What happens to France without Napoleon?

Napoleon is never born or dies as a child. What's your best prediction of what happens to the French government and how the wars against France play out? This one is pretty debatable but I'm excited to hear your thoughts :)
 
The First Republic couldn't go on the way it had been. Without a military powerhouse like Napoleon, the Bourbon restoration happens before nationalism has a chance to spread and before the Holy Roman Empire is finished.

That's going to help the Hapsburgs for a few decades, and hurt Prussia. Is it going to be enough to save the HRE and the Austrian Empire? Not alone, but it gives them time to make changes.
 
First Republic can still end OK with other talented generals stepping in and possibly taking over. Sure enough, they are not nearly as succesful short-term wise, but that might result in France being better off in the long run.
 
First Republic can still end OK with other talented generals stepping in and possibly taking over. Sure enough, they are not nearly as succesful short-term wise, but that might result in France being better off in the long run.

I would agree. Without Napoleon, France has the demographic and military juice to hold its own, but not to conquer western Europe. I think the wars continue a while longer until the French reach a stable constitutional settlement, whereupon the government will seek a final settlement. Maybe agreeing to withdraw armies and not support revolutions abroad in exchange for the Rhein border? They'd also lose their existing colonies, most likely.

The key is getting Britain to agree, which might be tough if France still controls the full channel coast. They're just not going to feel safe with France having access to that kind of a naval asset in the long run.
 
Napoleon is never born or dies as a child. What's your best prediction of what happens to the French government and how the wars against France play out? This one is pretty debatable but I'm excited to hear your thoughts :)

Government of the Republic passed through a number of serious changes and the process would, most probably, continue. Taking into an account that the Directorate was neither too popular nor effective, it is reasonable to expect some kind of a coup resulting in a more authoritarian regime. Now, if we keep in mind that the Directorate was not too popular among the military and that none of the OTL civilian figures of that period had a strong backing basis, the coup would almost inevitably end up with some popular military figure taking power and assuming more or less fancy title, which one does not really matter.

The Bourbons at that time had some sympathizers but they did not have a serious support among the military or among the general population and none of the available ones had brains, energy and money to start a serious political campaign in his favor or to start a political agitation among the military with any chance for success so probably this not realistic in a short term.

Now, an absence of Bonaparte would mean an absence of the spectacular success in Italy which means an absence of the 2nd Coalition. Potentially, this may result in an earlier peace because Austria would not feel a need to regain the territorial losses in Italy. Conflict may continue for a while without clear advantages on either side and end up due to a mutual exhaustion. If alt-Napoleon possesses more common sense and less mania grandiosity than a real one, then the things could be arranged with Britain as well by not-interfering into the German affairs (especially the case of Hanover). France ends up with a border on the Rhine and a sister Batavian Republic. Perhaps Ligurian Republic as well (in OTL it was created by Bonaparte but it could happen without him as well).
 
Frankly, a France entering the 19th century with the Rhein border and none of the population loss of the later Napoleonic wars would be in a fantastic place for future growth. More population, more steel, more coal, probably a more unified political culture, without all the division between Bonapartists, Orleanists, Legitimists, Radicals, et. al.
 
If alt-Napoleon possesses more common sense and less mania grandiosity than a real one, then the things could be arranged with Britain as well by not-interfering into the German affairs (especially the case of Hanover). France ends up with a border on the Rhine and a sister Batavian Republic.

Given Britain's first and foremost security concern is not to have a rival Great Power in secure control of the whole channel coast, and especially since sans Trafalgar France still has a robust standing naval potential the last thing Britain will concede is a French client in the Hauge with all the Dutch naval potential added to that of France.
 
Given Britain's first and foremost security concern is not to have a rival Great Power in secure control of the whole channel coast, and especially since sans Trafalgar France still has a robust standing naval potential the last thing Britain will concede is a French client in the Hauge with all the Dutch naval potential added to that of France.

Well, if the rest of Europe does not care about this specific item Britain may continue war alone. Or it may agree to some mutually acceptable compromise. In OTL, after Austria, Russia and Naples sued for peace with France, it did agree to the Peace of Amiens which recognized the French and Batavian republics and did not include restoration of the House of Orange-Nassau so this item does not look as a complete taboo.
 
Now, an absence of Bonaparte would mean an absence of the spectacular success in Italy which means an absence of the 2nd Coalition. Potentially, this may result in an earlier peace because Austria would not feel a need to regain the territorial losses in Italy.

The Republic of Venice may endure longer without Napoleon being there to trade it for the Austrian Netherlands. I wonder what long-term ramifications that has.
 
The Republic of Venice may endure longer without Napoleon being there to trade it for the Austrian Netherlands. I wonder what long-term ramifications that has.

By that time Venice ceased to be economic, military or political power so it could easily be used as a bargaining chip even without a direct French conquest. Or it may survive for a while as an independent state just because it was not too important.
 
Here's another possible outcome of No Napoleon:
During the 19th Century, France had a chronically low birth rate as compared to other European countries like Britain, Germany and Italy. While part of this was due to cultural factors (namely, France being more liberal), a big part of it was inheritance laws that dictated estates be distributed equally among the deceased's children, rather than being passed to the firstborn son. IIRC these laws were introduced under Napoleon, so if Napoleon never rises to power, then France may be stronger demographically during the 19th and Early 20th centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#1800_to_20th_century
 
First Republic can still end OK with other talented generals stepping in and possibly taking over. Sure enough, they are not nearly as succesful short-term wise, but that might result in France being better off in the long run.

