WI: Napoleon killed at Schonbrunn, 1809?

[Keperry]

In October 1809, Napoleon had beaten Austria thoroughly in the War of the Fifth Coalition, and was in Vienna to sign the Treaty of Schonbrunn that would confirm it. While Napoleon was there, Jean Rapp caught a young German named Friedrich Staps approaching him after having been refused an audience--he was arrested and was found to be carrying a knife that he intended to use to assassinate the Emperor. The treaty was signed, forcing Austria to give up a lot of its territory and paving the way for it to become a pseudo-ally of France with the marriage of Napoleon and Marie Louise.

What if the assassination attempt had been successful?

Austria might not really have any reason to sign the treaty if the guy they were signing it with is dead. I'm not sure what the situation on the ground was at that point in terms of where the French armies were, but even if they were in Austria they might start fighting each other over the succession.

Joseph was the heir, but he doesn't seem to have been a particularly inspiring example of leadership, so there might be a mad rush to get into power by all the other brothers, relatives, generals, Bourbons, Republicans, etc. Maybe Britain would try to invade to make the succession more amenable... or would they not have been in a position to do that? Would they bother with a presumably broken France?

The breakthrough in Spain that would push the Junta into Cadiz would happen a few months after the treaty, but I think Joseph would probably bail out and rush to Paris to secure his succession and probably as much as the army as he could with him (or else the army leaders would have their own agenda) so that might not happen, and a change in the Spanish situation might have big implications for independence in Latin America.

At any rate, I don't think that the Spaniards, or whoever else across Europe, will accept Bonaparte puppets for long with the puppet-master gone. If they don't try to take over themselves, some of those puppets (Louis in Holland, Eugene de Beauharnais in Italy, Joachim Murat in Naples) could try to assert power over their fiefdoms, if they don't get overthrown by the locals. The various vassalized local rulers would also presumably try to assert their independence, if there aren't French armies standing right on top of them who might object... which there might be.

Any thoughts?

 

[Kyro92]

This would do absolute wonders for Napoleon's reputation. Not only has he been spared the humiliation of his Russian campaign and the defeats that followed, but the French Empire would probably go tits up in his absence- so he's "the only man who could hold it all together". Plus, something about assassinated leaders just seems to resonate with people.

I don't see Louis being overthrown, he was quite popular with the Dutch. As for Murat, he held on to his throne while Nappy was stuck on Elba, and that was with reactionaries having triumphed in Europe. So I reckon he holds on as well.

 

[Matteo]

This is very interesting.

If Joseph became french emperor after Napoleon's death, then it would be an almost ideal way-out from the spanish quagmire.

Imagine Joseph strikes a deal with teh Bourbons from Spain.

As far as Austria is concerned, it is utterly defeated and on the verge of political destruction after its defeat in 1809. So it will follow the same line of conduct as if Napoleon had not been assassinated.

You have a good start for an alternate history where the UK and France reach a lastable agreement :
- the Bourbons restored in Spain but forced into political alliance with the Bonapartes' France,
- Portugal free and remaining in the british alliance,
- a trade deal between France and Britain in exchange for the return of the french and dutch colonies.

 

[Grey Wolf]

As Matteo says

I foresee a period where Joseph faces down rivals, probably seeing a Bourbon invasion or rising of some kind, but with Davout and the other Marshals rushing around fighting for him, and eventually crushing the opposition.

Eugene always struck me as someone generally well-liked and competent, but without any high ambitions beyond what his adoptive father would give him. He's probably angle for a marshal's baton (which Napoleon with-held because in the case of marshals he did not want to be accused of nepotism) and with Joseph's backing, would give his own full support in return.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Colonel Troutstrangler]

This is very interesting.

If Joseph became french emperor after Napoleon's death, then it would be an almost ideal way-out from the spanish quagmire.

Imagine Joseph strikes a deal with teh Bourbons from Spain.

As far as Austria is concerned, it is utterly defeated and on the verge of political destruction after its defeat in 1809. So it will follow the same line of conduct as if Napoleon had not been assassinated.

You have a good start for an alternate history where the UK and France reach a lastable agreement :
- the Bourbons restored in Spain but forced into political alliance with the Bonapartes' France,
- Portugal free and remaining in the british alliance,
- a trade deal between France and Britain in exchange for the return of the french and dutch colonies.

I dont see Britain being so aquiescant with the Bonapartist French.

The balance of power in Europe is vastly one sided - Britain would work to re-distribute that power more akin to the 1803 boundaries - maybe even earlier boundaries, depending on what happens in North Italy and the lowlands.

