Regarding Portuguese Colonies, assuming the Royal Family still escapes to Brazil, they probably remain under Portuguese control with help of the British. If so, they will probably become Brazilian Colonies in the end: the Braganzas really enjoyed their stay in Brazil, particularly Crown Prince Pedro (later Emperor Pedro I of Brazil OTL).
Regarding Dutch Colonies, I'm pretty sure they had fallen in the hands of the British during the Napoleonic Wars. If the Dutch remain a Satellite of France, the British will probably keep their colonies.
South America can become potentially more interesting if the Braganzas do not reclaim Portugal as they would probably make Brazil their main focus. It did happen OTL (Pedro I crowned himself Emperor and left Portugal to his daughter Mary II) but with British support and no Miguellian Crisis in Portugal (assuming it is not reclaimed), butterflies could very well affect the destiny of Brazil.
Regarding the Spanish Colonies, I think I heard the British were planning something regarding Venezuela if Spain had remained an ally of Napoleon. I'm also pretty sure that the Spaniards (read South American Spanish) were pretty fed up with the Spanish (read European Spanish), even if efforts had been made under the early Bourbons. With Charles IV or Ferdinand VII, I wouldn't be so keen on the Spaniards accepting rule from Madrid.
Both of my statements, however, will need someone which is more of an expert on South American history to confirm them: after Africa, Latin America is probably the part of the world I know the less.
While the British would very much like to undermine the Spanish Empire in the New World, its overseas expeditions in that direction were less than successful (see the La Plata expeditions, where local colonial forces without help from Spain proper were enough to repulse the British twice), outside the seizing of islands that I can recall. From what I've read, much of the impetus that spurred on the independence movements also came from the Peninsular War and the capture/detainment of the Spanish monarchy (as well as those few years when the Viceroyalties effectively governed themselves). Without the Peninsular War, I was under the impression that the majority would be very much willing to continue on under Spanish sovereignty, with autonomy concessions.
Though like you, Latin America is not my forte in the slightest.
What's the POD? You mentioned Amiens, so presumably the idea is that that arrangement lasts, but unless Napoleon keeps his side of the treaties with Britain and her allies too -- which he didn't do IOTL, and I'm not sure he would have been temperamentally capable of doing -- then I find it rather dificult to envisage Britain not trying to organise & finance another coaltion against him before very long anyway...
I'm personally keen on using multiple small PoDs (or perhaps all stemming from the same butterflies) to create a situation where Britain is forced to the bargaining table with the war growing in cost, supplies (specifically naval supplies from the Baltic) becoming more difficult to obtain, and a lack of support from continental allies. The peace is absolutely temporary, of course, and Britain will do whatever she can do undermine the hegemon in Europe (and will indeed be the principal opponent to the European order), but doing so will take time, as you can imagine. Both Austria and Prussia (Prussia in particular: at one point I entertained the thought of giving Austria Silesia, but that would bring Prussia to the level of Bavaria/Westphalia) have been greatly weakened, and Russia was busy undergoing reform tensions under the continued reign of a more liberal-minded Alexander I.
With the passage of time, French power necessarily wanes in comparison to the rest of Europe, as once bedrock allies and puppets drift away or seek growing autonomy. This all sets the stage for a possible renewal of war on the continent at a later date (just not until after 1836-40, and the mythical God-Emperor of France's death
).
Re India: The Marathas could have survived for a while longer if they'd beaten (and possibly killed) Wellington-to-be, Assaye at least having been IOTL "a dammed close-run thing", but their system arguably wasn't stable enough for really long-term survival. If what I've previously read on the subject is correct then the princes depended on their armies, who were largely funded by plunder, which meant that frequent wars against outsiders or even amongst themselves were pretty much essential for them... which was not only obviously a serious hindrance to peaceful trade, and thus anathema to trading groups like the HEIC, but meant that their defeat & overthrow by somebody was likely sooner or later anyway; either that, or continued warfare would have devasted the local economy and then they wouldn't have been able to afford large armies for any longer... They really needed to turn most of their infantry & cavalary into 'regular' troops (as they do seem to have done already with their European-trained artillery, but which may have been easier in that case because those were relatively new forces and lacked the cavalry's social prestige), and to organise proper tax-collection systems to finance their governments, but it's questionable whether that would actually have been possible in their situation.
