As we all know the reign of Napoleon II is seen by most historians as the one of the most unexpected and pivotal moments in history. After the final defeat of Napoleon I at Leipzig or "The Battle of Nations" as the Coalition powers dubbed it, the French Empire quickly fell apart with France being occupied, the monarchy being restored, Napoleon I being exiled to Elba, and the young Napoleon II Prince-Imperial being locked inside a gilded cage in Vienna. While things would work out for Napoleon II in the future, Napoleon I unfortunately died suddenly and suspiciously while in Elba. Napoleon I was outraged when Louis XVIII cancelled his pension, and it was rumored that he was plotting a return to France. It was highly suspected that he was assassinated on orders by the French King Louis XVIII. This provoked a rise in Bonapartist fervor in France that was barely suppressed by the Bourbons with the help of the Austrians and Russian forces during their occupation of France. While the rule of the Bourbons was secure for the time being, the royal family didn't escape unscathed with Louis Duc d'Angolueme being assassinated and Charles Duc d'Berry being critically wounded during the insurrection. Though the Duc d'Berry survived to have an heir in the form of Prince Henri. This attack on the Royal Family was later attributed to be the primary catalyst for Charles X's ultra-royalist reactionary program that targeted anything remotely related to the French Republic or the French Empire. Indeed many Bonapartist era officers were purged from the army ranks or were cast under deep suspicion. This provoked widespread discontentment among the army officer corps created by Napoleon I and the rank and file soldiery, and was one of the primary reasons Napoleon II was able to retake his throne.

The Congress of Vienna where a lasting settlement between the various Great Powers was attempted had failed due to the mutual distrust among the other powers. There were conflicts over spheres of influence with Russia and Austria wanting control over the Balkans. Austria and Prussia wanted control and influence in German affairs. While Prussia was devastated, it was propped up by the British whose King still held claim to Hanover, and wanted to protect his ancestral lands. All these competing issues prevented any real solidarity from emerging between these powers who left the negotiating table dissatisfied. It was this dissatisfaction and lack of unity that Napoleon II would expertly exploit in his wars to restore his father's Empire.

Napoleon II for the rest of his adult life had grown up in Austria with the title of the Duke/Prince of Parma under the tutelage of his Hapsburg relatives and under the watchful eye of the Austrian Court who feared giving him any real power. As Napoleon II matured he expressed a greater desire to imitate his father. This concerned people like Metternich who was able to convince Emperor Franz not to give him any real power. This all changed in 1832 when the Prince-Imperial was struck by Tuberculosis. It seemed a very real possibility that Napoleon II would die as he had become comatose. But miraculously he started to recover. Later in life, the future Emperor would swear that at this moment he saw a vision of his father telling him to go forth and restore France’s glory. Though modern scholarship views this as part of a fever dream or Propaganda issued by Napoleon II after retaking his throne. After Napoleon’s miraculous recovery his grandfather Emperor Francis against the advice of his ministers have Napoleon command over the army of Italy and allowed to rule in Parma. Emperor Francis likely did this out of sympathy for his grandson who was on death’s doorstep. This decision proved to be his most fatal mistake as it would lead to the loss of Austria’s Italian position and be the first domino in the collapse of the Austrian Empire.

Where Napoleon II truly made waves was in his role as the Duke of Parma. Seeing it as a chance to truly prove himself, he set to work improving the Duchy. Much like his father, the Prince-Imperial had a natural talent for administration and soldiery. He built new roads and helped finance schools for the poor implementing many reforms that made him very popular in Italy. His regular drilling of his assigned contingent of soldiers and charisma made him popular with the troops of Italy as well. This naturally attracted the attention of many people on the international stage and domestically. This rise in prestige allowed him to gain Princess Sophie of Bavaria's hand in marriage which would later prove instrumental in Napoleon's Wars against the Germans.

Fearing that Napoleon II's influence was growing too much, Metternich began to oppose him and developed a rivalry with the Prince-Imperial. Napoleon II while liberal, was still monarchical in nature, and in many ways mirrored his father's approach to government. Though thanks to his Austrian upbringing, he was more tactful and cautious that his father. Metternich being a reactionary was suspicious about the revolution and liberalism in general. As the prominence of Napoleon grew within Austria and abroad, he grew his own faction of supporters within the Austrian government who desired more liberal reform. Thus Napoleon II and Metternich competed to gain the attention of Emperor Francis who became more detached from governing as he grew older.

After Emperor Francis died in 1825, Emperor Ferdidnand I who was Napoleon's uncle took power. He too like Metternich was suspicious of liberalism and opted to chart Austria along Metternich's vision. Napoleon seeing where the wind was blowing went back to Parma. However in 1830 Revolution spread to Italy.The Savoyards and the other Italian states with their conservative and reactionary rulers were unable to stop Revolutionary movements. Napoleon who never formally abdicated his title as the King of Rome was a natural candidate for revolutionary movements like the Cabonari to rally behind. Indeed it was through the Cabonari that Napoleon II meet his cousin Louis-Napoleon who would become one of his key subordinates in the years to come. Metternich fearing Napoleon becoming a figurehead for revolutionary movements seeking to undermine the government, convinced Emperor Franz to issue an order for the arrest of the Prince-Imperial deeming him an outlaw. This was met with outrage the Austrian parts of Italy where Napoleon was very popular. The Southern armies with troops recruited from Italy also defected to Napoleon's side. With the support of the Revolutionaries and his new loyal soldiers Napoleon re-assumed the title of the King of Rome. Within Austria proper, Metternich was trying to re-assert his control as liberal revolutionaries rose up in cities forcing the Austrian court to flee Vienna. In the chaos, Napoleon was able to steamroll Northern Italy who didn't really put up much resistance to Napoleon.

The idea of Italian unification was also popular with Pope Pius IX who favored the idea of united Italy in a confederation with the Pope as its head. Napoleon II ever the shrewd politician was able to secure a deal with the Pope guaranteeing the integrity of the Papal states in exchange for recognizing Napoleon's claim to the French Imperial Throne. Thus in 1836 Napoleon was formally recognized as King of Rome, Protector of Italy, Defender of the Faith, and Emperor of the French. While this was a victory for Napoleon in many ways it saved the Papal States as many historians speculate that it would have likely been overthrown by Revolutionaries without Napoleon's protection of it. The Bourbon Kingdom of Two Sicilies did not sit idly by, and planned to declare war against Napoleon, but were occupied with revolts by the Sicilians who wanted more autonomy and a separate Kingdom. Seeing this dispensary, Napoleon with the Pope's blessing invaded Southern Italy and restored the Kingdom of Naples. One of Napoleon's key policy initiatives was to initiate Land reforms which won over the peasants to his side solving the economic woes of the region. He also appeased the Sicilians by promising them local autonomy in their own Kingdom of Sicily.

This rapid and unforeseen success of Napoleon shocked many monarchs in Europe. However thanks to the collapse of the Congress of Vienna, no real solidarity among the old powers were reached. Each power had their own individual problems to deal with before coming to the aid of the other. Britain was rocked by the ineptitude and political controversies of George IV and the Queen Caroline affair. Russia was suffering from Polish revolts and the effects of the Decembrist Uprising in favor of a more liberal monarchy. By the time Tsar Nicholas put down these revolts, Russia was internally unstable and it focused on reconstruction and political reform. In Austria, after Napoleon declared independence he defeated the Austrian Army sent to crush him on the field like his father before him. This left Bourbon France as the only real power to oppose Napoleon.

