Napoleon III dies before taking power, effects for France and the wider world?

Lets say Napoleon III dies an untimely death before he has an opportunity to make a meaningful impact on French politics. Assuming everything else goes as IOTL, what happens when the 1848 revolution overthrows Louis Philippe and Napoleon III isn't there to take power? What are the short and long term impacts for France and the rest of the world?
 
Not an expert here, but would the ramifications be enough to butterfly away the Franco-Prussian War? Or to a lesser degree have it occur later and in a different way. Either way its going to be interesting what happens. I'm fairly certain the Germans would still unite, although the war was a way to further that for the movement, but you change one part of history, it effects the whole timeline. I'm sure we'd still see the exspansion of empires and rivalries emerge, but in a much different way. Certainly no Franco-Prussian war would erase the loss of Alsace-Lorraine, and give the French less reason to participate in the Great War which is most likely still going to broil over at some point down the line.
 
Lets say Napoleon III dies an untimely death before he has an opportunity to make a meaningful impact on French politics. Assuming everything else goes as IOTL, what happens when the 1848 revolution overthrows Louis Philippe and Napoleon III isn't there to take power? What are the short and long term impacts for France and the rest of the world?

Shor term, Thiers and the conservatives have to find another candidate to back and this one may stay the puppet he is meant to be. The second republic likely stays on. Industrialisation continues at more or less the same speed (less represion and politics likely impeding industrialisation a bit cancelling each other IMO). Medium terms, quite a few changes. Will 2nd republic France interfere in Italy? if it does, it is unlikely to protect the papacy. Definitely no maxican adventure. Likely no French participation in Crimea. Maybe no Suez Canal.
 
Cavaignac would be president until 1852, but a restoration of monarchy is likely after 1852.
The Order Party, a coalition of conservatives, had already the objective of having an Orléans prince (Joinville I believe) to restore the monarchy.
IOTL, they initiated a series of authoritarian laws restricting freedoms.

IOTL, the liberal opposition, the DemocSocs (Democrat-Socialist meaning the actual republicans, not those of the conservative who planned to kill the republic) was relatively powerless since 1848 and the June Days.

Still, given Louis-Napoleon would be dead, a part of the urban and worker vote that went on him could be won by Ledru-Rollin, but not much as desillusion was strong since the repression of the June Days.
Then, Prince Napoleon aka Plonplon would find himself the head of the House of Bonaparte and of the Bonapartist party, but that party would be much reduced as the radicalism of the Prince would not find as much appeal as Louis-Napoleon; under the Second Republic, Prince Napoleon radicalism won him the nickname of the Mountain Prince.
It's likely that with him, we would see an alliance of Bonapartists and Democrat-Socialists; the essential difference between them is that the Bonapartists defend a presidential republic with use of refendum , a kind of 5th like Republic (De Gaulle never admitted it, but the 5th Republic is based on the Bonapartist's Republic idea), and that the Democrat-Socialists are parliamentarists.
I think that Plonplon could be the candidate of the Bonapartist-DemocSoc coalition in 1852.

However, IOTL, early by elections during the Second Republic saw great progress by DemocSocs, progress that scared enough the conservatives so that they vote a law restricting the number of electors by a third to reduce the electoral basis of DemocSocs.
Such thing makes me thinking that the conservatives would still carry 1852.
In my opinion, had Louis-Napoleon not been president and made his coup, the country would have headed towards a new revolution and a civil war.
 
Will 2nd republic France interfere in Italy? if it does, it is unlikely to protect the papacy. Definitely no mexican adventure. Likely no French participation in Crimea. Maybe no Suez Canal.

I agree with you on the first three, but isn't the Suez Canal inevitable given its strategic value to the British alone?
 
Cavaignac would be president until 1852, but a restoration of monarchy is likely after 1852.
The Order Party, a coalition of conservatives, had already the objective of having an Orléans prince (Joinville I believe) to restore the monarchy.
IOTL, they initiated a series of authoritarian laws restricting freedoms.

IOTL, the liberal opposition, the DemocSocs (Democrat-Socialist meaning the actual republicans, not those of the conservative who planned to kill the republic) was relatively powerless since 1848 and the June Days.

Still, given Louis-Napoleon would be dead, a part of the urban and worker vote that went on him could be won by Ledru-Rollin, but not much as desillusion was strong since the repression of the June Days.
Then, Prince Napoleon aka Plonplon would find himself the head of the House of Bonaparte and of the Bonapartist party, but that party would be much reduced as the radicalism of the Prince would not find as much appeal as Louis-Napoleon; under the Second Republic, Prince Napoleon radicalism won him the nickname of the Mountain Prince.
It's likely that with him, we would see an alliance of Bonapartists and Democrat-Socialists; the essential difference between them is that the Bonapartists defend a presidential republic with use of refendum , a kind of 5th like Republic (De Gaulle never admitted it, but the 5th Republic is based on the Bonapartist's Republic idea), and that the Democrat-Socialists are parliamentarists.
I think that Plonplon could be the candidate of the Bonapartist-DemocSoc coalition in 1852.

However, IOTL, early by elections during the Second Republic saw great progress by DemocSocs, progress that scared enough the conservatives so that they vote a law restricting the number of electors by a third to reduce the electoral basis of DemocSocs.
Such thing makes me thinking that the conservatives would still carry 1852.
In my opinion, had Louis-Napoleon not been president and made his coup, the country would have headed towards a new revolution and a civil war.

A very interesting analysis.
I do agree that Cavaignac does not appear the right guy to lead a coup (IIRC the constitution of the 2nd republic allowed a single presidential term); at the same time it does not look right that he would bow out without putting his weight behind the DemoSocs. If the DemoSocs candidate is PlonPlon (whose liberal background is unimpeachable) and Cavaignac supports the Demo Socs I would think they might be able to scrape through.

What about 1849? Would Cavaignac support the second round of the insurrections?
 
I agree with you on the first three, but isn't the Suez Canal inevitable given its strategic value to the British alone?

If that was the case, why was it done by the French, with French capitals and inaugurated by the French Empress? AFAIK, UK only got interested in it after it got going, but was not interested enough to get it started.

It might be inevitable as technology evolves and digging becomes easier, but it likely delayed by some time. I have no idea how much, could be half a dozen years, or ten times as much.
 
It might be inevitable as technology evolves and digging becomes easier, but it likely delayed by some time. I have no idea how much, could be half a dozen years, or ten times as much.

Points taken, though I do wonder how a lack of a Canal project would effect British interest in controlling Egypt.
 
Top