Also a war might erupt around the Polish question. Russia would see vast oportunities; despite wars to the south.

Spain is just a mess at this point - how do you extricate from there? I could see a civil war between the Spanish factions there!

Sort out the power distribution and then you might get a stable peace?

 

[Matteo]

Well, you know, if the british feel less threatened because of the death of the continental conqueror and see the french troops leave Spain, and see the french empire being forced into a phase of stabilization and accept to lift the continental blocus, it could well reconsider its position.

As far as Spain is concerned, it faced a civil war anyway from 1808 to 1812. It even faced 3 wars during these years :
- a war against the french,
- a civil war among spanish factions,
- and, I know it may seem provocative, but also a de facto war against the british who made almost as much damage as the french (cf. they implemented some kind of scorched earth policy to prevent the progression of the french armies).

 

[Keperry]

As Matteo says

I foresee a period where Joseph faces down rivals, probably seeing a Bourbon invasion or rising of some kind, but with Davout and the other Marshals rushing around fighting for him, and eventually crushing the opposition.

Eugene always struck me as someone generally well-liked and competent, but without any high ambitions beyond what his adoptive father would give him. He's probably angle for a marshal's baton (which Napoleon with-held because in the case of marshals he did not want to be accused of nepotism) and with Joseph's backing, would give his own full support in return.

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

So whatever opposition Joseph faces probably won't be enough to bring him down if the Marshals are on his side? Will all the Marshals be on his side? I'd assume they were all fairly loyal to Napoleon, though I could be wrong, but Joseph isn't Napoleon, so some of them might get other ideas...

Eugene was actually Napoleon's heir as King of Italy, though not as Emperor of France, so he might continue to stay and rule in Italy as a French ally, assuming he isn't overthrown... which he was, OTL, when he tried to take the throne.

I dont see Britain being so aquiescant with the Bonapartist French.

The balance of power in Europe is vastly one sided - Britain would work to re-distribute that power more akin to the 1803 boundaries - maybe even earlier boundaries, depending on what happens in North Italy and the lowlands.

Also a war might erupt around the Polish question. Russia would see vast oportunities; despite wars to the south.

Spain is just a mess at this point - how do you extricate from there? I could see a civil war between the Spanish factions there!

Sort out the power distribution and then you might get a stable peace?

Poland is interesting. Frederick Augustus of Saxony could remain Duke of Warsaw (would Poniatowski try to take the throne?) but the Sejm might try to be more independent in the absence of French authority. Calling themselves the Kingdom of Poland, maybe? A Russian invasion, assuming it isn't successful, might actually be good for Poland/Warsaw's hopes at sovereignty, because instead of being more land for Prussia and Austria to reconquer it could become a buffer state for them to strength against Russia, which would be the big unifying threat if the French were no longer out Napoleon-ing. The French might help too if they're not tied down. Or maybe Austria, Prussia, and Russia would just try to split it up between them like they did historically, but in 1809 the former two might not be powerful enough to do that and as a result they wouldn't trust each other or Russia.

It does seem like there could be a civil war in Spain in the power vacuum that would be left if Joseph bails out and heads to France. I guess this could hasten along independence in Latin America, or at least extend the war there, which could lead to independence eventually as local juntas following different factions back in the metropole increase their power to execute the war.

 

[Will Kürlich Kerl]

*snip*

Are you planning to do a timeline on this?

 

[Keperry]

Are you planning to do a timeline on this?

I might be.

 

[Mikestone8]

So whatever opposition Joseph faces probably won't be enough to bring him down if the Marshals are on his side? Will all the Marshals be on his side? I'd assume they were all fairly loyal to Napoleon, though I could be wrong, but Joseph isn't Napoleon, so some of them might get other ideas...

They might tolerate Joseph as an interim ruler, until they can agree on who should really get it (Bernadotte?). Without Napoleon, his family are zilch. Durnmg the Malet coup, no-one, of whatever syympathies, paid the slightest attention to them, or to the Empire's own succession laws.

Eugene was actually Napoleon's heir as King of Italy, though not as Emperor of France, so he might continue to stay and rule in Italy as a French ally, assuming he isn't overthrown... which he was, OTL, when he tried to take the throne.

Depends what the Tsar wants. If he covets the Austriasn share of Poland, he will offer Austria compensation in the west, almost certainly in Italy. So unless the Provisional government in France is interested in fighting for Eugene, he's probably toast.

