Any thoughts on what would have happened had Napoleon II lived?

[Grand Historian]

So, this is something I don't think has really been explored in any alt-history scenarios - which is a shame since it has to be one of the most interesting what-ifs - but what might be some of the potential historical outcomes had The Eaglet survived or avoided his bout with sickness, especially as he had finally just been given command of a battalion?

 

[Sarmatia1871]

Probably very little different to what actually happened.

 

[Captain Frakas]

Probably very little different to what actually happened.

Probably, yes, however, his simple survive up to 1848 would arguably had quite dramatically reduced the dynastic legitimacy of Lewis-Napoleon Bonaparte to be elected president of the Republic, then plebiscited emperor of the French... Who knows? No one... Would Napoleon-Francis Bonaparte be as electorally successful as Lewis-Napoléon? Would he manage to play as subtlety with the order majority of the parliament? Would he be as successful as Lewis-Népoléon to make his institutional coup? Would he follow similar inner and foreign policies? Would he fall the same way under Prussian imperialism?

The problem with "what would had happened if..." questions, when applied on such non-exact sciences are as human and social sciences (such as History) is that nobody could give any answer stronger than "Nobody knows, but I feel that it might perhaps had leaded to this, even if this is a groundless feeling that isn't more probable than thousands of thousands of other feelings".

 

[Grand Historian]

Probably very little different to what actually happened.

Franz was already displaying some tactical and strategic acumen, had been made a battalion commander, openly voiced his admiration of his father, and was additionally the grandson of the Austrian Emperor. There's plenty of material in there for a promising career that could have upset a number of things.

The problem with "what would had happened if..." questions, when applied on such non-exact sciences are as human and social sciences (such as History) is that nobody could give any answer stronger than "Nobody knows, but I feel that it might perhaps had leaded to this, even if this is a groundless feeling that isn't more probable than thousands of thousands of other feelings".

Well, yes, but that's part of the fun of it.

I also feel it's more probable to believe Eaglet would have continued to pursue a military career than suddenly decide one day to retire and become an archeologist or the like.

 

[JodelDiplom]

The problem with "what would had happened if..." questions, when applied on such non-exact sciences are as human and social sciences (such as History) is that nobody could give any answer stronger than "Nobody knows, but I feel that it might perhaps had leaded to this, even if this is a groundless feeling that isn't more probable than thousands of thousands of other feelings".

The positive thing about what-if questions is that you may learn about why historical decisions were made. What were the factors weighing on favor of a historical decision, what were the factors weighing against. How were things related to one another. Why did people *not* do any one of a number of things that we might today consider to have been better decisions, in hindsight. The question "what if X did this instead of that" is closely related to the question "why did X do this or that in the first place". Follow on effects of hypothetical alternative decisions are hard to estimate in hindsight but you must consider that the people making those decisions back then must have tried to do exactly those estimations in order to conclude what the best course of action for them was. It's a worthy subject of historical debate, if the speculation doesn't go too far.

 

[Yakman]

Probably, yes, however, his simple survive up to 1848 would arguably had quite dramatically reduced the dynastic legitimacy of Lewis-Napoleon Bonaparte to be elected president of the Republic, then plebiscited emperor of the French... Who knows? No one... Would Napoleon-Francis Bonaparte be as electorally successful as Lewis-Napoléon? Would he manage to play as subtlety with the order majority of the parliament? Would he be as successful as Lewis-Népoléon to make his institutional coup? Would he follow similar inner and foreign policies? Would he fall the same way under Prussian imperialism?

for some reason, i don't think that Napoleon II would have been as adept at manipulating the French people as was everyone's favorite Napoleon.

then again, Napoleon III managed to get elected largely because he was an empty body whom everyone could pin their hopes and dreams into, so it's entirely possible that Nappy II would have been able to succeed where his cousin did. or maybe he just stays in Austria while his cousin takes over France.

who knows?

