"What Happens if Napoleon is Killed in Battle?" Topic

I was just re-reading John Gill's excellent book on the Battle of Wagram. Napoleon spent quite a bit of time very close to the front lines and I was thinking about what would have happened to the Empire, France, and the rest of Europe if his luck ran out and he was killed there (or at any of the other big battles from say, 1805 onward).

Who would take command of the army? Who--if anyone--would ascend to the throne? Could the Empire hold together or would it fall apart as everyone tried to grab what he could? What about Napoleon's adversaries? Without 'The Ogre' to focus their attentions would they turn on each other?

It wouldn't be like 1814 or 1815, France is not defeated and would still have enormous influence on what would happen in Europe. But what would?

Napoleon's dying words on the battlefield, after he's asked who should succeed him: "To the strongest."

Bernadotte would stage a coup.

Whoa. This is a counterfactual I've not encountered before. I'll be very interested to read replies and hypotheses.

I asked the robot and this is what it came up with.

1. Before 1804 – During the Consulate
If Napoleon died before proclaiming himself Emperor in 1804, there was no clear dynastic successor. The French Republic was technically in place, and power might have reverted to the other two consuls (Jean-Jacques Cambacérès and Charles-François Lebrun), or a military power struggle could have erupted, with strong generals like Jean Lannes or Joachim Murat possibly rising.

2. After 1804 – As Emperor of the French
Once Napoleon became Emperor in 1804, he established a hereditary monarchy. Here's how succession would have worked:

A. Before Napoleon had a legitimate heir (1804–1811):
Joseph Bonaparte, his elder brother, was named heir presumptive.

Joseph was considered the next in line by the imperial constitution (the Constitution of Year XII).

B. After the birth of his son (1811–1814):
In 1811, Napoleon's second wife, Marie Louise of Austria, gave birth to Napoleon II, titled the King of Rome.

From that point, Napoleon II was the heir apparent.

If Napoleon had died in battle during this time, Napoleon II would have technically succeeded him, with a regency, probably led by Marie Louise or a council of ministers.

3. During the Hundred Days (1815)
During his brief return to power in 1815:

Napoleon still recognized Napoleon II as his heir.

If Napoleon had died at Waterloo, for example, some Bonapartists might have tried to declare Napoleon II as emperor again—but political realities (the Allied powers and restored Bourbons) would likely have prevented it.

Summary of Successors by Time Period:
Time Period Likely Successor Notes
1799–1804 Power struggle or Joseph Bonaparte No hereditary empire yet
1804–1811 Joseph Bonaparte Named heir by imperial constitution
1811–1815 Napoleon II (infant son) Regency likely under Marie Louise
1815 (Hundred Days) Napoleon II (in theory) Political reality made this unlikely

A. Before Napoleon had a legitimate heir (1804–1811):
Joseph Bonaparte, his elder brother, was named heir presumptive.

Joseph was considered the next in line by the imperial constitution (the Constitution of Year XII).

If at were the case, we would be playing Josephite wargames, instead of Napoleonic. That is, if he were a decent general.
If any of his foreign adversaries turned out to be outstanding, maybe the games would be named after them?

Which of the Marshals would have had the ability to take over? Or do so in the name of Napoleon II maybe.

That's a great question, and I don't know enough to give a thoughtful response. Was anyone waiting in the wings who also wanted to march across Europe?

ScottWashburn

"Who would take command of the army? Who--if anyone--would ascend to the throne?"

No one had legitimacy. Bonaparte was very careful to see to that. Messina was a military rival early on and Bonaparte made sure he never developed a political following of his own. The highest ranking people were his own family and they were venal and weak. He wanted his marshals to compete with one another for glory so they did, often co-operating badly. They were largely left alone in Spain and found reasons not to co-operate.

"Without 'The Ogre' to focus their attentions would they turn on each other?"

Yes. They found it easier to return to the Bourbons in 1814 so that's what I think would have happened.

