How Stable Is the Napoleonic System in the Longer Term?

Reading discussions and TLs about victorious Napoleon, I have noticed that there often seems to exists this idea of relatively stable European/French political system following Napoleon's victory. It's not uncommon to see the French Empire continue to dominate Europe and even rise to the status of superpower later, even continuing until the 21st century. In some ways, the imagined history of Europe and France seems often almost stagnant compared what we actually experienced. However, looking back at OTL history, both France and Europe in general, there were huge changes, even just in France during the 19th century. This leads me to following questions I have been pondering lately:

Firstly, how likely is that the French Empire would avoid upheavels in any way comparable to those that its OTL counterpart did? Simply put, how likely is it that the French Empire would still exist in 2017, instead of some alternative Third French Republic?

Secondly, how likely it is that France would be still a leading power in Europe or the world by the 21st century? OTL history did show fluctuations in nations' fortunes during last centuries. Would France's territorial extent still be similar to that it had in 1812, or is it possible it could lose some of it?

(Although questions I have put here are somewhat detailed, they are meant more as food for thought for the wider general discussion about the future of Napoleonic system.)
 
I was under the impression that most timelines involving Napoleonic victory involves the satellite states(except the ones ruled by Napoleon’s family)breaking away eventually.
 
I was under the impression that most timelines involving Napoleonic victory involves the satellite states(except the ones ruled by Napoleon’s family)breaking away eventually.

Admitedly there might be a bias involved based on TLs and discussions I have just happened to read. I think the general question ie. the stability and possible longevity of Napoleonic system is nevertheless interesting enough to be discussed.
 
As an author of one of these Napoleon-wins-TLs, I might be slightly biased towards the direction that my TL took over the others, but hopefully I can help anyway:

It's not uncommon to see the French Empire continue to dominate Europe and even rise to the status of superpower later, even continuing until the 21st century.
Why shouldn't it be common? The second nation to industrialise after Britain was Belgium, and any Napoleonic victory will see Belgium be part of France. Most likely France also has the resources of the Rhineland too.

There's also the fact that lots of monarchs were tipped out and replaced by other Bonapartes, so at least until the first post-Napoleon war France is certain to exert a substantial amount of control over many of its neighbours. OTL Germany, Italy and France were 3 of the 6 strongest powers in Europe during WWI, and combining them into effectively one state would just amplify this fact. I know that 1914 isn't the same as 1814, but it isn't too drastically different either.

In some ways, the imagined history of Europe and France seems often almost stagnant compared what we actually experienced.
Between 1815 and 1860 or so, European history was pretty stagnant, with the exception of a couple of outbreaks of revolutions, most notably 1848. If Napoleonic France is still strongarming its neighbours to have loyal governments, then the revolutions most likely become either very localised affairs (as my TL's German Revolutions c. 1840) or don't rise at all. Revolutions only tend to occur in periods when 1) the government is seen as decadent/corrupt/the leader is an idiot and 2) a viable alternative is seen, whether it be another ruler or a totally different government type. The former is certainly possible (at least in idiot leader form) in any TL, so I won't address that further. However the latter is harder to achieve. For example, take a nation like Prussia:

- Replace the king with someone that doesn't like Napoleon? France will probably just invade and stick the old guy back in.
- Replace the monarchy with a republic? In a Napoleon TL, there isn't a proven history of republics being successful in big countries, with only the USA as an example. If the USA is weaker in the ATL, that isn't seen as a good idea.
- Replace with a new ideology? Possible, but new ideologies don't spawn all that frequently, and if it gets discredited then that option's gone too.

Firstly, how likely is that the French Empire would avoid upheavels in any way comparable to those that its OTL counterpart did?
Honestly, a French Empire in the 1820s will be more stable simply due to Napoleon himself. If he wins the wars for good, especially with a PoD past 1809, he is seen as basically a living god by the people of France. No-one is going to question him any more. Note that between the time of the Munich Pact and late 1941, very few people questioned Hitler. This was simply because he was successful. Even when the decisions he made were pretty stupid (notably the Blitz), there were few objections even considered. Why? Because he was winning, and no-one wants to go against someone who is regularly seen as a winner. Napoleon post 1812 will be this but x10.

Simply put, how likely is it that the French Empire would still exist in 2017, instead of some alternative Third French Republic?
2017 is too far forward to comment with any real basis of meaning, because each TL will have its own history by that point. By a more reasonable date, say 1850, Napoleonic France's chances are pretty good if its leaders (not just the Bonapartes, but generals, industrialists, imperial advisors &c) are at least semi-competent. The state was basically a superpower by 1812, and there's no inherent reason why that can't continue to be the case for at least a little while. If they do get plagued with a moronic leader or a stack of bad luck (and any good TL should see the majority of countries hit with periods of bad luck, although they also need good luck from time to time too), then it is equally reasonable that they fall.

