The evolution of Napoleonic Britain

[Tom_B]

Interesting stuff, GW. You do know Abdul is going to nuke you

I can see the more moderate Napoleonic touch on British monarchy you describe. I do think they will turn Ireland into a satellite with only a nominal connection at best with Britain. One consequence is a milder Potato Famine. While Ireland was starving for want of it potatos it was exporting grain to England in OTL.

No War of 1812. Tecumsah will likely go independent and cause trouble.

Might Napoleon insist on the return of Quebec to French rule? I would also see him interested in Haiti.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Ah, Napoleon's planned invasion of Britain-- The Sealion of the 19th century.

I agree. The POD of anti-British weather allowing a French invasion ignores the issue of the still fully operational Royal Navy getting more pro-British weather and resuming naval supremacy in the Channel. The French troops in Britain are cut off, and, though veterans, are facing a logistical nightmare, with no relief from Europe and a VERY hostile population. If Napoleon is in Britain when the British navy cuts off the French, then there will be political turmoil on the continent, and a recognition by the British that if they can end Napoleon's career with a great deal of finality.

I think ruling Britain is going to be very difficult as well. The occupation of Britain is going to depend on the collaboration of a large number of people with the French, and I don't see any of the political leaders either ruling or in the opposition willing to do that. Furthermore, I don't think King George III or the Prince of Wales (future George IV) is going to be a puppet king for the French, thus forcing the French to find some other member of the royal family. The French will be forced to directly rule, without the benefit of the political elite collaborating, and with a deeply hostile civilian population and a more or less intact Royal Navy.

I think the Royal family would flee England ahead of the French and go into exile, either in Canada or India.

 

[Faeelin]

I agree. The POD of anti-British weather allowing a French invasion ignores the issue of the still fully operational Royal Navy getting more pro-British weather and resuming naval supremacy in the Channel.

This is only because, IMO, I think you people tend to think too small.

Toss in a successful Irish rebellion in 1797, turning into the Vendee; a few more years to consolidate after Amiens, an earlier development of something like the Demologos, a League of Northern Neutrality which doesn't break up, a war with America in 1807...

You have to hit the foundations of Britain's Empire, which isn't impossible, IMO.

Furthermore, I don't think King George III or the Prince of Wales (future George IV) is going to be a puppet king for the French, thus forcing the French to find some other member of the royal family. The French will be forced to directly rule, without the benefit of the political elite collaborating, and with a deeply hostile civilian population and a more or less intact Royal Navy.

I think this buys too much into Britain as the country with hearts of oak, unlike those weak-kneed Savoyards, Dutchmen, Austrians, etc.

So long as the Royal Navy is afoot, I agree with you. But if you remove it, then...

I think the Royal family would flee England ahead of the French and go into exile, either in Canada or India.

If the Royal Navy flees anywhere, it's game over, man. India will simply rise up in revolt.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

This is only because, IMO, I think you people tend to think too small.

Toss in a successful Irish rebellion in 1797, turning into the Vendee; a few more years to consolidate after Amiens, an earlier development of something like the Demologos, a League of Northern Neutrality which doesn't break up, a war with America in 1807...

So the Irish, assisted by General Hoche, rebel. Ireland is engulfed in civil violence, as Orangemen and United Irishmen carry out massacres of civilian populations. Ireland is an ulcer, but I don't think it would be able to really majorly threaten Britain. And I fail to see how an Irish ulcer would create the conditions for a successful French invasion of the island of Britain.

Between the Battle of Copenhagen and the death of Paul I, I don't see a POD that could keep the League of the North together.

I think this buys too much into Britain as the country with hearts of oak, unlike those weak-kneed Savoyards, Dutchmen, Austrians, etc.

The Dutch Republic was run by the exile Patriots, who'd lost a contest for power with the Orangists in the mid 1780's. England has no similiar exiled population. The House of Savoy was the victim of Italian nationalists and French armies. Not that I don't think there won't be collaborators, I just don't think that you will see big-name collaborators- I don't for instance think that you'd see a member of George III's immediate family on the throne.

If the Royal Navy flees anywhere, it's game over, man. India will simply rise up in revolt.

