WI: Smithian Napoleon

Thomas1195

Banned
And it needs to be pointed out that Germany, regardless of what 'school' of economics was supposedly adopted, represented a replacement of a number of smaller, protected markets with a single, gigantic market when the German Empire replaced the Confederation (and, prior, with the customs unions).
I mean the German essentially followed Friedrich List's view.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Friedrich_List#Stages_of_economic_development
After all, both the Zolverin and later the German Empire were protected from outside by tariffs.

"Had the English left everything to itself—'Laissez faire, laissez aller', as the popular economical school recommends—the [German] merchants of the Steelyard would be still carrying on their trade in London, the Belgians would be still manufacturing cloth for the English, England would have still continued to be the sheep-farm of the Hansards, just as Portugal became the vineyard of England, and has remained so till our days, owing to the stratagem of a cunning diplomatist. Indeed, it is more than probable that without her [highly protectionist] commercial policy England would never have attained to such a large measure of municipal and individual freedom as she now possesses, for such freedom is the daughter of industry and wealth".

He also made the prime example of England itself, which rose to prominent thanks to protectionist measures. Also, Britain became a leader in cloth industry thanks to protectionism, which allowed them to out-compete Flander and then India. For example, King Edward III restricted cloth import and even banned the export of raw wool to support English cloth makers, and eventually enabled England to move from just a raw wool exporter to become a cloth exporter. Regarding protection against India, the British government introduced Calico Acts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calico_Acts

For example, the US did not 'adopt' Hamiltonian economics (quick quiz: Can you describe what Hamiltonian economics actually consisted of? Bet you can't), it had a varying tariff level over the course of the 19th century that doesn't have a clear relationship with growth (read: The US grew blazing fast regardless of where the level of the tariff was).
Not just high tariffs but also internal improvements (e.g. First Transcontinental Railroad, which was supported by Lincoln government via Pacific Railway Acts), as well as support for expansion of public education.


Oh, and I mean high tariff but not banning trade like the OTL Continental System.
 
Last edited:
The economical point is being overestimated here. Looking at it from a lens typical fo the time, all this would not be considered capable of keeping Britain away from war.
Countries start for wars despite all common sense.

If Britain was so deadset on war with Napoleon, then they wouldn't have signed the Treaty of Amiens. You don't make peace if there's nothing keeping you from waging war. Britain clearly thought there was some value in peace with Napoleon in 1802, and after a decade of war, its a fair conclusion to make.

Hows this for a general POD: Napoleon (already a general devotee of Smithian, as opposed to Colbertian, economics, in this version) is not able to wrap up the peace negotiations before the defeat at Alexandria becomes known to the British. Armed with this knowledge, the British push for a harder line on a variety of tangental terms, perhaps allowing Britain to keep its colonial gains from the Dutch, so they have something concrete to show for their victory at Alexandria. They also put some trade clauses into the treaty, which Napoleon agrees to, with minimal tweaking. Our Smithian Napoleon here, is happy to agree to the trade clauses, as they're in line with his philosophy (though he's smart enough to not admit it to the Brits), and grudgingly agrees to hand over the Dutch colonies. Britain can say they won something from the war both in land and in commerce, and is now less inclined to resume war a mere year later.

I'm not saying they'll never go to war again, but this system gives the French economy *a lot* more breathing room.
 
Wouldn't this also wreck havoc of the nation's finances. Since Tariffs were a big part of the states taxation, until eventually replaced by income taxes.

A good point, but the Continental System effectively banned trade with Britain. A high tariff policy that collected taxes would bring in more revenue rather than trying to spend all this money futilly trying to cut the off Britain.
 
A good point, but the Continental System effectively banned trade with Britain. A high tariff policy that collected taxes would bring in more revenue rather than trying to spend all this money futilly trying to cut the off Britain.

But the issue with high tariffs is that if they are too high, people will choose illegal smuggling despite any risks of naval attacks by French ships. France needs to have high tariffs to make revenue while also making people choose legal shipping.
 
But the issue with high tariffs is that if they are too high, people will choose illegal smuggling despite any risks of naval attacks by French ships. France needs to have high tariffs to make revenue while also making people choose legal shipping.

