Coup of 18 Brumaire w/o Napoleon

[John Fredrick Parker]

Suppose, with a PoD in later 1799, Napoleon is not part of the November Coup of that year or does not use it to become dictator of France (maybe Jourbet doesn't die in August, maybe Napoleon dies sometime after leaving Egypt, or what have you) -- first question, is the Directory still overthrown around the same time? Second if so, who takes power (for example, how much more influential is Sieyès in forming the new government)? Third, how does this new regime (or the next five years TTL) differ from the Consulate government of OTL (Nov 1799 to May 1804)?* And fourth, how do those differences change history?

A few specific ideas -- is the Saint-Somingue expedition now less likely to happen? Can France still reach a peace with Britain, and if so, it is likely to last longer TTL? Does TTL still see the emergence of a *Napoleonic* Code; on which subject, could French family law be affected?

*Assume for the purposes of this thread that Austria is still defeated roughly as OTL by February 1801; discussion on that detail in particular can happen here

 

[Alex Zetsu]

I don't think the Napoleon Bonaparte tag should be included when we're explicitly not doing anything with him.

 

[Alex Zetsu]

Aside from the implausibility of holding Austria off for more than a February and the summer without Napoleon (hey, improbable things can happen), once the situation settles down, I don't think there will be a Napoleonic Code. A console system of requiring unanimous agreement among the three might form (you can guess how often nothing will be done with this). I can imagine reworking of the public code, but it might more be tweaking the existing system, just as some people proposed amending the articles of confederation to work instead of starting form scratch.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

On review, this topic has been discussed recently; @G.Washington_Fuckyeah has great posts on this.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Aside from the implausibility of holding Austria off for more than a February and the summer without Napoleon (hey, improbable things can happen),

May you explain why? In late 1799, the military situation was in fact improving. Brune had defeated the British and Russians at Castricum on October 6, and the Russian invasion ended at the Battle of Zurich, won by Brune on September 26. Without British and Russian help, Austria had no chance to enter France (as "holding off" suggests). It was now necessary to take back Italy. But Napoléon wasn't the only one who could have won the 2nd Campaign of Italy, since France had many talented commanders (even if Napoléon was arguably the best of them). In fact, Napoléon's Italian Campaign of 1800 was only possible because, at the same time, Moreau fought against the Austrian forces in Germany and defeated them at Hohenlinden. France could have won this war without Napoléon.

To quote a French saying: "The cemeteries are full of irreplaceable people".

A console system of requiring unanimous agreement among the three might form (you can guess how often nothing will be done with this).

Here, you are confusing two different systems. Sieyès' original proposal didn't mention three consuls. Sieyès imagined that the head of state (the Grand Elector) would appoint two consuls, one for foreign affairs, one for interior affairs. No agreement is needed between both; and if they aren't cooperating, the Grand Elector can dismiss them at any moment. The Consulate with three consuls was only created when Napoléon rejected Sieyès' system. Indeed, Sieyès' proposal didn't provide a place for Napoléon. Grand Elector? Napoléon didn't want to stay a passive actor. Consul of foreign affairs? He could have commanded the armies, but he could also have been removed from office. Sieyès' system wasn't suited for a dictatorship. Thus, it was agreeded to abandon the Grand Elector and to replace him by a First Consul, with the two remaining consuls only being his counselors and deputies.

once the situation settles down, I don't think there will be a Napoleonic Code.

The Code Civil (or Code Napoléon) was enacted under Napoléon's government, and Napoléon indeed accelerated the redaction of the law. But the text itself was the work of Cambacérès and of a commission of jurisprudents. Sooner or later, the French government will create a civil code for France, with or without Napoléon.

I can imagine reworking of the public code, but it might more be tweaking the existing system, just as some people proposed amending the articles of confederation to work instead of starting form scratch.

Again, please explain yourself. What is the "public code"? The constitution? Well, a new constitution would have been enacted -- it happened in OTL after 18 Brumaire and it would have happened ITTL. So yes, the "public code" would have been reworked. Speaking of codes, one code might survive: the 1791 penal code. This was a very liberal law (the legislators even almost abolished death penalty in 1791), but was replaced by a more reactionary one in 1810. For example, the 1791 code had abolished branding and life imprisonment. These punishments were reintroduced in 1810. Clearly, Napoléon was more conservative than the revolutionaries of 1791.

On review, this topic has been discussed recently; @G.Washington_Fuckyeah has great posts on this.

I didn't answer to your original post because I already wrote quite a lot in the thread you linked. But if you have any questions which haven't beens answered there, feel free to ask them in the current thread.

 

[longsword14]

Moreau fought against the Austrian forces in Germany and defeated them at Hohenlinden.

And as a corollary, Moreau, who is much overhyped (won Hohenlinden with mostly Ney and Grouchy), would not have got a decisive victory without Bonaparte grabbing attention.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

And as a corollary, Moreau, who is much overhyped (won Hohenlinden with mostly Ney and Grouchy), would not have got a decisive victory without Bonaparte grabbing attention.

My point stands. Napoléon was not irreplaceable.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

The Code Civil (or Code Napoléon) was enacted under Napoléon's government, and Napoléon indeed accelerated the redaction of the law. But the text itself was the work of Cambacérès and of a commission of jurisprudents. Sooner or later, the French government will create a civil code for France, with or without Napoléon.

