WI Napoleon dies in Vilnius (from an accident) during the Russian campaign?

So, I was wondering what the effect be of Napoleon dying early into his campaign in Russia?
I chose Vilnius at random, but it was convenient enough.
So Napoleon dies right at the very end of June, 1812.

The manner of Napoleon's death isn't too important. His horse slips a shoe, he takes a tumble down some stairs, whatever it is, Napoleon or someone near him accidentally gets him killed.

How does his Empire hold together? Does it? Who is in control?

What is Britain's reaction?
How does that affect their foreign policy in Europe and in the Americas (the USA just declared war on them)

What about Austria's? Marie Louise is Empress of the French and Napoleon II has been born.
 
A general (and there were plenty of talented generals) who takes change cancels the invasion and tries to make peace with Russia. If Russia accepts, good for them, now they can trade with Britain AND be at peace with France, if not they lose a decisive battle somewhere in Eastern Europe and are forced to. Either way, this POD guarantees Napoleonic regime survives longer than IOTL. It is next to impossible for either Austria or Prussia to successfully defy France at this point without a miracle/disaster for France.
 
It's going to be chaos on the French side. There's going to be a power vacuum both politically and militarily. In Russia, the French generals are going to jockey for power, and it's far from guaranteed they're going to be harmonious in action. Meanwhile the troops are already overextended logistically, and returning is going to be just as much a struggle as going back.

The Bonaparte name is still at (or near) its peak, so it's possible the family can hold power for the infant. But there's going to be a lot of generals looking to seize the throne, and there's no guarantee the Bonaparte family is going to act harmoniously, or effectively. Nap was the golden magical name, and any setbacks will give energy to all those French who were (often brutally) suppressed by the Nap machine. A retreat from Russia is going to be seen as a defeat. Remember it's only in hindsight that we know the advance to be a mistake. Nap started the invasion, and even in death his successors are saddled with it. Nap's council wanted a different course of action in the invasion, but they can't simply pack their bags, go home, and call the war off. they can't just sit tight, because logistics won't allow it. They might find a better course of action in attacking Russia than the headlong rush deep into the interior, but I can't envision any way of achieving a swift knockout blow to bring Russia to the negotiation table. The massive Grande Armee can't just hang around waiting for Russia to come fight it on Russian terms.

Chaos of command may actually work to French advantage here, because it may embolden the Russians to come out and attack. Of course, it may also embolden the rest of France's enemies to rejoin the fight (just as has happened OTL).

The dream scenario for France is reasonably harmonious change of political command, some semblance of rational change of military command, and a minor loss of face in Russia that still leaves some respect for France's military power, and an overall willingness on all sides to negotiate a general peace that is sustainable. Odds of all that happening may be slightly better than my odds of dating Kaley Cuocco, but not by much. Far more likely is chaos and the enemies of France unifying to take advantage of it while the Grand Armee withers to a beatable level.
 
As the Malet coup has shown, the death of Napoléon would bring havoc on the regime. My two pences are on the ones siding with Talleyrand, he usually ends up on top. Plus, he had a political project quite compatible with the Austrian alliance and Napoléon II's regency. Marie-Louise as Regent, Joseph (pulled out of Spain) as Lieutenant General and good old Talley as power behind the throne.
 
@unprincipled peter Napoleon did say though, when he arrived in Vilnuis, "this is where I stop"; plus Poland wasn't too bad an experience for the army (that changed going east).

Also, I'd like to push back against the idea that Napoleon dying early would necessarily spell doom for the regime -- the dictatorship was on very solid footing prior to his military destruction by the Sixth Coalition, and as long as there was a (sufficiently popular) successor or regent that the senate and army could rally behind, their wouldn't be any crippling civil war, much less a Bourbon Restoration.

Now, it might be argued the Malet Conspiracy did show that, in 1812, there were issues with succession -- FWIG, it does not seem like a regent for the infant heir had been arranged before Napoleon marched east, which is what gave the conspirators so much manuverability simply by claiming that the emperor was dead; I expect had he really been dead, then whoever came out on top in Paris would have gotten around to declaring the new emperor, with a regency to their liking.
 
@unprincipled peter Napoleon did say though, when he arrived in Vilnuis, "this is where I stop"; plus Poland wasn't too bad an experience for the army (that changed going east).

Also, I'd like to push back against the idea that Napoleon dying early would necessarily spell doom for the regime -- the dictatorship was on very solid footing prior to his military destruction by the Sixth Coalition, and as long as there was a (sufficiently popular) successor or regent that the senate and army could rally behind, their wouldn't be any crippling civil war, much less a Bourbon Restoration.

Now, it might be argued the Malet Conspiracy did show that, in 1812, there were issues with succession -- FWIG, it does not seem like a regent for the infant heir had been arranged before Napoleon marched east, which is what gave the conspirators so much manuverability simply by claiming that the emperor was dead; I expect had he really been dead, then whoever came out on top in Paris would have gotten around to declaring the new emperor, with a regency to their liking.

I remember some discussion about the regency issues on this very board. Thing is the Constitution had as regent by default the most senior prince, but this was Joseph, who could have been considered no longer a prince since his becoming a king. Same goes for Louis and Jérôme and even Eugène, who is heir to Italy. Eugène could disclaim his inheritance and become regent, but he is with the Great Army in Vilnius. The main actor would be the man in Paris. The Council of Regency is made up of the Great dignitaries of the Empire : Joseph, Louis, Jérôme, Eugène, Murat, Elisa, Cambacérés, Lebrun, Talleyrand, Berthier, Borghese. Only Cambacérés, Lebrun and Talleyrand are in Paris in 1812. As a Talleyrand fanboy, I expect him to take things in hand. An hybrid solution Marie-Louis/Joseph would be at his liking, pleasing Austria while dividing power inside the imperial family and allowing him to have free reign.
 
Top