OTL, after Napoleon III was deposed following the Franco-Prussian War, Bonapartism basically died as a major political force in France. How can Bonapartism continue to be relevant after Napoleon IIIs deposing? What if Napoleon III is more competent and as such has a much less soured legacy, meaning his reign isn't seen as a failed political experiment?
Bonapartism still relevant after Franco-Prussian War?
- Thread starter Bountifulauto82
- Start date
Can't have Bonapartism without Bonapartes. Napoleon IV not dying in the Anglo-Zulu War would be a big help. Also, if Napoleon III had a lot of virile and adventurous sons/grandsons who consistently made headlines for winning glory for France abroad, Bonapartism may remain a potent movement.
Last edited:
One way could be to have France remain a monarchy. Wanting to put a different person on the throne is still a prospect that gets discussed in modern constitutional monarchies.
There were opportunities for a Bonapartist Revival. The two that come to mind are the Dreyfus Affair and the Boulanger Crisis that the Third Republic experienced. Boulanger probably could have staged a coup against the Third Republic using his own personal propaganda and restored Napoleon V (Victor-Napoleon) to the throne.
Though for a better chance of success Napoleon IV, the Prince-Imperial should probably survive as well instead of being killed in battle by the Zulus on behalf of the British Army. He probably could had British backing to retake the Imperial Throne during a worse Dreyfus Affair or something along those lines.
Honestly if Napoleon doesn't lead the French army himself at Sedan and gets captured France probably would have had a much better and more moderate peace since it would actually have an army to resist fighting the Prussians. While this defeat would have been quite humiliating, the Bonapartes probably would have kept the throne and Alsace-Lorraine. Though the Second Empire here would probably be more of a Parliamentary Constitutional Monarchy rather than the Constitutionaloy Absolute Monarchy Napoleon I and Napoleon III (earlier in his reign) ruled with. I'd say the Emperor would have a great deal of executive power however balanced by a more empowered Parliament. Overall it would probably be a much more stable government and 19th Century for France.
As for geopolitical consequences, its likely that France and Russia might ally sooner. France still retaining a monarchy means that ideologically its more agreeable to the Russians. Russia probably would be upset at the balance of power being so altered now that Germany is unified.
As for Italy, I can imagine that the French wouldn't be so happy with them after they annexed the Papacy.
He was quite competent, but what led up to the Franco Prussian War was that he was basically incapacitated by cancer.
The Second French Empire held a referendum about Napoleon III's liberalization which was passed with an overwhelming majority. Its likely that the Bonapartes probably could have had enough popular support to keep the throne had their defeat been less of a clusterfuck.
Napoleon III honestly probably should have stayed in Paris instead of riding with his army to Sedan.
If Napoleon IV doesn't die and instead comes back to the UK laden with honors and becomes respected across Europe AND marries Infanta Maria del Pilar (who also doesn't die early in this timeline), as his mother and Queen Isabella II both wanted, cementing the Bonapartist line with the senior Bourbon line (who the childless Count of Chambord favored over the Orleanists) he might also win the support of the remaining Royalists (except the Orleanists). Then when crisis hits the weak Third Republic he is ready to lead and has a significant part of the conservative electorate behind him.
Last edited:
That's pretty much impossible as France's military wasn't ready to fight the Prussians. Napoleon tried pushing for an expanded budget to reform the army and expanding it, but the opposition within Parliament hampered his efforts.
This is a possibility. I've read that the Comte de Chambourd had little love lost for the Orleanists who betrayed him and his grandfather. Him spiting the Orleanists by joining forces with the Bonapartists seems like something he'd do. Though I wonder how this hypothetical Third Empire would adjust itself to being a secondary power in Europe now that Germany eclipses it in terms of population and industry. The Third Empire might have to deal with problems regarding stability as Republicans and the more far-left political groups wouldn't want him in power.
Still a more stable Constitutional Monarchy would likely be a boon for France in the Long 19th Century. It might have a chance at somewhat integrating its colonies better which may later help it create something akin to the British Commonwealth when Decolonization hits. Though the way it happens would be vastly different depending on how WWI plays out.
Carlists: Are we a joke to you?
I know that Henri V considered the Carlists his heirs (as his widow made clear at his funeral), but I think a Napoleon IV with a Spanish Bourbon bride would be sign as more legitimate to him then the Orleans (who he clearly detested and who were responsible for his life-long exile).
Last edited:
It would have been unlikely to make much of a difference. The key issue was that at Sedan most of the French army was captured leaving the Prussians free to waltz in to the heart of France and then shell Paris. If however Napoleon III died before the Franco-Prussian War then its likely the Empire survives as well. Though there likely would have been a brief power struggle over the regency between Plon-Plon aka the "Red Bonaparte" (for his more liberal views) and Empress Eugenie Napoleon IV's mother. My bet is that Empress Eugenie likely wins the power struggle.
I doubt many French monarchists would want a Spaniard on the French throne though.
"HON ! HON ! HON ! Impossible n'est pas français !"
More seriously, to answer the question about the thread, it is quite complicated to render Bonapartism after the Franco-Prussian War. The disaster of the conflict too violently discredited the imperial regime.
Scenarios about Napoleon IV would in theory be possible, but both Bonapartist empires ended in military disaster, not sure that the French of the late nineteenth century would want to start over again.
Apparently, Napoleon IV had a rapport with Friedrich III, Emperor of Germany. Let us suppose that Prince Napoleon survives the Zulu War but becomes increasingly disillusioned wit the British. He finds himself at court in Berlin discussing the Alsace-Lorraine issue with the German emperor, who decides to court the disillusioned young French prince by offering him Princess Viktoria in marriage, a job in the military/bureaucracy, and a title, Grand Duke of Alsace-Lorraine, in a move to placate the rowdy imperial territory, while keeping on its toes the regime in Paris.
Last edited:
Napoleon IV would be colossal idiot to accept a proposal like this. If his goal is to retake the Imperial Crown, accepting Alsace-Loraine as a fief from the hated German government would be viewed as traitorous. He would lose all credibility within France for something like this.
This is why I suggested a moderate peace for France which was likely had Napoleon III stayed the Paris and led the French Army to be captured. Bismarck didn't want Napoleon III captured as now there was no one to really negotiate with for peace.
Why? His rule of Alsace-Lorraine would be the first step to taking France and reuniting the lost lands with it.
The Germans wouldn’t give it away as it was not really the Kaiser’s to give. It was a “righteous conquest” on the part of all the other German states against “French Aggression,” so they’d never cede it. The province was also strategically significant in terms of resources and defensive strategy.
Accepting a “handout” from the Germans would not really endear him to the French especially as the Second Empire died at the hands of the Prussians.
The Germans almost did not take the place historically and never really knew what to do with it once they did so.
That was more a result of the pandemonium that ensued as a result of France's military being captured at Sedan. It left the country defenseless and without a government to really negotiate with leaving the Germans with even more leverage during negotiations. If say the Emperor stays put in Paris he'd probably have been able to keep his throne.