575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,732 
Likes: 4,109
|
Post by 575 on Jul 16, 2022 7:33:13 GMT
Looking something else up I learned that there were several attempts to remove the man either foiled by Fouché Min. of Police or failed. The latest seems to be the Placards of Rennes 1802 - only found a French text and my french isn't highgrade but I understand that some officers were airing their discontend with the regime in two poster in the city but were arrested. Rue Saint-Nicaise 24.12.1800 Napoleon going to the Opera with family is subjected to a roadside bomb in a wagon - barrel filled with gunpowder and musketballs which due to error goes off too early and Nap lives. Operá 10.10.1800 a group of discontend is betrayed and arrested. 18 Brumaire (09.11)1799 during Naps coup of the Senate he is nearly stabbed by the angry members among them Barthelemy Aréna before the resistence is defeated. During Naps return from Egypt during Oktober 1799 his ship might have been lost at sea due to bad weather. If any of these events succeed in killing off Nap would the Peace of Amiens or similar still happen and even butterfly the continued wars (of Napoleon) this case the Republic?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jul 16, 2022 13:10:12 GMT
Looking something else up I learned that there were several attempts to remove the man either foiled by Fouché Min. of Police or failed. The latest seems to be the Placards of Rennes 1802 - only found a French text and my french isn't highgrade but I understand that some officers were airing their discontend with the regime in two poster in the city but were arrested. Rue Saint-Nicaise 24.12.1800 Napoleon going to the Opera with family is subjected to a roadside bomb in a wagon - barrel filled with gunpowder and musketballs which due to error goes off too early and Nap lives. Operá 10.10.1800 a group of discontend is betrayed and arrested. 18 Brumaire (09.11)1799 during Naps coup of the Senate he is nearly stabbed by the angry members among them Barthelemy Aréna before the resistence is defeated. During Naps return from Egypt during Oktober 1799 his ship might have been lost at sea due to bad weather. If any of these events succeed in killing off Nap would the Peace of Amiens or similar still happen and even butterfly the continued wars (of Napoleon) this case the Republic?
The general impression I've got from brief reading of the period was that the revolution was faltering and that if Napoleon hadn't been there some other general would have become a military strongman and probably eventually a monarch. How he would have failed would have depended on his character and other variables related to the change. Probably not as militarily successful as Napoleon but there were some very skilled general among his marshals. The big issue would probably have been his political aims and how he goes about them. Could a less expansionist emperor have avoided continual clashes with neighbours, especially Britain or would such an upstart every have been accepted as the beginner of a new dynasty, especially with the Bourbons sitting in exile just across the channel?
However you might have seen the wars ending sooner, either because of French military defeat or because a more lasting peace with the permanent - at least while the new dynasty is popular - removal of the Bourbons from France.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,732
Likes: 4,109
|
Post by 575 on Jul 16, 2022 13:28:40 GMT
I also assumed that somebody else would take over - problem of course who! If there isn't a spoiler like Boney to meddle constantly in the peace-negotiations leading to Amiens the Coalition may have an easier time with Britain and Austria able to join forces against the French? And perhaps make for at peace actually lasting - of course not perpetually!!! I would expect something to go awry and there seems to have been lots of issues to derail it. Without a French meddling in the Caribbean/North America the Spanish will have another outlook. A lot of states will be wanting free trade once again at least the North Europeans and I expect Russia hence the Neutrality League that fell apart 1801 at the death of Tsar Paul. If Boney really was the instigator of the peace negotiations to further his own objectives of course with him removed the French need to work out who is to be top dog and when their objectives will be - peace perhaps?  I also guess an alternate Napoleonic Era will have some serious consequenses in Europe like German Romanticism taking another direction or starting later making for a much different Germany though Prussia may still want hegemony. I haven't been reading so much on it - just got interested due to looking something up on the Danish Navy in the period of 1801-7 and how things might have changed. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jul 16, 2022 14:40:31 GMT
I also assumed that somebody else would take over - problem of course who! If there isn't a spoiler like Boney to meddle constantly in the peace-negotiations leading to Amiens the Coalition may have an easier time with Britain and Austria able to join forces against the French? And perhaps make for at peace actually lasting - of course not perpetually!!! I would expect something to go awry and there seems to have been lots of issues to derail it. Without a French meddling in the Caribbean/North America the Spanish will have another outlook. A lot of states will be wanting free trade once again at least the North Europeans and I expect Russia hence the Neutrality League that fell apart 1801 at the death of Tsar Paul. If Boney really was the instigator of the peace negotiations to further his own objectives of course with him removed the French need to work out who is to be top dog and when their objectives will be - peace perhaps? I also guess an alternate Napoleonic Era will have some serious consequenses in Europe like German Romanticism taking another direction or starting later making for a much different Germany though Prussia may still want hegemony. I haven't been reading so much on it - just got interested due to looking something up on the Danish Navy in the period of 1801-7 and how things might have changed.
