We all know Napoleon Bonaparte, the revolutionary general who proclaimed himself Emperor and used his military to spread both the Revolution's ideals and his empire.

Let's not talk about him.

Let's talk about the Marquis of Lafayette, a figure I find quite underrated.
The "hero of both worlds" who fought in american and revolutionary wars, tried to aid Louis XVI to keep France a constitutional monarchy and also refused being granted dictatorial powers when offered.

How feasible would it be to have him be as militarily and politically successful if not more so than Bonaparte was IOTL?

By that I mean not simply using ASB to give him the corsican's "natural talent" or "luck", whatever that entails, merely a change his "perception" and the way he learned from his experiences during the conflicts for him to improve his skills as much(if not more) than Nappy did going to the academy and fighting for France. A "realistic" wank basically.

And if that IS possible, could we have a France led by him influencing Europe as much as the one from the "Napoleon wins" scenario? What that would look like?
 
We all know Napoleon Bonaparte, the revolutionary general who proclaimed himself Emperor and used his military to spread both the Revolution's ideals and his empire.

Let's not talk about him.

Let's talk about the Marquis of Lafayette, a figure I find quite underrated.
The "hero of both worlds" who fought in american and revolutionary wars, tried to aid Louis XVI to keep France a constitutional monarchy and also refused being granted dictatorial powers when offered.

How feasible would it be to have him be as militarily and politically successful if not more so than Bonaparte was IOTL?

By that I mean not simply using ASB to give him the corsican's "natural talent" or "luck", whatever that entails, merely a change his "perception" and the way he learned from his experiences during the conflicts for him to improve his skills as much(if not more) than Nappy did going to the academy and fighting for France. A "realistic" wank basically.

And if that IS possible, could we have a France led by him influencing Europe as much as the one from the "Napoleon wins" scenario? What that would look like?
That’s not really possible. Napoleon literally was a unique figure in history. His military feats and other accomplishments puts him in a league of his as one of history’s last “great conquerors” in the mold of Caesar or Alexander. Napoleon himself was a transformative force upon Europe.

Laffayette was moderate who tried to maintain some semblance of order in France. He however was nowhere near enough charismatic or tactically inclined to even hold a candle to how Napoleon wielded the Grand Armee or how he had their loyalty.


By that I mean not simply using ASB to give him the corsican's "natural talent" or "luck", whatever that entails, merely a change his "perception" and the way he learned from his experiences during the conflicts for him to improve his skills as much(if not more) than Nappy did going to the academy and fighting for France. A "realistic" wank basically.
What you’re asking is basically ASB as you essentially want Lafayette to essentially not be himself. He was of a completely different upbringing than Napoleon as he was higher level of nobility. He also was of a different generation than Napoleon. Napoleon was uniquely shaped by the experiences he had growing up and coming of age during the chaos of the Revolution.

What you’re asking for is basically Napoleon but wearing a Lafayette skin suit.

A more militarily successful Lafayette probably entails who’ll different circumstances. Likely one where there’s no American or French Revolutions. If say Louis XVI goes to war in Europe Lafayette probably can gain military accolades that way. Though he’s probably more of a royalist here when he’s directly serving the King and being bestowed accolades for his merits.
 
We all know Napoleon Bonaparte, the revolutionary general who proclaimed himself Emperor and used his military to spread both the Revolution's ideals and his empire.

Let's not talk about him.

Let's talk about the Marquis of Lafayette, a figure I find quite underrated.
The "hero of both worlds" who fought in american and revolutionary wars, tried to aid Louis XVI to keep France a constitutional monarchy and also refused being granted dictatorial powers when offered.

How feasible would it be to have him be as militarily and politically successful if not more so than Bonaparte was IOTL?

By that I mean not simply using ASB to give him the corsican's "natural talent" or "luck", whatever that entails, merely a change his "perception" and the way he learned from his experiences during the conflicts for him to improve his skills as much(if not more) than Nappy did going to the academy and fighting for France. A "realistic" wank basically.

And if that IS possible, could we have a France led by him influencing Europe as much as the one from the "Napoleon wins" scenario? What that would look like?
Maybe Napoleon or a self insert into Lafayette
 
What you’re asking is basically ASB as you essentially want Lafayette to essentially not be himself.
Hm? I mean I guess he would be a different person by the end of it, but that's not much different from "if x converted to y religion" or "if z made different decisions", a change of mindset is not by itself ASB as far Im aware unless I'm brainwashing him to do something completely impossible for his character.
And I mean...I'm not? At least I dont think so, forgive me if I'm wrong but I specifically said I'm not giving him the same natural charisma, upbringing, talent or whatever else Napoleon was blessed with, I asked if changing his perception of the wars could make him improve as much as Napoleon did during his military experience and if so if it could lead to a wank scenario similar to the bonapartist europe ones.
 
say Louis XVI goes to war in Europe Lafayette probably can gain military accolades that way. Though he’s probably more of a royalist here when he’s directly serving the King and being bestowed accolades for his merits
Sounds good
Maybe Napoleon or a self insert into Lafayette
Thought about it but then I would have to reeeeally move it to ASB and I thought it would be more fun to see how good the Marquis could do by himself
 
Avoid the Day of the Daggers and the Flight, LaFayette as commander of the national guard is arguably the most powerful figure in a French constitutional monarchy.
 
