DBWI Napoleon I not assassinated

What if one of Emperor Napoleon I’s adjutants or bodyguards had managed to stop Friedrich Staps from shooting him [in October 1809]?

We could start with short term effects - like, would the terms to defeated Austria be different? Would Britain still agree to peace negotiations in 1810? Would Bernadotte have still left Rome to accept the Swedish regency and throne,* and if not, how would that have changed things on the Italian Peninsula? Or, for that matter, delaying the ascension of Eugene I [as King of Italy]?

Perhaps the most interesting thing about this PoD is the fate of Josephine herself - as regent for her grandson in France, she had an enormous impact on the 1810’s, and thus, subsequent history, OTL; which is why it’s so fascinating to consider that Napoleon I was widely believed to be planning on divorcing the Empress at the time of his assassination in order to marry an Austrian Archduchess. That alone is such a massive turn of fate that it’s mind boggling to think about.

But what do you guys think?

*OOC: Note: this part is exactly as OTL

EDIT NOTE (also OOC): Blue added for clarification.
 
Last edited:

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
OOC: There are some mind-boggling details about your scenario that I would like to address.

a) I don't know why Britain would agree to peace negations in 1810. If Napoléon died in 1809, shortly before the Peace of Schönbrunn, I could see Austria repudiating the harsh conditions of the treaty and Russia and Prussia joining her in a last coalition against France. Then there would be peace negotiations, but to terms dictated by the allies.

b) Speaking of the Italian Peninsula, why should Eugène becoming Emperor of the French? Again, legal history is everything. If Napoléon had died without offspring, Joseph Bonaparte and his descendants would have inherited the French crown. Eugène was Viceroy of Italy, and he was to become King of Italy after Napoléon's death. The Italian constitution also provided that no personal union should ever be formed between France and Italy (this was the result of a little "rebellion" by Italy's Vice-President Melzi d'Eril), so there is no way Eugène could have become Emperor.

c) For her grandson? Eugène wasn't Joséphine's grandson, but her son, and Napoléon's adoptive son (without any claims to the imperial throne, as described above).

d) Joséphine couldn't have exerted the regency, since it was, according to the Constitution, reserved to "the prince the nearest in degree in the order of inheritance, who has fully completed twenty-five years" - in this case, Joseph. Only since 1813 it was possible for the empress to become regent. However, as mentionned above, there would have been no regency because there was no natural and legitimate descendents of Napoléon in 1809. The imperial dignity would thus have been be bestowed upon Joseph, King of Spain.

e) Now this was a lot of legal history, and to be honest, legal history is nothing since laws are only effective if they're respected. So here's the most important point: The imperial regime had no legitimacy apart from Napoléon Bonaparte. It was "Charismatic authority", as Max Weber put it. The government was centered around him; apart from the Council of State, the institutions had little to do beside obeying Napoléon; the constitution of 1799 was constantly amended (in 1802, 1804, 1807 and 1813 to mention the most important changes) and not worth the paper it was printed on. The French followed, appreciated and feared Napoléon, but they had no respect for the institutions that decorated his dictatorship.

The Mallet conspiracy in 1812 proved that. While Cambacérès, who acted in place of Napoléon when he was on campaign, both in 1809 and 1812, was loyal to the emperor, Fouché (Minister of Police in 1809) and Talleyrand (still influential) were not. During the Walcheren episode in August 1809, Fouché had reacted quickly and very effectively. He had mobilized the National Guard to defend France, but it was clear that this wasn't completly selfless. He certainly had second thoughts, and might have tried to take power if Napoléon had lost/died in this Summer. It's pretty clear that Fouché and Talleyrand had still contacts to royalist circles and were thinking of their future after Napoléon.

And most importantly: They didn't see this future in the Napoleonic dynasty. I just don't see anyone proclaiming Joseph emperor in 1809. This just won't happen. Once Napoléon dies, they reime elites will try to replace the Empire by a more stable regime. This might be a republic, but it's much more likely that the House of Bourbon or Orléans would get their chance.
 
