Imperator Francorum: A Napoleon II Timeline

[Everdarklegion]

Keep up the good work my friend. This has got to be among the better writen TLs here. Looking forward to seeing what happens next.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

How do you imagine the central government to function in this scenario of "Neo-Absolutist Austria", I may ask?

I haven't fully worked out all the details yet, but I could see some old institutions from the old HRE revived and re-branded to help in settle the administrative issues. I can't t really say much more on this subject without giving out major spoilers.

If you feel like getting a little steampunk, the boost France could get from combining existing punch card looms with Semyon Korsakov‘s ideas about punch card information… it isn’t Difference Engine good, but still incredibly useful.

Edit: as discussed on the board somewhere lol, punch card looms could be applied to lathes. Thus you can have numerical control lathes, with corresponding boosts in steam engine and gun barrel manufacturing and so in. Plus since Napoléon was on board with the punch card looms, it’s an obvious area for Napoléon II to look at.

I'm intrigued by this concept. I wasn't aware of this until you brought it up, but I'll need to do some more research on this to see how this could fit into Napoleonic France. I could imagine that if practical, it could be used to help the French Civil Service and then the general army store information. Though for now I see this being more of a novelty and theoretical idea brought up with much fanfare at say French Science exhibits. Though I could see ground being broken on this idea in the later part of Napoleon II's reign with it becoming a part of the arms race I'm imagining in that Napoleonic France and its rivals go into entering the 20th Century.

snip

Wow you've given me a lot to think about. Honestly, I haven't quite worked out the butterflies for the Ottoman Empire and the Balkans yet. I have a vague idea of where I want to go, but I haven't worked out the fine details yet. I'm trying to do more research on the mechanics of the Ottoman state. Do you guys have any sources you recommend on this topic?

That ship has sailed by this time. Whether the Greeks (or any ethnic or religious group) was really and actively 'loyal' to the Ottomans rather than merely acquiescent to their rule is a big topic for discussion. Even after the Revolution IOTL, that 'loyalism' by Greeks living in Ottoman domains was due to the desire to not antagonize the Ottoman authorities, rather than any deep conviction. Probably the only Greek institution that was 'loyalist' was the Patriarchate, which saw its own power and influence diminished, but even there, by the end of the 19th century, it had come to accept that the Greek 'national centre' was clearly Athens, not Constantinople.

Yeah I agree with you here. Plus the Patriarchate of Constantinople has gradually been declining in influence during this era as other Orthodox states emerged and Russia became more active and interventionist in the parts of the Orthodox world under Ottoman rule.

A good inlook into this is Society, Regionalism and National Identity during the Greek War of Independence.

Thanks for posting a link here. I'll certainly give this a read. Do you have any other sources you recommend on this topic?

Does Maria Leopoldina still marries Pedro I of Brazil in this timeline?

That's generally what I was planning. I'm a bit of a fan of Dom Pedro II. Dom Pedro II here though will be a bit different from his otl self as I plan for some major divergences for both Brazil and Portugal.

If yes, than congratulations, Napoleon II just got a very friendly Brazil. Napoleon II was Dona Leopoldina's favourite nephew, she was extremely protective of him, to the point of liking and judging people through the lens of how much they accepted or liked her sister and nephew.

Yeah. I don't see Napoleon II supporting Miguel if conflict between Pedro and his brother emerges like it did in otl. I wasn't aware of how close she was to Napoleon II. So I have to do some more research I guess about this.

Keep up the good work my friend. This has got to be among the better writen TLs here. Looking forward to seeing what happens next.

Thanks for the compliments!
I'm glad you're liking it. I'll try getting out the next chapter as soon as I can.

Any thoughts on the direction of this timeline?

 

[Electric Monk]

Here’s the thread on applying punch cards to lathes. The knock on effects are probably too massive for your timeline, but either way some neat ideas

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

Do you guys have any sources you recommend on this topic?

Do you have any other sources you recommend on this topic?

