How close was Napoleon?

So basically in recent history - which is to say, I being American and therefore somewhat self-centered, the past 250 years or so - we have three major times where it looked like some nation, at least to the majority of the population, might come to Rule the World, or at least establish a strong hegemony over it (say, of the sort that America enjoyed throughout the 90s and 00s, or the Pax Britannica): The USSR; Nazi Germany; and Napoleonic France.

Now, the USSR certainly had all the ingredients, the population, the industry, etc., it just had a number of organizational issues. But the Cold War was fought for a reason: it definitely had a chance of winning, however slim.

We now know, of course, that Nazi Germany never had much of a chance of actually winning WWII. Apparently it's doubtful that it could have beaten Britain alone, let alone Britain, America, and the Soviet Union combined. It put on a good show and had some really impressive gains, but ultimately it was always running on a time limit, and even if it had taken down Britain, there was a certain Red menace that it was never going to defeat.

But what about Napoleon? I'm not entirely certain what his end-goals were. But how close was he to achieving them? Could France really have come out the other side of his rule as the dominant world power if he had done things a little differently? Things worked slightly more in his favor? Specifically here I'm wondering if it's possible with a POD of no earlier than 1799, when he seized power in France.
 
Napoleon said later in life that his greatest mistake was refusing the Governorship of Toussaint and trying to reimpose slavery in Haiti; had he made a deal with L'Ouverture, and perhaps made some slight additional efforts of restraint, the Peace of Amiens might have lasted longer, giving the new French Emperor more time to consolidate his holdings in the Americas before, and if, he still moves to expand European influence.
 
Britain looked closer to ruling the world than any three of those nations. ;)

Agreed, but I was going with the Big Three alternate histories: What If the USSR won, What If the Nazis won, and What If Napoleon won.

If you want to get really technical, America probably came even closer than Britain to establishing total world hegemony...
 
And Napoleon concentrating his position a little better in the Americas isn't going to matter when the war was won and lost in Europe.

Napoleon even trying for hegemony is going to ensure that multiple powers are going to be willing to put aside their quarrels in order to put a stop to it.
 
Agreed, but I was going with the Big Three alternate histories: What If the USSR won, What If the Nazis won, and What If Napoleon won.

If you want to get really technical, America probably came even closer than Britain to establishing total world hegemony...

Ah yes, but only because the English language was spread all over the world by the prior advance of the British Empire--and the spread of the English language certainly made things easier, in many ways, for the later advance of the American hegemony, IMHO... :)
 
1. The USSR never really tried to establish any hegemony. Almost all of the movement the USSR supported were very powerful in their own country before any Soviet intervention.

2. Easy for Napoléon. Stay out of Spain except if it attack and then crush it and leave, repeat according to the schedule. Stay out of Russia and crush any army that come out of it into Europe. Continue to play the German states one against another. Leave his brother in power in Netherlands. Destroy the Hapsburg and create a separate Hungarian Kingdom. He should limit himself to the west bank of Rhine for France proper and put his family and friends on the thrones of the kingdoms of Germany and Italy.
 

PhilippeO

Banned
isn't Napoleon just like Nazis ? even if he winning in Europe, he still wouldn't able to conquer England and Russia. and after his dead there would be rebellion and fighting among his marshall.
 
isn't Napoleon just like Nazis ? even if he winning in Europe, he still wouldn't able to conquer England and Russia. and after his dead there would be rebellion and fighting among his marshall.

I agree, however you play it Napoleon was never going to be able to defeat GB & Russia. So at best the French Empire would be a regional power, forced to contend at sea with Great Britain at sea and on land with Russia.
 
It's kind of flatering the the Nazis to be compared to Napoleon and an insult to Napoleon.

Churchill thought it an appropriate comparison - Napoleon was told "there are bitter weeds in England. There are a great deal more now since the return of the BEF...
 
But what about Napoleon? I'm not entirely certain what his end-goals were. But how close was he to achieving them?

I don't think he had endgoals. I think at first he was pretty happy ruling France, but he was a megalomanic control freak who didn't know when to stop. He basicly wanted the rest of the world to do what he wanted, while he was ruling France. He found out that the rest of the worlddidn't do exactly what he wanted them to do, so he decided to force them and finaly ended up losing everything he (and France) got.
 
I don't think he had endgoals. I think at first he was pretty happy ruling France, but he was a megalomanic control freak who didn't know when to stop. He basicly wanted the rest of the world to do what he wanted, while he was ruling France. He found out that the rest of the worlddidn't do exactly what he wanted them to do, so he decided to force them and finaly ended up losing everything he (and France) got.


So the real answer is "not very close, and he never got any closer", because his ambitions expanded with his success, and no matter how far he got, the ultimate gol stayed about the same distance away - a bit like the donkey's carrot.
 
isn't Napoleon just like Nazis ? even if he winning in Europe, he still wouldn't able to conquer England and Russia. and after his dead there would be rebellion and fighting among his marshall.

He could have defeated the Russians. It's easy to defeat the Russians when your goals are not to conquer all of Russia. Just look at the Crimean war and world war 1.
 
And Napoleon concentrating his position a little better in the Americas isn't going to matter when the war was won and lost in Europe.

Napoleon even trying for hegemony is going to ensure that multiple powers are going to be willing to put aside their quarrels in order to put a stop to it.
But had Napoleon not been greedy and poked the bear, there was a very good chance that he would have succeeded. Obviously his end goal wouldn't have been conquer Britain and Russia, and even better for him that he doesn't do that.
 
From my (French) point of view, Napoleon's ultimate goal was to get rid of England. It's the cause of the Continental Blockade, which in turn is the cause of the Peninsular War and Invasion of Russia, which in turn are the cause of Napoleon's fall. He never could have gotten rid of England, anyway.
Except if... how about a POD in 1798? "What? You want me to go to Egypt, when thousands of Irish rebels are but waiting for us?"
With something more serious than the Humbert expedition, Ireland gets independent and allied with the French, and with this threat at its flank, England loses all idea of messing with France.
 
If they hadn't pestered the Ottomans France would've been a lot better off keeping them as an ally. Also, I think Operation Lion De Mer would actually be vaguely possible if the French were a bit luckier. Of course I think Anciens Regime France was actually is a better position to be a hegemon.
 
Well from what I know,Trafalgar was never supposed to happen. Vilanueva heard he was getting resplaced,and decided to set sale before his replacement could arrive.So if there is no Trafalgar like clash and the French fleet remains as is (or improved with the addition of new ships and the like if Napoleon diverts some effort into it) by the time Napoleon would enact the continental system, could he focus more on his navy at that point? And then possible challenge Britain for control of the seas?
 

Cook

Banned
Napoleon said later in life that his greatest mistake was refusing the Governorship of Toussaint and trying to reimpose slavery in Haiti...
He also said that his greatest mistake was not burning Berlin to the ground. In fact, he said a lot of things were his greatest mistake, depending on his mood.
 
Top