Was Napoleon making himself a monarch a mistake?

alexmilman

Wendell said:
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?
Click to expand...
You are stepping on a mine-field because this is one of my favorite subjects foe speculation. 😂

If scenario works out, the less ambitious and less talented figure could be beneficial for everybody. Alexander hated Napoleon personally but did not have any excessively strong feelings against “republic” in general. Without the active Russian support the Hapsburgs would have a limited capacity to keep fighting against France. By character Bernadotte was much more flexible and prone to the compromises than Napoleon (and definitely not a megalomaniac so his interests would be probably limited to France) so potentially there could be a lasting peace in Europe. Domestically, he may retain some form of a republicanism or eventually drift toward a monarchy to keep situation stable.

In the area of a “personal diplomacy” he was almost definitely better than Napoleon who was using bullying as the main and almost the only method. Not only did he established friendly relations with Alexander at the moment when Alexander needed him but he was able to retain these relations during the time when he needed Alexander (and notwithstanding his activities during 1814 campaign when he went to pursue his own goals) and later establish the good relations with Nicholas I.

In Sweden he was accused in being too authoritarian and intolerant to the criticism and it seems that not all his decisions in the area of economy had been successful but he managed to survive politically (among other factors, by guaranteeing Alexander’s backing) and establish a stable and reasonably popular regime and a dynasty so it would not be a complete fantasy to assume something of the kind in France. Desiree was not a dazzling figure like Josephine but she was “from the people” (a bonus in a republican regime) and seemingly a nice person, which could add to the general popularity. Plus, the Bonaparte family was and would remain an influential political clan and their support is guaranteed.
 

alexmilman

Wendell said:
All of which an enduring republic could have done, no?
Click to expand...
Sure it could. But the Republic had plenty of time to settle the religious issues and it did not seemingly care to go beyond declaration of the people’s equity. Actually, in the case of the Jews there were some issues which had been formally resolved only when Nappy convened "Grand Sanhedrin" in 1807.
 

52cardsshortofadeck

alexmilman said:
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.
Click to expand...

Could always take a page out of the Romans' book and appoint a co-emperor...
 

alexmilman

52cardsshortofadeck said:
Could always take a page out of the Romans' book and appoint a co-emperor...
Click to expand...
This would also require the constitutional change: Article 2 of the Constitution of 1804 says that the former 1st Consul becomes Emperor of the French. Nothing about the co-emperors. Not that such a change would be impossible if he wanted to make it but why would he?
 

Wendell

One wonders what would become of the Italian client states were the French to remain republican under Bonaparte...
 

dandan_noodles

isabella said:
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.
Click to expand...
Well, that's his own fault. He had several chances for peace with the Allied powers, in no small part as a result of the marriage, but he turned them all down, or failed to act on them until it was too late. Even in 1815, he could have accepted a regency for his son, but he was unwilling to sacrifice his own glory.
 

isabella

dandan_noodles said:
Well, that's his own fault. He had several chances for peace with the Allied powers, in no small part as a result of the marriage, but he turned them all down, or failed to act on them until it was too late. Even in 1815, he could have accepted a regency for his son, but he was unwilling to sacrifice his own glory.
Click to expand...
Not really as London would likely start again everything in few years UNDER any circumstance...
And a Napoleon who, being unable to marry Alexander’s sister, married a still free Catharina or Augusta (either Jerome followed Lucien’s example in staying with his American wife or Napoleon was able to marry Eugene to his first choice for him aka the OTL Duchess of Orléans) would be in a stronger position than OTL
 

Thomas1195

Banned
I can see the Dutch ending up becoming a republic again with Bernadotte governing France, if he is intrusive than Napoleon. After all, it had always been a republic all the way back to its founding days (80 years war).
 

alexmilman

Wendell said:
What I meant was what would their fate be? Would Piedmont and Liguria still end up annexed to France, or might we have seen before long a consolidated republic in northern Italy inclusive of all of the French client republics in the area?
Click to expand...
From the fact that these republics had been created, we can probably make a conclusion that they would stay. If the French are not kicked out of Italy as did happen in OTL during the war of the 2nd coalition with Nappy not being around to reconquer Italy back.

It looks like the whole Italian rearrangement was to a great degree a byproduct of Bonaparte’s existence & him being in charge of the Army of Italy. Before this, Italy was insignificant front and Army of Italy the most neglected one (which tells a lot because Directorate’s treatment of the military had been generally lousy). So if Nappy is killed after the reconquest but before he becomes an emperor and France is still a republic I’d guess that they would stay as the republics (or whatever was the arrangement after the reconquest).
 

TastySpam

Miranda Brawner said:
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.
Click to expand...

In 1800, the choice wasn't between democracy and dictatorship - it was between dictatorship and oligarchy. Pretty much no government at the time was democratic by today's standards.

To the perspective of many peasants, rule by an absolute monarch was wildly preferable to rule by nobles and/or merchants.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top