Indeed Charles X sent an army to arrest the Young Bonaparte. But things were not going well in France. Charles’s ultra-royalist and very reactionary program alienated the populace. An economic crisis that began in the last years of Louis XVIII’s life only worsened making him deeply unpopular within France. Charles purge of the officer corps, and promotion of his noble friends and cronies to officer posts angered many of the common born troops and older Napoleonic Veterans so it was no wonder that the armies sent to kill or arrest the young Bonaparte, joined him instead. Soon after Napoleon entered France a riot ensued in Paris forcing the Bourbons and their supporters to flee France.

Napoleon II had entered France with much fanfare. The assassination of Napoleon I had made him into a martyr for Bonapartism and that of Imperial France making Napoleon's seizure of power smoother. Through shrewd politicking he was able to make use of his Bonapartist supporters to spread propganda about himself. With his military victories in Italy French papers compared to that of Napoleon I who also rose to prominence with the wars in Italy. They also portrayed him as a figure to bring about stability and prosperity playing up the glories of Imperial France under the Bonapartes lamenting France's stagnation under the tyrranical Bourbons. However unlike Napoleon I, Napoleon II did not immediately begin mustering an army to go about invading the Rhineland just yet. He instead focused on consolidating the restored Empire and worked to integrate Italy as a co-equal part of France. Indeed the Austrian and Italian units serving the Emperor were integrated into the restored Grand Armee.

Using the period of chaos and distraction of his rivals and foes, Napoleon initiated a program of rapid industrialization and modernization of French industry and its military capacity. This provided huge boons to the French Economy which soared under Napoleon II which only served to increase his popularity among the French. The resouces from Wallonia which broke off from the Netherlands to join with their fellow French brethren also helped aid industrialization. With the riches of Lombardy-Venetia he used that capital to finance his massive overhaul of the administration and army. Many old Napoleonic veterans were brought out of retirement and restored to their posts. The last surviving veterans of Napoleon I's Old Guard proved to be critical in training new recruits. Some of the more prominent Napoleonic Marshalls like Marshal Massena, Marshal Ney, and Marshall Davout who served into his 70's advised the young Emperor in matters of military tactics and formation, and helped Napoleon's new troops gain the institutional knowledge needed for future campaigns. Napoleon II rewarded them for their services handsomely by rewarding them with many titles and honors. His father's stepson Eugène de Beauharnais was also restored to his post as viceroy of Italy by Napoleon II.

Eventually the uprisings were put down due to the divided nature of the Revolutionaries which allowed the Conservatives and Reactionaries to divide and rule in order to defeat them. Of course these new conservative counter-revolutionary governments were forced to make some token concessions like the adoption of a Constitution and some more liberals social reforms. Many of the old Coalition allies were alarmed by Imperial France which had in the chaos, had retaken the Rhineland along with extending its control over Italy without anyone the wiser. Instead of expanding into Europe, Napoleon announced his neutrality and instead chose to expand into places like Algeria which proved to be popular conquests for the fledgling new Imperial regime.

Of course the next set of wars occurred after the 1848 German Revolution. During the Congress of Frankfurt, the German Revolutionaries proclaimed the birth of a united pan German nation seeking to counter the French who had annexed most of the Rhinland. Indeed German nationalism which was born in opposition to Napoleon I, had soared after Napoleon II began making waves into the German speaking Rhineland. In Prussia, revolutionaries rose up and forced King Frederick Wihlem IV to accept the Frankfurt Crown over a united German Empire. This greatly alarmed Napoleon II who did not want such a geopolitical threat on his Rhine border. This also threatened his Bavarian allies whom he was related to via his marriage to Empress Sophie. The Austrians were in a panic as Hungary had broken away, and the army had lost cohesion with Marshal Radetcsky being killed by a stray bullet during the Battle of Budapest. With Hungary split off from the Empire, the central government in chaos and bankrupt, and the army in shambles, Austria was but a rump state waiting to be put out of its misery. In desperation the Austrians and Bavarians reached out to Napoleon to prevent the Prussian dominated German Empire from annexing them. This laid the foundations for the Second Napoleonic War as historians would later dub this conflict.

As France began seeking to annex Luxembourg and expand its influence into the Netherlands, German nationalists grew angry at what they viewed as French aggression. and thus war broke out among the Germans and French with Russia and Britain waiting to see which power emerged victorious. Of course Napoleon with his revived Grand Armee was easily able to defeat the Germans thanks to his superior officer corps and better logistics like the early adoption of railroads allowing for the rapid mobilization of French troops to the German border. The decisive battles of Berlin, Frankfurt and Salzburg saw the German army defeated and humiliated with Napoleon rapidly marching on Berlin like his father did after the battle of Jena. The Germans fearing the worse, appealed to the British and the Russians for aid. However for Britain, another large scale war on the continent was the last thing the needed as they were occupied with their own domestic crisis. In Russia, Tsar Nicholas who had to deal with a bankrupt treasury and an ineffective central government, tried to improve his popularity by declaring war on Prussia only for the Poles to rise up after Napoleon proclaimed himself the protector of the Poles and restorer of the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. This had backfired on him tremendously leaving Russia a shell of the nation it had been under Tsar Alexander I or Catherine the Great.

In Poland, Napoleon crowned his illegitimate half brother Alexandre Walewski as the Grand Duke of Warsaw establishing the Polish cadet branch of House Bonaparte. In Hollande, Napoleon's cousin Louis Napoleon was restored to his father's throne as King of Holland. Saxony was restored to a Kingdom and give Prussian lands that it had lost as a reward for its steadfast loyalty to Emperor Napoleon I. Austria was forced to give up its Illyrian provinces, but gained Silesia back from Prussia along with a personal union over the newly independent Duchy of Pomerania. Prussia was reduced to a rump state as the Duchy of Brandenburg-Prussia with its territorial gains since Frederick II being stripped from it by a vengeful Napoleon II. Prussia's Rhine provinces along with Luxembourg were added to France proper, giving France control over the Rhineland's resource which aided in further development of French industry. Napoleon II restored his uncle Jerome as King of Westphalia and proclaimed the restoration of the Confederation of the Rhine.

After these conquests, Imperial France prospered under the steadfast leadership of Napoleon who worked to integrate the various Germans, French, and Italians peoples into a common national identity. Napoleon II funded new infrastructure projects and public works to help integrate his conquests together. Emperor Napoleon II also proclaimed himself as the heir to Charlemagne with many pieces of propaganda and royal heraldry. Thanks to Napoleon's long reign and that of his son Napoleon III, the foundations for the French Empire were secure with the role of the Emperor defined as the protector of merit and a watchful parent seeking to guide his subjects on the right path (HOIV Autocratic Paternalism).

How would the world have been different if these wars never occurred or Napoleon II never took power? Would the French Empire still survive as it currently does under Napoleon VIII? If Napoleon I was allowed to simply die in exile would that have weakened his legacy? If Napoleon I had managed to escape Elba during the disunity of the Congress of Vienna would he have been able to restore the French Empire and play off his rivals against each other, or would this have united the other powers against him once again? If Napoleon II had died of tuberculosis in 1832 which Bonaparte would have carried on Napoleon I's legacy? Would the Bonapartes have been able to retake power, or would the Bourbons have managed to ride out the turmoils of the 19th century into the modern era? What would French demographics look like without the addition of the Rhineland into France? Would a united Germany be able to exist today? If it wasn't for Metternich's blunder, and Napoleon II stayed in Austria, could he have reformed it into a more liberal and federal state with rights for its various minorities?

