The coup which put in place Napoleon would probably put to power another group of persons since Napoleon wasn't the one who had organized the coup AFAIK. The Directory's days were over, the point of my post was to ask how would a France that is significantly more divided, unstable and not ruled by Napoleon expand.
Yeah I definitely agree that France would have won against the 2nd coalition, even if it took more time and more efforts, as there was basically only Austria which could threaten the French Army in Europe (Russia had too bad relations with Austria to cooperate with her at the time). France would have surely imposed similar peace terms to Vienna, but the real question is how the situation evolve in the future. The signature of a kind of Amiens Treaty between France and the UK is still possible, but war would inevitably resume as both were not ready to make serious concessions. It now depends on who took the power in France. I can't see the Directoire survive, and I think a general would have made a coup. Moreau and Bernadotte are the most obvious candidates, especialy the former (Bernadotte's jacobinism scared many politicians). If Moreau becomes dictator, he would have to rely on some figures, the firts being Talleyrand who favoured a lasting peace and important concessions to do so. Whithout Napoleon's boldness to refuse his counsellors' arguments, it would have been likely for France to search peace and therefore negociate. France would have become a very moderate Republic (A third-Republic-like government) and would make huge territorial concessions (No occupation of the Netherlands, nor North Italy or Switzerland). Yet, there's a scenario where France could keep her "natural" borders including the whole left bank of the Rhine, but not much more. Diplomatically, the best choice would have to keep the alliance with Spain and get closer to Prussia (playing with the Austro-Prussian rivalry).
I doubt about that, the situation in France does not allow the creation of a republic, any person who would take power will try to keep at all costs and without Napoleon stabilising things there still would be royalist revolts.
It really depends on who takes over instead of Napoleon.
That's assuming Moreau is a good statesman. The problem is that, given his career, that's not a given... The man turned down the offer to lead the Brumaire coup when Napoleon didn't. And he also got involved or caught up in a conspiracy against Napoleon, which led to his exile.
The problem is that even if France seeked out peace, the rest of Europe wouldn't necessarilly have been ready to do so.
Unlikely. At least not without achieving some much needed stability and a period of peace. That's what Napoleon achieved after Brumaire (even if the peace was brief): for all the flaws about the Consulate and Empire, they were fairly moderate compared to the previous revolutionnary governments.
Doubtful as well.
There are a number of issues though.
I globally agree with you. Maybe I didn't make it clear enough, but I was just describing what the best outcome could have been for France. Realistically, Moreau, as a leader, would have been way weaker and way more icompetent than Napoleon, because after all he was just a military man, not a worthy statesman or politician. Yet, I still think he could have made a successful coup with the help of important people (Sieyès and Talleyrand most of all). But in this case, things would have turned bleak for France. Unlike I wrote in my previous post, Moreau wouldn't be able to consolidate his power internally, let alone bring peace externally, and the UK just couldn't let France annex Belgium. If Bernadotte had been the leader, it would have been as worse. I can't see a scenario where France turns royalist without being invaded and defeated by the rest of Europe, and the Republican path is a pathway to losing the war on the long run (France still lost militarily with Napoleon as leader, arguably one of the most competent general ever). To sum up, the French Republic was at a dead-end. The only realistic option for France, taking into account the whole context, was to establish very solid sister-republics in Netherland, Switzerland and North Italy and focus its propaganda on the defense of the revolutionnary ideas, which were really popular among the intellectuals at the time, and hope that with time (a time during which France could have seriously been military defeated without Napoleon and his reforms), the differents coalitions are fed up and accept make peace with concessions. But this would have required the French leaders to understand that huge concessions are to be made to have the Republic surviving (which is highly unrealistic in my opinion) and two, that the French people favors stability and moderation over short-term victories (that is very possible considering that the royalists were pretty popular at the time and that the economic crisis hampered whole cities and regions, like the western coast and the south, with Nantes and Marseilles being even royalist strongholds).
The Prussians exited the war in 1795 and they shoved no intention to rejoin in the war of the Second Coalition. As for how their relationship continues that depends on which path France goes.
Napoleon was good however he wasn't undefeated and he had the big advantage of having the greatest army in Europe and very, very importantly very competent subordinates, had Napoleon been a general for say the Russians he would've been faced with a lot of difficulties not because he was different but because his subordinates wouldn't be up to the task, and all of his marshals are still alive and there certainly were more competent ones who didn't rise (ex. Monreau who was exiled by Nap).
I would argue with that, the French Republic is very able to fight all of Europe(literally during the war of the First Coalition), it did that in a much more unstable state than it is in 1800 yet it managed to defeat the rest of Europe and arrive to that point and with that same France Napoleon managed to dominate Europe, I don't see how France is at a dead-end.
France would be unstable but that doesn't mean that it will lose everything it has gained up until that point, it has gotten there in this unstable state and it doesn't mean that it has to end there, a peace with Europe would be done once the Coalitions are fed up and France does not dominate Europe, I would consider that by 1810 they would stop but once the coalitions are fed up they won't be able to force France to make such massive concessions.
