unprincipled peter
Donor
I want to explore several what ifs all stemming from the same POD.
The scenario:
On the day Napoleon Bonaparte was conceived OTL, Momma Bonaparte ATL said "not tonight dear, I have a headache". Poppa B, frustrated, went out behind the woodshed, and took matters into his own hand, and the genius seed that would have become a great military leader was cast upon a pile of unchopped wood.
The first butterfly is Toulon. Nap is undoubtedly a key player, but ultimately with or without him, the siege of Toulon is likely to succeed. We'll take at face value that Nap was instrumental in drawing up and helping to execute the plans that kicking the British out. Without him, I'm ATL extending the siege, but ultimately the British withdraw. In this time period, the Brits on land have a tendency to muck up everything, and there's no reason to believe Toulon would be any different. Bottom line, though is that a front action is extended, and revolutionary France sustains a body punch. Not enough to knock out the revolutionaries, but puts a little wear on them.
Next up is the battle of Saorgio, where Napoleon designed the offensive plan. Andre Massena is one of the key players here, and he ultimately ends up a good commander, so you can't automatically reverse the order of battle. But it's not unreasonable to say that with a different offensive plan, you end up with alternate results. I'm not assuming good, nor bad, because we don't know. Just saying different.
The big point of departure is 13 Vendemiaire. Here, Nap is the hero of the hour and is a decisive figure in saving the National Convention from a royalist uprising with future king Charles X in attendance. With the uprising going completely differently, we can change history to our whim. This is the beginning of the end for revolutionary France. Whether the royalist uprising gains steam and is ultimately successful with Louis XVIII taking the throne , or whether the Convention devolves into an alternate dictatorship/directory is somewhat unimportant for the what ifs I have in mind. The main thing is that the revolution collapses and Europe enters into a period of peace circa 1797-1798.
The stage:
France is basically pre-revolutionary borders.
Holy Roman empire is intact. Austria has a bit more clout, being the only European power still in the game when peace comes. Prussia has dropped out as OTL.
Prussia, Russia are basically OTL
Spain is OTL. It has lost the War of the Pyrenees, and unwisely dropped out just before the French revolution falls apart. An argument can be made that Spain can reverse course again as the Second Treaty of San Ildefonso on 19 August 1796 hadn't signed when French fortunes changed, but I'm sticking with OTL.
Republic of Batavia is in existence. OTL, they were attempting to escape from under the thumb of France, but failed to do so. Britain has given them back the Cape Colony. I'm going with status quo for now. If I get to the installment of South African discussion, that can change.
There are 3-6 million more people available (not dead) for transplant, or crowding others into transplant. Plus, the population dynamics of France are changed as well. OTL, the male/female ration dropped significantly and Napoleonic land reform altered population growth as well, so France's population vis a vis 'germany' changes.
All that said, the first theatre of ATL I want to explore is Spain. ATL, as we enter the 19th century, it is a stable, but declining power. It still has some significant naval power and some significant land power. The South American colonies are stable, but there is some simmering resentment of Spanish rule, just as OTL. Without the severe disruption of the Iberian War, this resentment remains under the surface, but will continue to grow. We had a thread on this not long ago with basically this same WI (no napoleonic wars)
All that said, the first theatre of ATL I want to explore is Spain. ATL, as we enter the 19th century, it is a stable, but declining power. It still has some significant naval power and some significant land power. The first question is what happens to the liberal movement? there's still going to be one, but without the cataclysm of the Iberian War, it's going to grow at a much slower pace. This is a major wild card, IMO. Charles IV and Godoy are willing to slowly liberalize, but Ferdinand VII is a diehard conservative and is going to stomp all over any liberal movement. Without all the other stuff that went on OTL, he just may succeed, which probably just puts things in a pressure cooker for down the road.