Hm? I mean I guess he would be a different person by the end of it, but that's not much different from "if x converted to y religion" or "if z made different decisions", a change of mindset is not by itself ASB as far Im aware unless I'm brainwashing him to do something completely impossible for his character.
And I mean...I'm not? At least I dont think so, forgive me if I'm wrong but I specifically said I'm not giving him the same natural charisma, upbringing, talent or whatever else Napoleon was blessed with, I asked if changing his perception of the wars could make him improve as much as Napoleon did during his military experience and if so if it could lead to a wank scenario similar to the bonapartist europe ones.
“Perception” is far from being enough because it is not a substitute for the talent, not to mention a genius. It is highly questionable if Lafayette, with all his experience, ever was above the very average level as a military leader. So in your scenario he understands that it is a good idea to concentrate on crushing the enemy’s force instead of taking the geographic points. There is a “trifle” left: he still does not have a talent to turn theory into the practice.

Here is a simple OTL example. Suvorov was most probably closest to Napoleon general of the previous generation as far as the practices and talent were involved. His methods had a great influence on the next generation and quite a few future generals had the 1st hand experience fighting under his command and some of them had been (in OTL) well above Lafayette’s level as far as their military records are involved. What do we see? In the Finnish War the “perception” was tried in practice and did not end with a disaster only because the enemy was weak. “Perception” was simple and clear “attack the enemy” but, being adopted by the lesser people, it turned into “attack the enemy no matter what” based upon the fact that against the Ottomans this was exactly what Suvorov was doing while against the French he was (just as Napoleon) trying to concentrate his forces at the critical points. The result were fantastic plans and even more fantastic attempts to execute them: enemy’s numbers were not taken into an account and insane aggressiveness led to the failures. These failures led to a semi-panic mode on the top and unwillingness to act aggressively. It took a stern order from Alexander and change of the command to win a war by the meaningful bold actions like crossing the Gulf of Bothnia by ice.
The most talented (on Suvorov’s assessment) Suvorov’s “student”, Prince Bagration, got all the needed “perceptions” and had a brilliant record as a subordinated tactician and as a superb master of the rearguard actions. He also was as charismatic and popular among the troops as it goes. Unfortunately, being a lesser man, he could not grasp a strategic part of the legacy and in 1812 had been preaching the actions which would led to a complete disaster.

Lafayette armed only with the additional “perception” would not know when and how to put it to practice.
 
Last edited:
“Perception” is far from being enough because it is not a substitute for the talent, not to mention a genius
I know, but it's the only way I can realistically buff him, more than that would be magically boosting his capacity and I dont wanna do that
What do we see? In the Finnish War the “perception” was tried in practice and did not end with a disaster only because the enemy was weak. “Perception” was simple and clear “attack the enemy” but, being adopted by the lesser people, it turned into “attack the enemy no matter what”
Lafayette armed only with the additional “perception” would not know when and how to put it to practice.
I completely agree but what I meant is that he'd have "perception" to improve at a faster pace. Like how good of a politician and general could Lafayette be if he improved at the same pace as Napoleon during his time fighting in the american & french wars while still not having Bonaparte's genius/talent.
Here is a simple OTL example. Suvorov was most probably closest to Napoleon general of the previous generation as far as the practices and talent were involved. His methods had a great influence on the next generation and quite a few future generals had the 1st hand experience fighting under his command and some of them had been (in OTL) well above Lafayette’s level as far as their military records are involved.
The most talented (on Suvorov’s assessment) Suvorov’s “student”, Prince Bagration, got all the needed “perceptions” and had a brilliant record as a subordinated tactician and as a superb master of the rearguard actions. He also was as charismatic and popular among the troops as it goes.
Oh good! That's a good baseline for what a wanked Lafayette would be, I guess that will work, thanks!
So the scenario is pretty much if Suvorov/Bagration was in his place but kept the same personality and ideology as him it seems
Suvorov was doing while against the French he was (just as Napoleon) trying to concentrate his forces at the critical points. The result were fantastic plans and even more fantastic attempts to execute them: enemy’s numbers were not taken into an account and insane aggressiveness led to the failures. These failures led to a semi-panic mode on the top and unwillingness to act aggressively. It took a stern order from Alexander and change of the command to win a war by the meaningful bold actions like crossing the Gulf of Bothnia by ice.
Prince Bagration unfortunately, being a lesser man, he could not grasp a strategic part of the legacy and in 1812 had been preaching the actions which would led to a complete disaster.
Well that's disappointing but I guess thats what I asked for, cant complain if you're being realistic since that's what I wanted, thanks again bruh
Anyways, what butterflies we could expect based on that? What would still be within the realm of possibilities for TTL Lafayette optimistically?
 
I know, but it's the only way I can realistically buff him, more than that would be magically boosting his capacity and I dont wanna do that


I completely agree but what I meant is that he'd have "perception" to improve at a faster pace. Like how good of a politician and general could Lafayette be if he improved at the same pace as Napoleon during his time fighting in the american & french wars while still not having Bonaparte's genius/talent.


