Napoleon, Holy Roman Emperor

Titles generally don't have much use, and in this case, Napoleon gaining Holy Emperor would have little effect on the rest of the world, in my opinion. Napoleon's role already was essentially the Holy Roman Emperor of Charlemagne's day in France's defense of catholicism and the pope. Neither the Italians nor the Austrians nor the (anyhow Orthodox) Russians would be particularly amused by this largely symbolic ploy at any rate.
 
Chamonix said:
WI Napoleon had seized the title of HRE before the Austrian Emperor changed his title to AE?

This doesn't seems plausible to me...
Napoleon was only crowned French Emperor on December 2nd, 1804. Exactly one year after his crowning, he was winning his most important battle : Austerlitz. And after Austerlitz, he dismembered the HRE.

Besides, Napoleon said this about the HRE : "It isn't Holy, it isn't Roman and isn't an Empire". That gives you an idea of how he considered the title.

Furthermore, if you want Napoleon to become Holy Roman Emperor, he must first defeat the Austrians BEFORE becoming French Emperor. He was only First Consul of the Republic during his Second Italian Campaign, when he last fought the Austrians before Austerlitz. And having him crowned before 1804 is very, very unlikely as he was Republican and crowned himself Emperor to protect the Republican Ideas (which is quite ironic).
 
WI Napoleon had seized the title of HRE before the Austrian Emperor changed his title to AE?

Francis didn't "change his title" to Austrian Emperor. He assumed it in 1804, in response to Napoleon making himself Emperor of the French. He then, in 1806, declared the HRE dissolved; paradoxically using his authority as Holy Roman Emperor to declare such.

In any case, Napoleon could revive the title. But probably didn't want to- seeing as he, you know, didn't. His vision was to create a new Napoleonic order, not resurrect the old.
 
And having him crowned before 1804 is very, very unlikely as he was Republican and crowned himself Emperor to protect the Republican Ideas (which is quite ironic).

Not really. At the time, a republic meant a representative democracy, in contrast to the autocracy of a monarch or dictator. Which is why the American founding fathers talked about an "unmixed republic", where even the executive was directly elected.
 

maverick

Banned
This doesn't seems plausible to me...
Napoleon was only crowned French Emperor on December 2nd, 1804. Exactly one year after his crowning, he was winning his most important battle : Austerlitz. And after Austerlitz, he dismembered the HRE.

Doesn't seem that hard.

It's basically just adding a line to the Treaty of Pressburg and giving Napoleon yet another title.

Besides, Napoleon said this about the HRE : "It isn't Holy, it isn't Roman and isn't an Empire". That gives you an idea of how he considered the title.

No, that was Voltaire.
 

maverick

Banned
Back to the OP.

A. There were probably several ideological reasons for Napoleon not taking the title, such as it having very Germanic connotations, when Napoleon saw himself as a new Charlemagne, not a new Odoacer/Barbarossa, and it being the old order when Napoleon was the new; this can, however, be trumped by Napoleon wanting to hoard cool titles (Emperor of the French, Mediator of the Swiss, King of Italy and the Romans, Protector of the Rhine);

B. I'd see no actual effects, besides from post-1815 Bonapartists laying claim to even more titles; it also adds to Napoleon's image as "the evil usurper. "
 
Main significance is that by keeping the title in existence it may increase the likelihood of Franz resuming it in 1814. However, he could probably ahve done that anyway had he wanted to.
 
Not really. At the time, a republic meant a representative democracy, in contrast to the autocracy of a monarch or dictator. Which is why the American founding fathers talked about an "unmixed republic", where even the executive was directly elected.

True. But in Republics, even some of the oldest, the representants of the people were rarely elected for life. That was also the case in the different constitutions of the French Republic up to the reform of 1802 which made Napoleon consul for life.

Besides, the title Emperor is the title of a Monarch : you're instauring a monarchy even if Constitutionnal and very close to a Republican Regime. Napoleon only choosed this title for the following reasons :

1°) He didn't want to choose King. That would have seemed like a return of the Old Regime and Napoleon didn't wanted that. I'll agree that technically an Emperor is just a stronger King but they are not the same.

2°) Such as Charlemagne did when he was crowned "Emperor of the West" by the Pope, Napoleon wanted the title to show he was the heir of Charlemagne and not of the Old Regime. He also showed himself as the heir to the Roman Empire.

3°) The Roman Empire was technically the Roman Republic but with an Emperor. Napoleon learned and was very interested in Roman history. This influenced him when he proclaimed the Consulate, which was modeled on the Roman Republic, and later the Empire, modeled on the Roman Empire. This was shown on the coins which said on one side "Napoleon Empereur" and on the other "Republique Française".

Finally, Napoleon only proclaimed the Empire when the British started to become hostile once again. Hadn't that happened, he would probably have stayed as First Consul until he though the Empire was necessary.

maverick said:
Doesn't seem that hard.

It's basically just adding a line to the Treaty of Pressburg and giving Napoleon yet another title.