575
Who would replace him and under what circumstance would be the big issues. You could see a longer lasting Consulate if the strong man is willing to use indirect power rather than go for a new monarchy. You could see alternatives in policy both inside France and abroad.
a) I think the key factor for Spain would be less France's brief interference in the Caribbean during ~1801-03 than no French invasion of Spain and replacement of the monarchy which threw the entire empire into chaos. This is likely to mean that the Spanish empire in the Americas lasts longer, probably at least a generation unless it has a serious clash with a big rival. [The US wouldn't count here other than in terms of Florida and Louisiana due to their lack of reach, especially at sea but either Britain or France could apply]. However in 1802 is Spain forced to return Louisiana to France - probably not. In which case how long does it hold the region against American expansionism, especially given the importance of New Orleans to both sides? Or if the US does try and take either region from Spain while there is peace in Europe would France support Spain? In which case would the UK support the US? [would suspect answers would be possibly and probably not].
b) At this time no one wanted free trade. Even Britain was strongly protectionist at this point although versions of Adam's Smith's theories were starting to gain traction. I suspect what your thinking of is a removal of the twin embargoes i.e. where Napoleon sought to ban all British goods - including goods from overseas coming via Britain/British shipping - and in retaliation Britain insisted that any ships traveling to European mainland ports must 1st check into a British port - which of course left such traders between the proverbial rock and hard place. Mind you again this was a Napoleonic action so without him, or possibly even a lasting peace from ~1800-02 period - this is probably unlikely to occur.
If there was a lasting peace what happens with assorted captured territory. OTL most overseas possessions were returned to their original owners although Britain kept some gains - think this was when we gained Cape Colony IIRC. However France had made considerable gains with the annexation of Belgium and most of the Rhineland along with the Savoy region of Italy. If its able to keep those areas and fully incorporate them then France is going to be the titan of the continent even if industrial development means that Britain draws ahead in the short term and German and Italian unification are going to be affected. Ditto that the HRE, albeit a shadow of its former self might continue to exist for a while longer.
Further afield does the US try for Canada in an 1812 scenario without a war to distract most of Britain's resources. Their likely to conquer the Indians of the 'Old NW' region anyway but do they get more ambitious. Although I think Spain is a more likely looking target with Florida and Louisiana looking a lot more vulnerable.
|
|
575
Captain
There is no Purgatory for warcriminals - they go directly to Hell!
Posts: 2,732
Likes: 4,109
|
Post by 575 on Jul 16, 2022 15:36:45 GMT
I also assumed that somebody else would take over - problem of course who! If there isn't a spoiler like Boney to meddle constantly in the peace-negotiations leading to Amiens the Coalition may have an easier time with Britain and Austria able to join forces against the French? And perhaps make for at peace actually lasting - of course not perpetually!!! I would expect something to go awry and there seems to have been lots of issues to derail it. Without a French meddling in the Caribbean/North America the Spanish will have another outlook. A lot of states will be wanting free trade once again at least the North Europeans and I expect Russia hence the Neutrality League that fell apart 1801 at the death of Tsar Paul. If Boney really was the instigator of the peace negotiations to further his own objectives of course with him removed the French need to work out who is to be top dog and when their objectives will be - peace perhaps? I also guess an alternate Napoleonic Era will have some serious consequenses in Europe like German Romanticism taking another direction or starting later making for a much different Germany though Prussia may still want hegemony. I haven't been reading so much on it - just got interested due to looking something up on the Danish Navy in the period of 1801-7 and how things might have changed.
