Napoleon III assassinated in 1858

Thande

Donor
There were several assassination attempts on Napoleon III of France, but probably the best known took place on the 14th of January 1858. Italian pro-unificationists led by Felice Orsini threw bombs at the Emperor's carriage as Napoleon was on his way to the opera. In OTL, although several people were killed and others injured, the Emperor and Empress escaped unharmed.

What makes this particularly interesting is that Orsini's bombs had been made and tested in Britain with the collaboration of a British gunsmith. OTL this soon came out and there was an anti-British craze in France as a result, but Napoleon directly intervened to prevent escalation of the crisis. Now, imagine if Napoleon is killed but this fact is still discovered. There could be an Anglo-French war barely two years after the two countries were allies in the Crimean War. But it also depends on who seizes power in France. Napoleon's son was only two years old and he had only been Emperor for ten years. Would it be a quick transfer of power to a regent, a coup, a revolution, or a civil war?

Opinions?
 
Thande

Interesting thought. Would either power want war that soon after the Crimean, especially since Britain had also had the Indian mutiny and both probably had other colonial tensions around their empires?

I would expect that Britain would seek to pour oil on troubled waters as it would want peace. Depends on whom assumes power in France.

Of course what this also drastically changes is French involvement in events further east. Would they join Piedmont against Austria? How would whatever government resulted respond to events in Germany?

If it ended up with a French civil war over the successor and what sort of stage/government replaced the current one then the same issues but with bells on. If the imperialists are defeated you might see a loyalist regime established in Algeria say, although not sure how much control it had over that region by 58.

Steve

There were several assassination attempts on Napoleon III of France, but probably the best known took place on the 14th of January 1858. Italian pro-unificationists led by Felice Orsini threw bombs at the Emperor's carriage as Napoleon was on his way to the opera. In OTL, although several people were killed and others injured, the Emperor and Empress escaped unharmed.

What makes this particularly interesting is that Orsini's bombs had been made and tested in Britain with the collaboration of a British gunsmith. OTL this soon came out and there was an anti-British craze in France as a result, but Napoleon directly intervened to prevent escalation of the crisis. Now, imagine if Napoleon is killed but this fact is still discovered. There could be an Anglo-French war barely two years after the two countries were allies in the Crimean War. But it also depends on who seizes power in France. Napoleon's son was only two years old and he had only been Emperor for ten years. Would it be a quick transfer of power to a regent, a coup, a revolution, or a civil war?

Opinions?
 
There's an interesting situation here with Political Liberalisation.

If we postulate a scenario where the bomb kills Napoleon outright, but only wounds the Empress (there are several ways of acheiving this, for exmple having the bomb explode off centre, or having the Emperor killed by shrapnel rather than the explosion itself) which given the situation with both the assassinations of Tsar Alexander II and that of Grand Duke Sergei Alexandrovich or Russia is quite possible given the right circumstances, we have a very interesting situation.

The Empress is unlikely to suppress the Anti-British mood, but she is also likely to institute reforms. She was herself naturally a liberal in attitude and felt simply that Napoleon III's own coup to take the throne meant it was unwise for him to carry out the reforms he wanted, and that they should be left for his son (there was IIRC a general plan in the royal household to abdicate in favour of 'Napoleon IV' in the early 1870s when he would be old enough to rule outright, though the Franco-Prussian War stopped that). The reforms may be enough to save the empire in the long run.

If the Empress does not survive, it seems likely that a regency for the young heir would be at least attempted to start off with. Depending on who takes charge, we could see repression or reform of the instruments of government.

What seems likeliest to me, given that the Emperor had only been on the throne 6 years and was still popular, is that as long as the anti-British sentiment is given full vent by the regent, and some suitable minor reforms announced in the short term, a revolution is unlikely at this stage. Longer term is more difficult to predict, with a lot needing to be based on how the war goes for France.

Mind you, I'm finding it hard to find anything the French may want and be able to get. India is essentially off limits, except perhaps for Burma, being far to well controlled. Perhaps the Straits Settlements or Hong Kong? But even those would be hard to get. The Channel Islands might be a possibility, but some form of financial compensation might be all asked.
 
Mind you, I'm finding it hard to find anything the French may want and be able to get. India is essentially off limits, except perhaps for Burma, being far to well controlled. Perhaps the Straits Settlements or Hong Kong? But even those would be hard to get. The Channel Islands might be a possibility, but some form of financial compensation might be all asked.


The French don't get anything that they have to cross water to reach.
 
The French don't get anything that they have to cross water to reach.

Mikestone8

Exactly what I was thinking reading what Alex wrote.;)

I'm still doubtful that a war with Britain would result. If there have been factors implementing the British government just possibly. But a single British gunsmith being involved? Likely to see the government come down heavily on him [presuming they did OTL anyway?] and also possibly some other potential radicals and a period of general repression in Britain but France has no basis for what would be a very costly war that, with British control of the seas and economic lead has little chance of achieving anything positive for France.