Not if you consider Napoleon's personnality.
Besides, becoming Holy Roman Emperor would have been of little help to Napoleon : it was practically become nothing more than an Honorary title. While the German Kings had to be loyal towards the Holy Roman Emperor, the latter had no real power over them and the German Kings could do as they pleased. Not to mention that the Title had been in Hapsburg hands since the reign of Maximilian I, and there were few exceptions.

maverick said:
No, that was Voltaire.

I thought I had read on another thread that Napoleon did say this...
Well, never mind. Thanks for telling me I was wrong..
 
:

Not if you consider Napoleon's personnality.
Besides, becoming Holy Roman Emperor would have been of little help to Napoleon : it was practically become nothing more than an Honorary title.


Couldn't that be said of quite a lot of Napoleon's titles?

Iirc, he was King of Italy and President of the Confederation of the Rhine, maybe other things I've forgotten. But Emperor of the French was the only title that counted for anything, or rather, Commander in chief of the French Army was the only one that counted for anything, since it was command of the Army that gave reality to all the other titles.

They were frills. No reason why he couldn't have had "Holy Roman Emperor" as an addditional frill had he felt like it.
 
Mikestone8 said:
Couldn't that be said of quite a lot of Napoleon's titles?

Iirc, he was King of Italy and President of the Confederation of the Rhine, maybe other things I've forgotten. But Emperor of the French was the only title that counted for anything, or rather, Commander in chief of the French Army was the only one that counted for anything, since it was command of the Army that gave reality to all the other titles.

They were frills. No reason why he couldn't have had "Holy Roman Emperor" as an addditional frill had he felt like it.

You got all of Napoleon's title except "Mediator of the Swiss Confederation".

The problem with Holy Roman Emperor would be that Napoleon has to abandon "President of the Rhine Confederation" as Holy Roman Emperor technically designated the ruler of Germany.
Napoleon wasn't the kind of man who was running after titles, even if honorary : Emperor of the French, King of Italy, Protector of the Rhine Confederation and Mediator of the Swiss Confederation was sufficient enough for him.
Beside, as I said, Napoleon had very little use for the title Holy Roman Emperor : that's probably why he didn't took it and dismembered the HRE.

Also, don't say all of Napoleon's power relied on his military campaigns. While it's true that Napoleon was a tactical genius and often relied on military, he did some great political reforms that are still used in France. People only remembered Napoleon's military campaigns but pay few attention to his political deeds.

EDIT: Looking back at my post, it seems I didn't really responded to what you said. I'll try to fix that.

I don't think all of Napoleon's titles were honorary. True, people only remember Emperor of the French as France was his main concerned.
He had the title King of Italy, but the real power was in the hands of Viceroy Eugene de Beauharnais, Napoleon's stepson. However, Eugene was often adviced by Napoleon and was deeply loyal to him. Thus, one can say that Eugene ruled as Napoleon would have.
As for Protector of the Rhine Confederation, he did export the Napoleonic Code in Germany. So it wasn't probably all that honorary.
 
Let's see:

Napoleon urged Franz to resign as Holy Roman Emperor.
What Franz did was: He additionally dissolved the HRE.

Notice the difference? :)

It has been conjectured that Franz feared Napoleon might claim the Holy Roman title otherwise.
I suppose Napoleon wasn't really disappointed that that title was eliminated,
but given that a contemporary man of power might get things right, this seems like a realistic option to me.

Of course, this would change little.
But of course, the HRE might survive Napoleon's defeat - survive as a term, as a category.
As a functioning legal entity, it had been dead long before Nap.

And of course, this may cause political problems on the *Congress.
As Mikestone has said, Franz might have attempted to regain that title - while the other German princes will oppose fervently. All of them.
 
I don't think all of Napoleon's titles were honorary. True, people only remember Emperor of the French as France was his main concerned.
He had the title King of Italy, but the real power was in the hands of Viceroy Eugene de Beauharnais, Napoleon's stepson. However, Eugene was often adviced by Napoleon and was deeply loyal to him. Thus, one can say that Eugene ruled as Napoleon would have.
As for Protector of the Rhine Confederation, he did export the Napoleonic Code in Germany. So it wasn't probably all that honorary.


But none of the subsidary titles counted for anything in themselves.

He was "King of Italy" because he was Emperor of the French. As soon as the French army left, he (and Eugene) counted for nothing there. Ditto in Germany and Switzerland.
 
But of course, the HRE might survive Napoleon's defeat - survive as a term, as a category.
As a functioning legal entity, it had been dead long before Nap.

And of course, this may cause political problems on the *Congress.
As Mikestone has said, Franz might have attempted to regain that title - while the other German princes will oppose fervently. All of them.


They were happy enough for him to be President of the German Confederation - much the same "first among equals" position that he'd had as HRE, just with a less colourful title.

As I undersdtand it, it was Franz himself who rejected the idea of resuming the Imperial Crown, considering it an empty dignity. His successors were to regret that.
 
There were probably several ideological reasons for Napoleon not taking the title, such as it having very Germanic connotations, when Napoleon saw himself as a new Charlemagne, not a new Odoacer/Barbarossa


OK, this can't go without reply. :)

The title of the Holy Roman Emperor truly had German connotations,
while Charlemagne no doubt was a Germanic ruler.
(It only becomes messy when you argue whether he was also German or not.)

And yes, otherwise I totally agree with your posting ...
 
Top