Either tariff policy has to be better than the OTL Continental System... You don't get any less legal trade than an effective ban
 
But the issue with high tariffs is that if they are too high, people will choose illegal smuggling despite any risks of naval attacks by French ships. France needs to have high tariffs to make revenue while also making people choose legal shipping.

The tariffs only need to be high enough to earn the revenue needed, and given that France managed to keep running with patheticly low tariff revenue after the Continental System ended official trade with Britain, it probably doesn’t have to be too high at all, unless there is some foreign policy goal in mind.
 

Skallagrim

Banned
Agreed, except on the last point, about the 'Nation of Shopkeepers.' It wasn't Napoleon who first said it, and the specific reports that he said it are not necessarily accurate. However, it is a phrase he would be familiar with, because it was in a book that he read. A book by a Scottish economist and philosopher, named Adam Smith, called 'The Wealth of Nations.' Oh, look! Thats the exact relationship we're discussing here! Convenient, innit?

(I can neither confirm nor deny any suggestion that I was just lying in wait with this little tidbit for someone to use the 'nation of shopkeepers' quote)

Ah, well-- I am glad to have blindly walked into this cunning trap of yours. I knew the Napoleon story about that quote was apocryphal, but I had no idea it was Smith who actually came up with it.
 
A few further thoughts on this general concept:
- With no war with Britain, Napoleon need not get sucked into the Peninsular War
- With no Continental System trying to choke off Britain’s trade, relations with Russia could be far better
- With no Continental System to try to enforce, Napoleon has no need to annex Holland and northeastern Germany, and maybe even the Papal States (which could avoid his excommunication)

These changes could result in a far better situation for France, in general, with many deaths avoided, and plenty of good will not lost through his annexations. This isn’t so much because Napoleon embracing free trade is so superior to other options (though I am of the opinion that it is), but because the Continental System is at the heart of many of Napoleon’s problems. Of course, if he decides to impose the sort of alt-Continental System we’ve discussed here (as a great trading bloc with minimal-to-no internal tariffs and only revenue-based external tariffs), he still might end up in wars with various European states in order to compell them into the system. The big difference, however, is that these campaigns would be conducted without direct British opposition - perhaps even tacit British support (if Napoleon’s trade regime is favorable to Britain, they might not mind him toppling a few outdated regimes, here and there).

Now, assuming peace with Britain for the time being, Napoleon’s diplomatic options change dramatically. Could he maintain good enough relations with Russia and Britain at the same time, perhaps forming a triple alliance between the three, a century early? This is prior to the Great Game, so there shouldn’t be too much problem with Britain and Russia being allied alongside France. That might be a bit much to ask for, but one possible outcome would be Napoleon marrying Princess Anna of Russia, instead of Marie Louise, which would likely be a better match, politically (Russia is a far better ally for France than Austria).

What sorts of foreign adventures might this Napoleon go on, assuming peaceful - if not fully allied -relations with Britain and Russia? The Ottomans are the obvious target, as I see it, with the main disadvantage being that Napoleon wouldn’t want to beat on them too much, and risk strengthening the Russians. On the other hand, I could see him wanting to establish a Greek client state. North Africa is a good target for colonial expansion, particularly as it would limit piracy, so that might even get British support, too. Egypt would be a bit of a sticking point between France and Britain, perhaps they could establish a condominium there, as they would later, historically.

EDIT: And for us Americans, there’s likely no war of 1812.
 
Last edited:
Are we presuming that the Peace of Amiens lasts? That would require more than an economic POD and isn't an easy thing to have happen. And Napoleon creating some sort of European free trade zone in itself would necessitate and provoke more war.
 
Last edited:
Are we presuming that the Peace of Amiens lasts? That would require more than an economic POD and isn't an easy thing to have happen. And Napoleon creating some sort of European free trade zone in itself would necessitate and provoke more war.

I’m not entirely convinced. The terms of Amiens were good enough that Britain signed them, though not good enough for Britain to keep them. I wouldn’t be surprised if Napoleon forming a free trade zone would instigate more war, but the question is: would it instigate more war with Britain? They could see it as Napoleon spending French treaure and French blood to open up more markets to them. Hell, in this scenario, the trickier part might not be in selling this to Britain, but in selling it to France.
 