Again, please explain yourself. What is the "public code"? The constitution? Well, a new constitution would have been enacted -- it happened in OTL after 18 Brumaire and it would have happened ITTL. So yes, the "public code" would have been reworked. Speaking of codes, one code might survive: the 1791 penal code. This was a very liberal law (the legislators even almost abolished death penalty in 1791), but was replaced by a more reactionary one in 1810. For example, the 1791 code had abolished branding and life imprisonment. These punishments were reintroduced in 1810. Clearly, Napoléon was more conservative than the revolutionaries of 1791.

Not only that, but wasn't Sieyes one of the more *feminist* male leaders of the French Revolution (like Concordat)? If so, would TTL's government be unlikely to rollback the liberal changes in family law the Revolution had seen, which happened under Napoleon OTL (de-liberalizing divorce, making wives minors to their husbands, etc)?

 

[longsword14]

My point stands. Napoléon was not irreplaceable.

No, he was not if you consider a longer period (and the political changes that no Napoleon results in, usually for the better). But, Moreau would be in trouble if the Rhine border is again facing the whole brunt of the attack.
It does not mean allied armies in Paris, but compared to OTL it would be far worse.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Not only that, but wasn't Sieyes one of the more *feminist* male leaders of the French Revolution (like Concordat)? If so, would TTL's government be unlikely to rollback the liberal changes in family law the Revolution had seen, which happened under Napoleon OTL (de-liberalizing divorce, making wives minors to their husbands, etc)?

The two feminists of the French Revolution, Condorcet and Olympe de Gouge, were dead by 1799. Sieyès wasn't an outspoken feminist, but his works show that he believed in a fundamental equality of men and women. For example, he wanted that the public primary schools to be open for both boys and girls (public education was one of Sieyès' main preoccupations, besides the constituational order and public celebrations). And in a 1789, he delivered a speech often quoted by his biographers, in which he pointed out that it's irrational to allow women to become monarchs without giving them the right to vote. He pointed out that it's important to steadily extend the body of persons enjoying civic rights. I think he was thinking of a more gradual approach (the only realistic way given the mentalities of the time): educate women first, so that men have no reason to deny them political rights any longer.

As to divorce, I'm not sure if every misogynistic statute is to blame on Napoléon. The other jurisprudents of the time weren't that liberal either.

But, Moreau would be in trouble if the Rhine border is again facing the whole brunt of the attack.

Moreau wouldn't be in in trouble because he would either receive reinforcements or another general would attack in Italy to "grab some attention".

 

[longsword14]

general would attack in Italy to "grab some attention".

With France facing collapse in Italy, Austria will use its troops for the main thrust. Moreau received reinforcements in OTL too, though I cannot tell how different would this be in TTL.
You could extract a win out of it, but removing Bonaparte makes things much more uncertain. Victory is not a done deal this time; Moreau would be the top dog, given the fact that the repeated problems with Austrian resources being sent elsewhere would not exist for Karl (who always drove Moreau out convincingly).
I am not stating that defeat is certain, but that it is far less probable and a few failures might lead to someone more competent (Massena ?) being sent in.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

@longsword14 If keeping Napoleon alive, as opposed to in charge, is a big part of French victories in 1800, then might there be a way to keep him around in a purely military capacity? Supposing, for example, that Joubert survived the Battle of Novi?

 

[longsword14]

@longsword14 If keeping Napoleon alive, as opposed to in charge, is a big part of French victories in 1800, then might there be a way to keep him around in a purely military capacity? Supposing, for example, that Joubert survived the Battle of Novi?

Not let him get close to the reigns of power. Bonaparte being extremely ambitious has to be taken into account.
Not choose anyone from the army of Italy or Orient, but Alps -Rhine.

 

[longsword14]

Pardon?

Bonaparte had a great grip on the armies he had headed (the oldies of Italy know to whom they owe their success), so choose not from Army of Italy/Orient, but of Alps, Rhine.

 

[darthfanta]

Bonaparte had a great grip on the armies he had headed (the oldies of Italy know to who they owe their success), so choose not from Army of Italy/Orient, but of Alps, Rhine.

Basically get someone like Moreau to head to coup instead of Bonaparte?

 

[longsword14]

Basically get someone like Moreau to head to coup instead of Bonaparte?

Yes, and have his backers use him to get a majority of the army behind him. Moreau was not as central to his army as Bonaparte was to his own; Bonaparte always ensured that his en knew who was their source of advancement.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Moreau received reinforcements in OTL too, though I cannot tell how different would this be in TTL.

Do you have sources to back these claims?

I am not stating that defeat is certain, but that it is far less probable and a few failures might lead to someone more competent (Massena ?) being sent in.

Yes, if Moreau is as incompetent as you claim, why not simply replace him?

 

[longsword14]

Do you have sources to back these claims?

I don't have a copy of Phipps' book on armies of the Republic, hard-copy or soft-copy, so might take some time to ask another person for it.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Let's say, for the sake of argument, that the Austrians are defeated by Spring 1801 roughly as OTL; does this alt french government have a better shot of reaching a stable accommodation with Britain? (The lack of the disastrous expedition to Haiti of OTL is a good start for that, I'm guessing.)

CONSOLIDATE: Something else occurred to me -- would no Consul Napoleon butterfly away the Concordat of 1801? Or was reconciliation with the Papacy pretty much a done deal by this point?

 

[Saphroneth]

Something that's worth thinking about is that a fairly large fraction of the French successes in the first decade of the 19th century (i.e. the archetypical Napoleonic campaigns) are because of the very highly trained troops of the Army of England (as they'd been training for several years solid) - those troops essentially provided a core around which the French army could be improved, so that when other countries got a hang of the "mass army" trick the French still had an advantage to work with.

I doubt you'd get a similar "large army with two uninterrupted years of training" in an ATL.