Napoleon conquers the world

Leistungsfähiger Amerikan

I'm a bit confused by the highlighted section? Britain can't realistically end the war and continue the blockade, any more than France can end the war and continue it's own attempt at economic warfare.

That aside I think Britain will fight as long as it can while either:
a) France is engaging in economic warfare against it and seeking to close off most of Europe to it's trade.
b) Any peace is seen as a truce by France during which it builds up an overwhelming fleet. Basically, given his past history, that probably means as long as Napoleon is in power and definitely as long as he controls so much of Europe.

In one way Britain is better off without allies for a prolonged economic war. [Not that I'm ignoring they will need allies to complete the destruction of the French empire;)]. While in the predominantly economic stage Britain needs to maintain a large navy and [especially in Iberia a sizeable army]. However it has a growing domination of very important extra-European markets while smuggling/corruption gives a good access to the European markets for both imported and manufactured goods. The war is an economic burden but one it can sustain for a long time. For France, with a less advanced fiscal system, a larger but weaker economy they face a much bigger economic burden. Not only do they need to build up a large fleet under difficult conditions but also maintain a very large army. To a degree that last point was mitigated by the French policy of stationing as much of it's army in foreign lands but that in turn caused bitter resentment in the lands they were stationed in. Furthermore in Spain this couldn't occur as the land had neither the wealth or stability to do this.

When those circumstances trigger a challenge to French domination by one or more continental states the situation changes. France has to raise yet more men but Britain needs to supply sizeable subsidises for allies. Hence different but heavy burdens continue to apply to both powers.

Hence you need additional pressure to be applied on Britain for it to fade under pressure. The 1812 conflict did this to a degree. However it wasn't enough to be decisive and France was already crumbling under the pressure. Napoleon wasn't getting any younger and his abilities were declining. Hence I think you need a bigger shock to Britain and probably earlier to break it before France goes down.

I don't think you can have a system where you have a Napoleonic empire dominating Europe and an independent Britain. I think one or the other really has to go.

Steve



How long would the British be willing to carry on an actual war with Napoleon without continental allies, and how long would they be willing to carry on a Cold War with a Bonaparte dynasty that controls Europe? I can see that the British have the decided Naval advantage, and that it would be difficult for the French to build up a fleet, but how long are the British going to be willing to carry on this policy of blockading ALL French control and French allied ports that are undergoing shipbuilding? I understand that Napoleon I may not see a truly powerful French fleet in his lifetime, but by the time his sons ascends to the throne, are the British still going to want to have the majority of their fleet guarding the continent to prevent a new French fleet?

I ask this because I don't see the British carrying on such a policy for 20 years after the war ends. What if the Chinese get uppity about the Opium trade, or the USA gets uppity about borders? Eventually, the French will have force projection capacity to gain colonizes throughout the world IMO.
 

I guess my issue is that I need to differentiate between during Napoleonic war and post-Napoleonic war scenarios. Say Napoleon agrees to the demands you stated, and ends the economic warfare and agrees not to build up a giant fleet to invade Britain. Couple of years later, Napoleon dies, and his son takes over. His son decides he does indeed want a fleet. Will Britain decide to restart the war with France? My point is that if Napoleon comes to dominate the continent, British policy of preventing France from building a fleet with have to last forever. My questions are regarding British willingness to maintain such a confrontational policy a generation after the Napoleonic wars, which I find unlikely.

Going from there, it becomes an inevitability that some years after the end of the Napoleonic wars, France will become a naval power enough to rival Britain, and eventually the French and French allied fleet with surpass that of Britain, since the British have to compete with most of Western Europe. And then from there, we return to my original question: what will the colonial competition look like? Since France will have the decided naval advantage, by the 1830's and 1840's, France could be in a position to dominate the colonization of the Middle East, Africa, and even uncolonized parts of Asia.

Otherwise, during the Napoleonic wars, I agree with you. Britain will continue the war while it believes that France has the ability to strike at her. This brings me back to my other question of how long such a war would go on once France comes to dominate the continent. I mean, since this is a Napoleonic victory scenario in an ATL, we can handwave some of Napoleon's more disastrous mistakes, such as invading Russia. But ultimately Napoleon will have to make peace with Britain, which will probably involve ending the continental system and agreeing not to build a super massive fleet. The specifics of this scenario are up for discussion---how long would it take for Britain and France to be sufficiently war weary to reach such an agreement?

