The Fourth Napoleon

The Empress Eugènie de Montijo disliked sex and barred her husband from her bedchamber following the birth of the Prince Imperial (Napoléon IV). She miscarried a three-month pregnancy in 1853, and gave birth to the Prince Imperial - heavily dosed with laudanum - after a two day labor, since the doctors tried to make the Prince Imperial to be the birthday-twin of his cousin, Napoléon II.

What if Eugènie hadn't miscarried in 1853 and instead births a Prince Imperial? And including a long-shot, she still gives birth to the OTL-Napoléon IV. The alt-Prince Imperial would be 18 (close to majority) by the time (if) the Franco-Prussian War rolls around. No fear, therefore, of a regency of the conservative-minded, ultramontane empress to undo the start of the "Liberal Empire".

Thoughts and opinions?
 
The Empress Eugènie de Montijo disliked sex and barred her husband from her bedchamber following the birth of the Prince Imperial (Napoléon IV). She miscarried a three-month pregnancy in 1853, and gave birth to the Prince Imperial - heavily dosed with laudanum - after a two day labor, since the doctors tried to make the Prince Imperial to be the birthday-twin of his cousin, Napoléon II.

What if Eugènie hadn't miscarried in 1853 and instead births a Prince Imperial? And including a long-shot, she still gives birth to the OTL-Napoléon IV. The alt-Prince Imperial would be 18 (close to majority) by the time (if) the Franco-Prussian War rolls around. No fear, therefore, of a regency of the conservative-minded, ultramontane empress to undo the start of the "Liberal Empire".

Thoughts and opinions?

Actually that's not true. The Empress's pregnancy and childbirth of the OTL Prince Imperial almost killed her, and her doctors told her and Napoleon III that any subsequent pregnancies would be highly dangerous to her health. And Second I'm not really sure HOW an older Prince Imperial is gonna change things. A fear of a Regency had NOTHING to do with the overthrow of the Second Empire. That was pretty much entirely on the military defeat and capture of so much of the army.
 
Actually that's not true. The Empress's pregnancy and childbirth of the OTL Prince Imperial almost killed her, and her doctors told her and Napoleon III that any subsequent pregnancies would be highly dangerous to her health. And Second I'm not really sure HOW an older Prince Imperial is gonna change things. A fear of a Regency had NOTHING to do with the overthrow of the Second Empire. That was pretty much entirely on the military defeat and capture of so much of the army.

I was thinking that this alt-Prince Imperial could perhaps present an alternative to Napoléon III and the prospect of another republic if he were of an age to rule. Maybe he could be heading a separate part of the army, and in my imagining he's a military genius like his great-uncle, and manages to score a victory or two that makes the peace of Frankfurt more even than it was OTL - since because Napoléon III knows his son is with another division of the army he won't surrender as easily.
 
I was thinking that this alt-Prince Imperial could perhaps present an alternative to Napoléon III and the prospect of another republic if he were of an age to rule. Maybe he could be heading a separate part of the army, and in my imagining he's a military genius like his great-uncle, and manages to score a victory or two that makes the peace of Frankfurt more even than it was OTL - since because Napoléon III knows his son is with another division of the army he won't surrender as easily.

Again not very realistic. It doesn't matter if Napoleon IV is 10 or 30, if France is annihilated militarily by Prussia then the Bonapartes are finished. Now if your having the Prince Imperial as a military genius a la Napoleon I, that's a whole different can of worms. As long as France wins (or at least gets a fair peace) then the Second Empire will survive. Also, by the time of Sedan the Prince Imperial was near the Belgian border, so his location, either with the army or not, wouldn't really affect Napoleon III's surrender one was or the other.
 
Again not very realistic. It doesn't matter if Napoleon IV is 10 or 30, if France is annihilated militarily by Prussia then the Bonapartes are finished. Now if your having the Prince Imperial as a military genius a la Napoleon I, that's a whole different can of worms. As long as France wins (or at least gets a fair peace) then the Second Empire will survive. Also, by the time of Sedan the Prince Imperial was near the Belgian border, so his location, either with the army or not, wouldn't really affect Napoleon III's surrender one was or the other.

Out of curiosity, why did Napoléon want to surrender to Wilhelm I rather than Bismarck? And also, did he simply surrender personally or basically say that he surrendered France? Because I seem to remember reading that the French troops jeered when they saw him saying: "You sold us to pay for your carriages!" And Bismarck's only comment to one of his ADCs was "There is a dynasty on the way out."
 

Tyr Anazasi

Banned
Out of curiosity, why did Napoléon want to surrender to Wilhelm I rather than Bismarck? And also, did he simply surrender personally or basically say that he surrendered France? Because I seem to remember reading that the French troops jeered when they saw him saying: "You sold us to pay for your carriages!" And Bismarck's only comment to one of his ADCs was "There is a dynasty on the way out."

Napoleon hoped to get a good deal with Wilhelm. Bismarck did not want any too fast solutions.
 