Speaking of the Italian Peninsula, why should Eugène becoming Emperor of the French?
OOC: Sorry, Eugene is King of Italy, as he was Napoleon's heir to that kingdom OTL; when I was referring to Josephine's grandson, I was referring to the son of Louis (Napoleon's brother and King of Holland) and Hortense (Josephine's daughter), likely the elder son.
Joséphine couldn't have exerted the regency, since it was, according to the Constitution, reserved to "the prince the nearest in degree in the order of inheritance, who has fully completed twenty-five years" - in this case, Joseph. Only since 1813 it was possible for the empress to become regent. However, as mentionned above, there would have been no regency because there was no natural and legitimate descendents of Napoléon in 1809. The imperial dignity would thus have been be bestowed upon Joseph, King of Spain.
OOC: Excepting that Joseph was King of Spain. AIUI, he had waived his place in French succession to take said title, as did Louis for Holland; and even if he hadn't, he could not realistically hope to claim both titles (the War of Spanish Succession had made that clear), nor could he hope to win the support of France should he waive the Spanish throne (and render all French efforts up to then to secure it pointless).
Now this was a lot of legal history, and to be honest, legal history is nothing since laws are only effective if they're respected. So here's the most important point: The imperial regime had no legitimacy apart from Napoléon Bonaparte. It was "Charismatic authority", as Max Weber put it. The government was centered around him; apart from the Council of State, the institutions had little to do beside obeying Napoléon; the constitution of 1799 was constantly amended (in 1802, 1804, 1807 and 1813 to mention the most important changes) and not worth the paper it was printed on. The French followed, appreciated and feared Napoléon, but they had no respect for the institutions that decorated his dictatorship.

The Mallet conspiracy in 1812 proved that. While Cambacérès, who acted in place of Napoléon when he was on campaign, both in 1809 and 1812, was loyal to the emperor, Fouché (Minister of Police in 1809) and Talleyrand (still influential) were not. During the Walcheren episode in August 1809, Fouché had reacted quickly and very effectively. He had mobilized the National Guard to defend France, but it was clear that this wasn't completly selfless. He certainly had second thoughts, and might have tried to take power if Napoléon had lost/died in this Summer. It's pretty clear that Fouché and Talleyrand had still contacts to royalist circles and were thinking of their future after Napoléon.

And most importantly: They didn't see this future in the Napoleonic dynasty.
OOC: Then who do you see coming to power, in France, in the event of Napoleon's assassination?

Fouché certainly would look to remain in power, and would align with factions as needed to secure his career, but he can't hope to be the face of the government in the way Napoleon was. Regarding the Mallet conspiracy, I would say the difference in dates between it and the PoD mentioned here are of crucial importance -- unlike Marie Louise of Austria, Josephine was wildly popular in the French army and in France more generally, and might actually stand a chance of being the face of the government, provided key power players (Fouché especially, but also Maret [Count of Bassano], etc) were propping her and her grandson up.
I just don't see anyone proclaiming Joseph emperor in 1809. This just won't happen. Once Napoléon dies, they regime elites will try to replace the Empire by a more stable regime. This might be a republic, but it's much more likely that the House of Bourbon or Orléans would get their chance.
OOC: I absolutely agree they won't be proclaiming Joseph Emperor, but I'm having trouble imagining them thinking of inviting the Bourbons back or trying their hand at another Republic as being the "stable" option. I still think going with one of Louis of Holland's sons, with Empress Josephine as Regent, would be the more obvious stable route.
 
Last edited:

Alcsentre Calanice

Gone Fishin'
I was referring to the son of Louis (Napoleon's brother and King of Holland) and Hortense (Josephine's daughter), likely the elder son.

So Napoléon III's eldest brother Napoléon Charles Bonaparte? While it's true that Napoléon thought of adopting him and making him his heir, he never followed up. Anyway, the person in question is dead by 1809. He died on May 4, 1807.

AIUI, he had waived his place in French succession to take said title, as did Louis for Holland;

No, he didn't. Thierry Lentz explicitly says in Le Premier Empire that Joseph hadn't to renounce his claim to the throne when becoming King of Naples, and he mentions neither Joseph nor Louis giving up their rights when becoming kings of Spain and Holland respectively.

and even if he hadn't, he could not realistically hope to claim both titles (the War of Spanish Succession had made that clear), nor could he hope to win the support of France should he waive the Spanish throne (and render all French efforts up to then to secure it pointless).

I think he couldn't realistically claim both titles because he'll be in Spain when the succession crisis happens, and it will be over before he can make a move.
IMHO, the other reasons you give are rather moot though.

Regarding the Mallet conspiracy, I would say the difference in dates between it and the PoD mentioned here are of crucial importance

I think the Malet conspiracy revealed a central weakness of the Napoléonic regime, unrelated to the boundless expansionism, to the economic crisis of 1810-1811 and to the catastrophic Russian campaign. The Malet conspiracy really proved that while Napoléon's power largely remained unchallenged, the dynastic order he strifed to establish wasn't enrooted in French society. Once Napoléon's autority disappeared, his system was bound to collapse.

unlike Marie Louise of Austria, Josephine was wildly popular in the French army and in France more generally, and might actually stand a chance of being the face of the government, provided key power players (Fouché especially, but also Maret [Count of Bassano], etc) were propping her and her grandson up.

I'm curious what the sources of your assertions are, since even Marie-Louise's position was always stained by Marie-Antoinette's fate, she never striked me as that unpopular.