From there, we also have to debate how stable a Napoleonic Europe would be. Nationalism would rear it's ugly head, but I disagree with the posters who say it is ASB that Napoleon's victory would last. Sure, in one ATL, the French Empire could collapse under nationalist revolutions, I agree. But in another ATL, the French will have most of Western Europe firmly under the Bonaparte dynasty, and much of Central Europe under their control as well, albeit with more difficulty. But still, if the French play their cards right, their German client states could last, at the very least making them not an outright threat to France. Best case scenario, these client states will be subservient to France enough that their resources will be able to be used in any contest against Britain. Either way, with such a stable continental situation, France will have that ability to colonize the world and rival Britain in a naval race.

I hope I've made myself a bit clearer!
 
I think that the Peninsular war is a key turning point in this scenarios. What would the fate of Spanish America be?
 
Originally Posted by Emperor-of-New-Zealand
Let's suppose he wins with his continental system. With Britain out of Europe, she becomes far more interested in the rest of the world, ergo we see heavier British colonialism and potentially a larger empire than in OTL. So a European Francowank can quite easily result in a world-wide Anglowank.

Not a bad prediction! I happen to agree, but it could go either way, with regards to Britain. Either, as per your prediction, the British are forced out of Europe (and perhaps the Americas excepting of course the Antilles, Bermuda, and the Lucayan Archipelago), and therefore focus on the rest of the world (i.e. Africa, India, Indo-China, the Malay Archipelago, Oceania, the Pacific, and MAYBE China, Japan, Central Asia, and the Middle East - all depending on the fates of Arabia, China, Japan, the Ottoman Empire, Russia, and Persia in a Napoleon victorious world), thus building a massive colonial empire; or the British are so weakened economically and militarily that they are unable to fully exploit these lands even if the French are busy with Europe. The deciding factor would be how well off Britain comes out of the Napoleonic wars.

In the former case, the British maintain most of their Carribean holdings and stand to gain all of India, most of Africa, all of Australia and Papua New Guinea, and most of Southeast Asia. France is the dominant nation in Europe but much less so elsewhere (especially as compared to OTL). Europe is the French sphere of influence and the rest of the world is a British sphere of influence, outside of major local powers such as China, the Ottoman Turks, Russia, the USA, etc.

In the latter case, Britain is reduced to an inward-focused hermit kingdom, powerless in either Europe or elsewhere beyond the home islands and some token territories scattered about the globe. [And in an extreme case, perhaps a wank, Great Britain is dismembered. Maybe a short-lived state, the Gaelic Republic is created out of Ireland and Scotland? (Which then defaults to, say, the Hibernian Republic and the Scots Republic or restored Kingdom of Scotland under the Stuarts?) With a rump Kingdom of England or Anglic Republic?]

Either way, the British would likely turn away from Europe, but there is a considerable probability (particularly in the latter scenario, not so much in the former) that the UK becomes a "North Korea" type pariah state in this world. We can be reasonably certain that lasting Napoleonic triumph (Napoleonic "Pax Gallica") completely butterflies away Victorian England as we know it. Consequently, even though French hegemony or direct political influence is lacking in the Americas (beyond the West Indies), French culture is more influential in Europe, the United States, and globally (at least outside the British Empire anyways). Instead of New England WASPs importing Victorian culture to the USA as IOTL, French culture and language are perhaps more popular. [Not much of a stretch by any means considering that the legal system of the State of Louisiana is based more on civil law ala the Code Napoleon rather than the Anglo-American common law, or the frequency of French or Napoleonic names for municipalities throughout the former Louisiana territory (Bonaparte, IA, Napoleon, AR...).]

Personally, I think a world without Victorian England would have been better off overall. :)

However, even in the event of global British hegemony in "the rest of the world" there are limits. Maybe instead of direct colonisation or annexation of foreign lands, the French would seek to impose client states, dependencies, and protectorates, or to establish strategic alliances, to frustrate British expansion. In Africa, for instance, Napoleon and his successors might attempt an alliance with a buttressed Ethiopian Empire, or a client Barbary Republic, or protectorates over the Afrikaaners, Sotho, Swazi, and Zulu (Confederation of the Cape?)...

Originally Posted by Emperor-of-New-Zealand
I am aware he wanted a Francophone nation in N. America, but this was before his economic troubles forced him to sell Louisiana.

