After Napoleon

Jlinker613

Banned
It is 1821. The French Emperor Napoleon hangs from the yet to be completed Arch de Triumph. It is a slap in the face to the defeated citizens of the Paris city-State. British, Turkish, and Russian, forces occupy Paris. Those three nations and Switzerland are the only countries truly remaining. Following Napoleon's 17 years of war on the European Continent, very few states have been spared. Infrastructure has been destroyed, capitals ransacked, Chains of command have been shattered, Paramilitaries, Mercenary bands, and militias roam the continent. Old governments control little more than sphere's of influence around the capitals and small city states have been popping up across Europe. The Ottoman Empire has lost all control of its territories in Europe and North Africa and is on the verge of collapse. Britain has lost control of the Canadas, Bermuda, St. John (our PEI), Newfoundland, and Nova Scotia to the United States, not being able to divert resources to defending the territories with a far more dangerous threat having lurked so close to home. The colonies of collapsed nations struggle in chaos. Some are absorbed by neighboring states, others go off on their own forming their own nations, and some divide into factions and suffer from endless internal turmoil. At home on the old continent, an opportunity to spread influence is unlikely, for the remaining states are too distracted on repairing the destruction at home to focus on foreign matters. The victors of Europe remember that it was out of the chaos of the French Revolution that Napoleon came to power, and they wait with fear, anxiety, and curiosity of what is to come.One must wonder what nations will arise out of the ashes? What will the future be like? What will become of the nations that came out of the conflict victorious? What violence will the future hold?
 
Last edited:

Jlinker613

Banned
Rather than Napoleon suffering defeat in the war of the seventh coalition, he wins and begins a major offensive, destroying the rest of Europe and everything in his way. It leads to the Napoleonic wars lasting 6 more years and Europe falling into chaos.
 
Last edited:
Rather than Napoleon suffering defeat at Waterloo he wins and begins a major offensive, destroying the rest of Europe and everything in his way. It leads to the Napoleonic wars lasting 6 more years and Europe falling into chaos.

Not possible. Even if Napoleon wins at Waterloo, he's not going to be able to do this - he probably won't even last another six years, as the very best case scenario, but he certainly won't be able to ruin Europe.
 

Jlinker613

Banned
Well a common war tactic that arose in Europe in that period was to destroy the economy and infrastructure of your enemies, so even if it didn't last a whole six years a strong enough offensive in an aggressive enough manner would lead to massive destruction across the continent.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
What Elfwine is trying to say is that it is literally impossible for Napoleon to do this. A victory at Waterloo just (slightly) delays the inevitable, which is an entire continent that had already begun mobilizing to counter the resurgent Bonapartist threat.


The absolute best scenario Nappy could hope for is other European nations recognizing his son as the rightful occupant of the French throne.
 
What Elfwine is trying to say is that it is literally impossible for Napoleon to do this. A victory at Waterloo just (slightly) delays the inevitable, which is an entire continent that had already begun mobilizing to counter the resurgent Bonapartist threat.


The absolute best scenario Nappy could hope for is other European nations recognizing his son as the rightful occupant of the French throne.

Precisely.

And even if by some miracle Napoleon lasts another few years, there's a difference between the ravages of war and this kind of post-apocalyptic nightmare.

And the idea that the US is able to gain British territory in Canada? Completely impossible. The US was lucky to avoid losing American territory.
 
Given that the US had their capital burnt by the British in the 1812 war it seems unlikely that they would wish to try again so soon. You are forgetting the Royal Navy which can stop revolutions and uprsings, either by landing large number of marines and sailors to storm rebel bases, or just bombard them from sea.

Also not sure how the Neatherlands survived as a state, and places like Prussia didn't. Countries like Portugual had no history of city-states, so how did that break up?
 

Jlinker613

Banned
Okay I changed it and removed the Netherlands as a surviving state.
Also what finally allowed Britain to end the war of 1812 was not having to pay attention to Napoleon anymore. In this timeline the US WINS the war of 1812 due to Britain having more prominent concerns.