I agree that the Sikh kingdom (especially) and Nepal would probably have lasted for longer if Britain hadn't expanded across northern India, but don't know enough about the subject to comment about how much further than IOTL either of those peoples could have expanded successfully.
Thank you for the information. Indeed, I've been considering moving the first definite PoD back earlier to include the Mysore wars to accommodate a more dynamic India (at least in the South). Changing around Northern India to make it a more difficult proposition for a weaker East India Company wouldn't require too many historical divergences.
Re Latin America: If Napoleon hadn't pushed Spain into changing sides then Britain was seriously considering the launch of a major military/naval expedition from India across the Pacific, taking the Philippines en route, to try and seize at least some of the Spanish colonies there...
Thanks for the heads up. I'll look into the expedition and the dispositions of Spanish Philippines to determine if it could realistically succeed (or fail miserably like Britain's Rio de la Plata expeditions).
The PoD is crucial here. The furthed back it is, the better the result is likely to be for Napoleon to force Britain to the table. The Battle of the Nile and furthering the Napoleonic adventure in Egypt, is probably the best one for a proper negotiated stalemate, with France dominant in Europe, and Britain overseas.
Well, I'm aiming for a negotiated stalemate/French dominance on the continent (with Britain remaining
the overseas power, though I am thinking of tossing the French New Zealand [nothing against Kiwis
, it just seems like an interesting proposition] after the peace of Amiens is broken (essentially, successive PoDs will make British opposition to France on the Continent progressively more difficult, until they're up to negotiating a settlement).
As has been mentioned before, the Portuguese colonies end up under Brazilian rule, with maybe one or two being "purchased" by Britain.
The Dutch colonies are going to be kept by Britain. How many are returned (if any) depends on what they can extract from Napoleon in return. Maybe they will consent to returning parts of the Dutch East Indies, like Java and a few of the minor islands, or possibly the Dutch West Indies, if they can guarantee a lighter French hand in the Kingdom of Holland, or looser control elsewhere. Otherwise, the entire Dutch empire will be a nice addition to the British one.
I think most everyone has thus far suggested these as the most likely outcome. That actually solves that problem nicely (though I'm thinking Britain would dangle the remaining Dutch colonies in front of their faces, and use it to try and garner Dutch opposition to France).
The real question is how much of France's overseas empire does Britain grab. Britain will probably keep French India and St. Pierre and Miquelon, but as for the French Caribbean and Senegal, that depends on how the peace goes...
I've studied this subject for my Britwank Empire TL. The Marathas are already doomed. Even if you get rid of Mornington, another governor-general is going to want them stomped on. At best, each of the dynastic states are going to be incorporated as seperate Princely States, with a few bits trimmed off the sides, rather than partitioned almost into oblivion. Britain is also going to keep the remaining French enclaves in India, as well.
EDIT: There's still scope for a strong Sikh Empire, provided that it can be kept together.
What if the PoD was earlier back in the Mysore Wars? I haven't actually played Britain too much in Victoria 2, but from my experiences, the whole "British Dominance of India" was a pretty boring affair overall (from an outside prospective), so creating a more dynamic India is a big bullet on the list because 1) its historically interesting and 2) it'd make for a more fun game experience (basically combining the two goals I'm striving for: an interesting historical scenario and a fun experience from a modded scenario for a game perspective).
This is contingent on a lot of things. If Spain stays allies with France*, Britain has no reason to stop their support of the various independence movements.
Depending on the exact PoD, Argentina, Paraguay and Uruguay are all probably lost to Spain, with the rest depending on how well the Spanish Loyalists do. Britain will probably give tacit consent to the American adventures in Florida in this case, though there may well still be a *War of 1812 if the problems of trade and British press-ganging of crew aboard American ships still happens.
