I've been thinking of writing a timeline where France becomes the dominant global power in the 19th century as opposed to Britain. Britain will - for the most part - instead take France's position in world history.
A few other timelines with a similar theme have intrigued me, namely No Napoleon, FTBW, and one on here that I can't remember the name of.
What I'm wanting to explore is the possibility of ensuring an easier transition to a more democratic Second French Republic whilst retaining France's dominance in Europe. At least, for the time being.
I think keeping Napoleon in the picture is a must, but I want to know how you could contain the Bonapartes realistically with a system of checks and balances.
From my understanding of the period 1799-1801, it seems like with or without Napoleon the Directory would be overthrown. It was increasingly ineffective and political instability made it unable to last.
I've read that during Napoleon's retreat from Egypt, there was a point when he could have been intercepted by the British Navy. What would happen if this was the case? Would the British use his imprisonment to ransom the French government for a British-mandated peace? How would the French public react to Napoleon's capture? Would Lucien and Joseph Bonaparte be able to keep public opinion in favour of Napoleon? And where would Napoleon be imprisoned, in a British-occupied territory in the Mediterranean or back in London? Would it be safe to assume that France would do anything to get Napoleon back? Or would he be secretly snuck out of British captivity by his brothers in collaboration with French supporters and bribed British authorities?
Assuming that this is possible and that 18 Brumaire was inevitable by mid-1799, would it be fault to say that a brief coup and insurrection could put Emmanuel Joseph Sieyès and Jean-Baptiste Jourdan in power as President and Vice-President analogues? And assuming Napoleon is able to return to France, what measures could he undertaken to keep him and his brothers in check?
Also, the Bernadottes could be a powerful ally with Jourdan to contain Napoleon. Jean Bernadotte is credited to disagree with Bonaparte over his seizure of power and transformation of France back into a monarchy. Jourdan was an ardent supporter of republicanism.
Also, what could an aborted insurrection attempt by either Bonaparte brothers affect in terms of the French governments suspicions of Napoleon? Could that ensure not making Napoleon consul?
What would a Sieyès-Jourdan republic look like? Would it be a Consulate or more closely resemble the following French republics?
If this is a way to contain Napoleon, could a Confederation of the Rhine become a German Confederation following a French victory over Prussia? And a French victory in Italy forms an Italian League? I imagine France would keep Malta, Dodecanese, and Septinsular as bases. Would France be willing to ally with the US and support an independent Canadian republic to distract Britain enough to pursue propping up client republics in Eastern Europe (I.e. Greece, Serbia, Poland)
I imagine France could maintain such a system until 1845-50, when ATL's European Spring hits. A definite struggle between liberalism and conservatism would ensue, motivated by politics of the continent. Germany and Italy could unite to oppose the French system, initially a reactionary movement to bring absolutism back to Europe but forced by liberal revolutionaries to a constitutionalist (if not in name only) stance following unification. Germany would ally with Italy, later joined by Austria as French control of Eastern Europe collapses. By this point I could see a devastated Ottoman Empire lose territory to Serbia and Greece while Bulgaria, Bosnia, and Albania become independent.
I could imagine Germany and Italy would try to restore the Bourbons, but a revolution deposes them soon after among proto-socialist uprisings.
France may lose the alliance to the US, but may find one in an alarmed Britain. Especially if Germany has ambitions for the channel. I imagine France's new Mediterranean territory would be lost not to mention the Rhine and Alsace-Lorraine. Maybe Luxembourg.
France would temporarily be forced out of great power status, but that could serve as impetus for more agressive colonization to compensate. Not to mention diplomatic maneuvering and arms races.
France would warm up to Russia as well. Italy and the Ottomans would be wild cards when a war begins. A WWI analogue ensues, though much different. This could be where history really diverges more so than being a kinda-sorta different world but still recognizable to OTL.
Whatcha think? Could there be other ways to contain Napoleon but keep him alive, resulting in roughly what I've described? Or am I just a) misinformed b) totally out to lunch with this whole alt history thing? I'm relatively new at this despite lurking for years.
I think keeping Napoleon in the picture is a must, but I want to know how you could contain the Bonapartes realistically with a system of checks and balances.
I really don't think that is possible if we aim to keep him alive and don't make him a baker or something useless like that. His actions after his exile to Elba say what he is likely to do if you simply overthrow him.
Absolutely not! If you want a Non-Napoleonic French Superpower though, the best way is to have Napoleon die in battle or something. Some individuals are simply too important to be pushed to the side.
I suppose I could kill Napoleon off at the Battle of the Nile. I could see even though it would be a humiliating defeat for France, Napoleon could still be remembered as a hero of France. I'd imagine his tragic defeat would inspire France for years to come if Lucien and Joseph are able to propagandize the events surrounding his death enough.
I don't imagine the other Bonapartes would take his death well, especially in terms of their political ambitions. I could see them scheming against each other and allying with whom ever to that end. If one of the brothers attempted to stage a coup, I could see that easily impeded by the other and his allies. Under Sieyès-Jourdan, this could arise suspicions with the government and the Bonapartes and their allies could be ousted from power.
Overall, do you guys think a Sieyès-Jourdan government could succeed in transitioning the First Republic into an ATL Second Republic under a presidential-vice presidential system? And are my ideas for France and its position in world history plausible? I do remember reading Jourdan was a military genius in his own right.
I really don't think that is possible if we aim to keep him alive and don't make him a baker or something useless like that. His actions after his exile to Elba say what he is likely to do if you simply overthrow him.
Absolutely not! If you want a Non-Napoleonic French Superpower though, the best way is to have Napoleon die in battle or something. Some individuals are simply too important to be pushed to the side.
Napoleon the Martyr: he conquers Egypt, but after months of blockade by the British fleet, unable to escape, he surrenders his army. Only to die in captivity. The British claim he and his men were already sick with plague when they surrendered but rumors quickly spread that they were denied medical care and purposely let them starve. Napoleon keeps his golden reputation and was only defeated thanks to the treachery of perfidious Albion.
Overall, do you guys think a Sieyès-Jourdan government could succeed in transitioning the First Republic into an ATL Second Republic under a presidential-vice presidential system?
I doubt it would be a presidential-vice presidential system. In France, the American constitution was still only barely known at this period. Also, Sieyès had very special ideas for the time after his coup and for the system he wanted to install in France. I will concentrate on the political aspects of your question, because I know Sieyès and his ideas better than the overall situation in Europe at this time. But first let's recall the background of the 18 Brumaire Year VIII.
After the Reign of Terror and Robespierre's death, the center of the Convention decided to draw a moderate constitution, including census suffrage and the separation of powers. The Directorate consisted of five Directors, each of them elected for five years by the Councils. Every year one Director was replaced. The legislature consisted of two Councils, the Council of the Five Hundreds and the Council of the Ancients (with 250 members). The Council were elected by the citizens: the wealthy citizens elected electoral colleges (composed of very wealthy citizens) which then elected the members of the Councils. The members of the Councils served for three years, and one third was replaced every year. The Five Hundreds could only propose laws, and the Ancients could only veto them. Furthermore, the Councils could not recall the Directors and the Directors could not legally dissolve the Councils - this lack of mutual control lead to coups and violence.
The Directorate had, besides its economic problems and its uncertain military situation, to suffer under the country's political instability. The elections in 1797 were a Royalist victory, who won the majority in the Directorate's Councils (the two chambers of parliament). The result was the Coup of 18 Fructidor, Year V. Then, in 1798, the Jacobins gained a great number seats, because they were supported by the Royalists in many places. This lead to the Coup of 22 Floreal Year VI (among the Jacobins excluded from the Council was also Napoléon Bonaparte). Twice the Directorate had manipulated the elections to preserve the moderate republican constitution. Sieyès entered the Directorate in 1799. The following 1799 elections, after the defeats in Germany and Italy, again resulted in a victory of the Directorate's leftist opponents, lead by Lucien Bonaparte - even if the opposition was quarreled and only few were real extremists. Consequently, three Directors were, with Sieyès' approval, "removed" by the Councils - this move was known as the Coup of 30 Prairial VII or the Revenge of the Councils. The Jacobins considered this day as their victory, but in fact Sieyès now sought to eliminate the Jacobins and to abolish the Directorate.