When it comes to the city states, I'm referring to how the entire chain of command in these nations is destroyed by Napoleon's wrath. It leads to little capitals turning into nothing more than city states, and other cities (maybe Barcelona in Spain for example) popping up as their own distinct city-states. We could also suppose that other little nations pop up. I'll use Spain as a possible example again: Castille, Leone, Catalonia and Gallicia could all end up as their own nations.

Another possibility of what is to come would be for an outside nation to take advantage of the chaos. The moors could attempt to cross the strait to take control of the south of Spain or another Islamic state could make a gauge for Sicily. I'm just listing possible examples.

What could possibly be the most likely results after the conflict?
 
Last edited:
Okay I changed it and removed the Netherlands as a surviving state.
Also what finally allowed Britain to end the war of 1812 was not having to pay attention to Napoleon anymore. In this timeline the US WINS the war of 1812 due to Britain having more prominent concerns.

When it comes to the city states, I'm referring to how the entire chain of command in these nations is destroyed by Napoleon's wrath. It leads to little capitals turning into nothing more than city states, and other cities (maybe Barcelona in Spain for example) popping up as their own distinct city-states. We could also suppose that other little nations pop up. I'll use Spain as a possible example again: Castille, Leone, Catalonia and Gallicia could all end up as their own nations. The moors could attempt to cross the strait to take control of the south of Spain or another Islamic state could make a gauge for Sicily. I'm just listing possible examples. What could possibly be the most likely results after the conflict?

That still doesn't make any sense. Even if Napoleon could create enough popular support for his offensives the numbers say he wouldn't make it.

Napoleon's army at Waterloo was 72,000 men. Let's give old Nappy an extra 100,000 just to be generous (this is also impossible because he would have to engage the rest of the coalition in a matter of weeks).

Napoleon would be facing a combined army of over 400,000 men, and that's only the Austro-Russian force. He would have to face them within a matter of weeks as well.

Let's just assume for purpose of argument that this goes on for six years, Napoleonic warfare just isn't intense enough to cause that kind of devastation. World War 2, the greatest cataclysm ever faced by man, would probably not even have created this type of scenario if it were extended by six years. This scenario is only really possible with a really, really bad 1950s Cold War goes hot scenario, and even then it's pushing it.

I understand that you're trying to exaggerate European war exhaustion at that time and extend it, but Europe hasn't really grasped the idea of total war yet. And even if they had you don't see this kind of devastation after a war, all countries have a breaking point. The only way this war could have gone on that long is to put Hitler or Gadaffi at the head of every European country and let them go at it. Normal people stop.
 

Jlinker613

Banned
Well what if Napoleon gathered support from a three groups of people that were each extremely anti-British: The populous United States, the strategically located Ireland, and the populous and the nearby Ottoman Empire. France could support a second Irish Rebellion, the US and Ottoman Empire would each send a massive number of troops. Combine the industrial and agricultural power of the United States at that period with the French Navy to protect ships, and you have a good base of support for the French Empire.
 
Well what if Napoleon gathered support from a three groups of people that were each extremely anti-British: The populous United States, the strategically located Ireland, and the populous and the nearby Ottoman Empire. France could support a second Irish Rebellion, the US and Ottoman Empire would each send a massive number of troops. Combine the industrial and agricultural power of the United States at that period with the French Navy to protect ships, and you have a good base of support for the French Empire.

1- There is no way that the U.S. would send troops to Europe to fight alongside France against the British led coalition after just fighting the British to a stand-off at home. 2- France doesn't have the capacity to spark & support an Irish rebellion in 1814/15. 3- There is no reason for the Ottoman Empire to send troops to fight alongside France, so that's a non-starter as well.
 
Well what if Napoleon gathered support from a three groups of people that were each extremely anti-British: The populous United States, the strategically located Ireland, and the populous and the nearby Ottoman Empire. France could support a second Irish Rebellion, the US and Ottoman Empire would each send a massive number of troops. Combine the industrial and agricultural power of the United States at that period with the French Navy to protect ships, and you have a good base of support for the French Empire.

