Can the French Revolution end without Napoleon?

The French revolution was seen as a failure, at least in the short term. They went from overthrowing and executing a monarch to putting one back in. The people realizing that they needed an absolute ruler. Anycase. Is Napoleon, or a Napoleon type person taking "absolute" power inevitable in Revolutionary France, or can democracy and republicanism take strong enough root to avoid the reinstating of a monarch?
 
I don't believe that The First Republic can survive. Other Countries, speciality Britain, Prussia and Austria hardly like watch revolutionary country their neighborough. The surely try occupy France and restore Bourbons to reign.
 
I don't believe that The First Republic can survive. Other Countries, speciality Britain, Prussia and Austria hardly like watch revolutionary country their neighborough. The surely try occupy France and restore Bourbons to reign.

They tried OTL and got a severe kicking.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
They tried OTL and got a severe kicking.
...Mostly because of Napoleon. Without Napoleon there's a chance Toulon could have held out long enough to severely effect Republican aims in the Mediterranean. At the very least no Napoleon is going to mean that the Italian Campaign of 1792 is going to be very different and we'll probably see a Coalition victory there, which means a Coalition invasion of southern France.

Without the French victories in Italy and Coalition forces moving into/up from the south of France means that the First Republic is going to collapse and Louis XVIII is placed on the throne (I'm going to assume Louis XVII is going to die/be quietly killed as Coalition forces near Paris).

I do wonder how his rule will turn out. Without the living so long under constitutional rule I doubt that the Charter of 1814 will be created and the monarch will retain a good deal of power. Perhaps we see simmering Republican revolts/guerrilla movements in the countryside.

The lack of the Napoleonic Code will also have a massive impact upon European law systems. There's a huge amount of butterflies that tear out of a "No Napoleon" scenario.
 

Typo

Banned
...Mostly because of Napoleon. Without Napoleon there's a chance Toulon could have held out long enough to severely effect Republican aims in the Mediterranean. At the very least no Napoleon is going to mean that the Italian Campaign of 1792 is going to be very different and we'll probably see a Coalition victory there, which means a Coalition invasion of southern France.
But is Napoleon that vital to the success of the First Republic? Would Toulon and southern France fall without one man? I recall the First Republic having military success where Napoleon wasn't.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
But is Napoleon that vital to the success of the First Republic? Would Toulon and southern France fall without one man? I recall the First Republic having military success where Napoleon wasn't.
[/SIZE]
This is, of course, true. But every single front was decisive for the France. The Rhenish and Flemish fronts kept the Austrians and the Prussia out and if they had failed, western and northern France would have fallen, respectively. Southern France, which was fraught with Royalists and British agitation was also exposed to the Coalition forces. France was under siege and if one of the fronts collapsed, the whole thing was going to fall apart like a house of cards.

As to the question of Toulon, I doubt it would have been able to hold out indefinitely, but Napoleon expedited the situation which allowed France to focus on Italy instead of the Mediterranean.

Without Napoleon, the Coalition forces would very likely have defeated the French in Italy and moved into the south, which means the French have to divert troops, which means that the other fronts are weakened, which means that the Austro-Prussians press forward, which means...well, you know where this is going.

Without the genius (and luck) of Napoleon and the stunning French victories in northern Italy, there's little doubt that the Coalition forces would have managed a breakthrough, which would be the beginning of the end for the Republic.
 
IchBinDieKaiser said:
The French revolution was seen as a failure, at least in the short term. They went from overthrowing and executing a monarch to putting one back in. The people realizing that they needed an absolute ruler. Anycase. Is Napoleon, or a Napoleon type person taking "absolute" power inevitable in Revolutionary France, or can democracy and republicanism take strong enough root to avoid the reinstating of a monarch?

Problem is that the First French Republic was hardly a Republic or a Democracy... During the Terror, Robespierre was the only one truly in charge, making him a Dictator. As for the Directoire, which succeeded after the Terror, it was more of an Oligarchy who stayed in power via several coup...

The military situation was not good and would be worse without Napoleon or someone of his genius. Napoleon's Italian Campaign in 1792 was supposed to be a secondary front, not the main one... Yet, because Napoleon threatened Vienna, the Allies backed down.

Another thing is that the First Republic wasn't a stable regime. If Napoleon hadn't taken power, it would have ultimately fallen and would be seen as nothing but a crushing and complete failure.
 

Typo

Banned
Well, it certainly was a Republic, but I guess you could easily claim that it was better off under Napoleon
 
Do you mean Napoleon the Emperor or apoleon the general? If Napoleon the general won a bit but then say died in Italy, then a stable Republic could well be formed.
 

Without the genius (and luck) of Napoleon and the stunning French victories in northern Italy, there's little doubt that the Coalition forces would have managed a breakthrough, which would be the beginning of the end for the Republic.
Honestly, I've never bought the argument that Napoléon was the only man who could save the French Republic from the encroaching coalition powers. There were definitely generals with a roughly comparable skill level - André Masséna is one I've always seen as being fit to fill Napoléon's role were he to die at an inconvenient time. Joubert and Moreau both showed potential as well.
Things could have gone similarly to OTL, with another assimilated foreigner becoming de facto dictator or even emperor - André I leading the Empire in the Massénaïque Wars seems to me like it would be an interesting read.
 
Napoleon was certainly the only man who could've led the armies of France to quite litterally CONQUER ALL OF EUROPE, but he wasn't the only man who could've led them to victory. If the French armies weren't capable of winning then not eve the most brilliant general of all time could've saved them. No Napoleon means that the Republic wouldn't have ridden rough-shod over the enire continent, but that's probably better for it's long term survival enyway. It's absolutetly possible.
 