I think there would be a military junta, much as after Alexander's death. The ablest of his family Was Eugene de Beauharnis, so he may have salvaged something. Davout may have supported N's family. The rest would have sought power but France still had the best army in Europe to defend the empire.

Eugene would be the best choise…

He was leal, honest, fine administrator and not bad militar…

He was well married too…

He has the respect from all of the Marshalls …

Another example to what would happened without Napoleon was when he resigned… a mess…

Armand

Davout would have been the best army commander. But as head of state he most likely would have declined.
Also Europe would revert to fighting among themselves.

Also Europe would revert to fighting among themselves.

For those, like me, who believe that derailing history onto a new track, this probably the correct answer.
"What if?" is usually answered correctly with "Yeah, but what about?"
Europe's kings had been fighting each other for minuscule change for centuries. France, under whoever, traditionally fights Austria. Or Prussia. Definitely Britain. Russia joins in for whatever.

No change, and General Bonaparte will be an anecdote, a trivia question for history nerds.

That is, if it's early. Those who have memorized the names of all the Marshals, will add him to the list. Later, when he became more famous….
But the usual wars, waged by the usual suspects, will continue.

The more I think it over, I think that whatever the short-term legal and military answer is, and whatever the year, the long-term political answer is that you get a French version of the Restoration. Property stays with the new owners, Napoleonic titles of nobility are (probably) recognized, but Louis XVIII gets the throne--probably with some constitutional safeguards. Bonaparte doesn't have anyone close to him who's a credible ruler, or even regent for Napoleon II. (Joseph? Really??) I don't think that was so much a Napoleonic design as an outcome of his personality, but there it is. At a guess, France has to give up the Low Countries, but keeps the Rhineland. Italy reverts to its previous status as a buffer.

Whether Europe resumes Cabinet Krieg probably depends a little on the date. Post-Napoleonic Europe tends to hold congresses where pre-Revolutionary Europe mobilized. I think the greater the carnage had been, the less likely Heads of state were to resume fighting over petty stakes. But people are notoriously slow learners.

Napoleon dies in his bed (or someone else's) will usually be preceded by a period of illness and anticipation. That gives time for all the scheming and intrigues.

The question posed here is a battlefield death.

I have previously asked here what if Christopher Plummer had let Ramsay "Try a shot, as he has ridden within range"? A 9 pound ball takes his head clean off and the Marshals and Generals gather round a bit disturbed and perplexed.

"Oh dear. What now? Do we go ahead with the attack on that chateau and d'Erlon's Corps against the east ridge?"

What happens on a battlefield in the half-hour after his death, not the month on? Do they (indeed can they) withdraw as it all now seems pointless?

Who is actually in immediate charge anyway on 18th June?

Blucher turns up mid afternoon and finds they have all gone home and many a Western European lives on to be an old man.

Don't forget that Bonaparte was a dictator for a reason. France did not support the regime by consent: it was full of factions with widespread Bourbon loyalties outside of Paris. Having the elite elect someone was no answer. None of the Marshals would vote for someone ruthless enough to put down the inevitable regional uprisings because he'd brook no dissent from them either. Dictators are seldom voted in – they seize power with a small base of compromised men around them.

The exact same problem arose when Cromwell died. The Commonwealth (republican and anti-Stewart) army and money leaders only voted in his son to take over because his son was weak. Eventually the only thing left was to restore the monarchy.

My understanding is that Napoleon had a deputy for a number of his campaigns. In 1805-1806-1807 it was Murat. In 1809 Berthier. If present my guess is their authority would have been recognized on the battlefield. The problem becomes what happens if they were not on the battlefield, or after the battle was over.

During the battle if they were smart the staff would let as few men as possible know that something had happened to Napoleon. Even if the corps and division commanders guessed that something had happened they might not know whether Napoleon had been killed or just rendered temporarily unable to exercise command. This uncertainty would be enough to give staff orders the appearance of legitimacy.

