WI: Napoleon dies at Eylau (1807)

[GauchoBadger]

According to historical records, at the beginning of the Battle of Eylau in February 1807 (waged in the midst of a winter snowstorm) Napoleon Bonaparte and his baggage train were harassed by Russian Cossack cavalrymen and almost captured. Suppose Napoleon fends them off, but is, more or less by accident, shot and killed. The emperor is dead on the battlefield.
What are the immediate effects? It seems like the French army would be massively demoralized upon receiving the news of Napoleon's death, which could result in a tactical defeat. I'm afraid the War of the Fourth Coalition would not end in French defeat, however, and the line would stabilize somewhere near the Elbe river as the French get their house back in order.
Which begs another question: who would succeed Napoleon as emperor? To me, the two more capable and viable options would be either his stepson Eugene de Beauharnais or his brother Joseph, but i'm still not sure what Napoleon's dynastic contingency plans were for a situation in which he died before 1810.
Depending on who ascends to the throne, how would peace negotiations proceed? What happens to the Poles, who desired a free state, but, here, are unable to consolidate it? How does Austria react?

 

[Corjomc]

Eugene 'Augustus' Napoleon?

 

[m0585]

The French Army would be demoralized, but it might also be out for blood; you just killed its revered emperor. You might get a Battle of Friedland a few months earlier; at which point the Russians would seek an accommodation and end the War of the Fourth Coalition.

As to the succession, Napoleon II wouldn't have been born for another four years. You might see Eugène de Beauharnais, who was Napoleon's first wife and who Napoleon had adopted in 1806, make a claim on the throne. He was already the Viceroy of Italy and was a pretty good military commander. In the medium, expect a junta of Marshals to run the empire while the succession is sorted out.

 

[TimTurner]

does Nappy's empire hold together in the long run?

 

[jb3]

does Nappy's empire hold together in the long run?

I don't see it, without him. It will be an Alexander the Great free-for-all between his mediocre siblings plus Murat, and the the most ambitious French marshals who had no time for the pretensions of the Bonaparte family. Eugene was ambitious and able, but didn't have the extreme ambition or hubris Napoleon had (the kind where you crown yourself in Notre Dame) - which is partially why he was so respected by the Allies.

 

[pompejus]

Hmmm, continued kingdom of Holland?

 

[isabella]

Eugene was adopted by Napoleon but excluded from the French succession...
After Napoleon’s ATL death I see the most likely scenario of succession with Joseph as new Emperor and Eugene as new King of Italy

 

[alexmilman]

According to historical records, at the beginning of the Battle of Eylau in February 1807 (waged in the midst of a winter snowstorm) Napoleon Bonaparte and his baggage train were harassed by Russian Cossack cavalrymen and almost captured. Suppose Napoleon fends them off, but is, more or less by accident, shot and killed. The emperor is dead on the battlefield.
What are the immediate effects? It seems like the French army would be massively demoralized upon receiving the news of Napoleon's death, which could result in a tactical defeat.

Keep in mind that in OTL both sides declared it a victory: Napoleon because he hold the battleground and Bennigsen because the French losses were presumably higher (it seems to be rather difficult to figure out what were the real losses vs. declared). So Nappy's death would be a considerable "political bonus" for Bennigsen. I don't think that N's death would result in a better French performance because both sides were seemingly doing their best. However, short of a complete French collapse, I don't think that Bennigsen would be capable of exploiting the advantage both because of the losses and just because he was too cautious.

I'm afraid the War of the Fourth Coalition would not end in French defeat, however, and the line would stabilize somewhere near the Elbe river as the French get their house back in order.

IMO, if regime is stable, stalemate on the Alle River is also a possibility. For a while, this was more or less the case in OTL: Napoleon failed at Heilsberg with serious losses and Friedland happened mostly because Bennigsen decided to be aggressive.

Which begs another question: who would succeed Napoleon as emperor? To me, the two more capable and viable options would be either his stepson Eugene de Beauharnais or his brother Joseph, but i'm still not sure what Napoleon's dynastic contingency plans were for a situation in which he died before 1810.
Depending on who ascends to the throne, how would peace negotiations proceed? What happens to the Poles, who desired a free state, but, here, are unable to consolidate it? How does Austria react?

Joseph is a King of Naples and Eugene is viceroy of Italy. Probably Eugene can get to Paris faster than Joseph but the whole thing would depend upon the support at home for any of them. Eugene is Archchancellor of State and Joseph - Grand Elector but probably both titles would be meaningless. Eugene has a good military record but mostly as a subordinate commander. As viceroy of Italy he proved to be a capable administrator. Joseph did not have any military background (but it is reasonable to assume that support of Bernadotte would be more or less guaranteed) but seemingly had good political connections and served as a diplomat (was French representative at Luneville). Seemingly was considered #1 successor of Napoleon (the reason why he declined an offer to become a King of Italy).

Probably Napoleon's death would simplify an issue of a meaningful peace (Alexander hated Napoleon but this seemingly did not extend to the rest of the family) and it is probably reasonable to assume that Prussia ends up better off than in OTL.