The Directorate, on Sieyès' proposition, appointed Fouché Minister of Police. Fouché closed the Club du Manège (the Réunion des Amis de la Liberté et de l'Égalité), which was the Club of the Jacobins. The Jacobin newspapers were banned and Sieyès attacked both the Jacobins and the Royalists in his speeches. Sieyès was now the leader of the Moderates, opposed to a new Reign of Terror as well as to reaction. Some suggested that he wanted a constitutional monarchy, most of the times under the Duke of Brunswick. But that's quite improbable. At all events Sieyès searched a sword to destroy the old system, especially to dissolve the Councils. Bernadotte, Jourdan and Augereau were all Jacobins and thus ineligible - additionally, Sieyès hated Bernadotte. Moreau, Macdonald and Beurnonville were possible candidates.
Finally, the conspirators chose Joubert as the man to perform their coup. Joubert was sent to Italy to command the Army of Italy and fight Suvorov. Sieyès considered this to be an easy task, since Suvorov's forces were divided and the Russian general had to besiege various places. But Joubert's death at the Battle of Novi ruined Sieyès' plans and the government's reputation. "We are lost" Sieyès said on this occasion. Jourdan is considered, but he is a Jacobin and wants to preserve the Directorate. Now Sieyès has to approach the Bonaparte family - Napoléon* has to return from Egypt. After the victories of Brune at Bergen and of Masséna at Zurich, the situation eases and some question the need of a coup. Napoléon is acclaimed on his way to Paris, while Boulay de la Meurthe (one of Sieyès' allies) urges Sieyès to accuse Napoléon on the charge of
abandoning his post - but Sieyès shrinks from executing him. Later, Napoléon claimed that everyone of the five Directors would have liked to arrest him during this period, but that nobody had the courage to do it. Anyway, nothing happens and Napoléon temporarily becomes Sieyès' ally. This lead to the 18 Brumaire An VIII and Napoléon's rise to power.
*Note that everybody called him "Bonaparte". I just call him Napoléon to distinguish him from his brothers, but to the French of this time, he was just "Géneral Bonaparte" or "Napoléon Bonaparte". He was known as "Napoléon" only after he became emperor.
So what were Sieyès' plans for the time after the coup? The Councils had to be dissolved since they were opposed to fundamental changes. Sieyès didn't wanted to just reform the Directorate - he wanted to create a new constitution with a strong executive branch. The republic imagined by Sieyès should be stable, centralized, free and, above all, moderate. Different means, especially a constitutional court, should guarantee the perpetual rule of the revolutionaries. Both a new Jacobin reign of terror and a return of the monarchy should be prevented - it should be a government of notables for notables. Most of the notables had acquired national lands (these lands had been confiscated from the Catholic Church and
émigrés) and feared that a Royalist government would return the goods to their original proprietors. They likewise dreaded the disorder, violence and communist tendencies of a Jacobin dictatorship.
Sieyès said that the republic had to be a representative one - because France was to large for a direct government, because he advocated for labor division and because he feared the rule of the majority. Sieyès didn't support census suffrage, but he wanted to limit the voting rights to the educated ones (and thus to the wealthier citizens). To be fair, Sieyès was also a partisan of public education. Together with Condorcet, he was also one of the few feminists during the French Revolution. However, even if he was sympathetic to women's suffrage, such ideas could only prevail on the long run.
One central principle of Sieyès' fanciful constitutional thought was that the administrated (i. e. the simple citizens) should never elect their administrators. The citizens have the right to propose candidates, but the election itself should be done by the government. And the administrators are not only the prefects, mayors and judges; sometimes Sieyès also regarded the members of parliament as administrators - this would mean that even the parliament wouldn't be really elected by the people, but in fact appointed from above. This would have the advantage to exclude the citizens from electing undesired candidates like Jacobins or Royalists. The mistakes of the Directorate with its multiple coups shouldn't be repeated.
The official justification for this was: since a single constituency could elect a representative that would have been rejected by all other constituencies; and since every member of parliament should be the representative of the whole nation (all constituencies), the election can't be done by single constituencies, but only by one central organ.
This central organ is the Jury constitutionnaire (constitutional jury), also known as Collège des conservateurs or Sénat conservateur. The Senate is halfway between a constitutional court, an electoral college and a noble council. It is a constitutional court, because it can annul all laws and offical acts that it found unconstitutional. It is an electoral college because its task is to elect the head of state (Proclamateur-Électeur); in some of Sieyès' drafts, the Senate also elects the members of parliament. It is a noble council because new Senators are coopted by the Senate, and serve for life. The Senate should also the only institution that has the right to propose a constitutional amendment to the people - in short, the Senate should be composed of moderates who can thus control politics for a very long time.
The Proclamateur-Électeur or Grand Électeur(Grand elector) is the lifelong head of state. His functions are mostly ceremonial; he lives in Versailles and receives a pension of five million in year. His only substantial function is to appoint and dismiss the members of governments. The government itself consists either of a Council of State of fifty members with subordinated ministers; or of two consuls, one of the exterior, on of the interior, with a subordinated Council of State and ministers. The government then appoints the administrators in the various departements of France.
The parliament consists of two chambers: the Legislative Body (Corps législatif) and the Tribunate (Tribunat). The State Council (Conseil d'État, the government) participates in the legislature too. The parliament should work like a court: the jury is the Legislative Body, which should vote on the laws, but has no right to propose or discuss them. The legislative initiative is vested in the Council of State and in the Tribunate. The projects of law are then discussed before the Legislative Body by the orators of the Tribunate and the State Council.
The constitution of Sieyès, which was distorted in the consular constitution of the year VIII., deserves to be known, were it only in the light of a legislative curiosity. Sieyès distributed France into three political divisions; the commune, the province or department, and the Nation. Each had its own powers of administration and judicature, arranged in hierarchical order: the first, the municipalities and tribunaux de paix and de première instance (trial court); the second, the popular prefectures and courts of appeal; the third, the central government and the court of cassation. To fill the functions of the commune, the department, and the State, there were three lists of notability, the members of which were only candidates nominated by the people.
The executive power was vested in the Proclamateur-Électeur, a superior functionary, perpetual, without responsibility, deputed to represent the nation without, and to form the government in a deliberating state-council and a responsible ministry. The Proclamateur-Électeurselected from the lists of candidates all judges, from the tribunals of peace to the court of cassation; all administrators, from the mayors to the ministers. But he was incapable of governing himself; the state's power was directed by the state council and exercised by the ministry.
The legislature departed from the form hitherto established; it ceased to be a deliberative assembly to become a judicial court. Before it, the Council of State, in the name of the government, and the Tribunate, in the name of the people, pleaded their respective projects. Its sentence was law. It would seem that the object of Sieyès was to put a stop to the violent usurpations of party, and while placing the sovereignty in the people, to give it limits in itself: this design appears from the complicated works of his political machine. The primary assemblies, composed of the tenth of the general population, nominated the local list of communal candidates; electoral colleges, also nominated by them, selected from the communal list the superior list of provincial candidates and from the provincial list, the list of national candidates. In all which concerned the government, there was a reciprocal control. The Proclamateur-Électeur selected his functionaries from among the candidates nominated by the people: and the people could dismiss functionaries, by not keeping them on the lists of candidates, which were renewed, the first every two years, the second every five years, the third every ten years. But the proclamateur-électeur did not interfere in the nomination of tribunes and legislators, whose attributes were purely popular.
