A British Napoleon?

Within the time-frame of the 18th to early 19th century could there have been a British analogue to Napoleon in successfully conquering a large portion of mainland Europe?
 
No but Cromwell is an earlier analogue. If he made it younger to the top who knows how far he could have gone with the New Model Army
 
Conquering parts of Mainland Europe? Not really. Though you could have a British King who is also King of a European territory, perhaps to make things simple Hanover. Then after a massive war in Germany/Central Europe claim the title of Holy Roman Emperor?
 
Depends how early you want the PoD. If, say, the Hundred Years War had gone much more England's way, leading to England controlling large parts of France (permanently)? Or perhaps the Thirty Years War? Or, as thezerech says, end up with a British King who happens to also be king of a large mainland country.

Basically, you need to give the Brits a major upgrade - demographically, technologically, or potentially in organisation (a borderline ASB king/prime minister combo pushing for an enormously upgraded centralization early enough...).
 
If there was no ARW - then there could be a British Napoleon (Well, continental conqueror at least).

Assuming we have a British Empire with a Floating Court and some devolved Parliaments throughout the US - we could have the rise of a threat in Europe cause the vast manpower of Britain, British America - and any other colonies, brought in to fuel a war with the Netherlands - who for some reason are left to their fate. (Perhaps the Spanish don't want to intervene, or France is otherwise occupied in Italy). From this base in the Netherlands, the British Empire could have a Napoleonic figure emerge - essentially a very talented British General (i.e. a Wellington/Napoleon/Blucher analogue).

Starting with small interventions to stabilise the British Lowlands borders, the western part of Germany is invaded, and each intervention leads to more complications, as new territories cause the need for new Parliaments, who need stability. Instead of Napoleonic Republics, instead the Empire sets up powerful Parliaments - guaranteeing the loyalty of the locals. The Parliamentary Revolution doesn't have the outright hatred of the other nations that the French Revolution did, but if people suddenly see old Absolute Monarchies becoming Parliamentary then that could have a similar effect.

The problem is the British NEED to have North America for this to work, and having India would only help. Being able to pull on the manpower of a rapidly growing North America and the Indian Subcontinent takes Frances manpower and trashes it. It also relies on controlling the seas, but with the British and Dutch navies, and an alt-timeline where Maritime power is that of the NA seaboard and the British Isles, Britain should easily be able to pull that off.

If that Empire can be held together for at least a generation, to allow things to calm down - the manpower of that Empire is comparable to China, armed to the teeth with the latest technology of war. Heaven help Russia. The Great Game stopped being a game.
 
My first thought was that this is nonsense - ok, Great Britain was a constitutional Monarchy but that didn't mean it was interested in imposing democracy on other nations. However in the case of Holland that might be one of the few cases where they might intervene. And that might have consequences...............

Bear with me.

I don't agree with the idea of a floating parliament but some kind of dominion status might work. The incentive here is not that the US becomes an inexhaustible manpower supply for Britain's armies but rather somehow Britain negotiates an arrangement whereby the states continue to operate predominately within the British system and look after their own affairs to a large extent (own militia / navy). This happens after Britain "wins" the ARW - not by defeating the states on land but by winning every battle at sea. Unlikely but given the performance of GB fleets before and after (and even to some extent during) the war not impossible. Faced with an unwinnable war on both sides a compromise breaks out between the states and Great Britain.

But that is not to say that nobody loses the war - France and the Dutch in particular suffer domestic problems from the cost of the war and the perception of incompetence. The Dutch undergo their Patriots Revolution but instead of the absolutist Prussians who intervene it is the British under the hero of the ARW, Guy Carleton (who had commanded the Saratoga campaign TTL and had actually extracted his forces relatively intact) who intervene to mediate a "British solution" to the dispute. France is the next domino to fall and Carleton and his protege John Moore use the experienced forces based in Hannover and Holland to intervene (along side the Dutch forces) early in the Revolution. Unfortunately this does not save Louis and his brothers but his son is saved and lives long enough to see the Anglo-Dutch influencing the Regency Council to moderate the reactionary tendencies and to establish another broadly constitutional monarchy along the lines of the 1830 constitution to which the Duke of Orleans (Phillipe Egalite) eventually succeeds.

A revolt in the Austrian Netherlands is also put down by a combined Anglo-Dutch-French intervention but only after Austria had agreed to a similar arrangement as the British had instituted with the Americans

The wave of constitutionalism sweeping Europe is next seen in Spain (and later Portugal). In Spain the dispute between Charles and Ferdinand had resulted in a messy three sided civil war (with the "liberals" the third side inspired by the example of France and Holland). The death of both Charles and Ferdinand during the war plunges Spain into confusion and the lengthy and ultimately successful intervention by the British led by Moore (and later his protege Wellington) eventually places Charles eldest daughter Carlotta on the throne, ruling with her husband the future John VI of Portugal

It's a bit silly but fun to write..........
 
@RogueTraderEnthusiast
This scenario has a lot of problems in it. It has everyone in Europe following the British calmly; never going to happen. Also, your idea of the British Empire is also wrong.

Oh, it is totally an alternate British Empire, not OTL one. Hence why I said as much at the start of my post. Not vastly alternate, just a very different resolution to the ARW.

Totally back of the napkin, but we're talking alternate Napoleon levels of madness here.

@Derek Pullem I was trying to be very brief with the Floating Court (not Parliament), as I've posted my theory on that all over the place, and I'm at work and lazy. The Netherlands I'm basically using as a situation where good intentions (kicking an enemy out of the East Indies trade) spirals out of control, leading to the Netherlands Parliament - and then fact the UK is now entangled in continental affairs means that rather than just choosing one side or the other in continental affairs, they have to start building their side.
 
As others have said, this is hard but the most likely is along the lines above. You would need a British America to get the manpower - British India is too far in this time period to ship large numbers of men. The low countries are definitely the place to start, given Britain long thought of these as her defensive outerworks.

However you would need some ideological zeal to match the French no compromise and mass conscription mentality. The primary emotive issue for the Brits and Americans in the 18th Century was the fear of Catholic Universal Monarchy. This could continue into the 19th with the right changes. Perhaps you improve the French-Austrian alliance and give them more success by destroying Prusdia early. A France with the Southern Netherlands allied with the Austrians centralizing the Holy Roman Empire would whip the British into a suitably paranoid frenzy.
 
My first thought was that this is nonsense - ok, Great Britain was a constitutional Monarchy but that didn't mean it was interested in imposing democracy on other nations.

Britain in this timeframe (18th/early 19th centuries) was not really a democracy. More like an oligarchy.
 
Top