Expansion of Revolutionary France without Napoleon.
- Thread starter EasternRomanEmpire
- Start date
IMO it would create a new political mess. There would be infighiting for quite some time. A new coalition wouldn't be formed instantly cause Austria was about to sign the Treaty Of Luneville and was too exhausted to carry the War now. No Treaty of Amiens either and a third coalition would form around 1804 with Austria and Russia joining the UK. At this point the situation is hazy: France might still be plunged in instability with a new weak, Directoire-like (in term of internal tensions) regime. Massena, Moreau, Bernadotte and some Napoleon's marshals of OTL, like Murat would be the leading French military figures. The French Army wouldn't be offensive like OTL but defensive. I think France would win but it would take long and maybe around 1807-1808 the Third Coalition would be fed up and agree to sign a peace deal. The status quo might be saved and the coalitions could stop forming (if France plays the diplomatic game well) or the GPs could also still refuse France's continental supremacy and keep going to War until France is too exhausted and crumbles militarily, like IOTL with Nappy. IMO, this change Of PoD wouldn't change that much the scenario.
The French will use Italian nationalism to keep down the Italian Republics, Switzerland is mostly untouched, sure a few times some invading armies may pass but that's not too important, the Netherlands depend on how well go the wars but they should be fine since the French managed to defeat a tentative of invasion.
A complete mess, the winner is impossible to predict and much of what happens depends on who takes charge.
As far as Napoleon’s own judgement on this specific occasion matters, Bernadotte would be a successor (or at least try): “he would play Anthony…” 😉
In OTL the Russian participation in the Third Coalition was to a great degree due to Alexander’s personal animosity to Napoleon. With him gone many things, including this one, could go differently. If anything, with a less ambitious leader a lasting treaty with Britain may be more, not less, probable. Ditto for Austria.
I agree with you on Russia, but I can't see the UK seriously sign a peace agreement as long as France and Spain can unite their both fleets and send them into the Channel (however this move might realisticaly just not happen without Nappy). After a Trafalgar-like Victory for Great Britain (very plausible IMO), negociations can really begin (especially if France agrees to some concessions to allow British goods to enter French sphere of influence's markets). And yes, on the long run not having Napoleon or someone as ambitious as him to lead France may greatly help to reach a peace treaty.
Which are the key words (IMO): with the markets issue being settle to a mutual satisfaction the naval aspect may not be considered as the only reason for all troubles. Then, if Austria and Russia are out due to the absence of the serious motivations than Britain is on its own. It is still superior on the seas but was this a critical factor for the French economy in an absence of the great schemas? Would it worth trouble for Britain in an absence of these schemas?
Murat was at that time nothing without Napoleon and so were most of the future Napoleonic marshals. But why do you think that the trio you mentioned will confront each other? They’d make a perfect triumvirate (I played this scenario in “Peter goes South”) because there would be very little in the terms of conflicting interests and, AFAIK, all of them had been reasonably friendly to each other. The republican trappings are preserved so Moreau’s sensitivities are attended to. Moreau is interested in leading the armies during the war and having a good time when at peace. Massena is predominantly interested in self-enrichment (and a war as a way to achieve this goal) so the new position is perfect for this purpose and Bernadotte can do administration. Everybody is happy. 😂
An issue of the continental supremacy is not on the table if France sticks to the borders by the Rhine, Alps and Pyrenees, which were more or less recognized as a reality. With its positions in Italy being restored, Austria does not have serious reasons to risk a new major war. Alexander is pro-British but there is no OTL irritating factor of a “great man” (Nappy), which irritated him enormously and triggered his militant activities in OTL. Which leaves Prussia but this is not enough for a big offensive war.
Prussia has no interests to join any war against France as long as the French don't conquer Germany and seeing how the war of the Second Coalition went I doubt there is much chance the French can arrive there.
For the Napoleon's marshals I Always saw them to be rather unimportant IITL (yet they are still pretty talented subordinates). I never explicitly Said the militarymen 'triumvirate' would be the main source of infighting, I thought more about civilian politicians who would want to break free after the sudden death of Nappy. Yet, it's not because you chose to walk on the path 'everybody's happy' that we have to follow You. If we consider it, History would be really boring if everything was like that😉. Power calls for power, and I can see Massena or even Bernadotte trying to establish themselves as unique dictators, even if it wasn't their plan when they took power in the first place.
Here's the issue, France wouldn't be ready IMO to give up such vast swathes of territories (the Netherlands, Switzerland, Northern Italy). But you're right, if the French leaders did so, peace would be guaranteed in Europe for the years to come and only the UK would still be antagonist to France (for obvious reasons) but not up until the point of War.
As always, it would be neat if any change in this time period leads to an Irish uprising succeeding.
Oh, I wouldn't bet much on that. The British rule the waves and can deploy as many troops as they need to crush revolts in Ireland. On top of that, France can't send enough troops and if they managed to land an army on the island, it would become logistical hell. Unfortunately for them, the Irish were not sufficiently organized (OTL they failed to rise up at the same moment) and armed to carry out a successfull uprising on their own.
France would give up direct control of Italy, but not indirect control. Perhaps the Italian Republic set up in 1802 OTL ends up with Piedmont and Liguria also, with Joseph Bonaparte as its leader.
Yes, relations with Russia worsened after Copenhagen and there was a chance for a direct confrontation when Nelson sailed into the Baltic Sea. What would follow if Paul was not assassinated is anybody’s guess because Nelson was making bellicose noises but after arriving to Revel he behaved in a much more quiet manner asking for permission to land his crews to get water and eating the refusal. His plan to attack Kronstadt never came to action due to Paul’s death but its potential success is rather questionable.
I don't think a Bonaparte would rule Northern Italy ITTL, but yes France could just accept to officialy give full independance to its puppet states while keeping huge political and economical influence on them (Just like the US has done since 1945 with Japan, Europe... IOTL).