In a scenario where Napoleon dies during his failed Egyptian campaign (let's say he dies from a stray bullet or something along those lines), what would the impact be on France and the French Revolutionary Wars? How does France develop without Napoleon's coup? Does the Directory limp on? Or would an alt-18 Brumaire Coup install a military dictator who opts to rule France through a "republican dictatorship", maintaining the pretense of the French Republic as opposed to proclaiming a French Empire like Napoleon IOTL? Or would we still see a French Empire, albeit with a different Emperor?
Impact of Napoleon dying in Egypt
- Thread starter Whiteshore
- Start date
The obvious things:
1. The war keeps limping on. There is no Republican general capable of achieving the crushing strategic victory Napoleonic style. If Moreau is reconciled with the Directorate, there is success in Germany (equivalent of Hohenlinden) but in Italy the French chances are no good: at best Massena is not forced to capitulate and there are some small successes but the chance of recapturing it is very low. Stalemate and general exhaustion would result in some kind of a peace with the lesser French gains.
2. Directorate survives for a while, even all the way to the peace but it faces two major problems: what to do with a country and what to do with an army. Economy is in a lousy shape and the Directorate is generally unpopular, except the among a small group of the speculators. Army intensively dislikes the Directorate because it keeps the troops neglected: they are routinely left without the clothes, without the ammunition, food and salary. They are generally loyal to the Republic but when the peace is achieved a big portion of them are without money and chances of employment.
3. #2 means that there are good chances for the coup either during the war or after the peace is concluded. Potential “who is who” in such a coup had been discussed on many occasions. It seems that there are 2 main scenarios:
(a) Some political figure (Sieyes, Barry’s, somebody else) becomes a de facto leader while a military figure is a honorary head of the state with no real power. The obvious problem is that none of the French politicians of that period was much more than a more or less skillful manipulator with no demonstrated administrative/governmental talent. For how long such a figure would be tolerated is an open question and the same goes for the question of how long would it take even not too smart general to figure out that he may be a real ruler and not just a nicely uniformed clown.
(b) Purely military coup with or without a political backing:
(b.1) General with the brains takes power in more or less OTL fashion disappointing his political backer(s). The main problem is that in an absence of Bonaparte this list is very short and the only “item” on that list tends to minimize the risk for himself. Which does not mean that eventually he would not stage a coup. In an absence of extraordinary military genius, this dictator may prove to be an easier acceptable option for the rest of Europe and as a result there could be a lasting peace.
(b.2) The coup is conducted by general with no brains. List of the candidates is long, pretty much any general of a high rank who is popular among the troops. Moreau is probably out because he sincerely disliked the politics and just wanted enjoying life in his estate. Of course, the most exotic figure is general Dumas (providing he is not captured on its way from Egypt). He may also fit scenario (a). Amount of the resulting mess is impossible to predict and France may see a sequence of the military coups.
4. The title of a leader is rather irrelevant. Paul I considered the 1st Consul as “king in everything by name” while becoming an emperor did not help Napoleon to make a peace.
Yes. Jourdan also could be an option but he was beaten too many times. To think about it, taking into an account Bernadotte’s close relations with Bonaparte family, at least some of his political backers would not necessarily expect the leading roles and are not going to be disappointed. People like Taleirand and Fouche did not expect to get on the very top and would preserve their existing positions.
Last edited:
Dumas was extremely brave and popular among the troops (and the women, which should not be discounted as a factor
) but IMO he would be in 3.b.2 category because, judging by his record, he was too naive and honest to be “general with the brains”. As I mentioned more than once, he made in at least one alt.history book as a military ruler of France. 
I did a whole timeline where Joubert (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Barthélemy_Catherine_Joubert) rises instead
Well, the long-term legacy of such a ruler might be affected if he stuck to a republican dictatorship as opposed to crowning himself Emperor, but I see your point.
Formally, the whole thing with the imperial title was supposed to provide some type of a guarantee of “law and order” in the case the next assassination attempt will succeed. Of course, taking into an account that Nappy still did not have a son this probably assumed some kind of an adoption or designated successor as opposite to risk a new ...er... “democratic process” with an unclear outcome that may negatively impact country’s stability. So, for the people who just passed through the revolutionary times and had been fed up with instability this should look reasonable. However there was, of course, a negative reaction as well “the ceremony (coronation) would be even better if we could bring back to life the people who died to make it impossible”.
