Passive, Defensive Napoleon

So, this is gong to be my first thread. I hope that you accept and participate in any discussion that is created.

What if Napoleon takes the title of First Consul and does not attempt to extend the empire? Instead, he solidifies the defend of France, seeks aid from the US (in terms of creating political stability and establishing a form of democracy), and negotiates peacefully with the neighboring monarchies that are displeased with the rebellion against Louis XV.

My questions have to do with Europe and the altered history that would follow without a series of Napoleonic Wars and empire.

a). What actions would Napoleon and France have to take to secure its borders and calm the anger of nations like Austria to prevent the series of battles that lead to the protracted Napoleonic Wars?

b). What happens to the Italian and German unification efforts if they are never under the control of Napoleonic forces? Are the movements stalled, prevented, or led under different members?

c.) What happens to England and its claim to power if they never destroy the burgeoning French navy? Are there other conflicts that would eventually lead to dominance by one nation or the other? Do colonial conflict rise with Napoleon in office for a longer period of time?

d.) What happens to Russia and the line of Tsars? No invasion of Moscow might mean less hatred by the public and therefore no revolution.

Please consider the time from Napoleon's rise to the Consul until 1900 (or perhaps what would have been the start of WWI).

Thank you for looking.
 
So, this is gong to be my first thread. I hope that you accept and participate in any discussion that is created.

What if Napoleon takes the title of First Consul and does not attempt to extend the empire? Instead, he solidifies the defend of France, seeks aid from the US (in terms of creating political stability and establishing a form of democracy), and negotiates peacefully with the neighboring monarchies that are displeased with the rebellion against Louis XV.

My questions have to do with Europe and the altered history that would follow without a series of Napoleonic Wars and empire.

a). What actions would Napoleon and France have to take to secure its borders and calm the anger of nations like Austria to prevent the series of battles that lead to the protracted Napoleonic Wars?

b). What happens to the Italian and German unification efforts if they are never under the control of Napoleonic forces? Are the movements stalled, prevented, or led under different members?

c.) What happens to England and its claim to power if they never destroy the burgeoning French navy? Are there other conflicts that would eventually lead to dominance by one nation or the other? Do colonial conflict rise with Napoleon in office for a longer period of time?

d.) What happens to Russia and the line of Tsars? No invasion of Moscow might mean less hatred by the public and therefore no revolution.

Please consider the time from Napoleon's rise to the Consul until 1900 (or perhaps what would have been the start of WWI).

Thank you for looking.

Napoleon was first and foremost a soldier. He's can get a peace treaty like Lunéville or Amiens, but it's gonna be an uneasy peace at best. It's like playing with matches in a powder magazine.
 
So, this is gong to be my first thread. I hope that you accept and participate in any discussion that is created.

What if Napoleon takes the title of First Consul and does not attempt to extend the empire? Instead, he solidifies the defend of France, seeks aid from the US (in terms of creating political stability and establishing a form of democracy), and negotiates peacefully with the neighboring monarchies that are displeased with the rebellion against Louis XV.

My questions have to do with Europe and the altered history that would follow without a series of Napoleonic Wars and empire.

a). What actions would Napoleon and France have to take to secure its borders and calm the anger of nations like Austria to prevent the series of battles that lead to the protracted Napoleonic Wars?

b). What happens to the Italian and German unification efforts if they are never under the control of Napoleonic forces? Are the movements stalled, prevented, or led under different members?

c.) What happens to England and its claim to power if they never destroy the burgeoning French navy? Are there other conflicts that would eventually lead to dominance by one nation or the other? Do colonial conflict rise with Napoleon in office for a longer period of time?

d.) What happens to Russia and the line of Tsars? No invasion of Moscow might mean less hatred by the public and therefore no revolution.

Please consider the time from Napoleon's rise to the Consul until 1900 (or perhaps what would have been the start of WWI).

