Napoleon III is killed in 1858

In January 14th 1858 the Italian revolutionary and Felice Orsini tried to assassinate Napoleon III by throwing three bombs at the imperial carriage, while the Emperor and Empress were going to a theatre. He manage to kill eight people with this act, but the Napoleon III and his wife were unhurt.

So, WI he had managed to kill them? At the time of the assassination attempt the Emperor's son, Louis Napoleon, didn't even had reached two-years-old. Would the Second Empire survive? And if not, what would replace it? A Third Republic or a monarchical restoration?
 
He will have died a year before enacting his "liberal" reforms, with a wife who is quite conservative and very young son. In spite of all this, I think the Bonaparte regime would probably survive. The various foreign adventures of the 1860's are avoided, like the support for the Confederacy, the support for an Imperial restoration in Mexico, the alliance with Britain to open up China, and the establishment of French influence in Indo-China.

German and Italian unification are thrown off with Napoleon's death, however, with France rendered unable to act by the regency its possible that Prussia is more demanding following the 1866 war, and is able to forcefully unify Germany at that time. At this point I'll insert my favorite Hapsburg, and propose that Archduke Maximilian is able to become the Austro-Hungarian Emperor following his older brother's abdication in the wake of his disasterous showing in the Six Weeks' War. Liberal-happy A-H follows of course.

The liberal reforms probably occur anyway, with elected Bonapartist leaders taking more power and guiding the regency. Napoleon IV doesn't attain his majority until 1874, and the Emperor's reign is probably going to be dominated by dealing with an increasingly powerful Left. Without the Paris Commune and its destruction, I think the Left will be much more vigorous.
 
He will have died a year before enacting his "liberal" reforms, with a wife who is quite conservative and very young son. In spite of all this, I think the Bonaparte regime would probably survive. The various foreign adventures of the 1860's are avoided, like the support for the Confederacy, the support for an Imperial restoration in Mexico, the alliance with Britain to open up China, and the establishment of French influence in Indo-China.

.....

The liberal reforms probably occur anyway, with elected Bonapartist leaders taking more power and guiding the regency. Napoleon IV doesn't attain his majority until 1874, and the Emperor's reign is probably going to be dominated by dealing with an increasingly powerful Left. Without the Paris Commune and its destruction, I think the Left will be much more vigorous.

Do you think that the Emperor's cousin, Napoleon Joseph (why did they need to call all their sons by this name:mad::p), the "Plon-Plon" could have seized more power in this circunstance? He had diplomatic and military experiences, and was particularly opposed to the Empress. Could we see a kind of "coup" to give him the regency?

German and Italian unification are thrown off with Napoleon's death, however, with France rendered unable to act by the regency its possible that Prussia is more demanding following the 1866 war, and is able to forcefully unify Germany at that time. At this point I'll insert my favorite Hapsburg, and propose that Archduke Maximilian is able to become the Austro-Hungarian Emperor following his older brother's abdication in the wake of his disasterous showing in the Six Weeks' War. Liberal-happy A-H follows of course.

Also, without Napoleon III, if butterflies do not change much the events in Spain, Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen could have been chosen as the Spanish king in 1870.
 
Do you think that the Emperor's cousin, Napoleon Joseph (why did they need to call all their sons by this name:mad::p), the "Plon-Plon" could have seized more power in this circunstance? He had diplomatic and military experiences, and was particularly opposed to the Empress. Could we see a kind of "coup" to give him the regency?

I can see the regency dividing in factions between Plon-Plon (pro-Italian, anti-clerical liberal) and Eugenie (Ultra-Catholic, pro-Mexican intervention, general authoritarian). Plon-Plon was a Bonaparte by blood, the next in line behind the young Napoleon IV, so he would have the right to the regency, and he may have been able to grab it.

Plon-Plon might push liberalization to counter Eugenie, which could well unleash forces beyond the regime's control (Paris Commune only a dozen years in future). Eugenie looks for support from the Imperial elite, but her ultra-Catholic outlook makes her unpopular on the street, and I think Plon-Plon can probably get support from any elected government. I think Plon-Plon's dominance could see the emergence of a Bonapartism that looks a lot like OTL Peronism- a cult of personality around the Bonaparte Dynasty with populist left-leaning economic policy.

Also, without Napoleon III, if butterflies do not change much the events in Spain, Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen could have been chosen as the Spanish king in 1870.

I don't know about this. The other powers might not want Hohenzollern-led Germany to put one of its relatives on the Spanish throne. I think that with France inactive Prussia would have jumped at 1866 and unified Germany in one stroke.

French policy vis a vis Algeria is also going to be different. Napoleon III enacted policies to limit further European colonization of Algeria in the 1860's- without this Imperially-imposed limitation does Algeria could end up with a significantly larger European population.
 
Last edited:
Also, without Napoleon III, if butterflies do not change much the events in Spain, Leopold of Hohenzollern-Sigmaringen could have been chosen as the Spanish king in 1870.

That's not a a total given. Part of Isabella II's loss of face was because of blindly following Napoleon III's schemes and then being kicked out when the French though she had outlived her usefullness (Vietnam and Mexico come to mind).

But again, she was stupid enough to stab in the back the liberals that gave her a throne and court the conservatives that had done their best effort to take her away of it. So yeah.
 
That's not a a total given. Part of Isabella II's loss of face was because of blindly following Napoleon III's schemes and then being kicked out when the French though she had outlived her usefullness (Vietnam and Mexico come to mind).

But again, she was stupid enough to stab in the back the liberals that gave her a throne and court the conservatives that had done their best effort to take her away of it. So yeah.

I have a feeling that Isabella was going to be stripped of power- and with her constant plotting the liberals are going to be forced to exile her. Her son might be retained as King though, or some other European elected to the throne.

On France- the lack of liberal reform is going to be a major problem. Napoleon III did not constitutionally secure the succession of his son Napoleon IV and its possible that there would be an anti-Bonaparte rebellion. Maybe an attempted Parliamentary coup.

Plon Plon is a possible regent, but so is the Duc de Morny, who is Napoleon III's half-brother. He had extensive influence with the opposition, and was an architect of the 'Liberal Empire'. Plon Plon and Morny both appear to be political liberals, and with the blood connections that both have to Napoleon III they would have a claim to the regency.

They could push through the same 'Liberal Empire' reforms in order to keep Eugenie from pushing her ultra-Catholic authoritarianism, and to maintain popular support for the regime in the wake of Napoleon III's death. 'Bonapartism' is able to dominate the political scene by going for populist policies that attract the working classes, while maintaining order and prosperity for the middle and upper classes.
 
Top