Effect of a conquest of Great Britain on the economy of Europe, circa 1790 to 1815

Alt History Buff

I'm begging you not to start the debate as to how this was accomplished given Britain's "mastery of the seas", just assume a fait accompli.

1. Assume Great Britain is taken (somehow) by France.
2. Assume an extended occupation (no debates on what this would take please) of several years.

I want to know how this would affect the general European and world economies.

Great Britain was the vital shipping power of the world. What would occur if the British merchant fleet were to be curtailed for an extended period?

What would be the effect of the same of a lack of manufactured goods exports (even during the Napoleonic Wars, much of the French army uniforms were indirectly provided by the British via smuggling)?

How would the presumed collapse of the British banking system affect the European economy?

Thanks.
 

Tanc49

Nomally the banking system would go to the Dutch but at that period...

Question: are you assuming UK's colonies are taken as well or just mainland UK?
 

Jbsmagic

I would guess a negatively impacted British merchant marine would be filled by the Americans.

Could an occupied Britain be like the Spanish during the Peninsular War? Various colonies declare independence etc. I know its cliche but dont you think a French great Britain would me an independent Quebec?
 

Emperor-of-New-Zealand

Jbsmagic said:
I would guess a negatively impacted British merchant marine would be filled by the Americans.

Could an occupied Britain be like the Spanish during the Peninsular War? Various colonies declare independence etc. I know its cliche but dont you think a French great Britain would me an independent Quebec?
Click to expand...

I have actually always wondered this myself. Quebec I think could very well go independent - but what about the rest of Canada? If this occurs during the Napoleonic Wars, there was also the War of 1812 in this period. Could we see something like that happen, with the US occupying British colonies in North America and the Caribbean?

What about India?
 

Jbsmagic

I could be wrong (frequently am) but I always viewed the maritimes to be very similar to New England. I could see them gravitating to the American sphere.

As for Americans occupying other British territory, I could see the Bahamas (due to proximity) but that's it. I don't see OTL USA having the necessary force projection to snatch up Jamaican and the other Caribbean island.

What I would find interesting is what would the islands do? Take Jamaica for instance. Doubt it is strong enough to defend itself from an invasion from a European power. Since staying British isn't an option, their choices are go French, Spanish, or...American? Could we be looking at countries begging to join the Americans? The butterflies would be extreme. British has always been the elephant in the room that in my mind prevented the Caribbean from becoming an American lake
 

Matteo

Alt History Buff said:
I'm begging you not to start the debate as to how this was accomplished given Britain's "mastery of the seas", just assume a fait accompli.

1. Assume Great Britain is taken (somehow) by France.
2. Assume an extended occupation (no debates on what this would take please) of several years.

I want to know how this would affect the general European and world economies.

Great Britain was the vital shipping power of the world. What would occur if the British merchant fleet were to be curtailed for an extended period?

What would be the effect of the same of a lack of manufactured goods exports (even during the Napoleonic Wars, much of the French army uniforms were indirectly provided by the British via smuggling)?

How would the presumed collapse of the British banking system affect the European economy?

Thanks.
Click to expand...

I will partially do both.

First of all, even assuming France had had a navy enabling It to defeat Britain on its own ground, It would not have occupied the while of Britain for several years. It would have been very costly. It did not want to and it did not even need to do so. It just needed to have strong garrisons positioned in strategic areas of the British islands for the time to guarantee the enforcement of the provisions of the treaty It Will have imposed on Britain.

This having been said, the european and world economy did not need that much Britain as It was. Britain was not so much an innovator (which It certainly was, no question about it) than a mercantilist monopolist power.

So if Britain is decisively defeated to such a point, this means that other european countries will have much more opportunities to develop their own merchant navires and trade. They will no longer be forced to deal with the costly monopolist british middleman. They will no longer suffer blockade of their coasts nor attacks of their own merchant fleets : they will enjoy freedom of the seas.
There will be a certain delay in innovation but the world will anyway make the innovations that Britain brought and that defeated Britain will certainly bring to the world a few years later.

Financial centers Will develop in Europe too.

If France wins such a crushing victory, then it will reap enormous profits from this victory.

Capital will mainly flow to France which will be the unchallenged dominant number one power for a certain number of decades, probably for a century.

Antwerp will become a harbour that may be on par with depressed London.

