Maximum Napoleonic revolutionary influence

G. Washington
every dictator thought that way. very few of them were right. Personally, I don't think Nap was right. his way was good for France short term, but long term his way was doomed to failure, and pretty much ensured failure. Every single thread ever that addressed how Nap France could endure all had changes to his personality/methodology. There's a reason for this.

False. If he wins in Russia, he has pretty much won.

He took power by fraud. held it by coercion.

Everybody did this in these times (the others were rulers by "divine" rights).



led the country on a path that ended with millions dead. It was only by fortuitous circumstance that France wasn't decimated, dismantled, and completely marginalized.

France was going to be dismantled without his victories in 1797 and 1800. He saved France from the incapable and corrupt Directoire.

He held a few enlightenment ideals.

- popular sovereignty
- universal suffrage
- liberty of religion
- equality before the law
...
Only a few, minor ideas.

That doesn't make him a republican. Mostly, he was just a military dictator. He lived by the sword, not the pen, and ran a police state. The only one of his brothers who held any republican ideals, Lucien, disavowed him and sought to escape the country rather than carry through with his threat to skewer him with a sword.

Republicanism and military dictatorship are not contradictory.
 
The issue is getting there. The Royal Navy will sink any French ship heading to India. Any overseas projection is nearly impossible for the Little Corporal unless we push the POD back.
Does it have to be during wartime? There are still countries going commie decades after the fall of Soviet Union. The same goes for Republican/Napoleonic France. Even in a OTL-like scenario, French ideals could influence Indian political life if the later seeks them.

Oh, he only need one ship and an appointment by some ambitious Indian prince.
French advisers were common in India for decades (Centuries?). Would one more, albeit Napoleonic one, have made any difference?
Batter if said Indian prince traveled to France with an entourage, followed by waves of expat students.
 
popular sovereignity notion is a joke.

Nap kept control via police state apparatus.

Yes, but there was this notion. And this is the whole difference between him and other monarchs of these time. Is a difference between feudalism and modern times, between 1000 and 2000 AD, a difference between two opposed worlds.

The old rulers of Europe fought for life: either Napoleon is overthrown or they would perish.
 
Top