*i.e., Napoleon not stupidly installing his brother as king, and grabbing Catalonia. Seriously, what was that guy thinking...
I'm afraid that I don't know much about this, sorry.
Thanks for the information, regardless.
Was British support for independence movements really that successful? The independence movements really got started after the Peninsular War and the Congress of Vienna, so I'm not sure if Britain played a large role in it. At the very least, direct British intervention in Latin America wasn't quite successful (to put the Rio de la Plata expedition lightly).
Partially, this depends on what plans Napoleon has elsewhere, and what the PoD is. There may be a Franco-Russian partition of the Ottomans' European domains.
The Barbary states (especially Algeria) are probably in line for conquest, as they were in OTL.
They were defeated afterwards by a coalition of navies, predominantly lead by Britain and France (?). The consensus really didn't build up until after the Congress of Vienna, and if Britain sees no reason to help reduce a problem that will primarily afflict France and their interests, it may be possible to see them last somewhat longer (at the very least, the conquest of Algeria would be delayed). Or am I reaching here?
This is the real wildcard. Mind you, there's no quarantee that they won't still be discredited later on, especially in the anti-French parts of the world.
Well certainly, but consider the alternates; Metternich's Europe, a France without any real democratic institutions, and a backlash against liberalism and the ideals of the French Revolution by the entrenched elites, up until you get 1848.
Things to consider - what ARE Prussia and Austria in this scenario? Presumably the Grand Duchy of Warsaw survives, and with it a larger Saxony, thus meaning that the Prussia of the post-Napoleonic period is the smaller, weaker Prussia of the mid-Napoleonic period.
That is basically what I had in mind yes. It's stronger then the major players within the Confederation of the Rhine (see Bavaria, Westphalia, Saxony, etc.), but without the Rhineland and the loss of a significant chunk of territory (some of Pomerania to the Swedes, chunks of land to the Poles, and no Rhineland), its lost a great deal of inertia, definitely.
Has Italy kept Lombardy/Venetia? Does France still own Dalmatia? Is Austria's only outlet onto the Adriatic therefore Trieste? Does Bavaria keep the Tyrol? Has Napoleon managed to get Esterhazy to accept the Hungarian crown, or maybe even another Habsburg? Or is the Austro-Hungarian union still strong enough to last?
1) Yes, 2) undecided: probably an autonomous puppet state under French control. What would you suggest be the most plausible fate of the territory (say by 1830-40)? 3) Yes. 4) Mostly undecided, but tentatively no. With the changes already to Europe, nerfing Austria into Prussian status would make it difficult for there to be a serious coalition threat vs. France and its satellites (Britain and Russia by themselves don't really stand the best chances in overturning a French Europe if Austria and Prussia are
too weak [and Prussia is already in a weakened state]). 6) That's an interesting question, and really that falls along with my final question on the development of intellectual, political, and social norms, ideas, and movements in a Napoleonic Europe. Considering the composition of Napoleonic France, its not a a stretch to say that civic nationalism, as opposed to ethnic nationalism, is strengthened. Additionally, without a Metternichian reactionary framework for Europe, you could very well see significant reform of the Austrian Empire (most definitely since consistent humiliation by France would prompt it).
Personally, I would find a liberally-minded Austria supporting Italian unification against a more conservative France entrenched in Italy to be...highly ironic and mildly amusing. To say the least.
Don't forget that the USA played a major role in beating up the Barbary states, and it was rarely Britain alone who took action, rather a coalition of states who were fed up with piracy/paying for exception.
Indeed (though I'm not sure if the US was
that important. The European consensus and will to action was forged during the Congress of Vienna, and lead by Britain. Would such a coalition be made between Napoleonic France and Britain? Eh.
Negotiations for peace between ALL powers in a Napoleonic victory/British negotiated peace treaty are going to be tough - for example, Sweden wants all of its Pomeranian territory back, thank you very much. It would also quite like Finland, thanks again!
Well certainly. Though my goal is to avoid Sweden losing Finland in the first place (and its already gotten a chunk of Pomerania, quit being greedy you Swedes! All Denmark gets is Holstein!