Technically is quite a few different topics but yeah , as usual, listing will follow:
● A Historical and Economic Geography of Ottoman Greece (Very good for contextual purposes and i'm actually halfway through this, it's very good really)
● Ottoman Rule and the Balkans, 1760-1850: Conflict, Transformation, Adaptation (An excellent overview in general, although i can't get deep enough due to not finishing it yet)
● An Overview of Ottoman Provincial Administration (it's literally what's in the name )
● The Ottoman Empire: 1700-1922 (Another overview, although it gets fairly deep in administrative stuff so it probably will come handy for the machinations of the state per se)
● The First Serb Uprising (1804-1813) (It takes an particular focus on the diplomacy part of things, what i think that will be quite useful for you, especially the part where it deals with the austrian reaction)
● The Early Development of the Serbian and Romanian National Movements, 1800-1866: A Comparison (Gives a good overview on the Serbian and Wallachian uprisings and a pretty good reevaluation of the rise of nationalism in these two respective regions)
● Ottoman De-Industrialization 1800-1913:
Assessing the Shock, Its Impact and the Response (Economics probably will come handy i guess)

I don't have much to add right now, just wish you good luck reading through all of this and say that i'm patiently awaiting for the next update (even if i'm practically contributing for its delay indirectly).

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Here’s the thread on applying punch cards to lathes. The knock on effects are probably too massive for your timeline, but either way some neat ideas

Thanks! I'll look into it more after Napoleon II takes the throne. I might make refer to it as a later part of Napoleon II's plan to kick off France's industrialization.

I don't have much to add right now, just wish you good luck reading through all of this

Wow that's so much! Thanks man!

and say that i'm patiently awaiting for the next update (even if i'm practically contributing for its delay indirectly).

It'll be worth the wait. Though as for the delay, I don't think there would be much of one since I don't plan on focusing on the Ottomans until much later in the story.

Spoiler: future plans

I plan on kinda doing a Tour d'Europe of sorts. I plan on focusing on tackling the Boubon Trinity first (France, Spain, and Sicily) working my way through the rest of Europe. Though I also plan on shifting towards the Americans as the main Latin American Revolutions occur in the 1820's right before the July Revolution. There were also attempted revolution during this time in Italy as well, though these were put down pretty easily.

I kinda also want to focus on Britain as well eventually getting to Victoria. Let's just say she'll be more of a traditional Hanoverian Queen as opposed to her otl self who largely retreated from government setting the final precedent for the monarchy delegating all real power to the Parliament with the Queen reigning rather than ruling. I plan on having her becoming a sort of rival/frenemy to Napoleon II. In France this era is called the Second Age of Napoleon while conversely in Britain its the Victorian Era.

Do you guys have any ideas on how France could avoid the demographic collapse of the later 19th Century?

 

[Namayan]

Do you guys have any ideas on how France could avoid the demographic collapse of the later 19th Century?

I dont think its a collapse it is more of the rest of the world caught up with France. You can probably bump it relative to UK in density per sqkm(they were roughly the same population 1900) in OTL but that requires importation of food from colonies. That would put ATL France at around 80M in 1900 same density as UK OTL 1900.

 

[Electric Monk]

David T has an excellent well sourced answer to the birth rate question.

 

[Spatharios]

Don't want to derail this thread, so very quickly a few replies:

To say that the Porte was completely unwilling to compromise with any other beyond dhimmi it's pretty ignorant that they actually compromised with the serbs 20 years before the Greek Revolution

Oh, of course, the Ottoman government was ready and willing to compromise and grant some liberties to its Christian subjects, but only if a) that did not impinge on its sovereignty and b) if it meant that the flow of taxes was uninterrupted. The discussion was about the suppression of the revolt, and a suppression precludes a compromise; a compromise needs two parties willing to negotiate, and the Ottomans IOTL were on the level of 'submit and we'll grant you your head and a tax remission for a couple of years'. That is no longer enough, as the Serbs themselves had shown. The Serbs were also a special case as they were a compact population on the border to two major external enemies, the Habsburgs and Russia, so the Ottomans had an incentive to deal with them 'leniently' lest the war drag in external powers. The Greeks lived all across the metropolitan regions of the OE, including the capital itself, so the threat they posed to the Porte was far, far bigger, again as seen IOTL, when they brought in Muhammad Ali and then risked a war with Russia to suppress the revolt. As for the dhimmi status, my point is that the OE failed, almost up until its end, to learn to treat its Christian subjects as citizens, rather than second-class subjects, and in an age of liberalism, among other things, that is not a good thing. Of course, it also treated its Muslim population as subjects (albeit privileged in comparison to the dhimmi), which is why modern Turkish nationalism has a strong anti-Ottoman streak (at least until the new synthesis emerging in Turkey today).