OOC: What do you guys think? Should I make a timeline out of this in the future?
 
Why would he reform austria into a more liberal or federal state when the exact happened with the European Union?

Anyways, without the second Napoleonic wars or the crushing of Prussia, liberalism may survive in continental europe, possibly even overthrowing France and Russia. As we all know, OTL's situation of a mostly "total absolutist" old world being in a cold war with the Alliance for Democracy was the result Napoleon IV's creation of the new ideology of Total Absolutism...
 
Why would he reform austria into a more liberal or federal state when the exact happened with the European Union?
Napoleon was half Hapsburg and half French and grew up in Austria under the tutelage of his Habsburg relatives. He even spoke French with a German accent. Its kind of funny since Napoleon I spoke French with a Corsican/Italian accent. Up until Metternich made the move to arrest him, Napoleon had made no real signs of turning on Austria. In fact he was quite supportive of his grandfather. Perhaps he thought he could never have regained the French Imperial Throne. Do you think he had such ambitions at the time.

OTL's situation of a mostly "total absolutist" old world being in a cold war with the Alliance for Democracy was the result Napoleon IV's creation of the new ideology of Total Absolutism...
Well not really. The French Empire is more akin to the Roman system of a Constitutionally Absolute monarchy where the Monarch's Royal Powers are clearly described in legal edicts rather than arbitrary feudal laws of the old states that Napoleon and Napoleon II overthrew. Plus Napoleon II's second son Maximilian went on to become Emperor of Mexico creating the House of Bonaparte-Iturbide. They still are a monarchy, and Maximilian setup a government inspired by his father's Imperial French system. The Empire of Mexico is essentially a satellite state of Imperial France with how close the two states are interconnected in terms of trade agreements, military agreements, and diplomacy. It also served as an additional market to buy French goods, and the political stability provided by the monarchy along with French capital allowed Mexico to properly industrialize especially after Benito Juarez was captured by the French and Imperial forces.

Brazil is also considered part of New World and is under a monarchy like Mexico is today. Although their monarchy evolved more akin to the British model of a more ceremonial monarchy after the Silent Republican Coup of 1901.

Also Democracy and Republicanism don't seem like such a credible ideologies especially with Monarchies still seen as viable within Latin America. The split of the United States between North and South for example, is touted as an example by many monarchists on why monarchies are superior to Republics. While Imperial France and Imperial Mexico both outlawed slavery, they still supported the Confederacy as a means of realpolitik so that Mexico would not have such a strong rival on its doorstep, and Britain wouldn't have a strong trading partner and ally within North America and the Anglosphere.

Do you think republicanism would have had more success in a world without Napoleon II taking power?
 

Deleted member 109224

We probably don't see a mostly unified continental Europe in a fashion eerily reminiscent of the emergence of Charles V's big-ass realm in Europe.

Napoleon II ultimately inherited Austria (and thus Pomerania) as we know.
The Hungarians proclaimed Napoleon their (purely nominal and constitutionally hand-tied) King.
Napoleon III inherited Holland after Louis failed to produce an heir.
Napoleon IV ultimately inherited Bavaria (a country that itself had inherited Baden in the 1820s).
Italy was of course already in personal union with Italy.
Napoleon III later seized the Danubian principalities and Bosnia for Hungary.
Poland was game for a wider union under the Bonapartist flag.
Napoleon III was President and Protector of the Second Rhenish Confederation.

Europe from the Pyrenees to the Bug came under the rule of one polity for the first time.



upload_2019-10-25_19-10-33.png
 
@Basileus_Komnenos: Eugène de Beauharnais was not only Napoleon’s step-son and adoptive son and brother-in-law of Louis Bonaparte but also Napoleon II’s own brother-in-law. (Eugène’s wife Augusta of Bavaria was sister of the last wife of Emperor Francis and half-sister of Sophie)
 

Dolan

Banned
Europe from the Pyrenees to the Bug came under the rule of one polity for the first time.
Yeah, it has been joked that The Second French Empire is ultimately The Papacy comes again due to how Napoleon II's deal with the Pope *technically* put himself under the Pope's authority in all spiritual manners (as opposed to Napoleon I's Secularist Empire).

Just look, while The Papacy is mostly chill with Emperors and the Senate running the Empire day-to-day, with the Holy See being the final Arbiter of the 1927 succession crisis after Napoleon V's assassination by Democratic Terrorist. The Late Napoleon V only have daughters (Anna Napoleon and Margareth Napoleon), and the German-speaking bloc wanted Anna to rule as Empress, The French bloc wanted Napoleon V's last surviving (and youngest) brother Jean-Pierre Napoleonto be the Next Emperor, while the Polish block wanted to crown Napoleon V's nephew from his (late) middle brother Jaime Napoleon, as Emperor. (with Princes Jean-Pierre and Jaime respectively served in French and Polish army, while Anna Napoleon did not really have any sort of military background). Said conflict almost threatened to split The Empire in three if not for Jaime brings the Papal clause to the debate, and after some mulling in Rome, the college of Imperial Cardinals and Bishops decided to crown Jaime Napoleon as Emperor Napoleon VI because his claim, using the Salic Law, is much stronger than Jean-Pierre.

Only German and Dutch protestants tried to revolt, but then the revolt was short-lived and provided reasons for the Catholic dominated Empire to finally deal with Lutherans and Calvinists once and for all, causing them to flee to Britain, Scandinavia, America,or even all the way to Australia.

...

Without Napoleon II's rise, it would be Catholicism that is on the decline in Europe.
 

Deleted member 109224

Yeah, it has been joked that The Second French Empire is ultimately The Papacy comes again due to how Napoleon II's deal with the Pope *technically* put himself under the Pope's authority in all spiritual manners (as opposed to Napoleon I's Secularist Empire).

Just look, while The Papacy is mostly chill with Emperors and the Senate running the Empire day-to-day, with the Holy See being the final Arbiter of the 1927 succession crisis after Napoleon V's assassination by Democratic Terrorist. The Late Napoleon V only have daughters (Anna Napoleon and Margareth Napoleon), and the German-speaking bloc wanted Anna to rule as Empress, The French bloc wanted Napoleon V's last surviving (and youngest) brother Jean-Pierre Napoleonto be the Next Emperor, while the Polish block wanted to crown Napoleon V's nephew from his (late) middle brother Jaime Napoleon, as Emperor. (with Princes Jean-Pierre and Jaime respectively served in French and Polish army, while Anna Napoleon did not really have any sort of military background). Said conflict almost threatened to split The Empire in three if not for Jaime brings the Papal clause to the debate, and after some mulling in Rome, the college of Imperial Cardinals and Bishops decided to crown Jaime Napoleon as Emperor Napoleon VI because his claim, using the Salic Law, is much stronger than Jean-Pierre.

Only German and Dutch protestants tried to revolt, but then the revolt was short-lived and provided reasons for the Catholic dominated Empire to finally deal with Lutherans and Calvinists once and for all, causing them to flee to Britain, Scandinavia, America,or even all the way to Australia.

...

Without Napoleon II's rise, it would be Catholicism that is on the decline in Europe.



Napoleon II was very much trying to appeal to tradition. The Pope making him Emperor was very much in line with how Charlemagne became Emperor, and the unification of Europe was officially done under the guise of the formation of a second Holy Roman Empire that happened to not only reunite the three Francian Kingdoms and the lands of the recently disbanded Holy Roman Empire, but also claimed authority over Hungary and Illyria due to both Hapbsburg birthright and their having been tributaries of the Carolingians. Although "Continentals" was the name that folks just started referring to themselves as within the Empire ("Continentalism", "The Continental Idea", etc)

Although it's not like Napoleon II technically being under the spiritual authority of the Pope meant too much given how Gallicanism has been the name of the game in the Empire of Europe.



