Napoleon dies at the battle of austerlitz

longsword14

Banned
Napoleon was not ever as exposed as he was in his first Italian and his last campaign in Germany.
No smashing French victory, but the allies are not flipping the tables either.
 
Napoleon was not ever as exposed as he was in his first Italian and his last campaign in Germany.
No smashing French victory, but the allies are not flipping the tables either.
Interesting. What would it need for the allies to reinstall the bourbons during this period? A complete victory during the first id second coalitions?
 
Interesting. What would it need for the allies to reinstall the bourbons during this period? A complete victory during the first id second coalitions?

The sky to open, strike down Napoléon with a blast of lightning and leave a one hundred meter tall stone-engraven message saying 'the count of Provence should be king of France'? That wasn't what they were fighting for and Louis hadn't even taken on board the notion that changes would have to be made.
 
The sky to open, strike down Napoléon with a blast of lightning and leave a one hundred meter tall stone-engraven message saying 'the count of Provence should be king of France'? That wasn't what they were fighting for and Louis hadn't even taken on board the notion that changes would have to be made.
Alright interesting, though when he was restored he did make changes not really his fault if the people kept the fundamental old system
 
Alright interesting, though when he was restored he did make changes not really his fault if the people kept the fundamental old system

It was only around 1804, 15 years in, after Napoléon had started whacking potential royalist heirs, that Louis realized there would have to be concessions made to the French people. That level of self-delusion after having tramped all around Europe courts takes something. Even in 1814, that lesson still hadn't penetrated the Bourbons' thick skulls and it took the Hundred Days and being hounded out of France again in less than a fortnight, by someone who had managed to rally virtually the entire army after landing with fewer than two hundred men for Louis to realize he had virtually zero legitimacy and that the ultras did not a powerbase make. And the lesson was still lost on Charles.
 
It was only around 1804, 15 years in, after Napoléon had started whacking potential royalist heirs, that Louis realized there would have to be concessions made to the French people. That level of self-delusion after having tramped all around Europe courts takes something. Even in 1814, that lesson still hadn't penetrated the Bourbons' thick skulls and it took the Hundred Days and being hounded out of France again in less than a fortnight, by someone who had managed to rally virtually the entire army after landing with fewer than two hundred men for Louis to realize he had virtually zero legitimacy and that the ultras did not a powerbase make. And the lesson was still lost on Charles.

Aye.
 
Yeah, and that really did not go anywhere.

Malet was arrested and shot because Napoléon wasn't dead - and not because Napoléon actually had a successor.

That's why Napoléon was so furious about Malet's attempted coup. He wasn't so angry about the treason per se, but about the fact nobody attempted to proclaim his son Emperor. If nobody had pointed out that Napoléon was still alive, Malet would have succeeded, at least for now. That's the moment he realized how strongly his regime actually depended on him and how few legitimacy his son actual had.
 
What sort of French defeat do we mean? I don't think an 1814-style defeat (with the Coalition in Paris) is very likely; France in 1805 is much stronger than that. Defeat in 1805 is probably more like France withdrawing from some of the client states but still keeping the 1801 borders.

I think it's really hard to get Louis XVIII on the throne in this scenario. Napoléon's regime is popular at this time; whoever takes over for him is probably going to be another "son of the Revolution" pledging to uphold his reforms.
 
And if they were

They weren't. They were operating by eighteenth century IR norms of balance of power. They were trying to clip France's wings and they didn't see its ruler as that destabilizing to the point they needed to remove him from the throne. It wasn't until the Sixth Coalition that it started to be an aim shared by more than the British (maybe) and in the Hundred Days they specifically said their war was with Napoléon, not France. Before that, it just wasn't an objective and there was no reason for it to become one.
 
They weren't. They were operating by eighteenth century IR norms of balance of power. They were trying to clip France's wings and they didn't see its ruler as that destabilizing to the point they needed to remove him from the throne. It wasn't until the Sixth Coalition that it started to be an aim shared by more than the British (maybe) and in the Hundred Days they specifically said their war was with Napoléon, not France. Before that, it just wasn't an objective and there was no reason for it to become one.
And hownwould
One make it so that became the case?
 
Top