Yet, to place a counterpoise in the heart of this authority itself, Sieyès separated the initiative and the discussion of the law, which was invested in the Tribunate from its adoption, which belonged to the legislative assembly. But besides these different prerogatives, the Legislative Body and the Tribunate were not elected in the same manner. The Tribunate was composed by right of the first hundred members of the national list, while the legislative body was chosen directly by the electoral colleges. The Tribunes, being necessarily more active, bustling, and popular, were appointed for life, and by a protracted process, to prevent their arriving in a moment of passion, with destructive and angry projects, as had hitherto been the case in most of the assemblies. The same dangers not existing in the other assembly, which had only to judge calmly and disinterestedly of the law, its election was direct, and its authority transient.
Lastly, there existed, as the complement of all the other powers, a conservatory body, incapable of ordering, incapable of acting, intended solely to provide for the regular existence of the state. This body was the constitutional jury, or conservatory senate (Sénatconservateur); it was to be for the political law what the court of cassation was to the civil law. The Tribunate, or the council of state, appealed to it when the sentence of the Legislative Body was not conformable to the constitution. It had also the faculty of calling into its own body any leader of the government who was too ambitious, or a tribune who was too popular, by the "droit d'absorption," and when Senators, they were disqualified from filling any other function. In this way it kept a double watch over the safety of the whole republic, by maintaining the fundamental law, and protecting liberty against the ambition of individuals.
Whatever may be thought of this constitution, which seems too finely complicated to be practicable, it must be granted that it is the production of considerable strength of mind, and even great practical information. Sieyès paid too little regard to the passions of men; he made them too reasonable as human beings, and too obedient as machines. He wished by skilful inventions to avoid the abuses of human constitutions, and excluded death, that is to say, despotism, from whatever quarter it might come. But I have very little faith in the efficacy of constitutions; in such moments, I believe only in the strength of parties in their domination, and, from time to time, in their reconciliation. But I must also admit that, if ever a constitution was adapted to a period, it was that of Sieyès for France in the year VIII.
After an experience of ten years, which had only shown exclusive dominations, after the violent transition from the constitutionalists of 1789 to the Girondists, from the Girondists to the Mountain, from the Mountain to the reactionists, from the reactionists to the directory, from the directory to the councils, from the councils to the military force, there could be no repose or public life save in it. People were weary of worn-out constitutions; that of Sieyès was new; exclusive men were no longer wanted, and by elaborate voting it prevented the sudden accession of counter-revolutionists, as at the beginning of the directory, or of ardent democrats, as at the end of this government. It was a constitution of moderate men, suited to terminate a revolution, and to settle a nation. But precisely because it was a constitution of moderate men, precisely because parties had no longer sufficient ardour to demand a law of domination, for that very reason there would necessarily be found a man stronger than the fallen parties and the moderate legislators, who would refuse this law, or, accepting, abuse it, and this was what happened.
This is what Napoléon did with Sieyès' proposal:
Bonaparte took part in the deliberations of the constituent committee; with his instinct of power, he seized upon everything in the ideas of Sieyès which was calculated to serve his projects, and caused the rest to be rejected. Sieyès intended for him the functions of grand elector, with a revenue of six millions of francs, and a guard of three thousand men; the palace of Versailles for a residence, and the entire external representation of the republic. But the actual government was to be invested in a consul for war and a consul for peace, functionaries unthought of by Sieyès in the year III., but adopted by him in the year VIII.; in order, no doubt, to suit the ideas of the times. This insignificant magistracy was far from suiting Bonaparte. "How could you suppose," said he, "that a man of any talent and honour could resign himself to the part of fattening like a hog, on a few millions a year?" From that moment it was not again mentioned; Roger Ducos, and the greater part of the committee, declared in favour of Bonaparte; and Sieyès, who hated discussion, was either unwilling or unable to defend his ideas. He saw that laws, men, and France itself were at the mercy of the man whose elevation he had promoted.
On the 24th of December, 1799 (Nivôse, year VIII.), forty-five days after the 18th Brumaire, was published the constitution of the year VIII.; it was composed of the wrecks of that of Sieyès, now become a constitution of servitude. The government was placed in the hands of the first consul, who was supported by two others, having a deliberative voice. The senate, primarily selected by the consuls, chose the members of the tribunal and legislative body, from the list of the national candidates. The government alone had the initiative in making the laws. Accordingly, there were no more bodies of electors who appointed the candidates of different lists, the tribunes and legislators; no more independent tribunes earnestly pleading the cause of the people before the legislative assembly; no legislative assembly arising directly from the bosom of the nation, and accountable to it alone--in a word, no political nation. Instead of all this, there existed an all-powerful consul, disposing of armies and of power, a general and a dictator; a council of state destined to be the advanced guard of usurpation; and lastly, a senate of eighty members, whose only function was to nullify the people, and to choose tribunes without authority, and legislators who should remain mute. Life passed from the nation to the government. The constitution of Sieyès served as a pretext for a bad order of things. It is worth notice that up to the year VIII. all the constitutions had emanated from the Contrat-social, and subsequently, down to 1814, from the constitution of Sieyès.
The new government was immediately installed. Bonaparte was first consul, and he united with him as second and third consuls, Cambacérès, a lawyer, and formerly a member of the Plain in the convention, and Lebrun, formerly a co-adjutor of the chancellor Maupeou. By their means, he hoped to influence the revolutionists and moderate royalists. With the same object, an ex-noble, Talleyrand, and a former member of the Mountain, Fouché, were appointed to the posts of minister of foreign affairs, and minister of police. Sieyès felt much repugnance at employing Fouché; but Bonaparte wished it. "We are forming a new epoch," said he; "we must forget all the ill of the past, and remember only the good." He cared very little under what banner men had hitherto served, provided they now enlisted under his, and summoned thither their old associates in royalism and in revolution.
The two new consuls and the retiring consuls nominated sixty senators, without waiting for the lists of eligibility; the senators appointed a hundred tribunes and three hundred legislators; and the authors of the 18th Brumaire distributed among themselves the functions of the state, as the booty of their victory. It is, however, just to say that the moderate liberal party prevailed in this partition, and that, as long as it preserved any influence, Bonaparte governed in a mild, advantageous, and republican manner. The constitution of the year VIII., submitted to the people for acceptance, was approved by three millions eleven thousand and seven citizens. That of 1793 had obtained one million eight hundred and one thousand nine hundred and eighteen suffrages; and that of the year III. one million fifty-seven thousand three hundred and ninety. The new law satisfied the moderate masses, who sought tranquillity, rather than guarantees; while the code of '93 had only found partisans among the lower class; and that of the year III. had been equally rejected by the royalists and democrats. The constitution of 1791 alone had obtained general approbation; and, without having been subjected to individual acceptance, had been sworn to by all France.
Anyway, the primary goal of Sieyès' proposal was to exclude the people from substantial power. The Directorate had always encountered problems with elections: in 1797, the Royalists had won the elections and the parliament had to be dissolved, In 1798 and 99, the Jacobins, allied with the Royalists, had won the elections. That's why Sieyès proposed to replace the direct elections with lists of notability, among whom the government would always find some loyal supporters. The constitution was geared to the needs of the moderate faction. It's true that Sieyès had an independent constitutional thought - but his idelogy also served the cause of the revolutionaries.
Mignet says that Sieyès wanted Bonaparte to become Grand Elector - many historians deny this. It's much more likely that Sieyès intended to become head of state himself. He didn't like discussion and speeches - he prefered influencing politics from behind. As Grand Elector, he could always appoint a government loyal to him - and recall it if it became too rebellious. He would be virtually irredeemable and play an important role until his death.
As for the government, I could imagine either Cambacérès or Boulay de la Meurthe as Consul of the Interior, and Joubert (if he leads the coup) as Consul of the Exterior.
Minister of Foreign Affairs: Talleyrand
Minister of Justice: Régnier, Abrial or Cambacérès
Minister of War: Carnot, Bethier, Davout or even Napoléon Bonaparte
Minister of Finance: Gaudin
Minister of Police: Fouché
Minister of the Interior: Lucien Bonaparte or Chaptal (a good friend of Cambacérès')
Minister of Navy and Colonies: Bourdon de Vatry
Daunou would likely become President of the State Council.
