Does France Defeat Second Coalition w/o Napoleon?

Absent Napoleon, France in 1800...

  • does as well against Austria and Continental Allies

    Votes: 10 35.7%
  • does as well in the summer, but less well afterward

    Votes: 2 7.1%
  • doesn't do as well as OTL

    Votes: 11 39.3%
  • is fucked

    Votes: 5 17.9%

  • Total voters
    28
What if, for whatever reason, the November 1799 Coup that brought Napoleon to power in France does not happen? Regarding the French government, I leave the matter of what you believe to be most likely -- the Directory stumbling along, someone else overthrowing the government, etc -- or to pick what you think works best. But what I'm specifically interested in is, how does this affect the war in Europe over the next few months (and, depending on the answer to that, the war with Britain after that)?

Does Austria still suffer a series of losses in May and June of 1800? If so, do the French still press the advantage, forcing the Austrian Empire out of the war (the Treaty of Lunéville or equivalent) by spring of 1801? And if the war on the European continent is brought to a quick resolution following our PoD roughly as OTL (or better), what does this mean for the war with Britain? And if (if) we have a clear answer to all these questions and have a rough account of how the Second Coalition War ends TTL, we might be able to talk about if, when, and how a Third Coalition War breaks out.

Option One: Most likely, France does as good (or better) against Austria and Continental Allies (negotiated peace by spring of 1801, on terms roughly as good or better than OTL)

Option Two: Most likely, France does as well against Austria et el in May and June of 1800; however, in the aftermath they are likely to do less well, meaning a longer campaign against Austria or a less favorable peace

Option Three: France is more likely than not to be doing significantly less well against the Allies than OTL as early as the summer of 1800

Option Four: France is likely to do a lot less well in 1800 than OTL, such that France is now significantly more likely to be utterly defeated by the Allies (by, let's say, spring 1802)
 
Last edited:
Well, the lead general might be Massena(?) How good is he at leading troops? Or would it be Davout?

France did have the demographic advantage over the Coalition, though Napoleon's brilliance would be sorely missed.
 
Last edited:
France had a bunch of fantastic generals early in the revolution who wound up being overshadowed by Napoleon.

Remove Napoleon and they would not have been reduced to gloried yes-men.
 
Yeah, no. Their better non-Napoleon generals were from an earlier age. Massena (I don't know how his name is spelled) might be a few good ones.
 
Edited the OP slightly; Russia was already pushed out if the war by the coup and Britain being a secondary question, the poll really comes down to how the French fare against Austria and HRE forces (in 1800).
 
Well, Austria is past it's prime once Frederick smacked Maria Theresa's armies. On the other hand, revolutionary France without Napoleon was... Merde
 
Well, Austria is past it's prime once Frederick smacked Maria Theresa's armies. On the other hand, revolutionary France without Napoleon was... Merde

You're definitely being too hard on them. Massena was able to match Archduke Charles more often than not, Guillaume Brune humiliated the British in the Netherlands during this war, Davout crushed a Prussian army that outnumbered him 2 to 1 in 1806, Lannes was a stalwart of Napoleon's armies from 1796 to his death in 1809, Soult's corps was the key to Napoleon's gambit at Austerlitz, and when the Austrians restarted the war in November of this particular year, Moreau ended it pretty much single-handedly. And that's just a short list of some of the better French generals available at this time. I don't know what Platonic ideal you're comparing the contemporary crop of French leadership to, but they had far more talent at their disposal than any of their rivals in 1800.
 
Yeah, no. Their better non-Napoleon generals were from an earlier age. Massena (I don't know how his name is spelled) might be a few good ones.

I mean Napoleon got his ass saved by Desaix (who conveniently died, so that Napoleon could get all the credit) at Marengo while Moreau was crushing the Empire at Hohenlinden. Napoleon was a great general to be sure but it's far from true to say that Revolutionary France lacked great generals without Napoleon. Napoleon would never have been able to pull off his Northern Italy campaign during the 2nd coalition without Massena's resolve, and it's been said that "At Jena, Napoleon won a battle he could not lose. At Auerstädt, Davout won a battle he could not win". In fact Davout doesn't get the credit he deserves, probably because he was not a glory-seeker and didn't try to climb the social ladder or embellish himself. He was probably one of the greatest generals of his time, but was largely overshadowed by Napoleon.
 

longsword14

Banned
I didn't mean to imply this, but wouldn't you say that his death was convenient for Napoleon?
Desaix was Napoleon's GdD, taking glory away was not much of a problem. Desaix is not Moreau; had he lived he would have been along with Massena his most capable deputies.
 
France had many great generals, but Napoleon, he was something else entirely. You would have still seen a powerful France, but not as powerful as OTL.
 
Yeah, no. Their better non-Napoleon generals were from an earlier age. Massena (I don't know how his name is spelled) might be a few good ones.

Not at all. Besides, there was Hoche, a man who many historians agree had the prowess and ambition to match Napoleon.

Except for declaring himself Emperor of the French, of course. Only one man could have done that.
 
Well, Austria is past it's prime once Frederick smacked Maria Theresa's armies. On the other hand, revolutionary France without Napoleon was... Merde

By 1800 not true at all. However, the big question is who would lead? My guess is Massena. Lannes wasn't senior enough. Marengo was a near-run thing. Napoleon in 1800 was near the peak of his abilities, equal to anyone else the French had at the time. Overall, Davout was a better operational general than Napoleon, but that's like saying Lebron was better than Kobe. Nappy's best trait was being good in just every area and great in some. Davout didn't have political skills, and couldn't have done the administrative stuff Nappy did.

Most likely Austria wins the Italian campaign, and eventually France gets grinded down though it takes years.
 
Top