How would Joseph Bonaparte rule France & would the Allies let him?

If this becomes a TL, what way should Europe go?

  • Minimal butterflies, don't kill Nappy, focus on America

    Votes: 4 17.4%
  • Napoleon's death in 1809 but British keep fighting w/Joseph as Emperor

    Votes: 13 56.5%
  • Napoleon's death in 1809 but British would make peace, let him fight it out in Iberia

    Votes: 6 26.1%

  • Total voters
    23
As noted, I'm now too busy to start this "Jefferson in '96" TL I've passed through my head (with 10 parts or so). However, i had a question because if I do get started (after some suddenly very confused cases & some other work someone's asked me to do), I had one of 2 roads down which I could take Europe.

One is with minimal butterflies to about 1811 except for Denmark-Norway being in the Coalition (well, and delay putting Wellington in Venezuela for a time as Nappy is jsut getting into Iberia, which causes the British to be forced out, but that's another story), with Napoleon possibly invading Russia early (and Jutland giving him as many fits as Iberia does with British presence up there.)

The second is more far-reaching. Napoleon was "shot" in the ankle in early '09, though "hit with a nearly spent round" is more like it. However, with his troops not having much time to rest after coming from Spain, since that coems a bit later, the shot injures him, and it's fatal after a couple days.

So, a vote for now would be helpful as to whcih people woudl like, but also, a question. Obviously, the British hated Napoleon, as did every one of his enemies. Yet, with him dead but the army retreating in good order - or even taking Vienna upon his instructions - would the British be more willing to seek an armistice?

I suppose part of this would deal with whether Joseph keeps the Continental System. If he promises to abandon it, maybe - but I don't see him abandoning Spain. So, perhaps the British are still going to remain at war with him; but would anyone ally with him?

Or, maybe this isn't the best route. Jefferson in '96, as some posted on another thread or two, means Adams might just convince Congress to outlaw slavery in the Loisana Territory - and that in itself would have *major* raminfications

I won't have time or resources, even when i get back, to do a *really* in depth TL. Of course, just becasue I try a "Napoleon dies in battle" TL doesn't mean others can't as well.

Now that I say this, I might never have the time, in which case, as I've said, anyone is willing to take the 8-10 sections I've written and run with it in either direction. I just don't like the idea of posting them and letting them sit - I like to be able to concentrate on somethign and then stick to it still I'm done. Which, with my busy life, means it might not happen.

Also, I don't even know what I'd call it if I did do it. I know even if i start it, I'll rely on others' input, especially with Europe.
 
How long does Joseph remain Emperor if Napoleon dies?

Napoleon's power rested on his military prowess, which afaik Joseph didn't share. I'd measure his reign in months, until some other successful General or Marshal emerges.
 
Joseph is competent without being impressive in military matters. And he knows that. If there are further wars to be fought, he'll delegate to Marshals rather than attempt to dictate strategy personally. Might have to use Davout more, since the risk of a coup from Massena is not zero. However, he's appealing to patient marshals because he has two daughters and no sons - why risk a coup if you can put your son on the throne without firing a shot? (I'm aware Salic Law doesn't work like that, but Joseph will be trying very hard to abandon Salic Law, and I suspect he'll succeed).

I'm confident there will be another peace. Unlike his brother, Joseph would rather sit on what he has than go a-conquering, and many people in Parliament will believe (probably correctly) that the problem was the man, not the institution of the French Empire. He'll have to pull out of Portugal and perhaps pay a modest indemnity, and he'll do that, and abandon the Continental System.

I expect he'll put Lucien in charge in Spain. I expect bungling. You're correct in that pulling out of Spain would be seen as too much for France to swallow, but the end of the Continental System is the real objective; Britain will let Spain twist if it gets that.
 
I expect he'll put Lucien in charge in Spain. I expect bungling. You're correct in that pulling out of Spain would be seen as too much for France to swallow, but the end of the Continental System is the real objective; Britain will let Spain twist if it gets that.


Britain and France were at war long before the Continental System was instituted. And if the PoD is 1809, Prussia and Austria at least will jump in to regain their losses of 1805/6, so Britain has plenty of Allies. So no urgent need to make peace, especially if the French insist on keeping Belgium.
 
Dang, I misread the subject & propositions when I choosed "Napoleon's death in 1809 but British Keep fighting with Joseph as Emperor"... If properly read, I would probably have chosen "Minimal butterflies, Don't kill Napoleon, keep focusing on America". I thought it was talking about what would happen, not what you wish to do...

In my eyes, the British wouldn't really bother on the question of who's Emperor, be it Joseph or Napoleon: the French Empire is the dominating power of the continent and controls the Netherlands (Louis Bonaparte rules the puppet Kingdom of Holland while the Empire itself includes "Belgium"), thus Anvers which is "a gun pointed at England's heart" in the eyes of many British. Plus, the French Empire is seen as the heir of the French Revolution, and it was fairly unpopular outside of Europe. So, my guess is the British would keep fighting a French Empire ruled by Joseph.

As for Joseph's personnal rule... Well, I'm not sure he would manage to keep his throne. Joseph isn't an incompetent in terms of Politics, but he is a poor military commander (he showed that in Spain) and lacks Napoleon's charisma. I don't think the Empire could hold with him as Emperor. I'm very partial though: in my eyes, most of Napoleon's brotherhood, while being competent, were parasites who took advantages of their brothers' successes and abandon him after his fall. This judgement doesn't fall on Louis, who was a competent King of Holland but made his deals away from his brother, Lucien, who was a die-hard Republican and refused his brother had become Emperor, and Pauline, who though she didn't play a large role remained loyal to her brother until the bitter end.