It is after the battle where the uncertainty comes in. We like to throw out Davout and Eugene today. At the time though I doubt any commander in the Grand Army could claim supperiority over the others without Napoleon's sanction.

On the battlefield: "The Emperor is suffering indigestion--or maybe has been lightly wounded--and has gone to his tent for a bit of a lie down. (You, who saw his head taken off, keep your mouth shut!)" The marshal who saw--or the first one informed--gives orders in the Emperor's name, and everything gets sorted out afterward.

I think on the actual day of battle, the momentum is too great. These are men whose lives have revolved for decades around how they win battles. Right then, the death of a commander is just another obstacle to victory. Afterward, with time to think it over and thousands of men already dead and crippled, they'll reflect on how pointless the whole thing was.

I think something similar to what happened at Salamanca would happen:

As Pakenham's 3rd Division prepared to attack Thomières extended column, Marmont realized his army's peril. He dashed for his horse, but was caught in a British shellburst which broke his arm and two ribs. His second-in-command, Bonet, was wounded very soon afterwards.

Between 20 minutes and over an hour, the French Army of Portugal remained leaderless. During this interregnum a divisional and a brigade attack were repulsed by the French.

Clauzel, assuming command, did well to salvage the dire situation. He committed Sarrut's division to shore up the wrecked left flank, then launched a dangerous counterattack at Cole's 4th Division using his own and Bonet's divisions, supported by Boyer's dragoons. After more fighting, much of the French ran but Clauzel organised an effective rearguard and withdrawal.

At Waterloo, Ney was Bony's deputy. Therefore it's hard to say if the Commander's death during the battle would have made any difference, except, perhaps, to open up that small window of opportunity for a fresh attack when there was a gap in the Allied line Ney saw West of La Haye Sainte.

What well thought out responses.I guess my scenario is his death before battle is even joined. But I can see that the boys in blue and gold have little choice but to fight on.

What happened when he resigned in 1815 is a good example too…

Armand

I'm not sure 1815 is a good example. Napoleon (and France) were beaten at that point. My question was for what would have happened if Napoleon was killed while he (and France) are at the height of their power. 1805, 1806, 1807, 1809.

Good point. I note you did specify that in the opening posting, (but of course completely overlooked it, for which apologies)

I tend to forget there were some battles before 1815, other than Borodino.

ScottWashburn
1809 saw Fouché making secret overtures to the British. Not traitorous exactly, but with his unparalleled network of spies and given his subsequent behaviour, you can be sure that he and others would be scrambling for personal power.

The Revolution in many ways got rid of a collective higher calling towards God, race or country. There was very little morality and thus trust among those who thought they could replace Bonaparte.

Inevitably, for anyone with a high position in France upon Bonaparte's death, trading with foreigners was a far easier way to get personal power or wealth, than scrambling around trying to get support from fellow countryman you couldn't trust.

There would have been a "War of Napoleonic Succession" to the joy of many wargamers everywhere!

Ha!…

Armand

To go back to the original post, if Napoleon died early at Wagram, would the French have been able to get a win? It was not a complete victory as it was. If the French were defeated, there would have been a scramble to get back over the Danube. Many would not have made it. Whoever took charge would have had a much depleted army.

Cheers,
John

Stalkey and Co
"There would have been a "War of Napoleonic Succession" to the joy of many wargamers everywhere!"

But who'd have fought in it? Ordinary troops didn't have any Rome-like personal loyalty to the Marshals, whom Bony often swapped around. What would be their "higher calling"? "The Revolution" doesn't work as a rallying cry against other revolutionaries. Regional loyalties were still a thing, as in the Vendée, with maybe the Bourbons coming in as saviours. The main battleground could be the source of money; street-skirmishing along the Champs Elysée!

I'd suggest that it all really depends on when it happens. Toulon 1793 and the is no such things as the Napoleonic era. 1805-07 maybe that weasel Bernadotte would have been the next ruler of France, maybe there would have been some sort of council of senior Marshals. 1812 I suspect France wold have surrendered, possibly after a counter revolution possibly not.