Thank you for looking.
You may still end up with an Anglo-French War.
But its possible (although difficult) to keep it 7 years war style, if somehow you can get Austria and Spain to back off (or maybe not, just have them lose quick and get a peace treaty that doesn't scream for revenge.)

Prussia had no problem allying with the Revolutionaries or at least staying neutral to them. But you will still have revolts in Belgium and the Netherlands, those two nations at least the dutch republic has an empire so we could see a war that takes place more in Asia and America than in Europe (or we could see a Trafalgar without Spain.)
 
Then he wouldnt be Napoleon. However, you could probably get a similar result if some other person (probably another general) rises to the top.

And that guy reverts to the Austrian alliance, taking the Austrian Netherlands in return for preserving the status quo in Italy and Germany.

The war with Britain would be short and desultory not turning into anything more spectacular until Britain can find allies--not likely with a non-expansionist France.
 
Though with a nonexpansionist France, not a whole lot to be gained from fighting France for Britain either.
 
And that guy reverts to the Austrian alliance, taking the Austrian Netherlands in return for preserving the status quo in Italy and Germany.

The war with Britain would be short and desultory not turning into anything more spectacular until Britain can find allies--not likely with a non-expansionist France.

other than pride, but I don't Britain would fight for long, just until the king gets sick of supporting the Bourbons.

abcamp

nitpick: Louis XVI (XVII), and XVIII. Louis XV is a typo.

King Louis XVI and the Dauphin are dead by the time of Napoleon's rise to power. You need Napoleon and his genius to make France defensively untouchable, as well as for his political reforms at home.

As to Britain? They were dedicated to a disunited Europe, so going after Napoleonic France (even a Republican France) is an imperative. If nothing else, they'll go after the French Navy and their colonies and just dare France to do anything about it. Also, wasn't Spain actually more of an anti-British mind at the time? Though other than them most of the aristocratic nations of Europe wanted Napoleon and the whole French Revolution destroyed in the long run. The Russians wanted Europe revolutionary republican-free the most, the Prussians (mostly due to the fecklessness of their king) the least.

If Napoleon sits back, and slaughters every mercenary army sent against him, Bonapartism might start to become more attractive to the lower classes of Europe. Especially with no imperial crown sitting on Bonaparte's head. Pretty hard to get the rallying effect on the European aristocracies of a non-Imperial Napoleon.

Subscribed:)
 
Of course, if Napoleon just sits back, how many mercenary armies are going to go after him?

The European powers don't have a great interest in getting their highly expensive armies killed off for something that isn't doing anything to them.
 
I think you would have to tinker with Napoleon's history, and in doing so you would tinker with his rise to power... so that may be you don't get a First Consul named Napoleon. My reason for saying this is that my reading of Napoleon's campaigns is that the whole thing was aimed 100% at the destruction of the British economy. That is hard to do diplomatically. So, you would have to stop the reason that Napoleon had such hostility for the 'nation of shopkeepers', and if you did that you may (as I said earlier) curb his rise to power.
 
a) A stinging enough victory of the Austrians (Wagram, Marengo, etc.) that secures Piedmont and Flanders for France would probably be enough. Austria goes, Prussia goes, Russia goes, nobody else but UK. No funny moves, and the other powers aren't going to try and push him around for long.

b) They would have happened anyway, I suspect. France would still be a hotbed of agitation and revolutionary pamphlets will still spread the Napoleonic message everywhere. I suspect without Piedmont, your best chance for an Italian unification would be a Lombardy/Venice rising, supported by France; and a German unification... ehh... that's more difficult. I still would bet on Prussia, since German unification was more like 'Prussian conquest' OTL anyway.

c) England (By that I mean the UK!!!) was already the dominant power before the French Revolution. I think Europe would align... eventually... to a French Republic. Maybe another 'Diplomatic Revolution' where it is England-Austria vs. France-Prussia once again. Napoleon, glory-hound that he was, would definitely have sought further colonial conquest - probably Haiti and Egypt as prime targets.

d) I think Russia would have become more 'Westernized' at the cost of developing it's own 'Russianness'. The invasion of 1812 was a seminal point in Russian culture as the old elite threw away its love for France (as recounted in Natasha's Dance) and tried to reconnect with the narod. Perhaps no 1812 meant a faster political alignment with Europe (probably with a liberal Alexander I at the helm), perhaps even liberal reform as intellectuals agitate to make Russia France Mark II.
 