All those Protestant Emigrants were ultimately the Continentals' loss. They bolstered the population of the Continent's enemies.
 
The Papacy comes again due to how Napoleon II's deal with the Pope *technically* put himself under the Pope's authority in all spiritual manners (as opposed to Napoleon I's Secularist Empire).
That's more of a dig at the Empire by English and the Russians more than anything really. If this were really true, then you'd have seen Emperors like Napoleon VII burning Protestants and Jews at the stake and start declaring Crusades for the Holy Land shouting Deus Vult. While Napoleon VII was highly religious, he like all his ancestors, was tolerant of other religions. Though he was a bit more fanatic than most especially with his Augustus inspired laws that harshly punished adultery and financially penalized unmarried or childless couples. Even though he though he brought more Catholicism into his policies, he still left groups like the French Algerian Muslims alone and elevated them to high positions of power within mainland France itself rather than just within the Empire's Algerian provinces. Most notably while Jews were persecuted in events like the Russian pograms of 1910-1935, they had legal rights within the Empire (dating back to Napoleon I) leading to an increase in immigration of Russian Jews into the Empire's Eastern lands. The Kingdom of Ukraine for example settled these emigres in cities like Odessa which helped boost the population and productivity of the breadbasket of Eastern Europe.


nly German and Dutch protestants tried to revolt, but then the revolt was short-lived and provided reasons for the Catholic dominated Empire to finally deal with Lutherans and Calvinists once and for all, causing them to flee to Britain, Scandinavia, America,or even all the way to Australia.
While Napoleon VII personally maintained the practice of tolerance for Protestants within the Empire he does deserve criticism for not really attempting to stop the violence in Germany during the Protestant revolt of 1933. Napoleon VII likely took it personally when his beloved grandnephew was so brutally murdered in the streets of Berlin. He likely saw this as punishing "those accursed Prussians," as he put it who had been a thorn in the aspirations of House Bonaparte since Napoleon I.

Though Napoleon VIII later issued an apology on behalf of all Protestants within the Empire and worked to issue Reparations to those living within Berlin. The damage was done as many Protestants from Germany at least fled to places like Britain or the Scandinavian Empire. Heck some reactionaries in Britain advocated for the repeal of the Catholic Emancipation Bill. Relations have strained between both powers as well over this.

I feel like the Emperor's relationship with the Pope mirrors that of the old Roman Emperors of the East with the Patriarch of Constantinople and the one the Carolingians had with the Pope. This was what Napoleon IV "the Scholar" wrote in his book the Rise and fall of the Rome when comparing the French Empire with that of the Roman Empire. While the Pope is technically not subordinate to the Emperor, and the Emperor is technically a subject under the pope acting as God's vice-regent, an investiture type controversy was avoided due to the informal arrangement where the Emperor has great deal of influence over matters of the Church like the appointment of French Archbishops for example, and the Pope acts as a sort of spiritual counsel to the Emperor when making decisions affecting the Catholic world. This was what allowed the Pope to intervene after Emperor Napoleon V was so brutally murdered by those accursed Neo-Jacobins and Anarchists. Indeed this event nearly triggered a war between the French Empire and the Anglo-American alliance because some of the assassins were of British origin. The only reason why war was averted was because the instability of the succession. The Sacred Personage of Pope Innocentius XIV was seen by most historians as more of a PR move to force the various contenders to the throne to come to an accord with a reputable and pious man as the Pope mediating the dispute. In a way it parallels the dispute in the Frankish Empire of old that Louis the Pious had with his sons over the succession in the Empire. Only instead of leading to instability, it affirmed the law of succession set by Napoleon II and Napoleon III where male primogeniture the traditional Salic Law of France prevailed. Thus Napoleon VI (Jaime Napoleon) the brother of the late Napoleon V would ascend to the throne at the age of 46. Napoleon VI being a military man and a proven administrator in his role as Duke of Milan and later Viceroy of Italy, worked to stabilize the empire and modernize its institutions in addition to overhauling its infrastructure and upgrading its aging fleet. And after to Napoleon VI's only son Prince Charles-Napoleon was killed by an anti Catholic Protestant Zealot, Jean-Pierre Napoleon (Napoleon VII) became the heir apparent, and uncle and nephew reconciled much to the Empire's relief. This event laid the seeds for the rise anti-Protestant fervor in France and Central Europe not seen since the 30 Years War and the French Wars of Religion during the reign of Napoleon VII.

Without Napoleon II's rise, it would be Catholicism that is on the decline in Europe.
What about nationalism or the idea of a nation state? Would the the other European Empires have been able resist it like Imperial France did? How would the Balkans fare without Imperial France leading the "wars of Liberation" against the Pope. Would the Eastern Roman Empire have been restored? Napoleon II was a Hellenophile and lover of ancient Roman history. Its what motivated him to eventually push into the Balkans after the various Christian revolts occurred against Ottoman rule. The Great Greek revolt of 1833 was brutally crushed by the Sultan. Many who escaped capture at Ottoman hands found refuge within the Russian and Imperial French court. Napoleon was so moved by the Greeks that he personally led an army against the Ottomans taking Constantinople in 1881 at the age of 70. Napoleon II was considered one of the most formidable generals of history and some rate him higher than his father Napoleon I. Though it should be noted that Emperor Napoleon II only really commanded the siege of Constantinople while actual operational command was delegated to Napoleon III due to his father's advanced age. Napoleon went on to crown his infant Grandson whom he named Napoleon-Constantine as Contantine XII of the Eastern Roman Empire. However much to the chagrin of the Pope he refused to assert papal primacy over Constantinople which stunned the Catholic world. Instead he elevated the Patriarch of Constantinople back to his role in the Eastern Empire as its highest religious authority. The Ottomans sent reeling from Constantinople made a flight to Ankara appealing to the Russians and British for aid.


Also what would a Catholic Church under a Second Republic look like? Would end up like it was under the brief Republic of Mexico where anti-clericalists began a rapid serious of seizures of Church assets and persecutions of clergymen before they were crushed by the forces of Emperor Maximilian I? How would the Orthodox Church fare in this world?

Napoleon II was very much trying to appeal to tradition. The Pope making him Emperor was very much in line with how Charlemagne became Emperor, and the unification of Europe was officially done under the guise of the formation of a second Holy Roman Empire that happened to not only reunite the three Francian Kingdoms and the lands of the recently disbanded Holy Roman Empire, but also claimed authority over Hungary and Illyria due to both Hapbsburg birthright and their having been tributaries of the Carolingians. Although "Continentals" was the name that folks just started referring to themselves as within the Empire ("Continentalism", "The Continental Idea", etc)
This is true. Napoleon after all renamed the Confederation of the Rhine East Francia after all much to the great frustration of German nationalists. Though this was really more of a cosmetic change, as the other Constituent Kingdoms kept their previous structures. Hungary was a special case especially after the demise of the House of Habsburg-Lorraine when it was decimated by the outbreak of typhus killing Archduke Karl Franz and his heirs. Napoleon II later asserted his claim to all the Habsburg lands as the grandson of the Holy Roman Emperor and Archduke of Austria Francis II. His invasion of Hungary was met with little resistance as the policy of Magyarization alienated many minorities within Hungary, and the peasants who were sick of the heavy taxes levied by the Magnates found an excuse to revolt. This allowed Napoleon to steamroll into Hungary and Austria, asserting his own children's claims to the Austrian and Hungarian thrones. Napoleon's third son Francis-Napoleon (Franz II of Austria) was made Archduke of Austria while his fourth son Charles-Napoleon was made King of Hungary. Napoleon also prudently broke the power of the Hungarian nobility by redistributing land among the peasantry as well making him popular among the lower classes.

