Mild French Revolution: Fate of Napoleon?

But I suppose that the French Revolution never really takes off beyond the early stages, and results of a constitutional French monarchy. Do we see Napoleon in any major historical role, Or does he just become an obscure officer?
 
He could still find himself in a senior position within the French army. It simply depends on the nature of the constitutional monarchy, and who the constitutional monarch.

Be a bit sad for Napoleon to be an obscure office wouldn't it? ;)
 
But I suppose that the French Revolution never really takes off beyond the early stages, and results of a constitutional French monarchy. Do we see Napoleon in any major historical role, Or does he just become an obscure officer?

Hm. As the absolute monarchy (ancien régime), the constitutional monarchy will also have to fight wars, against Britain e.g. And nonetheless, a constitutional monarchy, like the republic, will open all ranks of the army to simple men. So - he might fight in some war, and might become general or high commander of some army in Europe. But once the monarchy is stabilized, there's no chance that he can stage a coup d'etat against it.
 
Hm. As the absolute monarchy (ancien régime), the constitutional monarchy will also have to fight wars, against Britain e.g. And nonetheless, a constitutional monarchy, like the republic, will open all ranks of the army to simple men. So - he might fight in some war, and might become general or high commander of some army in Europe. But once the monarchy is stabilized, there's no chance that he can stage a coup d'etat against it.

Question is would Napoleon or Davout end up with the better rep?

Challenge for extra points- have those two on opposite sides of a civil war in France fighting each other.
 
Question is would Napoleon or Davout end up with the better rep?

Challenge for extra points- have those two on opposite sides of a civil war in France fighting each other.

Davout is a great general. But I think he lacks of the charisma needed to inspire the soldiers to sacrifice their lifes in battle.

And if their is really a civil war, maybe because the son and successor of Louis XVI, Louis XVII, could maybe be not as soft as his father, its going to be around 1805 - 1815. And yes, its likely that Napoleon, if he really is a major general, plays some important role in the comming conflict.

I don't know why Davout, known as the "Robespierre of Hamburg", should be less revolutionary than Napoleon and fight against him. But if they form a Junta - Triumvirate with Ney or Fouché - there might be a fight between Napoleon and Davout.

Maybe someone should write a TL about it.
 
The challenge could be done, but not after the stabilisation of the monarchy- which having Mirabeau not die would be a big help towards, he was chief propagandist for the crown and holder together of centrifugal things, he played a major role in keeping things from flying apart until 1791, getting the revolutionaries to compromise with the king and the king with the revolutionaries.

Once there is no countervailing impulse to the blood-struck Marat, the crown loses the propaganda war fairly quickly- or alternatively, reality reasserts itself.


What you need to get Napoleon and Davout on opposite sides- and Desaix should be in there somewhere, he was Davout's friend and patron until killed at Marengo- is for the Dantonist and the Robespierrist tendencies to fall out;

for the debate over the future of the revolution to reach boiling point before Louis' head comes off and the rest of Europe intervenes, so that there is enough external peace for the French to do something really stupid and fall out among themselves.

Danton was not a peaceful man; he gets a good reputation nowadays, as the moderate, constructive face of the revolution, but he was as intent on Louis' execution and the militarisation of the republic as anyone else, he was just less of a theoretical purist and more of a practical organiser. He was relatively sensible sounding, largely because he had to deal with confused, frightened people to get stuff done and there was no sense going around ranting and raving. He also had a sense of humour, which is relatively rare in revolutionaries but vital if you want to prevent a revolution becoming a bloodbath.

Robespierre, on the other hand, definitely put principle before human life. Suppose that they and their supporters fall out, massively, most of France takes sides, and things kick off from there. Who ends up on which side?

Davout was probably the more committed revolutionary- there is a story that may or may not have improved in the telling, of his regiment in 1790, he a junior captain, around the mess, a loyal toast was proposed- "Only an idiot could deny that the old system has made France great and led her to mastery in europe. Vive le Roi.'

Davout stood up- "Gentlemen, I am that idiot- Vive la Revolution." Unfortunately that may be the only joke he ever told. He is more likely to side with the sea green incorruptible than he would be with Danton.
 
One should not forget that Napoleon and Davout were ... nobles. There birth names were Napoleone di Buonaparte (one of the main corsican noble families) and Louis-Nicolas d'Avoust. Which means they would have had a decent military career if the revolution had not turned into an awful mess.
 
Nappy will most likely have a much slower promotion track,considering the French officer corps wouldn't be purged.He also would have had less success on the field given that some of the military innovations from otl as a result of the aristocratic officer corps being purged might not be invented.
 
Last edited:
Napoleon would become an officer (either colonel or general outright, they were haggling on the terms) in the Ottoman army.

When is the next Russian-Ottoman war again..?
 
Top