The British faced no other Great Power in India. Though I don't think you'd expansion, and you might see the British lose some influence, I don't think a wide-spread revolt is in the cards. The British hadn't gained direct control over enough of India to inspire a massive revolt.

 

[Faeelin]

So the Irish, assisted by General Hoche, rebel. Ireland is engulfed in civil violence, as Orangemen and United Irishmen carry out massacres of civilian populations.

I don't think the Orangement really get involved. The head of the United Irishman is a protestant, after all.

Between the Battle of Copenhagen and the death of Paul I, I don't see a POD that could keep the League of the North together.

Easy. Copenhagen gets sorta aborted because Britain is too busy elsewhere.

Let's toss in President Burr invading Canada in 1806 or 1807 as well.

The British faced no other Great Power in India. Though I don't think you'd expansion, and you might see the British lose some influence, I don't think a wide-spread revolt is in the cards. The British hadn't gained direct control over enough of India to inspire a massive revolt.

There's the Maratha Confederacy, no? You don't think they'd take advantage of the fall of Britain to invade?

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

I don't think the Orangement really get involved. The head of the United Irishman is a protestant, after all.

The Orangemen were founded explicitly to oppose Irish rebellion. Though the United Irishmen were led by Protestants, the majority of the rural membership were also members of the Catholic Defenders, which is kind of explicit in who made up the membership. The Orangemen were not only opposed to Catholics, but also to certain kinds of Protestants, particularly Presbyterians, another group the United Irishmen favored giving rights to.

The Orangemen were committed to a British-ruled Ireland, and were willing to kill for it. The history of the 1798 rebellion shows that. The same will hold true in an earlier rebellion. If anything, the level of violence will be far higher, since the 15,000 French troops will give the United Irishmen a decided edge in the early stages of combat.

Easy. Copenhagen gets sorta aborted because Britain is too busy elsewhere.

Let's toss in President Burr invading Canada in 1806 or 1807 as well.

This is big multiple PODs though. Burr not betting his political future in 1800, the British fleet having other concerns, Hoche's fleet being more successful.

There's the Maratha Confederacy, no? You don't think they'd take advantage of the fall of Britain to invade?

Perhaps, but the British are still going to have troops in India, and the Marathan Empire had already suffered a body-blow defeat by the British in 1803-05 Second Anglo-Marathan War- when British troops were led by Sir Arthur Wellesley (future Duke of Wellington).

 

[Leistungsfähiger Amerikan]

This thread is win, I command you to keep it up Grey Wolf.

As for the invasion of Britian by Napolean, I am really no expert at all, but perhaps you could have a scenario where the French get an army onto Britian and then both countries agree to a peace? Maybe a peace where Britian gets a poor deal, but hey, they've been invaded. I am not sure how tenable it is for France to outright defeat GB with the RN still around.

However, if it does get to that point, then the only two real powers and going to be Russia and France(after the Ottoman war). America, China, and Japan aren't going to be trouble for a real long time. Russia and France have no major reason to go to war, as the French don't care much about the Balkans in this TL. As the French won't have the resources to maintain a European Emipre and start colonising for a while, plus the lack of the British, you might see more USA hegemoney in the Americas moreso than OTL. Does the USA annex Canada in this TL?

The one thing I'm on the fence about are the revolutions of 1848. I think they'd occur sooner and with more ferocity, at least in Germany, due to nationalism pushing against forced internationalism. In other places, perhaps Napoleanic control is more enlightened, which may quell the rebellions. I'm really not sure.

 

[Detroitman32]

Napleon personally wanted to become King, and he boasted to Josephine that, "in a few months' time, you and I will be wearing crowns on our heads in Westminister Abbey," or something along those lines.

 

[Faeelin]

The Orangemen were committed to a British-ruled Ireland, and were willing to kill for it. The history of the 1798 rebellion shows that. The same will hold true in an earlier rebellion. If anything, the level of violence will be far higher, since the 15,000 French troops will give the United Irishmen a decided edge in the early stages of combat.

Ah good, bloody ethnic cleansing.

This is big multiple PODs though. Burr not betting his political future in 1800, the British fleet having other concerns, Hoche's fleet being more successful.

They all follow; Hoche's fleet is more successful, so Britain is distracted; and thus, the rising Anglophobia in America helps Burr get elected.

