Napoleon III killed in 1858: effects on Italian unification?

So, in OTL on the 14th of January 1858 Napoleon III and his wife Empress Eugénie survived an assassination attempt by Italian radical Felice Orsini (and three other accomplices).

What if Napoleon III died instead (and maybe his wife too)?

There have been several threads on this already, for example this one, started by the most esteemed Thande.
The previous threads are however chiefly concerned with the following themes:

1- Will the Empire survive? and who would be the regent?
2- effects on the Franco-Prussian war (which would most probably be butterflied away or in any case play out in a different time and under different circumstances) and German reunification.
3- effects on Franco-British relations (as the bombs were manufactured in Britain, where Orsini had been living for some years).

1. Is very important obviously, 2. is placed in a sufficiently distant future as to require more in-depth analisys, possibly through a full fledged timeline. 3. Is imho easily resolved, as I don't think there is any chance of a war over this issue, at most a temporary worsening of relations.

The reason behind this new thread is to enquire a fourth important question, namely, the effects on the war of 1859 and in general on the process of Italian unification.

In OTL the attempt on the Emperor's life underscored the importance of putting an end to the instability inherent in the fragmentation of Italy and played a role in the shaping of the alliance between France and Sardinia (Plombières Agreement of July 1858). Paradoxically Orsini received some degree of sympathy from the public during his trial, as he managed to present himself as an idealistic patriot, not a murderer.

But if the Emperor had been killed, I think the anti-Italian backlash could have been rather strong, and even if the regent was the Italo-friendly Napoleon Joseph "Plon Plon", I don't see how Cavour can pull off the alliance as he did IOTL, therefore Italian unification might be long delayed, or possibly even butterflied away.

On option is that Italy might ally herself with Prussia against Austria, but at that point France might support Austria, leading to a greater European conflict in the mid-1860's.

Or, maybe there is no anti-Italian backlash and the French (under the regency of the liberal and anticlerical Plon Plon), are even more committed to rid Italy from Austrian forces and to put an end to the temporal power of the Pope?

What do you think about this? This is imho an underused POD, that can lead to a very different continental Europe and would deserve a TL written on it.


EDIT: I would particularly appreciate the input of our French members or members who are particularly knowledgeable on French matters

AFAIK, Plon-Plon would've been the regent. (Or at least, he cerrtainly thought so, since he prided himself that were NIII to die before the Prince Imperial reached his majority, the Empire "would never submit to the rule of a woman and a child", and come calling on him to take over the reins of government). Eugenie hated Plon-Plon with everything in her, and certainly the Prince Imperial later didn't regard him very highly, but it must be remembered that Plon-Plon was an important member of the imperial family for among other reasons that he was the only one who had a dynastic marriage.

A big question would be on the resurgence of the Republic. 1858 is only ten years after 1848 so you'd have the same generation of dissidents, which would be very interesting. A French republic that early would have massive consequences, possibly isolating France further, just as it did in the 1880's when it became clear the King wasn't coming back (after the République des Ducs phase).

Nappy's death definitely means no Prussian War in 1870, or at least remotely recognisable. It was a direct consequence of Napoleon's scheming and Bismarck playing him, and Emilie. Same for the actual war, it was such a disaster because the Emperor was captured so early (plenty of other reasons but it didn't help)
Napoleon is described as looking for death on the battlefield. The man was NOT well and was looking for a suicide by cannonball. He had to be strapped to his horse for God's sake.

So, if he dies in 1858, there would perhaps be cooler heads. And definitely no Emilie.

It also means no Mexican Expedition. I also wonder if the instability following his death would kill the Suez canal since it started in 1859. probably not but who knows.

Death in 1858 also probably means no intervention in Syria and Indochina. He helped cement France as the protector of catholics worldwide so none of that.

Napoleon was massively influential, driving more social (ish) laws, drove the transformation of Paris, had a big impact on international diplomacy...



Basically, Nappy dies, I can imagine a Republic coming back. not sure how conservative it would be. That Republic would probably be less interventionist since it would probably be less marked by religion. We might see on the other hand an even greater hand of the bourgeoisie in the system.