And well, at least in the way i see it, the merchant middle class was the greek intelligentsia

Quite true that, but that is the point: these ideas were current across an entire middle class of a population spread from Italy to the Levant and the Black Sea. You cannot control what such a group thinks or does.

to say that the 1770 revolt was due to nationalism is grossly misleading (especially because the greek enlightenment and greek nationalism are two different things with different times, the latter one was inexistent until the early 1800s),

Yes, the Orlov revolt has been hotly debated by scholars and it is indeed not a 'nationalist' uprising per se. It may not have been the failed first run of nationalist historiography, , but the way it was suppressed, its aftermath and memory fed and sustained a generation of klephts, and contributed very much to the eventual outbreak of the Greek Revolution.

determinism (especially nationalistic-related ones) isn't really right, it depends heavily on how the ottomans behave post-revolt,

I abhor historical determinism myself, but if avoiding another Greek Revolt down the line hinges on the willingness and ability of the 1820s-era Ottoman state to reform successfully, I am not willing to wager money on its success. The Ottoman system was a medieval anachronism by this point; if they had had better leaders, and internal and external tranquility, they might have reformed, and perhaps become some sort of Muslim Austria-Hungary; and Austria-Hungary had many comparative advantages over them . I don't think that multiethnic empires are automatically bad, or that nation-states are the best thing to have ever happened, but the spirit of the age was against the Ottomans, Habsburgs, and Romanovs in the long term, and it would take changes of a global character to reverse this tendency. In order to avoid this, you need to defeat the spirit of nationalism (which, let's remember, was tied to liberalism and modernity in the 19th century, however much it is a dirty word today), which is beyond the ability of the Ottoman state. So if the Greek Revolution had been suppressed, yes, I think another would have come along, in different fashion, perhaps in a different place, but it would have happened, just as the Serbs did, the Bulgarians did, the Albanians did, the Arabs did, and eventually the Turks themselves did.

 

[Talus I of Dixie]

Don't want to derail this thread, so very quickly a few replies:

Oh, of course, the Ottoman government was ready and willing to compromise and grant some liberties to its Christian subjects, but only if a) that did not impinge on its sovereignty and b) if it meant that the flow of taxes was uninterrupted. The discussion was about the suppression of the revolt, and a suppression precludes a compromise; a compromise needs two parties willing to negotiate, and the Ottomans IOTL were on the level of 'submit and we'll grant you your head and a tax remission for a couple of years'. That is no longer enough, as the Serbs themselves had shown. The Serbs were also a special case as they were a compact population on the border to two major external enemies, the Habsburgs and Russia, so the Ottomans had an incentive to deal with them 'leniently' lest the war drag in external powers. The Greeks lived all across the metropolitan regions of the OE, including the capital itself, so the threat they posed to the Porte was far, far bigger, again as seen IOTL, when they brought in Muhammad Ali and then risked a war with Russia to suppress the revolt. As for the dhimmi status, my point is that the OE failed, almost up until its end, to learn to treat its Christian subjects as citizens, rather than second-class subjects, and in an age of liberalism, among other things, that is not a good thing. Of course, it also treated its Muslim population as subjects (albeit privileged in comparison to the dhimmi), which is why modern Turkish nationalism has a strong anti-Ottoman streak (at least until the new synthesis emerging in Turkey today).


Quite true that, but that is the point: these ideas were current across an entire middle class of a population spread from Italy to the Levant and the Black Sea. You cannot control what such a group thinks or does.


Yes, the Orlov revolt has been hotly debated by scholars and it is indeed not a 'nationalist' uprising per se. It may not have been the failed first run of nationalist historiography, , but the way it was suppressed, its aftermath and memory fed and sustained a generation of klephts, and contributed very much to the eventual outbreak of the Greek Revolution.


