AHC Napoleon the Royalist Marquis

Here is the goal.

Napoleon Bonaparte is instrument to saving Marie-Antoinette, the dauphin, and the royalist cause. Without foreign aid he wins 3 pitched battles against revolutionary soldiers who have no royalists hidden in their ranks (in other words not defeated from the inside), and in one of the battles was outnumbered 3 to 1. He is later instrumental to the restoration with Austrian help. He is made nobility and remembered fondly by over 3/4 of the rural French commoners 10 years after the restoration, at his death, and today even though he had Austrian backup in the late stages (and crushed the revolution). In-between how he is viewed is optional. Bonus points if there is an extensive military campaign after restoration.
 
Go earlier, in 1791-1792. Have the then young lieutenant Napoleon di Buobaparte win the king’s trust by successfully repelling the revolutionary mob, having loyalist troops shoot on the mob.

He enjoys a meteoric promotion.
 
If he can do all of that,then he most likely becomes a duke.And by the way,he’s already a noble by birth.

What was (was there one?) the French equivalent of the Italian "nobile", anyway? It would be pretty far down the totem pole.

Another way Napoléon could be ennobled is that Caroline winds up as Louis XVII's mistress. Elisa was at St-Cyr and Carolina was educated at Madame Campan's school alongside several other noble daughters, so its possible (if somewhat unlikely, though then again Mesdames de Pompadour and du Barry would've probably been dismissed as ASB'ish until they happened)
 
What was (was there one?) the French equivalent of the Italian "nobile", anyway? It would be pretty far down the totem pole.

I don't know what the title would be exactly, but the Buonaparte family was recognized as noble by the French crown in 1771 following the French conquest of the island. Napoleon required no ennobling.
 
What was (was there one?) the French equivalent of the Italian "nobile", anyway? It would be pretty far down the totem pole.

Another way Napoléon could be ennobled is that Caroline winds up as Louis XVII's mistress. Elisa was at St-Cyr and Carolina was educated at Madame Campan's school alongside several other noble daughters, so its possible (if somewhat unlikely, though then again Mesdames de Pompadour and du Barry would've probably been dismissed as ASB'ish until they happened)
A noble in France does not necessarily require a title—most cadet branches of noble families were recognized as nobles despite having no title,unlike Britain.
 
Napoleon was a Noble by birth in most of continental country nobility was a state of being/law? that did not require any title Napoléon would have been a Ecuyer/Squire like all is brother and all french Noble wether titled or not in fact any title be it Baron Vicomte/Comte Vidame and Marquis had the same rank only the title of duke was superior to all other and the duke who were peers of france superior to the simple duke.
Napoleon family could trace its line back to the end of the 12th and begining of the 13th which was quite respectable.
 
Here is the goal.

Napoleon Bonaparte is instrument to saving Marie-Antoinette, the dauphin, and the royalist cause. Without foreign aid he wins 3 pitched battles against revolutionary soldiers who have no royalists hidden in their ranks (in other words not defeated from the inside), and in one of the battles was outnumbered 3 to 1.

Can you be more specific, please?

(a) To win a battle, one (usually) needs an army. Which army is winning against the Republicans and where?

(b) How is he going to jump from a reasonably low rank (what was he at the time of French Revolution? He became a captain only in 1792) all the way to an army commander? Saving M-A is not enough for such a promotion.

He is later instrumental to the restoration with Austrian help. He is made nobility and remembered fondly by over 3/4 of the rural French commoners 10 years after the restoration,

The main problem with this is that restoration means that the said commoners are not getting the lands confiscated from their former masters so what exactly are they going to be fond about?
 
Go earlier, in 1791-1792. Have the then young lieutenant Napoleon di Buobaparte win the king’s trust by successfully repelling the revolutionary mob, having loyalist troops shoot on the mob.

He enjoys a meteoric promotion.

He may but this promotion would not necessarily be meaningful for a long time. The problem with the loyal troops is that, with the few exceptions, they were foreign regiments on the French service. An overwhelming majority of the French national regiments sides with "the people".