Tanc49 said:

Nappy's death definitely means no Prussian War in 1870, or at least remotely recognisable. It was a direct consequence of Napoleon's scheming and Bismarck playing him, and Emilie. Same for the actual war, it was such a disaster because the Emperor was captured so early (plenty of other reasons but it didn't help)
Napoleon is described as looking for death on the battlefield. The man was NOT well and was looking for a suicide by cannonball. He had to be strapped to his horse for God's sake.
.

It also means no Mexican Expedition. I also wonder if the instability following his death would kill the Suez canal since it started in 1859. probably not but who knows.

Death in 1858 also probably means no intervention in Syria and Indochina. He helped cement France as the protector of catholics worldwide so none of that.
.

Click to expand...

That's a lot. What would happen to Mexico, Syria, Indochina and Prussia then?

Would they still be a Germany, if later?

Would a Suez Canal come to be if the instability does kill it off?

And how would Europe see a new French republic?

Tanc49 said:

A big question would be on the resurgence of the Republic. 1858 is only ten years after 1848 so you'd have the same generation of dissidents, which would be very interesting. A French republic that early would have massive consequences, possibly isolating France further, just as it did in the 1880's when it became clear the King wasn't coming back (after the République des Ducs phase).

Nappy's death definitely means no Prussian War in 1870, or at least remotely recognisable. It was a direct consequence of Napoleon's scheming and Bismarck playing him, and Emilie. Same for the actual war, it was such a disaster because the Emperor was captured so early (plenty of other reasons but it didn't help)
Napoleon is described as looking for death on the battlefield. The man was NOT well and was looking for a suicide by cannonball. He had to be strapped to his horse for God's sake.

So, if he dies in 1858, there would perhaps be cooler heads. And definitely no Emilie.

It also means no Mexican Expedition. I also wonder if the instability following his death would kill the Suez canal since it started in 1859. probably not but who knows.

Death in 1858 also probably means no intervention in Syria and Indochina. He helped cement France as the protector of catholics worldwide so none of that.

Napoleon was massively influential, driving more social (ish) laws, drove the transformation of Paris, had a big impact on international diplomacy...



Basically, Nappy dies, I can imagine a Republic coming back. not sure how conservative it would be. That Republic would probably be less interventionist since it would probably be less marked by religion. We might see on the other hand an even greater hand of the bourgeoisie in the system.

Click to expand...

But wouldn't there be some sort of rally around the flag effect and an outpour of sympathy for the child emperor, the poor orphan?

I assume some chaos/insurrection in Paris, but the regime was still rather popular at the time, or am I wrong? A timely intervention by the Imperial Army should manage to secure Paris.
I don't deny though that an earlier return to Republican rule could be very interesting.

What would the attitude be towards Italy? I don't see a French Republic sending an army to help Vittorio Emanuele conquering Lombardy under these conditions, right?

Yanez de Gomera said:

But wouldn't there be some sort of rally around the flag effect and an outpour of sympathy for the child emperor, the poor orphan?

I assume some chaos/insurrection in Paris, but the regime was still rather popular at the time, or am I wrong? A timely intervention by the Imperial Army should manage to secure Paris.
I don't deny though that an earlier return to Republican rule could be very interesting.

Click to expand...

Well my knowledge of pre-1870 politics is partial at best but it's good to remember he made his coup only 6 years before his ITTL death. That's not a lot, and definitely not enough to kill the dream of the Republic.

The fact that the people from 1848 were still there in 1870 and pushing for a Republic is also a good indicator. I would say 50% chances a Republic will emerge, 15% an Emilie Regency, 15% a regency by someone else and 20% a monarchy coming back.

Historyman14 said:

That's a lot. What would happen to Mexico, Syria, Indochina and Prussia then?

Would they still be a Germany, if later?

Click to expand...

Tough questions... I would say there would still be some kind of Indochina. It's just too close to the PoD and the French had been itching for years. Historically there has been diplomatic continuity even in case of regime changes in France. You can see that in 1870. Basically in France the State is historically very strong, much stronger than the form of government at the time.
The PoD is January 1858, the siege of Tourane (start of Indochina) began in september. So that's very close. The French had been itching for years and the final factor was that there were French forces around due to the Opium War (another interesting consequence).