Of course, as you said, a “republican dictatorship” (isn’t this a mutually contradicting definition if taken literally?
but your idea is clear) was an option and Nappy was playing it for a while but, as I said, the arrangement was seemingly making regime more vulnerable. This option potentially may result in a number of interesting timelines all the way to the “presidential dynasty” as was the case in Paraguay and some other places: an official “father of the nation” could transfer power to his son or to whoever he chooses without bothering with the elections.Outside, as I said, this would be a matter of expediency: foreign countries could make a peace with a president or a consul and could keep fighting with an emperor.
Last edited:
But we are assuming that only Nappy is dead. In OTL Joubert was killed in 1799 and him not being killed means serious changes. Besides, without Italy being lost, enthusiasm for a regime change may be much lower. Of course, if still alive (and preferably not defeated), he may be a feasible figure.
Reading the thread to the above "what if Napoleon dies during the Egyptian Campaign", I was surprised no one suggested General Jean-Baptiste Kléber as the likely successor of Bonaparte in Egypt and take the consequent unfolding of French history from there. Kléber was a staunch Republican and there was no love lost between him and the Directors in Paris, nor between him and Bonaparte at the time the latter left his Armée de l'Orient in the lurch and absconded back to France. In fact, when Bonaparte skipped the country in the dead of night without warning anyone, he left instructions for Kléber to take the command. Kléber had seen it coming all along, and cursed himself for not having stopped Bonaparte and predicted Napoleon's coup d'état of 18 Brumaire.
Kléber was loved and highly esteemed by the expedition's army AND by the large group of savants/scientists who had followed Bonaparte into Egypt, and his military prowess certainly matched that of Bonaparte (remember the battle of Heliopolis). As General-in-chief of the abandoned army, he did all he could to negotiate an honourable peace treaty with the British and the Ottoman so he could return to France with that army ... and there we go ... "what if Kléber had not been assassinated in Cairo and returned to France to fight the one he considered a new despot ruining the Republic?"
Well, Kleber was everything you said and in OTL he took command after Bonaparte. But he was killed so there is no reason for the future speculations in that direction. If you wish to eliminate his assassination, then the field for the speculations is widely open. Kleber offered the terms of the French evacuation on the Ottoman ships to the modified version of which the Ottomans agreed and the British government eventually agreed as well. Unfortunately, by that time Kleber was killed and Menou repudiated convention and decided to stay in Egypt. So if Kleber is alive the French troops are taken by the Ottomans to France and he has an army in his disposal on the French soil (probably in Toulon or Marseilles). AFAIK, he does not gave a powerful political clique to back him up. The options:
1. He is called to Paris to be put on trial for abandoning Egypt without an order (Menou and probably few others would testify how well the things were going by the time of evacuation). He may be acquitted and even given some command but the moment is lost.
2. He is marching on Paris with his troops. Unlikely. He is declared to be a rebel and most probably abandoned by his troops and either fleeing France or executed.
3. He arrives to Paris and getting a hero welcome but he is alone (OK, with a possible exception of Jourdan who is a member of Council of 500). Greetings, congratulations, a banquet and appointment to an army command. The most reasonable thing would be to use his troops for a new campaign in Italy where all previous conquests had been just lost.
4. #3 but some of the politicians in Paris wants to use him as a tool for the political coup. With his troops being far away and his general popularity being quite obscure he would need a military appointment in Paris (meaning that the puppeteer is one of the leading figures in Directorate). The coup is successful and he finds out that all his republican principles mean little but can do nothing. If this is Sieyes plan, he ends up as a Grand-Electeur.
Last edited:
Thanks Alex, all options a possibility, but I'm not quite clear on whether your premise has Bonaparte alive and in power as First Consul when Kléber returns, or whether he's dead and burried in Egypt?
If Bonaparte is in power, then the above scenarios can tally, except for #2 - It is unlikely Kléber's troops would abandon him entirely as the majority of them still hold a grudge against Bonaparte for abandoning them (desertion in the face of the enemy, plain and simple, in the minds of most, with the exception of some die-hard Bonapartists like Menou). The Klébertist faction was quite strong. He would certainly make the case of Bonaparte's desertion with his fellow generals and members of the political class that are republican-minded and I expect more than just Jourdan would rally to him. Also, Kléber, considering his experience in the Vendée wars, is unlikely to march on Paris. He sure learnt a thing or two about civil and guerilla warfare, experience lacking on Bonaparte's curriculum I believe ... Can we consider another civil war as a scenario?