Napoleon II who early in his life who much like his father toed the line between agnosticism and Catholicism, seemed to have a religious awakening after his miraculous recovery from tuberculosis in 1832. This changed him, and people noted how he attended Church regularly and began a correspondence with the Pope as well to learn more about the Church. Some in the Austrian court wondered if Napoleon II had planned to join the seminary. This religiousness could be seen when his relationship with his mother severely strained after learning about her siring illegitimate children. This began his push away from what he saw as the decadent Austrian court to him embracing his father's military lifestyle and ethos. Although this is quite ironic since Napoleon II's father was quite irreligious having come of age in the climate of the Revolution.

Napoleon II became even more of a conservative as he aged with him as he reached his 90's adopting more of an ascetic lifestyle and delving deeper into religious studies as he began to withdraw from public life and active governance. He began to quarrel more with his playboy son Murat-Napoleon chastising him for his licentious behavior. Indeed Napoleon banished him to Corsica after a scandal occurred with his son. Napoleon also was atypical when it came to his more contemporary monarchs was fiercely devoted to his wife and never once entertained a mistress unlike his father who was infamous for his many mistresses.

Napoleon II saw himself as a Charlemagne type figure and after annexing Austria as part of the Patrimony of House Bonaparte, he arranged for a formal Coronation ceremony at Aachen where he symbolically crowned himself in Austrian regalia and Charlemagne's Crown. He also went in procession to Rome as well with French propagandists portraying him as akin to Augustus. This why within France at least he's sometimes referred to as Napoleon Augustus much like how Phillip II of France was called Phillip Augutus.

We probably don't see a mostly unified continental Europe in a fashion eerily reminiscent of the emergence of Charles V's big-ass realm in Europe.
Europe from the Pyrenees to the Bug came under the rule of one polity for the first time.



upload_2019-10-25_19-10-33-png.497403
While its fun to map paint like this, Imperial France is still more of a composite monarchy with different sets of client kingdoms under its rule. Some have various cadet Branches of House Bonaparte ruling them. Though the Authority of the Emperor and its vast infrastructure makes it practically the superstate of Europe for all itnets and purposes. Outright annexation in some areas is less preferable because some systems work better with indirect rule. But the French Empire is the closest thing we have to a Universal Empire today.

OOC: Here's a map of the Empire right before the Balkan Wars of Liberation.

AiY5sum.png



AiY5sum

OfRAyaM
 
Last edited:
OOC: A very interesting idea and one I would read as a TL. However, there are some major errors in the early timeline that would have to be fixed to make it believable. First of all, if Napoléon died under mysterious circumstances in Elba, it would actually be a boon to France, not a tribulation. It means no Second Treaty of Paris, so here France maintained her 1792 borders, kept all of her loot from the Revolutionary and Napoléonic wars, suffered no indemnity or occupation and no limitation on her armed forces. So right off the bat Bourbon France is in a strong position. And even if it's believed that Napoléon was murdered/assassinated, it might not trigger uprisings that cause France to request aid from the Allies. Though I can see the Duc d'Angoulême or the Duc de Berri being assassinated.

Second, by the time Napoléon escaped Elba, the Congress of Vienna had already more or less agreed on a settlement that satisfied everyone (it was simply pushed back a bit when all the major players left Vienna to join the armies), so I don't see how his death would destroy that. Plus the Congress had agreed to supersede the Treaty of Fontainebleau that made the Duchy of Parma hereditary for Marie Louise and instead award her rule for life, to be succeeded by the Bourbon-Parmas. So Franz I and Metternich couldn't just arbitrarily restore the Duke of Reichstadt (as Napoléon II was called by the Austrians) to the Parmese succession and nor could they replace Marie-Louise with her son. And I can't see either the Emperor or Chancellor giving Reichstadt a throne, no matter what sympathies they had for him. Finally, Princess Sophie married Archduke Franz Karl in 1824, WAY before any of your changes, so she'd never be Reichstadt's wife. The Bavarians aren't going to make a second Bonapartist marriage or pass up the chance to have two Empresses from their family (her half-sister Caroline Auguste was Franz I's fourth wife).

Third, the 1830 revolutions were by and large easily repressed in Italy, Germany and Poland, so I don't see that changing, not matter if Napoléon II ruled Parma; the Austrian army isn't going to magically defect to him and tiny Parma can't stand up to the Austrian military. Plus you have tons of events happening out of order, like Napoléon II comes to Parma in 1832, yet takes over France in 1830, or Franz I dying in 1825, seven years before he put his grandson on the Parmese throne.

Again this is meant as positive critique, not negative as I do find the idea very original and fun. I think your best bet would be to have the July revolution go differently and instead being akin to a French Glorious revolution ending in a Oréans Monarchy it becomes violent and unstable, like the Second Republic before it stabilized by the end of 1848. Something that could allow the Bonapartists to come to power, again similar to the way Napoléon III was elected. You would need Napoléon II to escape Austria and reach France, but that shouldn't be too hard. Coming to power in 1830 allows for roughly eighteen years of modernization and reconstruction of the French military, economy and infrastructure, so that the French Empire si ready to take advantage of the year of Revolution to restore her old hegemony.

Hopefully this helps and you do indeed make this a full TL!
 
First of all, if Napoléon died under mysterious circumstances in Elba, it would actually be a boon to France, not a tribulation. It means no Second Treaty of Paris, so here France maintained her 1792 borders, kept all of her loot from the Revolutionary and Napoléonic wars, suffered no indemnity or occupation and no limitation on her armed forces.
But like in otl many of these veterans and parts of the officer corps supported Napoleon. They all defected to Napoleon as well once he returned from Elba. Rumors of his assassination, and the unpopularity of the Bourbons might piss off the army. Napoleon’s marshals like Massena who readily returned to support Napoleon was executed by firing squad. These officers might not take it well if news of Napoleon being assassinated spreads. I can see someone like Charles X using the excuse of the officers plotting a coup to purge the army of the Bonapartists.

so I don't see how his death would destroy that. Plus the Congress had agreed to supersede the Treaty of Fontainebleau that made the Duchy of Parma hereditary for Marie Louise and instead award her rule for life, to be succeeded by the Bourbon-Parmas.
What if Metternich distrusts a strong Bourbon France still with the potential to rise again to threaten Austria? As a result he keeps Bonaparte as Duke of Parma perhaps to threaten the Bourbons and gain a sort insurance in case of French aggression. This timeline is kind of an AU and kind of diverges with Napoleon being assassinated than anything. Though what if Napoleon had by a stroke of luck won Waterloo, retaking the Rhineland, and the Coalitions fearing Napoleon, has him assassinated. Wouldn’t this create the myth of the Emperor, and make him into a sort of martyr? I can imagine that pro-Bonapartist press would spin this as the treacherous Bourbons doing something like this keeping France in its reduced state (in terms of territory).