The Polish issue is tricky: on one hand Poles already created a de facto state but OTOH without French help it is doomed so they most probably end up as a bargaining chip during the general peace talks.

France has a chance to retain the border on the Rhine and probably at least Kingdom of Italy. What about the territories which in OTL formed Kingdom of Westphalia?

 

[Grey Wolf]

The Napoleonic succession law of 1804 makes Joseph heir, followed by Louis (absent any male descendants of Napoleon or Joseph).

The Marshals would support the legitimate heir

As for the battle itself, Soult and Murat are present and quite capable of winning the thing between them

 

[funnyhat]

Joseph is a King of Naples and Eugene is viceroy of Italy. Probably Eugene can get to Paris faster than Joseph but the whole thing would depend upon the support at home for any of them. Eugene is Archchancellor of State and Joseph - Grand Elector but probably both titles would be meaningless. Eugene has a good military record but mostly as a subordinate commander. As viceroy of Italy he proved to be a capable administrator. Joseph did not have any military background (but it is reasonable to assume that support of Bernadotte would be more or less guaranteed) but seemingly had good political connections and served as a diplomat (was French representative at Luneville). Seemingly was considered #1 successor of Napoleon (the reason why he declined an offer to become a King of Italy).

Probably Napoleon's death would simplify an issue of a meaningful peace (Alexander hated Napoleon but this seemingly did not extend to the rest of the family) and it is probably reasonable to assume that Prussia ends up better off than in OTL.

The Polish issue is tricky: on one hand Poles already created a de facto state but OTOH without French help it is doomed so they most probably end up as a bargaining chip during the general peace talks.

France has a chance to retain the border on the Rhine and probably at least Kingdom of Italy. What about the territories which in OTL formed Kingdom of Westphalia?

I think this is plausible. Also: Napoléon here is a total legend, like Alexander the Great. He dies at the height of his powers. Because he's decreed that Joseph is his heir, I think most will respect that. There may be a rogue Marshal who opposes but probably won't have a lot of support.

 

[alexmilman]

I think this is plausible. Also: Napoléon here is a total legend, like Alexander the Great. He dies at the height of his powers. Because he's decreed that Joseph is his heir, I think most will respect that. There may be a rogue Marshal who opposes (Bernadotte?) but probably won't have a lot of support.

Out of all marshals, Bernadotte would be the least likely figure to oppose Joseph: they were married to the sisters and seemingly had been personally friendly.

 

[isabella]

I think this is plausible. Also: Napoléon here is a total legend, like Alexander the Great. He dies at the height of his powers. Because he's decreed that Joseph is his heir, I think most will respect that. There may be a rogue Marshal who opposes (Bernadotte?) but probably won't have a lot of support.

Pretty unlikely who one of the marshals would do that: Bernadotte, who was Joseph’s own brother-in-law, will not do it and none of the others look the kind of man to oppose Napoleon’s will

 

[alexmilman]

The Napoleonic succession law of 1804 makes Joseph heir, followed by Louis (absent any male descendants of Napoleon or Joseph).

The Marshals would support the legitimate heir

As for the battle itself, Soult and Murat are present and quite capable of winning the thing between them

Well, it OTL this specific battle was not won by any side (or rather both sides declared it a victory) so the French decisive victory without Napoleon is unlikely. However, unless death of Napoleon causes panic among the French, a decisive Russian victory is also unlikely. Most probably the result is more or less the same. Or, if Napoleon is killed before battle started, the major encounter may not happen at all: the French marshals would have to figure out who is in charge.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Well, it OTL this specific battle was not won by any side (or rather both sides declared it a victory) so the French decisive victory without Napoleon is unlikely. However, unless death of Napoleon causes panic among the French, a decisive Russian victory is also unlikely. Most probably the result is more or less the same. Or, if Napoleon is killed before battle started, the major encounter may not happen at all: the French marshals would have to figure out who is in charge.

Isn't the convention that the infantry commander outranks the cavalry?

I'd think Soult would be in charge, with Murat an autonomous second

 

[longsword14]

Isn't the convention that the infantry commander outranks the cavalry?

I'd think Soult would be in charge, with Murat an autonomous second

Murat had a different role under Napoleon compared to other armies of that time. His role had an "operational" element to it which included screening the whole front of the army and pursuit of the enemy at a grand-scale. See the French chasing Prussians in 1806.
As for Soult, he would not take kindly to being a subordinate but it would not be him but Massena at the top.

 

[funnyhat]

Out of all marshals, Bernadotte would be the least likely figure to oppose Joseph: they were married to the sisters and seemingly had been personally friendly.

Pretty unlikely who one of the marshals would do that: Bernadotte, who was Joseph’s own brother-in-law, will not do it and none of the others look the kind of man to oppose Napoleon’s will

Wow, I blanked out on that. Yes, not him.

 

[alexmilman]

Isn't the convention that the infantry commander outranks the cavalry?

Is it? AFAIK, a more common practice is related to the seniority in rank which, in the case of the same ranks, is defined by a time of promotion. Both Soult and Murat had been made marshals of France on May 1804 so I can't tell if any of them had a clearly defined seniority.