Talk:Napoleon

Well, we know Napo was less greedy *there*. Perhaps he concentrated on Iberia and maybe Italy - a recreation of the Roman Empire, perhaps? (Napoleon's conquests were restricted to France, Iberia and Italy; he bullied the Diet into electing him Holy Roman Emperor; he threatened the Republic of the Two Crowns into signing on to an alliance, but never went any further east. His nephew and adopted heir, Napoleon II, was unable to hold on to most of his uncle's realm.)

Now that's a great idea! Napoleon was a great admirer of the Roman Empire (it's not for nothing that the Code Napoléonien originally contained quite a few laws taken straight from the Roman Empire laws). *There*, he even adopted an heir, like Roman emperors very often did. And *here* the recreation of the Roman Empire was always in the back of his mind. He just was so greedy that he wanted more than that :)) . Now it could well be that in Ill Bethisad, Napoleon wanted to recreate the Roman Empire, but with less greediness than *here* (to stay in line with the character of Ill Bethisad). Even after conquering some places (I think for instance of Batavia or Castille), he would sometimes recognise that conquering the places by strength wouldn't make for a stable empire, and thus would become ready to negociate with the former heads of state, agreeing to put them back in place if they accept to become a vassal state (and maybe other compensations). His main goal would be of course to take Rome, but maybe not the whole Italy, which may explain why IIRC Italy *there* is in fact two countries (the Kingdom of the Two Sicilies, and probably a Republic which I mentionned once as a possible Lombardic Republic - on my mail about Pim Fortuyn *there*.

Of course, afterwards Napoleon II would waste everything, since all vassal states and even pieces of the Empire would enjoy his weakness to get back their independence.

Napoleon II?

Who was Napoleon II *there*? *Here*'s Napoleon III? Nik 21:04, 31 October 2005 (PST)

I had always assume that it was the aiglon (his son). Rereading the above text, I think the proposal meant it to be who *here* was Napoleon III.--Marc Pasquin 15:36, 1 November 2005 (PST)

So, is there any QSS here? The History of France article suggests that Napoleon II was the same as *here*, except in the matter of age where there's a conflict. *Here*'s Napoleon II would've only been 10. And it's not clear who Napoleon III would've been if not the same as *here*'s Napoleon III. The History of France article mentions N2's "uncle" succeeding him, yet *Here*'s N3 was N2's cousin Nik 20:29, 1 November 2005 (PST)

Napoleon Questions

Did Napoleon invade all of Iberia?

Did he invade La Jelbatz/Helvetia?

Did he invade Jervaine?

He subjugated the HRE, did he touch the Bohemian Kingdom? Were they cowed into alliance like the RTC?

He died *here* in 1821. When did he die *there*? Do we know?

I'm reworking the 1815 map of Europe, and there need to be some changes to the map depending on the answers I get. BoArthur

- Being more concilient then *here*, the whole episode might not have happened at all. Would also give another reason why he held on.

- Unless the origin is different *there*, helvetia (or rather helvetic republic) was invaded by the french in 1798 (before napoleon) during the revolutionary wars.

- probably considering its geographical position and the fact he went through germany.

- I would lean more toward the alliance then invasion. He would have been stretched by then and getting dangerously close to russia.

- My proposal had him dying in 1821 and his son hanging on until 1830 (thus covering what *here* was the restoration of the 2"legitimist" kings)

--Marc Pasquin 16:03, 30 October 2005 (PST)

There ain't much I can tell you, except that he died in ca. 1825 of natural causes. Furthermore, I don't know what the expression "cowed into alliance" means, but I think the initiative for the alliance came from the RTC rather than from Napoleon himself. Let Jan II answer for the Bohemian Kingdom, but my impression is that Bohemia was mostly neutral, although relations with Napoleon were probably good. The Bohemian history page doesn't really delve into that. --IJzeren Jan 23:18, 31 October 2005 (PST)

Bohemian Kingdom was allied with Napoleon, especially against Prussia and Austria. Kings Anton and Jósef were quite keen to kick German ass on French side. They deserved Silesia and Lusatia back for that in 1815. --Jan II.

Congress of Vienna

Did this happen there? I know we discussed it, but can we get a recap?