Perhaps, but the British are still going to have troops in India, and the Marathan Empire had already suffered a body-blow defeat by the British in 1803-05 Second Anglo-Marathan War- when British troops were led by Sir Arthur Wellesley (future Duke of Wellington).

Yes, but Britain isn't going to be pull a Peshawar.

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Ah good, bloody ethnic cleansing.

Plus, if Hoche survives longer than OTL, his successful foreign intervention will be compared to Napoleon's failure in Egypt. I think the bar for success is set much lower in Ireland, since Hoche just has to keep most of his army intact and tie down British troops. How were the British at feeding themselves at this point in their history? Cause if Ireland is as important to Britain's food situation as it was by the time the Potato famine started, then the Hoche-Tone Rebellion could cause some serious unrest in Britain, perhaps with knock-on effects at *Amiens.

With Hoche in the picture as a potential adversary though, will Napoleon be able to centralize all power to himself? Will he even be the man to launch the coup, or will Hoche return from Ireland to do it?

They all follow; Hoche's fleet is more successful, so Britain is distracted; and thus, the rising Anglophobia in America helps Burr get elected.

I was thinking Hoche's successful invasion of Ireland actually pushed anti-French sentiment in America. The Quasi-War with France become declared war with France. Hamilton invades then-French ally Spain's territory in Louisana and Florida, winning him important political capital and putting him in contact with the frontier and its people. Adams wins a second term in 1800 with the country still at war with France. The Alien and Sedition Act is not as unpopular, and Federalist prosecutors use it to shut-down many Democratic-Republican editors. Jefferson is badly hurt by the war, since he was once so openly pro-French. Adams scores big at *Amiens, with the Americans getting the territory they took in the war against France and Spain. The Demo-Reps are split as to what to do next, with Jefferson damaged goods and Adams' VP (a Federalist) wins in 1804. Aaron Burr becomes either a Senator or Governor of New York, and he gets the nomination and wins the Presidency in 1808.

Yes, but Britain isn't going to be pull a Peshawar.

No, but I think the British would be able to maintain their position in India while events play out in Europe. The French don't have the resources to launch any expeditions to India, and the Indians won't be able to gather the necessary alliances to remove the British from India.

With the butterflies starting in 1796, I think there is also the strong possibilty that a Napoleonic France at the time of the invasion is still a Republican France. If Napoleon's position isn't as strong, or if he has become the paramount leader following Hoche's coup and then death, Napoleon won't have the support or control to declare himself Emperor.

So then a successful invasion of Britain may be under a Republican banner. If that happens, then who collaborates with the British? Which (if any) of the British royals becomes King, or does George III stay to lead his people under French occupation? Which of the leading members of Parliament stays on to serve under the occupation? Will the occupation be a harsh peace like Austria gets, or the imposition of the British Republic?

 

[Faeelin]

Plus, if Hoche survives longer than OTL, his successful foreign intervention will be compared to Napoleon's failure in Egypt. I think the bar for success is set much lower in Ireland, since Hoche just has to keep most of his army intact and tie down British troops. How were the British at feeding themselves at this point in their history?

This is a good question.

http://books.google.com/books?id=FD...X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1#PPA141,M1

Suggests that it was only providing 3% of Britain's foodstuffs in the period. Alas.

I was thinking Hoche's successful invasion of Ireland actually pushed anti-French sentiment in America.

Hrmm, I'm not so sure. But why?

 

[Matthais Corvinus]

Hrmm, I'm not so sure. But why?

The French in 1796 had also successfully invaded Italy under Napoleon. Then they successfully invade Ireland, where a French-backed religious war of monsterious proportions begins. Many in the Federalist Party regarded France as an expansionist power that posed a threat to American interests. With France doing well in Europe, I think the French policy vis a vis American ships would only get worse- making the Federalist Party seem all the more right. The feeling might be that the US needs to declare war in order to seize territory that might otherwise be used against the United States.

In OTL the US almost declared war on France during Adams administration. Hamilton wanted it, many in the Federalist Party wanted, the Alien and Sedition Act was clearly passed in order to go after the Democratic-Republicans when war was declared on the French. I just think that the additional image of French troops butchering Protestants in Ireland (which is how the situation in Ireland would be portrayed to the overwhelmingly Protestant US) would be enough to push the US over the edge.