That would be political suicide, if you put back a monarch on the throne (assuming opportunists don't manage to overthrow you thanks to your monarchist tendencies) all of France will hate you, it doesn't matter who is the real power you won't survive a month at best and that is also assuming Louis XVIII accepts an invitation which seems like a trap since there is no way that they are suddenly returning to monarchy after fighting for 10-20 years to remain a republic and while they are having good results against the coalitions.
Expansion of Revolutionary France without Napoleon.
- Thread starter EasternRomanEmpire
- Start date
In my mouth the word "opportunism" is no criticism at all. Your arguments are not contrary to what I said, as you further prove that Bernadotte was opportunistic, just like Napoleon (A Corsican patriot when he was young, then an emperor that seeked to make France as strong and centralized as possible) or Murat (who also 'betrayed' Napoleon in an attemp to save his throne of Naples in 1814, similar in many points to what happened with Bernadotte).
I don't even blame Bernadotte's treason, it was completely logical in the situation he was in to do so. I used the word "betray" to sum up the context (which was complex as you explained it) and also because it fits quite well what he had done, that's to say going to war against his former military commander and the leader of the country he was a citizen of since he was born (Which was maybe very acceptable for much of History but rather strange in the beginning of this Nationalistic era that would be the 19th century in Europe).
Oh, interesting, I'll have to check out your TL.
I couldn't agree more, and in my mind this was the best scenario to see France have the King back without losing to the coalitions. In fact I consider this option nearly literally impossible.
The term “treason” would be absolutely inappropriate because Napoleon absolved him of any obligations toward France and parallel with Murat, while tempting, is inapplicable: Murat remained Marshal of France, Bernadotte did not and even ceased to be Prince of Pontecorvo.
He became the Crown Prince of Sweden on condition that he ceases to be a French citizen and there is nothing strange in it. Besides the numerous Frenchmen serving at that time not just abroad but in the countries fighting against France, denouncing loyalty to the previous country. is a standard part of the naturalization procedure in the US even right now.
Oh I think he could. After all, beoming King would also be a chance to sign peace with the other powers and try to reach a balance through negotiations.
Louis XVIII was also pretty pragmatic when he wanted to be.
The army was Revolutionnary but not necessarilly Republican. Yes, Moreau and Bernadotte themselves were pretty republican but that doesn't mean they're the only figures in the army that counted. Plus, if Napoleon shows anything, then it's that the army had no problems switching from Consulate to Empire, thus Republic to Monarchy. Because Napoleon still applied Revolutionnary ideals despite the regime change. So it's probably possible for the army to accept a Monarchical restoration.
You've got a point though in that Sieyes would probably not pick a full-on Royalist as his champion: those tended to be die-hard counter-revolutionnaries. Trying to put someone like that would probably make everything fail, since France, both in the elites and the people, was far more favorable to Revolution and didn't want to go backwards.
What Sieyes would need would be more someone that wants the Bourbons back while not being opposed to the French Revolution. This is the tough call to make because it's hard to find someone like that at the time, especially given how politically tense the context was. It also needs to be someone the Royalists would trust or be willing to talk to, which makes the task even harder. The final difficulty also lies with Sieyes himself, because he would definitely not champion someone that would at least pretend to agree with his views.
That's why it's more likely the ATL Brumaire coup would go for Republican or at least a Revolutionnary than a Royalist. But that doesn't meant that option is completely impossible: it's just not very likely.
That's different, Napoleon was someone who embraced Illuminism and Republican ideas and he was a popular man with the soldiers (which often is as important if not more than anything else), meanwhile the restoration of a king who is everything but liberal would be suicide, the Coup of 18 Fructidor shows how things go if you try to reinstall a king.
Sieyes's best option is choosing a republican general who is popular with the troops and proved himself in battle, royalist generals are not an option both because they were executed/exiled and because choosing monarchist is a bad idea; one important point is also that he is not a jacobin, meaning that Bernadotte is out of the question.
It's impossible unless the coupers want to be executed and lose power.
The thing about choosing a royalist is true, but there's one major thing to say about Bernadotte. Many politicians (Sieyès above everyone else) thought he was a jacobin, but he really only entertained good relations with some real jacobins and shared similar ideas with them (I'm not really sure how many to be honest). Just to say he wasn't a die-hard jacobin and could adapt himself following the situation as long as he stayed popular among the troops (which was the case IOTL and probably IITL too).
The important thing is not what you are but what they think you are
Also Bernadotte wasn't the kind of guy to do a coup, IOTL he didn't participate in the coup despite the vast majority of generals supporting the coup against the Directorate, he did everything possible to not be involved with it; I don't know if it was risk aversion or something else but he wouldn't be a suitable candidate no matter how you look at it.
That's very unrealistic IMO, many GP would never sign a peace if France is that powerful, with or without a king. IOTL the UK refused to agree on a lasting peace agreement with Paris because at the core of their strategic concerns there was the objective to keep the European balance of powers, and France occupying Western Europe, including Belgium which was "a pistol pointed at England's heart") was the exact opposite.
I still think that with time (a couple of years, since France wasn't going to be invaded soon) and some good connections (Sieyès was not the only statesman we could cooperate to make a coup with) Bernadotte could make a succesful coup around 1801-1802. But you're right to point out his seemingly reluctance to take part in a coup, let alone be the main protagonist. In that case, who was willing to make a coup and had the ability to do so ?
There are a lot, the problem is choosing, I would say Moreau and Massena are the most likely ones but there are a lot of candidates.