@G.Washington_Fuckyeah If Napoleon had died-say at the Seige of Acre- and Joubert still died, who do you think would be chosen as the "sword" out of the possible candidates? I've found a couple of threads throwing around possibilites, but finding concrete reasoning is surprisingly hard.
The Jacobins allied with the Royalists? How did that work?
I wonder how removing the chauvinistic Napoleon and having Sieyes be so politically prominent would impact women's education...
@G.Washington_Fuckyeah If Napoleon had died-say at the Seige of Acre- and Joubert still died, who do you think would be chosen as the "sword" out of the possible candidates?
I used Paul Bastid's work Sieyès et sa pensée (Sieyès and his thought) to write my little summary of the situation. Bastid's work concentrates on Sieyès' intellectual life and doesn't explore all historical options he encountered during his career.
But if both Joubert and Napoléon died, Sieyès would be in an awkward situation. Moreau, Macdonald or Beurnonville are conceivable but I don't know why they declined the offer to lead the coup. I have another book on the French Consulate and I could look it up. Maybe this work also suggests other candidates for the coup.
There is still Jourdan, but he is a Jacobin and certainly wouldn't support Sieyès' moderate republic.
Anyway, without a moderate coup the Jacobin majority in the Councils might stage its own leftist coup and seize power. Bernadotte, Jourdan and Augereau, the three Jacobin generals, are there to seize power on the Jacobins' behalf. And if the Jacobin try to take power, why should the Royalists back down?
If the moderates don't act there is the risk of attacks from the left and from the right.
That's because most books focus on Napoléon: he goes to Italy, he goes to Egypt, and then he wondrously shows up to stage a coup against the Directorate. Needless to say that it wasn't that simple. Sieyès worked for half a year to overthrow the Directorate (from within, since he was a Director himself). The 18 Brumaire was his scheme, and Napoléon was only let in after Joubert, Sieyès favored option, died. Napoléon's great achievement was not the coup itself, but how he outmaneuverd Sieyès afterwards, how he distorted Sieyès' constitutional draft and how he finally reached the dictatorship.
Again, I based myself on Bastid's work. I don't know how reliable it is on this point (but it's a very erudite book, full of details, written by somebody who certainly knew the subject).
Even if I can't really believe it myself, it apparently worked like this: after their victory in the 1797 elections, the Royalists had been persecuted by the Directorate. That's why they gave their votes to the Jacobins in the 1798 and 1799 elections. There weren't formal alliances, it was just a common hatred of the corrupt system.
I can't promise wonders but Sieyès would have tried his best to obtain an acceptable public education for France, and I doubt he would have excluded women from the new schools.
Also, without sexist Napoléon's intervention the Code Civil (which was prepared by Cambacérès since 1793) would be less mysoginistic.
Wow. That's a lot to think about. Thanks for the feedback everyone!
I'll be grateful to take my French Revolution and Napoleon course in the fall. There's only so much on Wikipedia, even when you cross-reference.
As much as I'd like Jourdan to lead France, id prefer not to have France dissolve into civil war. The coalitions could probably reinstate an absolutist monarchy in the vacuum and there goes a French superpower.
It doesn't help that all the alt hosts I've read that show a smooth transition between the French republics, they don't explain adequately how this happened. They all treat this period of history like Napoleon's death would solve France's administrative issues. As though he was some mastermind manipulator - not saying he and his brothers weren't - although he seems more like an opportunist more than anything. It seems like all of the early French governments were doomed to fall to dictatorship and left-wing, right wing coups.
If Jourdan somehow was able to contain Jacobin excesses and a Royalist insurrection what would his Republic look like? I don't want another military dictatorship like the Committee for Public Safety.
I would prefer a government far more committed to abolishing slavery and other socially liberal and progressive reforms and aims of the Revolution. I'd optimistically hope for a better situation for French women than OTL, but I doubt that'll come about immediately after POD but may kick up ~1880s.
I would prefer a government far more committed to abolishing slavery and other socially liberal and progressive reforms and aims of the Revolution. I'd optimistically hope for a better situation for French women than OTL, but I doubt that'll come about immediately after POD but may kick up ~1880s.
I still think that for a liberal government your best choice is this man. I think you don't need Jourdan - Sieyès is as capable to lead the government.
@123456789blaaa So I looked up what other generals were available for a coup. According to Thierry Lentz, Le Grand Consulat, it really boils down to Moreau. Moreau was one of the youngest generals; he was a revolutionary, but a moderate one. He also wasn't very popular with his soldiers since he betrayed his superior, general Pichegru. He was thus in line with Sieyès' political ideas, and could be kept under control after the coup, since he couldn't count on his soldiers to follow him unconditionally. Sieyès asked him for the first time on october 8 1799. Moreau hesitated and asked for time to think about it. One week later, Paris received the news that Napoléon was in France. Moreau said to Sieyès: "This is your man. He'll make your coup d'état better than me." So if Napoléon doesn't show up, it will probably be Moreau who has to perform the putsch.
I also checked the information about the alliance between Royalists and Jacobins. Apparently, ther was no alliance between the Royalists and Jacobins; but since they had no hope to win the 1798 elections, the Royalist clubs decided to support extremist republicans and cause mayhem. Seems like a revolutionary form of accelarationism.
My proposed government though isn't very realistic. Sieyès liked neither Talleyrand nor Fouché - that's why Talleyrand was replaced by Reinhard for some time in 1799.
Another interesting fact is that Sieyès feared Prussia and supported a confederation of the minor German states to stop the great German powers Austria and Prussia.
Interesting. I think I may have misred what you posted earlier since it seemed to suggest Sieyès wanted to become a dictator himself in essentially an elitist - yet benevolent - oligarchic republic.
Let's say Sieyès and Moreau do overthrow the Directorate. Would they transition directly to a Tribunate or would a brief Consulate ensue?
It seems that for the aims of my timeline, Sieyès is the logical choice. I'm still skeptical since his constitution would be hell to implement. It seems like for social liberalism he's great, and the stuff about Germany is a plus.
If this government proves unworkable, like it seems to be prone to, would it be overthrown in turn? And by whom?
I'd like to see the First Republic abolished, followed by a Second Republic which starts to form a semblance of a presidential-vice presidential system similar to what France develops OTL.
Whenever a government of France is seriously threatened by foreign invasions or internal instability, I could see politicians suspend the governments and form new Republics to prevent revolts. A sort of promise to reform the system, embodying the spirit of the Revolution, while retaining their positions of power. Minimal change, yes.
I'd imagine that'd work for some time until more desperate times persist. Such as the World Wars and Depression IOTL.
Anyway, thanks for all the info. I know I must be a pain. It's much appreciated. Once I know more about the topic I'll be better able to present my ideas for TLs.
I still think that for a liberal government your best choice is this man. I think you don't need Jourdan - Sieyès is as capable to lead the government.
@123456789blaaa So I looked up what other generals were available for a coup. According to Thierry Lentz, Le Grand Consulat, it really boils down to Moreau. Moreau was one of the youngest generals; he was a revolutionary, but a moderate one. He also wasn't very popular with his soldiers since he betrayed his superior, general Pichegru. He was thus in line with Sieyès' political ideas, and could be kept under control after the coup, since he couldn't count on his soldiers to follow him unconditionally. Sieyès asked him for the first time on october 8 1799. Moreau hesitated and asked for time to think about it. One week later, Paris received the news that Napoléon was in France. Moreau said to Sieyès: "This is your man. He'll make your coup d'état better than me." So if Napoléon doesn't show up, it will probably be Moreau who has to perform the putsch.
I also checked the information about the alliance between Royalists and Jacobins. Apparently, ther was no alliance between the Royalists and Jacobins; but since they had no hope to win the 1798 elections, the Royalist clubs decided to support extremist republicans and cause mayhem. Seems like a revolutionary form of accelarationism.
