cornelis
Petty Officer 2nd Class
Posts: 32
Likes: 0
|
Post by cornelis on Aug 25, 2016 13:32:19 GMT
Napoléon had come to his senses in 1815. When he came back in power, he amended the Constitution in a quite liberal sense, breaking with his previous authoritarian regime.
The compromise includes, of course, Napoléon's demise. For the British, the man himself is gone without the need to reconquer France, France keeps his Vienna 1814 borders, but Napoléon II is on the throne rather than Louis XVIII. Other than the "legitimacy" of the Bourbons, no one at the time really thought that Louis and especially Charles were a wise choice of leaders... The Bourbons heirs (Angoulême and Berry) were catastrophic timebombs.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,860
Likes: 13,244
|
Post by stevep on Aug 25, 2016 15:22:18 GMT
Napoléon had come to his senses in 1815. When he came back in power, he amended the Constitution in a quite liberal sense, breaking with his previous authoritarian regime. The compromise includes, of course, Napoléon's demise. For the British, the man himself is gone without the need to reconquer France, France keeps his Vienna 1814 borders, but Napoléon II is on the throne rather than Louis XVIII. Other than the "legitimacy" of the Bourbons, no one at the time really thought that Louis and especially Charles were a wise choice of leaders... The Bourbons heirs (Angoulême and Berry) were catastrophic timebombs. True but why would the allies risk compromise when they are so near to victory? Also, unless Napoleon is under close watch, as he was at St Helena, would anyone trust him not to seek to return again at a later date? I agree that the Bourbon heirs were not suitable people, to our eyes, but the desire to restore the old regime and seeking to roll back on the decades of revolution and conflict was very powerful in the ruling elites of Europe especially. And they had the power and were making the decisions once Napoleon's grip started to falter.
|
|