I abhor historical determinism myself, but if avoiding another Greek Revolt down the line hinges on the willingness and ability of the 1820s-era Ottoman state to reform successfully, I am not willing to wager money on its success. The Ottoman system was a medieval anachronism by this point; if they had had better leaders, and internal and external tranquility, they might have reformed, and perhaps become some sort of Muslim Austria-Hungary; and Austria-Hungary had many comparative advantages over them . I don't think that multiethnic empires are automatically bad, or that nation-states are the best thing to have ever happened, but the spirit of the age was against the Ottomans, Habsburgs, and Romanovs in the long term, and it would take changes of a global character to reverse this tendency. In order to avoid this, you need to defeat the spirit of nationalism (which, let's remember, was tied to liberalism and modernity in the 19th century, however much it is a dirty word today), which is beyond the ability of the Ottoman state. So if the Greek Revolution had been suppressed, yes, I think another would have come along, in different fashion, perhaps in a different place, but it would have happened, just as the Serbs did, the Bulgarians did, the Albanians did, the Arabs did, and eventually the Turks themselves did.

Point(s) caught, and for real i just agree with everything you said. I think the only point of real contention was that i meant that it wasn't inevitable for another greek revolt to occur, not being inevitable doesn't affect the fact that it is the most likely event (I mean by the 1750s the ottomans were literally putting bandits purposely on the bureaucracy because they couldn't deal with them, i don't think any state arrived at this level), and that's why i threw the Ali Pasha option in the first place, being likely or not is still more likely for an autonomous Pashalik in Greece to reform than the Ottoman State by itself in this period , what's quite the point actually, by the 1810-20s the ottomans were fracturing (Muhammad Ali in Egypt, the Mamluks in Mesopotamia and Ali Pasha in Greece, probably there were other examples but these are the first coming into mind), imploding (Greek and Serbian Revolutions) and being defeated by the Qajars at war, at the same time, the fact that it still survived as a united(ish) polity after this period is just strange yk.

 

[pls don't ban me]

will the republic of Genoa be restored or it will be gifted to the Savoy( historical enemy) as OTL?

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

will the republic of Genoa be restored or it will be gifted to the Savoy( historical enemy) as OTL?

The Congress of Vienna stipulations are for the most part according to otl. Plus I don't think independent Genoa would really be that beneficial to either party as Genoa largely received benefits from Industrialization by being part of the larger Kingdom. Plus I don't think the rest of Europe would be so keen on having another Republic again after they spent all those years warring to crush the French Revolution. The independent Savoyard Kingdom meant that there was some semblance of balance within Italy as most of it was dominated by the Habsburgs. The Habsburgs as it stands in 1814 have similar levels of influence in Italy that they did in the HRE especially with the Kingdom of Lombardy-Venetia and the other allied Habsburg states. Though the survival of The Roi de Rome, and the presence of the Murat Kingdom of Naples does lead to interesting divergences from otl especially for the Risorgimento.

I dont think its a collapse it is more of the rest of the world caught up with France. You can probably bump it relative to UK in density per sqkm(they were roughly the same population 1900) in OTL but that requires importation of food from colonies. That would put ATL France at around 80M in 1900 same density as UK OTL 1900.

So maybe something akin to otl's German Empire in terms of population perhaps? Though the advent of settler colonies could maybe work to help relieve population pressure. Maybe something akin to a partial reinstatement of primogeniture might help like for example allowing for the option of large families to offer cash settlements instead of dividing up estates. This was how the Italian nobility largely got around these limitations from the Napoleonic code.

David T has an excellent well sourced answer to the birth rate question.

Thanks for that link. I'll check it out.

Don't want to derail this thread, so very quickly a few replies:

I mean Bourbon France was also a major part of the Greek Revolution succeeding so I think this is pretty relevant.

I abhor historical determinism myself, but if avoiding another Greek Revolt down the line hinges on the willingness and ability of the 1820s-era Ottoman state to reform successfully, I am not willing to wager money on its success. The Ottoman system was a medieval anachronism by this point; if they had had better leaders, and internal and external tranquility, they might have reformed, and perhaps become some sort of Muslim Austria-Hungary; and Austria-Hungary had many comparative advantages over them . I don't think that multiethnic empires are automatically bad, or that nation-states are the best thing to have ever happened, but the spirit of the age was against the Ottomans, Habsburgs, and Romanovs in the long term, and it would take changes of a global character to reverse this tendency. In order to avoid this, you need to defeat the spirit of nationalism (which, let's remember, was tied to liberalism and modernity in the 19th century, however much it is a dirty word today), which is beyond the ability of the Ottoman state. So if the Greek Revolution had been suppressed, yes, I think another would have come along, in different fashion, perhaps in a different place, but it would have happened, just as the Serbs did, the Bulgarians did, the Albanians did, the Arabs did, and eventually the Turks themselves did.