The South American colonies are stable, but there is some simmering resentment of Spanish rule, just as OTL. Without the severe disruption of the Iberian War, this resentment remains under the surface, but will continue to grow. We had a thread on this not long ago with basically this same WI (no napoleonic wars). My takeaway/opinion is that what is likely to occur is Peru/upper Peru remain royalist for a long time. the La Plata region remains stable, but is likely to be one of the first areas to experience turbulence, along with Venezuela and Mexico. Venezuela had an active proponent of agitation (Miranda), but I think it's unlikely he gains much traction sans the Napoleonic wars. the La Plata region had some people whispering in back rooms, but it is no where near open rebellion. Mexico is a little bit of a wild card. It think it is closest to rebellion and OTL took the first opportunity to openly try breaking away. They're still basically royalist, but being the most advanced of the Spanish colonies also is the closest to wanting more freedoms and rights. If it weren't for Louisiana being in play, I could easily envision some sort of rebellion, but also being put down. Mexico remains New Spain and South America is status quo for several decades.
OK, so enough of the ho hum stuff that's been talked about ad nauseum. What I haven't found is any good discussion on is what happens to Louisiana under this sort of What If. Spain doesn't turn over Louisiana to France, who in turn doesn't sell it to the US. Any discussions I've seen have America-philes automatically ascribing the fates of Florida/Texas to not only those regions, but Louisiana as well (but usually it's all in context of France retaining possession) , but I'm not sure I subscribe to that POV. Spain's problem is that it is basically over extended, and has too much common border with a neighbor that likes to encroach. Louisiana/Florida/Texas is a lot of territory that in 1800 isn't producing much revenue. Spain is trying to remedy that in Louisiana by giving out land grants, with some success. New Orleans is a boom town and agriculture upstream is starting to take hold. The problem is that little of it is of Spanish origin/culture. The only way to grow is with foreign influx, and even though they're taking an oath to Spain, there isn't enough of Spanish people/culture to absorb them. So far, it's the OTL Texas Syndrome. In 1795, Spain made New Orleans a free city, with full navigation rights up the Mississippi. The place boomed. In 1802, they took away the free city status. There's considerable debate whether this was done on the behalf of the French, who they were turning the place over to, or whether it was done because the Americans took advantage of the situation and engaged in a lot of smuggling. If it's the former, it's butterflied away. If it's the latter, things get interesting. The US, while it would love to have actual possession of the port, want more than anything to have full navigation. If they can sabre rattle the Spanish into restoring the open port, things die down, for a while any way. Since they were audacious enough to have a go with Britain, I'm thinking they'd be audacious enough for a go with Spain. So how does that war go?
A straight up war favors Spain. They have the navy. they have the army. Britain probably wouldn't join them, but the Brits are no friends of the US, and as long as Spain doesn't mess with trade, will likely just sit on the sidelines. The only real question is whether they have the will. They're not going to war over Florida, but throw Louisiana into the mix, they're not going to just sit idly by watching the US usurp a huge chunk of land. Plus, this is a chance to restore some prestige lost in the War of the Pyrenees. If they go all out, I don't think the US has much of a chance. They got their butts handed to them on land by the British in OTL War of 1812, with one lone exception and the battle of New Orleans was aided by luck and extreme ineptitude by the British commander. The Brits were no great land force at that time, and wouldn't be til Wellington showed up. The Spanish were no great land force, either, but they were a reasonably competent professional army. the only thing lacking is a sense of aggression. they may decide to half ass the war.
Is a Spanish American War likely under this scenario in the 1800 - 1830 timeframe? If not, does the conflict then become a Texas Syndrome( American encroachment, then rebellion), or does this still invite a war in the 1830-1860 timeframe?
My answer to my WI regarding Spain: There's sabre rattling/tension with the US on and off for the first couple of decades, but no open warfare. Florida is a bone of contention, but Spain may compromise by selling it, while allowing free trade in New Orleans (or an alternative nearby location). Louisiana becomes a destination for European migration rather than the US and then on to west. They may ultimately break away but it's iffy as to whether they identify enough with the US to want to join, or make their own country. I don't think there's enough
Spanish culture/base to keep it under Spanish control. But, it's also remote from the US center of civilization. If it's populated by European migration rather than European via the US, there's no guarantee it'll want to be US territory. (Forgot to put in the set up that without the napoleonic wars, there are 3-6 million more Europeans left alive available to transplant or crowd others into transplanting) Spanish South America and Mexico remain Spanish colonies well into the 19th century.
A crisis point in Spain is early/mid 1820's when Ferdinand is proving himself an awful king. Do the Spanish people put up with it, or try forcing his hand? They haven't been empowered by the whole Iberian War experience.
