Was Napoleon making himself a monarch a mistake?

[Christian]

This is something I've heard people tossing around here and there. The basic idea is that Napoleon didn't make a very wise move in crowning himself as a monarch, at least in the sense about his family. They say that people respected and adored Napoleon himself, not his family, and that he would never be accepted as a legitimate monarch since they would always see him as an upstart.

Murat, of all people, has a rather valid criticism of this.

“When France raised you to the throne,” he told him, “she believed she had found a popular leader, a plebeian leader, and gave him a title that would set him above all the sovereigns of Europe; she did not intend to renew the monarchy of Louis XIV, with all the abuses and all the pretentions of the old courts. Yet you surround yourself with the former nobility. You have filled the salons of the Tuileries with them…They look on all your companions-in-arms, and you as well perhaps, as parvenus, intruders, usurpers. Today you claim the right to ally yourself with the royal house of Bavaria through Eugene’s marriage; and you are doing it to show Europe how much store you set upon something that we all lack: distinction of birth. You pay homage to titles to authority which are not yours, which are opposed to ours; you make it plain to France and the sovereigns of Europe that you want to be the continuation of an ancient dynasty; and yours, make no mistake, will always be new in the eyes of the sovereigns.”

 

[Arafeel]

I think its important to recall that Napoleon was mad emperor, or in the narrative of the time, Caesar. That period of the revolution had a big big hard on for the roman republic, statues and busts of famous Romans, the titles used, the usage of the roman eagle, consuls, the usages of togas in the legislature, imitation of roman clothes were in fashion .

 

[Skallagrim]

All monarchies begin with a man who wields the sword (literally or metaphorically) and derives his power therefrom. This is not an issue, in the long run. By marrying into a long-established dynasty, Napoleon actually undertook the single most effective step that he possibly could in order to speed along the future acceptance of his heirs. If he hadn't done that, if he'd retained a nominally Republican form with himself as the strongman, then the odds for whatever he left behind upon dying would have been much worse. All strongmen in such a system have a baken-in succession problem. They can't easily appoint a truly capable future successor, since such a figure will probably get impatient sooner rather than later... and will have the ability to seize power. But if they remove all threats, then in most cases, the successor is going to be an incapable figure who may well piss it all away. (Or potentially even worse; you get civil war.)

Monarchy has historically been the most effective solution to the succession problem. Its very nature revolves around the notion that the successor isn't chosen, but simply born. This is far from ideal in a million ways, but boy, has it been a source of stability down the ages! Legitimacy, after all, has value. By choosing monarchism, Napoleon took a step towards legitimacy. If he'd succeeded in his campaigns, he might always have been the "the conqueror", the parvenu-emperor, but his heirs would have had legitimacy. Their indisputably royal and legitimate maternal family members, as well as their in-laws of no doubt similar standing, would ensure it.

If we're going for historical comparisons, Napoleon was no Caesar. Napoleon was an Alexander. Note that Caesar tried -- or was accused of trying, but let's not kid ourselves -- to do the unthinkable in Roman politics: he wanted to be king. (In name or not, the result was going to be monarchy.) Since Rome's whole deal was 'res publica' and 'no kings ever again', this happened to make him a walking target. But that was Rome, and Rome had this fundamental "no kings" attitude. Napoleonic Europe certainly had no such issue! Nor did Akhaimenid Persia, which is why Alexander -- essentially a parvenu conqueror, much like Napoleon in that regard -- made sure to gain legitimacy by adopting the trappings of the Akhaimenid monarchy and marrying into the dynasty. And it worked! Same as it worked for Napoleon.

Napoleon was militarily defeated. Alexander died young. Both left behind too-young heirs (in Alexander's case, still unborn). Both, if they had avoided their OTL defeat/demise (which in both cases had nothing to do with their legitimacy), would have simply been the founders of a dynasty, which would soon have been "normalised" by all metrics. And both, in OTL, left behind a huge mark on the subsequent period even in defeat. The Hellenistic Period is essentially "the Classical World, post-Alexander". And we are still living in Post-Napoleonic Europe, even now. A lot of us still use legal codes directly descended from the one he introduced, for instance -- and that's just one aspect of Napoleon's enduring legacy.

But that's neither here nor there. The point is: Napoleon certainly didn't make a mistake by opting for monarchy. It was the sensible decision, and it wasn't what did him in. In fact, if he'd been able to emerge victorious from the series of wars named after him, his choice for monarchy would end up being fairly instrumental in ensuring the future of his empire. After all, empires do work best when they actually have an emperor.

 

[Gust]

No. I mean it's not like the coalitions wanted France to be a Republic. The issue for Napoleon was that he wanted France to be a hegemon.

 

[Galba Otho Vitelius]

A contrasting example would be Cromwell.

All the Coalition powers, except the British, accepted the Bonapartist monarchy at some point, and a few wanted to retain Napoleon II. Even the British wound up accepting Napoleon III.

 

[Slan]

No.

France didn't have the luxury to be all institutional republic like the US, they needed strongmen cuz they were surrounded by enemies and their revolution was much more radical. The problem is that strongmen republics make for bad succession crisis. The solution? Monarchy. Declaring himself a monarch was a good call. Marrying a Habsburg? One of the best things he did, my boy Naps should've pushed Josephine away much earlier.

His mistakes were in Spain and Russia.

 

[Socrates]

A contrasting example would be Cromwell.

All the Coalition powers, except the British, accepted the Bonapartist monarchy at some point, and a few wanted to retain Napoleon II. Even the British wound up accepting Napoleon III.

That's one contrasting example. Another one is Augustus.

 

[isabella]

No.

France didn't have the luxury to be all institutional republic like the US, they needed strongmen cuz they were surrounded by enemies and their revolution was much more radical. And strongman republics make for bad succession crisis. The solution? Monarchy. Declaring himself a monarch was a good call. Marrying a Habsburg? One of the best things he did, my boy Naps should've pushed Josephine away much earlier.

His mistakes were in Spain and Russia.

Marrying Marie Louise was a big mistake, from both internal and foreign point of view. Marrying in foreign royalty was a good idea but the bride who Napoleon needed was another (Ekaterina of Russia, Augusta or Caroline of Bavaria)

 

[Slan]

Marrying Marie Louise was a big mistake, from both internal and foreign point of view. Marrying in foreign royalty was a good idea but the bride who Napoleon needed was another (Ekaterina of Russia, Augusta or Caroline of Bavaria)

Explain this to me. Why was marrying Marie Louise a mistake?

I understand that a Bavarian bride could be better in the long term, helping to appease anti-French sentiment in Germany. But I don't see the point in marrying a Russian princess. Russia is going to fight Napoleonic France soon or later. And if Naps don't marry Marie then his only option is to end the Habsburgs once and for all.

 

[Vinization]

Didn't he crown himself mostly to create his own dynasty and therefore lessen the chances of a Bourbon restoration?

 

[isabella]

Explain this to me. Why was marrying Marie Louise a mistake?

Because she was an Habsburg, daughter of one of his enemy (who was also a traditional enemy of France) and a relative of the hated Marie Antoinette... plus he had already won many times against Austria...
Marrying her brought no advantage to Napoleon. Marrying the sister of Alexander I would have tied the other Emperor to him, possibly preventing Alexander’s betrayal or at least reinforcing the alliance for some time...
Marrying Augusta or Caroline of Bavaria or Catherine of Württemberg, daughters of his main German allies would have reinforced that alliances, giving to Napoleon a father-in-law who would support him and a loyal wife instead of the betrayals of Franz and Marie Louise who resulted in Napoleon losing his son and heir.
EDIT: And Marie Louise’s acceptance of the separation from Napoleon scandalized also her maternal grandmother who was well know in all Europe for her hate of Napoleon but still firmly believed who, once she had married Napoleon, Marie Louise’s place was with him

 

[A Piece of History]

In times of great crisis, it is sometimes necessary to have an absolute ruler, a dictator. Napoleon oviously saw himself as the perfect ruler for France and brought an end to years of political chaos and infighting that had torn the country apart. Technically, there was nothing wrong with Napoleon declaring himself a monarch. It wasn't like he declared himself a emperor in the same tradition of KIng Louis XVI. He saw himself as still maintaining the Revolution and in some ways, he did.

Napoleon wrote the Napoleonic Code, which provided the first united code of law in French history, where previously, there were two codes for northern and southern France respectively. The Napoleonic Code guaranteed equality before the law. Property was of first importance, it was freed of feudal burdens and the owner enjoyed exclusive rights to it. Property ownership was absolute, exclusive and perpetual. The Code also enshrined religious freedom, restoring the Catholic Church to a prominent place in French society after being suppressed during the Reign of Terror. The Code also removed titles from the nobility, giving those titles to those who worked for them, rather than who felt like they were born into nobility.

The Napoleonic Code would go on to become the text which modern civil law is based upon, not just in Europe, but across the world. This was after a long period of infighting within the National Assembly over different versions of the Civil Code. While a Civil Code would inevitably have been adopted, there is no chance that it would've looked like Napoleon's code.

In regards to education, Napoleon created the lycee system of secondary education, which still exists in France today. Lycees formerly enrolled the nation’s most talented students in a course of instruction lasting seven years. These lycees were divided into three types having different areas of specialization: classical studies, modern studies, and scientific-technological studies. So, without Napoleon, French education would look completely different and there would be a lack of access to education.

The problem with Napoleon is that he wanted France to be the ruler of a European empire which followed his interpretation of the French Revolution. While he was no Adolf Hitler, he effectively wanted French domination over Europe and he wanted his ideology to reign supreme. To him, the ideas of the French Revolution could not co-exist with the old order of European nobility

Didn't he crown himself mostly to create his own dynasty and therefore lessen the chances of a Bourbon restoration?

Basically, yeah. He made several of his relatives puppet monarchs of his conquests, most infamously, he made his older brother, Joseph, king of Spain.

 

[alexmilman]

Didn't he crown himself mostly to create his own dynasty and therefore lessen the chances of a Bourbon restoration?

IIRC, Senate proclamation explained this as a need to preserve a legacy beyond the life time of a ruler (thus making further royalist assassination attempts pointless).

 

[alexmilman]

Because she was an Habsburg, daughter of one of his enemy (who was also a traditional enemy of France) and a relative of the hated Marie Antoinette... plus he had already won many times against Austria...
Marrying her brought no advantage to Napoleon. Marrying the sister of Alexander I would have tied the other Emperor to him, possibly preventing Alexander’s betrayal or at least reinforcing the alliance for some time...
Marrying Augusta or Caroline of Bavaria or Catherine of Württemberg, daughters of his main German allies would have reinforced that alliances, giving to Napoleon a father-in-law who would support him and a loyal wife instead of the betrayals of Franz and Marie Louise who resulted in Napoleon losing his son and heir.
EDIT: And Marie Louise’s acceptance of the separation from Napoleon scandalized also her maternal grandmother who was well know in all Europe for her hate of Napoleon but still firmly believed who, once she had married Napoleon, Marie Louise’s place was with him

Nappy tried to marry Alexander’s sister but the other side was not enthusiastic, to put it mildly. Alexander pretended that it is all about his mother’s refusal to consent to this marriage but if he wanted it himself, this would not be an obstacle.

 

[isabella]

Nappy tried to marry Alexander’s sister but the other side was not enthusiastic, to put it mildly. Alexander pretended that it is all about his mother’s refusal to consent to this marriage but if he wanted it himself, this would not be an obstacle.

Well Katya was married off before Napoleon was able to ask for her, and Anna was really too young AND in no case Alexander would be legally able to force his sister to accept a wedding... Sure Alex was in no way thrilled to the idea of having Napoleon as brother-in-law, but he would be still unable to force too much the wedding if his sister resisted to it, with full support of their mother (who was totally against such wedding and promptly married off Katya as soon she heard of Napoleon’s interest)

 

[alexmilman]

Well Katya was married off before Napoleon was able to ask for her, and Anna was really too young AND in no case Alexander would be legally able to force his sister to accept a wedding... Sure Alex was in no way thrilled to the idea of having Napoleon as brother-in-law, but he would be still unable to force too much the wedding if his sister resisted to it, with full support of their mother (who was totally against such wedding and promptly married off Katya as soon she heard of Napoleon’s interest)

Neither his sister nor his mother had any power besides what he was willing to grant them. As a head of the family he had an absolute right to arrange any marriage he saw fit and as an emperor he did not have any entity above him to which they could appeal. The dynastic marriages had nothing to do with the marriages by love and the “state interest” would be enough of an argument to force this issue. The rest was just a smoke screen.

 

[isabella]

Neither his sister nor his mother had any power besides what he was willing to grant them. As a head of the family he had an absolute right to arrange any marriage he saw fit and as an emperor he did not have any entity above him to which they could appeal. The dynastic marriages had nothing to do with the marriages by love and the “state interest” would be enough of an argument to force this issue. The rest was just a smoke screen.

Read on the Russian laws about marriage: the consent of both groom and bride was necessary and indispensable for contract any wedding

 

[alexmilman]

Read on the Russian laws about marriage: the consent of both groom and bride was necessary and indispensable for contract any wedding

As I understand, you are talking about the Church rule: both bride and groom had to say “yes”. There were no secular marriages in the Russia of the early XIX so I doubt that there was such a law (but you are welcomed to provide the reference to the appropriate law of the Russian Empire). This being said, an assertion that the marriages of that period always were the heart affairs is simply laughable even for the ordinary cases: if the parents (or a head of the family) ordered, the bride would say “yes” because disobedience to the seniors was a sin and, besides disapproval by the Church, father (or the head of a family) could make life of a disobedient girl quite unpleasant. In the case of the imperial family the “unpleasant” part could be really unpleasant (in the relative terms) and disapproval by the Church also was a significant factor. Alexander could forbid her to appear at the court, cut her social life down to a zero (nobody would dare to visit her), minimize her allowances, change her residence to something not too comfortable (some of the imperial palaces had been lousily maintained and not too comfortable to live in, especially during the winter) or explain that she would marry either Napoleon or nobody. But if he really wanted her to marry Napoleon, he would most probably just told her so in the very definite terms and discussion would be over.

 

[Vinization]

IIRC, Napoleon had the power to designate his own successor. What if he named a man who he had great confidence in, such as Masséna, as his successor?

Could that lessen the need for him to create his own dynasty?

 

[Hawkeye]

There were still supporters of monarchism in France at the time. Making himself Emperor helped quell this faction.