Last edited:
Of course, if Napoleon just sits back, how many mercenary armies are going to go after him?

The European powers don't have a great interest in getting their highly expensive armies killed off for something that isn't doing anything to them.

Since the start of Revolutionary France, the various crowned heads of Europe were doing their damndest to send in their armies to insure the contagion didn't spread. Spread to the point of the various crowns losing their heads. But they had never seen before the levees en masse that France was able to produce, when people freely joined volunteer regiments by the millions while the various mercenary armies were still being assembled and employed under the old rules, by the tens of thousands.

As long as the various alliances are holding together, and aren't being invaded themselves. the only thing I see stopping them is exhaustion of $$$.

I think you would have to tinker with Napoleon's history, and in doing so you would tinker with his rise to power... so that may be you don't get a First Consul named Napoleon. My reason for saying this is that my reading of Napoleon's campaigns is that the whole thing was aimed 100% at the destruction of the British economy. That is hard to do diplomatically. So, you would have to stop the reason that Napoleon had such hostility for the 'nation of shopkeepers', and if you did that you may (as I said earlier) curb his rise to power.

Curb or stop? Spend more time as a military commander? A cabinet officer?
 
Since the start of Revolutionary France, the various crowned heads of Europe were doing their damndest to send in their armies to insure the contagion didn't spread. Spread to the point of the various crowns losing their heads. But they had never seen before the levees en masse that France was able to produce, when people freely joined volunteer regiments by the millions while the various mercenary armies were still being assembled and employed under the old rules, by the tens of thousands.

As long as the various alliances are holding together, and aren't being invaded themselves. the only thing I see stopping them is exhaustion of $$$.

Which is going to happen sooner or later - especially for Prussia (poor) and Russia (in a worse position to do something in Western Europe). And if the contagion isn't spreading, the incentive to keep going on and on is going to wear down too.

I'm not going to argue that they're going to trust promises of a leader claiming that "all I want is France as it was in '89" - not without extremely good reason if at all. But they do have other concerns, and continuing to get their armies smashed is going to make some of those concerns worse than making peace and making sure the people back home know that a revolution would be a bad idea here.

OTL they had the Revolution's leaders actively trying to spread the contagion, after all, so I'm not sure they'd treat it quite the same TTL, with . . . how to put it, "Republicanism in one country"? as the order of the day.
 
c) England was already the dominant power before the French Revolution.

I'm constantly amazed at these kind of comments. Of course, you meant Britain, and even used 'U.K.' earlier in your post.

I think most members of this community are fairly well educated, so probably even know that using 'England' when that isn't what you meant is incorrect. Why do people do that? Please, use the correct term for the nation. It might seem pedantic, but just as pedantic as referring to 'Texas' when you mean the United States, or 'Russia' when you mean the Soviet Union. Just because the rest of the world is lazy doesn't mean you should be too.
 
I'm constantly amazed at these kind of comments. Of course, you meant Britain, and even used 'U.K.' earlier in your post.

I think most members of this community are fairly well educated, so probably even know that using 'England' when that isn't what you meant is incorrect. Why do people do that? Please, use the correct term for the nation. It might seem pedantic, but just as pedantic as referring to 'Texas' when you mean the United States, or 'Russia' when you mean the Soviet Union. Just because the rest of the world is lazy doesn't mean you should be too.

:p just getting into the mindset of your average 19th century British leader in Whitehall, I guess.

(I'll try not to do it again, but no guarantees...)
 
So, this is gong to be my first thread. I hope that you accept and participate in any discussion that is created.