Following alleged Nappy's advice of dispersing the mob (actually, not yet very "revolutionary") with a grapeshot would work as far as dispersing the mob was involved but it would also produce a terrible political reaction that would only accelerate the revolutionary process.

Not to mention that this action would not promote him (the 2nd lieutenant) into an army commander and even would not make him a general: in the Old Regime person's pedigree (and service record) mattered too much for an obscure noble from Corsica to make such a fast career just thanks to an action which would not be uniformly applauded even in the royalist camp.
 
(a) To win a battle, one (usually) needs an army. Which army is winning against the Republicans and where?

(b) How is he going to jump from a reasonably low rank (what was he at the time of French Revolution? He became a captain only in 1792) all the way to an army commander? Saving M-A is not enough for such a promotion.

Easiest way is for a superior office to get killed or desert. But... well plenty of people are more creative than me on how to gert said army.

The problem with a rescue is that infantry and artillery move waaay too slowly and there just aren't enough horsemen to break open the mob in broad daylight without shooting on sight (which would be a massacre and a PR problem). Maybe get his army in the vicinity and be liberal with bribes or wine?

OTL Napoleon had some losses in his post Russia Rhine Campaign that turned from run out of the mill defeats to full fledged disaster when reinforcements got drunk on free wine at one point. While I think in that particular case he could only hope for a negotiated peace, in the case of a rescue only 1 hour is needed.

The main problem with this is that restoration means that the said commoners are not getting the lands confiscated from their former masters so what exactly are they going to be fond about?

Part of the challenge. One way to make a longer reign of Terror. Or maybe have him do something positive for France after a restoration. It's easier to get modern people to remember some good things, like OTL Napoleonic Code, well there isn't anything to keep TTL Napoleon from suggesting some changes (of course, it needs to get royal seals for anything to work). Or maybe come up with a system so that the peasants aren't one bad harvest from starving. A lot of historians think the revolution might be more limited in goal scope and radicalism if the taxes came at a time when the farmers weren't starving becaue of a bad harvest making yields poor and the landowners taking most of it. A system of granaries, or perhaps allowing people to pay 1-3 years late if harvests are bad everywhere (which means it's not one farmer sucking, but a national disaster). Again, a non military policy made by an officer who has no authority in administration can only propose since he isn't authorized to act like this.

Or perhaps Austria and Britain are fine with a simple restoration, but there are some liberal influences left in court. In OTL, everyone dogpiled on France because they were afraid of ideological contamination. If the monarchy is restored with most, but not all, of it's powers some neighbors might not like that. Austria is fine since their family is safe. Britain might look cautiously wondering if Frfance is going to be more British-like, or slide back into radicalism. The others might still fear ideological contamination. If it's Russia + Prussia + Spain vs France and they penetrate far into France but Napoleon stops them, he would be a hero in places that were once occupied.

Getting into the ear of the next klng and proposing some civil reforms might be more plausible. While Nappy is a military leader and would have a much better chance to resolve a military problem (not in Russia) than a civil one, he's more likely to get the chance to solve a civil one. OTL Prussia at this time isn't a credible threat to France. Remember Valmy? Yeah, without British help these guys just aren't good enough. Unless a restoration butterflies in Prussian competence.

It's a tough challenge.
 

Kaze

Banned
The other way to become a noble is buy a title. Napoleon's grandfather was a successful bandit - let say, the bandit is over successful (instead of the reality of fighting a losing resistance fight in Corsica) leaving Napoleon with a ton of cash. Napoleon gifts the ton of cash to the King prior to the Revolution - the King in turn by a stroke of a pen can make him a Count.

---
There is also the fact that Carlo Bonaparte, Napoloen's father while ambassador for revolutionary leader Pasquale Paoli was giving a place-holder title of nobility.
 
