WI No Napoleon?

Pretty much self-explanatory; what are the possible effects? Obviously the French Revolution would happen differently for starters, but what else?
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
Hmm, don't know, but it would be interesting. The Republic would survive, but in what form. Things were getting very chaotic before Nappy stepped in. I think the military would still step in and we'd see generals in high government position, but no empire.
 
Hmm, don't know, but it would be interesting. The Republic would survive, but in what form. Things were getting very chaotic before Nappy stepped in. I think the military would still step in and we'd see generals in high government position, but no empire.

And obviously no Napoleonic Wars.

The Republic could survive, and it would likely have OTL borders plus Rhineland.

Of course, it's likely that Valmy could go differently without Nappy being born...
 
And obviously no Napoleonic Wars.

The Republic could survive, and it would likely have OTL borders plus Rhineland.

Of course, it's likely that Valmy could go differently without Nappy being born...

Napoleon didn't fight at Valmy... He was probably in Corsica during the battle being an officer of the local "Garde Nationale" where he aws elected high level officer...

In 1792, he was an obscure lieutnant in garrison duty and he asked for a two years' leave, he spent in Corsica and Paris.

He was in Paris during the riots of 20th June 1792 and he was ashamed of the humiliation of the King by the Jacobins rioters. He was rather legalist probably not royalist and partisan of order, but the King who his father served proundly, represented this order.

One of the last act of Louis XVI as King was to sign a list of promotions for french officers and Napoleon was on this list and appointed captain...

No Napoleon changed anything for the first years of Revolution, until probably the first italian campaigns...
 
I do not think that the First Republic will survive. After the "Terror" the Royalist were already a majority in France
Napoleon achieved something important: He secured some of the Revolution Legacies like the selling of the Church properties while getting rid of the exces

He brought back order to a country in turmoil
With no Napoleon France could be a place of political conflicts for much longer
 
I don't see how the Republic would fall. The Directory had taken power and prosecuted the wars successfully and the Vendee had been crushed.
 
Well, the questions are - are his actions at Toulon of any larger importance, or would someone else have done that anyway? Are his Italian campaigns going to be replicated by giving someone else command, or might whoever gets it instead of him screw up badly?

There's obviously no Egypt adventure either, though if Italy has gone well enough then maybe there would still be a descent on Malta

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
I don't see how the Republic would fall. The Directory had taken power and prosecuted the wars successfully and the Vendee had been crushed.

No 18th Fructidor.

The free elections of March and April 1797 put a lot of moderates and royalists into legislature. Director Barthelemy, chairman of Five Hundred Pichegru etc.

Out of the 4 sitting directors, Carnot was a republican but a honest man (and therefore would have accepted restoration of monarchy by vote of people). The other 3, however, plotted a coup. With collaborators like Napoleon who sent money and General Augereau.

No Napoleon victorious in Italy deprives the coup of funding. The 3 directors are prosecuted for corruption (as planned by legislature OTL), deposed and replaced with royalists. Then they propose to restore monarchy by making a new constitution.

Plausible?
 
Faeelin said:
I don't see how the Republic would fall. The Directory had taken power and prosecuted the wars successfully and the Vendee had been crushed.

The Directoire was a rotten regime. Most of the directors were corrupt. Look at Barras's story if you don't believe me.

The revolution had also turned very unpopular after Robespierre and the Terror came in. Besides, the Allied powers were against Republican France because of two reasons : 1°) It was an occasion to weaken France, who had been the most strongest European country in Europe since Louis XIV and 2°) Because the French revolutionnaries weren't liked because of the Terror and the execution of Louis XVI.

As for Vendee... The War of 1793-1796 was over, but there were still guerilla actions in that territory. It never really quietened down before 1799 and Napoleon's rising to power. And even then, Vendee was probably far from the most favorable province of the Republic (and later Empire). Without Napoleon, the guerilla would probably still go on.

Also... With No Napoleon, you don't have the result of the first Italian Campaign that Nappy did in 1796. In the original plan, Napoleon's Italian Army was a DIVERSION : the main army was supposed to be the one campaigning in Germany, but it was defeated. Without Nappy, the French won't have crushed Austria in Italy and threatened Vienna, unless another capable general is assigned there and does what Napoleon did OTL.
However, if there is no successful Italian Campaign, the French Republic's military situation will be worse than OTL.
 
Wasnt Jean Babiste Bernadotte one of Napoleons worst rival? Maybe he rises to a prominent figure in the french republic instead of traveling north to the cold
 

archaeogeek

Banned
No 18th Fructidor.

The free elections of March and April 1797 put a lot of moderates and royalists into legislature. Director Barthelemy, chairman of Five Hundred Pichegru etc.

Out of the 4 sitting directors, Carnot was a republican but a honest man (and therefore would have accepted restoration of monarchy by vote of people). The other 3, however, plotted a coup. With collaborators like Napoleon who sent money and General Augereau.

No Napoleon victorious in Italy deprives the coup of funding. The 3 directors are prosecuted for corruption (as planned by legislature OTL), deposed and replaced with royalists. Then they propose to restore monarchy by making a new constitution.

Plausible?

The three who plotted a coup were plotting a coup to restore the monarchy in the first place from what I can gather.
 
Probably there will a lasting analog of the Peace of Lunéville, but not affecting Italy. Long term conquences are important: no expedition in Egypt would mean a completely different pattern of modernization in the middle east, with Turkey being the leading force instead of Egypt. Spanish and Portuguese empires are going to last longer and fight more bitterly if the colonies rebel.
The Cape and Ceylon stay Dutch, and this has many long term consequence too.
Indonesian plantation system is reformed differently and slowlier.
Hyerogliphics are deciphered later, with important side effects on European culture (more room for Mesopotamian-jewish heritage, probably.) No Pax Britannica after.
Russia does not get Poland, and this also is important. HRE lasts longer. Denmark has a strong naval force in the XIX century.
Venice survives. No Louisiana Purchase.

Hell, it will be a totally different world. Russia may be stronger in the long run, Prussia probably weaker, Austria to see. France also is going to be stronger.
The US will grow much less.
 
Last edited:
The problem with assuming that the French Revolutionary Wars will go worse for France minus Napoleon is that there were several French commanders that could at least compete with Napoleon. Moreau, Davout, Hoche, Massena are the first ones I can think of, and there are probably more. They could potentially achieve just as much as Napoleon.
 
Probably there will a lsting analog of the Peace of Lunéville, but not affecting Italy. Long term conquences are important: no expedition in Egypt would mean a completely different pattern of modernization in the middle east, with Turkey being the leading force instead of Egypt. Spanish and Portuguese empires are going to last longer and fight more bitterly if the colonies rebel.
The Cape and Ceylon stay Dutch, and this has many long term consequence too.
Indonesian plantation system is reformed differently and slowlier.
Hyerogliphics are deciphered later, with important side effects on European culture (more room for Mesopotamian-jewish heritage, probably.) No Pax Britannica after.
Russia does not get Poland, and this also is important. HRE lasts longer. Denmark has a strong naval force in the XIX century.
Venice survives. No Louisiana Purchase.

Hell, it will be a totally different world. Russia may be stronger in the long run, Prussia probably weaker, Austria to see. France also is going to be stronger.
The US will grow much less.

Seems to me the US/maybe Canada are going to absorb upper Louisiana in any case-hardly any Frenchmen there.

With the HRE skeleton organization still existing, might later Germans use it as a framework for unification (if they unify)? Effectively a new state, but called the Holy Roman Empire, under a figurehead emperor.:cool:

Does Denmark really have the economy to support a major 19th century navy?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Seems to me the US/maybe Canada are going to absorb upper Louisiana in any case-hardly any Frenchmen there.

With the HRE skeleton organization still existing, might later Germans use it as a framework for unification (if they unify)? Effectively a new state, but called the Holy Roman Empire, under a figurehead emperor.:cool:

Does Denmark really have the economy to support a major 19th century navy?

Canada? You need canals which are, at the time, quite a bit beyond the technological requirements of the Suez or even Panana canals to make a coherent country out of Canada and Louisiana as anything but two extremely disjointed settlement zones with a few colonial forts.

Also at the time Louisiana is part of New Spain; if France did recover it whether it keeps it depends on Haitian independence.
 
Pretty much self-explanatory; what are the possible effects? Obviously the French Revolution would happen differently for starters, but what else?

The French Revolution had nothing to do with Napoleon. Many thought that he betrayed it.

On the battlefield you don't get a big difference until the Italian campaign and of course the invasion of Egypt.

You would be spared the prolonging of general European war until 1814/15. No humiliation of the Prussians.

The Habsburgs still cling on to the idea of a Holy Roman Empire.

German unification delayed until the 20th century so no World War One.

No Invasion of Russia so no Tolstoy's War and Peace.

No Napoleonic legal code and perhaps the metric system doesn't spread.

France would survive as a republic and move towards the US model.

Political Reform in Europe would be faster because of no destruction of France and the Restorations.

No Peninsular and maybe Latin Ameria would have remained Spanish longer.

etc.
 
Wasnt Jean Babiste Bernadotte one of Napoleons worst rival? Maybe he rises to a prominent figure in the french republic instead of traveling north to the cold

Bernadotte wasn't Napoleon rival, he was only a good general of the Revolution but he also committed a lot of mistakes...

Probably, he will never become a Marshall of Empire and never received high commands without his family ties with Napoleon.

He was married with Désirée Clary, Napoleon first love, and sister of Joseph Bonaparte's wife, Julie Clary, so Napoleon accepted all Bernadotte failures (danish expeditions, Auerstadt-Iena, Wagram...), and pity treasons...
 
Italy and the fluctuations in fortunes of the French generals are a difficult one to cast without it playing it out - for example look at Joubert, his death at Novi was a disaster for France, but without Napoleon to help his career advance he may have remained subordinate to Moreau and Massena... Ironically, if so, he may have been in a position to benefit from THEIR disasters and to rise to the fore as a saviour of the republic...

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Top