Napoleon III Executed During Franco-Prussian War

What if the Prussians executed Napoleon III during the Franco-Prussian War?
What would be the motivation behind this move?

It doesnt sounds so realistic, since Bismarck wanted the peace as fast as possible to make the Unification a fact.

Killing him would make the situation even more complicated than OTL.
 
I think the world would have been aghast at such a thing. I am trying to think about executions of sovereign leaders in that time frame and I can not think of one. Honorable exile seems to have been the rule of the day: Charles X, Louis-Phillippe, Italian rulers, Otto of Greece. The seizure of Hanover was bad enough. The execution of Napoleon III would have besmirched the new German Empire's reputation very badly. And as you say, Bismarck just wanted the unification done as quickly as possible.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
The first time is tragedy;

What if the Prussians executed Napoleon III during the Franco-Prussian War?

The first time is tragedy; the second, farce.

NI wasn't executed in 1815; what would be the reason for NIII in 1871?

Best,
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Maximillian?

I think the world would have been aghast at such a thing. I am trying to think about executions of sovereign leaders in that time frame and I can not think of one. Honorable exile seems to have been the rule of the day: Charles X, Louis-Phillippe, Italian rulers, Otto of Greece. The seizure of Hanover was bad enough. The execution of Napoleon III would have besmirched the new German Empire's reputation very badly. And as you say, Bismarck just wanted the unification done as quickly as possible.

It is a Manet...


Best,
 
Why would Prussians do that? On this time wasn't habit execute state leaders if they lose war. There not be absolutely any reason execute Napoleon III.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
It was a response to the comment, and

Maximilian was executed by a President, not a fellow sovereign. Two COMPLETELY different things. It would be like Pedro I executing his brother Miguel, or something similar. There would be no reason and it would likely cause a backlash towards the Germans.

It was a response to the comment, and it wasn't something they asked for...

Plus, it's a Manet. Pretty picture of a triple execution.

There's this one, too:

220px-%C3%89douard_Manet-Kearsarge-Alabama2.jpg



~40 men dying horribly, but it's a pretty picture.

Best,
 
Bismarck actually cursed when he got the news of the capture of Napoleon III, it was the last thing he wanted. The capture meant that the regime in France was doomed and a republic was very likely to replace it, but also that there would be no one in France in the position to sue for peace and sign an armistice. He released Nappy as soon as possible in Belgium and expedited his trip to England where the empress and the prince imperial were already (and later on he expedited the famous trip of Bazaine to England, but it was too late to change the momentum in France).
Having Napoleon shot could have been farther from his mind, on a par with a willing participation to a cannibal banquet. It was simply not done.

The few historical execution of monarchs in modern times (Charles I, Louis XVII, Maximilian, Nicholas II) happened in revolutionary or civil war times (just four, while the executions of revolutionary or insurgent leaders are too many to be counted). Of the four, I am inclined to think that the execution of Maximilian might have been the easiest one to justify: a foreign king without any established legitimacy, placed on the throne by foreign interests and propped up by foreign bayonets.
 
Bismarck actually cursed when he got the news of the capture of Napoleon III, it was the last thing he wanted. The capture meant that the regime in France was doomed and a republic was very likely to replace it, but also that there would be no one in France in the position to sue for peace and sign an armistice. He released Nappy as soon as possible in Belgium and expedited his trip to England where the empress and the prince imperial were already (and later on he expedited the famous trip of Bazaine to England, but it was too late to change the momentum in France).
Having Napoleon shot could have been farther from his mind, on a par with a willing participation to a cannibal banquet. It was simply not done.

It did put a kink in the plans he had been carefully trying to lay. In an ironic sense the Empire actually meant peace as long as Napoleon III was around to sign the treaty, without him things got just slightly more complicated.

Though that does raise the question of whether an outright loss would see him deposed by a coup or popular revolution after the war. Bismarck probably could have cared less about that.
 
Though that does raise the question of whether an outright loss would see him deposed by a coup or popular revolution after the war. Bismarck probably could have cared less about that.

Imho you're wrong. Bismarck did really care. A weakened but still surviving French empire was the best possible outcome for Germany. and Bismarck would be willing to help the Bonaparte dynasty to totter around (on a German leash, but beggars can't be choosers). It would not last forevermost of the time this kind of "abusive relations" sooner or later ends: there are however some cases where the bottom dog gets used to his role, and starts to like it
 
Germans wanted France to be humiliated, and keeping Napoleon III as a prisoner was far more humiliating than killing him.
 
Germans wanted France to be humiliated, and keeping Napoleon III as a prisoner was far more humiliating than killing him.
Not really.

Napoleon was useful as a monarch for Bismarck. Thats whats makes the execution so unlikely. And it was not really the custom at this time.

Humilation played not really a role in Bismarcks considerations.
 
What everyone else has said. Monarchs killing their brother monarchs was just not done, and a free Napoleon forced to sue peace with Germany fitted Bismarck's plans more. Napoleon's surrender meant that the war lasted longer.

However, what if Napoleon had died at Sedan? By all accounts it seems that he tried to get himself killed when his defeat became certain, wandering aimlessly around the French positions in the open. What if he had caught a stray bullet or shell?
 
However, what if Napoleon had died at Sedan? By all accounts it seems that he tried to get himself killed when his defeat became certain, wandering aimlessly around the French positions in the open. What if he had caught a stray bullet or shell?

It could be that he becomes a martyr and instead of a republic the nation rallies around the Empress and her son, either fighting on in a useless spurt of patriotic fervor, or sullenly accepting the peace she proposes.
 
It could be that he becomes a martyr and instead of a republic the nation rallies around the Empress and her son, either fighting on in a useless spurt of patriotic fervor, or sullenly accepting the peace she proposes.

He would certainly become a martyr, and most likely would end up resting in Les Invalides, maybe side-by-side with his more famous uncle. Incidentally, recently the French government has become considering bringing Napoleon III's body home from his tomb in England.

There would probably be also a rally around the prince imperial, but the empress might be a liability, given her conservative and ultra-catholic views which would contrast with the necessity of implementing some liberal reforms to avoid riots and insurrections in Paris and Lyon (IOTL as soon as the news of Sedan arrived, Parisian mobs started to agitate and the empress - who acted as regent in the absence of the emperor - was immediately abandoned by all factions. She left Paris on the 4th of September IIRC, and managed to reach the Channel ports and subsequently go in exile to England only through the assistance of the Italian ambassador (count Nigra) and the Austrian one (prince Metternich).

It is clear that the deeply conservative government of count Palikao and his faction of Ultramontanes and "Mamelukes" has to go and be replaced by a government with support among the liberals and the moderate left. Maybe Ollivier could become prime minister again, he was a man for all seasons but he had some liberal credentials.

The big issue is the regency council, and I believe that the empress will have to step down. The best bet might be prince Napoleon-Joseph Bonaparte (Plon-plon), son of Jerome Bonaparte and with strong liberal credentials. Plon-plon becomes the head of the Bonaparte house upon the death of the emperor, and is married to a daughter of the king of Italy. The problem is that Eugenie hates him, so she must step down.

On the diplomatic side the death of Napoleon on the battlefield would send ripples all across Europe, and probably the best bet for the new regency council would be to try and involve other European Powers for a mediation between France and the NCG. There should be a lot of worries in the European chancelleries: after the war of 1866 Prussian annexations in North Germany met the displeasure of Russia (that was why Bismarck avoided similar annexations in southern Germany and went for a mild peace treaty with Austria). The possibility of a complete French collapse and subsequent Prussian gains in north-west France would not be accepted. A conference of Powers - called for by Austria and Italy and backed by UK and Russia - might become a real possibility ITTL.
 
It is said that NIII was out on the battlefield looking to die in battle, rather than face the defeat of France. So...a death by bullet or shell during battle is an option.

If you want an execution, what would be more likely is a scenario where NIII goes back to Paris and becomes trapped when Paris besieged. When the Commune comes about, NIII ends up suffering the same fate as Louis XVI.
 
Top