Sure, protection of christianity and all that is nice but access to the Chinese market is nicer and that was the goal of the intervention.

Mexico I honestly don't know. I have the feeling it was more tied to Napoleon but I know the whole venture much less. I would say the bout of inevitable instability following the death would butterfly it, with France focusing instead on reinforcing its European position rather than go to Mexico.

For Prussia, I would bet on unification one way or the other, Prussia was on its way and will accomplish it with or without Napoleon. Maybe this time it won't be at France's expense though. It's also possible the death of Napoleon might lead to a soft purge of the military leadership meaning Generals with their heads out of their asses, none of that "down to the last button" idiocy.

Tanc49 said:

For Prussia, I would bet on unification one way or the other, Prussia was on its way and will accomplish it with or without Napoleon. Maybe this time it won't be at France's expense though. It's also possible the death of Napoleon might lead to a soft purge of the military leadership meaning Generals with their heads out of their asses, none of that "down to the last button" idiocy.

Click to expand...

Or maybe a republic, less obsessed with who should own Venetia, will be able to ally with Austria and keep the Prussians in their place.

Mikestone8 said:

Or maybe a republic, less obsessed with who should own Venetia, will be able to ally with Austria and keep the Prussians in their place.

Click to expand...

I agree with you on the final result but not on the why.

Venetia was not the main question of why Bavaria and Austria broke up with France, although the Italian question didn't help in any way.

Napoleon decided his diplomatic stance was to be the defender of catholics everywhere (hence Syria and Indochina). As a result, but also for realpolitik, he tried to carve himself a sphere of influence, actually discussing it with Bismarck. Prussia was to get Northern Germany and France was to be the power of reference over Bavaria, Baden, etc... I think I read that in "La Troisième République" in the Fayard collection but my book is at home. If anyone reminds me later, I can have a look.

This type of manoeuvering is also exemplified by the Luxemburg crisis I just learnt about, although this one is closer to the traditional French goal of the Rhine frontier.

Anyway. An alliance with Bavaria/Austria was clearly on the table as Bismarck feared it until Sadowa, which is why he needed France as the agressor.

Bismarck was a very good player and a legendary sneaky diplomat so it's hard to say what would have happened with anybody else but Napoleon got played pretty hard in this whole thing.

Who would lead the Republicans? Thiers? Lamartine? Emile Ollivier? Possibly MacMahon could put himself at the head of an authoritarian Republic after the first months of chaos (but then this would be 1848 all over again)
Your argument that the Reublican dream was still very much alive is compelling, but I think that the circumstances of N III's death make a revolution a bit more difficult than you think.

N's death would be sudden, with several republican leaders not in Paris and not ready to organize an insurrection, while the regime wasn't really hated in 1858 I think (surely much more than the Orleanists in 1848), so I don't see anything more than disorganised rioting in the city, that could easily be dealt with.
My opinion is that, unless everyone panics at what happened and lets the situation go out of hand, the parti de l'ordre would be able to secure the city in the immediate aftermath of the attack, leading to a period of repression (similar to wht happened IOTL, but probably harsher) that would however soon give way to some degree of liberalisation.

I am not saying that a return to the Republic would be impossible, far from it, but I think that the Empire has better chances to endure than you give credit for.

According to the Sénatus-consult of 23 july 1856, the regency would go to Eugenie if she had survived the attack, if she had died, the regent would have been Jerome, who would die in 1860 and then Napoleon Joseph (Plon-Plon) until 1874 when Napoleon IV would come of age: such a long regency could indeed cause trouble, but it could also see an earlier liberalisation of the Empire under Plon-Plon, which could be a good thing.

The "social" reforms could be enacted earlier and, without Eugenie's influence, Bonapartism could form a more coherent ideology, ditching clericals and great industrials/financers for the liberal burgeoise and winning over the working classes acquiescence with material concessions and nationalism.
In time, something like Bismarck's Staatsozialismus could be introduced.

Tanc49 said:

I agree with you on the final result but not on the why.

Venetia was not the main question of why Bavaria and Austria broke up with France, although the Italian question didn't help in any way.

