Lets say that the Battle of Marengo is a smashing Austrian victory-Napoleon dies in a freak accident, Desaix is held up, and the battle ends with the French falling into a disorganized retreat. What happens next?
Lets say that the Battle of Marengo is a smashing Austrian victory-Napoleon dies in a freak accident, Desaix is held up, and the battle ends with the French falling into a disorganized retreat. What happens next?
Louis XVIII gets his throne earlier, the end. Good night.
Not necessarily. Some other French general could have become dictator instead of Napoleon. If the new guy is smart enough to fight a defensive war, and in particular to avoid military graveyards like Spain and Russia, Louis XVIII may never get back at all.
They called it the Napoleonic Era for a reason. Lose him, the French lose their mojo. No other French officer was HALF the general he was.
That's true. But some considered themselves to be his equal and could have tried to replace him. If you want a name, think of Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte. However Bernadotte is not Napoleon : I don't know if he could take his place as 1st Consul nor if he would have had the possibility.usertron2020 said:No other French officer was HALF the general he was.
mailinutile2 said:Also the Republique was certainly something kings frowned on, but it was not the Devil to kill in order to save europe.
A lot of other coutris beheaded a king before (e.g. Uk), a lot of other countries had republican istitutions (e.g. switzerland).
Without Napoleon 1805+ wars the allied would not have the motivation for a Bourbon restoration.
Mind you, this does not rule out the possibility of a pro-king counter-revolution, but it would be an internal french affaire (and almost certainly Louis XVIII would not be the chosen one), not a person france was compelled to accept because of austrian/russian/english/prussian armies
Interesting SnipYeah, I don't think the Republic in its present form would be long for the world, even without Napoleon-it was extremely unpopular. I would afree that some other person would rise through the ranks to become warlord-but not as cleanly, quickly, or smoothly as Nappy, or with as much popular support. The Republic would do worse, and the Coalition would keep at it-the Bourbon may even be restored in the current war.
Which, of course, would have massive reprecussions for the rest of the world...
Interesting SnipYeah, I don't think the Republic in its present form would be long for the world, even without Napoleon-it was extremely unpopular. I would afree that some other person would rise through the ranks to become warlord-but not as cleanly, quickly, or smoothly as Nappy, or with as much popular support.
Agreed. Someone else would overthrow it.
The Republic would do worse, and the Coalition would keep at it-the Bourbon may even be restored in the current war..
Why?
France had beaten off lots of attacks before Bonaparte came to the fore, and again during his absence in 1798/9. When he returned from Egypt, not only was France herself completely intact, Belgium, Rhineland and all, but was even still hanging on to the satellite states in Holland and Switzerland. The only loss was of Bonaparte's own recent conquests in Italy, which were no great matter given France's all but impregnable Alpine Frontier. Assuming that her new ruler is a reasonably competent general (he doesn't need to be of Napoleon's calibre, and it may even be better in some ways if he isn't) I don't see why she shouldn't hold off the Allies until the cows come home.
They called it the Napoleonic Era for a reason. Lose him, the French lose their mojo. No other French officer was HALF the general he was.
Mikestone8 said:That was precisely the problem. He saddled France with huge conquests which the other powers would never accept in the long run. So the wars just had to go on and on, and he was bound to lose a campaign sooner or later if only by bad luck. France would have been far better served by some lesser general who was up to the job of defending her existing borders, but had no ambitions to conquer beyond them.
They called it the Napoleonic Era for a reason. Lose him, the French lose their mojo. No other French officer was HALF the general he was.
However, had Napoleon somehow won or averted the Russian Campaign,
Not to mention that if the French Republic stay the dominant force on the continent, Britain is sur NOT to accept it and will wish to see its power broken : this is mainly why the British supported the Royalists...
I was thinking would the German princes go ahead with the seculasation of the Prince-Bishoprics and the Mediation of the minor principalities if France are in a worse position?