That`s a fair point. Napoleon made France very expansionist. Sure, the republic tried to spread to Italy, but without Nappy, it would likely cool down. This makes France a lot less scary, and it can't be used as some kind of Boogeyman in Europe as it was OTL. They might even end up keeping their Sister Republics in mainland Italy. Republican and Nationalist Ideas would spread much slower than OTL, but the republic itself would be more successful. Franco-Polish relations wouldn't be as strangely good as they were OTL, that's a pretty small side effect though. The HRE would still dissolve, but at a much slower rate, maybe just shrinking more and more (OTL the Italians, then the swiss, then the Dutch broke away), so it might just slowly shrink down to a much smaller size and then be completely erased by nationalists, which, as I said, would still spread, it's a generally appealing Idea, and ideologies spread with or without government support or a supportive conqueror.
 

Kaze

Banned
The absence is the Prevision of the Napoleonic Code. A single law code that is the basis for many laws across the whole of Europe - instead of the hodgepodge of laws and regulations that was the Ancient Regime.
 
The absence is the Prevision of the Napoleonic Code. A single law code that is the basis for many laws across the whole of Europe - instead of the hodgepodge of laws and regulations that was the Ancient Regime.

That would be a great loss. But I think the various microstates of the HRE were living on borrowed time, anyway. What you might see, instead of one clean sweep of Napoleonic law and the metric system across all Europe, is a number of competing "rationalized" systems for Germany, Italy, Russia, etc. Perhaps eventually, as trans-national scientific correspondence becomes more common as the century proceeds, you might see scientists coming together in a big conference to come up with a unified system to use in all professional scientific settings, which slowly trickles down to the rest of society.
 
The First Republic couldn't go on the way it had been. Without a military powerhouse like Napoleon, the Bourbon restoration happens before nationalism has a chance to spread and before the Holy Roman Empire is finished.

That's going to help the Hapsburgs for a few decades, and hurt Prussia. Is it going to be enough to save the HRE and the Austrian Empire? Not alone, but it gives them time to make changes.

This.

Most people forget that Napoleon was a decisive force for the future unification of Germany and Italy.

Without Napoleon’s decisions for the HRE and Italy, both the HRE and Italy will remain divided infar many more States than it was OTL from 1803/1806 on.

And, concerning France, the radical revolutionaries were so discredited after the terror years and then the gigantic corruption of the post terror years that the monarchists enjoyed wide support.

Napoleon’s career took off in 1795 when he had royalist demonstrators/rioters shot with cannons in Paris.

The point is Louis XVIII needs to be more compromising than he OTL was in the late 1790´s to have a monarchist restoration accepted by the silent majority. The silent majority wanted what Napoleon gave it in his first years of power : the return of order, prosperity and the acceptance of the revolutionary principles (legal equality for all and the French kind of bill of rights).

France’s interest is to have a monarchist restoration if it wants to be accepted back again in the european concert of kings.
 
That`s a fair point. Napoleon made France very expansionist. Sure, the republic tried to spread to Italy, but without Nappy, it would likely cool down. This makes France a lot less scary, and it can't be used as some kind of Boogeyman in Europe as it was OTL. They might even end up keeping their Sister Republics in mainland Italy. Republican and Nationalist Ideas would spread much slower than OTL, but the republic itself would be more successful. Franco-Polish relations wouldn't be as strangely good as they were OTL, that's a pretty small side effect though. The HRE would still dissolve, but at a much slower rate, maybe just shrinking more and more (OTL the Italians, then the swiss, then the Dutch broke away), so it might just slowly shrink down to a much smaller size and then be completely erased by nationalists, which, as I said, would still spread, it's a generally appealing Idea, and ideologies spread with or without government support or a supportive conqueror.

The Republic may still get succesful enough to establish Rhein border and conquer Belgium plus, probably, establish sister republics in northern Italy, Holland and Switzerland. With the Republican France being the mess it is, someone like Hoche or Moreau (or, who the hell knows, mayhaps even someone like Desaix) likely takes over. IOTL Sieyes was looking for someone in the military to secure the support of the army and overthrow Barras, but Joubert got killed before he could participate, Moreau said 'no' and Gauche was already dead. IOTL Napoleon outgambitted Sieyes and made sure he was No.1, not the ex-abbe. France will and can last, probably losing its colonial Empire, but acquiting enduring influence and power in Europe. And by the time 1848 revolutions (or their alternative analogues) kick in, who knows?
 
Last edited:
Here's another possible outcome of No Napoleon:
During the 19th Century, France had a chronically low birth rate as compared to other European countries like Britain, Germany and Italy. While part of this was due to cultural factors (namely, France being more liberal), a big part of it was inheritance laws that dictated estates be distributed equally among the deceased's children, rather than being passed to the firstborn son. IIRC these laws were introduced under Napoleon, so if Napoleon never rises to power, then France may be stronger demographically during the 19th and Early 20th centuries.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Demographics_of_France#1800_to_20th_century

Are you sure that this was the case? I was under the impression that primogeniture was not applicable (even as far as nobility was involved) to all HRE states and while it definitely did not exist in Russia (on all social levels) this did not prevent it from a high rate of population growth in the XIX century. Probably it would be helpful to compare growth rates in France before and after Napoleon (with some allowance to the huge losses of the male population during the Revolution and the 1st Empire).
 
In this scenario, what would eventual German unification look like? Is there even such a thing as eventual German unification?
 
Top