Napoleon was certainly the only man who could've led the armies of France to quite litterally CONQUER ALL OF EUROPE, but he wasn't the only man who could've led them to victory. If the French armies weren't capable of winning then not eve the most brilliant general of all time could've saved them. No Napoleon means that the Republic wouldn't have ridden rough-shod over the enire continent, but that's probably better for it's long term survival enyway. It's absolutetly possible.
On the other hand, Napoleon's genius was certainly
not limited to the battlefield. He had undoubtedly a political genius to allow him to ascend to positions of power and jockey into supremacy. Other men could be just as good military strategists and then fail for lacking in the political field. Remember what happened to Hannibal... I can imagine a Napoleon-less timeLine with
the military strategist put in Napoleon's place being politically backstabbed exactly for having amassed too much success... That is, I can see the other-than-napoleon strategist failing, not for being less of a military strategist than Napoleon, but for being less of a political manipulator than IOTL Napoleon also was...
 
Last edited:
It will eventually end even if Napoleon is being butterflied away. Neighbors especially Britain will not tolerate revolutionary government in France because it will just destabilize neighbor's domestic affairs. Neighboring countries will find a way to conquer France and restore the Bourbon family into the power. Without Napoleon, France is a nightmare or maybe the whole Europe.
 

Typo

Banned
Napoleon was certainly the only man who could've led the armies of France to quite litterally CONQUER ALL OF EUROPE, but he wasn't the only man who could've led them to victory. If the French armies weren't capable of winning then not eve the most brilliant general of all time could've saved them. No Napoleon means that the Republic wouldn't have ridden rough-shod over the enire continent, but that's probably better for it's long term survival enyway. It's absolutetly possible.
That's the thing.

The Republic was full of young brilliant officers given a chance to shine now they are free of the old aristocratic officer corp system. Remember the French goddamn took the Rhineland from the Austrians when Napoleon was still in Italy. So I doubt he was indispensable to the survival of the Republic in the 1790s
 
Not that there haven't been any number of other candidates mentioned, but I'd toss one more on the pile: Davout.

The Directorate was failing under its own greed and listlessness, and evolution to a more centralised, more militaristic government - the Consulate - was probably inevitable. But if you get a Consul with no dynastic ambitions, the Consulate can last a long time (that's one reason I like Davout: Massena probably would have tried to set his family up the same way Napoleon did, with similar results). After Austerlitz, not-Napoleon can literally wipe Austria off the map; guillotines on the Danube if he likes, cut it into a half dozen republics, even level Vienna and salt the earth. Napoleon did not do so because he was thinking ahead to his sons being accepted as a true Imperial House. A Consul who does that secures the Consulate, as Britain's only remaining possible partner is Russia, and Russia simply isn't invested enough in the West. Britain won't be "permitting" anything without somebody else to field an army for them.

The Consulate isn't probably what you or I think of as a Republic, but it could have been stable and durable, with a chance to democratize later.
 
It will eventually end even if Napoleon is being butterflied away. Neighbors especially Britain will not tolerate revolutionary government in France because it will just destabilize neighbor's domestic affairs. Neighboring countries will find a way to conquer France and restore the Bourbon family into the power. Without Napoleon, France is a nightmare or maybe the whole Europe.

And how would they "find a way"?

What you're saying is just as baseless as Lalli's post that I took issue with.
 
Not that there haven't been any number of other candidates mentioned, but I'd toss one more on the pile: Davout.

The Directorate was failing under its own greed and listlessness, and evolution to a more centralised, more militaristic government - the Consulate - was probably inevitable. But if you get a Consul with no dynastic ambitions, the Consulate can last a long time (that's one reason I like Davout: Massena probably would have tried to set his family up the same way Napoleon did, with similar results). After Austerlitz, not-Napoleon can literally wipe Austria off the map; guillotines on the Danube if he likes, cut it into a half dozen republics, even level Vienna and salt the earth. Napoleon did not do so because he was thinking ahead to his sons being accepted as a true Imperial House. A Consul who does that secures the Consulate, as Britain's only remaining possible partner is Russia, and Russia simply isn't invested enough in the West. Britain won't be "permitting" anything without somebody else to field an army for them.

The Consulate isn't probably what you or I think of as a Republic, but it could have been stable and durable, with a chance to democratize later.

Damn it, sir, I must insist--write this up!

And put me with those who state, not only could things have gone on without him, they may very well of gone quite a bit better. A military dictator with realistic goals, instead of lunatic dreams of European Empire would stand a good chance of making a stable French state.
 
I was thinking about a TL with a Napoleon staying as First Consul until 1820 and then giving a more liberal and democratic turn to his regime. As he did OTL in 1815 during the Hundred Days.

Of course, this Napoleon will not have dynastical ambitions, will not set his family as rulers of quarter of Europe, will not attacked Spain...

And in 1814-1815, the UK will asked for peace after seeing all his continental allies (Russia, Prussia, Austria) being defeated together in 1812-1814. A successful campaign of Russia who last 2 years but an Austria and a Prussia who try to stab Napoleon in the back.

1812-1814 will be the second round of the Napoleonic wars after 1805-1807...

Of course, british army will try to strike in France from the Netherlands and Belgium but the Great Army came back from eastern europe to defeat Wellington in a small belge town.

Wet dreams...

I want to call it a "Republican Napoleon" or something with the word Republic because the Consulate system will be the lasting republican regime...

The number of Consul will be reduce to two with a Consul and a Proconsul as in the american sytem with a President and a Vice-President.

But I lacked time and proficiency in English to write a real and long TL...

And a moderate Napoleon is a little ASB...
 
Top