With general peace in Europe, France will resume its colonial projects that it was forced to give-up and could not succeed because of general war in Europe. It may take control of Canada and will have the capacity to force the young and fragile US to accept the fait-accompli.

It will certainly want to take Britain's place in India but this will be much more complicated because the British EIC will crash and Will not easily be replaced. What is more probable is that France will demand and take parts of british controlled India, that Britain will remain other parts of it and that other parts Will regain independance.

With a Franca Pax in Europe, France and the rest of Europe will very quickly develop their own shipping and manufacturing facilities.
 

Alstein

I don't see the French taking over Canada- more profitable places to take over. US is zero threat to France and would probably be pro-French as is.

I can see Nappy in a peace treaty putting the boot on England's power potential but not really trying to annex the place- I don't see him putting one of his relatives on the throne (that would never fly)- he's probably limit their Navy, and liberate Scotland and Ireland (and fill it with French troops). He might put a Bonaparte on the Irish throne.

France and Russia become the predominant Euro powers, with Austria/Prussia falling into Russia's sphere.
 

Matteo

This is not because the US would be friendly towards France that France would not want to take foot in North America again.

France wanted to do it at the beginning of Napoleon's rule and was forced to give-up the project only because Britain had decided to go to war again.

France tried to do it again under Napoleon III with the Mexico adventure during the US civil war.

It was very logical to go for it. France had understood the interest of developing strong settlement colonies. And by 1800, there already was an important french-speaking population in north America that made such a place an interesting and obvious startpoint for expansion.
 

RodentRevolution

Banned
Matteo said:
I will partially do both.

First of all, even assuming France had had a navy enabling It to defeat Britain on its own ground, It would not have occupied the while of Britain for several years. It would have been very costly. It did not want to and it did not even need to do so. It just needed to have strong garrisons positioned in strategic areas of the British islands for the time to guarantee the enforcement of the provisions of the treaty It Will have imposed on Britain.

This having been said, the european and world economy did not need that much Britain as It was. Britain was not so much an innovator (which It certainly was, no question about it) than a mercantilist monopolist power.

So if Britain is decisively defeated to such a point, this means that other european countries will have much more opportunities to develop their own merchant navires and trade. They will no longer be forced to deal with the costly monopolist british middleman. They will no longer suffer blockade of their coasts nor attacks of their own merchant fleets : they will enjoy freedom of the seas.
There will be a certain delay in innovation but the world will anyway make the innovations that Britain brought and that defeated Britain will certainly bring to the world a few years later.

Financial centers Will develop in Europe too.

If France wins such a crushing victory, then it will reap enormous profits from this victory.

Capital will mainly flow to France which will be the unchallenged dominant number one power for a certain number of decades, probably for a century.

Antwerp will become a harbour that may be on par with depressed London.

With general peace in Europe, France will resume its colonial projects that it was forced to give-up and could not succeed because of general war in Europe. It may take control of Canada and will have the capacity to force the young and fragile US to accept the fait-accompli.

It will certainly want to take Britain's place in India but this will be much more complicated because the British EIC will crash and Will not easily be replaced. What is more probable is that France will demand and take parts of british controlled India, that Britain will remain other parts of it and that other parts Will regain independance.

With a Franca Pax in Europe, France and the rest of Europe will very quickly develop their own shipping and manufacturing facilities.
Click to expand...

Cheap middlemen, the British held their dominance by being cheap...expensive middlemen get cut out, which is precisely what would happen to the British Merchant Marine in the latter half of the 20th century. Thus if Britain loses its marine then European and by extension global trade suffers too.

Ditto the loss of cheap British finance...

Ditto the loss of cheap British manufactured goods...

Likely European business and industry is retarded by the fall of Britain. France mind won't care because France will be reaping the benefits and while it might lose on an absolute scale the French are only going to notice they are doing better than all of the other losers.

Like you suggest Antwerp may well become a port comparable with a depressed London, still neither combined will likely amount to the London that was.

Overall Europe is poorer but France might be richer. Given past performances however it is quite likely to squander its advantages. The Germanies might well rise later in this scenario but in time they will probably rise and if the British do not recover then there will be no one to bail the French out when they do.

So ultimately I suppose German wankers (speaking technically to their AH styles not their personality/habits) will be the big winners but the French should get to strut for decades possibly even an entire century.

Britain loses big time here.
 