575
Who would replace him and under what circumstance would be the big issues. You could see a longer lasting Consulate if the strong man is willing to use indirect power rather than go for a new monarchy. You could see alternatives in policy both inside France and abroad.
a) I think the key factor for Spain would be less France's brief interference in the Caribbean during ~1801-03 than no French invasion of Spain and replacement of the monarchy which threw the entire empire into chaos. This is likely to mean that the Spanish empire in the Americas lasts longer, probably at least a generation unless it has a serious clash with a big rival. [The US wouldn't count here other than in terms of Florida and Louisiana due to their lack of reach, especially at sea but either Britain or France could apply]. However in 1802 is Spain forced to return Louisiana to France - probably not. In which case how long does it hold the region against American expansionism, especially given the importance of New Orleans to both sides? Or if the US does try and take either region from Spain while there is peace in Europe would France support Spain? In which case would the UK support the US? [would suspect answers would be possibly and probably not].
b) At this time no one wanted free trade. Even Britain was strongly protectionist at this point although versions of Adam's Smith's theories were starting to gain traction. I suspect what your thinking of is a removal of the twin embargoes i.e. where Napoleon sought to ban all British goods - including goods from overseas coming via Britain/British shipping - and in retaliation Britain insisted that any ships traveling to European mainland ports must 1st check into a British port - which of course left such traders between the proverbial rock and hard place. Mind you again this was a Napoleonic action so without him, or possibly even a lasting peace from ~1800-02 period - this is probably unlikely to occur.
If there was a lasting peace what happens with assorted captured territory. OTL most overseas possessions were returned to their original owners although Britain kept some gains - think this was when we gained Cape Colony IIRC. However France had made considerable gains with the annexation of Belgium and most of the Rhineland along with the Savoy region of Italy. If its able to keep those areas and fully incorporate them then France is going to be the titan of the continent even if industrial development means that Britain draws ahead in the short term and German and Italian unification are going to be affected. Ditto that the HRE, albeit a shadow of its former self might continue to exist for a while longer.
Further afield does the US try for Canada in an 1812 scenario without a war to distract most of Britain's resources. Their likely to conquer the Indians of the 'Old NW' region anyway but do they get more ambitious. Although I think Spain is a more likely looking target with Florida and Louisiana looking a lot more vulnerable.
stevep
I have to look at the other Consul's of France at the moment.
A) my idea was that it wouldn't be a given that France took Louisiana from Spain and wouldn't go for Haiti; I could well see a US go for New Orleans - possibly some of the west bank of Misissippi along the way and then of course Missouri. Controlling the Misissippi trade and having a port on the Mexican Gulf would be quite some asset regarding the trade in the area. Wouldn't that outweigh Canada - even if they go for the NW Indians that could be part of the Misissippi/Missouri project and just come along. And then the US will learn about offensive warfare the hard way if the Spanish are able to fuel in forces in numbers which they should be able to or at least have the finances.
B) Yes - what I was thinking about. It ought to open up trade.
Without Boney as the spoiler the negotiations could possibly run more smoothly thus ironing out some the following issues about Malta, Menorca, Switzerland - other French spawned Republics in Central Europe and Italy. If Boney is bumped off prior to 1801 the Treaty of Lunéville may be butterflied too and just one Peace treaty negotiated. A little Austrian luck and perhaps a worse French command because everybody is running for the chairs that might happen.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jul 16, 2022 16:46:17 GMT
575
Who would replace him and under what circumstance would be the big issues. You could see a longer lasting Consulate if the strong man is willing to use indirect power rather than go for a new monarchy. You could see alternatives in policy both inside France and abroad.
a) I think the key factor for Spain would be less France's brief interference in the Caribbean during ~1801-03 than no French invasion of Spain and replacement of the monarchy which threw the entire empire into chaos. This is likely to mean that the Spanish empire in the Americas lasts longer, probably at least a generation unless it has a serious clash with a big rival. [The US wouldn't count here other than in terms of Florida and Louisiana due to their lack of reach, especially at sea but either Britain or France could apply]. However in 1802 is Spain forced to return Louisiana to France - probably not. In which case how long does it hold the region against American expansionism, especially given the importance of New Orleans to both sides? Or if the US does try and take either region from Spain while there is peace in Europe would France support Spain? In which case would the UK support the US? [would suspect answers would be possibly and probably not].
b) At this time no one wanted free trade. Even Britain was strongly protectionist at this point although versions of Adam's Smith's theories were starting to gain traction. I suspect what your thinking of is a removal of the twin embargoes i.e. where Napoleon sought to ban all British goods - including goods from overseas coming via Britain/British shipping - and in retaliation Britain insisted that any ships traveling to European mainland ports must 1st check into a British port - which of course left such traders between the proverbial rock and hard place. Mind you again this was a Napoleonic action so without him, or possibly even a lasting peace from ~1800-02 period - this is probably unlikely to occur.