Napoleon decided his diplomatic stance was to be the defender of catholics everywhere (hence Syria and Indochina). As a result, but also for realpolitik, he tried to carve himself a sphere of influence, actually discussing it with Bismarck. Prussia was to get Northern Germany and France was to be the power of reference over Bavaria, Baden, etc... I think I read that in "La Troisième République" in the Fayard collection but my book is at home. If anyone reminds me later, I can have a look.

This type of manoeuvering is also exemplified by the Luxemburg crisis I just learnt about, although this one is closer to the traditional French goal of the Rhine frontier.

Anyway. An alliance with Bavaria/Austria was clearly on the table as Bismarck feared it until Sadowa, which is why he needed France as the agressor.

Bismarck was a very good player and a legendary sneaky diplomat so it's hard to say what would have happened with anybody else but Napoleon got played pretty hard in this whole thing.

Click to expand...

It should be added that imho an alliance with (or preferably sphere of influence over) Italy is in the long term more to the interests of France, which has deep economical and cultural ties with Italy, than a purely miltary alliance with Austria against Prussia. If it was not helped by the French, Sardinia would have turned to Prussia in the sixties and then France would either have to enter the fray on Austria's side (with much uncertain perspectives of victory), or watch from the sidelines as the Habsburgs were kicked out of the Peninsula and a Prussian aligned, potentially hostile Kingdom of Italy emerged on her south western border.

You are right about Bismarck outfoxing Napoleon (and most other European leaders)! He was some sort of genous and it is doubtful that the German Empire could even have formed without him at the helm.

In any case, do you reckon that Napoleon's death would ahve butterflied the war of 1859?

Tanc49 said:

This type of manoeuvering is also exemplified by the Luxemburg crisis I just learnt about, although this one is closer to the traditional French goal of the Rhine frontier.

Anyway. An alliance with Bavaria/Austria was clearly on the table as Bismarck feared it until Sadowa, which is why he needed France as the agressor.

Bismarck was a very good player and a legendary sneaky diplomat so it's hard to say what would have happened with anybody else but Napoleon got played pretty hard in this whole thing.

Click to expand...

If there's a republic, we might well get Thiers emerging as a major player. Would he be likely to favour an Austrian alliance?

Tanc49 said:

I agree with you on the final result but not on the why.

Venetia was not the main question of why Bavaria and Austria broke up with France, although the Italian question didn't help in any way.

Napoleon decided his diplomatic stance was to be the defender of catholics everywhere (hence Syria and Indochina). As a result, but also for realpolitik, he tried to carve himself a sphere of influence, actually discussing it with Bismarck. Prussia was to get Northern Germany and France was to be the power of reference over Bavaria, Baden, etc... I think I read that in "La Troisième République" in the Fayard collection but my book is at home. If anyone reminds me later, I can have a look.

This type of manoeuvering is also exemplified by the Luxemburg crisis I just learnt about, although this one is closer to the traditional French goal of the Rhine frontier.

Anyway. An alliance with Bavaria/Austria was clearly on the table as Bismarck feared it until Sadowa, which is why he needed France as the agressor.

Bismarck was a very good player and a legendary sneaky diplomat so it's hard to say what would have happened with anybody else but Napoleon got played pretty hard in this whole thing.

Click to expand...

Well, a French republic, as you said, would likely isolating France greatly. Could we see the UK turning to Prussia to stop the French republic?

And Yanez de Gomera has show that Italy is in the long term more to the interests of France.

Historyman 14 said:

Well, a French republic, as you said, would likely isolating France greatly. Could we see the UK turning to Prussia to stop the French republic?

Click to expand...

Don't think it would be that bad. It's not 1789 anymore. However, turning into a republic will definitely not earn them any cookie points.

Mikestone8 said:

If there's a republic, we might well get Thiers emerging as a major player. Would

Click to expand...

Thiers will emerge as a major player in whichever system happens. The guy was like a political cockroach. You just cannot kill him.

Yanez said:

According to the Sénatus-consult of 23 july 1856, the regency would go to Eugenie if she had survived the attack, if she had died, the regent would have been Jerome, who would die in 1860 and then Napoleon Joseph (Plon-Plon) until 1874 when Napoleon IV would come of age: such a long regency could indeed cause trouble, but it could also see an earlier liberalisation of the Empire under Plon-Plon, which could be a good thing.

The "social" reforms could be enacted earlier and, without Eugenie's influence, Bonapartism could form a more coherent ideology, ditching clericals and great industrials/financers for the liberal burgeoise and winning over the working classes acquiescence with material concessions and nationalism.
In time, something like Bismarck's Staatsozialismus could be introduced.

Click to expand...

Your political history of the period seems better than mine so I'm not sure I can participate in that bit.

For Italy, I agree it would be a more rational choice to fully back Italy rather than Austria. He did try to get a Prusso-French alliance going and it completely back fired. Maybe if he had been more aggressive about it?

Yanez de Gomera said:

It should be added that imho an alliance with (or preferably sphere of influence over) Italy is in the long term more to the interests of France, which has deep economical and cultural ties with Italy, than a purely miltary alliance with Austria against Prussia. If it was not helped by the French, Sardinia would have turned to Prussia in the sixties and then France would either have to enter the fray on Austria's side (with much uncertain perspectives of victory), or watch from the sidelines as the Habsburgs were kicked out of the Peninsula and a Prussian aligned, potentially hostile Kingdom of Italy emerged on her south western border.

Click to expand...

Do they have to fight? Just a flat statement that France would oppose any
change in Germany being brought about by military means would probably suffice, as Prussia couldn't take on Austria and France together.

In any case, do you reckon that Napoleon's death would ahve butterflied the war of 1859?

Click to expand...

Could well do, given that the killer was an Italian nationalist.

Oh, it also means the bulk of the Haussmann renovations never get built.

Tanc49 said:

Your political history of the period seems better than mine so I'm not sure I can participate in that bit.

For Italy, I agree it would be a more rational choice to fully back Italy rather than Austria. He did try to get a Prusso-French alliance going and it completely back fired. Maybe if he had been more aggressive about it?

Click to expand...

You are too good, the political part is mostly speculation, the senatus-consult I got from the handy database of French constitutions that is available in the website of the Conseil Constitutionnel .

Prusso-French alliance... Mmm, I don't know how it can be made to work honestly, especially if France is a Republic, but it certainly is intriguing: the UK won't like it a bit though.

Mikestone8 said:

Do they have to fight? Just a flat statement that France would oppose any
change in Germany being brought about by military means would probably suffice, as Prussia couldn't take on Austria and France together.




Could well do, given that the killer was an Italian nationalist.

Click to expand...

Yeah, arguably the poor handling of 1866 was one of the worst mistakes by Napoleon le petit, but I am not sure that Prussia would back down so easily.

About the Orsini attentat, I am really not sure what the reaction would have been: IOTL the attack failed, but it should still have caused an anti-italian sentiment to develop, but quite the opposite happened, and Napoleon himself let Orsini's appeals be published. The attack brought the Italian question back under the spotlight. Had Napoleon died, maybe this effect could gave been even greater and other powers would have become concerned with the Italian powderkeg: maybe a Congress could be called and the old idea of a confederation under nominal Papal sovereignity could be implemented?

EDIT: what do you all think about Plon-Plon? Was he a blundering fool, or a potential political innovator? Could he have steered France through the dangerous waters of the 1860's and '70s better than his cousin?

Yanez de Gomera said:

Yeah, arguably the poor handling of 1866 was one of the worst mistakes by Napoleon le petit, but I am not sure that Prussia would back down so easily.

Click to expand...

How much choice would they have?

If they have to leave half their army on the Rhine, the other half faces certain defeat in Bohemia. Sadowa was a close call even OTL.

About the Orsini attentat, I am really not sure what the reaction would have been: IOTL the attack failed, but it should still have caused an anti-italian sentiment to develop, but quite the opposite happened, and Napoleon himself let Orsini's appeals be published. The attack brought the Italian question back under the spotlight. Had Napoleon died, maybe this effect could gave been even greater and other powers would have become concerned with the Italian powderkeg: maybe a Congress could be called and the old idea of a confederation under nominal Papal sovereignity could be implemented?

Click to expand...

Did the French people really give a toss about Italy? I've always had the impression that this was a purely personal hang-up of Nap III, due to his early days in the Carbonari.

EDIT: what do you all think about Plon-Plon? Was he a blundering fool, or a potential political innovator? Could he have steered France through the dangerous waters of the 1860's and '70s better than his cousin?

Click to expand...

Don't really know enough to say. He might have proved better than expected, but I wouldn't bank on it.

Mikestone8 said:

How much choice would they have?

If they have to leave half their army on the Rhine, the other half faces certain defeat in Bohemia. Sadowa was a close call even OTL.


Did the French people really give a toss about Italy? I've always had the impression that this was a purely personal hang-up of Nap III, due to his early days in the Carbonari.

Don't really know enough to say. He might have proved better than expected, but I wouldn't bank on it.

Click to expand...

As for the Austro-Prussian war, you are right, but I get that Prussian mobilization was much more efficient than the French one and so Prussia could turn against France after beating the Habsburg, while the French could have only made limited advances in the Rhineland. A French invasion could also give more support to the Prussians from the other German states, who could refrain from attacking her or even switch sides. On the other hand it is true that Bismarck would not have wanted to pick such a dangerous fight.

About French sentiment on Italy, I think that the liberals/republicans were very much in favour of Italian unification, while clericals/monarchists were against it, or at least wanted the Pope to keep his lands intact.

Plon Plon was sometimes called the "Red Bonaparte", and was even more in favour of the Italian cause than his cousin, so he his certainly interesting. He was friends with Proudhon and other leftist intellectuals, but he was also a rather debauched and venal person, so...

Finally, an alternative POD about an earlier demise for N III:

In 1855 the Italian radical Antonio Pianori fired two shots at Napoleon, but he missed. What if he had hit him and Napoleon had died?
In this case I think that a return to the Republic would have been very probable, but what would the character of this III Republic be? Would it be plagued by instability or stable but authoritarian? Would there eventually be a monarchical restoration?

Yanez de Gomera said:

As for the Austro-Prussian war, you are right, but I get that Prussian mobilization was much more efficient than the French one and so Prussia could turn against France after beating the Habsburg, while the French could have only made limited advances in the Rhineland. A French invasion could also give more support to the Prussians from the other German states, who could refrain from attacking her or even switch sides. On the other hand it is true that Bismarck would not have wanted to pick such a dangerous fight.

Click to expand...

That assumes that Franz Josef still makes peace after Sadowa. But in this situation he probably won't. With the French army on the move, he'll more likely make a stand on the Danube and challenge Prussia to a long war, so that France will have plenty of time to act. For the Prussians (who have only about half the manpower that they would have in 1870) it's a question of can they defend the Elbe, never mind making gains.

Mikestone8 said:

That assumes that Franz Josef still makes peace after Sadowa. But in this situation he probably won't. With the French army on the move, he'll more likely make a stand on the Danube and challenge Prussia to a long war, so that France will have plenty of time to act. For the Prussians (who have only about half the manpower that they would have in 1870) it's a question of can they defend the Elbe, never mind making gains.

Click to expand...

That!

But if 1866 happens is not a sure thing here.

For one 1859 is likely to be butterflied away, so no Kingdom of Italy allying with Prussia - Austria is instead still holding one of its richer provinces - make that the Austrian army is stronger (not much but a bit is seemingly enough) AND the troops Austria has to keep in the South are likey with the North Army in this scenario.

In addition Bismarck waited with 1866 until he had Italys support, he might not dare to move in this scenario.

Richter von Manthofen said:

That!

But if 1866 happens is not a sure thing here.

For one 1859 is likely to be butterflied away, so no Kingdom of Italy allying with Prussia - Austria is instead still holding one of its richer provinces - make that the Austrian army is stronger (not much but a bit is seemingly enough) AND the troops Austria has to keep in the South are likey with the North Army in this scenario.

In addition Bismarck waited with 1866 until he had Italys support, he might not dare to move in this scenario.

Click to expand...

In such a scenario it is conceivable that France would side with Prussia (and Sardinia). Even in OTL they probably expected Austria to win in 66. bismarck could see it useful to give France a free hand in Italy in order to weaken the Austrians on that front. Lombardy-Venetia would surely keep being restive and Sardinia will continue to look for alliances against Austria, the Italian situation would have to be resolved sooner or later.