Absent Napoleon...

Well, Nappy did not have too much of a political experience when he became the 1st Consul either so I would not put this as an insurmountable obstacle. By the time of a coup Bernadotte already demonstrated that he is a capable organizer and administrator and his experience as a governor of various German provinces during Napoleonic times was quite impressive, which means that he had necessary abilities and could learn fast.
Napoleon actually had acquired a bit of experience before Brumaire as he had already been introduced to political struggles. He had been forced to flee Corsica because his family were political opponents of Pascal Paoli. In his early years with France, he had strong sympathies for the Jacobins and he got arrested for supposed Robespierism after Thermidor. After he was freed, he eventually found himself without a command because he refused to take part in the Vendean Wars. He got his command in Vendémiaire thanks to Barras, and the same happend with the leadership of the Italian Army. And let's not forget everything he did after his first Italian Campaign: he negotiated single-handedly the peace of Campo Formio and played a key role in establishing the sister republics of France in Italy. Basically, before Brumaire, Napoleon was already becoming a major player of the political field more and more.

Bernadotte's early career by contrast was much more quieter. He had mostly been involved in military affairs and very less so on the political side of things. In fact, at one point he was named ambassador in Vienna and he caused a ruckus there because he hoisted the Tricolor flag on his embassy. So I'm not sure he could make the connections needed to be considered a serious choice. Plus, as I already said, Sieyes thought he was too close to the Jacobins and Sieyes is a key player in choosing the man who will lead the Brumaire coup.
Strictly speaking, Sieyes was not a "must" for the coup and his role in a coup itself was quite limited. Lucien Bonaparte and Fouche had been much more important for the things going smoothly (not to mention the grenadiers who did practical part of the job).
While it's true that Lucien Bonaparte and Fouché did play a major role in the coup, Sieyes himself was heavily involved in the machinations that lead to the coup being organized in the first place. So I'm pretty sure that qualified him as a "must" to have on your side for the coup.
Bernadotte at that point was seemingly minimizing a personal risk (as he tended to do on the later stages of his career) but I was talking about potentially meaningful military figure capable of moving aside a civilian head of a plot, not about him leading the coup at that precise time and place.
Sure, it's not impossible for Bernadotte to eventually rise through the ranks and achieve a great career. Still, I'm not sure that means he'd eventually get the leadership of France in this scenario.
I don't think so: it does not look like he wanted to be a figurehead or anything but a general. And he definitely was too intelligent to be anybody's puppet.
I'm not so sure. Moreau became a proeminent opponent to Napoleon in the years of the Consulate and it's hinted this was the result of the machinations of his wife more than anything. So this could mean he was actuall pretty easy to manipulate.
Not necessarily. Absence of Napoleon means an absence of Marengo. Austrians are in possession of the Northern Italy (after Suvorov's Italian campaign), the Bourbons are restored in Naples. Russia was pissed off with the Austrians and left the coalition. The Brits are in possession of Malta. Of course, in OTL the Austrians had been planning a major offensive which in OTL ended with a siege of Genoa and then Battle of Marengo in Italy and Hohenlinden in Germany. It is reasonable to assume that a less brilliant (and less jealous of others' glory) general would try a straightforward relief of Genoa that would end in an Austrian retreat and stalemate in Italy. Victory at Hohenlinden would allow Austrians to save face and some of their Italian possessions.
That my friend is only one of the many possibilities that could happen. France had no shortage of brilliant generals at the time of the Revolution: few (if any) on the level of Napoleon sure, but still pretty competent generals. I could see an ATL Marengo happening depending on who's charged with the army of Italy in that scenario.
The broader and more interesting question for me is whether Napoleon was a net positive for Europe in the first decades of the 19th century, or a negative - a better or worse world for Europeans, from the elite to the poor, to live through. Putting aside the vast and unimaginable (by nature of the complexity of time's loom) long term consequences
I'd personnally say that overall he was a net positive. But like with every conquerors in history, even if he brought his fair share of good things, he also brought his share of bad things.
re: Code Napoleon: I read that Cambaceres actually did most of the work.
Napoelon did involve himself a lot with the project though. I don't remember the numbers right now but he actually was present at a huge number of the reunions where the Code was being discussed.

Plus, he also exported beyond the borders of France in its clients states and allied states.
 
Strictly speaking, Sieyes was not a "must" for the coup and his role in a coup itself was quite limited. Lucien Bonaparte and Fouche had been much more important for the things going smoothly (not to mention the grenadiers who did practical part of the job).

I don't know where you did get this information, but it's quite wrong. Sieyès was the man behind the coup - he was member of the Directorate and sought to overthrow the Councils to be able to remodel the French constitution. He wanted to stabilize the system and place himself at the top.

He was also the man who refused to have Napoléon arrested when he returned from Egypt (which was insubordination, since he was the general of the French army in Egypt) and decided to use him as the "commander" of the coup.
 
I don't know where you did get this information, but it's quite wrong. Sieyès was the man behind the coup - he was member of the Directorate and sought to overthrow the Councils to be able to remodel the French constitution. He wanted to stabilize the system and place himself at the top.

