You know Moreau and Bernadotte aren't the only generals capable of supporting a coup apart from Napoleon.
Expansion of Revolutionary France without Napoleon.
- Thread starter EasternRomanEmpire
- Start date
Of course, and an idea to have a politically dumb military as a figurehead had been entertained by more than one Directorate member. Bonaparte was considered to be one of such candidates by Sieyès until it was too late. But there was a problem: a chosen idiot had to be popular enough in the army to be followed by the troops and not to be overthrown immediately afterwards by one of his colleagues. Not too many fit the bill by 1799.
I meant that there are a lot more potential candidates then Bernadotte and Moreau for a coup against the Directorate.
I meant the same. But the coup needed a solid political backing and fame. Few generals had this combination. Sieyès, IIRC, was intended to use Joubert whom he speedily promoted to use as a “national hero” reserving power for himself.
BTW, Moreau was OK with a coup against the Directorate and actively participated in it. But he did not want a power and, seemingly, was a sincere republican.
The two options are not contradictory. You can be SINCERELY republican and still want power. The obvious example being Robespierre. If Napoleon is dead ITTL Moreau could accept the burden of taking power through a coup (while being more democratic than Napoleon and respect sharing with other influencial politicians, like Sieyès). In fact, it was 1799 conspirators' first idea, but they understimated the ambition of Nappy.
I think it would make a very interesting thread. The idea of a Franco-Russian alliance seems promising.
Unless France is severely nerfed that's very one-sided.
I'm thinking if I should try doing a TL about a non-Napoleonic world, that's why I asked this question.
Last edited:
I don't think France could be nerfed to the point of being just a mere support of Russia. Even OTL, France rapidly came back among the GP and was even considered the second World power in the mid-19th century. The same goes with Russia, too big and too populated to just be dependant on France. I think a non-Napoleonic scenario would be an awesome thread.
What I wanted to say is that if you don't nerf France they are going to steamroll everyone (OTL they defeated an alliance of all of Europe together, there is no way that France with the help of Russia doesn't defeat everyone) you need to put it on the level of the most powerful state in Europe that cannot however defeat a coalition composed by everyone in Europe (similar to Louis XIV) and that needs some ally to win, it's not a dependency it's that both Russia and France cannot win alone so they need help, however it's not certain Russia is willing to ally itself with a Republic.
Don't take it as a certainty, I'm doubtful I'll be able to write this.
AFAIK, Moreau did not want it. When possible, he preferred to enjoy time in his estate.
Who was a blood-thirsty power-grabbing maniac with the ambitions well beyond his abilities. What was a meaning of the “republic” under his rule? Beyond a pure demagoguery, of course.
Sieyes plan was to have a clown with a fancy title and no power. I doubt that anybody who was not a complete nincompoop would agree to fill such a position. And Moreau supported Bonaparte, not Sieyes. He hated the Direectorate of which Sieyes was a prominent member but seemingly did not think too much about what will replace it; which says a lot about his political ambitions. But, in a general schema of the coup dealing with the council of 500 was an important part which Nappy completely screwed and which was saved by Lucien. Who would play that role in alternative story? Except for Bernadotte scenario, an alternative chairman would be needed. Then, the plotters needed Fouche on their side and he would not support a weak candidate. And you need an absence of the military opposition. Which means that not just by a rank but also by a reputation the person would have to belong to the top level and to be in Paris. Schema with Joubert shows that the existing members of that level were not usable by various reasons.
So, who was going to be an alternative military clown?
I agree. Some permanent peaceful coalition of GP (mainly UK, Austria, Italian states and maybe Prussia) could've been formed to limit the French Republic, at least for some time. Russia might ally herself with France for particular occasions, like the Ottoman case where the Tsar could agree to get closer to France on some points in compensation of French diplomatic support of the Russian claims. However, there's little chance that France could get a worthy and loyal Ally for the time being in Europe (the US could maintain good relations with Paris in case of a conflict with the UK). Now that France has extended borders and fulfilled its territorial ambitions, I don't think they would try or want to go to War, unless they're attacked. Russia has claims in the Ottoman Empire and could use the French to support them, but they're ideologically too counter-revolutionnary to really commit themselves (unless some Tsar succeds in deeply reforming the Empire, which could be a cool but rather unrealistic scenario). Maybe I'm too potimistic, but I don't expect too many wars in Europe ITTL.
Ok, no problem. I have myself ideas for a TL on a alternate French Revolution with huge butterfly effect and I'll be happy to follow your own TL if You ever decide to write it.
Yes, that's why he could have been a good 'military clown', he wasn't very ambitious and had core values. I also think that with Napoleon dead ITTL, Moreau could be pragmatic and try a coup with Sieyès. I just checked out and that's true that Moreau was getting increasingly unpopular both among the people and the elites. Joubert still dead ITTL, it would left Bernadotte. The problem is that Sieyès hated him and was convinced he was preparing a coup without him. He also lacked other important supports and if his influence within the army was good, it wasn't enough to make a coup on its own. It was still possible, but he needed Time, so maybe we could have seen Bernadotte's coup take place in 1801-1802, after the end of the 2nd Coalition and when the Directoire would still be more in trouble. In this case, Bernadotte would become a dicator, but less autocratic than Napoleon, and by keeping the Republic, I Guess, even if monarchy didn't bother him that much After all (mmh Sweden).
To be fair, Russia doesn't need France for the Ottomans, it can defeat it alone and in the case where Austria tries to oppose it they can threaten to ally with France but Russia wouldn't ally itself with France until they gain something out of it.
Wars in Europe would happen less I agree since both sides want to avoid war, I wonder if there is a war of 1812.
It will be interesting to see who will be the next great French general.