Oh good! That's a good baseline for what a wanked Lafayette would be, I guess that will work, thanks!
So the scenario is pretty much if Suvorov/Bagration was in his place but kept the same personality and ideology as him it seems


Well that's disappointing but I guess thats what I asked for, cant complain if you're being realistic since that's what I wanted, thanks again bruh
Anyways, what butterflies we could expect based on that? What would still be within the realm of possibilities for TTL Lafayette optimistically?
Well, if we are talking about a complete absence of Napoleon and Lafayette serving in the armies of the Republic, he can end up as one of the army commanders: after all, not all of them had been the “1st class” talents and if his innovative methods do not end in some spectacular failure and he is not, by whatever reason, executed, he may end up ranking just a notch or two below Moreau.

As for his political career, it is much more difficult to predict. After all, at the initial stages of his political career Napoleon strongly relied upon backing by a number of the political figures of various degrees of importance and the coup involved a broad coalition that included members of the Directorate, high-tracking military, members of the Legislature, Minister of Police, etc. Would alt-Lafayette be able to get that type of support?
 
I guess so, if he could avoid being seen as a royalist when the king flees or avoid the king fleeing and being beheaded
Before that he was popular enough that they already wanted to give him power believing he was the only one that could estabilize the revolution
 
I guess so, if he could avoid being seen as a royalist when the king flees or avoid the king fleeing and being beheaded
Lafayette didn't want the King deposed. He favored a Constitutional Monarchy as it gave the government legitimacy, and was a much more moderate path. The issue was that the Revolution thanks to the total failure of the Ancien Regime and its institutions had spiraled well beyond his own hopes and what he could have anticipated.

The King also likely is an issue. Philippe Orleans wants the crown and is probably going to ally with the Jacobins and other radicals in attempt to steal it from him.

Louis XVI would also not be content to being reduced to a figurehead in such a radical government that trivialized his own person and his safety. This was why he tried to send his family out of France. The other Bourbons knew this which was why they fled at the first sign of trouble along with a good portion of the nobility.

The 1791 Constitution's radical nature also doesn't help. It was especially denounced by the Pope for its harsh anti-clerical measures that subordinated religion to the state almost reminiscent of the issues caused by the Investiture Controversy. The Pope excommunicated the bishops I think who took the Clerical Oath I think in addition to denouncing the Constitution.

The other Conservatives and Royalists would thus not be accepting of this sham of a "Constitutional Monarchy" which rather than sharing power with the King, the government held him hostage to be used as a figurehead to legitimize their actions.
 
Lafayette didn't want the King deposed. He favored a Constitutional Monarchy as it gave the government legitimacy, and was a much more moderate path. The issue was that the Revolution thanks to the total failure of the Ancien Regime and its institutions had spiraled well beyond his own hopes and what he could have anticipated.

The King also likely is an issue. Philippe Orleans wants the crown and is probably going to ally with the Jacobins and other radicals in attempt to steal it from him.

Louis XVI would also not be content to being reduced to a figurehead in such a radical government that trivialized his own person and his safety. This was why he tried to send his family out of France. The other Bourbons knew this which was why they fled at the first sign of trouble along with a good portion of the nobility.

The 1791 Constitution's radical nature also doesn't help. It was especially denounced by the Pope for its harsh anti-clerical measures that subordinated religion to the state almost reminiscent of the issues caused by the Investiture Controversy. The Pope excommunicated the bishops I think who took the Clerical Oath I think in addition to denouncing the Constitution.

The other Conservatives and Royalists would thus not be accepting of this sham of a "Constitutional Monarchy" which rather than sharing power with the King, the government held him hostage to be used as a figurehead to legitimize their actions.
Quite agree with all of the above but I was under impression (perhaps the wrong one) that the OP more or less skips his OTL "dead end" political affiliations and sympathies and goes into the issue of him (a) being a slightly improved version of himself (*) and (b) how high can he raise if (a) happens.

I'd say that as a general of the Republic (provided he is not being executed) he could raise reasonably high but just adopting the innovative methods without being a military genius would put some limit to his successes. After all, one would assume that being so close to Napoleon for so long Berthier should be able to plan a "Napoleonic" campaign on his own but he could not. Probably the social status also going to be a handicap when it comes to a personal popularity among the troops.


__________
(*) Aka, based upon his previous experience somehow developing an idea of the innovative tactical methods a la Bonaparte before Bonaparte came to prominence. Actually, this is not ASB - he could study Sovorov's experience in the Ottoman and Polish wars and came with some kind of an imitation within the scope of his own talent and mental abilities. This would be, of course, predominantly tactical and operational level because prior to the Italian campaign Suvorov practically did not operate on the strategic level. So, let's say, he abandons the linear tactics, adopts aggressiveness, emphasis on destroying opponent's army (as opposite to the excessive maneuvering), willingness to use the bayonet charge, etc. AFAIK, quite a few of these things armies of the Republic adopted on the reasonably early stages of the Revolutionary Wars (abandoning the linear tactics, using columns, bayonet charges) so this is quite realistic.
 
Top