Alt History Buff

Tanc49 said:
Nomally the banking system would go to the Dutch but at that period...

Question: are you assuming UK's colonies are taken as well or just mainland UK?
Click to expand...

I'm assuming just the UK is taken, with Ireland presumably set up as an independent country.

India and Canada may be difficult to conquer, just due to sheer resources.

How do you all think the colonies would survive?

Would Jamaica and the rest of the British Indies fall to a slave rebellion?

Would Bengal and the EAC trading areas of Madras and Bombay fall to local Indian lords (Maybe, maybe not)?

Would the Anglo-Canadian colonies trend towards the United States, despite fact that New Brunswick was heavily populated by expelled Loyalists?

What does Franco-Quebec do? Are they pro-Revolution or pro-old monarchy?
 

Nialironarm

The French defeated Austria and Prussia repeatedly during the revolutionary wars but failed to occupy either of them for any length of time.

I would imagine that any occupation of Britain would end as soon as the next round of conflicts on the European mainland kicked off.

Even without British financing I can't see Europe remaining quiet for very long.

Ireland could be set up as an independent state but I don't think this would work with Scotland and Wales. I also think Irish independence would last about as long as the French occupation of Britain.

As far as the British fleet is concerned, even if the French took the ships they would need to keep the British crews if they want to sail them.

France's main problem was that it was never able to have a world class fleet and a world class army at the same time and I don't see how this would change.

Once the occupation ended I would think any such ships would revert to being British again pretty quickly.
 

Tanc49

I'm assuming just the UK is taken, with Ireland presumably set up as an independent country.

India and Canada may be difficult to conquer, just due to sheer resources.

How do you all think the colonies would survive?

Would Jamaica and the rest of the British Indies fall to a slave rebellion?

Would Bengal and the EAC trading areas of Madras and Bombay fall to local Indian lords (Maybe, maybe not)?

Would the Anglo-Canadian colonies trend towards the United States, despite fact that New Brunswick was heavily populated by expelled Loyalists?
Click to expand...

Agreed with you on Ireland, a Republic will be set up as a massive thorn in the side of Britain.
India would go back to pre-7YW system of alliance with the French overtaking lost comptoirs, same for Quebec. I can see a few sugar islands being taken. South Africa will be retaken and be regiven to the Dutch republic.

Would be funny to see a massive Caribean Republic after the Haitian revolution.
 

Dathi THorfinnsson

If you're just going to handwave away HOW the invasion happens, let alone succeeds, then this belongs in a different forum, like Writer's, NPChat or (ASB).

---
Seriously, this is so improbable, that the divergences that allow French success will be as important as the actual success itself.

Which given Britain's rôle in the world, is huge.

France becomes the uncontested hegemon of Europe. Merchants go back to being second class citizens. Banking retreats a century or more.

It's all very nice saying the Netherlands will pick up (banking, stockmarkets, etc.), but if France took Britain, they assuredly took the Netherlands before (or immediately after).

---
But, what is the effect? Whatever the ASB that caused the victory wants. That's the cheeky, but too close to being accurate answer.
 

Tanc49

We had a discussion about it not too long ago, can't remember on which thread. It is implausible yes, but not entirely impossible.

You look at things like the (failed) Irish expedition of 1796. It didn't work mostly because a serie of freak storms destroyed the French fleet (how well it would have fared after is a matter of debate but still, open rebellion and invasion of Ireland doesn't look good).

Say, diversion in the Sea of Ireland, a big bit of the RN goes there and is stranded/destroyed by a big storm. The remaining could be destroyed by a French fleet. Not saying it's the most likely scenario, just that way stranger things have happened and it's not entirely implausible. The thing is, once a sizeable enough French force has disembarked, the Brits are fucked. At this time, logistics are less of an issue as, on a lot of items, the French can live off the land (less advanced technology means items can be replaced easily, parts are less specific I imagine? Please correct if wrong).

They march, burn London, maybe capture the Queen if lucky and the war ends there. I don't believe in occupation but it's not necessary. Just by having that done, the myth of Fortress Britannia is over. After that, you can create a sister Republic in Ireland and GB will never be safe again.

Again, not saying this is perfect plan or whatever, just that it's clearly not ASB. The Channel is not that large and the French have ships and ports.