Secondly, how likely it is that France would be still a leading power in Europe or the world by the 21st century? OTL history did show fluctuations in nations' fortunes during last centuries. Would France's territorial extent still be similar to that it had in 1812, or is it possible it could lose some of it?
Depends on the definition of "borders of 1812", but the short answer is that they will probably lose some of it. If we're talking about the system of puppet states (or as it becomes known in my TL, "the Alliance"), then that will eventually fall for one reason or another, whether it be war, monarchs hating each other, revolutions or whatever. No alliance ever lasts for two centuries uninterrupted.

If we ignore Illyria and Rome for a moment, France could probably hold on to the rest of its lands if there doesn't develop some huge revanchist movement (my TL is notable for its revanchism!). The Rhine border, the Netherlands and Catalonia were all close enough to Paris to be effectively governed and the people were culturally similar enough to integrate after a generation or two.

I have noticed that there often seems to exists this idea of relatively stable European/French political system following Napoleon's victory.

Haha. I wouldn't call my work "stable" (at least for the 19th century anyway). Just curious, have you read my TL?

Beyond what you have asked for, I feel the following two points need to be considered in relation to how much the success of a Napoleonic system would be:
  • PoD: A war ending in 1805/6 will mean a more localised France than one that ends in 1812/3. Note that a PoD in 1805 but with similar Napoleonic victories until 1812 will mean that you get a more 1812-PoD world than if everyone just stopped fighting after Austerlitz or Tilsit.
  • The outcome of whatever war happens in the 1830s or so, or even whether one happens at all. If Napoleon dies and his son beats Europe, France is assured success for a good half-century or more. If he loses, France might retain some influence over Germany and/or Italy, but to nowhere near the extent that France did in OTL 1810.
- BNC
 
Honestly, a French Empire in the 1820s will be more stable simply due to Napoleon himself. If he wins the wars for good, especially with a PoD past 1809, he is seen as basically a living god by the people of France. No-one is going to question him any more.
In October 1812, no one challenged Malet coup in the name of Napoleon II and Regency of either Empress or Joseph. Nor did regency of Empress Marie receive a warm reception in March 1814.

If Napoleon I dies of his stomach cancer, natural causes after all rather than poisoning, on schedule in May 1821 as peaceful and stable ruler, Napoleon II will still be 10. Will the regency be popular, strong and stable?
 
In October 1812, no one challenged Malet coup in the name of Napoleon II and Regency of either Empress or Joseph. Nor did regency of Empress Marie receive a warm reception in March 1814.

If Napoleon I dies of his stomach cancer, natural causes after all rather than poisoning, on schedule in May 1821 as peaceful and stable ruler, Napoleon II will still be 10. Will the regency be popular, strong and stable?

A regency in 1821 probably would still be accepted, because Napoleon would have spent the years from somewhere between 1810-16 and 1821 consolidating and improving the Empire. France had a tradition of stable and unchallenged successions that was only interrupted by the Revolution (when conditions were notably bad for the people), and in times when the situation is good there is no reason to work against this. The most obvious alternative to the Bonapartes, after all, is the Bourbons, and how welcome will they be if the Bonapartes have been successful?

However, it is still reasonable for Nappy II to be toppled in a coup, and there is nothing wrong with a TL doing this, but I don't think it is as likely.

- BNC
 
A regency in 1821 probably would still be accepted, because Napoleon would have spent the years from somewhere between 1810-16 and 1821 consolidating and improving the Empire. France had a tradition of stable and unchallenged successions that was only interrupted by the Revolution (when conditions were notably bad for the people), and in times when the situation is good there is no reason to work against this. The most obvious alternative to the Bonapartes, after all, is the Bourbons, and how welcome will they be if the Bonapartes have been successful?

However, it is still reasonable for Nappy II to be toppled in a coup, and there is nothing wrong with a TL doing this, but I don't think it is as likely.

- BNC

Every succession to a minor king in France caused trouble. 1715 was the more stable one, but it included some conspiracies (Cellamare and Pontcallec) and even a full blown war (Quadruple Alliance). Granted, it was better than the civil war of the 1640', the plotting of the 1610' and the bloodbath of the 1560', but it certainly did not make a tradition of stability.

On the topic, I agree with you : with a victorious Napoléon Ist, a 1821 regency could very well succeed with nothing more than court intrigues. Even if Joseph is King of Spain at the time, he would not go to war over the regency.
 
The most obvious alternative to the Bonapartes, after all, is the Bourbons, and how welcome will they be if the Bonapartes have been successful?