If Bonaparte's bones are bleaching in the desert sun, then I believe Kléber would have even more of a chance of rallying Republicans around him upon his return (don't underestimate his connections in republican and masonic circles). As he states clearly in his personal notes written in Egypt, his ultimate ideal is to install a presidential democracy, styled on America, his ideal statesman being George Washington. In fact, Kléber only came out of retirement to join the Egyptian Expedition to "check Bonaparte's metal" and see if he would be the hoped for French Washington. Big disappointment ... so, if not Bonaparte, who could've been the French Washington Kléber and his fellow republicans could've championed?
If Bonaparte is in power, then the above scenarios can tally, except for #2 - It is unlikely Kléber's troops would abandon him entirely as the majority of them still hold a grudge against Bonaparte for abandoning them (desertion in the face of the enemy, plain and simple, in the minds of most, with the exception of some die-hard Bonapartists like Menou). The Klébertist faction was quite strong. He would certainly make the case of Bonaparte's desertion with his fellow generals and members of the political class that are republican-minded and I expect more than just Jourdan would rally to him. Also, Kléber, considering his experience in the Vendée wars, is unlikely to march on Paris. He sure learnt a thing or two about civil and guerilla warfare, experience lacking on Bonaparte's curriculum I believe ... Can we consider another civil war as a scenario?
If Bonaparte's bones are bleaching in the desert sun, then I believe Kléber would have even more of a chance of rallying Republicans around him upon his return (don't underestimate his connections in republican and masonic circles). As he states clearly in his personal notes written in Egypt, his ultimate ideal is to install a presidential democracy, styled on America, his ideal statesman being George Washington. In fact, Kléber only came out of retirement to join the Egyptian Expedition to "check Bonaparte's metal" and see if he would be the hoped for French Washington. Big disappointment ... so, if not Bonaparte, who could've been the French Washington Kléber and his fellow republicans could've championed?
OP explicitly declares Bonaparte dead so him fleeing from Egypt is not an option.
As for Kleber, I’m afraid that you are exaggerated his abilities and political clout. He was a brave and capable General but mostly in the subordinated roles and did not have anything close to the reputation Bonaparte got after his 1st Italian campaign. Neither did he have an equal political backup or skills. After 18 Fructidore he was lucky to avoid being sent or Cayenne. He may have some popularity among the “true republicans” (so did another Jean-Baptiste but he did not risk the coup) but who were they in the government? Talliene lost his political power and was in Egypt trying to look important without too much of a success. Kleber was popular among the soldiers and officers because he was a brave and nice person but this was pretty much it. In the popularity of that type he was not alone. So was general Dumas and many others. His attempt of a coup would be a purely military exercise and I would not bet on it.
Bonaparte had support within the Directorate itself, was supported by Taleirand and his brother, Lucien, was a prominent figure in Council of 500 and Joseph was in Council of Ancients. The family relations neutralized Bernadotte and he also got support from Moreau who at least considered him as an equal. Fouche sided with him because he saw the winning case. From the start of his career Bonaparte was cultivating the politicians who in his opinion could be useful (starting with Robespierre Jr.) and took care of guaranteeing loyalty of his subordinates by the promotions and financial “stimulation”. His coup was almost completely a political affair with the minimal show of a muscle (needed to compensate for his lousy performance in Council of 500).
Bonaparte’s propaganda in France was straightforward: he conquered Italy and Egypt and in his absence Italy was lost and the French armies defeated. He left Egypt under control and sailed to France to save the country. There was a record to reference to and to stir up a popular opinion.
Now, what would be Kleber’s claim? That as soon as victorious Bonaparte died he abandoned the conquered Egypt and evacuated to France? To do what? To reconquer the lost Italy? Who would believe in his ability to accomplish this based upon his earlier record? He wants to turn France into the second US? Why would this idea get support? France was different from the US even if because it was surrounded by the numerous enemies and at war. The people wanted victories and a resulting peace and Kleber was demonstrably good only when he was getting into the difficult situations and, anyway, his record was not impressive enough.
Bonaparte demonstrated at least some administrative and diplomatic skills in Italy (and sent considerable amounts of money to France) and established a seemingly (from a distance) good administration of Egypt. Kleber when in charge created numerous local enemies by extracting contributions, introducing the new taxes (tax on the harems was a really stupid idea and taxing Copts deteriorated support base even further).
To make a long story short and even leaving aside the fact that Bonaparte was a genius and Kleber was not (as a general he was not in on Moreau level and as a politician and administrator he was close to zero), Bonaparte was in a seriously different league militarily and politically and what he pulled through would most probably fail with a lesser figure. Which was obvious to the “lesser figure” with the good political brain, Bernadotte.
Last edited: