Was Napoleon making himself a monarch a mistake?

[alexmilman]

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?

According to wiki “The law of succession that Napoleon I established on becoming emperor in 1804 provided that the imperial throne should pass firstly to Napoleon I's own legitimate male descendants through the male line, to the perpetual exclusion of women.

It further provided that if Napoleon I's own direct line died out, the claim passed first to his older brother Joseph Bonaparte and to his legitimate male descendants through the male line, then to his younger brother Louis Bonaparte and his legitimate male descendants through the male line. His other brothers, Lucien Bonaparte and Jérôme Bonaparte, and their descendants, were omitted from the succession, even though Lucien was older than Louis, because they had politically defied the emperor, made marriages of which he disapproved, or both.

Upon the extinction of legitimate natural and adopted male, agnatic descendants of Napoleon I, and those of two of his brothers, Joseph and Louis, the throne was to be awarded to a man selected by the non-dynastic princely and ducal dignitaries of the empire, as ratified by a plebiscite.”

Line of succession to the former French throne (Bonapartist) - Wikipedia

en.m.wikipedia.org

So, unless he changes his own code, his options are limited. Which does not mean that he would not be able to change it if he wanted. I’m not sure of Massena would be his 1st pick in the case of such a change: at least in his memoirs he expressed skepticism about the scope of M’s mental capacities (saying something along the lines that a corps commander was his ceiling). And, the on.y thing about Massena in which one could be sure was that he would try to acquire as much money as is physical possible.


According to Mme de Stahl, he expressed an opinion that if the bomb plot was successful “Bernadotte would play Anthony” (presenting the public with the bloody clothes and trying to come to power). Responsibility for the quote is fully hers.

The general problem with selecting successor out of the marshals would be, IMO:

1st, in the shortage of the capable candidates. AFAIK, only few of them had administrative skills (Bernadette, Davout and perhaps Murat) and by 1805 the list would boil down to Bernadotte (neither Davout nor Murat had, yet, the chance to demonstrate them). And Bernadotte was not exactly Napoleon’s best friend or the most loyal person (the family link could be a “pro” argument).
2nd, almost any candidacy would result in unhappiness of some of the marshals because most of them had been at odds with each other at one time or another.

 

[Vinization]

snip

I meant as First Consul.

 

[alexmilman]

I meant as First Consul.

This would increase Bernadotte chances because at that time he was still was a republican (and seemingly a popular one in the army).

 

[Mikestone8]

Napoleon was no Caesar. Napoleon was an Alexander.

Well, he aspired to be Alexander. In practice he was more like a Pyrrhus.

 

[RedSword12]

Well, he aspired to be Alexander. In practice he was more like a Pyrrhus.

That's seriously underselling Napoleon. He was by far more successful than Pyrrhus. And most of his victories weren't Pyrrhic, either, so that helps. They had nothing in common.

 

[Mikestone8]

That's seriously underselling Napoleon. He was by far more successful than Pyrrhus. And most of his victories weren't Pyrrhic, either, so that helps. They had nothing in common.

They had in common that Napoleon jumped around from one opponent to another, never finally settling it with any of them, until finally he did it once too often and met disaster, Pyrrhus jumped similarly from Macedon to Rome, then Sicily, Macedon Again, Sparta and finally Argos where his luck ran out.

Alexander, by contrast focused on a single opponent and pressed on until in just three years he'd demolished it, after which the rest was largely mopping-p operations. There was one dangerous moment when he might have "done a Pyrrhus", by swanning off from his recent conquest into the depths of India, but fortunately his soldiers dug their heels in and told him "Enough's enough." Had Napoleon's men been able to do on the Niemen what Alexander's did on the Beas, then he might indeed be remembered as an Alexander but his France was not Alexander's Macedon.

 

[Miranda Brawner]

In times of great crisis, it is sometimes necessary to have an absolute ruler, a dictator.

I find this attitude quite dangerous. It opens the door for any aspiring dictator to portray their current situation as a crisis, that only they themselves can solve. The truth is that dictators make their country poorer, not wealthier, because they siphon resources to their own vanity projects and the increasingly expensive bribes that their officers and magnates demand in return for keeping the peasants in line. Furthermore, because the idea of being in a state of emergency is such a cornerstone of their legitimacy, they often make a lackluster effort to solve the crisis that they claim to have been born to solve. In fact, they have every incentive to create new catastrophes in hopes of getting the people to huddle around them in fear. They start pointless wars, they accelerate the depletion and contamination of the earth's resources, and they pander to fears about immigrants, sexual minorities, and people with visible illnesses. In short, they leave a trail of destruction in order to prop up the fiction that they understand their millions of subjects better than the people themselves do.

 

[Nathan Bernacki]

I find this attitude quite dangerous. It opens the door for any aspiring dictator to portray their current situation as a crisis, that only they themselves can solve. The truth is that dictators make their country poorer, not wealthier, because they siphon resources to their own vanity projects and the increasingly expensive bribes that their officers and magnates demand in return for keeping the peasants in line. Furthermore, because the idea of being in a state of emergency is such a cornerstone of their legitimacy, they often make a lackluster effort to solve the crisis that they claim to have been born to solve. In fact, they have every incentive to create new catastrophes in hopes of getting the people to huddle around them in fear. They start pointless wars, they accelerate the depletion and contamination of the earth's resources, and they pander to fears about immigrants, sexual minorities, and people with visible illnesses. In short, they leave a trail of destruction in order to prop up the fiction that they understand their millions of subjects better than the people themselves do.

I shall emphasise that I said it is 'sometimes' necessary to have a dictatorship. Democracy only works when you have the basic building blocks already in place and France's foundation as a democracy was a mess to say the least. You had the Committee of Public Safety, which under the leadership of the Jacobins, beheaded anyone who disagreed with it, and then you had the Directory, in which the economy was in the toilet and the Jacobins effectively running everything, at the expense of everyone else in the government.

Napoleon's reign in France was the most stable government France had, since the beginning of the French Revolution. The French people wanted a strong leader who could provide the constraint and support necessary to keep chaos at bay. Napoleon was that strong leader. The French people only started turning on Napoleon when he was leading them into war after war, with nothing to show for it but piles of French bodies and angry puppets.

Not every country can survive as a democracy or at least, a poorly-implemented and easily-corrupted one.

 

[H.Flashman(VC)]

If he hadn't done it, we would have the worldfamous Bonapartesymphony.

 

[Wendell]

The short answer is an emphatic yes. There were two emperors in Christendom, one in Vienna, and the other in St. Petersburg. A Corsican proclaiming unilaterally that he too was an emperor equal to these was an affront to the crowned heads of Europe, and a betrayal of republicanism at home. Yes, thee were benefits to being a monarch instead of a republican leader, but in the end, they did not actually serve his cause and may well have contributed to his fall.

 

[alexmilman]

I find this attitude quite dangerous. It opens the door for any aspiring dictator to portray their current situation as a crisis, that only they themselves can solve. The truth is that dictators make their country poorer, not wealthier, because they siphon resources to their own vanity projects and the increasingly expensive bribes that their officers and magnates demand in return for keeping the peasants in line. Furthermore, because the idea of being in a state of emergency is such a cornerstone of their legitimacy, they often make a lackluster effort to solve the crisis that they claim to have been born to solve. In fact, they have every incentive to create new catastrophes in hopes of getting the people to huddle around them in fear. They start pointless wars, they accelerate the depletion and contamination of the earth's resources, and they pander to fears about immigrants, sexual minorities, and people with visible illnesses. In short, they leave a trail of destruction in order to prop up the fiction that they understand their millions of subjects better than the people themselves do.

The last part regarding the earth’s resources and the list of fears is dangerously close to the “current politics” category and cleary has nothing to do with Napoleon or most of the pre-1900 absolute rulers.

This being said, all over the history the critical situations quite often had been producing the strong leaders. It is a fact, which is rather difficult to deny. Of course, this was not always the case (ToT or Deluge did not produce any) but there would be a good supporting list. To consider statement of the fact as a “dangerous attitude” is not serious and surely anachronistic.

But the absolute rulers/dictators were not always a byproduct of the crisis: there were quite a few hereditary absolute rulers in Europe, I’m not sure that the crisis-generation statistics would be on your side: many had been reasonably peaceful and quite a few of them even invited the immigrants. At least some of them belonged to the “sexual minorities” (like the Old Fritz) or had been bisexual (Alexander, Peter I, allegedly Catherine II). And one of the leaders of the Terror regime, Couton, was a cripple. OTOH, non-dictatorial regimes had been quite often rather intolerant to various “deviations” and quite aggressive as well. Look at the Roman and French republics and the Greek republics had been at each other threat most of the time as well. Actually, the French Republic was executing its own citizens on a scale probably unsurpassed in Europe until the Bolsheviks (Ivan IV could be a competitor but I would not bet on him). And as far as corruption goes both the Roman and French republics had very impressive records. Actually, both of them ceased to be republics due to the severe crisis of the system.

So it is not that a dictatorships are good but their alternative is not always good either and the sweeping statements can be dangerous.

Anyway, while being a boring traditionalist in the terms of the “family values” (out ofBeaumarchais Figaro trilogy he preferred La Mère coupable), Napoleon was seemingly not the immigrant hater and not guilty in some other sins on your list. It does not look like the need of keeping his “magnates” in line forced Napoleon to impoverish the French peasants (not sure if too many “magnates” had been around).

 

[Wendell]

One wonders how and under whom a French consulate would have endured had the Plot of the Rue Saint-Nicaise gone as intended...

 

[alexmilman]

The short answer is an emphatic yes. There were two emperors in Christendom, one in Vienna, and the other in St. Petersburg. A Corsican proclaiming unilaterally that he too was an emperor equal to these was an affront to the crowned heads of Europe, and a betrayal of republicanism at home. Yes, thee were benefits to being a monarch instead of a republican leader, but in the end, they did not actually serve his cause and may well have contributed to his fall.

I would not be too categorical on that subject. “a betrayal of republicanism at home” did not cause any serious problems because:
1. The Republic in its pre-consular form was extremely unpopular (except among the speculators).
2. While there were numerous “republicans” in the army, there was no coherent idea how this republic should look like. Nobody wanted the Terror, nobody wanted Directorate and a pre-Terror mess was not too inspirational. The Consulate maylook as something reasonable but, strictly speaking, it was a marginal “republicanism” and from the very beginning the 1st Consul violated the Constitution by taking a personal command of the army and Moreau and his circle had been vocally unhappy and mocked establishing Legion of Honor as a “royal institution” (it did use the organization of the old French orders of chivalry). So one way or another there would be somebody unhappy.
3. Some of the former outspoken “republicans” could (and had been) bought by the impressive benefits from being made Marshals and to getting the big sums of money, estates, etc. Presumably Bernadotte (as per Mme de Stahl) said something about the people killed to make coronation impossible but did he decline any of the goodies coming his direction? Did he decline title of the prince granted to him in 1806? The lesser ranks also could expect some benefits unavailable under the republican regime, elevation into the nobility/aristocracy.
4. Establishment of the empire made it easier to welcome some of the old aristocrats thus decreasing a possibility of the royalist coup.
5. General population was seemingly quite OK with establishing of the empire because at that time it was considered a sign of a stability and did not abolish any of the achieved “republican benefits”.
6. Resolution of the religious issues also was considered a plus: majority of a population remained religious to at least some degree.

In the international relations the impact was probably 50:50. The Hapsburgs already got used to not being the only emperors (recognition of the Russian Empire came only in 1742 when they were looking for the Russian help in the WoAS) even if they were unhappy with the situation. With Russia it was a matter of a personal attitude: Paul I considered the 1st Consul as a “King in anything but name” while Alexander hated Nappy even before he became an emperor. So in both cases this did not change much in practical terms.

For at least some of the German principalities it was convenient because an “emperor” could be easily acknowledged as their “protector”, granting them additional territories and elevating their titles.

 

[Wendell]

Wasn't resolution brought to the religious issues with the Concordat of 1801 though?

 

[alexmilman]

One wonders how and under whom a French consulate would have endured had the Plot of the Rue Saint-Nicaise gone as intended...

On this we have at least one contemporary theory.

Mme de Stahl wrote that Napoleon expressed an opinion that in this case Bernadotte would “play Anthony” presenting public with the bloody clothes and trying to get power. Now, she did not like Nappy and was friendly with Bernadotte (whom she considered a true republican) so one probably should take her “evidence” with some skepticism. But an idea is interesting.

 

[Wendell]

On this we have at least one contemporary theory.

Mme de Stahl wrote that Napoleon expressed an opinion that in this case Bernadotte would “play Anthony” presenting public with the bloody clothes and trying to get power. Now, she did not like Nappy and was friendly with Bernadotte (whom she considered a true republican) so one probably should take her “evidence” with some skepticism. But an idea is interesting.

So, we have someone reasonably capable of administration who gets politics and is not inept in battle. But what does his rule look like versus Napoleon's?

 

[alexmilman]

Wasn't resolution brought to the religious issues with the Concordat of 1801 though?

Yes, it was but the further moves had been considered as a continuation of the course. And Catholicism was not the only religion to consider.In 1807, he designated Judaism as one of the official religions of France, along with Roman Catholicism (long the established state religion), and Lutheran and Calvinist Protestantism.

 

[Wendell]

All of which an enduring republic could have done, no?

 

[xerex]

Was it at all plausible for him to remain married to Josephine and simply adopt Eugene as his heir ? It would fit his roman pretensions.

 

[Wendell]

Was it at all plausible for him to remain married to Josephine and simply adopt Eugene as his heir ? It would fit his roman pretensions.

Heir in both France AND Italy? That would not really work well.