Stable Napoleonic Empire

What if Napoleon has to share power? Not like democratically, but if he was the front man for a ruling clique? I'm imagining something like the SCAF in Egypt, its a dictatorship but not of one man. Would that be possible, and if so who would else would be in it. Could any of the candidates be a voice of reason?

Well, the Consulate which existed between 1799 and 1804 (when Napoleon declared himself emperor) was essentially the system of government that you describe. Cambereces (responsible for much of the Code Civil/Code Napoleon) and Lebrun served as the Second and Third Consuls, and continued to have influence following Napoleon's coronation as Emperor. Indeed, Cambereces served as de facto Prime Minister while Napoleon was on campaign, and had warned Napoleon against going to Russia.

By my reckoning, Napoleon could have stayed in power had he maintained better relations with Russia in the aftermath of Tilsit since there was no real contradiction between French and Russian foreign policies. If Napoleon confined himself to west and central Europe and allowed Russian influence in the east (perhaps even at the cost of Poland), it would have been difficult to challenge the Franco-Russian alliance in the continent. Of course, the question remains whether British naval superiority would have succeeded in the long run, or whether industrial development within Napoleon's empire could eventually catch up and meet demand.
 
These few people said afterwards that they had foreseen it. It is very different from actually having foreseen it before the disaster.

Concerning Poland, you are mistaken. Napoleon just hesitated because he did not want to anger Russia to death. But once he realized war with Russia was unavoidable, his goal was to weaken Russia. The actual initial name of the campaign was "campaign of Poland".

Actually, Caulaincourt, Napoleon's leading diplomat to Russia for some time, spoke strongly against the war. A fair few of them did, it wasn't just them claiming hindsight. Quite a few could foresee the disaster.

Napoleon had plenty of opportunities to set up a Polish state. Even after the disaster in Russia, he gathered local dignataries and simply ranted at them about how 'From the sublime to the ridiculous, there is one step' instead of taking advantage of things. He had no intention of giving away power from his client states.

Depends on how generous. The Poles and Germans might have offset it. Though him abolishing all republics and making countries pay for the dozens of nobles he made probably didn't endear him to some. While also not buying the loyalty of his own officers if the quote of a man saying they had been given land, money, and titles form him and didn't want to risk them.

Even then, that wasn't enough really. If he had stopped when he realised that even he had limits, Napoleon would have been far better off. But, he probably wouldn't have been Napoleon either.
 
Top