Poland is interesting. Frederick Augustus of Saxony could remain Duke of Warsaw (would Poniatowski try to take the throne?) but the Sejm might try to be more independent in the absence of French authority. Calling themselves the Kingdom of Poland, maybe? A Russian invasion, assuming it isn't successful, might actually be good for Poland/Warsaw's hopes at sovereignty, because instead of being more land for Prussia and Austria to reconquer it could become a buffer state for them to strength against Russia, which would be the big unifying threat if the French were no longer out Napoleon-ing. The French might help too if they're not tied down. Or maybe Austria, Prussia, and Russia would just try to split it up between them like they did historically, but in 1809 the former two might not be powerful enough to do that and as a result they wouldn't trust each other or Russia.

In 1809 Austria still held all her share of Poland. Part of it was ceded to the Duchy of Warsaw under the Treaty of Schonbrunn, but I doubt if that transfer would have been carried out at the time of Napoleon's assassination.

Prussia will want its share of the DoW back. However, the Tsar would also like at least part of it, which would involve conquering some German land further west as compensation for Prussia. If the French are smart they will offer Prussia her pre-Tilsit borders before Alexander does so.

It does seem like there could be a civil war in Spain in the power vacuum that would be left if Joseph bails out and heads to France. I guess this could hasten along independence in Latin America, or at least extend the war there, which could lead to independence eventually as local juntas following different factions back in the metropole increase their power to execute the war.

Does Joseph's departure from Spain also imply the recall of the French army? If so, presumably an Anglo-Portuguese army will take Madrid in the name of King Ferdinand (or some sort of Regency council acting in his name). If not of course the Peninsular War just carries on as before.

 

[machine3589]

I doubt Nappy`s death could stop the fall of the French Empire. The famous British policy of maintaining the balance of power on the continent has been beaten into the ground on this website, and then you have the Austrians and Prussians - they won`t accept the new order. As soon as everyone is set up, a new anti-French war erupts, which is basically OTL. Now, when the war erupts and how it goes is anyone`s guess.

 

[Matteo]

Do you think the UK could defeat and bring the downfall of the french empire alone ? I don't. Alone, the UK could only reach a draw.

The UK allied only with Russia ? They had only a weak chance of success. It was only because Napoleon overextended and had all his cavalry as well as 400,000 men lost into the russian winter that all Europe coalised (Russia+UK+Prussia+Spain+Sweden+Austria+the german confederacy betraying the french) could bring its downfall.

If Russia invaded central Europe it would to some extent have faced the problems of logistics faced by Napoleon when he invaded Russia and it would meet a very well trained and equipped french army, led by the best of french marshalls : Davout, the only french marshall who was absolutely never defeated.

If they restored the Bourbons on the spanish throne, the french would let down an enormous burden that drained a big part of french resources for no gain in return. Very quickly after the restoration of the spanish Bourbons, Spain would be totally focused on solving its internal mess. And the British would have to leave the country quickly or they would become the new "antichrist" enemy of the Spanish.

My guess is that if Napoleon died in 1809, Europe would feel a great relief and bet on time to reach a better balance of powers.

The french political domination depended also on Napoleon's very authoritarian personality.

As mentioned before, there would probably have had an interesting evolution in Italy, with Eugene becoming king of Italy and the new french emperor not being king of Italy.

By making peace, France would stop exerting the unbearable drain it exerted on its dominated "allies" in OTL. So it will be able to count on the loyalty of its german allies.

You can also imagine a dynastic alliance with the Habsburgs, France turning sooner to the diplomacy advocated by Talleyrand. Especially if, Napoleon being dead, the french government had the sound idea of giving not to harsh terms to Austria.

And at last, I think you should not bet on a war of succession between the marshalls. The army was attached to the régime and the constitution's rukes for succession would have been implemented.

 

[Mikestone8]

And at last, I think you should not bet on a war of succession between the marshalls. The army was attached to the régime and the constitution's rukes for succession would have been implemented.

The marshalls were attached to the marshalls. Some had a egree of personal loyalty to Napoleon himself (at least as long as he was successful) but I can see no evidence that they gave a toss about his family.

Three years later, the Malet coup ran its entire course without anyone bothering to so much as inform the Empress-Regent until it was all over. No reason to think that Joseph would hasve been reated any better in 1809. The "Constitution" woiuld have died with Napoleon.

 

[Matteo]

The marshalls were under control. Can you imagine Bernadotte or Masséna or Murat coming and say : "Oh ! By the way, I don't think the constitutional rules for imperial succession among Napoleon's brothers (as was the rule in France since ... 1316) are such a good idea. Let me be emperor." ?

No way.

This was not the late roman empire nor the diadochi at Alexander the great's death.

If one marshall ever tried, all the others would oppose him and have him arrested.

The Bonaparte dynasty was then very popular and the elite wanted stability and order.

Malet was just a half mad clown whose joke coup was imaginable only because of the disaster of Russia. If no disaster of Russia, no coup nor anti defection among allies.

 

[Mikestone8]

The marshalls were under control. Can you imagine Bernadotte or Masséna or Murat coming and say : "Oh ! By the way, I don't think the constitutional rules for imperial succession among Napoleon's brothers (as was the rule in France since ... 1316) are such a good idea. Let me be emperor." ?

No way.

This was not the late roman empire nor the diadochi at Alexander the great's death.

If one marshall ever tried, all the others would oppose him and have him arrested.

The Bonaparte dynasty was then very popular and the elite wanted stability and order.

Malet was just a half mad clown whose joke coup was imaginable only because of the disaster of Russia. If no disaster of Russia, no coup nor anti defection among allies.

The Malet Coup was in October 1812, when Napoleon had just won the Battle of Borodino and was, to all appearences, at the height oif his success. The disasters were stil in the future..

As for the Marshals, they don't have to make an immediate bid, just get the Senate to proclaim a restoration of the Republic, to give them time to jockey for position.

Napoeon's brothers (except Lucien, who iirc was out of favour) were a total gaggle of nobodies. Why would any Marshal waste a moment's thought on them once the Emperorwas gone?

 

[Matteo]

Malet's coup was in late october when the russian campaign was clearly a total failure. Malet's coup had absolutely no possibility to succeed : it just showed that the régime was too centralized and too dependant on the person of the emperor.

As for a coup where some marshalls would have the Senate restore the republic, this is not alternate History but just some kind of dream. Almost nobody wanted a Republic at that time. If Bonaparte could make and succeed his coup in 1799, it was because the republic was utterly discredited and France was going to restore the monarchy.

In 1800, Louis XVIII proposed the new first consul Bonaparte to be his general Monk. Napoleon refused.

But the national compromise was : let us restore order with a monarchy, but a monarchy which guarantees the principles and the values of the revolution and guarantees the proporties of the people who materially profited from the revolution.

So, to answer your question, there would probably be no coup because evreybody had an interest in the stability of the régime which had made their fortune. They even had an interest in having a new emperor weaker and more open to discussion than the original one.

And what's the problem if Joseph was not a genious ?

Was it a problem that the British king or regent were not genious, that the austrian emperor was not either a genious ?
No. The government can successfully be the work of a group of people.

France's problem at the time was precisely too autocratic : all depended on one man who decided everything and turned unable to delegate. That was the cause of its final downfall.

 

[Mikestone8]

And what's the problem if Joseph was not a genious ?

Was it a problem that the British king or regent were not genious, that the austrian emperor was not either a genious ?
No. The government can successfully be the work of a group of people.

France's problem at the time was precisely too autocratic : all depended on one man who decided everything and turned unable to delegate. That was the cause of its final downfall.

And precisely why it would vanish in a puff of smoke as soon as the autocrat died.

As for the Prince Regent, et al, didn't Boney himself answer that? "Those legitimate monarchs can lead defeated armies back to their capitals tme and again, and yet go on reigning. But I am a self-made soldier. My position depends on my prestige." or words to that effect?

Napoleon was the winner of the latest coup d'etat., and nothing more. Once he was gone, France belonged to the winner of the next coup.

 

[Matteo]

Sorry but you just seem to ignore some facts.

Napoleon, though widely hated in the countries he defeated, was very very popular in France at that time. He was the first leader in France who built a popular legitimacy for himself and his family. To such a point that a generation later, his nephew who had done nothing remarkable before, won the first universal suffrage elections by 75% in the first round.

In the short run, with the defeats of the end of his reign, Napoleon became unpopular, but only because of everlasting wars and defeat.

Napoleon undoubtedly was a dictator, but a popular and legitimate one.

 

[Keperry]

So the main debate seems to be whether or not everyone is going to be loyal to Joseph... Are there certain Marshals who might be more inclined to be loyal or to be rebellious? Might some of them try to band together to form some sort of junta or regency council or power behind the throne or whatnot? Presumably a few of them together would have better chances than just one. Would those chances be enough to actually win, or just to be a historical footnote? If France belongs to the winner of the next coup, who's going to stage the next coup, and who's going to win?

I might come up with some answers to my own questions, later.

Are the common people (or at least large enough mobs) likely to rise up or take part in whatever is going on?

 

[Matteo]

1809 is radically different from 1813-1815.

To have a possible coup, you need a disaster.

A coup by one or several marshalls in 1809 has absolutely no chance of success and is as possible as a coup by ... the admirals in the UK at the same date.