HRE Emperor Leopold II doesn't die in 1792?

I'm currently reading through Danubia, and it makes the claim that Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor and Archduke of Austria between 1790 and 1792, was the last truly shrewd and capable statesman of the Hapsburg emperors. It would be his mysterious death at 44 that would drop the responsibility of ruling Austria through the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars on the lap of his comparative dullard of a son, Francis I(II).

Leopold had much more time to rule the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. While not a master of spectacle, he proved to be an intelligence administrator and reformer who opened the duchy up to industry, banned capital punishment, advanced treatment of the insane, and even might have introduced some form of constitution if he had the time.

So, assuming his death was just a random accident by incompetent doctors, what would the effects be if Leopold II was to spend, say, twenty years on the Hapsburg throne, rather than a mere two? Would France have been crushed more quickly, or would Napoleon take a harsher line on an Austria headed by a more competent emperor?
 
I'm currently reading through Danubia, and it makes the claim that Leopold II, Holy Roman Emperor and Archduke of Austria between 1790 and 1792, was the last truly shrewd and capable statesman of the Hapsburg emperors. It would be his mysterious death at 44 that would drop the responsibility of ruling Austria through the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars on the lap of his comparative dullard of a son, Francis I(II).

Leopold had much more time to rule the Grand Duchy of Tuscany. While not a master of spectacle, he proved to be an intelligence administrator and reformer who opened the duchy up to industry, banned capital punishment, advanced treatment of the insane, and even might have introduced some form of constitution if he had the time.

So, assuming his death was just a random accident by incompetent doctors, what would the effects be if Leopold II was to spend, say, twenty years on the Hapsburg throne, rather than a mere two? Would France have been crushed more quickly, or would Napoleon take a harsher line on an Austria headed by a more competent emperor?

Sorry for the delayed reply. I'm not sure what killed Leopold OTL (I looked for my TL, but couldn't seem to find anything beyond it was unexpected).

Firstly, his son wasn't a dullard - in fact, I regard him as one of the better sovereigns post-Napoléon (at least compared to Charles X and Friedrich Wilhelm III). Secondly, AFAIK, Leopold did have the constitution basically ready to sign when he got summoned to Vienna with the news that his brother was dead (or at least that's what I gleaned from reading the Italian wiki article on him). I'm not sure if 20 years is a reasonable estimate - Maria Karoline was the only one of Maria Theresia's kids who made it to the 1810s, the rest were dropping like flies in the early 1800s - but at least him living past 1800 would change a couple things.

Topmost in my mind, is that Marie Antoinette might be saved. Franz II/I didn't know his aunt, he'd never met her, so it was no loss to him when the revolution consigned her to the scaffold. Leopold had a shared childhood with her, and even if his "heart was made of brains", he was, IIRC from Fraser's Marie Antoinette: the Journey and Nagel's bio on Antoinette's daughter, actually involved in negotiations with the French government to have Antoinette sent back to Austria. However, he wasn't willing to go to war for his sister, since the Declaration of Pillnitz was sort of as a sop to the emigres who were trying to bully him into warring with France to set the clock back to pre-1789.

The Declaration of Pillnitz with the king of Prussia (who is the epitome of an incompetent politician in my mind), which led to war with France (even though it dealt with the east - Poland and Turkey - rather than the Rhine), but he'd got the monarchs of Europe to sort of unite demanding that Louis XVI be released in the Padua Circular a year before.
 
Top