Though I can see the Duc d'Angoulême or the Duc de Berri being assassinated.
Who would be the heir then with both Bourbons dead? After Henri V died the main legitimist claimant died out and they went to the Spanish branch of the House of Bourbon. I can imagine this being seen as violating the treaty of Utrecht, and someone might Louis-Phillipe might make the situation worse, and this could cause more turmoil in France.

Finally, Princess Sophie married Archduke Franz Karl in 1824, WAY before any of your changes, so she'd never be Reichstadt's wife.
Let's say Franz-Karl dies after Maximilian is born. Would this hypothetical marriage be seen like what Napoleon I's and Josephine's marriage was? What are some likely candidates that Emperor Francis and Metternich would have put forward as suitable for the Napoleon II.

Third, the 1830 revolutions were by and large easily repressed in Italy, Germany and Poland, so I don't see that changing, not matter if Napoléon II ruled Parma; the Austrian army isn't going to magically defect to him and tiny Parma can't stand up to the Austrian military.
For my scenario, the Italian revolutionaries go to him since he still is technically the King of Italy after all. Maybe Archduke Franz decides to overrule Metternich and make Napoleon his viceroy in Austria's Italian possessions seeing him as successfully raised to be more Austrian than French. Maybe Napoleon after being given an army post proves himself loyal to the Habsburg cause. This allows him to gain favor within Francis's inner circle much to the horror of Metternich. Perhaps Napoleon II also takes lessons with talented Austrian commanders like Marshall Radetcsky. As viceroy of Italy, he becomes popular much like how Maximillian was in the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia. There was an outpouring of support from place like Venice after Maximilian was killed via firing squad in Mexico.

and Poland
What about a successful Decemberist Uprising, or this turning into something akin to another Pugachev's revolt? That was devastating to Russia, and cause Tsarina Catherine to rollback many of her enlightenment reforms and strengthen the power of the old aristocracy in favor of the nobility. What I meant by the Polish Revolt, was where one occurred where Napoleon II is declared war upon by Russia, after he smashes Prussia and the Frankfurt Germany. This forces Russia to fight the rebels bogging down their troops while Napoleon with his restored Grand Armee defeats them on the field.

think your best bet would be to have the July revolution go differently and instead being akin to a French Glorious revolution ending in a Oréans Monarchy it becomes violent and unstable, like the Second Republic before it stabilized by the end of 1848. Something that could allow the Bonapartists to come to power, again similar to the way Napoléon III was elected.
I like this idea. I feel like a paranoid Charles X with both his sons now dead, and his line ending with him would expedite the instability leading to revolution or a mass uprising. Napoleon could very well present himself as the one to stabilize and restore glory to France. Maybe the army sent to quell him defects en masse, after being sick of the unpopular Bourbons. Maybe Charles even more desperate to distance himself from the unpopularity of his rule, tries to take Algeria only for it to be a massive failure. The lack of independence given to the French officers because of Charles's paranoia about a looming Republican or Bonapartist coup hampers French military performance in the war. This makes him even more unpopular with the army and people. This would be a perfect opportunity for the Bonapartists to start a propaganda campaign playing up the glories of Napoleon and his empire, and how France prospered under his rule. The obvious solution would be for there to be another Bonaparte to rescue France from its dire straits.

Coming to power in 1830 allows for roughly eighteen years of modernization and reconstruction of the French military, economy and infrastructure, so that the French Empire si ready to take advantage of the year of Revolution to restore her old hegemony.

Hopefully this helps and you do indeed make this a full TL!
Do you have any book recommendations about France or Austria during the 19th century or Napoleon II? Right now I'm reading the Duke of Reichsdat by Eduard von Wertheimer.
 
But like in otl many of these veterans and parts of the officer corps supported Napoleon. They all defected to Napoleon as well once he returned from Elba. Rumors of his assassination, and the unpopularity of the Bourbons might piss off the army. Napoleon’s marshals like Massena who readily returned to support Napoleon was executed by firing squad. These officers might not take it well if news of Napoleon being assassinated spreads. I can see someone like Charles X using the excuse of the officers plotting a coup to purge the army of the Bonapartists.

It really depends on how Napoléon is killed. Unless he's violently killed in public (ie stabbed or shot), any sudden or mysterious death will merely be rumor. And as to the army, if Napoléon's killed and the army starts making grumbles, then it's easy to cashier the most vocal problem officers and replace them with loyalists. Or do something to regain their loyalty, like a short, victorious war (early conquest of Algeria perhaps?). Also remember that Louis XVIII is King here, the Comte d'Artois not ascending the throne until 1824.

What if Metternich distrusts a strong Bourbon France still with the potential to rise again to threaten Austria? As a result he keeps Bonaparte as Duke of Parma perhaps to threaten the Bourbons and gain a sort insurance in case of French aggression. This timeline is kind of an AU and kind of diverges with Napoleon being assassinated than anything. Though what if Napoleon had by a stroke of luck won Waterloo, retaking the Rhineland, and the Coalitions fearing Napoleon, has him assassinated. Wouldn’t this create the myth of the Emperor, and make him into a sort of martyr? I can imagine that pro-Bonapartist press would spin this as the treacherous Bourbons doing something like this keeping France in its reduced state (in terms of territory).

Again impossible. Bourbon-Parmas right to succeed Marie-Louise was enshrined at the Congress of Vienna, a document signed by all the Great powers. Metternich, champion of the Congress system, isn't going to spit in the face of his own agenda nor risk diplomatic isolation for violating an international treaty. And that's assuming that the allies could successfully assassinate him. In that scenario, it would be easier to just leave Napoléon alive and victorious.

Who would be the heir then with both Bourbons dead? After Henri V died the main legitimist claimant died out and they went to the Spanish branch of the House of Bourbon. I can imagine this being seen as violating the treaty of Utrecht, and someone might Louis-Phillipe might make the situation worse, and this could cause more turmoil in France.

I meant one or the other, but that's debatable. Legally it's either the Duc d'Orléans or the Spanish Borbóns. I assume the Borbóns would be favored as heirs (one of Carlos IV's sons could renounce his Spanish rights and be restored to his French rights as that would keep any personal union issues from happening). Or, and this is interesting, the bachelor Comte d'Artois could remarry and father a new heir. He had the greatest health of his generation and was only fifty-eight in 1815, so he could realistically father a few kids with a second wife.

Let's say Franz-Karl dies after Maximilian is born. Would this hypothetical marriage be seen like what Napoleon I's and Josephine's marriage was? What are some likely candidates that Emperor Francis and Metternich would have put forward as suitable for the Napoleon II.

But that means Sophie is the mother of the future Emperor. Why would she marry a Duke of Reichsdat/Parma instead of remaining in Vienna to educate and influence her son? I'd get away from Sophie as a bride. As for other brides, depends. As I can't ever see Franz and Metternich giving him Parma, he'd likely get a bride from the Austrian Nobility, perhaps one of the Mediatized Houses that were domiciled in Austria. They're not going to try for a reigning Princess.

For my scenario, the Italian revolutionaries go to him since he still is technically the King of Italy after all. Maybe Archduke Franz decides to overrule Metternich and make Napoleon his viceroy in Austria's Italian possessions seeing him as successfully raised to be more Austrian than French. Maybe Napoleon after being given an army post proves himself loyal to the Habsburg cause. This allows him to gain favor within Francis's inner circle much to the horror of Metternich. Perhaps Napoleon II also takes lessons with talented Austrian commanders like Marshall Radetcsky. As viceroy of Italy, he becomes popular much like how Maximillian was in the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia. There was an outpouring of support from place like Venice after Maximilian was killed via firing squad in Mexico.