Originally Posted by Devolved
He also forced the Spaniards to give him Louisiana so that he could one day rebuild a French Empire in North America.

We do not really know for sure what Napoleon Bonaparte was hoping to accomplish with Louisiana territory. Nobody knows for certain what his long-term intentions or expectations were and we may never know, without the ability to read his mind. Thus, this is really speculation.

For all we know, the seizure of Louisiana territory was meant merely to avenge the outcome of the Seven Years' War and may have been a simple power play or retaliation against Spain, who was defeated in the War of the First Coalition. It is evident that Napoleon did indeed have plans for a possible French colony on the North American continent, but the willingness with which the French sold Louisiana (at a bargain price no less!) to the young USA, suggests that Napoleon was not that serious in his colonial ambition, though limitations on both his military success in the New World and his economic power undoubtedly played a factor.

Originally Posted by Emperor-of-New-Zealand
Haiti was also a disaster for the French because Napoleon wanted to reinstate slavery.

Now this is simply untrue! I would also say that such a claim is libelous to Napoleon. :mad:

First off, whether or not Napoleon actually did "reinstate" (your word) slavery, it does not mean that he wanted to, let alone that he was "pro-slavery." This reminds me of Confederate apologists who argue that Abraham Lincoln was not anti-slavery by quoting him out of context or pointing out that there were, in fact, contemporaries of Lincoln who were even more anti-slavery than he was. The evidence suggests that Napoleon was anti-slavery as well, though some of his contemporaries were significantly more anti-slavery than he was.

As to your claim that Napoleon attempted or "wanted" to reinstate slavery in Haiti (then Saint-Domingue), you can find Napoleon's orders to General Leclerc online. As a matter of fact, an English translation of the military orders from First Consul Bonaparte to General Leclerc is available here.

The French nation will never give irons to men it had recognized as free. Therefore all the blacks will live in St. Domingue as they are today in Guadeloupe.

For more information, refer to Napoleon and St Domingue/Haiti:

On a related note, it is worth evaluating the infamous decree of 30 Floréal An 10 (20 May 1802) by which Napoleon reinstated slavery. I think this is the main reason I was asked to address the topic of St Domingue in the first place. The issue has actually been rather perverted by Napoleon’s detractors. The law did not “reinstate” slavery, but rather did not abolish it. It did not, despite erroneous claims in many books and texts, restore slavery to France and the colonies. The law only applied to Martinique and the Isle of France, and nowhere else, especially despite bizarre claims that it included Guadeloupe, or St Domingue or Cayenne. Martinique and the Isle of France had in fact never implemented the law of 16 Pluviôse, An II that originally ended slavery, due to the British conquest of Martinique (now just recently returned to France under the Treaty of Amiens) and a royalist counter-revolutionary uprising on the Isle of France. This new law of 30 Floréal in effect just said that the government was not going to move to abolish the slavery still in existence there, rather than “reinstating” slavery. It was perceived as an efficient measure. There is absolutely no evidence that there was anything ideological or racist in Napoleon’s decision; he only saw the issue in terms of practicality. Abolishing slavery on those two islands at this point was believed to run the risk of exciting civil unrest, which he did not have the resources to deal with. Should he have abolished slavery there? I think so, yes. I am not saying that it is good to have not ended slavery there as well, but rather that slavery was not “re-instituted” or even a policy favored by Napoleon, as his record shows with his liberation of slaves in his Egyptian Campaign and the liberation of the Jews in his Empire and wherever his armies trod. While Toussaint could distort this decree as propaganda to support his revolution, it was not a major factor in the revolution, nor was there any real threat of the re-institution of slavery, even if the French had regained control of the island.

...and My Review of C.L.R. James’ “The Black Jacobins: Toussaint L’Ouverture and the San Domingo Revolution”:

Another large claim is that Napoleon himself aimed at restoring slavery. There is zero evidence of this. The best evidence is the Decree of 20 May 1802, whereby in the colonies where slavery was not abolished in 1794 because they were controlled by the British, abolition would not be newly extended. As criminal as this was, it was a concession, not a desire, of Napoleon’s, and did not re-establish slavery, but rather tolerated it’s continued existence in certain areas. The next and really only other suggestive evidence was the actual re-establishment of slavery on Guadeloupe, but that was done locally by Gen. Richepanse, not by Napoleon, although he did nothing to contradict this decision.

Note also that Napoleon abolished slavery during the Hundred Days.