My proposed government though isn't very realistic. Sieyès liked neither Talleyrand nor Fouché - that's why Talleyrand was replaced by Reinhard for some time in 1799.
Another interesting fact is that Sieyès feared Prussia and supported a confederation of the minor German states to stop the great German powers Austria and Prussia.
Thank you! Moreau even participated in the OTL coup so I don't think he would delay until it was too late.
Could you go into more detail on this "minor state German confederation"? Was it supposed to just be a military alliance inside the structure of the HRE?
In OTL Sieyes wrote up a bizarre scenario wherein human beings would be bred with apes to produce a servile laboring class, with black overseers and white masters. This isn't really the thoughts of someone enlightened on racial issues. On the other hand, you don't really need to be that enlightened to know that trying to maintain slavery in some places while trying to take over St. Domingue isn't a great idea. Napoleon was warned by multiple people OTL-including former planters-that trying to re-conquer St. Domingue was a terrible idea. How would the Sieyes government feel on maintaining the abolition of slavery and colonial representation in the metro-pole? If colonial representation and slavery abolition is maintained, then I don't think Toussaint would feel the need to proclaim a constitution. No attempted conquest of St.Domingue also means a bunch of Polish exiles won't die. Really, the Polish question is interesting all on its own...
Could you go into more detail on this "minor state German confederation"? Was it supposed to just be a military alliance inside the structure of the HRE?
Sieyès' mission as ambassador in Berlin (~ 1798) was first and foremost to seperate Prussia from Austrian and to secure an alliance between France and Prussia. When he recognized that the relations between France and Prussia were deteriorating, he sought for another solution to the German Question, i. e. the German Confederation. The plan was to unite all minor German states and place them under French protection. The two powers excluded from this confederal body were of course Prussia and Austria. Just like the OTL Confederation of the Rhine, it should constitute a reliable ally in Central Europe and prevent a pan-German alliance. I couldn't find more details about its planned organization, but it certainly wasn't supposed to be a real federal state. I assume it would have been nothing more than a military alliance controlled by France.
As to the HRE, the German Confederation would have made it essentially ineffective. I assume it would have been dissolved as in OTL.
In OTL Sieyes wrote up a bizarre scenario wherein human beings would be bred with apes to produce a servile laboring class, with black overseers and white masters. This isn't really the thoughts of someone enlightened on racial issues. On the other hand, you don't really need to be that enlightened to know that trying to maintain slavery in some places while trying to take over St. Domingue isn't a great idea. Napoleon was warned by multiple people OTL-including former planters-that trying to re-conquer St. Domingue was a terrible idea. How would the Sieyes government feel on maintaining the abolition of slavery and colonial representation in the metro-pole? If colonial representation and slavery abolition is maintained, then I don't think Toussaint would feel the need to proclaim a constitution. No attempted conquest of St.Domingue also means a bunch of Polish exiles won't die. Really, the Polish question is interesting all on its own...
I didn't know this text, but now I read it up. Bizarre it is! However, Sieyès was, like Mirabeau, Condorcet or the abbé Grégoire, member of the Friends of the Blacks (Amis des noirs) - needless to say that it was an abolitionist club. Based on this, I think that Sieyès was very much an enemy of slavery. How could it be otherwise? His whole ideology was based on ideas opposed to slavery. Another text he wrote defends indentured servitude, but only if limited in time (max 5 years) and if the workers is previously informed of his right and of the consequences of engaging in servitude. Seems to be a traditional liberal opinion: slavery should be forbidden, but voluntarily working for free for some time shouldn't. That's also why I think he wouldn't have tried to enforce slavery on St. Domingue. He would rather have abolished slavery in the colonies where it hadn't be after 1794 and tried to find a compromise with Toussaint Louverture.
Now my opinion on the "orangutan essay": Sieyès was abolitionist because he condemned human slavery, not because he opposed all forms of slavery. Apes seemed to be less human and thus acceptable as slaves.
BTW, where did you find the text? Maybe we read the same book.
Interesting. I think I may have misred what you posted earlier since it seemed to suggest Sieyès wanted to become a dictator himself in essentially an elitist - yet benevolent - oligarchic republic.
Well, I don't know how the misunderstanding arised. Sieyès' republic would be liberal (human rights recognized, freedom of moderate press), moderate (opposed to Jacobins and Royalists), representative (no direct democracy) and somewhat oligarchical (the moderate revolutionaries would have received lifelong seats in the Senate).
After the coup, there would be a short provisional government (known as the Provisional Consulate of Sieyès, Napoléon and Roger-Ducos in OTL). The provisional government would then elaborate a constitution (just like in OTL). After a plebiscite (which would certainly confirm the new constitution), the new organization would be set in motion.
Tribunate is just the name of a chamber of parliament conceived by Sieyès.
I couldn't control myself and draw a chart of the constitution imagined by Sieyès. To help you understanding Sieyès, I uploaded it.
I'd like to see the First Republic abolished, followed by a Second Republic which starts to form a semblance of a presidential-vice presidential system similar to what France develops OTL.
That couldn't happen in 1799. America wasn't that well known in France at this point, and the only one who proposed a presidential system in 1799 was Lucien Bonaparte. Nobody listened to him. France wasn't ready for such a system back then.
And TBH, a presidential system isn't as cool as this:
If Sieyès and the moderate run into the ground with their system, there would be two parties trying to overthrow it: the Jacobins, striving for a radical democracy, and the Royalists. The Royalists would most likely come from abroad, while a Jacobin revolution would errupt in France, in Paris itself.
Then again, Royalists aren't a monolithic block. There were moderate ones accepting a parliamentary monarchy and Ultra-Royalists wanting to restore the Ancien Régime. It's clear that the moderate Royalists could win by allying some conservative republicans; the Ultra-Royalists however were doomed to fail because the great majority of the population rejected such radical views.
The misunderstanding arose because I was reading the thread at 2-3:00 AM. So essentially, Sieyès' republic would be no different from say the United States or the UK and other liberal democracies of the time?
Thanks for uploading the chart, that really helps me understand Sieyès' proposed constitution! I'm more of a visual learner/thinker. I'm not so convinced in its viability however. It is still quasi-dictatorial. Grand Electors are Grand Elector for life for example. It doesn't appear to be representative either, with a lot of deliberation based on ruling "in the name of; in the interests of; on behalf of" etc. And no connection is outlines between the national candidates and higher levels of government. Which usually ends up with governments that think they know better about what their people want than what the people themselves want. A Conservative Senate, with its appointments for life, may be liberal for 1800 but over the course of that century would probably be recalcitrant against further liberalism and progress. The rule of law could prevail, but France was very unstable at this time.
Sieyès may be able to manage a liberal government under this system, but I'm not so sure about his successors. And as much as the French may be moderate for the time I'd doubt they'd support a quasi-monarchical government for long especially when it starts to act against the people's interests. At the same time, France did tolerate Napoleon's Empire and nearly two decades of restored Bourbons.
I suppose the viability of this system depends on how Sieyès and his successors deal with their positions of head of state and government of France. If they start acting like Louis XVI that may pose a significant chance of another coup.
Also, would Sieyès purge the Jacobins or merely imprisob them once he's in power? What would he do to Royalists?
Let's assume that at some point between 1800-1830, Sieyès' republic is overthrown. Let's assume this is because the government became tyrannical and dictatorial, with governments being subject to rapid dismissals and imprisonments of its members and power struggles between military leaders wishing to be Grand Elector. Would the movement to overthrow this system be more aligned to a quasi-Jacobin or Royalist standpoint?
Is another republic more likely or a constitutional monarchy? In my opinion I'd say a more liberal republic, but I may be being idealistic. Would it be too much to assume that the French government might send officials abroad to assess other democracies in order to reinvent French democracy? The US and UK would be likely candidates if the case.
It doesn't appear to be representative either, with a lot of deliberation based on ruling "in the name of; in the interests of; on behalf of" etc. And no connection is outlines between the national candidates and higher levels of government.