Again highly unlikely. The Austrian government would have to be ran by collective idiots to allow Napoléon's son to serve in Italy or be Viceroy of Lombardy-Venetia. Metternich knew Italy was full of revolutionaries who hated Austrian rule and sending Reichsdat there would be gift rapping a figurehead for them. No Reichsdat would likely serve the army in a region relatively untouched by his father, like Austria proper, Bohemia or Hungary. Definitely not Lombardy-Venetia or Galicia and Lodomeria.

What about a successful Decemberist Uprising, or this turning into something akin to another Pugachev's revolt? That was devastating to Russia, and cause Tsarina Catherine to rollback many of her enlightenment reforms and strengthen the power of the old aristocracy in favor of the nobility. What I meant by the Polish Revolt, was where one occurred where Napoleon II is declared war upon by Russia, after he smashes Prussia and the Frankfurt Germany. This forces Russia to fight the rebels bogging down their troops while Napoleon with his restored Grand Armee defeats them on the field.

Unlikely. The Decemberists had no chance of success; they were basically a social club of reformists who happened to be army officers and the attempt had more in common with the 18th century palace revolutions rather than any kind of revolution. Nor did the November Uprising of 1830 have a great chance of success. It had no outside support and was against one of the largest standing armies in Europe. Now you could perhaps push the Polish rebellion back to 1848, or at least have another develop. It would keep the Russians bogged down for a good while. The last problem here is the French army wouldn't necessarily be any better than the other European armies. Most of the lessons and reforms that allowed the French to be so successful in the Revolutionary and Napoléonic wars had already been applied to the rest of the Great powers, so there's no built in advantage. Sure the 1848 French military would be one of the only armies to have fought wars over the past thirty years, but those were colonial conflicts and not against an equal power.

I like this idea. I feel like a paranoid Charles X with both his sons now dead, and his line ending with him would expedite the instability leading to revolution or a mass uprising. Napoleon could very well present himself as the one to stabilize and restore glory to France. Maybe the army sent to quell him defects en masse, after being sick of the unpopular Bourbons. Maybe Charles even more desperate to distance himself from the unpopularity of his rule, tries to take Algeria only for it to be a massive failure. The lack of independence given to the French officers because of Charles's paranoia about a looming Republican or Bonapartist coup hampers French military performance in the war. This makes him even more unpopular with the army and people. This would be a perfect opportunity for the Bonapartists to start a propaganda campaign playing up the glories of Napoleon and his empire, and how France prospered under his rule. The obvious solution would be for there to be another Bonaparte to rescue France from its dire straits.

Paranoid or not, Charles wasn't an idiot. OTL he left the military to his loyalists and those few Napoléonic officers that sided with the Bourbons during the Hundred days. And like I said, Napoléon II isn't going anywhere unless he can escape Austria. He might be able to pull off what his father did in the Hundred days, but that would be a risk.

Hm, how about this: the Hundred days never happen, either due to his early death on Elba or his forceful relocation to a further away place of exile (which was advocated heavily by Talleyrand at Vienna and was one of the reasons Napoléon made his ultimate gamble). Personally I think the later is best. The Bourbon restoration develops more or less the same, ie slow building unpopularity with brief flashes of populist policies. So come 1830 the Bourbons are overthrown on schedule but the Orléans can't take the throne for some reason (I'd kill off the Orléans branch entirely. You could have the Duc's ship go down when sailing for Sicily in 1809 or of some illness circa 1813, that way you only have to get rid of his son Ferdinand Philippe later own. Or you could leave the Orléans in exile as Louis XVIII banished them for disloyalty during the Hundred days, so invent a reason to send them away TTL), leaving a chaotic situation. A Republic is declared but the people cry out for their greatest son instead. Napoléon II escapes and enters France, flipping the armies sent against him like his father did in the hundred days, ultimately restoring the Empire and gaining the throne. That keeps the TL tight, avoiding any unnecessary butterflies that could go awry. Austria will reluctantly support their Emperor's grandson, Britain would be tied down in the Catholic emancipation/great reform crisis, Russia dealing with the Poles and Prussia alone and unlikely to care. Anything more violent would risk a Congress intervention.

Do you have any book recommendations about France or Austria during the 19th century or Napoleon II? Right now I'm reading the Duke of Reichsdat by Eduard von Wertheimer.

Unfortunately not. There are very few bios on Napoléon II, though I have read good ones on Empress Eugénie and Franz Josef I.
 
OOC: is this taken from Neptune's Hapsburg timeline? I think you replied when I asked him to write about Napoleon 2.

I honestly think East Francia would have broken away quite early if it wasn't for the support that Otto von Bismark gave to Napoleon 2. His belief in the divine rights of king (along with the support Napoleon enjoyed from the Pope) ensured that he would be a staunch supporter of Napoleon 2, and as he grew older, he was appointed as one of the closest aides to Napoleon 2, ensuring that the Germans were assuaged with being ruled by a French ruler (Although Napoleon 2 was french in name alone, since he spent most of his young life in Austria and Italy)
 
OOC: is this taken from Neptune's Hapsburg timeline? I think you replied when I asked him to write about Napoleon 2.
Basically. I'm planning on eventually writing a tl about it sometime in early/mid 2020.

honestly think East Francia would have broken away quite early if it wasn't for the support that Otto von Bismark gave to Napoleon 2. His belief in the divine rights of king (along with the support Napoleon enjoyed from the Pope) ensured that he would be a staunch supporter of Napoleon 2,
In otl he was a devout Prussian and an arch-conservative who was utterly loyal to Wilhelm I. He was born in 1815 and came of age during the 1830's right before the second wave of liberal Revolutions spread across Europe. Though I can imagine with Napoleon II running around he might be drawn to the new French Emperor. One of the tags is a Prussia screw. This is because Prussia was essentially destroyed by Napoleon II after the Frankfurt Germany was crushed. The other German Kingdoms were restored/expanded. Saxony was restored received lands lost to Prussia, Austria got Silesia back, Prussia lost territory given to the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, and Pomerania was made into a separate duchy Prussia losing its Kingdom status and being forced back into the Grand Duchy of Brandenburg-Prussia. Russia with a huge Polish uprising was kept at bay long enough for Napoleon II to march and defeat them taking much of the old Polish land and the Balkans. Napoleon who arranged a deal with the Ottomans, got them to invade through Crimea with Finland declaring independence. Russia was forced to make peace with highly unfavorable terms. I can see a young Bismarck going to France after seeing Prussia being torn apart and having no real future within his old homeland.

Napoleon 2, and as he grew older, he was appointed as one of the closest aides to Napoleon 2, ensuring that the Germans were assuaged with being ruled by a French ruler (Although Napoleon 2 was french in name alone, since he spent most of his young life in Austria and Italy)
This is true. Do you have any other ideas on how to smooth out this timeline?
 
entirely OOC:

Well one thing that I think you would have to play up a bit more is Talleyrand messing around with the Greater Powers at the Congress of Vienna. OTL he used the lesser powers of Europe to get himself on the table with the Greater powers which must've pissed off the lesser powers. This time he does it without pissing away the goodwill France had with the lesser powers. Another thing would be that he let's the Polish crisis play out, to the point where he suggests that Austria, Prussia and Britain should go to war with Russia, then later provides secret documents that say Austria, Prussia and Britain are ready to fight with Russia and then come up with his compromise. Also he should try to ensure that more of Saxony is left to Frederick Augustus instead of being given to the Prussia, OTL I think more than half was given to Prussia. This sets up more distrust amongst the Allies and ensures they are more wary of working together.

