Without Napoleon, how could the Holy Roman Empire fall?

Assuming Napoleon Bonaparte never came into power in a alternate timeline, how could the Holy Roman Empire fall?

It doesn't necessarily fall at all, though I suspect that at some point the Emperor may quietly drop the Holy Roman bit, or at least use it only at Catholic religious ceremonies, and be just "Emperor of the German Nation".

There may still be some French intervention in German affairs, and the Ecclesiastical Princes in particular are at risk, since secularisation was in the fashion then. But really it all hangs on the details of the final peace. If Jena and Wagram don't happen, then we never get a Duchy of Warsaw, so Russia never gets to claim it, and Prussia doesn't need to be compensated on the Rhine. That alone could make a big difference to events later in the century.
 

Deleted member 97083

Holy Roman Empire survives to early 20th century but is toppled by communist revolution.
 
Holy Roman Empire survives to early 20th century but is toppled by communist revolution.

Why communist? That never happened OTL even to the Second Reich or Austria (though it did very briefly in Hungary). No reason why still calling itself the HRE (if indeed it still does) should bring that about.
 
Assuming Napoleon Bonaparte never came into power in a alternate timeline, how could the Holy Roman Empire fall?
Assuming french revolution happened,nearly every empire was impacted by its ideas.With prussia trying to lead the germanic states,it could have divided a wedge between the ruler and his people by these ideas,something akin to what germany did with lenin and russia in ww1.The only catalyst needed,a few military defeats of the holy roman empire which was not difficult to achieve.
 
It was never a centralised authority, and was already in severe decline after the 30 Years War. If Napoleon didn't come into power, I am assuming another continental war would make it untenable for a supranational organisation with very little power to exist.
 
It was already virtually dead. But it would fully die after a bunch of states leave it, or if Austria is the one uniting Germany, when Germany is unified.
 
It was never a centralised authority, and was already in severe decline after the 30 Years War. If Napoleon didn't come into power, I am assuming another continental war would make it untenable for a supranational organisation with very little power to exist.

Was the German Confederation much different in that respect?
 
Is the French revolution averted or just Napoleon?

With a French revolution and no Napoleon, you still get the French revolutionary government expanding to the Rhine and the rise of nationalism. You still have the "Springtime of Nations" at some point. Probably also the French move into Italy in a big way at some point. Napoleon wasn't needed for the revolution or even its miltiary success.

With no French Revolution at all, the Ancien Regime can keep on keeping on for an uncertain duration, though it seems that Europe was overdue for a major continental war in the 1790s.
 
That's why Austria was booted.

Indeed. But will it still get booted?

No Napoleon presumably means no Battle of Jena. So Prussia isn't jolted into making the reforms that followed its OTL defeat. It remains more like the Prussia that lost at Jena. Would such a Prussia be able to defeat Austria as OTL's did?
 
Is the French revolution averted or just Napoleon?

Only the OP knows for sure, but I took it as just Napoleon. Much easier to butterfly him than the entire Revolution.

With a French revolution and no Napoleon, you still get the French revolutionary government expanding to the Rhine and the rise of nationalism. You still have the "Springtime of Nations" at some point. Probably also the French move into Italy in a big way at some point. Napoleon wasn't needed for the revolution or even its miltiary success.

He was needed for the conquest of Italy. He conquered it for the Republic in 1796/7, but it was promptly lost again the following year, while he was absent in Egypt, so that he had to conquer it all over again in 1800/01.

The "sixtifor" is whether, w/o Napoleon's career of conquest, the Republic saves enough of its military manpower to hold on to Belgium and the Rhineland. If it can, that produces more butterflies than Under the Dome.
 
It was already virtually dead. But it would fully die after a bunch of states leave it, or if Austria is the one uniting Germany, when Germany is unified.

That is the situation where it is most likely to survive in my opinion: it is united in some way under Catholic imperial mentality.

If Prussia unites the place the Holy bit could get dropped. The Roman bit might never be.
 
Assuming Napoleon Bonaparte never came into power in a alternate timeline, how could the Holy Roman Empire fall?

The premise must be clarified. Is it that Napoleon does not become head of the French state - First Consul and Emperor - which happened in 1799? Or does he never become a great French general, winning major victories over the Republic's enemies, which happened in 1796-1797?

Napoleon's victories in that campaign led to the Treaty of Campo Formio, under which France annexed the west bank of the Rhine, seizing a major part of the Empire's territory. Under the treaty and the Congress of Rastatt which followed, German princes who lost Rhineland territory (including the Emperor, who lost the Austrian Netherlands) were to be compensated with territory taken from ecclesiastical states, Imperial cities, and other lesser powers - the first major step to the HRE's consolidation and then abolition.

The Congress agreed to much of this under French pressure; then Austria and Russia restarted the war, only to be defeated again, again with Napoleon taking a leading role, now as First Consul. Napoleon had gone to Egypt in the meantime; suppose he caught something and died there. IMO, after Campo Formio, it's still too late to save the HRE. The idea of secularizing the ecclesiastical states had been spreading for decades; Emperors Charles VII and Joseph II had both secretly proposed major secularizations as early as the 1740s. The shock of the French Revolution broke the traditionalist consensus that had blocked these projects. The French victories made the process seem inevitable.

OTL, the final settlement was largely dictated by France (and by Russia, whose Tsar favored his German relatives and in-laws). The princes, even those who had been opposed to the whole process, now competed frantically for the favor of the French arbiters to get as much land as possible.