The connection is that the election were done by the Senate, but the Senate could only elect people who were national candidates. So the Senate did the actual election, but the candidates for these elections were appointed by the citizens. here would be around 6,000 national candidates; since there are 400 seats to fill in parliament, the Senate can choose between 15 candidates for each seat.
This isn't very democratic, you're right; Sieyès considered it to be representative, but it was 200 years ago and many mistrusted the people. At this time, just after the horrors of the Revolution, it seemed more wise to make elections from above. A great number of politicians thought that the people just wasn't able to make moderate decisions and would always elect extremist representatives like Jacobins and Royalists.
Compare it to the Electoral College in the US. The Founding Fathers though that the people wasn't able to elect the president, so an electoral college should be created. Sieyès had a similar thought - his Electoral College was the Senate.
Sieyès may be able to manage a liberal government under this system, but I'm not so sure about his successors. And as much as the French may be moderate for the time I'd doubt they'd support a quasi-monarchical government for long especially when it starts to act against the people's interests.
Sieyès system might not be perfect; if is quasi-monarchical and oligarchic. But there is room for improvement. There's still the chance that a constitutional amendment is proposed and the regime peacefully becomes more democratic.
Sieyès will close the Jacobin clubs and censor the Jacobin press - that's what he did as Director. But if the Jacobins start to stage coups and try to murder him, he'll take and execute them or deport them to Guyana.
Let's assume that at some point between 1800-1830, Sieyès' republic is overthrown. Let's assume this is because the government became tyrannical and dictatorial, with governments being subject to rapid dismissals and imprisonments of its members and power struggles between military leaders wishing to be Grand Elector. Would the movement to overthrow this system be more aligned to a quasi-Jacobin or Royalist standpoint?
As I said before, depends how and when it is overthrown.
How:
If it is by internal disorder, the result will be a more democratic republic. The Jacobins will lead a revolution against Sieyès oligarchic system and replace it by a more popular one.
If it is by foreign intervention, odds are high that the foreign powers place a new king on the French throne. This would be the triumph of the Royalists.
When:
The longer you wait, the more the republic will become entrenched in the French mentality. At some point, even if Sieyès' system is overthrown, it will always result in just another type of republic. People will have forgotten the monarchy and Royalists will have low support.
If France goes the peaceful transition route, which is likely, I imagine the general structure would remain the same. The title Grand Elector would probably be abolished in favour of some French equivalent of president or prime minister. The French were all for taken inspiration out of the Roman Republic and Athens, so I'll look there.
If France decides to go a more revolutionary route, do you think the new government would be in favour of a presidential-vice presidential system or a unitary presidential system -I apologize if I'm getting the terminology wrong- in that the "president" is the head of state, head of government, and head of the armed forces? If the Sieyès experiment fails, wouldn't the French politicians if not the public be more supportive of a division of power between a president and vice-president or the equivalent?
Or would France instead invent a unique system, especially if a tour of the US and/or UK is not feasible? A lot of inspiration would come from earlier republics, no doubt, not to mentioned further experimentation.
I'm not sure which approach to take yet, either seems likely. I think I'll wait until after this upcoming semester to start working through the details and starting to write a TL. Your guys' input is much appreciated! If I have any other questions I'll post them here.
@G.Washington_Fuckyeah I've actually been thinking about this PoD for months. The roadblock was getting into detail on what would happen right after the PoD because-as you said-most books focus on Napoleon. You posts have thus been very helpful. I think I'll create a new thread on this topic and reply to your posts there. Stormcrow has his own TL and instead of hijacking his thread, I can open a discussion that can go in different directions. For example, I have a bunch of thoughts on the repercussions for the Ottomans, the Spanish Empire, the US, and so on. I found out about this PoD through looking for a way to help the Ottomans do better and stumbled upon the intriguing possibilities for the rest of the world doing better (as well as how these things deeply influence each other). So, a lot of info I have is on those subjects.
I forgot about a few things I was thinking of when I last replied to the thread.
In regards to my timeline-in-planning, let's assume that France goes down either path we've discussed and is able to dominate European affairs until mid-century.
I'm really interested in this German Confederation as proposed by Sieyès. Ideally, I'd like to see it as an association of French client republics in Germany, exclusive to Prussia and Austria, headed by a French "governor-general" and a symbolic appointed German "president.
However, depending on the political situation and Sieyès and his government would could happen is a loose association of German states and statelets that are forced to adopt liberal constitutional monarchies or republics. I'll have to research Republican movements in Germany at a later date. I could still see a French "governor-general" and German "president" overseeing the Confederation.
Either idea, I think Frankfurt would be an ideal location given its proximity to France.
After the Confederation forms, I'd imagine a similar organization would be crated for Italy. An Italian League, perhaps? Ironically in reference to the Italian Leagues of the 14-1500s?
Let's assume France is able to negotiate favourable terms in Europe. I imagine Portugal, Spain, Russia, and Britain would become isolationist and focus on colonial affairs. Austria and Prussia would be devastated too much to oppose French domination.
I'm not sure what the relationship with the Ottomans will be TTL. If France and the O.E. can reconcile after Napoleon's defeat they could be allies, though de facto rivals.
If France and the Ottomans instead remain rivals war is a possibility. While the French public may be caught up in remembering Napoleon's defeat as a heroic death, the French government may feel like it needs to retaliate against the O.E. If this is the case, the Balkans could be "liberated" into French client republics while Ottoman Africa would be transferred to a mixture of French colonies (I.e Libya) and protectorates (I.e. Egypt).
I'd imagine after succeeding in Europe 1800-1810, France may need time to recuperate so this could be possible 1815-1830?
Also, given the timeframe a stronger France could interfere in this TL's "War of 1812". France and the US could form an independent Republic of the Two Canadas. Despite animosity from Britain, Europe could play Canada and the US off each other to prevent either becoming a major player in world affairs.
This could be the last of the French Revolutionary Wars.
France's relationship with Canada and Haiti intrigues me in this TL. I think independence is possible, but could both or one of the states enter a relationship with France relative to the American commonwealth/associated states system? They'd still be technically subjects of France while enjoying a certain degree of Sovereignty. I don't imagine Canada would keep this system up past when France's "continental system" collapses eventually.
That's it for now. I'll post later if I think of anything else.
I'm really interested in this German Confederation as proposed by Sieyès. Ideally, I'd like to see it as an association of French client republics in Germany, exclusive to Prussia and Austria, headed by a French "governor-general" and a symbolic appointed German "president.
I doubt the French would export their republican constitution to Germany. The French Republic was perfectly fine with being allied to Spain (an absolute monarchy) or Prussia (at least they tried to form an alliance as I said above). "Client Republics" were usally only formed/carved out of hostile states. There were so many Sister republics in Italy because France needed to administrate the territories taken from Austria. But even in Italy, the Directorate was perfectly fine with staying at good terms with the Papal State or Naples - and Napoléon throw the Republic of Venice under the Austrian Bus in 1797.
A little outline of the history of the Roman Republic (1798 - 1799) based on Jean Tulard's Dictionnaire Napoléon:
The goal of the French Directorate was the recognition of the Civil Constitution of the Clergy of 1790 (which ruled that the Bishops and Priests of the French Catholic Church had to be elected by the believers). Napoléon however wanted a quick peace since he needed a calm southern border to fight the Austrians in northern Italy. Neither Napoléon nor the French government pushed for a republic. The French government hated the Church, but it didn't want to replace the Pope by a democracy. Pius VI had no other choice than to accept the peace and the annexation of the territory of Bologna, which had already been integrated in the Jacobin Cispadane Republic. Also, the Pope had to cede a great number of artworks to the French Republic.