He may but this promotion would not necessarily be meaningful for a long time. The problem with the loyal troops is that, with the few exceptions, they were foreign regiments on the French service. An overwhelming majority of the French national regiments sides with "the people".

Following alleged Nappy's advice of dispersing the mob (actually, not yet very "revolutionary") with a grapeshot would work as far as dispersing the mob was involved but it would also produce a terrible political reaction that would only accelerate the revolutionary process.

Not to mention that this action would not promote him (the 2nd lieutenant) into an army commander and even would not make him a general: in the Old Regime person's pedigree (and service record) mattered too much for an obscure noble from Corsica to make such a fast career just thanks to an action which would not be uniformly applauded even in the royalist camp.
I think what kind of reaction these French regiments would have after the Parisian mob would be interesting—assuming there was a competent royalist management.

The French regiments would have complete chaos over who’s in command if they tried to revolt. Unlike the Bolsheviks,there wasn’t an organization which infiltrated the army and ready to assume command if they tried to revolt. And IIRC,a lot of officers were inclined to sit on the fence rather than actively supporting the revolution,and for those that supported the revolution,they will want to negotiate with the crown if possible.They might be satisfied if Louis throw them a bone and grant some concessions.I think there’s potentially room for a divide and conquer approach.

Alas Louis was an idiot,so even if he was decisive enough to order a crackdown,he will probably botch the divide and conquer part.
 
Last edited:
I think what kind of reaction these French regiments would have after the Parisian mob would be interesting—assuming there was a competent royalist management.

The French regiments would have complete chaos over who’s in command if they tried to revolt.I think there’s potentially room for a divide and conquer approach.

Well, in OTL these regiments did rebel and, prior to the Terror, there was enough of the Old Regime's generals and high-ranking officers to led them: the new ideas were seemingly popular enough to marginalize the royalusts.

Alas Louis was an idiot,so even if he was decisive enough to order a crackdown,he will probably botch the divide and conquer part.

If Louis was NOT an idiot, dispersing hungry crowd with the grapeshot would be the last thing he wanted to do. Second from the bottom would be extensive usage of his veto power (which was legal but VERY stupid). A smart Louis would be going with a flow with all outward signs of willingness and enthusiasm, delegating as much of his power as was possible to the ministry approved by the "people representatives", blaming all problems on them and playing benevolent "father of the nation". Eventually, when everybody is getting tired of these clowns, he would be in a position to take back part of his power without a shot being fired. If not, he would still live in a comfort enjoying his hobbies.
 
The other way to become a noble is buy a title. Napoleon's grandfather was a successful bandit - let say, the bandit is over successful (instead of the reality of fighting a losing resistance fight in Corsica) leaving Napoleon with a ton of cash. Napoleon gifts the ton of cash to the King prior to the Revolution - the King in turn by a stroke of a pen can make him a Count.

---
There is also the fact that Carlo Bonaparte, Napoloen's father while ambassador for revolutionary leader Pasquale Paoli was giving a place-holder title of nobility.

Well, it seems that even the most successful bandit in Corsica would not be able to amass anything close to what could pass to "a ton of cash" in France. BTW, not sure that at this time the titles were for sale.
 
Well, in OTL these regiments did rebel and, prior to the Terror, there was enough of the Old Regime's generals and high-ranking officers to led them: the new ideas were seemingly popular enough to marginalize the royalusts.


If Louis was NOT an idiot, dispersing hungry crowd with the grapeshot would be the last thing he wanted to do. Second from the bottom would be extensive usage of his veto power (which was legal but VERY stupid). A smart Louis would be going with a flow with all outward signs of willingness and enthusiasm, delegating as much of his power as was possible to the ministry approved by the "people representatives", blaming all problems on them and playing benevolent "father of the nation". Eventually, when everybody is getting tired of these clowns, he would be in a position to take back part of his power without a shot being fired. If not, he would still live in a comfort enjoying his hobbies.
That’s because the Revolutionaries had control of Paris and its’ entire civil service and established an alternative source of legitimacy in the form of a parliamentary body.If the king still had Paris,there likely won’t be a rally point of sort and nobody would have had legitimacy to command them.You will most likely have a lot of mutinous armies, and some that outright marches on Paris,but a smart king could potentially negotiate with the armies from there. He’s still in a position of strength given he had control of twenty thousand soldiers.It’s much better than surrendering and then trying to negotiate with the mob.