Last edited:
AFAIK, Massena never intended to make or support any coup IOTL. He wasn't exactly known for his political abilities and had few connections. He could have been chosen by Sieyès who just needed someone like Massena, a man without particular political intelligence but very talented as a general and thus with enough prestige and glory to make the army follow him. If the coup succeeds, Sieyès' first idea of an oligarchic and Bourgeois Republic could well come to life. Moreau's option seems less plausible because he was increasingly unpopular in 1799 to the point the troops he had under his command refused to follow his orders during Bonaparte's coup. The political elites, no matter the faction they belonged to, weren't fond of him either.
Lefebvre could also be an interesting candidate maybe, similar to Massena in some way, he lacks military prestige and talent though.
Massena couldn't support the coup IOTL since he was fighting in Italy but if Sieyès needs him he will be in France at the time of the coup, Massena would be useful precisely because he isn't great in politics, he'll have difficulties trying to do anything without the support of the rest of the coupers.
Moreau is definitely considered (there aren't that much generals who have the prestige he has) if he isn't the chosen one after his campaign in Germany he will probably retire like IOTL and become irrelevant unless the new government collapses very soon (which wouldn't be that surprising in Revolutionary France) when he could get involved.
Lefebvre is useful but he is "only" a supporter of the coup like most generals IOTL.
I guess the coupers would choose Massena as their "sword" because he was dependant on them and his lack of political talent and connections could make him a perfect tool. They would be stupid to choose Moreau because he's less naive and able to resist (his plot against Nappy in 1803 showed it and I think Sieyès and co could understand this even without hindsight). IMO, Moreau would probably only be a second choice if something went wrong with Masséna or Sieyès (as you said, the new government could meet the same end as the Directory or any other revolutionary government so far).
Anyway, I have the impression that the French Republic won't be abolished IITL, nobody wants to replace it and I genuinely think the post-coup republic would be the most stable and most bourgeois (oligarchic) regime France ever experienced since the start of the Revolution. Moderates could gain the upperhand IITL in France with a triumvirate of Sieyès, Massena and Talleyrand.
Moreau didn't plot anything against Nap, it was his wife which united all royalist movements around him and Nap knew that Moreau wasn't a royalist and wouldn't support any tentative at restoring a monarchy. Moreau would be a choice if you don't have other candidates but he still has a decent chance of becoming the chosen one since I would remember you that OTL Sieyès chose the most ambitious, resistant and less naive man of all the potential candidates, you don't need hindsight to understand that Napoleon was extremely ambitious.
Talleyrand supports the regime as long as it's going well for the regime, he's not a very reliable ally, in case of difficulties he's the first one to abandon the ship. And how stable things will be depends on how the government is since corruption, mismanagement and totalitarianism aren't lacking elements the question is how will this impact things.
No, Moreau wasn't a royalist, but a fervent republican, and so went against Napoleon's growing autocratic power. And Nappy hated Moreau for that, to the point he wanted him to be executed for treason. It was only when Moreau was condemned to only two years in prison that Nappy chose to exile him, as he couldn't have him executed without shocking many people around him.
Sieyès chose Napoleon because he was, according to him, the most competent general and had just returned from Egypt (Bonaparte was at the climax of his popularity and prestige and wasn't actively in a military campaign so he was free to be Sieyès' Sword). IITL, he would choose someone who was popular enough in the army, and Massena was, Moreau wasn't yet (before Hohenlinden, he was increasingly unpopular among his soldiers, and some refused to serve "a general who isn't a patriot").
Yes, Talleyrand wasn't reliable, but he had political convictions. He wanted an oligarchic, bourgeois, liberal regime (wether with a King, or with a republic, on this point he was really.. pragmatic to Say the least). He was far from being an indealist, but as a "businessman" he wanted a political regime favoring "business" and money. I can't see how this regime would have more corruption than the Directoire, the same goes mismanagement, it couldn't be worse than the Directoire. As for totalitarianism, Sieyès, Cambaceres, Talleyrand, etc were moderates. They could be as corrupted as the other leaders Of the former regimes were, but they couldn't be as totalitarian as Say the Jacobins (Robespierre, Saint-Just, etc).
If he is the only one available in Paris, Sieyès could accept him as a candidate.
I'm saying that they still could become unpopular, probably not to Directoire levels but less than that was necessary to fall in disgrace and one of the main reasons why all of the army supported the coup was because it was losing the war, if the new government proves itself uncapable of responding to internal or external threats that could be enough to cause its demise.
Yeah, that's a possibility, but still unlikely IMO.
I agree. But at some point France should at least find a government stable enough to last more than a few more years if the Republic is to Survive and come to a peace agreement (in the future) with fed up GP (to sign a peace treaty with a country You must be sure its government won't completely change and decide to carry on the War).
Enough of what's going on in France proper, what happens to the sister republics?!????
Good question. I can see the Netherlands, Switzerland and the French puppet states of Northern Italy becoming war grounds between the defensive French (if we accept the hypothesis that the French want the status quo) and the coalition of GP. Finally, after a few years, if France can force the exhausted coalition to make huge concessions and allow France to continue occupying its sister republics, then a new revolutionary and republican bloc could be established for decades to come in Western Europe. However, after many very difficult years of incessant war, the population of the sister republics would be very angry and the French presence wouldn't be popular at all. If France plays its game well and the economic situation finally improves, lasting commercial and cultural exchanges could make the Netherlands and Switzerland pacified and Frenchified countries. But in northern Italy, I expect nationalism to become increasingly important until a potential war of liberation breaks out, maybe leading to a new global European war between the French and a new coalition of GPs.