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.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.
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.
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.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).
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.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.
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.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.
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.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.
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.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
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.re: Code Napoleon: I read that Cambaceres actually did most of the work.
Plus, he also exported beyond the borders of France in its clients states and allied states.