Napoleon dies in January, 1815

What happens if Napoleon dies in January, 1815? Say he catches something whilst in exile, or simply dies from a disease? Naturally this means no 100 days, does this strengthen the Bourbon hold on France, does it shift Bonpartist sympathies to his son, or to his nephews?

France is in a much better shape. It can retain the 1792 borders (so including Savoy), it doesn't have to pay for the allied occupation, it is in a much stronger position in the Congress of Vienna. Maybe Talleyrand can strengthen the French diplomatic position against Great Britain or Austria?
Regarding French domoestic politics, there will be no White Terror (essentially the royalist reaction at the end of the Hundred Days). The royalist position will be weaker, liberals like Constant and revolutionaries like Fouché will continue to play an important role. The régicides like Cambacérès, Sieyès or Fouché will not have to leave the country.

Bonapartism will be very different to OTL's movement. The army was very dissatisfied with the diminishment of the number of regiments (necessary after the end of the Napoleonic Wars), and we might see some conspiracies or coup attempts - but nothing serious (think of the two amateurish attempts Napoleon III made in 1836 and 1840; both were unsuccessful).
At the same time, Bonapartism will lack the experience of the Cent Jours. While from a European perspective, the Hundred Days were a French defeat, Napoleon considered them as a personal victory. He had used the Hundred Days to forge his image as a popular hero, supporter of Liberalism; his captivity on St. Helena made him the idol of Romanticism, and Las Cases' Memorial of Saint Helena depicted him as the liberator of oppressed nations and friend of progress.
I doubt that Bonapartism will gain so much sympathies without the ultimate battle at Waterloo and the exile on St. Helena.

Another interesting region will be Italy, since the Congress of Vienna maintained Joachim Murat as King of Naples. Murat was somewhat a progressive and mondernized his kingdom - in OTL he attempted to unite Italy in 1815, which can be described as a first Risorgimento. I don't think that he would have attacked the Austrians without the Hundred Days, but Naples might well become the strongest state of Italy and unite Italy under the dynasty Bonaparte.

Alright interesting, would be interesting to see if Republicanism could be defeated as an ideology.

Why should it be defeated...? The 19th century was a century of rationalism. Hereditary monarchy wasn't adapted to the spirit of the era: why should a person hold a public office just because his father hold the same office?
 
perhaps because said person has been trained how to rule and might not be beholden to big corporations like politicians often are
 
France is in a much better shape. It can retain the 1792 borders (so including Savoy), it doesn't have to pay for the allied occupation, it is in a much stronger position in the Congress of Vienna. ?

I don't think Savoy was part of the 1792 borders (these were the borders as of 1 January 1792, before the war broke out) but agree with your other points.
 
Last edited:
I don't think Savoy was part of the 1792 borders (these were the borders as of 1 January 1792, before the war broke out) but agree with your other points.

"Two-thirds of Savoy was restored to the Kingdom of Sardinia in the First Restoration of 1814 following Napoleon's abdication; approximately one-third of Savoy, including the two most important cities of Chambéry and Annecy, remained in France. Following Napoleon's brief return to power during the Hundred Days and subsequent defeat at Waterloo, the remaining one-third of Savoy was restored to the Kingdom of Sardinia at the Congress of Vienna to strengthen Sardinia as a buffer state on France's southeastern border."

So we're both right in some sense;) One part of Savoy was indeed included in the 1792 borders (and returned in 1815), while the other part already became part of Sardinia in 1814.

perhaps because said person has been trained how to rule and might not be beholden to big corporations like politicians often are

Citizens prefer to judge themselves if a person is able to rule instead of trusting royal education blindly.
 
"Two-thirds of Savoy was restored to the Kingdom of Sardinia in the First Restoration of 1814 following Napoleon's abdication; approximately one-third of Savoy, including the two most important cities of Chambéry and Annecy, remained in France. Following Napoleon's brief return to power during the Hundred Days and subsequent defeat at Waterloo, the remaining one-third of Savoy was restored to the Kingdom of Sardinia at the Congress of Vienna


Citizens prefer to judge themselves if a person is able to rule instead of trusting royal education blindly.
Low turnout and general apathy suggests otherwise
 
Low turnout and general apathy suggests otherwise

Low turnout and apathy, which is hitherto everything but general, suggest that citizens are somewhat dissatisfied with politics and politicians - but virtually nowhere this lead to an increased support of monarchy. The idea of a hereditary head of state, symbolic or powerful, is very unpopular in most places.

Anyway, I think that neither your nor mine opinion on monarchy is of any importance in this discussion. We just have to acknowledge the fact that for any reasons, monarchies were abolished in many countries in the 19th and 20th centuries.

And I don't see why Napoléon dying on Elba would change this. Why should republicanism be weaker in this scenario?
 