Shawn Endresen said:
I expect he'll put Lucien in charge in Spain.

I don't think he could: by 1809, it seems to me that Lucien had fled the continent and had end up as a prisonner of the British... The British would probably wish for nothing but a Bourbon Restoration in Spain anyway.
 
Joseph is competent without being impressive in military matters. And he knows that. If there are further wars to be fought, he'll delegate to Marshals rather than attempt to dictate strategy personally. Might have to use Davout more, since the risk of a coup from Massena is not zero. However, he's appealing to patient marshals because he has two daughters and no sons - why risk a coup if you can put your son on the throne without firing a shot? (I'm aware Salic Law doesn't work like that, but Joseph will be trying very hard to abandon Salic Law, and I suspect he'll succeed).


Trouble is, they might have a very long wait. All of Napoleon's brothers lived into the 1840s, save Jerome who lasted till 1860. While the Marshals cannot know this in advance, they have no reason to expect Joseph to snuff it (unless with official assistance <g>) any time soon.

So why wait? After all, as Napoleon himself demonstrated on 18 Brumaire (and iirc there had already been several precedents under the Republic) France belonged to whoever got his coup in first. To delay was simply to give some rival a chance. It might have been different had Joseph been a great military name in his own right, but he was not. Napoleon had appointed him King of Spain as he might have appointed him Prefect of a department, and with Napoleon gone he would (if he was lucky) revert to being a private citizen, along with the rest of the family.

Could I recommend Guido Artom Napoleon Is Dead In Russia, which recounts the course of General Malet's attempted coup in 1812, using a false report of the Emperor's death. As Artom notes, some people believed the report, others did not, but they were unanimous in totally ignoring the Empire's own rules of succession. The Empress-Regent, the King of Rome and Napoleon's brothers were all completely disregarded, Marie Louise not even being informed until it was all over. Is there any reason to think it would have been any different in 1809, or indeed any other year, had Napoleon really died?


I'm confident there will be another peace.

What duration have you in mind? Another Amiens-style truce is conceivable, but if the French still hold Antwerp, that "pistol pointed at the heart of England", is it likely to be anything more?
 
Last edited:
Could I recommend Guido Artom Napoleon Is Dead In Russia, which recounts the course of General Malet's attempted coup in 1812, using a false report of the Emperor's death. As Artom notes, some people believed the report, others did not, but they were unanimous in totally ignoring the Empire's own rules of succession. The Empress-Regent, the King of Rome and Napoleon's brothers were all completely disregarded, Marie Louise not even being informed until it was all over. Is there any reason to think it would have been any different in 1809, or indeed any other year, had Napoleon really died?




What duration have you in mind? Another Amiens-style truce is conceivable, but if the French still hold Antwerp, that "pistol pointed at the heart of England", is it likely to be anything more?

I've read a fair bit on the Malet coup; the point is well taken, but the earlier Nappy snuffs it, the more likely legal forms will be observed. By 1812, his own Marshals were beginning to understand that he was picking fights he didn't need and making France pay too high a price. Not quite so much in 1809.

Your second point is also valid - but holds only so long as Louis is dancing to Joseph's tune. Joseph does not have Napoleon's charisma or his self-absorption, and we're already positing an end to the Continental System. Throw in an Utrecht-like clause which says the crowns of Holland and France cannot be in personal union, let Louis set his own trade policy, and soon enough Holland will be independent in every meaningful way. The British may intend a short-term armistice but find Louis agreeable enough that they never get around to renewing hostilities.
 
I've read a fair bit on the Malet coup; the point is well taken, but the earlier Nappy snuffs it, the more likely legal forms will be observed. By 1812, his own Marshals were beginning to understand that he was picking fights he didn't need and making France pay too high a price. Not quite so much in 1809.

Not sure what you mean by "legal forms". The whole point of 19C French history is that there was no consensus as to what regime was legal or "constitutional". The Third Republic eventually just about achieved one, but it took quite a long time and was always shaky even then. Previously there had been a regime change roughly every twenty years - and Napoleon's Empire, totally dependent on the military prowess of one man, was about the least likely to break this pattern.


Your second point is also valid - but holds only so long as Louis is dancing to Joseph's tune. Joseph does not have Napoleon's charisma or his self-absorption, and we're already positing an end to the Continental System. Throw in an Utrecht-like clause which says the crowns of Holland and France cannot be in personal union, let Louis set his own trade policy, and soon enough Holland will be independent in every meaningful way. The British may intend a short-term armistice but find Louis agreeable enough that they never get around to renewing hostilities.

Was Antwerp part of Louis' kingdom of Holland? I hadn't thought so.
 
Wow, that 1812 coup, or near coup, was really something.

Given how complex this could be, I think the only recourse is to come up with 2 timelines, as minimal butterflies might be easiest for the Jefferson in '96 one. napoleon's death in battle deserves its own timeline. Becasue, I can see there being a *lot* of chaos and confusion.

Although, I might have a TL that has some differences and then leads to his death. I also read where there was an assassain who nearly got at him in Vienna in 1809.

Thanks for the discussion, y'all. I'm so used to stability in the U.S. it's unusual to imagine a situation like France; I didn't realize even the Third Republic was shaky for so long! History is fascinating.
 
Top