But the compromise proved to be fragile. Within Rome, like in many Italian cities, republicans ("Jacobins") supported by France agitated against papal rule. In Rome, they were substantially supported (and manipulated) by the French ambassador. The turning point was the demonstration on December 27, 1797 on the Piazza di Spagna which should be the starting point of a general insurrection, but the French ambassador Joseph Bonaparte could prevent an outright revolt. The next day however, the Jacobins took the streets for a second time and liberated a papal chain gang. Afterwards, they gathered in front of the French embassy and demanded democratization. Joseph refused to calm the mob; papal forces fired on the crowd, killing the French diplomate general Duphot who had tried to de-escalate the situation.
The Directorate couldn't ignore this and on January 11, 1798 ordered the new commander of the armée d'Italie, general Berthier, to march on Rome and to put the Roman Jacobins in charge of a new Roman Republic - the pope should be forced to leave the city. The French government was forced to act by events in Rome. It agreed to a sister republic on political, not on ideological grounds. Berthier arrived at Rome on February 9 and the city capitulated on the next day. Lead (or manipulated to state the anti-revolutionary opinion) by the French agent and former constitutional clergyman Bassal, the Roman Jacobins proclaimed the Roman Republic on the Forum Romanum (oh I love these symbols) on February 15. At the same time, they demanded protection by the French Republic. On the following day, the pope went into exile in Siena, and the cardinals left the city.
The situation worsened once again when the Directorate replaced Berthier with Masséna as general of the armée de Rome, since Masséna was impopular with the troops due to his looting and retention of the soldiers' pay. The task to organize the Roman Republic was assigned to a commission of four civilians appointed by the Directorate on January 31: Daunou, a jurist; Monge, a mathematician; Florent, a diplomat; Faypoult; Saint-Martin as secretary. The commission succeeded in the difficult task of restoring public order, primarily by replacing Masséna by Gouvion Saint-Cyr, who later became impopular with the troops for his strict discipline. Also, parts of the gigantic estates of the Catholic Church were nationalized and put up for sale. Additionally, they had to investigate the events of December 28, 1798 (8 nivôse an vi).
Meanwhile, a constitition was written, mainly by Daunou. The new constitution was indeed republican and, even if it restricted the right to vote to the upper and middle classes, quite democratic (especially compared to the other European regimes, including the Papal States). The Roman constitution of March 20, 1798 was essentially a copy of the French Constitution of the Year 3, with the names adapted to Roman history: the basic popular assemblies were called comitia; the communal assemblies tribes; the proposing chamber of parliament Tribunate; the legislating chamber of parliament Senate; the five directors Consuls; the judges Praetors; the mayors of large cities Aedils; and the comptrollers Quaestors. This is a typical characteristic of the French sister republics: their constitutions were literal copies of the French ones. Daunou later took part in the writing of the French constitution of 1799 and many of these names were recycled for napoleonic institutions. This is why Sieyès used all those Roman names for his draft.
More controversial were the articles 368 (which entitled the French general of Rome to appoint the first officials and members of parliament without popular elections) and 369 (until a treaty of alliance between France and Rome is ratified, all laws had to be confirmed by the French general; equally, the French general could legislate without the assent of the Roman parliament, and the Roman Consuls had to execute these laws). This is the governor-general you proposed. Interestingly, even peaceful demonstrations could be dispersed by the army according to article 355.
The religious policies of the Roman Republic were more moderate than those of the French government. In fact, the Roman Jacobins sought to find a compromise with the Pope, and the proclamation of the Roman Republic on February 15 actually guaranteed the papal position - but the French did not tolerate the papal presence and deported Pius VI. An ecclesiastical commission was created, which should discuss the reform and democratization of the Roman Church. But instead of adopting too radical policies, the Roman government tried to appease the clergy and just tried to limit the power of the Church. Many of the 340 monasteries were to be abolished and the number of clergymen reduced by expelling foreign churchmen. Some Church officials even supported the transformation of the center of the Christian world into a democratic republic, the most famous being the cardinal and bishop of Imola (he would become Pope Pius VII in 1800): on Christmas 1797, he gave a homily asserting that democracy and Catholic faith aren't incompatible, but that every state needs religion.
However, in January 1799, the Roman government declared that the cooperation of clergymen with rebels would be forbidden under penalty of death. This demonstrates that the clergy was a core component of the opposition to the French occupation and the government soon started to control the sermonas - and even to prescribe their content. Furthermore, religious parades were forbidden. The securalization created further resistance against the regime, and unsurprisingly, the Cult of Reason and the Liberty Trees never became really popular. Other reasons for resistance against the French occupation were the lootings and the financial burden which was the French taxes.
Meanwhile, the French Fleet had been destroyed at Aboukir on August 1, 1798, victory which gave hope to the opposition. The rebellions started again and on November 24, Neapolitan troops under the Austrian general Mack attacked the Roman Republic. The new French general Championnet had left the city to reorganize his forces, and Mack entered Rome on November 27, while only a little French garrison in the Mausoleum of Hadrian resisted. Mack was allegedly welcomed by the Roman population as a liberator from French occupation.
Championnet took back Rome on December 13, chased his enemy to the south and conquered Naples on January 23, 1799, where the Parthenopean Republic was proclaimed on the following day (the republic received a similar constitution, which was however more democratic than the Roman one since it rejected an electoral census - and if you like the title of consuls, you'll love the Parthenopean titles: Archons (the five presidents), Ephors (the constitutional judges) and Censors (control of the public education)). As in Rome, the French occupation of Naples had been preceded by a revolt of the partisans of democracy within the city on January 10. Again: the Napoleonic Republic was not founded by the French government, but by the Jacobins of Naples and the Jacobin general Championnet - not the guy Sieyès would give a command. Actually, after Sieyès's and Napoleon's of 18 Brumaire, Championnet retired and died of a disease soon after.
In the Roman Republic, the political life continued; Jacobin clubs had been create and republican newspapers were published. But Catholic rebels lead by cardinal Ruffo emerged in Calabria and marched on Naples. The War of the Second Coalition had broken out and Russian as well as Austrian forces attacked the French forces in Lombardia (Cisalpine Republic). The French general Macdonald (Championnet had been recalled by the Directorate due to the unauthorized formation of the Parthenopean Republic) therefore evacuated Naples on May 5 to prevent being cut off from France.
Finally, the forces of the coalition took Rome on September 30, 1799, thus definitively dissolving the Roman Republic. Equally, the Austrian took Milan on April 29 and thus put an end to the Cisalpine Republic. The Directorate, weak and divided, wasn't able to react to this invasion. But on November 9, 1799, Napoleon replaced the Directorate at the head of the French nation. Napoléon defeated the Austrian forces at Marengo on June 14, 1800, and Murat soon entered the Papal States and the Kingdom of Naples.
The Peace of Lunéville, signed on February 9, 1801, didn't respect the revolutionary principles of national self-determination and strongly disappointed the Italian patriots and Jacobins. While the Cisalpine Republic was reconstituted, and even expanded, the Roman Republic wasn't. Napoléon wasn't opposed to the Catholic Church and had tried to find a compromise with the Papal States since 1796.
Also, the most important French enemy of the Pope, the former director La Revellière-Lépeaux had completly lost his influence. Instead, Napoléon tried to reunite the French church with the Roman-Catholic one, and these efforts culminated in the 1801 Concordate. Napoléon was trying to improve the relations with the Pope - restoring the Roman Republic just wasn't in the cards in this situation. Sieyès wasn't opposed to the Catholic Church either. He was of the opinion that the public, republican Catholic church could very well live together with the authoritarian Catholic Church that didn't accept the Civil Constitution of the Clergy.
And when, due to new conflicts between France and the Catholic Church, French troops occupied Rome on February 2, 1808, the era of sister republics was long gone and Napoléon didn't back off from total annexation. Rome officially became a city of the French Empire on May 17, 1809. This was the time of Napoléon's exorbitant and planless annextions. Napoléon wanted to enforce the Continental Blocus, and haphazardly annexed all territories that opposed his blocus and housed smugglers.
But the French public didn't approved such annexations. The French believed in the theory of the "Natural Borders": the Alps, the Pyrenees and the Rhine should be the limits of the French nation. Further expansion wasn't supported by most French, and much less by the businessmen who wanted peace.
