WI: No Napoleon

Napoleon Bonaparte is never born, or never rises to prominence. How does the French government look and how do the Revolutionary Wars go?
 
Napoleon Bonaparte is never born, or never rises to prominence. How does the French government look and how do the Revolutionary Wars go?

If you believe the Bonapartist view of history, then on 5 october 1795, a royalist uprising will topple the directorate, while the Count of Artois marches from the Vendee on Paris.
Even if the Republic has more success, the wars will happen mostly inside France, with som excursion into the Netherlands and Italy. By 1800, the monarchy will be restored by people like Talleyrand and Sieyés.

But Louis XVIII will manage to affront his subjects and since France is much less worn out, I predict a 19th century with more, but less decisive revolutions and lots of monarchical military help across Europe.
 
The first ripple of the absence of Napoleon will come at Toulon. Without Napoleon, the siege will probably get longer although I doubt the city would be able to resist. But even if the city stays in Royalist hands, I'm pretty sure it is of few consequences.
Westphalian said:
If you believe the Bonapartist view of history, then on 5 october 1795, a royalist uprising will topple the directorate, while the Count of Artois marches from the Vendee on Paris.
I'm not sure Charles of Artois (later Charles X) would need to march on Paris from Vendée... If the Directorate is overthrown and Paris falls to the uprising, I'm pretty sure it's game over for the French Republic. That being said, it isn't sure that the Royalists would suceed in their uprising of the 13 Vendemiaire an IV. Barras might still be able to find a general competent enough to bring down the uprising.

The problem comes after that date... Would there be an Italian Campaign? Napoleon was one of the main advocates of that plan since 1794 OTL: without him, there is no guarantee the Directoire would consider it. If he does, the question is: which commander would be chosen and of what caliber is he compared to Napoleon? Some people like to think Hoche or Moreau were of the same caliber (I personnally doubt it) but there is no guarantee the first would be chosen (I believe he was occupied elsewhere although I'm not sure) while the second was leading the armies in Germany during OTL First Italian Campaign. Then comes the question of the level of success achieved by said general in Italy: there are few chances he is as successful as Napoleon. Considering all of this, there are high chances the Republic is in a worse military situation without Bonaparte.

We also have to consider the weakness of the Directoire: in 1797, the Republican Assemblies found themselves with a Royalist majority. Of the five Directeurs, two were Royalist and two were Republican: the fifth one, Barras, was a key-figure of the Regime and he was hesitating. What led him to take a side OTL was that Napoleon arrested a Royalist agent (the Comte d'Antraigues) who had documents proving the treason of Pichegru, the leader of the Conseil des Cinq Cents (one of the two assembly). The result was the coup d'état of 18 Fructidor an V (September 4, 1797): elections were annulled and the armies of Hoche and Augereau (the latter being sent by Napoleon) helped the coup succeed. Without Napoleon, d'Antraigues might not be arrested and thus Pichegru's treason might not be discovered. If so, Barras might not take the Republican side and I'm not sure the other Directors have enough power to stage the coup. If so, the Monarchy can potentially be restored from that moment on.

In other words, no Napoleon probably means the French Republic is in a far more difficult position than it was OTL.
 
Without napoleon, no code napoleon (so no general and egalitarian civic rights codified), no reorganisation of the german states into larger, more stable ones, no secularisation in germany.. and ripples, ripples, ripples.
 
Without napoleon, no code napoleon (so no general and egalitarian civic rights codified), no reorganisation of the german states into larger, more stable ones, no secularisation in germany.. and ripples, ripples, ripples.

Not sure no Napoleon necessarily means "no general and egalitarian civil rights codified".

Someone else could do that, if they're in a position to.
 
If you believe the Bonapartist view of history, then on 5 october 1795, a royalist uprising will topple the directorate, while the Count of Artois marches from the Vendee on Paris.
Even if the Republic has more success, the wars will happen mostly inside France, with som excursion into the Netherlands and Italy. By 1800, the monarchy will be restored by people like Talleyrand and Sieyés.

Did the royalists have enough support to be successful? Would Talleyrand really want a restoration?
 
Not sure no Napoleon necessarily means "no general and egalitarian civil rights codified".

Someone else could do that, if they're in a position to.

Napoleon represented a strong central authority that could ram through reforms that should have been done centuries before. Sadly, much of it was UNdone following his fall. But somethings, like the Code Napoleon, the metric system, and reforms of surgical practices were too important, too good to reverse.

Sadly, pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition, and chaotic aristocratic rule did return.
 
Napoleon represented a strong central authority that could ram through reforms that should have been done centuries before. Sadly, much of it was UNdone following his fall. But somethings, like the Code Napoleon, the metric system, and reforms of surgical practices were too important, too good to reverse.

Sadly, pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition, and chaotic aristocratic rule did return.

But that's more about his position than necessarily him as the only individual who would have tried to ram through such reforms.
 
Elfwine said:
But that's more about his position than necessarily him as the only individual who would have tried to ram through such reforms.
Yeah, because Napoleon isn't here to make the needed refroms doesn't mean someone wouldn't do them in his place. However, it's probably going to take more time and all of those reforms might not be achieved in one go, unless we have an ATL equivalent of Napoleon showing up.
usertron2020 said:
Sadly, pogroms, the Spanish Inquisition, and chaotic aristocratic rule did return.
The Spanish Inquisition was pretty much dying when Napoleon came around. As a proof, consider this: Ferdinand VII reintroduced it in 1814 only to declare it would be suppressed in 1820. It was formally abolished by a vote in 1834 in Spain. So even with no Napoleon, I'm pretty sure it would have disappeared, even if it were to take a few years later than OTL.

Regarding pogroms, if one is technical, it only designates anti-jew violence in Russia that first happened in the 1880s... Years after Napoleon fell, and in the only country he was never able to dominate/control/influence save for Britain. If you mean anti-jew violences, I'm not sure Napoleon really made a difference: sure, he did work to better integrate jews into French society, but someone else could have done that too. And hate is sadly not something that can disappear: if it could be, the world would be better and easier.

As for chaotic aristocratic rule... It's a matter of opinion I guess, but in my mind XIXth Century Europe was pretty decently ruled even if by Aristocrats. And Europe stayed pretty monarchist until 1914 if you look at it.
 
Top