Right after the bourbons come back to France, they decide to be absolute monarchs again. The other monarchies promise to help destroy any rebellion in France. How does France develop?
Right after the bourbons come back to France, they decide to be absolute monarchs again. The other monarchies promise to help destroy any rebellion in France. How does France develop?
Right after the bourbons come back to France, they decide to be absolute monarchs again. The other monarchies promise to help destroy any rebellion in France. How does France develop?
Once Charles X attack substantial public liberties, unrest will spread among all political groups. Napoléon returns in 1815, as per OTL. This time, the majority of the French society supports him. Even persons like Chateaubriand, a notorious Ultra, would prefer a liberal Empire to an absolute monarchy. To protect the monarchy, the European monarchies intervene as promised. France, standing united behind Napoléon and liberal ideas, fields a large and motivated army, crushing the foreign intervention. France develops into a democracy much earlier.
You sure about that?
Kind of. You are right that Napoléon was an authoritarian ruler for most of his reign - however, not under the Hundred Days. He essentially transformed his regime into a liberal monarchy in 1815 by adopting the so-called Additional Act, which amended the previous Napoleonic constitutions. It greatly strengthened civic rights and parliament.
The most important provisions of the act were:
- the parliament was now (indirectly) elected by universal suffrage: this might be the basis for a movement towards democracy
- the government was accountable (to parliament)
- guarantee of certain rights, like the freedom of press
The question is: Will Napoléon uphold the act once he has vanquished his foreign enemies - or will he use the first opportunity to get rid of the new liberal constitution?
The King commanded the land and sea forces, declared war, made treaties of peace, alliance and commerce, appointed to all places of public administration, and made the necessary regulations and ordinances for the execution of the laws and the security of the state. Quite frankly the only power he legally lacked was financial and from what I remember the Parliament was never stingy with requested taxes.
Even if he wins at Waterloo he is going to be snowed under by the Austrian and Russian forces which are only a week away and outnumber him 5 to 1 and while he beat those odds before that was with qualitatively superior troops and organisational and tactical advances
It was the Austrians that tipped things completely against Napoleon in 1813, without them no Leipzig campaign. They might not be filled with crack troops but they will be enough.Secondly, I'm not really convinced that the Austrian performance improved since 1809 and 1805.
I wouldn't say that. First, I would like to know where these Russian and Austrian troops were so that you can say that they were only a week away. Secondly, I'm not really convinced that the Austrian performance improved since 1809 and 1805. Thirdly, in the scenario of a restoration under Charles X, there would be great popular support for Napoléon, growing the ranks of the army and limitting the Allies' numerical superiority.
I fear that you don't read the 1814 Charter correctly. It wasn't "close to absolutism" as you wrote.
The most important sentence in the whole document is: "His ministers are responsible." What does this mean? 1) The ministers are responsible to the parliament. 2) No decision of the king has effect unless it is signed by a minister. 3) In practice, the king can use all the powers you named only in concert with his government, which in turn needed a majority in the lower House.
That meant that the Bourbon Restoration was a parliamentary monarchy, in which the decisions were taken by a government accountable to parliament. Certainly Louis XVIII and Charles X were more powerful than current constitutional monarchs, but even they couldn't use this power against the parliament.
Not really. That line is so open-ended it's not even funny. That article, 13, of the Charter fully says "The person of the king is inviolable and sacred. His ministers are responsible. To the king alone belongs the executive power." That doesn't at all imply responsibility to Parliament in any legal way.
Nor do I see anywhere that says a minister has to co-sign a decree or law.
So I stand by my description of the Restoration as close to absolutism. Or more correctly semi-absolute.