I'm afraid that you did not understood what was written. Of course, he was all what you described in OTL, which does not mean that in AH he would be an absolutely irreplaceable figure as someone who was plotting a coup: he was not, by any stretch of imagination, a political genius (or any other type of a genius) who could come to an absolutely unique idea that it would be beneficial for him to overthrow the Directorate and replace it with himself as a sole leader.

Barras (who was Nappy's early promoter) could do this as well: IIRC, at some point he came with "we need one brain and one sword" or it even could be somebody who was not a member of the Directorate.

The coup was engineered by Lucien Bonaparte, President of the Council of Five Hundred, Fouche was on board (aka, all necessary police actions had been taken), Talleyrand was Nappy's ally, Moreau was pissed off with the Directorate, which means that sum total of popularity among the military was close to 100%, and Bernadotte, figure popular among the republican segment of the military, was a member of the Bonaparte family and remained neutral (if anything, absence of Sieyès who removed him from a ministerial position could move him openly into the plotters' camp).

What did Sieyès do in practical terms besides resigning from the Directorate? Nothing. One could assume that he had enough time to come with a new post-coup form of a government which would be a little bit more than just pathetic but what he came with would work if the military part was trusted to someone like Murat. You are picking up a military person who is going to be a muscle of your coup so what's the 1st thing you are supposed to do? Study carefully who this person is. Either he did not do his homework or he was too stupid to come to the obvious conclusion that out of all available options this is the worst one if you want to retain the power after the coup.

[/QUOTE]

He was also the man who refused to have Napoléon arrested when he returned from Egypt (which was insubordination, since he was the general of the French army in Egypt) and decided to use him as the "commander" of the coup.

Arresting Nappy at that point was a rather idiotic idea, taking into an account his popularity, connections of his clan and unpopularity of the Directorate after they just lost Italy which Nappy conquered so brilliantly and managed to piss off Moreau (the 2nd most popular general of the Republic).
 
Napoleon actually had acquired a bit of experience before Brumaire as he had already been introduced to political struggles. He had been forced to flee Corsica because his family were political opponents of Pascal Paoli. In his early years with France, he had strong sympathies for the Jacobins and he got arrested for supposed Robespierism after Thermidor. After he was freed, he eventually found himself without a command because he refused to take part in the Vendean Wars. He got his command in Vendémiaire thanks to Barras, and the same happend with the leadership of the Italian Army. And let's not forget everything he did after his first Italian Campaign: he negotiated single-handedly the peace of Campo Formio and played a key role in establishing the sister republics of France in Italy. Basically, before Brumaire, Napoleon was already becoming a major player of the political field more and more.

What you wrote is all true but rather irrelevant to what I wrote and to the premise of this thread (absence of Nappy). As I said, Bernadotte " already demonstrated that he is a capable organizer and administrator". His tenure as a Minister of War was short but by many accounts he managed to do a lot in the terms of organization which was later used by the Consulate and Empire. Nappy's relations to the Jacobins had been more or less limited to the patronage of Robespierre's brother but Bernadotte had broad connections and popularity among them. Episode in Vienna (appointment which he did not like) did not do any harm to his reputation at home because maintaining dignity of the Republic was considered a right thing to do no matter what. He was quite friendly with Barras but not as his former protege. Nappy was understanding his abilities well enough to include him into the 1st list of the newly created marshals even if there was not too much love lost on both sides.

Of course, he was not a figure of Napoleon's abilities but he was prominent enough to become a candidate in Napoleon's absence (condition which you are seemingly forgetting).
'
 
Well, many people believe just that.

Ah yes, sure. He also personally started production of cognac "Napoleon", invented recipe of "Napoleon" pastry and designed furniture of the Empire style (3 things for which he is mostly remembered). Wellington personally made the 1st pair of the Wellington boots, Bismark came with a recipe of pickled herring, Vendome column commemorates victories of the Duke of Vendome and 1812 Overture is celebrates 2nd War for Independence. :winkytongue:
 
Many statesmen actually were involved in making laws. It's part of the job description. Only the somewhat popular picture of Napoleon crafting every single law in the Code Napoleon all alone is wrong.
 
Many statesmen actually were involved in making laws. It's part of the job description. Only the somewhat popular picture of Napoleon crafting every single law in the Code Napoleon all alone is wrong.

You are talking not about just a "statesman" but about head of the government and quite often making laws is not what the head of the government is supposed to do, for example in the US "making laws" is not a part of POTUS' job description (this is a function of the Legislative Branch). OTOH, in the absolutist regimes the monarchs had been sometimes but not always directly involved in that function (for example, Peter I had an itch in that area but his father or his daughter were not noticed in writing the laws personally). However most often their role was in formulating what they want and a final approval. Anyway, Napoleonic code is not just a law but a whole civic code (systematic collection of the laws) so one can hardly expect that Nappy would be doing it personally. Earlier Codex Justinianus also was "ordered early in the 6th century AD by Justinian I".

I'm not sure how "popular" is the picture of Nappy (or Justinian) writing all these laws personally but if a selected group is big enough you can always find certain amount of idiots. :biggrin:
 
Top