United States of Europe

Hello, I am new here. I have a topic that I have been going around much but cannot conclude how it could have ended.

If Napoleon had not invaded Russia and his idea for a united Europe (with the inclusion of Prussia and Austria maybe?) would have succeeded what would have happened?

I have come up with a number of possible outcomes:

1) Imperialistic policy is not a priority, so all overseas colonies are forgotten.

2) The region of Iberia (Portugal+ Spain) is supported by the rest of the State in their maintaining sovereignty over the Americas. As a consequence South America is kept controlled by European powers and they have strong bonds. Other Europeans travel to the Islands to exploit them.

2 cont.) The region of France keeps control of New France and Lousiana.

This would make Europe dominate most parts of the Americas.


3) After a half century of relatively little wars, the British and European interests collide over African, Indian and Far Eastern Territory. A long time fighting ends up with:
a) A victorious Europe, leading to a collapse of the Brit Empire and the Brit inclusion to the United Europe (making European dominance of the world nearly absolute).
b) The war does not lead to anything much and Europe and Britain divide Africa, the Far East and Indian soverignity is given to the Brits.

4) (very unreal) The Russian Revolution suceeds and the USSR is created. The world is divided into 4 superpowers: USA, Brit Empire, Europe and USSR (and with Japan closely behind). A world war follows where Europe and Britain fight the USSR in Europe and Japan on the Far East.

I ll try to get a map.

I am not very sure of the reliability of the outcomes, so please could anyone give me an idea of what could have happened. (if the United States of Europe were a reality) during the course of the 19th and 20th Century.

EDIT: Philipines would be still part of Spain and thus of Europe.
 
Last edited:
Hello, I am new here. I have a topic that I have been going around much but cannot conclude how it could have ended.

If Napoleon had not invaded Russia and his idea for a united Europe (with the inclusion of Prussia and Austria maybe?) would have succeeded what would have happened?

I have come up with a number of possible outcomes:

1) Imperialistic policy is not a priority, so all overseas colonies are forgotten.

2) The region of Iberia (Portugal+ Spain) is supported by the rest of the State in their maintaining sovereignty over the Americas. As a consequence South America is kept controlled by European powers and they have strong bonds. Other Europeans travel to the Islands to exploit them.

2 cont.) The region of France keeps control of New France and Lousiana.

This would make Europe dominate most parts of the Americas.


3) After a half century of relatively little wars, the British and European interests collide over African, Indian and Far Eastern Territory. A long time fighting ends up with:
a) A victorious Europe, leading to a collapse of the Brit Empire and the Brit inclusion to the United Europe (making European dominance of the world nearly absolute).
b) The war does not lead to anything much and Europe and Britain divide Africa, the Far East and Indian soverignity is given to the Brits.

4) (very unreal) The Russian Revolution suceeds and the USSR is created. The world is divided into 4 superpowers: USA, Brit Empire, Europe and USSR (and with Japan closely behind). A world war follows where Europe and Britain fight the USSR in Europe and Japan on the Far East.

I ll try to get a map.

I am not very sure of the reliability of the outcomes, so please could anyone give me an idea of what could have happened. (if the United States of Europe were a reality) during the course of the 19th and 20th Century.

EDIT: Philipines would be still part of Spain and thus of Europe.

1) Imperialism would probably still be a priority, would most likely be on steroids in this scenario. Overseas colonies were the major money making territories of Europe and would not be forgotten.

2) Is likely, as without a Peninsula War, Napoleonic France would dominate Iberian Peninsula

2 cont) New France was ceded in 1763 and the Louisiana Purchase occured in 1803; both well before Napoleon controlled all of Europe

3) It wouldn't take a half century for Great Britain and a United Europe to butt heads over colonies. Great Britiain would more than likely be fighting Napoleon every step of the way, with or without foreign help. An Anglo-Russian alliance may have been enough to defeat Napoleon before he conquered Europe. May have been enough.