I’m not entirely convinced. The terms of Amiens were good enough that Britain signed them, though not good enough for Britain to keep them. I wouldn’t be surprised if Napoleon forming a free trade zone would instigate more war, but the question is: would it instigate more war with Britain? They could see it as Napoleon spending French treaure and French blood to open up more markets to them. Hell, in this scenario, the trickier part might not be in selling this to Britain, but in selling it to France.
I don't see how Britain benefits from Napoleon creating an economic bloc under French domination. Britain would be seeing this a direct threat to them regardless of France's intentions. And they should, Britain would not be a part of this zone and this just gives its continental rivals more leverage to collectively raise tariffs on British goods.
 
I don't see how Britain benefits to Napoleon creating an economic bloc under French domination. Britain would be seeing this a direct threat to them regardless of France's intentions.

If external tariffs are low, that opens much of continental Europe (including France) up to the more developed economy of Britain. Particularly in the scenario in which Amiens includes trade clauses that are favorable to Britain.

Still, lets be less optimistic, and assume situation in which Britain doesn’t keep to the peace treaty, Napoleon still isn’t trying to enforce the Continental System, so he’s just in a stalemate with Britain: no reason to go fight any of the wars that would doom him. He’ll be able to pick more convenient enemies, like pounding on Austria and Prussia a few extra times, maybe the Ottomans again, but not Spain, not Russia. Without that, eventually, Britain will come back to the peace table, and if Napoleon’s not looking for much from them, and offering reasonable terms for resumption of trade between Britain and Napoleonic Europe, are they really going to hold out for long?
 
If external tariffs are low, that opens much of continental Europe (including France) up to the more developed economy of Britain. Particularly in the scenario in which Amiens includes trade clauses that are favorable to Britain.

Still, lets be less optimistic, and assume situation in which Britain doesn’t keep to the peace treaty, Napoleon still isn’t trying to enforce the Continental System, so he’s just in a stalemate with Britain: no reason to go fight any of the wars that would doom him. He’ll be able to pick more convenient enemies, like pounding on Austria and Prussia a few extra times, maybe the Ottomans again, but not Spain, not Russia. Without that, eventually, Britain will come back to the peace table, and if Napoleon’s not looking for much from them, and offering reasonable terms for resumption of trade between Britain and Napoleonic Europe, are they really going to hold out for long?
No continental system spurring on overreach will likely have better results for Napoleon than OTL. I don't know that a lasting peace is in the character of the era or its chief actors though.
 
No continental system spurring on overreach will likely have better results for Napoleon than OTL. I don't know that a lasting peace is in the character of the era or its chief actors though.

Well, given that Napoleon a) was the target of more declarations of war than he was the author b) he was a polymath extraordinaire, with plenty of interests other than war, I’m not inclined to see him as inevitably a warmonger. Unless Britain is so dedicated to the idea of a five-way balance of power in Europe, why should they continue to fight? If Napoleon has never imposed any harsh terms on Russia, Alexander won’t have any reasons to fight Napoleon. The only perennial combatants, would likely be France vs Prussia and Austria. At some point, both German powers will fold or be dismantled, if its just them vs France. Color me optimistic, but I think Britain could tolerate a 3-way balance of power, and the other two certainly could; France and Russia have almost no conflicting interests (until they start picking on the Ottomans).
 

Thomas1195

Banned
Well, Nappy should impose a level of tariff that lies between revenue level and protectionist level, let's say 15-20% (like what Hamilton advocated IOTL), and the funds obtained should be used to reinvest in domestic industries. The tariffs would also protect French manufacturing from excessive competition from Britain's superior industries.
But, the level of tariff should also be used for reciprocal purposes.

However, tariffs must remain, even at only 15%. A free trade policy would guarantee France's status as an agricultural backwater, i.e. a failed state (like OTL South East Asian countries during the 20th century that failed to pass the middle-income trap). All countries must pass through the protectionist phase.
 
Top