I can think of two PODs though to save the Roman Republic:
1) An early French victory in the War of the Second Coalition. Maybe Napoléon never leaves France for Egypt, and is available to fight (and win) against the Austrians and Russians in northern Italy in 1799. The Parthenopean, the Roman and the Cisalpine Republic thus are never dissolved and preserved.
2) Napoléon doesn't take power in 1799, maybe because he dies, maybe because of other reasons. The Directorate beats the Austrians in 1800 and restores the Roman Republic dissolved by the Austrians. But it isn't sure that another French government would restore the Roman Republic. As I said above, Sieyès wasn't hostile to the Pope. He might just tolerate the end of the Roman Republic and accept the restauration of the Papal States.
Okay that was longer than I thought...
BTW I'm a proud owner of a reproduction of the flag of the Roman Republic.
So as long as the German princes follow along with French foreign policy, France will not impose its political system on them. The principalities member of the German Confederation (Fédération Germanique) will maybe be encouraged to encact enlightened reforms like religious tolerance or equality before the law, and will maybe do so voluntarily because they see that free trade and equality are beneficial to their economy. They will reform their administration to integrate new territories and to strengthen the central government. Some will maybe create parliaments with a restricted franchise and limited rights to satisfy their liberal subjects. France might encourage them to do so (after Napoléon created Westphalia, a model state with human rights and a parliament, Bavaria hurried up to implement a similar system to prevent that Napoléon forced a constitution on them). But the French Republic most probably won't force allies to become republics.
But let's assume that some German state has to be remodeled - Hanover for example. The Electorate of Hanover (Electorate of Brunswick-Lüneburg) is a subject of Great Britain and thus an enemy. What should the French do with this territory if they occupy it? Give it to Prussia? Well Prussia participated in the OTL occupation, but France doesn't want Prussia to become too strong. Maybe the French could end up in a situation where there is no other option than to form a sister republic in northern Germany. Most Jacobin activities in this region were concentrated in Hamburg tough - outside of the Electorate. To have any popular support, this new republic would have to include Hamburg and Schleswig, the region that had at least some prominent Jacobins. Again, there might be a democratic rebellions in Hamburg, just like in Rome or Naples. But popular uprisings are seldom in Germany, we both know it very well. So even that might be a stretch. On the flipside however, this means that once the republic is established, a large rebellion overthrowing it is unlikely.
As for the political system, it will have a dual leadership at first. On the one hand, the German President/Elector (the German version of the Grand Elector in France), on the other hand the French military governor. Once peace is signed, this dual leadership will likely end. The French general will leave the whole power to the President.
But this scenario is still a bit of a stretch. Most German states, even monarchies, were fine with the French Republic. Especially Baden and Württemberg supported the French since France helped them to eat many of the tiny Principalities during the so called Reichsdeputationshauptschluss (a really important event at this time, read it up). To sum it up: the large German states agreed with France taking the left bank of the Rhine and Italy; as a compensation, they would be allowed to annex little secular and ecclesiastical states. This mediatization is so important because many German states grew a lot during this times; they had to find ways to integrate their new subjects, and this is why they often implemented centralization reforms and introduced parliaments.
However, depending on the political situation and Sieyès and his government would could happen is a loose association of German states and statelets that are forced to adopt liberal constitutional monarchies or republics. I'll have to research Republican movements in Germany at a later date. I could still see a French "governor-general" and German "president" overseeing the Confederation.
The Confederation of the Rhine, which is the OTL model for our "German Confederation", had two central institutions: the Prince-Primate Karl Theodor von Dalberg and the Federal Diet (Bundestag). The Prince-Primate was Dalberg, who had been Prince-Bishop of Worms and thus Archchancellor of the HRE. When Mainz was finally annexed by France in 1803, he became archpishop of Regensburg and primate of the German Church. Dalberg was a supporter of Febronianism, which sought to create a united German Catholic Church, independent from Rome. In 1806, he accepted Napoléon's offer to become the new Prince-Primate of the Confederation of the Rhine. In 1810, he had to give up Regensburg, but was awarded the Grand Duchy of Frankfurt as a compensation.
The main task of the Prince-Primate was to preside over the Diet. The Diet would have be composed of two colleges (or assemblies): one for the kings, one for the other princes. The Prince-Primate should propose a constitution to the Diet; Dalberg did this, but the constitution wasn't adopted by the states. Napoléon didn't want a central German institution, and the German kings didn't want to give up their autonomy to a federal institution. This is why the Federal Diet never came into being; instead, the Confederation of the Rhine was more or less ruled by its Protector - Napoléon.
I doubt a German Federation created by a French Republic would do much better. As long as Prussia and Austria can be put in check, France is satisfied. No need for a central organization, a fundamental statute or a German president. Germany shouldn't be made too strong either. Strong enough to defend itself against the surrounding powers, but not so strong that it can challenge France.
Yes, that's right. That was the plan for the Confederation of the Rhine. Also Frankfurt was the city in which the Emperors of the HRE had been elected and crowned.
After the Confederation forms, I'd imagine a similar organization would be crated for Italy. An Italian League, perhaps? Ironically in reference to the Italian Leagues of the 14-1500s?
Well, in Italy we have completly other preconditions. The Confederation of the Rhine (ITTL the German Confederation) was created to unite the smaller German states against the Great powers Austria and Prussia. It was also some kind of buffer between France (ending on the Rhine) and Prussia (begining on the Elbe). Why should France do this in Italy? France drove Austria out of northern Italy, yes. It created the Cisalpine Republic, later becoming the Italian Republic* and the Kingdom of Italy. It took Venetia from Austria in 1809 and gave it to the Kingdom of Italy. But there's no need to unite the remaining Italian states - there is no great power to counter in Italy. A united Italy is, if anything, a potential threat to France!
That is why Napoléon never united Italy. He created the Italian Kingdom in 1805, and this is why he is respected by Italian patriots until today. He gave Naples to Joseph in 1806, and then to Murat in 1808. He annexed the Papal States in 1809. At this point, Napoléon could have united Italy at any time. But he didn't, because he wasn't the hero of nationalism he is often depicted as, and because France had no interest in a strong and united Italy. So I don't see why France, be it an Empire, be a republic, would create an Italian confederation.
What may happen though is that Italian nationalists become so strong that France decides to accept their demands and creates an Italian league. But sadly we know that empires aren't very intelligent and don't like to back down. Again, the probability of an Italian confederation is pretty low for the time being.
*The name changed in 1802. When Napoléon was elected President of the Cisalpine Republic in this year, he delivered a speech in Italian. When he pronounced the words "Cisalpine Republic", the members of the assembly shouted "Italian! Italian!".
Let's assume France is able to negotiate favourable terms in Europe. I imagine Portugal, Spain, Russia, and Britain would become isolationist and focus on colonial affairs. Austria and Prussia would be devastated too much to oppose French domination.
I'm not sure what the relationship with the Ottomans will be TTL. If France and the O.E. can reconcile after Napoleon's defeat they could be allies, though de facto rivals.
Russia certainly won't become isolationist if it isn't forced to do so. Russia was very active in European affairs - it took part in the Partitions of Poland, it took part in the Wars of Coalition (remember that a Russian army was beaten in Switzerland in 1799), it became the major military power after the Congress of Vienna. Napoléon tried to "apportion" Europe between him and Russia: Tilsit was the climax of this policy. But the future proved that it wasn impossible to live in peace with the Tsar.
For Prussia, while Talleyrand recommended to achieve Prussian neutrality or even an alliance, Sieyès preferred a strong "Third Germany" (the confederation) to check Prussian power. As I said above, Sieyès hated Prussia and disliked Talleyrand.
Spain was in a tricky situation - the war with Great Britain wasn't in its interest, but Spain needed a strong ally as long as Great Britain coveted Spain's colonies.
But for British politics you should better ask somebody who knows more about Britain at this time.
