First Consul Bonaparte: Ego got the better of him?

[Almost a Christian]

What would've happened if Napoleon had decided against abandoning the title of "First Consul" as well as assuming the trappings of Emperor with all the hereditary principles that would've implied...?


Perhaps he needed to do this, as today we underestimate the prestige & a certain mystical quality the title of Emperor would’ve exerted on his monarchal counterparts……

For me the taunts of the established monarchy’s towards the ‘upstart’ for me a measure of just how panic stricken the established order where…..


Perhaps First Consul Bonaparte would’ve been just another obscure European statesmen…..?


Would've Napoleon enjoyed more or less success? Would we have been deprived of the tragic epic in Napoleon's eventual downfall......?


Would we have seen the decadent Napoleon III accede to the throne of France....?


Perhaps the Franco-Prussian War would've resulted in a stalemate or a French victory & perhaps never resulting in German Unification.....?

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Juan Perón

Perhaps the Franco-Prussian War would've resulted in a stalemate or a French victory & perhaps never resulting in German Unification.....?

Not likely. Frances loss was due to a large part that Germany was a large industrial power of the time. France was rather slow to industrialize, unlike Germany and Britian, which were the leaders (along with America) in the field. Germany's railways were much more modern and established, allowing fast movement of troops over extreamly long distances. Only after their loss did they see the flaw and correct it in time for the first world war. Even then, they needed the help of the allied powers not to be overrun by Germany.

[Almost a Christian]

Originally Posted by Timo

Not likely. Frances loss was due to a large part that Germany was a large industrial power of the time. France was rather slow to industrialize, unlike Germany and Britian, which were the leaders (along with America) in the field. Germany's railways were much more modern and established, allowing fast movement of troops over extreamly long distances. Only after their loss did they see the flaw and correct it in time for the first world war. Even then, they needed the help of the allied powers not to be overrun by Germany.

Your point is well taken, Germany had at that point pioneering new technologies such as the quick transfer of troops by railway as well as being at having at their disposal the highest quality of military expertise…..but one must also bear in mind the inadequacies of the leadership of France…..Napoleon the III was variously accused of having neglected French military prowess in favour of the trappings that befitted an emperor (great boulevards & the like)…..also France was inhibited by acute centralisation where no one was granted any liberty of action….thus everybody waited in paralysis for orders from above that never came…..


Would an ordinary statesman have perhaps realised the problems that afflicted France
& take measures to address them…..they might’nd have won the war but would they have inflicted enough damage to deter say Catholic Bavaria from joining Bismarck’s great vision…..?

Originally Posted by Timo

Even then, they needed the help of the allied powers not to be overrun by Germany.

What an astonishing achievement for Germany…no one ever speaks of this now though……odd that isn't it?

[Timo]

Originally Posted by Juan Perón

Would an ordinary statesman have perhaps realised the problems that afflicted France & take measures to address them…..they might’nd have won the war but would they have inflicted enough damage to deter say Catholic Bavaria from joining Bismarck’s great vision…..?

Don't think that this (the unification) was not long coming and long awaited by the german people. The greatest mistake was that it didn't unify all of the german people. There was a vision that was Deutschland, way before Bismarck. It was only the people in power that kept the german people from being under one leadership. People in power supported by foreign governments, the worst thing for long established empires of England, France, etc. was to have a unified german superpower in central europe. At the time they were more looking to their colonies rather than Europe, especially England, and wanting to expand there.

What an astonishing achievement for Germany…no one ever speaks of this now though……odd that isn't it?

A never understood why England would send her boys over to France to die for French. The English and the French, two peoples that have a history of rivalry between them. And then America comes in at the end, like a john wayne movie, to save the day. Only the war was mostly over and both sides were sick of the fighting and massive death. I think peace would've been sought differently if the Amis didn't jump in at the last secound. And who is blamed for the war? Germany. We didn't start it, yet were given the worst peace terms and the monarcy was kicked out. What did the Allies get instead of a Kaiser, not fifteen years later? Hitler, and more French, English, American, Russian, etc. people would die than the first war. That Karma is some bitch, isn't she? I've always said America and the Allies are their own worst enemies.

Just an aside, look at America's foreign policy and you'll find they are their own worst enemy. Hammered Germany after WWI, and they got WWII. Supported the Soviets, and they got the Cold War and spread of communism, eventually leading to Bay of Pigs (Cuba) and Vietnam. They support Osama bin Laden in Afganistan by training them and giving them weapons to fight the Soviets. Osama bin Laden launches holy war agianst USA, they must fight a war in Afganistan agianst the Taliban, same people they supported. They support Saddam Hussein and give him chemical weapons to fight the Iranians, and then he uses weapons agianst kurds and turns against USA. The Americans must fight Hussein twice and lose more American boys, because of their stupidacy. They are their own worst enemy.

[Perun]

Originally Posted by Juan Perón

Perhaps First Consul Bonaparte would’ve been just another obscure European statesmen…..?

Not really since he ruled the most powerful nation in Western Europe. Already the French army was taking on the other great powers in Europe ever since the Revolution.

Would've Napoleon enjoyed more or less success? Would we have been deprived of the tragic epic in Napoleon's eventual downfall......?

I dont think his title wouldve interferred with any of that. His still made many military successes at the head of Republican Army in Toulon and Italy. Theres no reason to believe he wouldn't have continued down the path of military successes if he did not crown himself Emperor.

[Almost a Christian]

Your point is well taken but sometimes today we forget the resonance that such a title as Emperor would’ve had on the French troops. Napoleon himself relied on a certain, almost mystical personal rapport with his soldiers & that allied with the prestige of being associated with the title of “Emperor” created a formability source of authority.


I’m think the title Emperor gave him the impetus to go that extra mile & reach the zenith that he did (& perhaps too ultimately sowing the seeds for his downfall).


Would’ve the hostile troops rallied to the cause after his return from Elba without the prestige associated with title. (We’ll forget for the moment that he probably would’ve never be sent to Elba if he had been First Consul he would’ve probably ended up rotting in some English prison. )


I mean “Viva le Empereur” certainly doesn’t have the same ring as "Viva le First Consul" (excuse me) does it?
For my part I believe probably an acceptable compromise would be assuming the title of empire divest of the hereditary principle. Napoleon, though, would’ve never have done this, the hereditary principle being one of the fundamentals of his thinking.