The world without Napoleon.
- Thread starter MrHola
- Start date
Without Napolean gobbling up all of the little countries in Germany, German unification would have been much harder and less uniform. In other words, more nations in Germany, possibly a surviving HRE (at least to the end of the 19th century), and totally different World Wars.
But will whoever replaces him be as effective or ambitious?
I think the wars would be much shorter.
I guess they would be stronger, wouldn't they? Maybe the Spanish colonial empire could survive until the Carlist Wars?
Another thought, about 3.5 million people died in the Napoleonic Wars. If the wars are shorter, fewer people die, higher populations, maybe some famines. Would this lead to more emigration?
Last edited:
Anaxagoras
Banned
I highly doubt that. Napoleon was one of those once-in-a-century figures. Without Napoleon, the history of Europe changes beyond all recognition.
Head general, certainly. His replacement may even be brilliant and defeat all comers.
Emperor, not a chance. I can't see how Napoleon did it. I could see someone else coming to power who changes history in his own way. Maybe stabilizing the Republic, or (is there the slightest chance) a monarchial restoration.
When i think about this, the new emperor question would depend on when Napoleon dies. I'm thinking about before he becomes emperor.
if he did die, it would be while he was fighting the Prussians and British prior to him taking power, during the Reign of Terror
Redbeard
Banned
Without Napoleon the French are very unlikely to set the agenda like they did from 1804-15.
I guess the revolutionary government is unlikely to go on anyway, that reduces the risk of France being overrun for ideological reasons.
I could imagine a fellow like Bernadotte being a good bid for a dictator/first consul/Emperor. He might easily be as ambitious as Napoleon, but probably also more cautious and anyway less capable.
So France settles as a great power among others along late 18th century borders. Without the blood drain of decades of war the French demographics are likely to reserve France a large share of the total European population.
In Germany nationalism will be less prominent without the French using Germany as their permanent battlefield and plunderobject. So Germany probably stay fragmented for a lot longer, and Prussia in a less prominent role.
In Scandinavia someone else need to be King of Sweden as Bernadotte now already has a job. About who, I refer to Arctic Warrior's excellent thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=67101
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
I guess the revolutionary government is unlikely to go on anyway, that reduces the risk of France being overrun for ideological reasons.
I could imagine a fellow like Bernadotte being a good bid for a dictator/first consul/Emperor. He might easily be as ambitious as Napoleon, but probably also more cautious and anyway less capable.
So France settles as a great power among others along late 18th century borders. Without the blood drain of decades of war the French demographics are likely to reserve France a large share of the total European population.
In Germany nationalism will be less prominent without the French using Germany as their permanent battlefield and plunderobject. So Germany probably stay fragmented for a lot longer, and Prussia in a less prominent role.
In Scandinavia someone else need to be King of Sweden as Bernadotte now already has a job. About who, I refer to Arctic Warrior's excellent thread:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=67101
Regards
Steffen Redbeard
If there is not agreement among the French Generals without Napoleon, What about a Fracture of France after the Reing of Terror.
with european powers backing certain breakaway movements.
Aquitaine Supported by England,
Burgundy Supported by Italy/Spain
Even Normandy Supported by a Scandavian King.
That's a whole lot of Chunks bit out of france.
wow, how weak Franco-allemania would be, ripe pickings for the
surrouding stronger states.
with european powers backing certain breakaway movements.
Aquitaine Supported by England,
Burgundy Supported by Italy/Spain
Even Normandy Supported by a Scandavian King.
That's a whole lot of Chunks bit out of france.
wow, how weak Franco-allemania would be, ripe pickings for the
surrouding stronger states.
ASB.
Napoleon didn't come to power straight after the Terror and there were other successfull generals who would have been approched to give a strong arm to the Consuls. Moreau or Massena would be my guess, but the list could go on, with, literally, tens of names.
And nome of them ( nor even the Choans ) wanted secession. France was a Nation by that time. The last time secession was in the cards was maybe during the early religious wars.
HurganPL
Banned
To be more precise:Such is life.
Before Napoleon liberated Poles, all Polish territories were integrated within partitioning powers within their provinces and subject to ruthless russification and germanisation. With Napoleon this process was stoped by forming Duchy of Warsaw from Prussian partition, and some russification methods witheld by Russia in fear of rebelion. It's often forgotten that Congress of Vienna changed territories gained by Austria, Russia and Prussa from Poland. Due to Napoleon's liberation of Polish state, those powers had to supress somehow the local population so instead of making them provinces again, all were given false claims of autonomy and granted Duchy status or Kingdom in personal union. Of course this was just a propaganda tool, violated at once after Congress. But still it meant that due to Napoleon Poles had over generation to protect their nationality and dream of liberation. This led to uprisings in Prussia and Russia which kept to question of Polish state open till First World War when the great American President Wilson granted freedom to Polish people in his 14 points.
So indeed that is one of the reasons we keep Napoleon in our anthem and he was considered in XIX century a "saviour" of Poland.
Now without Napoleon Russification and Germanisation would continue unopposed. Eradication of Polish culture would be stronger. Also Prussia which had most of the Polish population before Congress of Vienna(40% of population Poles before Duchy of Warsaw formed) would continue to do so. As there was a considerable dose of racism towards Polish population, I would envision a somewhat apartheid state where they would be used by Prussian militarists as industrial and rural workforce. Prussia would use this massive manpower resource to fuel its conquests earlier, and become a power in Europe. The situation would be similiar to South Africa but in Europe.
That would in turn increase militarisation of rest of Europeran countries.
So without Napoleon we would have more early wars, more totalitarism, and Prussia would become even bigger apartheid like state with racial laws then in OTL.
No Napoleon would mean no Peninsular War, and thus, no independence of Spanish American countries in 1810-1825. It would also mean no independent Brazil (in 1806 or 1807, the Brazilian Court fled to Brazil to escape from the French Army; this eventually led to its independence and to the creation of a Brazilian empire).
However, I think Spain would still have trouble to keep its empire toghether. Econnomically, it would be quite hard for her. And, with absolutists King as Carl IV or Ferdinand VII in power, revolutions would certainly arrise. This could lead to bitter wars in Latin America, which may lead to forgein intervention.
In any case, I think eventually Spanish would still loose most of its colonnies, unless a lucid monarch reforms its country econnomically and politically, and that, at least, creoles, mestizos and peninsulars are given equal rights. (Which I don't find likely...). Would they eventually become independent countries, empoverished by decades-long wars? Or would they be colonies from other countries (France, Britain, Russia, the US)??? Or maybe both (depending o the territory)?
In any case, not a nice future for the region.... I'm not saying it went particularly well IOTL, ... but I believe it would be much worse ITTL.
However, I think Spain would still have trouble to keep its empire toghether. Econnomically, it would be quite hard for her. And, with absolutists King as Carl IV or Ferdinand VII in power, revolutions would certainly arrise. This could lead to bitter wars in Latin America, which may lead to forgein intervention.
In any case, I think eventually Spanish would still loose most of its colonnies, unless a lucid monarch reforms its country econnomically and politically, and that, at least, creoles, mestizos and peninsulars are given equal rights. (Which I don't find likely...). Would they eventually become independent countries, empoverished by decades-long wars? Or would they be colonies from other countries (France, Britain, Russia, the US)??? Or maybe both (depending o the territory)?
In any case, not a nice future for the region...
. I'm not saying it went particularly well IOTL, ... but I believe it would be much worse ITTL.
Last edited: