joachim means that it is by no means certain that he would launch his doomed crusade to free Italy from the Austrians. Slightly different circumstances could have lead him to tergiversate for some weeks more and then maybe survive.

Click to expand...

I think you underestimate Murat's ambition and arrogance. As I said both Napoleon and his wife (who might have saved the throne had he listened to her and thrown his lot with the allies - instead of against them - during the Hundred Days) thought he was rash and stupid. Even before and AFTER Napoleon's fall Murat was intriguing to add the French annexed Papal States to the Kingdom of Naples and Napoleon and the Pope were aware of it. Like I said, he was unsubtle.

Murat only stays in power at the sufferance of the Allied Powers. He knew it (for instance he acknowledged the Bourbon rule in Sicily after Napoleon's abdication despite his previous stated goal of being King of Sicily) and still was stupid. There's a reason why Bernadotte became accepted and Murat was not. Bernadotte put Sweden's goals above his own, picked a side and stuck with it and knew when to quit (that was a problem with most of Napoleon's marshals - including Murat - they were always yearning for the next war not the next peace).

Eugene was very well liked by the Allies. He really comes across well in history and no one held his loyalty to his former stepfather against him. Furthermore, Eugene did not rally to the the side of Napoleon during the Hundred Days at the behest of his father-in-law which made him more liked (it is also no accident that Eugene's descendants were married into the highest echelons of other royal families like the Bourbons and the Romanovs with no problem - I can't see any royal family post-Vienna marrying into the Murats).

Robert Guiscard said:

What if Eugene was put in charge of Naples instead of Murat?

I would write a TL about it, but I just started one on Ladislaus of Naples

Click to expand...

Eugene would have lost Naples in any Vienna Council situation because he never would have betrayed Napoleon and went over to the allies. But I wouldn't be surprised if the Allies gave him something else especially if his father-in-law and Alexander I insisted.

If the 100 Days never happens (Napoleon tried to commit suicide, but his poison had lost its strength) Murat won't attack to help Napoleon's comeback. This gives him time to build strength in Naples (where he was a far more active and popular king than the Bourbons had been), and it will be very hard to oust him.

The Congress of Vienna is unlikely to support Murat (to say the least), and they may well declare the Bourbon in Sicily is the legitimate ruler of Naples. BUT. I also can't see the Brits or the French being willing to support Austria militarily in his ouster, and I don't see the Russians or Prussians caring enough to march troops that far.

Austria is unlikely to want to go to war by herself, and would find it difficult to oust Murat on their own. IMO. This suggests that he might very well survive in a 'no 100 Days' scenario.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

Austria is unlikely to want to go to war by herself, and would find it difficult to oust Murat on their own. IMO. This suggests that he might very well survive in a 'no 100 Days' scenario.

Click to expand...

Perhaps. But only if Murat stays in Naples (very unlikely in the long term given his nature). We know he eyed the Papal States and Lombardy. The minute he makes a move on either, the rest of Europe would not only give Austria a free pass against him but a Bourbon French monarchy would help them.

Dathi THorfinnsson said:

If the 100 Days never happens (Napoleon tried to commit suicide, but his poison had lost its strength) Murat won't attack <snip>

Austria is unlikely to want to go to war by herself, and would find it difficult to oust Murat on their own. IMO. This suggests that he might very well survive in a 'no 100 Days' scenario.

Click to expand...

Also England might like to keep the Bourbons confined in Sicily under their protection: they would be completely dependant on the Royal Navy to avoid a Neapolitan invasion attempt and thus England will gain a de facto protectorate in the Mediterranean.

However wouldn't a "no 100 days" situation cause very big butterflies? For example the war between USA and UK might continue and the British might devote more resources to it and achieve very different results.

Also if I remember correctly there were serious tensions in the Congress of Vienna: without the scare of a Napoleonic come back couldn't the Congress have failed? Maybe a war could even have started over the Saxony question.

Dear Jb3, I agree that he eyed the Papal States and Lumbardy and that the rest of Europe would never allow him to take them, but I don't think he would try without Napoleon.
Murat strikes me as rash, but irresolute, trying to conquer by exploiting the weakness of his neighbours: I don't think he would charge headlong against an otherwise unengaged Austria.
And if he survives the 1815 crisis he becomes "established", and in a couple of years the powers will have their own problems with uprisings and revolutions.

However also in the best case his would remain a Pariah state and would never be able to get Sicily against the will of the UK, so probably this scenario is not worth trying.