Yessir, I did! But unlike *here*, it was an initiative by Napoleon himself, and it was him who dictated the conditions. From my RTC history page:

Napoleon was much more realistic and much less belligerent than he was *here*, and instead of attacking Prussia or Russia, he went for a diplomatic solution: he organised the Congress of Vienna (in 1815) in order to restore peace in Europe and to consolidate his power. One of the conditions he dictated was that Prussia had to give back all it had taken in the second partition, while Austro-Dalmatia was forced to return Galicia. Furthermore, Royal Hungary, which had been annexed by Austro-Dalmatia in 1766, became a semi-independent French protectorate, and Prussia was forced to return Silesia to Bohemia. Russia refused to participate in the congress, and although Napoleon repeatedly threatened to attack Russia, he never did so.

And from Jan II's Bohemian history:

During the Congress of Vienna, Napoleon suggested to BK to receive back Silesia and Lusatia in exchange for releasing Hungary as an independent kingdom because of security reasons on the edge of Balkan. Undoubtly, that was a good bargain. Hungary was a hornet's nest with Austrians and Ottomans behind back, so Anton, who believed in Napoleon's politics a lot, agreed. Hungary thus became independent, neither ADM nor BK acquired it, but was still on good terms with BK.

--IJzeren Jan 23:23, 31 October 2005 (PST)

Vacancy in the Holy Roman Empire?

Why did you say "None" for Napoleon's successor as HRE? We know there is still an Emperor today, so if there was a vacancy after Napoleon's death, then when was the throne restored? Nik 21:25, 2 November 2005 (PST)

Its possible that afterward the germans did not recognise his reign as legitimate, hence, no sucessor. The throne would have either returned to francis or baring that, the next emperor would have officialy been considered *Francis* sucessor.--Marc Pasquin 14:20, 3 November 2005 (PST)

RTC

How'd Napoleon become King of the RTC before Emperor of France or the HRE? And how'd he continue to be King after his death?  :-) Nik 21:24, 3 November 2005 (PST)

Anachronism

The Zouaves pontificaux were created in the second half of the 19th century with backing from Napoleon III. It would thus have been impossible for them to protect the papal states during the Napoleonic era. Also, and even though *I* created them, I doubt the zouaves, or indeed the army of any small states at the time could make short change of the soldiers of the Grande Armée.

Maybe it would be better to find another solution, such as a concordat between france and the Papal States that recognised the later's independence in exchange for recognition of Napoleon as the true Christian Emperor of the West. --Marc Pasquin 18:32, 16 January 2007 (PST)

Maybe...

I was just looking at Napoleon's page, and I noticed that he was "King of Spain." This would imply that he would have most likely have invaded Iberia at some point. However, "Spain" is, to the best of my knowledge, a non-existent term in IB. A far superior, in my opinion, solution is not to have him be King of Spain but perhaps "Protector of the Kingdom of Castile y Leon and Protector of the Kingdom of Aragon." This would technically grant him large amounts of power while simultaneously not forcing France on the Iberian Peninsula. I would also like to know whether or not he brought about departments for the "conquered" territories (Italy, Papal States, Two Sicilies, Aragon, Castile y Leon, Helvetia, Batavia [most likely]) and introduce something similar in the HRE and Veneda. What do you guys think? Seth 06:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the histories of Italian states mention how Napoleon granted them independence. Batavia, too, traces its modern form to Napoleon. I think his M.O. in Ill Bethisad was protector and paternalistic reformer of a system of friendly client states, not the raging conqueror out to remake Europe in his own image. Actually, I think that that idea is one of the key facts underlying IB Europe: Italy and Batavia, along with a few others, are basically survivors of Napoleon's system.

So... I think "Protector of the Spains" would be a nice compromise title. I don't see him creating departments for the conquered territories. I do see him creating new monarchial states for friendly dynasties, while rewarding others with extra land. (This is how Batavia got Flanders and Brabant, for example.) Benkarnell

I think you've hit it on the head, Ben. I don't see any problem with it, but let's get Marc's opinion, since we're both caretakers of France (and all things French, by extension). BoArthur 20:28, 10 February 2009 (UTC)