).
If Portugal is partitioned - on what basis? Who between? Anyway, with the Braganzas in Brazil, then it will be Brazil that CONTINUES to run the colonies, at least in Africa. Will the Ching see Brazil as legitimate to take on Macao? My guess is yes as its the same people, the same administration, and the treaties devolve as Brazil is going to be very much a Portugal-in-exile. Maybe the Dutch will go for Timor/Flores etc - especially if the British keep some of their conquests in the Dutch East Indies.
I don't think that in a general peace a French satellite Holland is going to accept (be allowed to accept by France) a loss of all of its overseas possessions. It will lose some, but retain some. The Dutch people are still the Dutch people, even if going forward they are a satellite of France.
Best Regards
Grey Wolf
Thanks for contributing to the input on the colonies. I think I've got a clear picture of what to do with them now, so thanks!
Let the Sikhs seize the mouth of the Indus as they almost did during this period; their ruler refrained from doing so due to British concerns, but if the British are weaker...
Hmm, interesting.
It's hard to say; but it's striking that independence arose everywhere, and there were people proposing independence.
It's not possible, but would the Bourbons accomodate reform?
Not sure. I really do need to conduct a thorough study of Latin America before I move forward with change there (South America is undecided: a strong Spanish presence in Mexico/North America is much more assured, however, given how the Mexican War of Independence panned out and the factors which lead to its success).
Who has Malta? And Sicily?
Malta returns to the Knights of Sinjin
p). Sicily I'm undecided on. Naples perhaps?
They weren't a very high priority, TBH. this is why Britain didn't seize Java until 1811.
That late? Huh.
It depends. They'd all support the same policies they did OTL, more power for themselves. But down below?
I think Westphalia has a grim future; the state was bankrupt, and while Jerome was a good person (the Jolly King, as the Westphalians called him), it was run as a French puppet.
My guess? A radical revolution to expel him, beginning the German Wars of Liberation!
All to coincide with the coronation of Napoleon II, and all the other shitstorms that are brewing just under the surface, yes.
Though honestly, I'm aiming to at least keep a (relatively) peaceful path to German unification open, albeit difficult (unify the Confederation first [which would be a Herculean task considering the many players involved], and then the rest of "Germany").
I think the US might go to war with Spain instead of Britain in this TL, and whup it handily. This weakness would set off the demands for reform, autonomy, and, ultimately, independence.
Possible. It's also arguable that a USA without the War of 1812 is weaker politically and militarily (as in, plagued by greater divisions: things like the Hartford convention or the disabusing of the US government on the power of state militia hasn't happened yet, obviously, and military talent hasn't really been discovered yet [General Hull leads 5000 men into Florida, only to surrender to a large alligator that wandered in front of him {ok, this is being unfair to him, but still, there was so much incompetence in the US handling of the war in 1812 that its absurd. Yes, Brock was pretty damn capable, but
damn}]). That, and there is still a clear Indian threat within the frontiers of the US (the Creek, Tecumseh's Confederacy, etc.), all of whom are still being supplied by the British (and possibly the Spanish, in the future).
Yes, I am nerfing the USA (or at least, making its Manifest Destiny more difficult to achieve, with the entirety of Oregon going to the British, a still unresolved border with Canada (a potentially hostile Britain there too)/Spanish North America (which will be stronger, and a Texan revolt more prone to defeat), and greater resistance from the Native Americans (on top of an earlier Civil War). Should make playing the USA an interesting and somewhat challenging experience. Might compensate by giving the possibility of creating the NAU (North American Union!) megastate. Admit it, everyone's thought of it before.
Hrm. Why would thisb be the case? Surely Italy would be a kingdom under a Bonaparte?
Oh certainly, but that would still be a rather rump version of an Italy, wouldn't it (so much Italian land is in French hands, after all)? While some would be satisfied, idealistic nationalists will most certainly not be.
And of course, Britain broke the treaty. But we've fought this battle before.
Let's be fair, both sides broke the treaty because both sides didn't expect it to last.