However, it is still reasonable for Nappy II to be toppled in a coup, and there is nothing wrong with a TL doing this, but I don't think it is as likely.
Napoleon II is a boy of 10 in 1821.
Marie-Louise is a woman, and Austrian. Joseph is not as competent as Napoleon I was, and is King of Spain (and the heir presumptive). And the third option would be a high ranking but out-of-family statesman.
Grand Dignitaries were:
  1. Archchancellor of Empire Cambaceres - d 1824
  2. Archchancellor of State Eugene Beauharnais - d 1824
  3. Archtreasurer Lebrun - d 1824
  4. (Grand Elector Joseph Bonaparte, heir and King of Spain)
  5. Constable Louis Bonaparte - d 1846, exile in Austria
  6. (Grand Admiral Murat, King of Naples - d OTL violently)
  7. Grand Almoner Fesch - d 1839
  8. Vice-Grand Elector Talleyrand - d 1838
  9. Vice-Grand Constable Berthier - d OTL violently
So... its´ 1821, the 10 year old Napoleon II is the Emperor, and you don´t like Marie-Louise... a woman, an Austrian and has screwed up ruling. You are plotting coup, not to remove the 10 year old Napoleon II (he can be a figurehead for 7 more years) but to get a new Regent.
Who´d you plot for?
Also: you are not privy to future death dates.
I note 3 death dates in 1824. Cambaceres, Beauharnais and Lebrun. Were these prolonged illnesses? Would a plotter in 1821 have known to discount them?
 
While I'm not an expert on Bonapartism, I doubt that it is a long term sustainable form of government.
You need military adventures and victories to gain legitimacy. (Since your dynasty is young and can't use tradition well enough).
In the short or long term you will either face a defeat or have no opponents left.
At the same time, military adventures could cost a lot of resources, money and lives. In the long term, your regime could suffer from financial problems.

Your regime could fail to solve the social problems and face revolutionaries or reactionaries.
 
Bonapartism is just Caesarism legitimized by the historical passions and pretensions of the French Revolutionary era. Napoleon was a good general who happened to have grand designs and some able statecraft and crowned himself king. He also just happened to live in the onset of the modern era. "Empire built by invincible non-ideological emperor" is not much different from Alexander the Great or Genghis Khan, the same answers you have for Bonaparte hold the same as them.
 
The Continental System in OTL bit France's satellite states quite a bit economically, so I don't see how the Germans, Italians, and the Dutch would prefer French European hedgemony over the 1710s Hapsburg one. We already discussed under "Smithian Napoleon" than while there isn't a general concnsus of the best system (free trade? Lots of tariffs? Tariffs on key goods? State owned industry?), a lot of people seemed to agree with me that a high general tariff with internally liaize-faire policy was almost certainly going to be better for France's satellite states and France herself than "Stop ALL trade with Britain and isolate her." OTL system not only would led to economic decline on a local scale with resentment of the policy, but spent a disastrous amount of money trying to enforce
 
While I'm not an expert on Bonapartism, I doubt that it is a long term sustainable form of government.
You need military adventures and victories to gain legitimacy. (Since your dynasty is young and can't use tradition well enough).
In the short or long term you will either face a defeat or have no opponents left.
At the same time, military adventures could cost a lot of resources, money and lives. In the long term, your regime could suffer from financial problems.

Your regime could fail to solve the social problems and face revolutionaries or reactionaries.

Makes me wonder how Prussia survived so long, since it's basically the poster boy of a successful militaristic state. :p
 
Makes me wonder how Prussia survived so long, since it's basically the poster boy of a successful militaristic state. :p
The Prussian state was led by a traditional monarchy that never lacked for legitimacy. It's not comparable to the regimes in post-Revolutionary France.
 
Makes me wonder how Prussia survived so long, since it's basically the poster boy of a successful militaristic state. :p

My post was about Bonapartist Regimes which often need military adventures to increase their legitimacy.
Bonapartism is probably a form of militarism. Other forms of militarism certainly exist.

As HunterX stated previously Prussia is a traditional monarchy.
While they gained the title of king only in 1701, their dynasty was one of the old German dynasties going back to the Middle Ages.

If we look in detail at the Prussian Army, we see not only the successes under Frederick the Great and in the 1860ies but also their defeats against Napoleon and a relatively weak army in the 1840ies and 1850ies.
 
The monarchy will have to reform itself as nationalism and liberalism grow. Of course, Napoleon and his advisors weren’t the reactionary idiots the Metternich-era monarchs were, and Napoleon was hardly anti-nationalist, so it should be easier for them.
 
The monarchy will have to reform itself as nationalism and liberalism grow. Of course, Napoleon and his advisors weren’t the reactionary idiots the Metternich-era monarchs were, and Napoleon was hardly anti-nationalist, so it should be easier for them.

Napoleon I wasn't.
But Marie Louise, Regent 1821...1829, IS Metternich era.

Could you have actually Metternich as Prime Minister of France? Regent Marie Louise inviting an advisor she can know and trust?
 
Napoleon I wasn't.
But Marie Louise, Regent 1821...1829, IS Metternich era.

Could you have actually Metternich as Prime Minister of France? Regent Marie Louise inviting an advisor she can know and trust?

Marie Louise was regent but with a Regency Council looking over her soulder. No way they agreed to have an Austrian - and especially Metternich - as PM. Remember Talleyrand was a member of the Regency council...
 
Top