How would Napoleon's life have been had he escaped to America post-Waterloo?

[TFSmith121]

A weak nation on the edge of the world that had, after all

On the grounds of not wanting the whole of Europe pissed off at them. Early 19th century US wasn't the modern US. It was a weak nation on the edge of the world. It couldn't afford to alienate Europe, especially when there was nothing to gain by doing so. I don't see Napoleon running off to live in the countryside though.
Even if he did try it he's not a woodsman. He couldn't do it alone. He would need an entourage. And this would increase chances of detection

A weak nation on the edge of the world that had, after all, won independence in 1775-83, defeated every significant British offensive into US territory in 1812-15, bested the French navy in every significant encounter during the Quasi-war, and sustained not one but two separate combined operations campaigns in European waters in the same period, against a set of enemies the Europeans had generally been content to appease...

And the Europeans, of course, had spent most of the six+ decades between 1760-1815 beating themselves to a pulp, and had either lost or were in the middle of losing their empires in Western Hemisphere...

But other than that, sure, you're bang on.

Best,

 

[god....freyjones]

And won the revolution with French assistance no less.

I think in economic, cultural and diplomatic terms, the USA wasnt that powerful until well into the 19th century. Especially in the late 18th century/early 19th century it wasn't. I don't think the British or other major anti-Napoleon combatant would have given a shit, provided he didn't rouse up the Quebecois as Canada was a UK colony at the time.

 

[god....freyjones]

A weak nation on the edge of the world that had, after all, won independence in 1775-83, defeated every significant British offensive into US territory in 1812-15, bested the French navy in every significant encounter during the Quasi-war, and sustained not one but two separate combined operations campaigns in European waters in the same period, against a set of enemies the Europeans had generally been content to appease...

And the Europeans, of course, had spent most of the six+ decades between 1760-1815 beating themselves to a pulp, and had either lost or were in the middle of losing their empires in Western Hemisphere...

But other than that, sure, you're bang on.

Best,

Really? Spain, perhaps. Though the UK and France arguably expanded their American territories in that period.

 

[Lateknight]

Really? Spain, perhaps. Though the UK and France arguably expanded their American territories in that period.

What? the french lost everything and British lost the better part of north america.

 

[TFSmith121]

I dunno; how many British armies surrendered to

And won the revolution with French assistance no less.

I think in economic, cultural and diplomatic terms, the USA wasnt that powerful until well into the 19th century. Especially in the late 18th century/early 19th century it wasn't. I don't think the British or other major anti-Napoleon combatant would have given a shit, provided he didn't rouse up the Quebecois as Canada was a UK colony at the time.

I dunno; how many British armies surrendered to the French in the Eighteenth Century?

The US got at least one all by itself (Burgoyne at Saratoga), and presumably shared another with the French (Cornwallis at Yorktown)...

There's also the larger problem the Europeans were pretty much exhausted after decades of warfare ... in Europe.

And, by the way, the European powers have (or are) pretty much demonstrating their inability to deploy and sustain military power worth the name in the Western Hemisphere, from (roughly) 1760 (French) all the way through to 1814 and then onwards into the 1820s (French again in Haiti, British (multiple locations), Spanish (multiple locations), Portuguese, (multiple locations).

Cripes, the Europeans couldn't do it in the steam era (Mexico, Dominican Republic, Chile, Peru) as late as the 1860s; why there are those who think it would be any different in the period 1815 or afterwards, I don't know...

If the Channel is a formidable obstacle to deploying and sustaining combat power, then surely the Atlantic is even more so...

Best,

 

[TFSmith121]

By 1820, the European powers, other than

Really? Spain, perhaps. Though the UK and France arguably expanded their American territories in that period.

By 1820, the European powers, other than the British in the Canadas and the maritimes, had all been expelled from any territory of significance in the mainland of the North and South American continents (unless you're really going to suggest the Guianas and Belize are significant), and the French and Spanish had both lost significant territory in the Caribbean, as well.

What are these French territories you speak of? Louisiana was gone in 1803.

As far as what was later glued together into the Dominion of Canada at Confederation, the British already claimed what became the Northwest Territories, British Columbia, and the like, in 1820, so those don't count as "additions" unless you're saying settlement as opposed to claimed - although settlement was pretty limited as late as 1867 in most of those, anyway.

Best,

 

[Yuelang]

I really don't think that's a fair statement. Napoleon had tons of admirers, even in nations that fought against him.

