Napoleon III becomes emperor in 1836?

The future emperor Napoleon II attempted to depose king Louis-Philippe through a coup in 1836, but the ordeal was a fiasco and he had to return to Switzerland. Here's a snippet from Wikipedia that talks about it:

"Wikipedia: He planned for his uprising to begin in Strasbourg. The colonel of a regiment was brought over to the cause. On 29 October 1836, Louis Napoleon arrived in Strasbourg, in the uniform of an artillery officer, and rallied the regiment to his side. The prefecture was seized, and the prefect arrested. Unfortunately for Louis-Napoleon, the general commanding the garrison escaped and called in a loyal regiment, which surrounded the mutineers. The mutineers surrendered and Louis-Napoleon fled back to Switzerland."

Let's say this general is arrested as well. Could Napoleon and his fellow rebels take over Strasbourg and from there sway parts of the army and general population to their cause, or was the whole enterprise doomed to fail from the get go? Assuming he somehow takes Paris, would Metternich and co allow him to stay in power as long as he didn't go on a conquering spree like his uncle did, or would he be immediately deposed?

If he is allowed to stay in power, he would probably die at a later date than OTL since he won't be imprisoned for six years (1840-1846) in the fortress of Ham, something that permanently damaged his health.
 
Let's say this general is arrested as well. Could Napoleon and his fellow rebels take over Strasbourg and from there sway parts of the army and general population to their cause, or was the whole enterprise doomed to fail from the get go? Assuming he somehow takes Paris, would Metternich and co allow him to stay in power as long as he didn't go on a conquering spree like his uncle did, or would he be immediately deposed?
I would say even if got a lucky break on Strasbourg..nope he would be detained and maybe killed before paris.
 
1836 seems too soon, to me. He might take over Strasbourg, but then the loyalists will come and take him down. As far as Metternich is concerned, a Bonaparte on the throne seems too much to bear (and he's not distracted elsewhere).
 
Louis Philippie suffered an assassination attempt in 1835, when a Corsican ex-soldier tried to murder him with an organ gun. The king was grazed in the head, but survived.

What if he was killed? Also, let's kill Ferdinand Philippe too just for good measure. Could this a situation chaotic enough for Napoleon to move in?
 
We would see a permament Second Republic in 1848.
Would we, really? Napoleon was actually pretty competent regarding internal politics, maybe he's able to (somewhat) ride out the revolutionary wave like Leopold I of Belgium did. Having a bunch of major continental European countries EXCEPT for France (the one that got the whole idea rolling in the first place) suffer revolutions and uprisings would be a very amusing sight to behold.
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Would we, really? Napoleon was actually pretty competent regarding internal politics, maybe he's able to (somewhat) ride out the revolutionary wave like Leopold I of Belgium did. Having a bunch of major continental European countries EXCEPT for France (the one that got the whole idea rolling in the first place) suffer revolutions and uprisings would be a very amusing sight to behold.
Thing is, there was the Panic of 1847 that served as a tipping point.

Leopold I was more liberal than other monarches, and that made him easier to come to term with liberals' demands.
 
We would see a permament Second Republic in 1848.

This POD is 12 years before then. You can't assume history from 1836-48 is going to be the same as OTL, A Bonaparte on the throne is going to produce a lot of butterflies.

Note that neither Bonapartist emperor was overthrown by popular revolt, in contrast to three of the last four kings. It was military defeat that caused the downfall of each.
 
Last edited:
Leopold I was more liberal than other monarches, and that made him easier to come to term with liberals' demands.

Wrong. Leopold was simply not allowed enough say by the Belgian Constitution that he COULD'VE rejected those same liberal demands the way other monarchs did.
Had jack to do with liberalism.
The Belgian Constitution of the day tied the king's hands and blindfolded him. It was only with the so-called march of democracy that under Léopold III it seemed as if those ropes were loosening. So what did the Belgians do? Accused Leo of conspiring with the Nazis and forced him to abdicate.
 
Wrong. Leopold was simply not allowed enough say by the Belgian Constitution that he COULD'VE rejected those same liberal demands the way other monarchs did.
Had jack to do with liberalism.
The Belgian Constitution of the day tied the king's hands and blindfolded him. It was only with the so-called march of democracy that under Léopold III it seemed as if those ropes were loosening. So what did the Belgians do? Accused Leo of conspiring with the Nazis and forced him to abdicate.

I never understood that, why force the man who kept the country safe to abdicate...fucking idiots :p
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Wrong. Leopold was simply not allowed enough say by the Belgian Constitution that he COULD'VE rejected those same liberal demands the way other monarchs did.
Had jack to do with liberalism.
The Belgian Constitution of the day tied the king's hands and blindfolded him. It was only with the so-called march of democracy that under Léopold III it seemed as if those ropes were loosening. So what did the Belgians do? Accused Leo of conspiring with the Nazis and forced him to abdicate.
He did have more liberal views than other contemporary monarchs, and he did lean towards the Belgian Liberal Party and their reforms (e.g. supporting railways and modernization). As for the Constitution, it aimed to model the system after the British one.

Anyway, the fact that Belgium also weather the economic crisis better than other countries also helped Leopold.
 
e.g. supporting railways and modernization

So did Napoléon III and the Orléans monarchy. Railways and modernization don't equal liberalism. And just because he leaned towards the Liberal Party doesn't make him liberal. It means that he's a survivalist. And this you see time and again with Leopold. He supported Napoléon, bedded both Josephine (if the rumours are true) and Hortense de Beauharnais/Caroline Murat (at the Congress of Vienna or in Paris thereafter), but rode into Paris with the Russian cuirassiers of the Maria Feodorovna Regiment. He went to England where George IV didn't want Charlotte to marry him - and TBF, Charlotte originally wasn't enthusiastic about the idea either, being besotted with a Prussian prince - but both came around. When Charlotte died, Leopold had enough influence to wangle his widowed sister to marry the duke of Kent (who, ironically, at the time of Charlotte's death, had just bought a house in Brussels). Then he contracted a morganatic marriage to a Freiin von Montgomery while in England (which he later denied and sent Stocky Stockmar to take care of it), and when the Greek throne was up for grabs in the 1820s, he was going to go there until he heard in what a deplorable state the country was.

He married Louise d'Orléans - not because he was liberal - but because he needed to keep France on-side (and also because Teschen's daughter was too young and the Habsburgs refused to let them marry without a conversion on his part, something he refused up until his deathbed. When his Habsburg daughter-in-law tried to get him to take the Last Rites in the Catholic manner, Leopold staunchly refused).

As I say, Leopold - first to last - smacks of an opportunist and a survivalist. This was how Maximilian of Mexico - a genuine liberal - described him. Max wrote Leopold would make a bargain with the devil himself if he knew he'd be better for it.

As for the Constitution, it aimed to model the system after the British one.

Considering when the Constitution was drafted, the amount of power Leopold had was comparable to the amount of power Victoria had (probably less), not William IV
 
Top