Moreau as a dictator is very unlikely: he was not interested in any political position in OTL. Not sure if at that time Bernadotte was up to the dictatorship either: he seemingly still was a sincere republican at that time and, in general, preferred avoiding the risk; neither did he have support on the top of the system (unlike Nappy). But without Nappy situation is different and politicians who were against him could turn into his supporters.
On this point I disagree. I think it isn't fair to say that Napoleon was just "good". Yes, he fought very close battles, the best example being Marengo where he was nearly inflicted a catastrophic blow with his armies completely isolated in Italy and sourrounded by Austrians. Had he lost, Italy would have been completely lost for the French and the 2nd Coalition (which would have still lost in my opinion) would win one of their biggest victories since 1792, and without a doubt Napoleon would have lost his position of leader. Yet, he did win, and with the help of his marshals and others officiers, as well as the military reforms undertaken by France since after its defeat in the Seven Years' War, the French army became the best in all Europe. But there was more to that. Napoleon literally unblocked the Italian front in 1796 after 3 years of stagnation and won battle after battle. Of couse, luck is a thing (even a big thing), but I consider his talent to organize and implement complex and very effecient strategic manoeuvres (like against Austria in 1805 or even more against Prussia in 1806) a feature quite rare even in the other most talented military leaders at the time, even among the young French generals like Moreau. For this reason I don't think there was more competent military men in France at the time. And having the biggest army in Europe is quite out of context because Napoleon won the majority of his battles while being outnumbered, and if the offensive is to be favored, very big armies are actually a disadvantage in terms of logistics and speed (like the Russian campaign of 1812 showed it).
Yes, I agree with you, France won wars, but she never won peace. The Amiens Treaty turned out to be a failure because even if Napoleon had decided to be very tactful (which he really didn't), the UK would never have allowed France to annex Belgium and occupy most of Western Europe, a vitale region for her commercial interests, particularily when France refused to open its market. Moreau, or another leader, could have accepted most of the commercial terms asked by the UK, yet London still had interest in funding continental powers in Europe, as long as they wanted to go to war with France, because France was just too powerful to be left at peace. On the long run, except if France succeeds in destroying every other major powers in Europe (which is near impossible), she couldn't win because she had limited demography (out of 30 million inhabitants, nearly 350,000 French soldiers were killed, captured, or too wounded to fight between 1792 and 1799) and an unstable political regime (Moreau or Bernadotte couldn't quite replace politically the influence that Napoleon had, they lacked pragmatism and a unifying vision). Napoleon dominating Europe was really unlikely, which is why I consider Napoleon to be the most competent man to lead France at the time.
I kind of agree, France could have exhausted the coalitions until the point where a peace could be found. But it would have, I think, required more concessions from the French that you seem to consider. Austria could have allowed France to keep the left bank of the Rhine, but she would have fiercely asked for the French giving up Italy (except maybe Turin and its region). I think Prussia could be more open to negociations and just ask for no French influence on the right bank of the Rhine. Russia could be easily pleased. The strongest opponent would be the UK. The Netherlands should become neutral (with no french influence) or could still be on the French side but with no navy (even this option seems very optimistic, the Brits didn't trust the French at all, and for good reasons). So in the end, after practically 20 years of war, we have a French Republic with its "natural" borders, maybe with the Netherlands and the North-west of italy, but not much. To me, this scenario is still very optimistic, because I don't see the European powers be okay to have a republic being the first military and demographic power of the continent, and also because it would have required a lot of intelligence and stability from the French leaders.
I'm not saying that he was only "good" he was a genius however incompetency on the enemy side, better army and better subordinates are an excellent boost, IMO without that he would've lost much more often than he did OTL.
France would win peace if it wasn't for Napoleon, a war lasting 5 years isn't particularly special and if it remains limited to what it already gained the other GP would be tired of war and accept the status quo, they won't have a reason to always go to war if France isn't the threat it was OTL, so by something between 1805-10 the Coalitions would stop forming.
The Austrians wouldn't ask that much, they just want their fortresses around Mantua (since they hold Veneto without other wars) and France not expanding into the HRE, the Netherlands and Switzerland aren't that important to their interests and the Austrian Netherlands are lost and you clearly won't recover them anytime soon.
I think the plot which brought Napoleon to power would still succeed ITTL with the help of some competent general, however this general will be only one among the others and won't hold all powers (it would be somewhat similar to the Directory)
I completely agree.
A war lasting 5 years for France is not the same as a war lasting 5 years for another country. France had an important portion of its male population in the army, its economy was really weak (with the effects being protestations in half of France, with big cities, like Nantes and Marseilles supporting royalists) and as the "glorious" time and memories of the Great Revolution go by, motivation, discipline and the willingness of the population to carry on a war against much of Europe will falter. The Napoleonic wars had the benefit of being short and far from the French people. Also, the French losses were lower (until 1808, of course not afterwards). A more unstable France could, on the contrary, incite the coalitions to be more agressive, to definitely destroy an already contested and weakened enemy.
As Napoleon showed it, North Italy is a direct path to Vienna, so yes, Austria would ask for huge concessions in Italy. I thing the Alps would be just like perfect to them as a border, with different buffer states to isolate France and divide Italy. In compensation, as you said, Austria could supprot the French claims in the Netherlands in case of a negociated peace in the style of the Munster Treaty of 1648, and even a divison of Switzerland, the French-speaking regions going to France and the German-speaking part annexed by Austria or made into a neutral state. Austria could also accept the French Natural Border on the Rhine (it's not like they could really contest that ITTL). It seems fair to say that Prussia and Russia could stay away from the war, but Prussia would have surely asked for some promises in compensation of its neutrality, like strictly no French influence in Germany proper. Even then, I still have the impression that you underestimate how much of a threat a revolutionnary France is for the Europan monarchies. France could rapidly become the first economic power in mainland Europe, along with its huge and highly efficient army and a big population of 30 million people. As for the UK, France could build up a navy, with the help of Spain, strong enough to disturb their commercial and colonial interests. The revolutionnary side of the coin being the most upsetting for the european GP, as France could now spread very dangerous ideas for their very internal power even and specifically in time of peace, when books are exchanged and ideas debated. What about the Austrian, Prussian and Russian Bourgeoisies ? How make sure that they will not follow their French counterparts ? There's no way to know, as the kings and aristocrates at the time had no hindsights and were led by fear of being overthrown.
France continued to fight in that state during Napoleon, he stabilized the country but he didn't solve economic problems and the persons working in the army were even more during Napoleon(such a large army isn't needed if you don't have to control much of Europe which would significantly help French finances).
Napoleon claimed to defend the ideas of the Revolution, it is safe to say that those who fought for Napoleon still fought for the ideals of the Revolution and the other nations of Europe will get tired of this before France does, the Second Coalition already had problems to be formed because of distrust between Britain and Austria, if the Third Coalition is a stalemate like the second, I can see them just not trusting each other anymore and stopping to fight against France.
The French wouldn't have that much fighting on their soil either ITTL, they still have a superior army (as shown in previous campaign the French Revolutionary Armies were able to fight against the other armies in Europe, not as well as the Grande Armée but they still end up winning), at worst there is some fighting on the outskirks of France but even that isn't very likely.
Napoleon showed that you can arrive to Vienna both trough North Italy and trough Germany, however they aren't in a position to demand too much and apart from Napoleon, Mantua held the line in Northern Italy (Savoy usually joined on France's side during the Franco-Habsburg wars) and the reason it didn't this time is the same reason why you lost everywhere else.
Austria doesn't have such a strong negotiating position to demand all of this together with all of Northern Italy, they have to get a decent peace deal and pretend like its a victory, this would mean mostly small border changes in favor of other powers, this wouldn't be exactly an end to conflicts it would be a truce to recover for the other GP.
France would be a threat however the willingness of Europe to go to war with it constantly is questionable, Russia and Prussia had accepted France as a Republic not enough of a threat to waste resources on trying to defeat it and Austria and GB cannot defeat it alone. Also the idea of this peace deal probably won't be to completely give up on the return of a monarch to France, it would be to recover and go back to business as in the monarchs' minds a state without a monarch won't be able to stabilize and recover. They might try another coalition however they will soon run out of countries willing to do this, Austria and GB alone cannot defeat France. And the idea of having a revolution will vanish over time since nothing happened in the meantime to other monarchs, relations with France will normalize over time (though obviously viewed with much suspicion).
You have good points. But I'm curious to know your point on how a republican France could integrate itself in the European diplomatic concert in the long run with such territories (North Italy, Switzerland, The Netherlands and its natural borders). It would be really interesting to see how the Anglo-French rivalry carry on throughout the 19th century and the effects Of a revolutionnary France still around on Nationalisms, socialism and colonialism.
This would depend upon the personality and other circumstances but Bonaparte had a clout of a potential “savior of the country”, which, AFAIK, none of the realistic alternatives possessed so, I agree with you that it would not be quite the same.
Last time I checked, Bernadotte is probably the only one with sufficient pragmatism and administrative skills (IMO exceeding Napoleon) to save the Republic.
Yeah, he definitely was skilled and intelligent but he scared many people, because they thought he was a jacobin (so very limited support in France now that moderation was favored) and hadn't win as big victories as Moreau. But without Napoleon, Bernadotte could get some room for a coup, but I doubt it would be before Moreau, who had better relationships with important politicians and more prestige.
IMO, after they stop creating coalitions France will be a sort of international pariah which will be prevented to do anything that could threaten the others (for example Britain won't allow it to build its navy) but at some point France will become 'only' a very powerful state which however has a LOT of issues internally which wouldn't be solved anytime soon, how its future progresses depends on how the other GP see it, they will be wary of it but they will accept an alliance if they need it, France is scary but in a similar way to Russia after 1815.
