Napoleon Stays First Consul

Loghain

Banned
Okay what would be the result of Napoleon not crowning himself and remaining just a First consul ? i heard a theory that part of reason why the enemy combatant states werent able to deal with him at first was that as republican he was outside the monarchy system, then didnt know how to deal with that.
 
I don't think that would change things much... Napoleon would still be the leader of Revolutionnary France, a power that the Allied forces in Europe wanted to crush because it spread dangerous ideas and was a bit too powerful for their own tastes.

It's also a bit strange to say European monarchies didn't know how to deal with Napoleon simply because he wasn't a ruler... France had become a Republic in 1792 and the allies had been fighting it ever since. Hell, even Brumaire didn't really change that much in that regard: Marengo happened shortly after the coup after all. Sure, the peaces of Lunéville and Amiens soon followed but them sticking was more a pious vow on every side than a true achievement. Tensions were already on the rise before Napoleon became Emperor in 1804: these tensions aren't going to disappear simply because he doesn't crown himself.
 
If Napoleon stays First Consul then he can't really install his family as monarchs. Which means that Spain is less of an issue (Joseph as Spanish First Consul doesn't create the same issues as Joseph as King). It might make the monarchies more wary (as he is replacing the institution rather than the person) but it does keep the Revolutionary ideals alive so may have more support in Germany and Italy.
 

longsword14

Banned
Joseph as Spanish First Consul doesn't create the same issues as Joseph as King
Joseph at all in Madrid in any position is the problem. Keeping the Spanish on side was very easy, because they had no real way of actually going against France; a sullen peace with France will be the most likely future.
 

Loghain

Banned
Joseph at all in Madrid in any position is the problem. Keeping the Spanish on side was very easy, because they had no real way of actually going against France; a sullen peace with France will be the most likely future.

eh thing is that Spanish Monarchists wanted Spanish monarch. here With Republicans he could propably get away with Joseph as First consul in Spain for while. he would have to allow elections and hopefully get French Symphatetic Spanish republican there, but as Interrim temporaly solution it might been accepted if grudginly.
 

Loghain

Banned
I don't think that would change things much... Napoleon would still be the leader of Revolutionnary France, a power that the Allied forces in Europe wanted to crush because it spread dangerous ideas and was a bit too powerful for their own tastes.

It's also a bit strange to say European monarchies didn't know how to deal with Napoleon simply because he wasn't a ruler... France had become a Republic in 1792 and the allies had been fighting it ever since. Hell, even Brumaire didn't really change that much in that regard: Marengo happened shortly after the coup after all. Sure, the peaces of Lunéville and Amiens soon followed but them sticking was more a pious vow on every side than a true achievement. Tensions were already on the rise before Napoleon became Emperor in 1804: these tensions aren't going to disappear simply because he doesn't crown himself.

interesting things is What happens if france is still defeated ? What would happen then ? since in OTL it was just Monarchy being replaced with different much more unpopular one. here it would be replacing republican system that was there for years.
 

longsword14

Banned
eh thing is that Spanish Monarchists wanted Spanish monarch. here With Republicans he could propably get away with Joseph as First consul in Spain for while. he would have to allow elections and hopefully get French Symphatetic Spanish republican there, but as Interrim temporaly solution it might been accepted if grudginly.
Spanish republicanism was always an iffy thing, and knocking the established apple-cart of monarchy was always dangerous. As things stood the overwhelming sentiment in Spain was conservative, mixing republicanism would alienate many in power.
 

Loghain

Banned
Spanish republicanism was always an iffy thing, and knocking the established apple-cart of monarchy was always dangerous. As things stood the overwhelming sentiment in Spain was conservative, mixing republicanism would alienate many in power.

how many of that overhelming sentiment was people keeping their head down or not caring ?
and how much of the rest of that sentiment was fanatical ?

if you are speaking about ruling class. well I doubt they would stay in power.
 
The question we first ask is...why did Napoleon not do it? Was it because he was less egotistical? Less secure in his position? More committed to some of the ideals of the Revolution? All of these things would mean different results.

Less ego: He would be a different man. While maybe he would less prone to flights of dangerous fancy, such as placing his family openly on other thrones or an invasion of Russia but it might also make him less willing to risk and win, such as at Ulm and Austerlitz. Generally a 'smaller' less impactful Napoleon.

Less secure: Could be anything depending on who the rivals are. A coup (attempt)? A restart of the civil war? An invasion helped by local monarchists?

Ideals: Again, I would imagine more support from foreign liberals and the creation of more Sister Republics instead of puppet kingdoms. A Republic of Warsaw?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
It wasn't just an ego trip. It was largely in response to an assassination attempt. If he is a monarch with a chain of succession, then his death will (hopefully) result in one of his family members replacing him. If he's First Consul, however, then his death opens the way for a Bourbon Restoration.
 
It wasn't just an ego trip. It was largely in response to an assassination attempt. If he is a monarch with a chain of succession, then his death will (hopefully) result in one of his family members replacing him. If he's First Consul, however, then his death opens the way for a Bourbon Restoration.

Yes, but there are ways to maintain a line of succession in a Republic. But they won't include members of his bloodline, probably, and that seemed unthinkable to Napoleon. It wasn't purely 'Emperor because I can' but I think we'd be foolish to think he was cornered into crowning himself or something.
 

longsword14

Banned
how many of that overhelming sentiment was people keeping their head down or not caring ?
and how much of the rest of that sentiment was fanatical ?

if you are speaking about ruling class. well I doubt they would stay in power.
No, the support was never very high because republicanism was not very high and all political organization was rather decentralised and had religion at its center.
What happened in 1823 ? The French came in support of the old regime and the republicans were handily beaten.
 

Loghain

Banned
No, the support was never very high because republicanism was not very high and all political organization was rather decentralised and had religion at its center.
What happened in 1823 ? The French came in support of the old regime and the republicans were handily beaten.

But you are ignoring the fact they were invaded by french then supported by Bourbon monarchy etc.
You are essentially ignoring the POD and trying to fit square into circle with historical determinism
 

longsword14

Banned
But you are ignoring the fact they were invaded by french then supported by Bourbon monarchy etc.
You are essentially ignoring the POD and trying to fit square into circle with historical determinism
No, you are ignoring things. Republicanism never stood well against the Bourbons, in case a French invasion happens, then it would be easy if it supports this status quo, or hard if it plants an external body to rule. What you seem to assume is that republicanism is bound to be important in the time period in question, which is not at all true. So even if France intervenes, it would still be by foreigners against the regime which is not a good proposition.
 

Loghain

Banned
No, you are ignoring things. Republicanism never stood well against the Bourbons, in case a French invasion happens, then it would be easy if it supports this status quo, or hard if it plants an external body to rule. What you seem to assume is that republicanism is bound to be important in the time period in question, which is not at all true. So even if France intervenes, it would still be by foreigners against the regime which is not a good proposition.

i googled it and it appears it might indeed be bad idea. napoleon could propably pick the more pro french person in the royal crisis. but Josef is no go it appears
 

longsword14

Banned
i googled it and it appears it might indeed be bad idea. napoleon could propably pick the more pro french person in the royal crisis. but Josef is no go it appears
Exactly what I meant by Spain being better off as it was. Spain is under-developed, quite poor and an overall drain of resources, but they can not easily turn against France either, which would at worst result in a sullen holding of peace.
 
Top