Thus, given that (1) when the Jacobin decree emancipating the slaves was proclaimed, the territories in question (Martinique and Isle of France) were beyond French control, and (2) consequently, slavery was never officially abolished in said territories, it can not be said that slavery was "reinstated," merely maintained. However, I do not condone even preserving slavery when it means protecting the status quo. On this Napoleon was clearly in the wrong, but it is still unfair to mischaracterize him as such. Would you argue that Lincoln was pro-slavery because he allowed slavery in some Union states during the Civil War?

While Napoleon Bonaparte had his fair share of character flaws and moral weaknesses, no evidence suggests that he was a racist (at least by then-contemporary standards, though he was, unfortunately a product of his time, and some of his contemporaries were even more progressive on racial issues, and more staunchly anti-slavery). If anything, Napoleon assumed an assimilationist stance on racial issues in French colonies. Napoleon's moral flaw in this case was not his racism, but a cynicism that resulted in him putting aside his principles for pragmatic aims. While Napoleon SHOULD have emancipated slaves on Martinique and the Isle of France as well, there is no basis for the claim that he personally desired to maintain slavery. After all, Napoleon emancipated feudal serfs in Europe and slaves in Egypt. His toleration of slavery was simply an act of capitulation as he did not have the means to effectively put down a revolt, nor did he wish to risk losing those islands to the British.

Sorry, I had to address that slander. :(

Originally Posted by Emperor-of-New-Zealand
If he thrashes Britain, he has a free hand in the Med, can colonise N. Africa and gains access to the Red Sea and Indian Ocean. It was in his plans to conquer India as well, which he might be able to do here as well.

Alternately, once Britain is sufficiently weakened, he can induce his dependencies in the Mediterranean to build up their national naval forces, thereby gaining naval power in the Mediterranean Sea, making it a virtual French lake and ousting the British once and for all, or rather more likely, his successor would pick off where he left off.

Originally Posted by Emperor-of-New-Zealand
In an effort to make his empire contiguous, he might also conquer Mesopotamia and Persia, then Siam and Indochina, giving him access to the resources there that he can trade without hinderance to his clients in Europe.

A bit of a stretch I say. That would be a massive wank! However, Napoleon I or else a successor would seek to make Persia an independent ally if not a dependent ally.

Originally Posted by SavoyTruffle
Even a Bonaparte would not be delusional enough to try and compete with the British Empire in terms of scope.

Originally Posted by Devolved
In what way was the minor nobleman from Corsica not delusional enough to compete with the scope of the British Empire?

Granted, Napoleon Bonaparte, imperfect as he was, had his character flaws and made his share of mistakes, but I would not call him "delusional." The man was a genius! Pray explain how he not only took up leadership of the French Revolution, but he was able to accept the title of Emperor and yet the French people could not have been happier about it. Never mind that they have launched a revolution that was arguably more radically republican than the American revolution! For the most part, Napoleon was cool-headed and rational. That of course did not mean that he never blundered. Invading Russia, particularly during a two-front war was a huge and tragic blunder. That entire Peninsular War did not quite go as expected...

But what about the invasion of Egypt? A rather brilliant though desperate plan. It would have worked out just fine were it not for a couple problems: (1) invade a rebellious province of the Ottoman Empire that was nominally ruled by the Ottoman Turks but actually under Mamluke rule; (2) depose Mamluke overlords and establish French protectorate to be returned to the Ottomans eventually; (3) while there, improve and reform the country to gain the support of the local populace; (4) use the country as base to attack British India. The only problems were that the British still held naval superiority over the Mediterranean, and that the Turks did not get the memo, or they were not convinced, and so they saw the French as foreign invaders attempting to take the country rather than a military force merely seeking to "borrow" the country, removing the "Mamluke thorn in the Turkish side" in the process.

Originally Posted by Eurofed
If he can persuade the French, Germans, Italians, Poles, Hungarians, Iberians, to buy into the notion of a neo-Roman federal Europen empire, an imperial proto-EU, he can win.

Now come on! Why are victorious Napoleons always so regressive? How about instead of a "feudal European empire" after his death, Napoleon's imperial order evolves into a republican multi-national confederation instead? Kind of like OTL EU but achieved much earlier?

ADDENDUM: I misread "neo-Roman federal Europen empire" as "neo-Roman feudal European empire" but my point still stands, at least partially.
 
Last edited:
Top