WI: Napoleon dies around the time of the birth of Napoleon II.

[Cornelis]

According to the current constitution, a 1812 regency would be as such :

- Regent : a french prince designated by the Emperor. If no one is named, it is the senior one (Joseph). If there is no french princes, one of the great dignitaries of the empire. As we know Napoléon's brother would not be good choices, the persons in power in Paris can declare that the french princes who accepted a foreign crown are ipso facto no more french princes, allowing to bypass Joseph, King of Spain, Louis, then in exile at Vienna, Napoléon-Louis and Louis-Napoléon, too young, Jérôme, King of Westphalia, leaving only Eugène. Problem : Eugène inherits Italy from Napoléon - but he could refuse it. So a choice between the remaining members of the Council of Regency is necessary.
- Guard of the Emperor : his mother Marie-Louise
- Council of regency : able to vote on important decisions, such as peace treaties, with binding power. Its members are the great dignitaries of the empire :

1. Great elector : (Joseph)
2. Constable : (Louis)
3. Arch-chancellor of Empire : Cambacérès
4. Arch-treasurer and Governor General of Holland : Lebrun
5. Grand admiral : (Murat)
6. Arch-chancellor of State : (Eugène)
7. Great almoner : Fesch
8. Vice-Great elector : Talleyrand
9. Vice-Constable : Berthier
10. Governor General of Italian departments : Borghese
11. Grand-duchess of Tuscany : Elisa

In this council, the only ones who mattered are Talleyrand, Berthier and Fesch. In an appeasing perspective, choosing Eugène as régent might be the smart move.

This all regency system was changed by Napoléon in 1813 OTL, when he chose Marie-Louise as regent.

 

[funnyhat]

Unless France abjure so the plutocratic gains of the Revolution, I don't see why the UK would discontinue it's relentless policy of funding coalitions to restore the Bourbons.

Many in Britain were growing tired of the war - it had been nearly two decades of fighting - but Napoleon I was viewed as enough of a threat to keep it going. If he's gone, I think it's very likely the UK would be open to peace overtures. Now obviously it would expect France to give up a lot in order for peace to be signed.

 

[longsword14]

Many in Britain were growing tired of the war - it had been nearly two decades of fighting - but Napoleon I was viewed as enough of a threat to keep it going. If he's gone, I think it's very likely the UK would be open to peace overtures. Now obviously it would expect France to give up a lot in order for peace to be signed.

True, but Britain is not the only one in the concert. Keeping Austria out is a great bonus. Prussia could be beaten well despite losing Napoleon (and not having lost all those men in Russia).
If central Europe could be allowed not to be completely dominated by France's opponents, and with no need for France to force diplomacy solely by force many plausible stumbling blocks are averted.
In such a scenario funding a coalition would be extremely hard.

 

[funnyhat]

True, but Britain is not the only one in the concert. Keeping Austria out is a great bonus. Prussia could be beaten well despite losing Napoleon (and not having lost all those men in Russia).
If central Europe could be allowed not to be completely dominated by France's opponents, and with no need for France to force diplomacy solely by force many plausible stumbling blocks are averted.
In such a scenario funding a coalition would be extremely hard.

If we're having Napoleon I die right around 1811 when his son is born, France is not at war with Austria, Prussia or Russia at this time. Spain/Portugal is the only theatre of war. I'd guess the other nations would be receptive to peace talks though it's anyone's guess.

 

[Mikestone8]

If we're having Napoleon I die right around 1811 when his son is born, France is not at war with Austria, Prussia or Russia at this time. Spain/Portugal is the only theatre of war. I'd guess the other nations would be receptive to peace talks though it's anyone's guess.

On what terms?

There's no way they'll accept anything remotely like the borders of 1810/11, once Napoleon is no longer there to enforce these.

 

[Cornelis]

On what terms?

There's no way they'll accept anything remotely like the borders of 1810/11, once Napoleon is no longer there to enforce these.

France will have to ditch Holland and north Germany and probably the Illyrian provinces. Italy is more open to discussion/partages. About Spain, the spanish princes happen to be in Talleyrand's own custody in Valençay. If he is in power in the Regency, he could arrange a deal with them quickly enough, bypassing the other leaders and giving them no choice but to accept his plan.

Architecturally speaking, a 1811 POD and the ensuing peace would permit the construction of the Palace of the King of Rome, a new landmark in Paris, with the ultimate consequence of butterflying away the Eiffel Tower. Not sure the town would benefit another big neoclassic palace instead of a forward-thinking engineer's dream.

 

[Mikestone8]

FWIW, during General Malet's attempted coup in 1812, he read out a proclamation from his (fictitious) Provisional Government, announcing the withdrawal of French forces from Spain, Italy and Holland. I don't recall a specific mention of Germany, but if Holland was to be evacuated, that would seem to be implied. While it doesn't prove anything about what a real successor Gov't would have done, it indicates what Malet, at least, thought this was something that Frenchmen, and French soldiers in particular, would be ok with. He wouldn't have proclaimed something which he knew would be unpopular.

 

[Avrorrange]

On what terms?

There's no way they'll accept anything remotely like the borders of 1810/11, once Napoleon is no longer there to enforce these.

Do you really need a Napoleon there to enforce the terms?There's still plenty of good generals around like Davout for example.

 

[longsword14]

Do you really need a Napoleon there to enforce the terms?There's still plenty of good generals around like Davout for example.

As always the question is not about whether they have the ability but the political bit. Davout was respected by many but he would need someone to back him up. Davout brings along Oudinot, Ney will most likely follow, this trend will be true broadly with the only possible troublemakers high up in the army being those who had been of some standing before 1800.
Also, Davout had a corps of observation in Poland where he was put to train troops and prepare for hostilities. So he has a large force under him, very large compared to a standard corps.

 

[Avrorrange]

As always the question is not about whether they have the ability but the political bit. Davout was respected by many but he would need someone to back him up. Davout brings along Oudinot, Ney will most likely follow, this trend will be true broadly with the only possible troublemakers high up in the army being those who had been of some standing before 1800.
Also, Davout had a corps of observation in Poland where he was put to train troops and prepare for hostilities. So he has a large force under him, very large compared to a standard corps.

So you are saying the three generals might march on Paris?

 

[Faeelin]

[1] Austria will want Illyria and Tyrol back at minimum, while Prussia is thirsting after revenge for Tilsit, and the Tsar has his beady eyes on the Duchy of Warsaw, so we may safely assume that hostilities break out within weeks (or at best months) of Napoleon's death.

What makes you think Austria doesn't get those territories back peacefully? Splitting off Austria is an obvious move.

 

[longsword14]

So you are saying the three generals might march on Paris?

If it seems that the change of power does not have any Napoleonic tinge. Napoleon had some successors planned out, so even in a regency council complete loss of control would not be acceptable.
What I mean is that the often repeated statement that as soon as Napoleon dies every general would try and grab power or start clashing is hyperbole. The Malet coup did not gather enough steam to do anything, nor did it have a chance to.The only reason it got to where it did was forgery and the fact that the army was far away fighting on the other side of Europe.

 

[Mikestone8]

If it seems that the change of power does not have any Napoleonic tinge. Napoleon had some successors planned out, so even in a regency council complete loss of control would not be acceptable.

Acceptable to whom?

Whatever arrangements Napoleon may have made, they are so much waste paper as soon as his death is confirmed.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

Cornelis answered the question I was going to ask, which was what was the legal procedures for a regency.

And the legal answer is clear that the senior French prince becomes regent, which means Joseph becomes regent, with a possible out that by accepting a foreign crown he is no longer a French prince. This would be determined by the regency council, and the votes are there to exclude Joseph. Note that Joseph was not notable for his ambition.

If they exclude Joseph, the obvious choice is Eugene, who would have been the best possible choice for the empire anyway. Louis is a possibility, since he was no longer King of Holland.

As to the survival of the empire, my impression is that while only Napoleon could have built the empire, by 1808 he had become something of a liability in maintaining it. An Octavian, not a Julius Caesar, was called for at that point. By 1811, the Continental System needed to go or at least be greatly relaxed, and war with Russia either avoided or fought on the defensive. Otherwise concessions should have been made, with the goal of at least keeping the Rhine frontier and predominant influence in Italy and Germany. There is still room to accommodate Austria, which could turn into an ally with a relative on the throne of France and Russia to worry about. With Spain you just reinstate the Bourbons in exchange for hanging on to Catalonia.

With a less active, aggressive grand strategy the chances were good for the empire to survive. Even Joseph would have been able to manage that.

 

[Mikestone8]

The Malet coup did not gather enough steam to do anything, nor did it have a chance to.The only reason it got to where it did was forgery and the fact that the army was far away fighting on the other side of Europe.

That's no guarantee that it couldn't achieve at least a temporary success, but in any case it doesn't matter as far as this thread is concerned.