While the Ottomans were an ancient Empire the Sublime Porte wasn't beyond saving much like the Ancien Regime of France. There was alot of issues that were pretty much kicked down the road turning what would have been minor hiccups into massive structural weaknesses rotting the Empire's foundations. I feel like they likely could have even made it into the 20th Century had they not entered WWI, or more likely had the Central Powers won. Though I feel like even if the Ottomans had suppressed the Greek Revolution of the 1830's it likely would have meant that another uprising would follow a few decades down the line like it did for the rest of the Balkans.

by the 1810-20s the ottomans were fracturing (Muhammad Ali in Egypt, the Mamluks in Mesopotamia and Ali Pasha in Greece, probably there were other examples but these are the first coming into mind), imploding (Greek and Serbian Revolutions) and being defeated by the Qajars at war, at the same time, the fact that it still survived as a united(ish) polity after this period is just strange yk.

Honestly this would have been the perfect opportunity for say Russia or Austria to carve out the Balkans/the Caucuses. Though the Europeans refrained from this as the Concert of Europe was all about preserving the status quo, and maintaining the balance of power. And the loss, or sever destabilization of the Ottomans which were a major power, likely would have led to a power vacuum that nations like Russia would have tried to exploit.

 

[pls don't ban me]

The Congress of Vienna stipulations are for the most part according to otl. Plus I don't think independent Genoa would really be that beneficial to either party as Genoa largely received benefits from Industrialization by being part of the larger Kingdom. Plus I don't think the rest of Europe would be so keen on having another Republic again after they spent all those years warring to crush the French Revolution.

Well yes and no. Genoa got first raped by the Sardinian kingdom, full protectionism which helped farmer but destroyed the ligurian economy( almost everyone was mainly a merchant or banker ) forcing the historical emigration towards Buenos Aires into the neighborhood of Boca which is named after the genoese area of Boccadasse, while the local football team Boca juniors bear the writing " xeneises"(genoese in genoese) on the back of their shirts.
After the genoese uprising of 1849 in which the city held against the bersaglieri, General La Marmora managed to enter the city after a bombardment without no warning and ordered the troops to shoot anyone with no regards fro civilians, women and children. The soldier were free to rape, burn and destroy whatever they could put their hands on. The Most infamous victim was Alessandro De Stefanis, a former soldier who after getting shot in the leg had seek refuge into a farmhouse until the Piemontese soldier found him, beated him with punches and kicks and left him dying slowly. Died after a month of agony.
After the sack of Genoa the king sent a letter to La Marmora with congratulations for the massacre of the " vile and infected race".

Genoa saw it's industrial upgrade only when Cavour became prime Minister of the kingdom.

Plus I don't think the rest of Europe would be so keen on having another Republic again after they spent all those years warring to crush the French Revolution.

I can only agree with you. But if Switzerland managed to keep it's government maybe even Genoa could with some compromise.

 

[Niegel]

looks nice! Am proud to have been the first to like and comment!

My like is number 90

 

[Niegel]

But despite the weakened size of Napoleon's Grand Armee, it was still more maneuverable than the large unwieldy combined forces of the Sixth Coalition which the Emperor used to great affect choosing the battlefield of Leipzig whose strategic position allowed Napoleon to maximize his mobility. Among the forces of the Sixth Coalition, were the three main monarchs who had faced Napoleon earlier at Austerlitz: Kaiser Francis I of Austria, Tsar Alexander I, and King Friedrich-Wilhelm III were present on the battlefield. This initially led to the command being paralyzed by petty rivalries and incompetence which was gone after the battle had started with the Coalition forces crafting and effective strategy to encircle the outnumbered French army. The Coalition's encirclement was quite effective as Napoleon found himself cut off from resupply leaving him to fight a battle of attrition with his enemies. Seeing that he chance for victory was dwindling fast, the Emperor made peace overtures to the Coalition, but all three monarchs refused. Emperor Napoleon seeing the desperate situation his army was in, made one last desperate gamble to break the encirclement.

