Napoleon dies in 1790

The consulat could maybe survive without Napoléon crazyness, and might even not provoke other people to go to war.
-With a saner leadership (no Napoléon), no attack on Egypt, the Consulat may propose peace to Britain in 1798-1799, and Britain will probably accept.

somebody's been only reading brit sources
 
somebody's been only reading brit sources

What is your problems with my assertions ? The brits proposed peace to the Directoire in 1795, but the Directoire was arrogant and refused it. Without Napoléon campaigns against British interest and without any other power at war against France, peace is really possible. And French sources are more reliable on the subject of the revolutionary wars than any others on French political arena. There are enough french source to basically ignore other sources for the French revolution as all PoV are present.

No. They cared much more for the revolutionary principles than for the republican form of the government.

Revolutionary principles who would be thrown with the bath by monarchists, as the Restoration showed.

The problem with the republic is that it was very unstable, very corrupt and very unpopular.

It was not more unstable that the regime before (which was so unstable that it fell to a popular revolt), and only fell through a Coup d'Etat.

It was less corrupt than the regime before.

It was more popular than the regime before.

People, especially the elite, wanted order to secure their life, their rank and their possessions. That's why the consulate was already a very monarchical regime, though without a king and initially with limited terms. As early as 1802, the consulate was turned into a lifelong consulate.

Which they obtained during the Directoire. The consulat was only an evolution of the Directoire as some part of the Directoire refused to let their power go, and thought they could use Napoléon to do so. They used him as the face of their regime, but were outmaneuvered by Napoléon who used is popularity to win his popular consultations.

So don't be mistaken. The generals and the civil elite were in majority in favour of some kind of monarchical regime that accepted the revolutionary principles. Almost nobody thought a republican regime was adapted to a bug country with 30 million people.
Many of the generals and ministers and other civil elite were extracted from second or third rank nobility (especially the best generals like Bonaparte, Moreau, Davout, Desaix, Cambacérès, ...etc). Only the incompetence and stupidity of Louis XVI had turned them into republicans.

They were in favor of a monarchical regime before 1792, and for a short time under the Directoire (the first election under the Directoire led to a monarchical majority due to the censitary suffrage, the next one to a Jacobin majority, both were suppressed by the Girondins old majority).

Proof that nobody wanted a Republican regime ? Elections prove you wrong.

Bug country ? what does that mean ?

Third Rank nobility was the basis of the Revolution (the noblesse de Robe), because they actually were not Nobles. They were part of the Third Estate. They were lawyers who joined the revolution and then the Republic. The best generals were not from nobility : Hoche, Masséna, Augereau, Bessières, etc. Among the Ministers : Carnot, among 13 directeurs only one was from the Nobility.

It was the imcompetence and the stupidity of Louis XVI and the whole royal entourage and the Nobility that led to most of the French between 1792 and 1799 to be republicans.
 
Most of them obtained a big part of their possessions at what was called auction of the "national" properties, that is the sale of the church's properties and nobles' properties between between late 1789 and late 1793. Tha's to say before the Directorate which was only established in the summer of 1794.

The revolutionary principles were by far not entirely thrown with the bath by monarchists at the restoration. And very special point : Louis XVIII guaranteed the preservation of their properties to most dignitaries of the former regime and to all those who had acuired "national" properties (he had no choice). And all that was repealed was because the restoration came through a military defeat of the country by a european coalition that was in France.

Have the country restore the monarchy without defeat, and the elite deciding this restoration will, to a very large extent, do on their own terms. It will be "take it or leave it".

Though being very unpopular, the convention and the public salvation committee did not fall through a popular revolt. They fell through a coup organized by a strange alliance between extremists (people more extremist than Robespierre but who were fearing for their own life) and moderate republicans.

The Directorate was not popular. It was unpopular but less unpopular than the more extremist regime that it had upset. It was based on enormous electoral fraud and the use of force (though not terror) to shut opposition up. So this absolutely does not prove anything as far as the results of elections are concerned.
When I said that "the french no longer wanted the republic", this of course did not mean that nobody was in favour of a republican regime. It naturally meant that a wide majority did not want of it.

The monarchy was not abolished because widely unpopular. It was abolished because unpopular among a minority of activists, especially in big cities, and first of all among parisian activists.

During the whole directorate, there was indirect and census suffrage so that whatever the result it was not at all representative of public opinion.

As far as leaders of the revolution using Napoleon as the face of their regime, you are right on the fact that some intended to (mainly Sieyès and Talleyrand). But their illusions vanished only a few weeks after Napoleon's coup.

I meant big countries (with 30 million people), not "bug".

Concerning the nobility, you are wrong. When you were noble, you were noble. These young men did not pass to the Third Estate before the abolition of privileges and titles. Many of these young people of noble birth that became prominent in the revolutionary years were not lawyers and were not from the robe. You had important nobles from the robe and poor and third rank nobles from the sword.

I should also have mentioned Talleyrand who was of high nobility and Barras, the most important among the Directors, who came from the nobility, and a from very ancient noble family from Provence. Marmont was also from the nobility. And you had many other low rank nobles at less visible ranks in the army of the republic.

The incompetence of Louis XVI alone made him unable to handle a revolt. Napoleon dubbed him "gran coglione", that is "big schmuck". And he also sad that with a good canonnade, the matter would have been handled.
 
What is your problems with my assertions ? The brits proposed peace to the Directoire in 1795, but the Directoire was arrogant and refused it. Without Napoléon campaigns against British interest and without any other power at war against France, peace is really possible. And French sources are more reliable on the subject of the revolutionary wars than any others on French political arena. There are enough french source to basically ignore other sources for the French revolution as all PoV are present.

Peace was not possible with the brits. they would not rest until a weakling king was on the throne of France. they were willing to fight France to the last drop of austrian, prussian, and russian blood
 
Peace was not possible with the brits. they would not rest until a weakling king was on the throne of France. they were willing to fight France to the last drop of austrian, prussian, and russian blood

Yes, but isn't the whole idea that, in this scenario, Russia never gets involved, and Austria and Prussia bow out much as they did IOTL? That leaves Britain to spill British blood. Something they wrre rather less keen on. They'd much prefer to provide others with money, so they could go spill their blood.

So what are they going to do here? Blockade France? Very costly, and France will simply trade through other European nations. Blockade them too? Even more costly, and makes you lots of enemies.

The only sensible option is to push for a cease-fire, which is enough for the French to stabilize their economy. After that, it will soon be clear that further war will be both expensive and pointless. A peace will be brokered, where France recognizes British ownership of her former colonies, and maybe agrees to limit the size of her navy (after all, a rival navy has always been the thing that Britain feared most - if France makes it clear that they will not attempt to be that rival, Britain will feel a whole lot better).
 
Top