After dissolving his foreign regiments and then surrendering power to his people—he had no guarantee over the security of his family or himself. The national guard was a joke—given they consisted of the mob and mutinous royal guards—and doesn’t give a fuck about the constitution or the law. The smartest thing from then on would be as you have said to do nothing and play benevolent ‘father of the nation’. But he’s just not the type to rule as a powerless king. It was also increasingly dangerous for him and his family even when he complied to the mob—given they realized that there’s no repercussions to breaking the law. It’s also highly unlikely that power,once lost,could be easily regained.

How exactly does he take back power without a shot being fired?
 
Last edited:

Kaze

Banned
E.g. Antoine Crozat, having become extremely wealthy, but a mere son of peasants, acquired the barony of Thiers in 1714 for the price of 200,000 livres.

more info here:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nobles_of_the_Robe
Well, it seems that even the most successful bandit in Corsica would not be able to amass anything close to what could pass to "a ton of cash" in France. BTW, not sure that at this time the titles were for sale.
It’s unlikely that the Bonapartes would have been able to buy themselves to a higher rank though—given Napoleon’s father was a gambler who squandered all the money Louis XV gave him.
 
That’s because the Revolutionaries had control of Paris and its’ entire civil service and established an alternative source of legitimacy in the form of a parliamentary body.

It is more or less obvious that the Estates General (called by the King) had been assembled in Paris. Where else? And Louis called the Estates General because country was in a crisis and he saw not other way out of the situation.



If the king still had Paris,there likely won’t be a rally point of sort and nobody would have had legitimacy to command them.

You completely missed me. Who would not have what to command whom? And what do you mean by "If the king still had Paris"? How could he
"had" it if the hungry mob consisted of the Parisians?

You will most likely have a lot of mutinous armies, and some that outright marches on Paris, but a smart king could potentially negotiate with the armies from there.
I'm afraid that you are confusing France of the late XVIII century with one of the banana republic of Mexico at the time of the Revolution. :)

He’s still in a position of strength given he had control of twenty thousand soldiers.It’s much better than surrendering and then negotiating with the mob.

He did not have control over 20,000 soldiers and he did not negotiate with the mob, just went on a balcony and bowed to them.

After dissolving his foreign regiments and then surrendering power to his people

Let me ask a completely rhetorical question (answer seems to be obvious): do you know anything whatsoever about the French Revolution besides the fact that it happened?

Who said that the foreign regiments had been disbanded? In 1791 merged with the indigenous French regiments to new, numbered, regiments of the line.

In OTL he never surrendered power to his subjects, it was taken from him step by step mostly because he was openly resisting the process instead of relaxing and trying to enjoy it. An army did not move a finger to help him.

—he had no guarantee over the security of his family or himself.

Of course, he did not. How could he if he was clearly seen as an enemy to the changes?

The smartest thing from then on would be as you have said to do nothing and play benevolent ‘father of the nation’. But he’s just not the type to rule as a powerless king.

That's why I consider him to be an idiot (which does not mean that he was a bad or evil person). A smart king would either manage to keep things under control from the beginning of a process by flexible policy and timely concessions or, even better, would not bring country to the stage at which revolution became unavoidable.

It was also increasingly dangerous for him and his family even when he complied to the mob—given they realized that there’s no repercussions to breaking the law. It’s also highly unlikely that power,once lost,could be easily regained.

How exactly does he take back power without a shot being fired?

The mob was the least of his real problems. There was a functioning assembly of the national representatives which was intended to push through the fundamental reforms to which he kept resisting. And these representatives had all the legitimacy they needed in the eyes of the nation.

