I sure hope this has not been brought up already.
What if Napoleon Bonaparte dies in the summer of 1802, after the signing of the Treaty of Amiens but before either he or Britain screw things up by refusing to implement certain articles of said treaty?
One result I can think of right now is no War of 1812, alias US vs. UK, round 2. So perhaps the prediction of author Pierre Berton that without the transformative experience of the war to forge a Canadian national identity, British North America might eventually have joined the United States peacefully. But whatever the long-term effects, there'd likely not be a War of 1812.
Also, no Louisiana Purchase, at least not how and when it went down in OTL. It'd depend on what sort of government succeeds the First Consul; if a new leader comes to power who is anywhere near as dynamic and strong-willed as Nap was the US might still get the territory - perhaps Eugene de Beauharnais could take over, as the closest thing Nap had to a son. But if a period of chaos ensues, there could be a royalist coup, and if Louis XVIII is restored in 1802 instead of 1814, Louisiana might have to be conquered by the US in an alt-War of 1812, this time against France, in which the UK might remain aloof.
Germany would not have been handed the savage beating it got in the campaigns of 1806 and 1807 and also would not have been subjected to a Napoleonic occupation, so German nationalism and the drive to unify would remain dormant probably. Austria also emerges relatively unscathed, having lost in prestige relative to 1792, but not having suffered the humblings of 1805 or '09. Spain is never invaded, which translates to a longer reign for Carlos IV, and the American colonies might stay Spanish without the anarchy of the Peninsular War. Portugal also emerges stronger. Italy probably goes back to how things were pre-1789, pretty much.
The UK is not going to lose out by any means from a Napoleonic death in '02, but the "victory" over the French republicans, if indeed a victory is in the offing, would not be at the hands of the British, but very possibly at the hands of the French themselves. So Britain's dominant position in the 19th century is compromised, though the ultimate territorial extent of the British Empire is not necessarily decreased.
France would have a larger population in 1802, not having suffered 13 additional years of warfare; even if Eugene takes over and secures his position as head of state, he was not subject to his stepfather's megalomaniacal pipedreams of strangling England or beating Russia into submission so the peace still might hold in that case. A more populous France and one still undefeated means a France that is more prominent in the 19th century, both in Europe and in the world.
The French Navy is undestroyed in 1802, so in later years Britain will have to share the waves unless there is another Franco-British war in which the UK sinks France's navy.
Anyway, that is all I have for now. Any thoughts?
What if Napoleon Bonaparte dies in the summer of 1802, after the signing of the Treaty of Amiens but before either he or Britain screw things up by refusing to implement certain articles of said treaty?
One result I can think of right now is no War of 1812, alias US vs. UK, round 2. So perhaps the prediction of author Pierre Berton that without the transformative experience of the war to forge a Canadian national identity, British North America might eventually have joined the United States peacefully. But whatever the long-term effects, there'd likely not be a War of 1812.
Also, no Louisiana Purchase, at least not how and when it went down in OTL. It'd depend on what sort of government succeeds the First Consul; if a new leader comes to power who is anywhere near as dynamic and strong-willed as Nap was the US might still get the territory - perhaps Eugene de Beauharnais could take over, as the closest thing Nap had to a son. But if a period of chaos ensues, there could be a royalist coup, and if Louis XVIII is restored in 1802 instead of 1814, Louisiana might have to be conquered by the US in an alt-War of 1812, this time against France, in which the UK might remain aloof.
Germany would not have been handed the savage beating it got in the campaigns of 1806 and 1807 and also would not have been subjected to a Napoleonic occupation, so German nationalism and the drive to unify would remain dormant probably. Austria also emerges relatively unscathed, having lost in prestige relative to 1792, but not having suffered the humblings of 1805 or '09. Spain is never invaded, which translates to a longer reign for Carlos IV, and the American colonies might stay Spanish without the anarchy of the Peninsular War. Portugal also emerges stronger. Italy probably goes back to how things were pre-1789, pretty much.
The UK is not going to lose out by any means from a Napoleonic death in '02, but the "victory" over the French republicans, if indeed a victory is in the offing, would not be at the hands of the British, but very possibly at the hands of the French themselves. So Britain's dominant position in the 19th century is compromised, though the ultimate territorial extent of the British Empire is not necessarily decreased.
France would have a larger population in 1802, not having suffered 13 additional years of warfare; even if Eugene takes over and secures his position as head of state, he was not subject to his stepfather's megalomaniacal pipedreams of strangling England or beating Russia into submission so the peace still might hold in that case. A more populous France and one still undefeated means a France that is more prominent in the 19th century, both in Europe and in the world.
The French Navy is undestroyed in 1802, so in later years Britain will have to share the waves unless there is another Franco-British war in which the UK sinks France's navy.
Anyway, that is all I have for now. Any thoughts?
