Given a Napoleonic continental hegemony, is Western hegemony likelier curbed or bolstered?

What is more likely?

  • Western hegemony curbed

    Votes: 13 23.6%
  • Western hegemony bolstered

    Votes: 42 76.4%

  • Total voters
    55
POD: Napoleon shows a little more restraint. He doesn't overthrow the Bourbons in Spain, nor invade Russia. As it becomes increasingly obvious that the Napoleonic order is a fait accompli, the British seek a peace treaty- neither side concedes much, but the Continental system trade embargo is lifted.

Given all this, would you expect "the West"(for the purposes of this discussion defined as the states of Europe and their colonial offshoots, excluding the Ottomans) during the 19th and 20th centuries to be more or less hegemonic then in OTL?

I've chosen to omit nuanced options from the poll because I want to force people to make a choice here, ie. what they find more likely. And to avoid getting too bogged down in pedantry over how we define dominance and how we weight various different forms of dominance.

Personally I think it's more likely to be bolstered. If only because, so long as France remains unseated from it's dominant position, Europe is likely to avoid traumas as serious as WW1, WW2 and the capture of half the continent by communist governments.
 
Last edited:

Vuu

Banned
The Napoleonic system pretty much gives them a single unifying thing - so you'd see Europeans try the world domination scheme even more, with more success than OTL
 
It may depend on how the Napoleonic system is run. A funnel from the rest of Europe to France's coffer, which seems to be the pattern of our world is ultimately going to decrease prosperity in the rest of Europe, particularly weakening the future ability of those states to advance power abroad in the New Imperial era (Spain, the Germanies come to mind). Essentially limiting European contact to three countries (four if you count the US) will decrease the competition that drove a lot of the excesses of imperialism. Also, a France and Britain that can punch at each other from the same level is a great way to keep Europe inwardly focused. From a geopolitical standpoint, it weakens the hegemony globally. China's decline, though reversible, already has preceding factors around, like the British discovery of the Chinese opium trade and incentive to do something about those massive trade deficits. However, France is probably content milking its Yurpian Cow, and has little incentive to act alongside Britain against China. British India is fait accompli for the moment, though that's not guaranteed with a more belligerent France and Russia lurking as well as a general resistance to colonialism. Africa is probably still gonna be economically bent to the favor of Europeans, but the sprawling empires which characterized African colonialism OTL will probably not happen. It's still cheaper to use proxies.
 
ITTL, there are four hegemonic powers in Europe: France (dominant on land), Britain (dominant on the seas), Russia (strong enough to resist the other two), and the Ottomans (the weakest, but still powerful). The British and Russians, at the least, have great incentive to continue expanding into the rest of the world immediately, and the French will do so once they have Europe properly reorganized.

Even the Austrians are likely to seek colonies once they settle internal affairs, since they certainly aren't going to be expanding much in Europe anytime soon.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Boosted, ultimately. There are some possible caveats. We may argue that the division of Europe into many states encouraged a certain competion (as seen, for instance, in the Scrambe for Africa and in the attempts of various powers to muscle their way into China). In various instances, certain programmes of colonialism were launched or sped up or expanded prececely because there was a fear that "one of the others will get the first if we don't act now!" -- The lack of such many competing states may actually slow colonialism down in certain cases, and stunt its extent compared to OTL here and there.

On the other hand, this exact POD means that Napoleon retains control over Continental Europe, which in turn means that Britain will hold on to every single colony it has captured. Britain will not be giving back colonies to Frenxh clients or to France itself under any circumstance short of Napoleon landing an Army on the shores of England and successfully conquering the place. This means that the stage is set for an Anglo-French rivalry or even Cold War. Even though that's just two big players (the vast British Empire versus the united 'Napoleonic Europe'), that could still see them eager to keep various bits of the world out of each others' hands.

Assuming this "Cold War" doesn't go hot, and just eventually thaws into (a semblance of) normal relations, we have pretty much the same effect as a world wherein the World wars don't occur: one where Europe remains much stronger, and thus more able to perpetuate its colonialism. Not to mention the fact that due to no Napoleonic venture in Spain, the Spanish Empire may last just a bit longer (and perhaps a few more bits might ultimately stay with Spain, even though uprisings in most American colonies were almost unavoidable by that point). That, too, counts as "strengthening colonialism" overall, I'd say. Finally, assuming that "Napoleonic Europe" stays united, it will be better equipped to deal with restistance to colonial rule.

