WI: No Hundred Days Or Flight From Elba?

[AltoRegnant]

I've heard it tossed around a few times that France was actually going to get a bit more out of the Congress of Vienna than it did, but Napoleon's flight from elba and retaking of power led to France being left with what it received otl. Say that Napoleon's health is worse, maybe his cancer takes hold sooner or the like, and as such, he doesn't return to France, living out his days as Emperor of Elba. Could France find itself able to make more gains? Would something like the Frankfurt Proposals be considered?

Now obviously France wasn't getting the Rhine and Antwerp, but could one or the other be secured? What would Talleyrand be dealing with without Napoleon's over ambiton?

 

[Aghasverov]

I've heard it tossed around a few times that France was actually going to get a bit more out of the Congress of Vienna than it did, but Napoleon's flight from elba and retaking of power led to France being left with what it received otl. Say that Napoleon's health is worse, maybe his cancer takes hold sooner or the like, and as such, he doesn't return to France, living out his days as Emperor of Elba. Could France find itself able to make more gains? Would something like the Frankfurt Proposals be considered?

Now obviously France wasn't getting the Rhine and Antwerp, but could one or the other be secured? What would Talleyrand be dealing with without Napoleon's over ambiton?
View attachment 655387

I tried this one, a few months back

I kinda like the idea of Regent Joseph making the whole thing work, but...

WI: No Hundred Days - Napoleon, Prince of Elba

Now, I did a search on this, and there was a thread on it about three years ago... some members that participated then are no longer contributing now. Thought I'd see if there were new ideas/opinions out there. So, yeah... Nap sits at a balcony, overlooking the blue Tyrrhenian Sea. It's a warm...

www.alternatehistory.com

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Au contraire, if they were to make a porno called the "Congress of Vienna", it wouldn't be far from the truth. The duke of Coburg (Prince Albert's dad) was shacked up with someone, his regular partner in crime was the king of Württemberg and the grand duke of Baden. One actress was servicing Grand Duke Konstantin Pavlovich, Eugène de Beauharnais and the English ambassador.

For the women, Hortense de Beauharnais and Caroline Bonaparte were both there. As were Talleyrand's niece, the duchesse de Dino; the Princess Bagration, the so-called naked angel; there was someone Metternich fancied but she preferred Count Windischgratz, but she was also sleeping with Cartwright or Castlereagh. Lady Priscilla Burgersh and the Countess Zilchy likewise availed themselves. The widowed Princess Gabrielle d'Auersperg (I think) rebuffed Alexander I when he started making eyes at her, asked if he could stand close to her, to which Auersperg responded: "what does your Majesty take me for? A province to be annexed?"

How the hell has this not become an HBO Miniseries by now?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

How the hell has this not become an HBO Miniseries by now?

No idea. But most of them needed a cold shower (or several).

 

[Emperor Constantine]

Well as the (self-proclaimed) expert on the restauration period, I think I can shed some light on the question. @KingOnTheEdge , in spite of what you may have heard, France was NOT going to get anything else at Vienna, hundred days or no hundred days. However, France could KEEP what she gained in the first Treaty of Paris. In the first Paris settlement France retained her 1792 borders (making the Kingdom in fact larger than Ancien régime France!), was required to pay no indemnity or reparations, suffered no occupation, had no limitations placed on her armed forces AND was allowed to keep all the loot the state had "liberated" during the Revolutionary and Napoléonic wars. So, without the hundred days the Bourbons would be sitting pretty on the French throne.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

A couple of ideas to revisit here - would you guys agree that Murat is likely to avoid the blunder of the war with Austria, absent Napoleon’s return, and thus keep his throne? If so, what might be the longer term effects of keeping Naples and Sicily divided for the time being?

Another question - what will this mean for the German states? OTL, Prussian reformers like von Stein lost our pretty decisively to Austria and Metternich’s designs; would this still happen? I know Saxony was one example of this, though that potential crisis had already been averted by the time Napoleon returned; but the treaty, creating a weaker and (more pro-Austrian) confederation, was being signed while Napoleon’s attempted restoration was ongoing, practically a week before Waterloo. Does a change in that context have any effect here?

Would there be a Second White Terror? If not, that's a lot of French generals and officials (eg Ney) who get to live longer; it may also mean the ultra-royalists are less successful right out of the gate, and possibly (in conjunction with the country getting the benefits of the first Treaty of Paris) this could be mean good things for Talleyrand's continuing political career. Alternatively, we might look at how a lack of French reparations affects things economically - for example, I imagine the French state running a surplus would help whether things like the poor 1816 harvest.

Any other thoughts?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

@Basileus_Komnenos has a TL with this premise with the POD that Napoleon I dies at Leipzig.
He has done a lot of research for this one so I summon him to enlighten us.

From what I’ve read of it, he didn’t get too far (time passage wise); the only major changes I could make out were that Murat keeps Naples, and (seemingly more a result of butterflies than straightforward cause and effect) that the US War of 1812 proceeds differently.

So I’m also curious to see if he had any plans for where his TL was going; obviously, he was planning to have Napoleon II gain power in France at some point, but aside from that.

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

From what I’ve read of it, he didn’t get too far (time passage wise); the only major changes I could make out were that Murat keeps Naples, and (seemingly more a result of butterflies than straightforward cause and effect) that the US War of 1812 proceeds differently.

So I’m also curious to see if he had any plans for where his TL was going; obviously, he was planning to have Napoleon II gain power in France at some point, but aside from that.

Talleyrand and Metternich were both in favour of Murat keeping Naples. Talleyrand because he wanted a non-Habsburg, non-Bourbon power in Italy (preferably one that would also be pro-French). Metternich because he was screwing Caroline Bonaparte.

Murat's stupidity during the 100 Days put paid to that idea.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Talleyrand and Metternich were both in favour of Murat keeping Naples. Talleyrand because he wanted a non-Habsburg, non-Bourbon power in Italy (preferably one that would also be pro-French). Metternich because he was screwing Caroline Bonaparte.

So how does this change subsequent Italian history? I think it's fair to say the nationalist cat is well out of the bag by then, which means the prospect of unification is almost certainly going to crop up at some point. OTL, the fall of Murat meant that Italy was divided effectively into Bourbon, Hapsburg, Savoy, and Papal "spheres" as it were; would an extra faction change this dynamic?

Speaking of Bonapartist relations in Italy -- does anyone know if, had he lived, Napoleon II would/could have inherited the Duchy of Parma from his mother?

 

[Kellan Sullivan]

Speaking of Bonapartist relations in Italy -- does anyone know if, had he lived, Napoleon II would/could have inherited the Duchy of Parma from his mother?

There WAS some talk of it, but ultimately they decided not to risk it. He DID however stand as heir to Marie Louise's dukedom in Bohemia (that she was given by her dad as an income). When he died this dukedom stayed with ML, and when she died, it reverted back to Franz Josef. Who promptly resettled the place on Sisi to give her an "independent income"

 

[Aghasverov]

So how does this change subsequent Italian history? I think it's fair to say the nationalist cat is well out of the bag by then, which means the prospect of unification is almost certainly going to crop up at some point. OTL, the fall of Murat meant that Italy was divided effectively into Bourbon, Hapsburg, Savoy, and Papal "spheres" as it were; would an extra faction change this dynamic?

Speaking of Bonapartist relations in Italy -- does anyone know if, had he lived, Napoleon II would/could have inherited the Duchy of Parma from his mother?

My favourite scenario for Parma (still in a pretty undetermined status in 1814) would be that Eugene is able to master the situation and remain in charge in the Kingdom of Italy in April 1914, and be crowned King. In exchange for concessions to the re-formed Papal States (and probably to Austria), he receives Parma - giving the Kingdom of Italy undisputed control of the Po Valley and the main road running from Milan to the coast at Rimini.

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

My favourite scenario for Parma (still in a pretty undetermined status in 1814) would be that Eugene is able to master the situation and remain in charge in the Kingdom of Italy in April 1914, and be crowned King. In exchange for concessions to the re-formed Papal States (and probably to Austria), he receives Parma - giving the Kingdom of Italy undisputed control of the Po Valley and the main road running from Milan to the coast at Rimini.

The problem (or "problem") there is that Eugene had actually been loyally serving his father in law right to the very end without trying to maneuver for his own position, unlike Talleyrand or Murat.

 

[Aghasverov]

The problem (or "problem") there is that Eugene had actually been loyally serving his father in law right to the very end without trying to maneuver for his own position, unlike Talleyrand or Murat.

True... but with Napoleon in Elba and no 100 days, his position may be a bit more secure. Saxony may come out a bit better in this scenario as well...

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

True... but with Napoleon in Elba and no 100 days, his position may be a bit more secure. Saxony may come out a bit better in this scenario as well...

Thing is, Napoleon was in Elba pretty much until March 1815. Nearly a year earlier than that, the Congress is already giving Northern Italy to the Hapsburgs; nearly two months before Nappy shows up in France, the Polish Saxon Crisis is already being resolved by secret treaty. There's a time I would have been excited for these kind of potential changes as well in this scenario, but it seems they remain more of a stretch.

 

[Kylia]

Here's the real question: What happens to France if Napoleon doesn't show the Bourbons how shaky their new regime was. As Tallyrand supposedly said, when the Bourbons came back in 1814 "they remembered everything and learned nothing". If the Bourbons don't get shaken soon, perhaps they get too set in their ways to reform when they get shaken again more seriously - France was not going to rewind back to 1788, no matter how much Louis XVIII and his Brother wanted it too.

To his credit, Louis XVIII kind of learned from the 100 days and would rule in much more reasonable fashion afterwards... and then Charles X pissed it all away anyway, but that's a different discussion.

Without the Hundred Days, does Louis XVIII moderate his regime enough to keep it steady for another 10 years? I'm honestly doubtful.

 

[Aghasverov]

Thing is, Napoleon was in Elba pretty much until March 1815. Nearly a year earlier than that, the Congress is already giving Northern Italy to the Hapsburgs; nearly two months before Nappy shows up in France, the Polish Saxon Crisis is already being resolved by secret treaty. There's a time I would have been excited for these kind of potential changes as well in this scenario, but it seems they remain more of a stretch.

I'll agree with that... that's why the POD-in-my-head typically starts out a bit before the Sixth Coalition
By the time Nap makes his great Escape, the dice have already been rolled... France and a few remaining "satellites" (like Murat's Naples) would've come out better with no 100 days, but not by much (except Murat - he would've emerged without holes in him ) . It's a good thing the French had Talleyrand, because without him things could have gone far worse...

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Without the Hundred Days, does Louis XVIII moderate his regime enough to keep it steady for another 10 years? I'm honestly doubtful.

Good point. So how long does the Restoration last then? If we assume they make it through 1815 without incident (or revolution, at minimum), that brings us to 1816 -- as mentioned earlier, France had poor harvests that year, though that issue, TTL, is at least somewhat countered with budget surpluses (due to not having to pay reparations). So what’s the situation by 1819 or 1820, way?

Speaking of Talleyrand -- would the Bourbons keep him in the PM position longer, seeing as they kind of, you know, owe him for everything they’re enjoying at this point?

 

[AltoRegnant]

Speaking of Talleyrand -- would the Bourbons keep him in the PM position longer, seeing as they kind of, you know, owe him for everything they’re enjoying at this point?

Well, they'd have to be idiotic not to do so. But this is the post-XIV french monarchy we're talking about here. Regardless, could we see something akin to a Bismarckian order, oriented the other way, france isolating British and northern germany?

 

[John Fredrick Parker]

Building off what @Kylia said -- I just realized that not only did OTL see a liberal revolt in Spain 1820-23, but that it was intervention by France, starting in late 1822, that actually ended it. But if the Bourbons haven’t made it that long TTL…

There’s other uprisings around this time to consider as well - - the Liberal Revolution and Vilafrancada Counterrevolution in Portugal; the 1821 Revolution in Piedmont -- which could see knock on effects if the Bourbons fall and the Spanish liberals aren’t crushed. And I have no idea what to make of the OTL revolt in the Two Sicilies in TTL -- my inclination is that, with a Bonapartist (of sorts) in Naples, and an isolated Sicily possibly continuing the experiments it began under Bentinck, southern Italy may actually, ironically enough, avoid much of the unrest in Europe around this time.

 

[Kylia]

And if the Bourbons do suffer problems, do the rest of Europe just throw up their hands and start dismembering France properly this time? I mean, the whole reversion back to the Bourbons was built on their ability to keep France in line. If they can't do that, does the Coalition just start yoinking away bits of France?