This is a minor fix that you probably already know:

The King Friedrich-Wilhelm III of Prussia was not present at the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805. In fact, the Prussians were neutral during the Third Coalition.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

Well yes and no. Genoa got first raped by the Sardinian kingdom, full protectionism which helped farmer but destroyed the ligurian economy( almost everyone was mainly a merchant or banker ) forcing the historical emigration towards Buenos Aires into the neighborhood of Boca which is named after the genoese area of Boccadasse, while the local football team Boca juniors bear the writing " xeneises"(genoese in genoese) on the back of their shirts.

Hmm. I wasn't really aware of this. I guess this sort of resentment is something Le Roi de Rome can definitely tap into if the Sardinians piss him off.

The soldier were free to rape, burn and destroy whatever they could put their hands on. The Most infamous victim was Alessandro De Stefanis, a former soldier who after getting shot in the leg had seek refuge into a farmhouse until the Piemontese soldier found him, beated him with punches and kicks and left him dying slowly. Died after a month of agony.
After the sack of Genoa the king sent a letter to La Marmora with congratulations for the massacre of the " vile and infected race".

Yikes! I can definitely imagine Napoleon II taking advantage of this. And as the technically still legal King of Italy, he could justify a potential invasion as him "protecting his faithful Italian subjects" against the abuses of a tyrannical King.

Though I can imagine some of the situations here might be a bit different as opposed to otl, because of Eugene's brief campaign where he fended off a Sardinian invasion into Liguria.

Genoa saw it's industrial upgrade only when Cavour became prime Minister of the kingdom.

Maybe with a re-established Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy, if Napoleon does decide to go that route, Genoa might be made into an independent Duchy or Princedom. What do you think?

I can only agree with you. But if Switzerland managed to keep it's government maybe even Genoa could with some compromise.

Though in 1848 Switerland had its own civil war/Revolution as well. Though Switzerland was a particularly different case as it was an inland country that was neutral and not really of the interest of the other Great powers.

This is a minor fix that you probably already know:

The King Friedrich-Wilhelm III of Prussia was not present at the Battle of Austerlitz in 1805. In fact, the Prussians were neutral during the Third Coalition.

Oh yeah. I thought I edited out that part. Thanks for catching that.

Note to self: Don't start writing chapters at 3am lmao.

My like is number 90

I'm honored and flattered that this timeline was received so well far beyond my expectations.

 

[Niegel]

Honestly i think one of napoleon's biggest mistakes was crowning himself emperor. I know that the prologue says it brought moderates to his side, but as first consul for life he already was the enlightened despot that moderates had always wanted and because he wasn't royalty he still had (at least some) republican support. Crowning himself didn't legitimate him in the eyes of the royalists and all the crowned heads of Europe still saw him as an upstart and a usurper. Observers at the time also noted how the change brought back the old decadent court life that didn't work as well or as smoothly as the consulate.

Napoleon should have been more Augustus than Caesar, and maintained the Republican façade.

In this case I disagree. By crowning himself Emperor, Napoleon accomplished two things:

1. Establish a Dynasty formally. This means that if something happened to him, another Bonaparte would secure his legacy, weakening his opponents (and possible assassination attempts).

2. It allowed him to place members of his royal house in other countries creating perfect puppet states. Of course, Napoleon failed to make the most of this, but the concept was clever.

 

[Ficboy]

I haven't fully worked out all the details yet, but I could see some old institutions from the old HRE revived and re-branded to help in settle the administrative issues. I can't t really say much more on this subject without giving out major spoilers.


I'm intrigued by this concept. I wasn't aware of this until you brought it up, but I'll need to do some more research on this to see how this could fit into Napoleonic France. I could imagine that if practical, it could be used to help the French Civil Service and then the general army store information. Though for now I see this being more of a novelty and theoretical idea brought up with much fanfare at say French Science exhibits. Though I could see ground being broken on this idea in the later part of Napoleon II's reign with it becoming a part of the arms race I'm imagining in that Napoleonic France and its rivals go into entering the 20th Century.