Low turnout and apathy, which is hitherto everything but general, suggest that citizens are somewhat dissatisfied with politics and politicians - but virtually nowhere this lead to an increased support of monarchy. The idea of a hereditary head of state, symbolic or powerful, is very unpopular in most places.

Anyway, I think that neither your nor mine opinion on monarchy is of any importance in this discussion. We just have to acknowledge the fact that for any reasons, monarchies were abolished in many countries in the 19th and 20th centuries.

And I don't see why Napoléon dying on Elba would change this. Why should republicanism be weaker in this scenario?

A fair . Though I'd argue the unpopularity of a hereditary head of state with symbolic or actual power is due to the what one might call indoctrination we are given as children. I suppose a more relevant question on that point would be, how to get monarchies to be the one pioneering technological and economic change.
 
There are advantages and disadvantages to any form of government that exists, but I'm not sure this is the place to debate the merits of Monarchy vs.. Republic.
 
There are advantages and disadvantages to any form of government that exists, but I'm not sure this is the place to debate the merits of Monarchy vs.. Republic.

Exactly. That's a topic for Chat, so let's concentrate on the topic of the thread.

I suppose a more relevant question on that point would be, how to get monarchies to be the one pioneering technological and economic change.

That was exactly the kind of monarch Napoléon III wanted to be. He once said: "The Emperor has to be the Messiah of the new ideas".

But Napoléon III wasn't a traditional monarch.

Again, with or without the Hundred Days, I think that monarchies will disappear in most European countries.
 
Exactly. That's a topic for Chat, so let's concentrate on the topic of the thread.



That was exactly the kind of monarch Napoléon III wanted to be. He once said: "The Emperor has to be the Messiah of the new ideas".

But Napoléon III wasn't a traditional monarch.

Again, with or without the Hundred Days, I think that monarchies will disappear in most European countries.

I guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that point :)

But yes, Nappy dies in 1815, what else changes? Do the Bonpartists rally around his son, does Nappy II ever formally stage a bid?
 
My problem is that you didn't give any reasons for your assumption

Personally, from observing and having been active in politics for a little while, people like stability and are scared of too much change happening too quickly. For some, monarchy represents stability and tradition, which is preferable to the somewhat radical idea of republicanism. In my experience, people only go for the radical idea when they are deeply frustrated with the current system, or are simply too guillible to see the flaws in the writing.
 
Personally, from observing and having been active in politics for a little while, people like stability and are scared of too much change happening too quickly. For some, monarchy represents stability and tradition, which is preferable to the somewhat radical idea of republicanism. In my experience, people only go for the radical idea when they are deeply frustrated with the current system, or are simply too guillible to see the flaws in the writing.

That's right, but where is the link between "Napoléon dies in January 1815" and "More monarchies survive until today"? You simply never explained this assumption :)
 
That's right, but where is the link between "Napoléon dies in January 1815" and "More monarchies survive until today"? You simply never explained this assumption :)

Ah, I get you. Well, my line of thinking has somewhat been that Napoleon's return in the 100 days greatly weakened the image of the Bourbons as they had to flee again, combine that with Louis XVIII being less active upon his restoration and you have people questioning what the purpose of the crown is. Furthermore, the Bourbons were one of the longest surviving monarchies in the world, with their descent through the Capets. Their constant shifting and removal, damaged the prestige of monarchies elsewhere as well I think. Remove Napoelon in 1815, and perhaps you prevent that?
 
Well, my line of thinking has somewhat been that Napoleon's return in the 100 days greatly weakened the image of the Bourbons as they had to flee again

Granted Louis's fight wasn't positive for the Bourbons' image. But it wasn't a deadly blow either. The municipal elections of May 1815, in which many Royalists were elected mayor, proved how conservative the French countryside really was, even during the Hundred Days.

combine that with Louis XVIII being less active upon his restoration

That's why Louis was quite popular and why he didn't face a major revolt during his reign. Louis had studied British politics while he lived there and knew how a parliamentary monarchy works. He appointed his Prime Minister always according to the majority in the Chamber of representatives. Under his reign, France was essentially a parliamentary monarchy and Louis XVIII even once said that not the king, but the Prime Minister was now the most important person in the country.

This system was very popular with the moderate Royalists and Liberals and if it wasn't for Louis's brother Charles, France could still be ruled by the Bourbons.

It was Charles X who appointed ultra-Royalist ministers and tried to regain the absolute power of his ancestors who provoked the Revolution of July 1830, after which Louis-Philippe became (last) king of France.

and you have people questioning what the purpose of the crown is.

Most of them live(d) in countries where the monarchy still holds or held a large amount of power. Parliamentary monarchies are much less criticized than constitutional or absolute ones.

Their constant shifting and removal, damaged the prestige of monarchies elsewhere as well I think.

Well not as far as I know. Most monarchies of Europe were victims of WWI and of WWII. Sure Napoléon's death could prevent both wars, but that's something you simply can't predict.
 
Top