Steve
 
The French don't get anything that they have to cross water to reach.

Mikestone8

Exactly what I was thinking reading what Alex wrote.;)

I'm still doubtful that a war with Britain would result. If there have been factors implementing the British government just possibly. But a single British gunsmith being involved? Likely to see the government come down heavily on him [presuming they did OTL anyway?] and also possibly some other potential radicals and a period of general repression in Britain but France has no basis for what would be a very costly war that, with British control of the seas and economic lead has little chance of achieving anything positive for France.

Steve

The channel Islands may be a possibility. They're so close to France that they would be very difficult to hold even with naval superiority.
 
I'm still doubtful that a war with Britain would result. If there have been factors implementing the British government just possibly. But a single British gunsmith being involved? Likely to see the government come down heavily on him [presuming they did OTL anyway?] and also possibly some other potential radicals and a period of general repression in Britain but France has no basis for what would be a very costly war that, with British control of the seas and economic lead has little chance of achieving anything positive for France.

Steve

I agree with you. What's France going to demand? "We demand that he be prosecuted!"

"We're doing that anyway."

"... Can we have India?"

"No."

A Napoleon III that dies in 1858, however, will be a much more successful one than one who lost the Franco-Prussian War. He hasn't intervened in Spain yet either. I wonder if people will write alternate histories about how of course he'd have created a French hegemon?
 

Thande

Donor
I think it spiralling into an Anglo-French War is not the most likely possibility, but I do think it is possible--if only because factions within France seeking power view it as furthering their own agenda, e.g. if they are rooted in the military. Good point whoever brought up the Indian Mutiny, I had forgotten that was contemporaneous. Perhaps the French could get involved in that, pointedly sending weapons to the mutinying sepoys as a tit-for-tat for the bomb scandal?

From a US point of view, of course, one of the most significant changes is no French intervention in Mexico.
 
The channel Islands may be a possibility. They're so close to France that they would be very difficult to hold even with naval superiority.


Only if air forces appear fifty or sixty years ahead of time.

Nappy III's uncle never got them, and he was much more formidable.
 
Invasion is unlikely. The republicans and socialists will take the opportunity to rise up, which will keep the authorities rather busy. The Bonapartists will briefly multiply, but in general there were never many of them actually under the Second Empire, and most of them even IOTL and especially ATL after Louis-Napoléon's death were/will be simply patriotic nationalists. The monarchists will unit briefly with the Bonaparists and with each other, but once things had settled down to any degree the in-fighting would start between the Orléanists and the Legitimists once again... allowing the republicans and socialists to once again flex their muscles. I imagine it'd rather be like the OTL Spanish Civil War, but on a larger scale and some 80 years before-hand.
 
Perhaps no conflict erupts, but the hatred/mistrust simmers for a while until the later part of the century/early 20th when the alliance system really takes off and we see a different alliance system. Presuming Germany still forms, I could see Britain being warmer to her. I could also see the French Empire getting cozy with either (or both) Russia or AH.
 
Thande

I think the mutiny was all but over, if not totally over by 58. Also it would be difficult, as well as explosively dangerous for France to try and send arms to Indian rebels. The rebellion was largely centred inland and I think Britain and loyal troops continued to hold the coasts.

It might be that some hot-heads will think they will win support by arguing for an attack. However, apart from what wolf_brother says about it prompting further internal unrest I would say a number of the military would be say 'you want to do what!:eek:' and promptly seek to sit on anyone advocating war under those circumstances.

The only small slice of possibility for a war might well be that I think there was a period of about 6 months about this time between the Glorie being built for France and HMS Warrior for the RN and hence the French might have had a theoretical naval edge. It would have been damned risky for the French navy to have gambled on such a slim advantage enabling them to win a war against Britain.

Steve

Steve

I think it spiralling into an Anglo-French War is not the most likely possibility, but I do think it is possible--if only because factions within France seeking power view it as furthering their own agenda, e.g. if they are rooted in the military. Good point whoever brought up the Indian Mutiny, I had forgotten that was contemporaneous. Perhaps the French could get involved in that, pointedly sending weapons to the mutinying sepoys as a tit-for-tat for the bomb scandal?

From a US point of view, of course, one of the most significant changes is no French intervention in Mexico.
 
I thought I just had on this topic; the Suez Canal is unlikely to happen ITTL.

de Lesseps received his concessions to construct the canal with heavy backing from Louis-Napoléon in 1854 and '56. Importantly, this was against strong resistance by the British, especially by Prime Minister Palmerston, who believed that such a waterway would threaten British control of the waves, be able to cut off communications with India, lay Egypt open to attack by a strong power (France or Austria), and, in any case, was against the laws of nature. Palmerston himself said the entire venture was 'one of the many bubble schemes that from time to time have been palmed upon gullible capitalists.' IOTL the Suez Canal Company was only founded in December 1858, and work actually began on the canal in April 1859. If Bonaparte is assassinated in January 1858 than the entire project is likely to fall apart ITTL, which would obviously have major implications...
 
Top