Out of curiosity, why did Napoléon want to surrender to Wilhelm I rather than Bismarck? And also, did he simply surrender personally or basically say that he surrendered France


As a sovereign, he surrendered to his fellow monarch, who was also, of course, in command of the opposing army, even if in practice he delegated the role to Von Moltke. In military terms, Bismarck was only a Major iirc and would never have been asked to accept the French surrender.

On his capture, Napoleon III made it clear the he had surrendered only his personal sword and not that of France.
 
As a sovereign, he surrendered to his fellow monarch, who was also, of course, in command of the opposing army, even if in practice he delegated the role to Von Moltke. In military terms, Bismarck was only a Major iirc and would never have been asked to accept the French surrender.

On his capture, Napoleon III made it clear the he had surrendered only his personal sword and not that of France.

If the Prince Imperial is then with the army elsewhere, are the Prussians more likely to accept it as a personal rather than a national surrender, I wonder?
 
If the Prince Imperial is then with the army elsewhere, are the Prussians more likely to accept it as a personal rather than a national surrender, I wonder?

Either way, the Prussians are in a good position to negotiate. Assuming that Napoleon IV/Empress Eugenie remains accepted in Paris as Regent (without any French victory that's a HUGE assumption) then the Prussians will have the French Sovereign hostage. Without a revolution in Paris, the war would likely end shortly after. Though I'd assume that the Prince Imperial would want revenge, so if he manages to score a few victories (and perhaps saves the Army at Metz) then the French and Germans would be in ruffly the same position. At that point negotiations will begin in earnest. I'd guess that both sides would agree to a Status quo ante bellum.

But there's also something else to consider: Austria. The Austrians initially planned to get involved in the war, but with the rapid French defeat they chose to stay on the sidelines. Here, with the French holding their own, the Austrians might just decide to revive a Habsburg-Bonaparte Alliance. That would mean that Austria and the Southern German states would be joining the war against Prussia. If that happens, then the Prussians have to divide their forces, and keep some in reserve in case of a revolt from the other German States. Remember the vast majority of the old German Confederation sided with Austria during the seven weeks' war, and would potentially do so again. That's the real danger in the Franco-Pussian war: it snowballing into a European wide war like what happened during WWI. Italy could side with Prussia to gain Italian speaking lands from both France and Austria. Denmark could decide it wants the duchies of Schleswig Holstein back, and side with France. Not to mention what Russia, de facto allied with Prussia, could do. So the entire situation will have to be handled very delicately.
 
But there's also something else to consider: Austria. The Austrians initially planned to get involved in the war, but with the rapid French defeat they chose to stay on the sidelines. Here, with the French holding their own, the Austrians might just decide to revive a Habsburg-Bonaparte Alliance. That would mean that Austria and the Southern German states would be joining the war against Prussia. If that happens, then the Prussians have to divide their forces, and keep some in reserve in case of a revolt from the other German States. Remember the vast majority of the old German Confederation sided with Austria during the seven weeks' war, and would potentially do so again. That's the real danger in the Franco-Pussian war: it snowballing into a European wide war like what happened during WWI. Italy could side with Prussia to gain Italian speaking lands from both France and Austria. Denmark could decide it wants the duchies of Schleswig Holstein back, and side with France. Not to mention what Russia, de facto allied with Prussia, could do. So the entire situation will have to be handled very delicately.

I seem to recall that at one point Napoléon (or his ministers) spoke of an alliance with Denmark where the Danish fleet would ally with the French fleet and sort of blockade the Prussian ports/attack the Prussian navy. But the alliance with the Danes was the same as the with the Austrians - they would wait for a clear French victory before jumping into the fray.
 
I'm also not clear on why the southern German states would abandon their alliance with Prussia for Austria when the latter wants to keep France in a position to (also) lord over them.
 
I'm also not clear on why the southern German states would abandon their alliance with Prussia for Austria when the latter wants to keep France in a position to (also) lord over them.

Not many of those southern German states liked the idea of Prussia lording over them. The idea was floated that there exist North German Confederation (led by Prussia), the south German states - Hesse, Bavaria, Württemberg & Baden (as a sort of loose confederation) but ICR if it was to be under Austrian leadership or no. But the idea was sort of to create three Germanies - the Protestant North, the Catholic South and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Also, I remember reading in bio on Ludwig II of Bavaria that the only alliance they (south German states) had was as a result of the peace treaty after the Seven Weeks' War, which compelled them to side with Prussia in the event of a future war. (They had been pro-Austrian before that treaty).
 
Not many of those southern German states liked the idea of Prussia lording over them. The idea was floated that there exist North German Confederation (led by Prussia), the south German states - Hesse, Bavaria, Württemberg & Baden (as a sort of loose confederation) but ICR if it was to be under Austrian leadership or no. But the idea was sort of to create three Germanies - the Protestant North, the Catholic South and the Austro-Hungarian Empire.

Also, I remember reading in bio on Ludwig II of Bavaria that the only alliance they (south German states) had was as a result of the peace treaty after the Seven Weeks' War, which compelled them to side with Prussia in the event of a future war. (They had been pro-Austrian before that treaty).

And one imagines that the southern German states were grateful for being left unmolested after the Seven Weeks' War.
 
Top