Board Thread:Timeline Discussions/@comment-1310192-20121224215413/@comment-1310192-20130111225403

Lordganon wrote: With a time delay, no invasion of Russia. Too much territory between them.

So long as Napoleon lives, and he can come to some sort of arrangement with the Brits, his empire should hold.

Now, after his death? Very debatable. Not impossible to hold things together, but...

Well, his son would definitely have been crowned Emperor, at 10 years old. But I doubt he'd stay in power. Napoleon's generals were a rather head-strong bunch, who all did carve out some power for themselves otl. Let's just say that I suspect we'd see something ala~ Alexander's Empire. With more local rulers regaining power/new local powers arising mixed in.

Most timelines involving the Emperor get around this by having him live longer than otl - but, really, there's not much logic to that, considering he died of stomach cancer in 1821 otl, something that there is ample proof of. By doing this, his son gets old enough to deal with the problem, and stays emperor. This is something that both NW and FTBW indicate when Napoleon II is in power he has such problems, even getting overthrown in NW.

But, even in a collapse, I suspect that he would retain power somewhere.

Well that's better than what I expected.

What about Napoleon II making more kingdoms like Napoleon did by taking some puppet states and crowning the generals dukes and kings in the Confederation of the Rhine or other places? Or maybe have a regency council which every general having the same power, with the throne being hard to win and a lot to be lost if they rebelled?