For this TL, the significant aspect of the Malet Plot was not so much what happened as what didn't - the "dog that did nothing in the night". Some people believed Malet's story, others (including crucially the Adjutant-general, Colonel Doucet) did not, and of those who did, some expressed regret at Napoleon's death, while others didn't. On one point only was there unanimity. No one, but no one, paid the slightest attention to the Empire's own succession laws. From start to finish, no one had so much as mentioned the King of Rome, save Malet himself in a sniffy aside about a "bastard child". In theory, the news of Napoleon's death should have been met with a cry of "Vive Napoleon II", but not one single person did so, either soldier or civilian. It was as if Napoleon's son and brothers had simply died with him.

Malet, in fact, had played the part of the boy in the fairy-tale, and revealed that His Imperial Majesty was starkers. All the stuff about who would "legally" have been Regent for Napoleon II wouldn't have counted for anything had the Emperor really died. In that event, all his arrangements for succession and Regency would have become so much toilet paper.

Guido Artom, Napoleon Is Dead In Russia, gives a good account of what has always been one of my favourite historical footnotes. It is well worth a read.

 

[longsword14]

@Mikestone8
Malet did not last long enough for any faction for or against Napoleon to do anything meaningful. A coup could not be attempted without the army's support. The possible path a powr-change could take is not illustrated by Malet's attempt. There were enough men to follow Napoleon's word to have his wish followed in some shape or form. I do not expect Joseph etc to rule absolutely but to be a part of a council, working parallel with the senate which would now be of some actual importance.

Napoleon is Dead in Russia is a fictional book, or so it is listed on Amazon and on Google Books.

 

[Mikestone8]

Leaving French politics aside for a moment (I think we'll just have to agree to disagree there) any thoughts on what happens elsewhere?

Can we at least agree that the Duchy of Warsaw is toast. It is encircled by the three partitioning powers, who were held at bay only by fear of Napoleon. So presumably they move in. But which ones? Do Austria and Prussia just repossess their respective shares, or could the Tsar collar it first?

Also, no 1812 means no Russian withdrawal from Moldavia and Wallachia. So do those just become two more Russian provinces, and if so does Alexander move on to take a chunk of Bulgaria as well? What could be the long term effects of this?

 

[Jammy]

Can we at least agree that the Duchy of Warsaw is toast. It is encircled by the three partitioning powers, who were held at bay only by fear of Napoleon. So presumably they move in. But which ones? Do Austria and Prussia just repossess their respective shares, or could the Tsar collar it first?

Agree with this.

I think it'll be a case of all three staring at each and then the first to make their move will cause all hell to break lose and the 3 powers will just try to claim as much as they can.

 

[Magnum]

Can we at least agree that the Duchy of Warsaw is toast. It is encircled by the three partitioning powers, who were held at bay only by fear of Napoleon. So presumably they move in. But which ones? Do Austria and Prussia just repossess their respective shares, or could the Tsar collar it first?

If the Grand Armee is called upon to fight a campaign against Russia not a thousand miles away in hostile territory during winter, but close to home in Poland in friendly territory, there's only one way the whole affair is going to end.

Also, no 1812 means no Russian withdrawal from Moldavia and Wallachia. So do those just become two more Russian provinces, and if so does Alexander move on to take a chunk of Bulgaria as well? What could be the long term effects of this?

If Russia actively annexes the two, it won't take long for nationalist feelings to turn anti-Russian pretty fast. You would probably see a revolt the instant France sends word that they would back the Romanians.

 

[Mikestone8]

If the Grand Armee is called upon to fight a campaign against Russia not a thousand miles away in hostile territory during winter, but close to home in Poland in friendly territory, there's only one way the whole affair is going to end.

Iirc in 1809 Napoleon himself made quite heavy weather of it just against Austria alone - losing Aspern and winning a very hard-fought one at Wagram. So how is some lesser figure going to do against all three eastern powers?

The latter, whatever their disagreements, are of one mind in wanting that Duchy to disappear, so if France buts in they are likely to close ranks.

If Russia actively annexes the two, it won't take long for nationalist feelings to turn anti-Russian pretty fast. You would probably see a revolt the instant France sends word that they would back the Romanians.

Is a weak successor government, fully preoccupied with getting itself securely in power, going to attack Russia for the sake of some Balkan place that most Frenchmen have never heard of?

And why should Rumanian revolts fare any better than Polish ones did OTL?