What if Napoleon takes the title of First Consul and does not attempt to extend the empire? Instead, he solidifies the defend of France, seeks aid from the US (in terms of creating political stability and establishing a form of democracy), and negotiates peacefully with the neighboring monarchies that are displeased with the rebellion against Louis XV.

My questions have to do with Europe and the altered history that would follow without a series of Napoleonic Wars and empire.

a). What actions would Napoleon and France have to take to secure its borders and calm the anger of nations like Austria to prevent the series of battles that lead to the protracted Napoleonic Wars?

Thrash them, and then sign a peace treaty they can more or less live with. He'd pretty much achieved this by the time of the treaties of Luneville and Amiens, which finally brought peace to Europe. All he really has to do then is to abide by the treaties - no invading Switzerland to impose a new puppet government after promising to respect it's independence and neutrality, forex - and concentrate on domestic reforms. Cut the army in half (it'll still be bigger than most other countries'), ease up on conscription, lower taxes and various other popular but non-threatening moves that will improve France's economic and domestic position.

b). What happens to the Italian and German unification efforts if they are never under the control of Napoleonic forces? Are the movements stalled, prevented, or led under different members?
German unification is probably stalled (unless the formation of the Rheinbund and dissolution of the HRE happen as OTL, unlikely if we're talking about a lasting Luneville/Amiens peace), but Italian Unification is probably helped along, especially if the Italian Republic transmutes into the Kingdom of Italy on schedule and when Napoleon starts dissolving the minor remaining states in Italy (Tuscany, etc.) he does so by adding them to the Kingdom instead of to France. One helpful and non-threatening move would be instead of taking the title of King of Italy for himself he conferred it on his step-son Eugene de Beauharnais, who ran the place anyway OTL as viceroy and was a very competent ruler by all accounts.

c.) What happens to England and its claim to power if they never destroy the burgeoning French navy? Are there other conflicts that would eventually lead to dominance by one nation or the other? Do colonial conflict rise with Napoleon in office for a longer period of time?
The French navy was destroyed as an effective fighting force by the revolution, not by the British - executing experienced officers for having the wrong parentage is no way to maintain a skills base. It'd take a generation to recover, at least. And yes, there'd always be conflicts - England/Britain and France had fought at least a couple of wars a century for something like 500 years by that point, it's unlikely the pattern will be broken immediately.

Yes, there will be colonial conflicts. It's probably too late for Napoleon to seek to rebuild France's position in India, but there's always Africa or South America if the Spaniards get stroppy. One particularly interesting possibility for conflict would be if, with peace in Europe reasonably secure, he decides not to sell Louisiana to the Americans but decides to colonise it instead, to build a new empire in the Americas - especially if he does exercise the opinion of demobilising part of the army and gives veterans American land grants. It's by no means an outrageous possibility that such a development will eventually see a war between the French and Americans with the Americans being quietly supported by the British....

d.) What happens to Russia and the line of Tsars? No invasion of Moscow might mean less hatred by the public and therefore no revolution.
Actually, if anything the war of 1812 strengthened the Tsar's position - victory proving he was blessed by God, and all that. Other than that, the Russians probably use the lack of a French distraction to go harder after the Turks - they agreed to end the 1806-12 war only a matter of days before the French invade Russia, how much this was influenced by the increasing likelihood of hostilities I've no idea, but without the distraction it's at least possible that the Russians will drive the Turks all the way back across the Danube and insist on Serbian independence, not just autonomy.
 
:p just getting into the mindset of your average 19th century British leader in Whitehall, I guess.

(I'll try not to do it again, but no guarantees...)

I understand that, that's for sure, and my tirade was definitely not directed at you personally, but at everyone who makes this error... probably my one single frustration when it comes to nomenclature.

It does amuse me, however, in the movie 'the Last of the Mohicans' Major Heyward states "British policies make the world England, sir." to Colonel Munro (A Scots commander. Not a great career (or romance) move on Heyward's part... but then he didn't live long enough for it to matter. So, yes, I do understand your comment about getting into Whitehall character :)
 
Top