Also, which grandson are you alluding to? The first one, having died in 1807, the second one (Napoléon-Louis Bonaparte, Grand-Duke of Berg), or the third one (Charles-Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, future Napoléon III)?

OOC: I absolutely agree they won't be proclaiming Joseph Emperor, but I'm having trouble imagining them thinking of inviting the Bourbons back or trying their hand at another Republic as being the "stable" option. I still think going with one of Louis of Holland's sons, with Empress Josephine as Regent, would be the more obvious stable route.

Now I think this is the point where either probable speculation is impossible, or I'm not knowledgable enouth for an educated guess (on Maret and Fouché, you seem to have better sources).

Here's what I feel would happen: Once Napoléon's death is announced in Paris, suspense will settle in. According to the law, the central actor would Cambacérés, Archchancellor of the Empire. However, his personality is not strong enough to force through a solution. He's loyal to Joséphine, though (he opposed the marriage with Marie-Louise in 1810).

So Fouché as Minister of Police would take matters in hand himself. He would contact the usual conspirators (especially Talleyrand, who is due for a comeback against the colorless elites of the Empire), but also foreign governments, especially London and the Austrian court. A provisional government might be formed under Fouché's leadership until a final settlement is reached.

Meanwhile, Eugène who accompanied Napoléon on his campaign against Austria would try to secure his position as King of Italy. I don't know who would take command of the army in Napoléon's absence, but Eugène as commander of the Italian army would possibly take de facto control of the French forces. This would result in quite a problematic situation with the army not being under the control of the autorities in Paris.

The rest is up to imagination.
 
Also, which grandson are you alluding to? The first one, having died in 1807, the second one (Napoléon-Louis Bonaparte, Grand-Duke of Berg), or the third one (Charles-Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte, future Napoléon III)?
OOC: FTR, I meant the Duke of Berg, the oldest living child of Louis of Holland at the time of the PoD.
Here's what I feel would happen: Once Napoléon's death is announced in Paris, suspense will settle in. According to the law, the central actor would Cambacérés, Archchancellor of the Empire. However, his personality is not strong enough to force through a solution. He's loyal to Joséphine, though (he opposed the marriage with Marie-Louise in 1810).

So Fouché as Minister of Police would take matters in hand himself. He would contact the usual conspirators (especially Talleyrand, who is due for a comeback against the colorless elites of the Empire), but also foreign governments, especially London and the Austrian court. A provisional government might be formed under Fouché's leadership until a final settlement is reached.

Meanwhile, Eugène who accompanied Napoléon on his campaign against Austria would try to secure his position as King of Italy. I don't know who would take command of the army in Napoléon's absence, but Eugène as commander of the Italian army would possibly take de facto control of the French forces. This would result in quite a problematic situation with the army not being under the control of the autorities in Paris.
OOC: I think you lay out the scenario really well here; I'll admit, there's more room for machinations changing the outcome than I had been giving credit for, but it's still pretty likely to end up with a Josephine regency, especially if her son is taking command of forces in Austria. I would add that in addition to London and Austria (the latter of which is militarily occupied at the moment), Fouché is also going to be making contact with St Petersburg, since OTL he supported closer French alliance with Russia (more than Talleyrand, anyway); this is of note, since Alexander I had a famously close relation with the French Empress.
 
Last edited:
OOC:
I'm curious what the sources of your assertions are, since even Marie-Louise's position was always stained by Marie-Antoinette's fate, she never striked me as that unpopular.
Thinking about it, yeah I definitely misspoke with this; I have heard second hand that the Archduchess was very bad at making connections and networking among the power players in the French regime.
I'm still interested in your sources for a lot of your statements. Do you have a good book recommendation for me?
However, I can stand by the statement that Josephine was herself very good at this. She is consistently described as a great hostess who made a great impression on every person she met, and had several friends and alliances at court and in the regime. One detail that does clearly come to mind, for what its worth, is that the Empress made quite the impression upon Alexander of Russia and his wife, and they still sought out her company at the Congress of Vienna, even after both she and Napoleon had fallen from power.

I could mention the Golden Bees which I remember picking up in the library at one point, but a lot of the sources I've looked at kind of blur together, including reading summaries of book sources (and conversations with the authors) online. (For what it's worth, on the Napoleonic period more generally, I got my bearings reading Napoleon's Wars by Charles Esdaile, and he certainly didn't cover this topic in any detail that I can remember; so not relevant here.)

As to her popularity with the French army, I'll admit that I may have gotten that from this site; it is consistent with what else I've read of her, her husband, and the period in general, and I have on occasion come upon mention of the troops considering her the Emperor's good luck charm (which was lost after the divorce), but I'd be the first to admit that that has the smell of an urban legend.

Anyways, thank you.
 
Top