So, if anyone is still reading, what do you say?
The scenario:
On the day Napoleon Bonaparte was conceived OTL, Momma Bonaparte ATL said "not tonight dear, I have a headache". Poppa B, frustrated, went out behind the woodshed, and took matters into his own hand, and the genius seed that would have become a great military leader was cast upon a pile of unchopped wood.
The first butterfly is Toulon. Nap is undoubtedly a key player, but ultimately with or without him, the siege of Toulon is likely to succeed. We'll take at face value that Nap was instrumental in drawing up and helping to execute the plans that kicking the British out. Without him, I'm ATL extending the siege, but ultimately the British withdraw. In this time period, the Brits on land have a tendency to muck up everything, and there's no reason to believe Toulon would be any different. Bottom line, though is that a front action is extended, and revolutionary France sustains a body punch. Not enough to knock out the revolutionaries, but puts a little wear on them.
Next up is the battle of Saorgio, where Napoleon designed the offensive plan. Andre Massena is one of the key players here, and he ultimately ends up a good commander, so you can't automatically reverse the order of battle. But it's not unreasonable to say that with a different offensive plan, you end up with alternate results. I'm not assuming good, nor bad, because we don't know. Just saying different.
The big point of departure is 13 Vendemiaire. Here, Nap is the hero of the hour and is a decisive figure in saving the National Convention from a royalist uprising with future king Charles X in attendance. With the uprising going completely differently, we can change history to our whim. This is the beginning of the end for revolutionary France. Whether the royalist uprising gains steam and is ultimately successful with Louis XVIII taking the throne , or whether the Convention devolves into an alternate dictatorship/directory is somewhat unimportant for the what ifs I have in mind. The main thing is that the revolution collapses and Europe enters into a period of peace circa 1797-1798.
The stage:
France is basically pre-revolutionary borders.
Holy Roman empire is intact. Austria has a bit more clout, being the only European power still in the game when peace comes. Prussia has dropped out as OTL.
Prussia, Russia are basically OTL
Spain is OTL. It has lost the War of the Pyrenees, and unwisely dropped out just before the French revolution falls apart. An argument can be made that Spain can reverse course again as the Second Treaty of San Ildefonso on 19 August 1796 hadn't signed when French fortunes changed, but I'm sticking with OTL.
Republic of Batavia is in existence. OTL, they were attempting to escape from under the thumb of France, but failed to do so. Britain has given them back the Cape Colony. I'm going with status quo for now. If I get to the installment of South African discussion, that can change.
There are 3-6 million more people available (not dead) for transplant, or crowding others into transplant. Plus, the population dynamics of France are changed as well. OTL, the male/female ration dropped significantly and Napoleonic land reform altered population growth as well, so France's population vis a vis 'germany' changes.
All that said, the first theatre of ATL I want to explore is Spain. ATL, as we enter the 19th century, it is a stable, but declining power. It still has some significant naval power and some significant land power. The South American colonies are stable, but there is some simmering resentment of Spanish rule, just as OTL. Without the severe disruption of the Iberian War, this resentment remains under the surface, but will continue to grow. We had a thread on this not long ago with basically this same WI (no napoleonic wars)
All that said, the first theatre of ATL I want to explore is Spain. ATL, as we enter the 19th century, it is a stable, but declining power. It still has some significant naval power and some significant land power. The first question is what happens to the liberal movement? there's still going to be one, but without the cataclysm of the Iberian War, it's going to grow at a much slower pace. This is a major wild card, IMO. Charles IV and Godoy are willing to slowly liberalize, but Ferdinand VII is a diehard conservative and is going to stomp all over any liberal movement. Without all the other stuff that went on OTL, he just may succeed, which probably just puts things in a pressure cooker for down the road.