In the end, I rather think that decolonisation in such a world would take place later and more gradually, with a larger number of colonies staying with the European colonising powers in Commonwealth arrangements.
 

xsampa

Banned
If we extend the definition of Western to include the US, American hegemony over Latin America, parts of Africa and the Pacific (Washington Islands, anybody?) will certainly be bolstered because of the drive to compete with everyone else. Expansionists might cite Britain's amnexation of the Dutch Empire or France's unification of Europe as proof that the US needs an empire in Latin America. If the South assumes dominance, expansion southwards will certainly continue, especially with pro-French Spain occupying Cuba and the various Fremch and Dutch possessiins in the Carribean.
 
The Napoleonic system pretty much gives them a single unifying thing - so you'd see Europeans try the world domination scheme even more, with more success than OTL

Assuming Austria, Russia, Spain, and the Ottomans are willing to peacefully play ball with the European political status quo. If they aren't, then Europe becomes another theature of competition between France and GB (sucking up resources and attention that iotl went into competing on the extra-european front) as Nappy needs to keep his power base stable
 
If we extend the definition of Western to include the US, American hegemony over Latin America, parts of Africa and the Pacific (Washington Islands, anybody?) will certainly be bolstered because of the drive to compete with everyone else. Expansionists might cite Britain's amnexation of the Dutch Empire or France's unification of Europe as proof that the US needs an empire in Latin America. If the South assumes dominance, expansion southwards will certainly continue, especially with pro-French Spain occupying Cuba and the various Fremch and Dutch possessiins in the Carribean.

The USA invade Canada properly in the war of 1812 and takes further chunks out of Mexico and not just Baja California and Sonora, whilst Spanish Cuba is just a reason for annexation and war with France for her Carribean territories. The US forcefully annexes the Panama Canal Zone from Colombia around 1850 and the border includes present-day Panama city for Americans too immigrate to. I think the slavery idea "the golden circle" or similar proposal would gain mainstream attention within the Union as a solution to such large and powerful countries on the geopolitical stage. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Circle_(proposed_country))

The crown prize is that taking it will a pinch of salt that the butterfly effect applies, you could see James K. Polk going for that second term. ;) (If not a similar version of him.)
 
Last edited:
Britain was the main reason for the spread of Western hegemony after the Napoleonic Wars IOTL. It had the most advanced (and for a good part of the 19th century, the only) industrialised economy, was the number one financial power, had the world's most powerful navy by a long shot, and a free market economy where international trade played a significant role. All of these factors enabled Britain to expand it's influence and mould the world into Pax Britannica during the 19th century.

If Napoleon won or made some compromise peace, and if Britain was weakened or less influential because this, there would be less Western hegemony in the world. France would be more concerned with maintaining its power in Europe and would not be able to project power and influence further afield as effectively as Britain IOTL could. A Napoleonic victory would see Europe more inward looking. There would be less spread of Western influence, ideas, military power and trade globally under a French hegemony. Britain would also be more concerned with French power so would be less able to expand abroad like IOTL.
 
The USA invade Canada properly in the war of 1812 and takes further chunks out of Mexico and not just Baja California and Sonora, whilst Spanish Cuba is just a reason for annexation and war with France for her Carribean territories. The US forcefully annexes the Panama Canal Zone from Colombia around 1850 and the border includes present-day Panama city for Americans too immigrate to. I think the slavery idea "the golden circle" or similar proposal would gain mainstream attention within the Union as a solution to such large and powerful countries on the geopolitical stage. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Golden_Circle_(proposed_country))

The crown prize is that taking it will a pinch of salt that the butterfly effect applies, you could see James K. Polk going for that second term. ;) (If not a similar version of him.)
"Invades properly" you realize the otl war nearly bankrupted the United States right?
 
So presumably "invades properly" means that the USA does go bankrupt sometime in 1814 or 1815.
It means "Invades properly" was otl and he's talking about something the young nation of the USA was incapable of.
 
Last edited:
"Invades properly" you realize the otl war nearly bankrupted the United States right?

Post revolution the US cut down the military and Madison relied heavily on militia to do his dirty work. If you going to invade another country at least make a conservative effort to obliterate you enemy, and one way to do that is to examine the circumstances of the current situation. Madison’s nearly bankrupting of the US is just a consequence of how bad he conducted the war but ultimately it’s his war strategy made him fail.

Some people just don’t know how to make and break war.
 
Top