 

[jamhaw]

for some reason, i don't think that Napoleon II would have been as adept at manipulating the French people as was everyone's favorite Napoleon.

then again, Napoleon III managed to get elected largely because he was an empty body whom everyone could pin their hopes and dreams into, so it's entirely possible that Nappy II would have been able to succeed where his cousin did. or maybe he just stays in Austria while his cousin takes over France.

who knows?

Would that have required his cousin to stay as president? I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of Bonapartist succession, but I'd assume that the pretender still kicking around would be a bridge too far for his cousin? Or would a mature Napoleon II be a useful tool of the Hapsburgs?

Incidentally, did Hitler move his entire body to France or did he leave the heart in Austria? My understanding is that part of him is currently in Vienna but I'm not sure if that postdated the war.

Additionally, was his Dukedom of Reichstadt hereditary?

 

[jamhaw]

On a vaguely related note - was Napoleon actually emperor of Elba or was he just a king or prince? I've never been clear how Elba was supposed to work aside from being non-hereditary.

 

[Yakman]

Would that have required his cousin to stay as president? I'm not familiar with the ins and outs of Bonapartist succession, but I'd assume that the pretender still kicking around would be a bridge too far for his cousin? Or would a mature Napoleon II be a useful tool of the Hapsburgs?

neither Napoleon II nor Napoleon III were pretenders. they were both legit.

the Hapsburgs [at least the ones who had half a brain] were far too busy worrying about holding their empire together by the 1830s/40s than about plotting some coup in Paris.

 

[Grand Historian]

Incidentally, did Hitler move his entire body to France or did he leave the heart in Austria? My understanding is that part of him is currently in Vienna but I'm not sure if that postdated the war.

His body was returned to Paris but his heart remained in Vienna.

 

[jamhaw]

neither Napoleon II nor Napoleon III were pretenders. they were both legit.

the Hapsburgs [at least the ones who had half a brain] were far too busy worrying about holding their empire together by the 1830s/40s than about plotting some coup in Paris.

Napoleon II was emperor for at most a few days - after that he was a pretender to the imperial throne (in theory - I assume that his duchy was to make up for technically renouncing such claims).

 

[Yakman]

Napoleon II was emperor for at most a few days - after that he was a pretender to the imperial throne (in theory - I assume that his duchy was to make up for technically renouncing such claims).

they were both legit heirs to napoleon and the bonaparte dynasty.

 

[LordTempest]

The positive thing about what-if questions is that you may learn about why historical decisions were made. What were the factors weighing on favor of a historical decision, what were the factors weighing against. How were things related to one another. Why did people *not* do any one of a number of things that we might today consider to have been better decisions, in hindsight. The question "what if X did this instead of that" is closely related to the question "why did X do this or that in the first place". Follow on effects of hypothetical alternative decisions are hard to estimate in hindsight but you must consider that the people making those decisions back then must have tried to do exactly those estimations in order to conclude what the best course of action for them was. It's a worthy subject of historical debate, if the speculation doesn't go too far.

My name is Lord Tempest and this is my favourite post on the History fora.

 

[jamhaw]

they were both legit heirs to napoleon and the bonaparte dynasty.

A pretender to a throne is a legitimate heir (usually).

Ernst August is the rightful king of Hannover. But he is the pretender to the throne because he does not currently hold that throne. Once he retakes what is rightfully his then he will be king and not pretender.

The Old Pretender James III was the rightful king, but since he did not hold the throne he was merely the pretender to the throne.

Charles II was the rightful king, but during the Interregnum he was the pretender.

 

[Yakman]

A pretender to a throne is a legitimate heir (usually).

Ernst August is the rightful king of Hannover. But he is the pretender to the throne because he does not currently hold that throne. Once he retakes what is rightfully his then he will be king and not pretender.

The Old Pretender James III was the rightful king, but since he did not hold the throne he was merely the pretender to the throne.

Charles II was the rightful king, but during the Interregnum he was the pretender.

REPUBLICAN!!!!!

 

[Kgw]

Oooh, for a moment I did read Napoleon IV.

But I don't think the monarchy could have even been restored had he lived.