4) The USA wasn't really a world power until post-WWI, and with a United Europe, WWI isn't likely to happen. The world powers bit really depends on Napoleon's succesors. If they are strong enough to hold together all the different factions of Europe that dislike each other, (Austria-Pussia, France-Prussia, Poland-Prussia, etc)

So what it boils down to is, how long does a United Europe stand?
 
worldblankbw.jpg


A map to brighten up things.

Around 1910:
Green- Russia
Grey- USA
Pink- British Empire
Blue- USE (Europe)

Supposing that colonies in America could be sustained. I put Canada as British seeing my dates of New France were wrong.

This is the actual British Empire and the addition of all European empires (+ former portuguese and spanish). Here the USA is not ceded parts from Mexico, as it would not dare attacking European colonies (supposing they had not achieved independence).

My main doubts are:
a) Could America be sustained as a colony?
b) Would Europe be able to hold such a large empire and have Russia and Britain as potential enemies.
c) Would Britain's Empire be so big if opposed by Europe in the scrame for Africa.

PS: Forgot to put Finland as russia

PS2: Japan is not mentioned as it was not a superpower in 1910- still modernizing.

PS3: No British colonies in the Arabian peninsula or Palestine, as these were conquered after WW1 (which did not occur).
 
Last edited:
Big Question is: Has the deposition of Ferdinand and Charles of Spain in favour of Joseph Bonaparte occurred ITTL (it happened before Russia)?

If it has, then I don't think that Napoleonic Europe has a hope in hell of preserving the Spanish Empire in the Americas, and the same will probably happen to the Portuguese Empire. Britain's navy is just too dominant in this early part to support this sort of thing.
 
Thanks very much William, your corrections on North American history have been of great help.
 
Big Question is: Has the deposition of Ferdinand and Charles of Spain in favour of Joseph Bonaparte occurred ITTL (it happened before Russia)?

If it has, then I don't think that Napoleonic Europe has a hope in hell of preserving the Spanish Empire in the Americas, and the same will probably happen to the Portuguese Empire. Britain's navy is just too dominant in this early part to support this sort of thing.

true, i missed on the british navy power. perhaps this could have been possible with a victory at trafalgar, involving a more adequate admiral than Villenueve. However, if it had succeeded then Napoleon would have probably focused on Britain, so his plans might have failed.

Maybe some kind of treaty between Europe and Britain involving a non agression pact between both sides, so the british navy stops sinking spanish ships.

And another big question: After some years of rebuilding the European navy, would it control the Mediterranean? (perhaps by annexing territories of the ottoman empire). Or would the Royal Navy still dominate this sea?
 
Thomas Jefferson said that due to the importance of New Orleans to American trade (it controlled the mouth of the Mississippi), whatever foreign power owns it would be the enemy of the U.S. and "we must marry ourselves to the British fleet and nation."

In this scenario, with no Louisiana Purchase, I see Anglo-US rapprochment. If there's a widespread Latin American insurrection, the British and U.S. between them might well deprive "United Europe" of its overseas possessions.
 
No problem, quixo. I know how it is being new here.

For Napoleon not to invade Russia, or with a French-Spanish victory at Trafalgar and not invade Great Britain, would be going against everything Napoleon was. He would keep fighting until he was beaten, it was just part of his persona.

Now, provided Napoleon does not invade Russian, and has a victory at Trafalgar (it would have to destroy the Royal Navy) and does not invade Great Britain, then you have Napoleon in a position to dictate terms to the British and the Russians.

This United Europe would dominate trade around the world, leading other developing nations to not develop so well. The British may well declare a war on the Americans to recoup their losses, but without the Royal Navy I just don't see that being feasible. The USA doesn't offer much in the way of an alliance, being across the Atlantic and not all that powerful. Besides, British-US relations weren't that good until the late 19th century.

Another nation that Napoleon might eventually start eyeballing is the Ottoman Empire. They were reforming their nation in the mid 1820's so if he doesn't hop on it soon after uniting Europe, he might not get the chance.
 
No problem, quixo. I know how it is being new here.

For Napoleon not to invade Russia, or with a French-Spanish victory at Trafalgar and not invade Great Britain, would be going against everything Napoleon was. He would keep fighting until he was beaten, it was just part of his persona.

Now, provided Napoleon does not invade Russian, and has a victory at Trafalgar (it would have to destroy the Royal Navy) and does not invade Great Britain, then you have Napoleon in a position to dictate terms to the British and the Russians.

This United Europe would dominate trade around the world, leading other developing nations to not develop so well. The British may well declare a war on the Americans to recoup their losses, but without the Royal Navy I just don't see that being feasible. The USA doesn't offer much in the way of an alliance, being across the Atlantic and not all that powerful. Besides, British-US relations weren't that good until the late 19th century.

Another nation that Napoleon might eventually start eyeballing is the Ottoman Empire. They were reforming their nation in the mid 1820's so if he doesn't hop on it soon after uniting Europe, he might not get the chance.

How about a very costly victory at Trafalgar (without Villeneuve of course) and no availability of ships for the cross channel invasion, leaving a blockade on Britain until its surrender, so that the soldiers which planed on invading England went to Austerlitz (as it happened) and won.
This would leave Napoleonic dominance in Europe as well as in the sea. The US remembering that France supported them earlier do not get involved whatsoever. This could lead to a peace agreement with britain.

My history is also leading to an inevitable Anglo-European war, with the defeat of Britain and its joining the United Europe as a semi-dependent state (with own monarch). The African and Far Eastern colonies would pass to general European control, but Canada, Australia and India would be controled by Britain still (although its semi independence).

In a long futere (1900) as US becomes a superpower they would most likely side with Europe/Britain and not with Russia or the emerging power of Japan (although they would be trade partners).

PS: My history does include the Louisiana purchase.
 
OTL, Finland got its independence from Russia in 1917. But with a POD so early, the Russo-Swedish war of 1808 may be butterflied or changed.
 
How about a very costly victory at Trafalgar (without Villeneuve of course) and no availability of ships for the cross channel invasion, leaving a blockade on Britain until its surrender, so that the soldiers which planed on invading England went to Austerlitz (as it happened) and won.
This would leave Napoleonic dominance in Europe as well as in the sea. The US remembering that France supported them earlier do not get involved whatsoever. This could lead to a peace agreement with britain.

My history is also leading to an inevitable Anglo-European war, with the defeat of Britain and its joining the United Europe as a semi-dependent state (with own monarch). The African and Far Eastern colonies would pass to general European control, but Canada, Australia and India would be controled by Britain still (although its semi independence).

In a long futere (1900) as US becomes a superpower they would most likely side with Europe/Britain and not with Russia or the emerging power of Japan (although they would be trade partners).

PS: My history does include the Louisiana purchase.

Problem is, Napoleon essentially tried blockading Britain IOTL, the Continental System was designed to stop any trade between Britain and her partners on the Continent. Even without the Royal Navy rendering it useless (and a defeat at Trafalgar is going to mean other ships being drawn up from elsewhere to stop the blockade even if Napoleon has enough ships to enforfce it. And then there's the fact that in an age without radar etc. and where a ship can easily be blown dozens of miles away from where it should be preventing a blockade in that sense), it was so costly to the economies of Europe that everyone except the French flaunted it. It's what led to the Invasion of Russia, to the Kingdom of the Netherlands (under a Bonaparte) being annexed, and was partly to blame for the Invasion of Spain. Despite Napoleon's constant assurances that Britain as 'a nation of Shopkeepers' would have to surrender soon because of the Continental System, this never materialised.
 
I would suggest that the Latin American countries, which were already revolting, would resent the attempted re-imposition of foreign rule. Britain could get them it its orbit easily (if it was sane about the matter, which isn't guaranteed), and you could have 'dominions' 50 years early.

I simply don't see this Napoleonic empire being able to beat Britain on the high seas, and if they butt heads too hard over colonial issues, they'll just lose ALL their overseas colonies.

The Med becoming a Napoleonic lake does seem feasible, however, as the few British bases are close to France/Spain, and probably possible to take. Without bases, the Brits won't be able to project power effectively into the Med.
 
Top