One of which was a hate of the Directorate and, AFAIK, an absence of the useful political connections. Which means that (a) he would not be looked upon as a suitable ‘clown’ by the politicians (as he was not in OTL) and (b) he would not be able or willing to carry a coup as a purely military affair.
Taking into an account that there were no, AFAIK, indications of anything of the kind before Bonaparte returned, this belongs to a category “possible because does not violate the laws of physics” 😉
If anything, Bernadotte at that time had a better chance than Moreau because he had connections both political (not on the very top but nonetgeless) and military. But he was still a convinced republican and not an adventurous type. He would lead if asked officially (IIRC Nappy made a comment to that effect, but maybe somebody else) or arrest the plotters if ordered but that’s it. However, if ending up on the top, he would most probably disappoint Sieyes even if not in a manner Nappy did.
As for the timing, after the failed attempt of the assassination in 1800 Nappy commented that “Bernadotte would play Anthony”. He was commander of the Army of the West stationed in Vendee, Councilor of the State and both Joseph and Lucien Bonaparte had been in prominent positions. In his farewell note to Bernadotte on his way to Italy, Napoleon wrote: "I am going to fling myself once more into the hazards of war. We do not know how it may turn out. If I fall, you will find yourself with 40,000 men at the gates of Paris. In your hands will be the fate of the Republic." What was going by default, was that Bernadotte will take care of the Bonaparte family.
Vendemiaire happened because the Royalists were about to win the elections and the Directoire acted against that.
Royalists taking over and restoring the monarchy without the rest of Europe is hard to achieve admittedly, but it's not impossible depending on how the cards are played. You just need the right people at the right time in the right conditions.
Hell, for all we know, that could be the result of an alternate 18 Brumaire if Napoleon's not there. OTL Napoleon was even approached by Royalist that asked him to be France's General Moncke, and of course he turned them down. But depending on who Sieyes picks to be his "Sword", he could be convinced to restore the Bourbons. Though, most of the candidates Sieyes looked for were Republicans.
I agree.
It became a possibility ONCE Napoleon's death's news arrived. facing such a situation could force (or not, I'm not saying it was a certainty) Sieyès to think outside the box. But it would have been probably taken a lot of time and luck as Moreau lacked political influence.
I'm not sure he would still be a sincere republican for long. IMO, Bernadotte was an opportunistic and had no problem accepting the Swedish throne (not a very republican thing to do) and betray the man that made him a marshal (yes, they had a fight in 1809 but in reality Bernadotte was above all willing to secure his throne, no matter the cost as long as it benefited him, hence the term "opportunistic" I used). He was younger at the time, though, so I can totally see it would have taken time before he gives up a bit his ideals and make a coup. After that, he could lead the Republic and maintain it (he had good political, diplomatic and military skill so I guess he would be a very good leader for France, even maybe better than Nappy who lacked diplomacy, a thing that was very needed by France at the time). On the quote you used I have doubts, Bernadotte and Napoleon had a tumultuous relationship but it doesn't really matter now that Nappy is dead ITTL in Egypt.
I don't think Louis XVIII would accept to be the king of France if the country occupies most of western of Europe and is at war with Austria, the UK and Russia. Maybe I'm lacking imagination, but Sieyès would be quite an idiot to choose a royalist, because republicanism and revolutionnary ideas were majority among the political elites, and the army itself was republican (Moreau and Bernadotte, the two most influential military men IITL, wanted to save the Republic). It would be near-suicidal to try such a coup, and losing meant death for the conspirators. If the King was to be restored, you should have Bernadotte make a successful coup, face the global situation for many years until he realises the royalists are the only option for France (OTL he gave up the Republic for Napoleon once he realised it was the best for France and him as he was now a marshal), but I think this scenario would be rather unlikely.
Bernadotte wouldn't give up on power and restore a monarch, that's something no one would do; he would have better diplomacy but this isn't something that will happen in any plausible scenario.
What is written above is a popular but false narrative mostly invented in post-Napoleonic times based upon the falsified information.
To start in your order:
Well before becoming the Crown Prince of Sweden (he accepted not the “Swedish throne” but a right to its accession) Bernadotte accepted the title of Prince Ponte Corvo, which was not a republican thing as well. The same applies to pretty much all former republican figures. The Republic was dead and there was a new reality, which one has to accept or to fade into a complete obscurity. So this was a pure pragmatism. “Opportunism” may apply to Bernadotte’s “discovery” that, while being born a Catholic, he, being from Gascony, was somewhere deep inside a Protestant. Probably by that time he was neither.
Then, the story about “betrayal” simply does not held a water. As a precondition for accepting the Swedish offer Bernadotte requested from Napoleon a formal complete dissolution of any connection to the Empire and Napoleon agreed. You can’t betray someone to whom you don’t own any loyalty.
Bernadotte and Napoleon had more than one “fight” (details of the “classic”narrative is a BS invented by Marbot) but by 1810 they were on the good terms again.
I have no idea which “cost” of securing the throne you are talking about. Sweden was allied to France, Napoleon’s approval was asked, Swedes chose Bernadotte in expectation that he may help to return Finland and only after Nappy annexed Swedish Pomerania their mood changed. No dirty methods had been used to run his election campaign and there already was a politically influential lobby in Sweden favoring him even if initially he was not on the top of the list. What I agree with is that he run his campaign energetically and skillfully but, in the modern terminology, it was a “positive campaign”: his merits were emphasized but no dirt was poured on the Danish prince.
Yeah, sure. I already implemented this scenario in “Peter goes South” TL (without killing Nappy who is otherwise engaged and without him ceding power to the royalists). 😜
I imagined Bernadotte to make peace with the coalitions and then bring back the King and install himself as a de facto dictator/prime-minister. But yes, you further prove my point, this not likely at all.