Marengo A Smashing Allied Victory?

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.
 
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.
 
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.

But the Allies mentality was different as well.
"Total war" mentality was a consequence of nappy campaigns: "limited war" was quite common before (see last chapters of Clawsevitz work).
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
 
A French Defeat at Marengo would have been disastrous for the French Republic, moreover if Napoleon was killed there.

Before Napoleon came to power, the French Republic was fairly unstable. The previous governement, the Directoire, had to stage many coup to stay in place and to squash many rebellions, generally Royalists. As a proof of this, I could mention the Vendée : this department was never stable, even after French Republican Armies vainquished the main Royalist Revolt of 1793-1796.

The 18 Burmaire An VII, Napoleon staged a coup and took power. He then instituated the Consulat in which he was head of state as 1st Consul, helped by two other consul, both of which had little power compared to him.

If Napoleon dies at Marengo, the French Republic is beheaded. It won't be easy to replace him as he was really popular at the time and his death will be a huge blow for France : I doubt the Republic could overcome this.

usertron2020 said:
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.

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

France had pretty much pissed off Europe at the time : she had set up sister Republics in Italy, Switzerland and the Netherlands, overthrowing many princes and nobles. Besides, the French Revolutionnaries were seen as butchers (and as a matter a fact, a great number of them were) and their ideas were very dangerous in the eyes of others monarchies.

Marengo took place during the War of the Second Coalition which only ended after Napoleon won his Second Italian Campaign. Had he died at Marengo, the Allies wouldn't have stopped now and would have tried and probably succeeded in overthrowing the Republic.

Also, saying Louis XVIII isn't likely to be crowned king in case of counter-revolution seems implausible. With his brother Louis XVI beheaded and the death of his nephew Louis XVII in 1795, he was the next in line for the throne of France. His brother, the future Charles X, was an ultra-royalist but I don't think he would take his older brother's place.
As for the Orléans, they certainly won't be chosen by the Royalists : Philippe Egalité had voted the death of his cousin Louis XVI during the latter's trial. That left quite a mark on the House of Orléans in the eyes of many royalists.
 
Interesting Snip
Yeah, 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 Snip
Yeah, 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.


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.
 
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.

I'm not so sure about that... By 1810-1811, Napoleon did not only rule a great French Empire : he was in effective control of Europe. He had managed to defeat Russia, Prussia and Austria, three of the most powerful states in Europe, and had forced them into an alliance. His family members were ruling in Westphalia, Italy and Spain (although they were lacking control on the latter) and the french had resurrected Poland as a satellite. Denmark was an ally and Sweden only choose the coalition's side after Napoleon's defeat in Russia.

The only effective ennemy that Napoleon had was Britain because he was dominating the continent. His will to force them to accept peace is why he imposed the continental system which didn't work in the end and proved to be his doom coupled with the Peninsula War and his disastrous Russian Campaign.

However, had Napoleon somehow won or averted the Russian Campaign, he would still have had the Grande Armée at his disposal. With it, he could have retaken control of Spain, even if it would have surely have taken a very long time. After that, I doubt Britain could have been able to put a new coalition : Napoleon would have looked nearly invicible and had few real ennemies left in Europe.

And conquests were not the only thing Napoleon achieved for France. He settled the ideas of the Revolution deep in the mind of the French. He also created what the French call the "Masses de Granites" : the Code Civil, the Banque de France, the Legion d'honneur, etc... They are still in use in France, even if some have been modified. Napoleon reformed France in a great way, although this was a bit ruined by his defeat.

However, if he had died at Marengo, none of what is mentionned above would have happened or probably later. There are very few people that could do what Napoleon has done. Someone less important would probably achieve far less than l'Empereur...

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.

On a side note, had Napoleon died at Marengo, the world's chefs wouldn't know the recipe for the "Veau Marengo" or "Poulet Marengo", a dish which was cooked specifically for Napoleon after the Battle...
 
However, had Napoleon somehow won or averted the Russian Campaign,

Won or averted it for how long?

He can't stay in Russia indefinitely, and when he leaves, Alexander or his successor will soon reassert their independence. The Russians are too darned xenophobic to be the satellite of a Western power for long. At the very least he would have to treat them as equals - the precise thing he seems to have been congenitally incapable of doing.


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...

Not as the dominant power - any more than their great-grandfathers could accept Louis XIV in that role - but they could accept it as one of the great powers, just as a previous generation accepted Bourbon France as such. Like Louis XIV, it doesn't necessarily have to be broken, just contained and trimmed back to being one power among several.
 

Lusitania

Donor
Well that would mean some huge changes in the Iberian Peninsula and also in the Americas.

Spain would not of invaded Portugal in 1801 without Napoleons support. Godoy would probably been kicked out of government much earlier. But more important Spanish monarchy would not of been held hostage and the Portuguese would not of fled.

As for the Americas, the declaration of indepence by the Spanish colonies would of been postponed and even that would be much complicated with the Spanish responding while iOTL they were hamstringed by the Peninsula War.

As for Brazil, I do not think it would be Braxil but like the Spanish colonies, several colonies would of sprung up but again later. It had been the Portuguese government's stay in Brazil that gave the people there the impetous to declare their independence.

No great British General of Wellington? Unless he finds another war to distinguish himself.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
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?
 

Lusitania

Donor
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?

I was thinking that Prussia, Austrian would be destined for war sooner over the Prussian desire for expansion while austria would just like the small German states where it had greater influence.
 
Top