The French Revolution without Napoleon - Page 2 - Historum

sylla1 · September 19th, 2010, 04:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edratman

This one goes either way.

There was an organized slave rebellion in St. Dominigue, now Haiti, in 1791 that was inspired by the French revolution itself. This rebellion lasted 12 years, with Britian getting involved, mainly as an anti-French effort. The British forces were decimated by yellow fever and withdrew from conflict.

In 1802 Napolean sent his brother-in-law, General LeClerc with 20, 000 French troops to the island to restore slavery. (So much for liberte, egalite, fraternite!) Anyway, these French troops were also ravaged by disease, most likely yellow fever, and the forces of the rebellion defeated the French in 1803, now led by Rochembeau.

This was the point where Napolean lost interest in the New World and sold the Louisiana territory, and it is entirely possible that anyone else at the helm would have done the same. The slave rebellion was inspired by the French revolution, Napolean had very little to do with Haiti and the circumstances were pretty much the same as what any other leader would have faced.

An excellent summary of the Napoleonic colonial policy.

However, the Louisiana was actually not a French colony at the time of their Revolution; it had been a Spanish possession since 1764 (Treaties of Fontainebleau & Paris), for full four decades by the time Monsieur Bonaparte took it over again from the debilitated Spain in 1803, just when the UK was declaring war against France again (May) i.e. the III coalition.

So M. Bonaparte ought to forget his projects and to sell the territory to the US as the only possible alternative of an imminent British conquest, not because of the Haitian slaves.

**Bismarck** · September 19th, 2010, 04:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sylla1

...
So M. Bonaparte ought to forget his projects and to sell the territory to the US as the only possible alternative of an imminent British conquest, not because of the Haitian slaves.

Has anybody suggested it was?

Inflames · September 19th, 2010, 08:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edratman

This one goes either way.

In 1802 Napolean sent his brother-in-law, General LeClerc with 20, 000 French troops to the island to restore slavery. (So much for liberte, egalite, fraternite!) Anyway, these French troops were also ravaged by disease, most likely yellow fever, and the forces of the rebellion defeated the French in 1803, now led by Rochembeau.

Abraham Lincoln, the champion of slaves in the US who told the American people the real folly of slavery and need to be abolished was not even born until seven years after 1802. I don't see how we can judge Napoleon as a racist and hypocrite when it comes to black people in the Atlantic. Most people would have probably been racist at this time compared to today. Including political figures, sure what he did was very wrong but would the leaders of Europe really been so much different I say no.

**A7X** · September 19th, 2010, 10:06 AM

The war of the first coalition would have lasted longer, possibly with a French defeat and restoration of the bourbons. Remeber that the other armies sent against the Austrians in 1796ish lost.

Paulinus · September 20th, 2010, 02:48 AM

In answer to the OP. The republic would have survived thanks to some competent generalship by Hoche and Moreau amongst others, but would not have gone on the ramage across Europe. Without the external threat of Napoleon the unity of British opposition to the revolution would have rapidly eroded and some compromise would have been struck leaving revolutionary France roughly within its historical borders. Ironically, without Napoleon's conquests the moral force of the revolution would have been much greater and Europe's monarchies and aristocrats would have been forced to surrender power to the middle classes earlier than they were.

sylla1 · September 20th, 2010, 04:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Bismarck

Has anybody suggested it was?

(SIC)

Quote:

Originally Posted by Edratman

This was the point where Napolean lost interest in the New World and sold the Louisiana territory,

Sorry for the re-posting.

**jeroenrottgering** · April 1st, 2011, 11:15 AM

Well I think that Revolutionary France without Napoleon would have meant two things:

- Extreme organizations would again rise to power and let France into a second terror period.

- The Royalists in France would have gained the upper hand and would have meant a immediate return of the Bourbons.

Napoleon ended the extremity in France by making a stable government with him as head of state. Although after him the Bourbons still returned he made a big impact on France and the Bourbons could no longer restore pre-revolutionary France again.

**spellbanisher** · April 1st, 2011, 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nikd

Sorry, but i will not agree with that, the French Revolution was started from the suppressed and hungry people of Paris add and a weak King with a Woman that is off - time and off-space plus that many Frech were in U.S. during the revolution and influenced.

This is only partially true. The revolution was set off by the aristocracy, who wanted to extract concessions out of the king. Once the plebians and the parvenus realized that the aristocracy was not on their side (this occurred when the old aristocrats made the new rich sit with the third estate at the estates general) the Jacobins and sans culottes took over.

**spellbanisher** · April 1st, 2011, 01:31 PM

I must also add that it must be determined whether the revolution was a success. Napoleon undid many of the reforms of the revolution, including rights for women, and he established a new aristocracy. Furthermore, his wars resulted in the deaths of eight million people and set back the economy of Europe a generation. It ended in the restoration, and a little over thirty years later his nephew Louis would revive the Bonaparte dynasty.

As pointed out earlier, however, is that it ignited revolutions in other countries. Robert Darnton says that the revolution "unleashed energy," the energy to overthrow governments, the energy to "recreate the world," the energy to challenge and overturn established ideologies, the energy to transform the way people viewed the world as well as the basis of legitimacy and government. It could be argued that if not for the Napleonic wars, then, the revolution would have never spread.

Albanian Paradox · April 1st, 2011, 02:20 PM

Without Napoleon, who knows what course the French Revolution would have taken. By 1799, the Directory was in trouble - mainly economic. However, had Napoleon not taken power in 1799, I think the Directory would have been able to ride the storm out and have gone on to better things - such as extending the franchise even further and thereby continuing the Revolution. Napoleon effectively ended the Revolution, there is little doubt about that!