And even Neo Nazis grew in Russia, of all places...
Now, if only the anti Napoleon alliance declares him a war criminal, ban his philosophy, ban any party who think about him in good terms, and throughly de-Napoleonize france...

 

[Iggies]

Now, if only the anti Napoleon alliance declares him a war criminal, ban his philosophy, ban any party who think about him in good terms, and throughly de-Napoleonize france...

Please you'll give me nightmares.

 

[darthfanta]

I don't think Europe can do much to the US.Only Britain can afford an expeditionary force to take on the US,and they aren't going to do that so soon after the Treaty of Ghent gets signed.I don't think the European powers are going to go for an embargo of sorts as well,especially Britain.The US is like Britain's number one customer and I doubt merchants in Britain will support that.

 

[TFSmith121]

Ghent

I don't think Europe can do much to the US.Only Britain can afford an expeditionary force to take on the US,and they aren't going to do that so soon after the Treaty of Portsmouth gets signed.I don't think the European powers are going to go for an embargo of sorts as well,especially Britain.The US is like Britain's number one customer and I doubt merchants in Britain will support that.

Ghent ended the Anglo-American conflict of 1812-15; Portsmouth ended the Russo-Japanese conflict of 1904-05.

Best,

 

[darthfanta]

Ghent ended the Anglo-American conflict of 1812-15; Portsmouth ended the Russo-Japanese conflict of 1904-05.

Best,

Yes,I meant Ghent.Thanks for the correction.

 

[TFSmith121]

No problem

No problem. It would be interesting to come up with a situation where the treaty that ends in 1812-15 conflict is signed in Portsmouth, England, OR Portsmouth, New Hampshire, however...

Best,

 

[kodak]

I think it depends on Napoleans' next move upon arrival in America.

If he settles down and lives a normal life, nobody will really care. He'll receive a lot of attention, maybe write a book.

If he joins the US military, there will be plenty of anger in Europe, but in the eyes of the American public they've just won two wars (one against Britain and one against the Barbary pirates), so they're feeling pretty powerful. They won't turn him over. (Sarcastic bit) The Europeans realize that if they invade America over this, Napolean will have started a third war without even trying, so they outwit him by not saying anything. After a while things settle down, and Napolean dies of boredom somewhere. Things would never escalate to war.

If he goes with the third option of moving to Latin America and joining a rebellion, the Spanish could yell their heads off at America for letting this happen to them, and it might hurt US-European relations for a while. Not that they were verv good at the time.

 

[galanx]

What is the legal situation here- were there controls on immigration to the US (i.e. Nappy would be an "illegal alien")?
Were there extradition agreements? Could the Europeans demand he be arrested for piracy? Would the Americans want him to stay, and if not, cause could they find a cause to arrest him and either hand him over or just kick him out?

 

[funnyhat]

What is the legal situation here- were there controls on immigration to the US (i.e. Nappy would be an "illegal alien")?
Were there extradition agreements? Could the Europeans demand he be arrested for piracy? Would the Americans want him to stay, and if not, cause could they find a cause to arrest him and either hand him over or just kick him out?

There were no real controls at that time, as immigration in general was limited. The right of naturalization was restricted to Europeans - that was about it.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

We'd been fighting Napoleon's regime in the XYZ affair, and Napoleon was the era's Hitler. So he would've at least faced least tough questions here. We might've sent him to Britain.

And he had Hitler's ego. I think there's no chance he'd even try fit in. And he'd probably try to take over here and get into trouble that way.

His bro made it trouble-free because we've held families responsible for what crooks do.

Nothing could be more degrading to the former and more flattering to the latter. The comparison is odious.

Strong arguments have been made many times that Monsieur Bonaparte was better than his contemporaries.

 

[jkay]

Hitler because he also couped his way to power. And invaded his way to power. And, hmmm, was mostly beaten by invading Russia and their General Winter. He even massacred way too much.

 

[funnyhat]

Hitler because he also couped his way to power. And invaded his way to power. And, hmmm, was mostly beaten by invading Russia and their General Winter. He even massacred way too much.

There are a lot of reasons why the comparison fails. Let's not sidetrack the thread over it.

 

[Iggies]

Hitler because he also couped his way to power. And invaded his way to power. And, hmmm, was mostly beaten by invading Russia and their General Winter. He even massacred way too much.

How did Napoleon "massacre way too much"?

 

[jkay]

Aww, poor oppressed Nappylovers.....

I was wrong about the XYX affair. Whoops!

And, TFSmith121l, I meant Madison might decide Nnppy's too dangerous because he might try a coup here, not be scared of the Europe he beat.