WI: A Franco-Iberian Union/Empire

Alright, so I was thinking about this earlier and figured I'd post it.

Here's the basic idea;
During the 1700's a somewhat different Napoleon comes to power, he's still bent on expanding France, but has no intention of subjugating
the entirety of Europe.

After focusing North, where ha takes the Wallonia region and sets up a Dutch puppet state, North-East, where he sets the Rhine as the
'Natural Border' between France and the Germanic states and creates the Puppet Rhine Confederation and South-East where he takes
parts of Italia and creates a Unified Puppet Italian Kingdom he goes South, conquering the Iberian peninsula and uniting it with France
in what we'd call a Federal Empire.

Now, lets assume that this Union stays in place and after a few decades their are'nt any real movements to re-gain independence.

So how does the world develop with this new nation, how will colonial growth go, now that this new nation controls not only a huge
chunk of the America's, but small territories in Asia and several territories in Africa?
 
But why subjugate Spain to France? He annexed portions of Catalonia yes, but really saw no reason to annex Spain as a whole. The natural borders of France were at the Rhine in the north, but the Pyrenees served as a good defensive border in the south. He preferred to keep Spain as an ally, and when the Spanish Bourbons fumbled, to place Joseph on the throne.

Considering how the Spanish rose up against French occupation and Joseph, I imagine things would be worse if Napoleon directly annexed Spain into his empire, and would give all the more reason for Britain to keep fighting and to keep financing those who opposed Napoleon on the continent, in order to bring him down.
 
But why subjugate Spain to France? He annexed portions of Catalonia yes, but really saw no reason to annex Spain as a whole. The natural borders of France were at the Rhine in the north, but the Pyrenees served as a good defensive border in the south. He preferred to keep Spain as an ally, and when the Spanish Bourbons fumbled, to place Joseph on the throne.

Considering how the Spanish rose up against French occupation and Joseph, I imagine things would be worse if Napoleon directly annexed Spain into his empire, and would give all the more reason for Britain to keep fighting and to keep financing those who opposed Napoleon on the continent, in order to bring him down.

Well, like I said this is a different Napoleon, one who's more interested in the South than trying to subjugate everywhere else.

As for Spain, well it's no suddenly no longer existent and broken into departments of the French Empire, it is still itself an entity, just no longer fully independent, just like France would no longer be.

As for Britain, well even if they did keep on supporting rebel movements, it's the entire French military and a considerable portion of the Spanish military against some rebels, since France would have made loyal allies in Italy and elsewhere by uniting countries, even if they are puppets.
 
Last edited:
Presumeably the Spanish military and people would resist this annexation so i don't see how this goes much better for France than OTL.
 
Presumeably the Spanish military and people would resist this annexation so i don't see how this goes much better for France than OTL.

I'm thinking more starting off as a Royal Union and devloping into full political union over time, not outright annexation.
 
You don't even need a Napoleon, or at least there's an elegant solution a little bit earlier; Marlborough catches a cannonball early on at Blenheim, as a result the War of Spanish Succession is an unqualified French victory, and Spain and France form a personal union under Louis XIV/Luis I. Britain without Marlborough will be interesting to me.

If you're looking into a Revolution/*Napoleon Conquers the World angle, that's still possible, since France probably has many of the same financial and structural woes. The Bourbons presumably only flee to Spain, not Britain...
 
You don't even need a Napoleon, or at least there's an elegant solution a little bit earlier; Marlborough catches a cannonball early on at Blenheim, as a result the War of Spanish Succession is an unqualified French victory, and Spain and France form a personal union under Louis XIV/Luis I. Britain without Marlborough will be interesting to me.

Louis XIV NEVER was on the running for the War of Spanish sucession. The french candidate (and, in fact, rightful heir) was Philip of Anjou (the future Philip V), granson of both Louis XIV and king Philip IV of Spain. Philip himself never was in the running for the French throne, as he was the second son of the Dauphin and his brother was first on the line (both that brother and his primogens died before Philip IV, but there was a fiver year old great-granson, Louis XV. I dont' remember if he had either siblings of uncles, but they would have gone before Philip even if youn Louis died.

Even if you had more royal deaths thna landed Philip the french throne, they would be years after the end of the Spanish sucession, so that would mean a second war (for the same reasons of the first)
 
Last edited:
Disagree - Carlos II designated Philip d'Anjou his heir, and Louis XIV accepted this designation becuase he thought doing so would prevent war with the rest of Europe(hah!) - but by Salic law, the person with the most legitimate claim to the Spanish throne is the Dauphin Louis (1661-1711), Philip's father and Louis XIV's eldest son and heir. Had France been victorious on the battlefield, it would have had no reason to abide by Carlos II's designation, and would have installed the Dauphin. The Kingdoms are technically not united until Louis XIV's death, but it's pretty obvious who will actually be ruling.

But we've gotten a bit off the subject. The OP wanted Napoleonic wars that end with France, Spain and Italy united but Germany and Austria (I presume) not terribly prostrated or inconvenienced. I think we'd need a month by month account of the wars to see how that turns out, but the big question is how does *Napoleon deal with Latin American independence? With a bit of luck Spain can keep Peru, but the rest of the New World probably can't be held down with Spanish arms - and if French arms are added to the mix, I suspect it leaves the European holdings vulnerable without improving matters enough in the colonies.
 
Disagree - Carlos II designated Philip d'Anjou his heir, and Louis XIV accepted this designation becuase he thought doing so would prevent war with the rest of Europe(hah!) - but by Salic law, the person with the most legitimate claim to the Spanish throne is the Dauphin Louis (1661-1711), Philip's father and Louis XIV's eldest son and heir. Had France been victorious on the battlefield, it would have had no reason to abide by Carlos II's designation, and would have installed the Dauphin. The Kingdoms are technically not united until Louis XIV's death, but it's pretty obvious who will actually be ruling.

Except Spain didn't follow Salic Law. It had a semi-salic succession prior to the Bourbons. And even if Spain had a Salic succession, then the French Bourbons would've been ineligible to succeed anyways -- Salic law barrs succession through females, which is how Philippe d'Anjou was a probable claimant -- through his grandmother, who was the sister of Charles II.
 
But we've gotten a bit off the subject. The OP wanted Napoleonic wars that end with France, Spain and Italy united but Germany and Austria (I presume) not terribly prostrated or inconvenienced.

Er I meant only France and Spain United, with a (mostly) United Italy as a puppet.
The Rhine Confederation would be more or less half of modern Germany.

I have'nt thought farther East.
 
Top