Wow you've given me a lot to think about. Honestly, I haven't quite worked out the butterflies for the Ottoman Empire and the Balkans yet. I have a vague idea of where I want to go, but I haven't worked out the fine details yet. I'm trying to do more research on the mechanics of the Ottoman state. Do you guys have any sources you recommend on this topic?


Yeah I agree with you here. Plus the Patriarchate of Constantinople has gradually been declining in influence during this era as other Orthodox states emerged and Russia became more active and interventionist in the parts of the Orthodox world under Ottoman rule.


Thanks for posting a link here. I'll certainly give this a read. Do you have any other sources you recommend on this topic?


That's generally what I was planning. I'm a bit of a fan of Dom Pedro II. Dom Pedro II here though will be a bit different from his otl self as I plan for some major divergences for both Brazil and Portugal.


Yeah. I don't see Napoleon II supporting Miguel if conflict between Pedro and his brother emerges like it did in otl. I wasn't aware of how close she was to Napoleon II. So I have to do some more research I guess about this.


Thanks for the compliments!
I'm glad you're liking it. I'll try getting out the next chapter as soon as I can.

Any thoughts on the direction of this timeline?

What's going to happen with the United States since Napoleon in OTL was the guy to have given the entire Louisiana Territory to America thus kickstarting Manifest Destiny. Because he died ITTL it means that the Louisiana Territory might remain with France and thus no Manifest Destiny for the United States resulting in a completely different turn of events for the republic.

 

[[totally a legit person]]

What's going to happen with the United States since Napoleon in OTL was the guy to have given the entire Louisiana Territory to America thus kickstarting Manifest Destiny. Because he died ITTL it means that the Louisiana Territory might remain with France and thus no Manifest Destiny for the United States resulting in a completely different turn of events for the republic.

Napoleon sold Louisiana way before the point of divergence in this timeline, around a decade in fact.

Edit: grammar.

 

[Ficboy]

Napoleon sold Louisiana way before the point of divergence in this timeline, around a decade in fact.

Edit: grammar.

Oh.

 

[Basileus_Komnenos]

1. Establish a Dynasty formally. This means that if something happened to him, another Bonaparte would secure his legacy, weakening his opponents (and possible assassination attempts).

Many of the more liberal monarchists and more moderate conservative ones flocked to his side. Napoleon himself was a more of a Conservative even before the Empire, and once he took power he banned La Marseillaise.

2. It allowed him to place members of his royal house in other countries creating perfect puppet states. Of course, Napoleon failed to make the most of this, but the concept was clever.

I mean to be fair to Napoleon, he was at war for almost 20 years without stop. I feel like had he won, and peace terms been eventually negotiated, its likely that those client states could have been stabilized into proper supports for his Empire. The Kingdom of Holland for example was something which had potential. Lucien Bonaparte is known in Netherlands as "Lucien the Good." He was a pretty popular ruler there as well. There were also other allied states like Poland and Saxony which in time could have consolidated themselves into key partners for the Imperial French regime. Poland even today had a verse dedicated to Napoleon in its national anthem.

What's going to happen with the United States since Napoleon in OTL was the guy to have given the entire Louisiana Territory to America thus kickstarting Manifest Destiny. Because he died ITTL it means that the Louisiana Territory might remain with France and thus no Manifest Destiny for the United States resulting in a completely different turn of events for the republic.

I do have plans for the US though. I have to crack open some of my old AP US textbooks though since its been like 5 years since I had US history.

Napoleon sold Louisiana way before the point of divergence in this timeline, around a decade in fact.

Edit: grammar.

Yup, though the pod here is enough to change things even up to the War of 1812 since Napoleon dies here in 1813, and the war ended in 1812.

I haven't quite decided. Though if things get particularly bad, it could lead to interesting divergences. Madison and Vice President Gerry were suffering from serious health complications. Gerry died in 1814, so if by chance both end up dead, or Madison is captured, and Gerry dies, Henry Clay as Speaker of the House could end up as President of the US in 1814.

The idea of an America rallying around a younger Henry Clay is pretty fascinating.