If there was a lasting peace what happens with assorted captured territory. OTL most overseas possessions were returned to their original owners although Britain kept some gains - think this was when we gained Cape Colony IIRC. However France had made considerable gains with the annexation of Belgium and most of the Rhineland along with the Savoy region of Italy. If its able to keep those areas and fully incorporate them then France is going to be the titan of the continent even if industrial development means that Britain draws ahead in the short term and German and Italian unification are going to be affected. Ditto that the HRE, albeit a shadow of its former self might continue to exist for a while longer.
Further afield does the US try for Canada in an 1812 scenario without a war to distract most of Britain's resources. Their likely to conquer the Indians of the 'Old NW' region anyway but do they get more ambitious. Although I think Spain is a more likely looking target with Florida and Louisiana looking a lot more vulnerable.
stevep
I have to look at the other Consul's of France at the moment.
A) my idea was that it wouldn't be a given that France took Louisiana from Spain and wouldn't go for Haiti; I could well see a US go for New Orleans - possibly some of the west bank of Misissippi along the way and then of course Missouri. Controlling the Misissippi trade and having a port on the Mexican Gulf would be quite some asset regarding the trade in the area. Wouldn't that outweigh Canada - even if they go for the NW Indians that could be part of the Misissippi/Missouri project and just come along. And then the US will learn about offensive warfare the hard way if the Spanish are able to fuel in forces in numbers which they should be able to or at least have the finances.
B) Yes - what I was thinking about. It ought to open up trade.
Without Boney as the spoiler the negotiations could possibly run more smoothly thus ironing out some the following issues about Malta, Menorca, Switzerland - other French spawned Republics in Central Europe and Italy. If Boney is bumped off prior to 1801 the Treaty of Lunéville may be butterflied too and just one Peace treaty negotiated. A little Austrian luck and perhaps a worse French command because everybody is running for the chairs that might happen.
I think the prime importance for the US is probably the New Orleans area as that gives them control to access of the Mississippi. Without that their current western territories and states can't rely on using the Mississippi for trade and that's by far the easiest way to get goods in and out. Even without its importance for western expansion. Hence I agree that that's going to be a much higher preference for expansion westwards.
I'm not sure how much the other Consuls at the time were vehicles of Napoleon and hence if a similar such system developed other people might be in those roles.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Jul 16, 2022 21:16:25 GMT
The general impression I've got from brief reading of the period was that the revolution was faltering and that if Napoleon hadn't been there some other general would have become a military strongman and probably eventually a monarch. Wasn't Davout the best French general after Napoleon? |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,835
Likes: 13,224
|
Post by stevep on Jul 16, 2022 21:44:12 GMT
The general impression I've got from brief reading of the period was that the revolution was faltering and that if Napoleon hadn't been there some other general would have become a military strongman and probably eventually a monarch. Wasn't Davout the best French general after Napoleon?
he's often considered the most skillful in terms of warfare. Played a big role in the crushing of Prussia so quickly in 1805-06 and IIRC had an independent role in the Russian campaign - possibly the only general that Napoleon trusted with such power. However how was he at the political manuvering that was so necessary to gain political power?
At the ascension of Napoleon as emperor in 1804, Davout was named as one of the original 18 Marshals of the Empire. Davout was the youngest and least experienced the generals promoted to marshal, which earned him the hostility of other generals throughout his career.
so it could be he was too much a servant of Napoleon to really succeed if Napoleon was to failure early or otherwise disappear from the scene.
It also says in the 1st paragraph
As such while if Napoleon never gains the top spot Davout might end up still as a powerful general serving whoever climbs to power I suspect he wouldn't be the head man himself.
|
|
miletus12
Squadron vice admiral
To get yourself lost, just follow the signs.
Posts: 7,470 
Likes: 4,295
|
Post by miletus12 on Jul 18, 2022 1:20:57 GMT
The general impression I've got from brief reading of the period was that the revolution was faltering and that if Napoleon hadn't been there some other general would have become a military strongman and probably eventually a monarch. Wasn't Davout the best French general after Napoleon? Lannes or Ney. Pick one. |
|