I am not sure how possible it would be for Talleyrand to secretly send letters to Napoleon 2 (maybe after Napoleon2 becomes Duke of Parma) but if he can secretly mentor Napoleon2, I think this timeline would become slightly easier to deal with. IIRC he was working as the ambassador to France from around 1830, so maybe he has a chance to be more subtle about contacting Napoleon2.

The French Foreign Legion was started in 1831, so Napoleon2 uses it to conquer most of Africa.

Wrt the British, one way to keep them busy would be to keep Queen Caroline alive since that way people will keep hating the monarchy (I honestly think she was poisoned OTL so maybe just prevent her from going to Britain for a bit).

Wrt the Russians, the Decemberist uprising has to last for more than just one year.

Both Austria and Prussia will have to be dismantled while countries like Sweden and Spain have to be appeased.

I like the latest map of France, Germany and Italy but I think Poland would have to be a bit bigger. And the other thing is idk how possible the Kingdom of Ireland is at any point in time and how possible it would be to get Russia to give up on Finland, even if they declare independence.

Finally, I think Napoleon2 would have to come up with something like a Congress of [insert place here] which would work as a proto-EU to make all these different countries work together. Ensuring that their police forces and trade policies would be synergised instead of pushing against each other and where countries can air their grievances in a civilised manner. Membership would be from the countries in his union but any country should be allowed to observe and put up grievances, since this allows Napoleon2 to pull countries like Denmark, Ottomans into his sphere.
 
Well one thing that I think you would have to play up a bit more is Talleyrand messing around with the Greater Powers at the Congress of Vienna. OTL he used the lesser powers of Europe to get himself on the table with the Greater powers which must've pissed off the lesser powers. This time he does it without pissing away the goodwill France had with the lesser powers. Another thing would be that he let's the Polish crisis play out, to the point where he suggests that Austria, Prussia and Britain should go to war with Russia, then later provides secret documents that say Austria, Prussia and Britain are ready to fight with Russia and then come up with his compromise. Also he should try to ensure that more of Saxony is left to Frederick Augustus instead of being given to the Prussia, OTL I think more than half was given to Prussia. This sets up more distrust amongst the Allies and ensures they are more wary of working together.

That would actually cause the opposite of what your thinking. Talleyrand wasn't stupid and would know that such diplomacy wouldn't work (Russio-Prussian relations were so close as to make such a trick impossible for either side to believe during Vienna and Talleyrand's own relations with Tsar Alexander had heavily frayed during the Polish-Saxon crisis, enough that Alexander likely wouldn't trust anything Prince Weathervane said). If anything it would trigger a war between the former allies, and a France allied with Austria and Britain against Prussia and Russia likely means a Prussian screw. Austria, with the support of the rest of Germany, will liberate Saxony, reconquer Silesia and likely loosely unite Germany under a Neo-HRE, while the French would recall her Napoléonic veterans and likely reconquer the Rhineland as a kind of quid pro quo with London and Vienna. Hell if things are going bad enough Alexander might cut his losses and negotiate for Royal Prussia in exchange for stabbing Berlin in the back. In that case we'd see a new (or rather vary old) balance of power, with France, Britain and Austria as the top dogs, Russia angry and isolated and Prussia swept from the map. Not exactly the best bet for a Napoléonic restoration.

I am not sure how possible it would be for Talleyrand to secretly send letters to Napoleon 2 (maybe after Napoleon2 becomes Duke of Parma) but if he can secretly mentor Napoleon2, I think this timeline would become slightly easier to deal with. IIRC he was working as the ambassador to France from around 1830, so maybe he has a chance to be more subtle about contacting Napoleon2.

Again unlikely. Talleyrand had heavily thrown his lot in with the Bourbons and more or less entirely burned his Bonapartist bridges. When the Bourbons dropped him like a High school Princess with a bad rep, he turned to the Orléanists as his allies. In his mind the Bonapartists were intrinsically unstable due to being parvenu royalty, were unable to stop conquering and would overstech themselves and France (his post 1808 belief of Napoléon himself), so I can't see why we'd see the son as any different.

The French Foreign Legion was started in 1831, so Napoleon2 uses it to conquer most of Africa.

No complaint here, though the Foreign Legion was created after Louis-Philippe disbanded the Foreign regiments that the Restauration had used as a way to employ the former soldiers who wanted to say in French service. Napoléon himself had foreign regiments, so his son might not follow the Orléanists. Its fifty-fifty in my book and @Basileus_Komnenos could do either one believably.

Wrt the British, one way to keep them busy would be to keep Queen Caroline alive since that way people will keep hating the monarchy (I honestly think she was poisoned OTL so maybe just prevent her from going to Britain for a bit).

Not possible. By the time of her death Caroline's twenty-minutes of fame were up. She was ridiculed for her attempt to force her way into the coronation and had lost the love of the mob for agreeing to the £50,000 a year Liverpool offered her. If she survived whatever killed her she'd find herself friendless and shut out of society, likely returning to the continent. And she was too stubborn to wait (all her advisors told her to delay and allow public anger to build but she insisted on pressing ahead.

Wrt the Russians, the Decemberist uprising has to last for more than just one year.

Do you mean the Polish uprising of 1830 or the Officers rebellion in 1825? Because the former could definitely become worse and, if it does better, spread into Polish Prussia and Austria. The later was DOA and had no chance of ever succeeding.

Both Austria and Prussia will have to be dismantled while countries like Sweden and Spain have to be appeased.

Austria could collapse in 1848, or at least be reduced to a ramp state, if Russia is distracted or unable to intervene (like another Polish uprising), while my suggestions for Prussia in 1815 should work nicely. but neither Sweden or Spain were friends of the Bonapartes. Spain at least, could be preserved as Napoléon III and Isabel II had close relations OTL, but the Swedes stabbed Napoléon in the back, so I can't see Nappy II being happy to deal with them. Now the Danes, on the other hand, were friendly, if not friends, so better to work with the Danes and get them Norway back. If a war with Russia happens, you could possibly get the Swedes on board if Finland is promised to them, but that would be it. Maybe a trade, Sweden gives up Norway but gets Finland?

I like the latest map of France, Germany and Italy but I think Poland would have to be a bit bigger. And the other thing is idk how possible the Kingdom of Ireland is at any point in time and how possible it would be to get Russia to give up on Finland, even if they declare independence.

Ireland would be a no-go. The Royal navy was still the best in the world and any successful landing in Ireland would be impossible to resupply or reinforce. Now Finland could be possible in an alt Crimean war, with forces invading from Sweden.

Finally, I think Napoleon2 would have to come up with something like a Congress of [insert place here] which would work as a proto-EU to make all these different countries work together. Ensuring that their police forces and trade policies would be synergised instead of pushing against each other and where countries can air their grievances in a civilised manner. Membership would be from the countries in his union but any country should be allowed to observe and put up grievances, since this allows Napoleon2 to pull countries like Denmark, Ottomans into his sphere.

THAT I like! It could be a loser-EU, more in line with a closer German Confederation/loose German Empire, one that united the French allies and is a vehicle of French domination.
 
This is in no way a DBWI. In DBWI, the PoD is alluded to in reverse ("WI the [OTL] event happened?", implying that ITTL it didn't) and the resulting TL is briefly mentioned, while a hypothetical TL stemming from the OTL event is "explored" from the ATL PoV.

Here, the entire OP is devoted to chronicling the ATL in detail.
 
Top