Or if your PoD is a successful 1796 expedition which results in open war in Ireland, then that opens another can of worm. To be honest, the historical events for the UK OTL are borderline ASB themselves. The 18th/19th century were both massive UK wanks that you'd think were written by an adamant anglophile on his first post
 

Matteo

They don't burn London !

They did not want nor need to. Napoleon said what he would have done with Britain. He wanted a lasting peace with Britain reckoning France's supremacy. Not to destroy Britain.
 

Alt History Buff

I was thinking of a TL where Napoleon I dies around 1808 without invading Spain or Russia, thereby keeping French hegenomy over western and central Europe.

His brother Joseph takes over, then later his nephew. His nephew Napoleon II methodically utilizes his French/Dutch/German/Danish/Spanish resources over the next couple of decades and is ready to invade in the 1830 to 1840 timeline. With no continental wars, the Empire recovers and prospers. Meanwhile, the British Admiralty gets a little stodgy and is late to adapt to steam power. Temperary control of the Channel goes to France, the British and French have a minor colonial conflict and France invades.
 

Lycaon pictus

Donor
It seems to me that as far as global trade is concerned, a France that has the naval strength to defeat Great Britain would also have the merchant marine strength to replace it.
 

Faeelin

Banned
RodentRevolution said:
Cheap middlemen, the British held their dominance by being cheap...expensive middlemen get cut out, which is precisely what would happen to the British Merchant Marine in the latter half of the 20th century. Thus if Britain loses its marine then European and by extension global trade suffers too.
Click to expand...

The US, among other nations, had a big merchant marine in the period; and Europe's merchant marine was devastated by the Napoleonic Wars and Britain's blockade. So that will still be there in OTL. Cheap finance is a problem, and perhaps the biggest one; OTOH, even in America, British capital was no more than 5% of the domestic investment.
 

vizzer

Tanc49 said:
Agreed with you on Ireland, a Republic will be set up as a massive thorn in the side of Britain.
Click to expand...

Whichever way this goes I can't see it ending up well for Ireland. Unless a massive French garrison is installed to hold down Britain eventually even a new 'British Republic' is going to be looking for revenge. And while France may be too powerful there is a 'treacherous' Ireland next door.

With the rise of a new 'Commonwealth' I'd expect various Irish leaders to be having 'Cromwellian' nightmares.
 

Nialironarm

Tanc49 said:
We had a discussion about it not too long ago, can't remember on which thread. It is implausible yes, but not entirely impossible.

You look at things like the (failed) Irish expedition of 1796. It didn't work mostly because a serie of freak storms destroyed the French fleet (how well it would have fared after is a matter of debate but still, open rebellion and invasion of Ireland doesn't look good).

Say, diversion in the Sea of Ireland, a big bit of the RN goes there and is stranded/destroyed by a big storm. The remaining could be destroyed by a French fleet. Not saying it's the most likely scenario, just that way stranger things have happened and it's not entirely implausible. The thing is, once a sizeable enough French force has disembarked, the Brits are fucked. At this time, logistics are less of an issue as, on a lot of items, the French can live off the land (less advanced technology means items can be replaced easily, parts are less specific I imagine? Please correct if wrong).

They march, burn London, maybe capture the Queen if lucky and the war ends there. I don't believe in occupation but it's not necessary. Just by having that done, the myth of Fortress Britannia is over. After that, you can create a sister Republic in Ireland and GB will never be safe again.

Again, not saying this is perfect plan or whatever, just that it's clearly not ASB. The Channel is not that large and the French have ships and ports.

Or if your PoD is a successful 1796 expedition which results in open war in Ireland, then that opens another can of worm. To be honest, the historical events for the UK OTL are borderline ASB themselves. The 18th/19th century were both massive UK wanks that you'd think were written by an adamant anglophile on his first post
Click to expand...

As with all of these threads, something happens, the French manage to get 100,000s of men across the Channel and Europe collapses.

Austria and Prussia suddenly are happy with French domination of the Continent and we have a hundred years of peace.

IT'S NOT GOING TO HAPPEN!!!!!

Britain's 19th century domination of the world wasn't built on one victory.

As the home of the industrial revolution it's hard to see how a temporary French victory would curtail Britain's economic power.

As an offshore maritime power with an overwhelming superiority in naval strength Britain was invulnerable to any one European power.

France will never be in the same position.

Anyone that can raise an army can challenge France for the domination of Europe, you just march up to the border and start shooting.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top