As for your last question, I said "some" of the power. Initial arrangement provided him with a considerable power but the more he resisted the more of it he was losing. So, by not trying to exercise some of his legitimate prerogatives, like veto power, he is not losing all of them. Then, it is as I explained: he is a titular head of a country which is being run by a government approved by National Assembly. Chances for such a government to solve all serious problems France was facing are minimal but now all these problems are blamed on the government, not the king. With the show of compassion to the people's sufferings he may regain some of the lost popularity and political support. Then, he is in a position to became politically meaningful again by exercising some of his constitutional powers.
 
It is more or less obvious that the Estates General (called by the King) had been assembled in Paris. Where else? And Louis called the Estates General because country was in a crisis and he saw not other way out of the situation.
Once the Estates General is closed down and its’ members arrested,there won’t be an alternate source of leadership.At the very least,there won’t be a common,alternate source of leadership that everyone could agree to follow.


You completely missed me. Who would not have what to command whom? And what do you mean by "If the king still had Paris"? How could he
"had" it if the hungry mob consisted of the Parisians?
There won’t be one if he slaughtered them and put them down.

I'm afraid that you are confusing France of the late XVIII century with one of the banana republic of Mexico at the time of the Revolution. :)
It very much is during the revolution period. Governments come and go,and there was no respect for the law.

He did not have control over 20,000 soldiers and he did not negotiate with the mob, just went on a balcony and bowed to them.
Yes he did. These 20k were mercs,and they answered his call and marched on Paris. And what I meant negotiate with the mob is a figurative way of saying he just bowed to public demand,surrender all of his powers and left him at the mercy of the mob. After he withdrew the 20k mercs,he had no protection over himself.


Let me ask a completely rhetorical question (answer seems to be obvious): do you know anything whatsoever about the French Revolution besides the fact that it happened?
A rather provocative statement,but I will let it slide.

Who said that the foreign regiments had been disbanded? In 1791 merged with the indigenous French regiments to new, numbered, regiments of the line.
That’s just pedantic.That’s the same as disbanding them.
In OTL he never surrendered power to his subjects, it was taken from him step by step mostly because he was openly resisting the process instead of relaxing and trying to enjoy it. An army did not move a finger to help him.
After he sent the army back,and left himself vulnerable by not fleeing Versailles,he was forced by the mob to live in the Tuileries. At that point of time,he completely lost control.So basically,by losing control of his army,he had no negotiating power left and more or less resigned his fate to the will of the mob.


Of course, he did not. How could he if he was clearly seen as an enemy to the changes?



That's why I consider him to be an idiot (which does not mean that he was a bad or evil person). A smart king would either manage to keep things under control from the beginning of a process by flexible policy and timely concessions or, even better, would not bring country to the stage at which revolution became unavoidable.



The mob was the least of his real problems. There was a functioning assembly of the national representatives which was intended to push through the fundamental reforms to which he kept resisting. And these representatives had all the legitimacy they needed in the eyes of the nation.
The Parisian mob was the very source of a lot of problems that occured during the French Revolution. Nobody had real control over them.They break the law and tried to eliminate anyone that does not concurr with their opinion,even when they often did not represent the majority of the nation. Just like at how they disposed of the Girondins,even though the Girondins were supported by the people of the south.
As for your last question, I said "some" of the power. Initial arrangement provided him with a considerable power but the more he resisted the more of it he was losing. So, by not trying to exercise some of his legitimate prerogatives, like veto power, he is not losing all of them. Then, it is as I explained: he is a titular head of a country which is being run by a government approved by National Assembly. Chances for such a government to solve all serious problems France was facing are minimal but now all these problems are blamed on the government, not the king. With the show of compassion to the people's sufferings he may regain some of the lost popularity and political support. Then, he is in a position to became politically meaningful again by exercising some of his constitutional powers.
He did try to acquiece with the parliament—problem was that they were passing increasingly drastic reforms,like the ones of the church,which were against his conscience.
 
Last edited:
Top