OK, roll all this back to 1799. Napoleon (having died in Egypt) does not beat Austria at Marengo, and France does not dictate the subsequent consolidation of Germany. The French Wars end in the early 1800s, with the rollback of France's borders - say France keeps Belgium and Savoy, but loses the Rhineland and transalpine Italy; whatever.

Germany quiets down for a while. But IMHO, sometime in the next 30-40 years, there will be a revolutionary wave in Germany against the "ancien régime"; the oligarchies in the Imperial cities, the ossified ecclesiastical states and petty princedoms. And some of the major princes will "go with the flow", figuring that they can enlarge their states. Austria will resist; but probably is overcome. Maybe the HRE is formally abolished then.

Alternately, the appetite of the princes having been whetted in 1797-1800, they begin to eat up the ecclesiastical states and Imperial cities from 1810 onward. This could lead to a double reaction, in which the surviving cities and the petty princes collectively push for a federalized Empire, accepting the stronger "Imperial" government the liberals want in return for a guarantee of continued independence from their large neighbors.

Push comes to shove eventually, though, in part because Prussia and Austria are so much bigger than anyone else, and both have large territories outside the Empire (Prussia proper and its bits of Poland; Hungary, Dalmatia, and parts of Italy). Both are going to want form unitary states, which means absorbing the rest of the Empire (as Prussia did) or being kicked out of it (as Austria was). There will eventually be another round of wars
 
The Congress agreed to much of this under French pressure; then Austria and Russia restarted the war, only to be defeated again, again with Napoleon taking a leading role, now as First Consul. Napoleon had gone to Egypt in the meantime; suppose he caught something and died there. IMO, after Campo Formio, it's still too late to save the HRE. The idea of secularizing the ecclesiastical states had been spreading for decades; Emperors Charles VII and Joseph II had both secretly proposed major secularizations as early as the 1740s. The shock of the French Revolution broke the traditionalist consensus that had blocked these projects. The French victories made the process seem inevitable.

OTL, the final settlement was largely dictated by France (and by Russia, whose Tsar favored his German relatives and in-laws). The princes, even those who had been opposed to the whole process, now competed frantically for the favor of the French arbiters to get as Bavariaa got thland as possible.

Of course, it might be a different kind of secularisation.

Frex, OTL Bavaria received the Prince-Bishopric of Wurzburg in compensation for Tyrol and other acquisitions which it had to give back to Austria. But w/o Napoleon, it almost certainly never acquired those Austrian lands in the first place, so has nothing in particular to be compensated for. So does Wurzburg get annexed by another state, or just get turned into a duchy, as Salzburg was for a time? After all, it is bigger than many of the existing secular principalities. And if so who gets it?

In general, I would see the middle-sized states doing a lot less well. With the French role in all this far more limited, neither Austria nor Prussia has any particular reason to enlarge them, so the big boys may just split the loot between themselves.

Incidentally, I can see a lot of side- effects not limied to the HRE. If Poland stays split along the 1795 lines, and there is a subsequent Austro-Prussian War, I could see it being reunited (w/o the Russian share, of course) under whichever side wins. Also between 1806 and 1812 Moldavia and Wallachia were occupied by Russia, which pulled out in the face of Napoleon's imminent invasion. TTL, they may come to stay. If they do has anyone the power to eject them?
 
Of course, it might be a different kind of secularisation.

Frex, OTL Bavaria received the Prince-Bishopric of Wurzburg in compensation for Tyrol and other acquisitions which it had to give back to Austria. But w/o Napoleon, it almost certainly never acquired those Austrian lands in the first place, so has nothing in particular to be compensated for. So does Wurzburg get annexed by another state, or just get turned into a duchy, as Salzburg was for a time? After all, it is bigger than many of the existing secular principalities. And if so who gets it?
Didn't the Prussians have some claims around Würzburg? We probably should look over Ferdinand III of Tuscany, as they shuffled him between Tuscany, Salzburg, and Würzburg. Check him out and we find the various treaties about changing territory. Looking it up, it seems that he was supported by the French and had neutrality early on, but that Reoublics froze him out and he went to Austria. Then the French later used Tuscany (which, we should remember, was originally two republics a Doge made into a duchy, using a town hall as his palace) to make the Kingdom of Etruria (really wish I remembered name of the Cambridge book series on history I once found, with its wonderful atlas as a seperate book) which went to the Duke of Parma whose lands went to French, while... Yah, there was soooo much changing of lands.
 
Of course, it might be a different kind of secularisation.

Frex, OTL Bavaria received the Prince-Bishopric of Wurzburg in compensation for Tyrol and other acquisitions which it had to give back to Austria.

That was in 1815. The Bishopric was secularized and awarded to Bavaria in 1803. In 1805, it was awarded to Ferdinand III of Tuscany, in compensation for Salzburg, which he had earlier received after losing Tuscany and now went to Austria, while Bavaria got Tyrol. In 1815, Ferdinand was restored to Tuscany, Tyrol was restored to Austria, and Bavaria was again given Wurzburg, this time for good.
 
That was in 1815. The Bishopric was secularized and awarded to Bavaria in 1803. In 1805, it was awarded to Ferdinand III of Tuscany, in compensation for Salzburg, which he had earlier received after losing Tuscany and now went to Austria, while Bavaria got Tyrol. In 1815, Ferdinand was restored to Tuscany, Tyrol was restored to Austria, and Bavaria was again given Wurzburg, this time for good.

Fair enough, but 1803 could go very differently w/o Napoleon - or indeed the whole secularisation thing might be put off a few years. And as already noted it might be more of an Austro-Prussian deal, with the lesser states getting less of the swag.
 
Top