The fact is we're not just dealing with Britain. At this point all of Europe has mobilized against Napoleon. 1815 is a grim time for him, even a victory at Waterloo would have put him against insurmountable odds. Even assuming Nappy doubles his forces after Waterloo (call it patriotism or whatever) he is still outnumbered two to one by the Austro-Russians, and that's only the Army of the Rhine we're talking about.

Nappy is done for, there's no ifs, ands, or buts about it. The best thing you can hope for after a Napoleonic victory at Waterloo is a Britain that's less likely to interfere in continental affairs. That could be a very interesting timeline, in fact it's one that I have considered it myself. Point is there's no way a Napoleonic victory at Waterloo is going to last until the end of 1815, let alone until 1821.
 

Jlinker613

Banned
At first the US was allied with the french Kingdom and was pleased by the republican uprising in France. (but then there was the quasi-war). Also at one point the Ottoman Empire was allied with the french empire in the Napoleonic Wars. Perhaps with Napoleon support the US would have joined the war of the second coalition and attack the Canadas, and that could have lead to Britain being forced to divert forces in such a difficult manner that Napoleon could have wreaked far more havoc across Europe. The French Republic's strategy was to mobilize and capture enemy military resources, so getting enough of a head start over Britain would lead to France being able to cause far more havoc and gather far more resources than before.

So what if the French supported US Invasion of the Canadas was the POD instead? Since would have been during the second coalition France would have also been able to support the Irish Rebellion against Britain and use Ireland as a launching pad against Britain.
 

Jlinker613

Banned
What is so improbable? If the US despised Britain at that point, and France needed some kind of way of indirectly battling Britain to divert British military resources and forces, what makes such a thing so unlikely?
 
At first the US was allied with the french Kingdom and was pleased by the republican uprising in France. (but then there was the quasi-war). Also at one point the Ottoman Empire was allied with the french empire in the Napoleonic Wars. Perhaps with Napoleon support the US would have joined the war of the second coalition and attack the Canadas, and that could have lead to Britain being forced to divert forces in such a difficult manner that Napoleon could have wreaked far more havoc across Europe. The French Republic's strategy was to mobilize and capture enemy military resources, so getting enough of a head start over Britain would lead to France being able to cause far more havoc and gather far more resources than before.

So what if the French supported US Invasion of the Canadas was the POD instead? Since would have been during the second coalition France would have also been able to support the Irish Rebellion against Britain and use Ireland as a launching pad against Britain.

It's getting there, but it still doesn't feel right. The Americans really have no desire to get involved abroad, period. There's also the problem of politics in America. The Quasi-War started because the Federalists (who were then in power) didn't like the idea of the French Republic. They (especially the more radical ones like Hamilton) thought that the French Republic represented everything bad about the world, anarchy, mob rule, and the lack of a strong central Government. Even though the Federalists favored the British during their war with France maybe if you can keep them in power during the early 1800s they'll side with Napoleon out of pure opportunism. Now, I'm not entirely sure about this, and I'm probably wrong about Federalist support for Napoleon, but it's worth a shot. The simple fact is that America isn't going to get involved abroad during this time at all, and barring a massive shift in policy, probably isn't going to attack anyone unprovoked.
 
If you want a successful Napoleon you need an earlier POD. Even if Waterloo is won France is exhausted beyond mesure by this point.
 
I'm not sure that a 2nd Coalition will work. A successful Irish revolt in 1798, even with greater French support is going to be very difficult. Additionally, a bolder France might just turn the Quasi-war into a real declared one, and bring the US into an alliance with GB. (Afterall, if the US & USSR could be allies in WWII then anything is possible in time of war). France could get lucky I suppose and cripple the British Navy and thus sap British morale, but I don't see it happening here. I'll have to tuck this idea away for future use as I find the potential butterflies interesting.

You could have Napoleon achieve and then build upon a greater victory in the War of the 3rd Coalition by winning the War of the 4th Coalition and then advancing successfully against Russia. That might open the door for you to achieve what you wish to achieve.

BTW, have you searched the forum archives? The numerous Napoleon threads there may be of help to you as you flesh out your ideas.
 
Top