The South American colonies are stable, but there is some simmering resentment of Spanish rule, just as OTL. Without the severe disruption of the Iberian War, this resentment remains under the surface, but will continue to grow. We had a thread on this not long ago with basically this same WI (no napoleonic wars). My takeaway/opinion is that what is likely to occur is Peru/upper Peru remain royalist for a long time. the La Plata region remains stable, but is likely to be one of the first areas to experience turbulence, along with Venezuela and Mexico. Venezuela had an active proponent of agitation (Miranda), but I think it's unlikely he gains much traction sans the Napoleonic wars. the La Plata region had some people whispering in back rooms, but it is no where near open rebellion. Mexico is a little bit of a wild card. It think it is closest to rebellion and OTL took the first opportunity to openly try breaking away. They're still basically royalist, but being the most advanced of the Spanish colonies also is the closest to wanting more freedoms and rights. If it weren't for Louisiana being in play, I could easily envision some sort of rebellion, but also being put down. Mexico remains New Spain and South America is status quo for several decades.
OK, so enough of the ho hum stuff that's been talked about ad nauseum. What I haven't found is any good discussion on is what happens to Louisiana under this sort of What If. Spain doesn't turn over Louisiana to France, who in turn doesn't sell it to the US. Any discussions I've seen have America-philes automatically ascribing the fates of Florida/Texas to not only those regions, but Louisiana as well (but usually it's all in context of France retaining possession) , but I'm not sure I subscribe to that POV. Spain's problem is that it is basically over extended, and has too much common border with a neighbor that likes to encroach. Louisiana/Florida/Texas is a lot of territory that in 1800 isn't producing much revenue. Spain is trying to remedy that in Louisiana by giving out land grants, with some success. New Orleans is a boom town and agriculture upstream is starting to take hold. The problem is that little of it is of Spanish origin/culture. The only way to grow is with foreign influx, and even though they're taking an oath to Spain, there isn't enough of Spanish people/culture to absorb them. So far, it's the OTL Texas Syndrome. In 1795, Spain made New Orleans a free city, with full navigation rights up the Mississippi. The place boomed. In 1802, they took away the free city status. There's considerable debate whether this was done on the behalf of the French, who they were turning the place over to, or whether it was done because the Americans took advantage of the situation and engaged in a lot of smuggling. If it's the former, it's butterflied away. If it's the latter, things get interesting. The US, while it would love to have actual possession of the port, want more than anything to have full navigation. If they can sabre rattle the Spanish into restoring the open port, things die down, for a while any way. Since they were audacious enough to have a go with Britain, I'm thinking they'd be audacious enough for a go with Spain. So how does that war go?
A straight up war favors Spain. They have the navy. they have the army. Britain probably wouldn't join them, but the Brits are no friends of the US, and as long as Spain doesn't mess with trade, will likely just sit on the sidelines. The only real question is whether they have the will. They're not going to war over Florida, but throw Louisiana into the mix, they're not going to just sit idly by watching the US usurp a huge chunk of land. Plus, this is a chance to restore some prestige lost in the War of the Pyrenees. If they go all out, I don't think the US has much of a chance. They got their butts handed to them on land by the British in OTL War of 1812, with one lone exception and the battle of New Orleans was aided by luck and extreme ineptitude by the British commander. The Brits were no great land force at that time, and wouldn't be til Wellington showed up. The Spanish were no great land force, either, but they were a reasonably competent professional army. the only thing lacking is a sense of aggression. they may decide to half ass the war.
Is a Spanish American War likely under this scenario in the 1800 - 1830 timeframe? If not, does the conflict then become a Texas Syndrome( American encroachment, then rebellion), or does this still invite a war in the 1830-1860 timeframe?
My answer to my WI regarding Spain: There's sabre rattling/tension with the US on and off for the first couple of decades, but no open warfare. Florida is a bone of contention, but Spain may compromise by selling it, while allowing free trade in New Orleans (or an alternative nearby location). Louisiana becomes a destination for European migration rather than the US and then on to west. They may ultimately break away but it's iffy as to whether they identify enough with the US to want to join, or make their own country. I don't think there's enough
Spanish culture/base to keep it under Spanish control. But, it's also remote from the US center of civilization. If it's populated by European migration rather than European via the US, there's no guarantee it'll want to be US territory. (Forgot to put in the set up that without the napoleonic wars, there are 3-6 million more Europeans left alive available to transplant or crowd others into transplanting) Spanish South America and Mexico remain Spanish colonies well into the 19th century.
A crisis point in Spain is early/mid 1820's when Ferdinand is proving himself an awful king. Do the Spanish people put up with it, or try forcing his hand? They haven't been empowered by the whole Iberian War experience.
So, if anyone is still reading, what do you say?