WI: Napoleon dies around the time of the birth of Napoleon II.

I don't think he would have issue subordinating himself to Davout. He knew he wasn't a great battlefield Marshal, and that was his best role. Napoleon sorely missed Berthier in the Waterloo campaign, which is why I think it would be a mistake to keep him in Paris. If you needed a marshal of good reputation in Paris- you had several choices- Kellermann being the best choice here.

I believe it was Soult who had Berthier's role during Waterloo, my guess is he would have gotten the nod here, and Suchet might have taken the lead in Spain (the Spanish ulcer will be more of a thing in this scenario too)
Suchet was a good commander, but no Wellington. Also much depends on how much time France has before a new war- the less time the more likely marshals stay where they are at.


Also, the GDoW, why not concede it to Austria instead of Russia if you absolutely had to?

Also, wasn't Massena disgraced by 1811? You can always be rehabilitated, but he saw no action after 1809.
Thing is, the Constitution pretty much locked the Regency council. The Regent could not change the constitution, nor name new grand dignitaries (who were members of the Council) or grand officers, such as new marshall. Eliminating Napoleon's brothers using a legal loophole is pretty much the maximum the regent can do. This is why Berthier is so essential in 1811 : he is the only marshall with a seat in the Regency. Of course, these limitations would be scrapped in time - the empire cannot work unchanged for 18 years - but not in 1811, when stability - or appearance of - is tantamount.

For Massena it depends of the date of the PoD, before or after may 1811. I'd rather had him on the field. Either way, as the important members are all partisan of a Bourbon solution in Spain, Ferdinand VII comeback is very likely. No one is arguing for Joseph...
 
Bernadotte was a shit. Said it before and I'm saying it again. Davout would rather have red hot fleas in his nether regions than work for that shit!
I agree with the majority on this question, there may be a short interlude with Prince Napoleon in a regency situation, but the Bourbons are going to come back.
Talyarand "The Shit in Silk Stockings" will always be around to determine policy, whoever wins!
 
Bernadotte is out of the (french) picture since 1810. For the Bourbons, there is simply no reason for the decision makers in Paris to want Louis XVIII in Paris rather than a Regency they control. If the regency manages to stabilize France's position, and playing a different card in Spain is a good start, there are no reasons anyone other than die-hard royalists still longs for the Bourbons. In 1814 OTL Talleyrand got Louis his throne, ITTL he would work against him.
 
Last edited:
Thing is, the Constitution pretty much locked the Regency council. The Regent could not change the constitution, nor name new grand dignitaries (who were members of the Council) or grand officers, such as new marshall. Eliminating Napoleon's brothers using a legal loophole is pretty much the maximum the regent can do.

Can't they just get the Senate to set aside Napoleon's instructions and appoint a new Regency - or even just abolish the Empire and go back to the Consulate or something? No doubt it would be exceeding its authority (as it did in 1814 when it recalled Louis XVIII) but unless there's somebody able and willing to prevent it by military action, the decision could still have effect.
 

longsword14

Banned
Can't they just get the Senate to set aside Napoleon's instructions and appoint a new Regency - or even just abolish the Empire and go back to the Consulate or something? No doubt it would be exceeding its authority (as it did in 1814 when it recalled Louis XVIII) but unless there's somebody able and willing to prevent it by military action, the decision could still have effect.
Why bother to set the army against you when it is not necessary? The candidates for regency would want to consolidate and shore up the gains, antagonising the army is bad when you expect it to be ready for conflicts on the horizon. Follow the set instructions with certain caveats so you can have the middle path.
 
Can't they just get the Senate to set aside Napoleon's instructions and appoint a new Regency - or even just abolish the Empire and go back to the Consulate or something? No doubt it would be exceeding its authority (as it did in 1814 when it recalled Louis XVIII) but unless there's somebody able and willing to prevent it by military action, the decision could still have effect.

They will, but not in 1811 : too much is on the stake on the early months of the Regency. I do not think they will go as far as dethroning little Napoléon II : he has 18 years to wait before assuming real power, his grandfather is the emperor of a would-be ally, his heir is 7-year old Louis-Napoléon, who is at the same time, the nephew of the Regent Eugène.

BTW, the Regency is almost a family affair : Eugène's wife, Augusta Amelia of Bavaria, is the cousin of Berthier's, Mary Elizabeth in Bavaria, while Talleyrand's son, Flahaut, is the quasi-official lover of Eugène's sister Hortense.
 
Why bother to set the army against you when it is not necessary? The candidates for regency would want to consolidate and shore up the gains, antagonising the army is bad when you expect it to be ready for conflicts on the horizon. Follow the set instructions with certain caveats so you can have the middle path.

Would the army be particularly antagonised? They followed Napoleon, but did they give a toss about the rest of his family, or about whatever odd bodies he had named to a Regency Council?

Also, of course, a revival of the Consulate would leave the door open for Napoleon II to become First Consul (and maybe later Emperor) when he attained a suitable age. That might have been acceptable for anyone who was a bit sentimental about Napoleon's son, but had little interest in his other relatives. And if OTOH he were retained, and it became merely a question of changing Regency arrangements, would any officer or soldier care a hoot?
 
Would the army be particularly antagonised? They followed Napoleon, but did they give a toss about the rest of his family, or about whatever odd bodies he had named to a Regency Council?

Also, of course, a revival of the Consulate would leave the door open for Napoleon II to become First Consul (and maybe later Emperor) when he attained a suitable age. That might have been acceptable for anyone who was a bit sentimental about Napoleon's son, but had little interest in his other relatives. And if OTOH he were retained, and it became merely a question of changing Regency arrangements, would any officer or soldier care a hoot?

The consulate is a very peculiar regime, as it was custom-made for Bonaparte and its constitution did not really explain the way a new first Consul is chosen. But, as I said, the members of the Regency council are the persons in power at Napoléon's death (quite independently of their position as "great dignitaries", if I may be so bold), so why bother changing the institutions ? Why risk an open conflict to see Berthier, for example, elected first Consul when Eugène is a perfectly acceptable compromise ? Why weaken you position vis-a-vis the foreign courts when you want to stabilize your regional influence ?
 

longsword14

Banned
Would the army be particularly antagonised? They followed Napoleon, but did they give a toss about the rest of his family, or about whatever odd bodies he had named to a Regency Council?

Also, of course, a revival of the Consulate would leave the door open for Napoleon II to become First Consul (and maybe later Emperor) when he attained a suitable age. That might have been acceptable for anyone who was a bit sentimental about Napoleon's son, but had little interest in his other relatives. And if OTOH he were retained, and it became merely a question of changing Regency arrangements, would any officer or soldier care a hoot?
None of the Marshals were gunning for taking power outside of the areas given to them by Napoleon. Even if someone got bright ideas, who is going to support him ? It is not like the general staff of later times. Davout will follow orders as far as possible, he has a large corps, Ney, Oudinot, St. Cyr, Augereau etc. were not political creatures either.
Moreau, Bernadotte and company from the Republican days have been sidelined.
 
Soult would be the most likely one to try something I think, and he'll be busy in Spain. Murat has Naples- until the allies want it back.
 

longsword14

Banned
Soult would be the most likely one to try something I think, and he'll be busy in Spain. Murat has Naples- until the allies want it back.
He was a shcemer but in his own sphere. He is not capable of anything because he will not have the power to oppose all the others who have corps under them.
 
Top