AHC: Someone other than Napoleon goes on a 19th-century path of conquest

Someone other than Napoleon goes on a 'path of conquest', in the 19th century.

Bonus points if the conquests last.

Bonus points if this doesn't happen in Europe or at least doesn't involve the French or Germans.

Bonus points if the path of conquest has little diplomatic justification but still succeeds anyway.
 
Someone other than Napoleon goes on a 'path of conquest', in the 19th century.

Bonus points if the conquests last.

Bonus points if this doesn't happen in Europe or at least doesn't involve the French or Germans.

Bonus points if the path of conquest has little diplomatic justification but still succeeds anyway.
Muhammad Ali Pasha is able to push into Arabia and Northern Africa without Napoleon fucking Egypt up.
 
IMHO, what made Napoleon so extraordinary was the fact that the French Revolutionary Army was suddenly merit based, not dynastic like most of the powerful militaries of Europe. Rather than rise via his family ties, Napoleon rose by his own epic military deeds.

So you'd either need a revolution in another European state to suddenly promote a military "of the common man," or replace "revolution" with "reform."

Another path you could take would be simply kill Napoleon early in his career and another (though perhaps less skilled conquerer) suddenly takes his place in the French military.
 
What if the leader of Brazil or Argentina, instead of that of Paraguay, went crazy and declared war on everyone?
 
Someone other than Napoleon goes on a 'path of conquest', in the 19th century.

Bonus points if the conquests last.

Bonus points if this doesn't happen in Europe or at least doesn't involve the French or Germans.

Bonus points if the path of conquest has little diplomatic justification but still succeeds anyway.


McClellan botches 1862 worse than OTL, CSA wins all states including, south, and east of TX, AR, TN, and VA (but no territories.) USA uses its army to invade Canada and eventually Mexico. USA manages to hold on to all of Canada, plus Sonora, Chihuahua, the Baja peninsula, Sinola, and Durango. CSA fragments due to infighting and economic issues, USA gobbles CSA piecemeal by 1900. Plausible, or ASB? I'm thinking a 1862 CSA victory is about 90% ASB, and being able to take/hold that much land rapidly equally so, though. So, I admit my theory here is 99% ASB by my own estimates.

Anything else I can think of requires too much handwavium, (outside of the aforementioned Brazil/Argentina South American sweep.)

If you're not talking continential-scale, but taking the concept of taking more territory than one currently has at the outset? PERHAPS Japan, but it would require an earlier Opening for a POD. Had Napoleon fizzled before starting his conquering spree, perhaps a "Nelson meets the Shoguns?"
 
Do you think there is any opportunity for an Austrian Napoleon analogue who conquers much of Germany, Italy, the Balkans, and Poland-Lithuania:confused:
 
Someone other than Napoleon goes on a 'path of conquest', in the 19th century.

Bonus points if the conquests last.

Bonus points if this doesn't happen in Europe or at least doesn't involve the French or Germans.

Bonus points if the path of conquest has little diplomatic justification but still succeeds anyway.

Cecil Rhodes. He conquered a chunk of Africa ("Rhodesia") larger than France and Spain combined and it certainly lasted a while. Give him a decade or more of life and he could easily have gone further.

Also, the Duke of Wellington's campaigns at the start of the 19thC added a big chunk of India to the British Empire and that lasted a while too.
 
Ibrahim pasha does not die in 1848 but lives 10-15 years longer.

He would be more "western" thaan Abbas I and Egyypt might gain ful independence (durineg the Crimean war) and start again nibbling on the Osman empire and expand in Africa.
 
Maybe the Ottoman Turks could have their own Napoleon analogue (perhaps a disgruntled Janissaru). Someone like Husein Gradascevic?
 
But, WE did, and far better than that wimp Nappy. We conquered most of Mexico and ethnically cleansed vast turf, in fact, I3 think, 3/4ish of our slice of North America.

We also had merit via democratic officer choosing, an IMHO even better system because it brought in the nontraditional but smart like Ben Franklin, whom was chosen to build forts. That's also how Washington got his role, and Lincoln was later chosen.
 
How about Thomas Cochrane establishing himself as dictator of a south american country and leading them on a conquest-rage with his naval skills ?
 
Someone other than Napoleon goes on a 'path of conquest', in the 19th century.

Bonus points if the conquests last.

Bonus points if this doesn't happen in Europe or at least doesn't involve the French or Germans.

Bonus points if the path of conquest has little diplomatic justification but still succeeds anyway.

I vote Agustin D'Iturbide, Jose Morelos or some older Mexican general, who somehow lead Mexico to independence 10-20 years earlier than OTL and then uses Mexico as a base to liberate Spain's other viceroyalties. If Europe is still at war with revolutionary France (but still no Napoleon) then attempts by most European powers to reinforce their position in the Americas will fail. With luck, Emperor Agustin can team up with revolutionaries in Brazil and the Caribbean, especially Haiti, to create a huge federal monarchy based on old viceroyalties and colonies. No real justification needed besides "Death to Colonists!"
 
I always wanted to see an ironic weird twist - a BRITISH 'Napoleon'. Bent on conquering Europe, maybe to 'secure' the island(s)'s safety... 'War for Peace' paranoia, maybe.

Or maybe fanatical religious angle, like fanatical pan-protestantism, aimed at catholic powers... and maybe others 'heretics'.
 
What if the leader of Brazil or Argentina, instead of that of Paraguay, went crazy and declared war on everyone?

They get destroyed in a less brutal way, Latin America doesn't have a state powerful enough to fight all its neighbors and come out on top. Brazil and Argengina are the closest to that level but they where also for the most part the others equal.
 
Also for my idea, Ranjit Singh of the Sikh Empire has a stable succession with a highly competent heir taking the throne, he then spearheads army reforms to bring them up to the modern European standards and leads an invasion of the rest of northern India taking over a good portion of the subcontinent while most of the British army is busy fighting in the Crimea. When the British return to attempt to deal with the situation they are very nearly forced off the continent by opurtunistic rebelling princes and the very powerful Sikh army now controlling most of north western India, modern Pakistan, and large areas of Baluchi lands. They are left with control of only the eastern coast of the subcontinent and Bengal in the end.
 
Top