A Napoleon Victorious Scenario

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Alyosha
I don't understand why England has to be weak in all these scenarios. True, France may be able to close off a good bit of continental trade from the English, but looking back it was the French who were hurt more and not the English merchants. If there were a fantasy scenario with France dominant on the continent, England should be quite strong, and much more technologically advanced.

It wouldn't be weak. Britannia rules the waves, and has helped to keep algeria free from the tyrannical rule of Le Emperor.

Originally posted by Alyosha
France should be on the verge of backwardness, as its been spending all its time and money trying to keep a multi-national empire together, and probably should have little to no colonial possessions, as continued agression (or refusal of trade) with England would provoke the Redcoats to take what colonial holdings they pleased.

England already had all that it wanted; it handed back soem colonies wholesale at the end of the war. But England was hurting heavily from the blockade; Russia was a godsend to them. Even then, the continental blockade was working.

Originally posted by Alyosha
All in all, it could be a very interesting scenario, pitting France and England against eachother (one for free trade the other for domination), with the peripheral but growing powers of Russia, USA, and Japan, who could be swayed to either side depending on the offers (would the U.S. really stay in the French camp that long if it saw its trade threatened by the mighty British Navy?).

The US was never in the French camp; Jefferson even wrote about the necessity to tie the US to the British fleet and antion, but I agree.

And Russia was not peripheral.

Originally posted by Alyosha
A total victory scenario sounds the least likely, and fun, unless the player is hit with some major revolts, which only with a little luck, could he/she get through, considering the span of the empire.

Probably. This scenario just sounds so much fun to play, that it has to be made.

 

[Irsich]

Originally posted by Alyosha
I don't understand why England has to be weak in all these scenarios. True, France may be able to close off a good bit of continental trade from the English, but looking back it was the French who were hurt more and not the English merchants. If there were a fantasy scenario with France dominant on the continent, England should be quite strong, and much more technologically advanced.

France should be on the verge of backwardness, as its been spending all its time and money trying to keep a multi-national empire together, and probably should have little to no colonial possessions, as continued agression (or refusal of trade) with England would provoke the Redcoats to take what colonial holdings they pleased.

All in all, it could be a very interesting scenario, pitting France and England against eachother (one for free trade the other for domination), with the peripheral but growing powers of Russia, USA, and Japan, who could be swayed to either side depending on the offers (would the U.S. really stay in the French camp that long if it saw its trade threatened by the mighty British Navy?).

A total victory scenario sounds the least likely, and fun, unless the player is hit with some major revolts, which only with a little luck, could he/she get through, considering the span of the empire.

In the scenario i was thinking about, England won't be weaker than in the History. The possible peace was really a good one for Napoleon but it was not a bad peace for england at all. England would remain the first industrial, technical and trading power.
In my "what if", France surely would be stronger than after the disastrous Napoleon and "restauration" time. But i already give my opinion to the problem she should have to face: Flandern nationalism, a maybe quicker German union, same for Italy and a difficult allance with the Austrian to keep.

About the plunder of the republic and empire time, war give the money for war but if peace was stated, France should have been much more healthy. Didn't need to paid for military expedition all over europe. BTW, a good part of the tribute the french ask finished in the pocket of corrupted generals and politicians.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Irsich
In the scenario i was thinking about, England won't be weaker than in the History.

Yes, it would. One nation has continental hegemony, and can afford to build a massive navy to challenge Britain. It won't win, but it would take a good player to win.

The possible peace was really a good one for Napoleon but it was not a bad peace for england at all. England would remain the first industrial, technical and trading power.[/B][/QUOTE]

For a while, yes. It was OTL.

Originally posted by Irsich

In my "what if", France surely would be stronger than after the disastrous Napoleon and "restauration" time. But i already give my opinion to the problem she should have to face: Flandern nationalism, a maybe quicker German union, same for Italy and a difficult allance with the Austrian to keep.

Flemish? Unless you mean Dutch, not a chance. Walloons liked France.

Alright, let's run with this. ::Rough sketch::

(Greater influence from Talleyrande, take 1)

1807- Napoleon manages to avoid staying out of France. bourbons remain on the throne.

Portugal invaded, partitioned between french marshal junot and spain.

1808- Franco-Austrian alliance. Marriage, as in OTL, between the emperor and the hapsburgs.

1809- Negotiations with Russia over partitioning the ottoman empire fail. Russo-Turkish War begins, with French support for the Turks.

I'm in favor of an english egypt, for the record. Without the penninsular force, britain could've succeeded in their invasion of 1807.

1810- Revolts in colombia begin; latin america may not gain independence here, since that was partly due to chaos in spain. Thoughts?

1811- Peace with Britain. France gains hanover for westphalia. British evacuate sicily. Egypt goes to Britain, along with palestine; moldovia and wallachia to russia.

 

[Irsich]

Originally posted by Faeelin
Yes, it would. One nation has continental hegemony, and can afford to build a massive navy to challenge Britain. It won't win, but it would take a good player to win.

The possible peace was really a good one for Napoleon but it was not a bad peace for england at all. England would remain the first industrial, technical and trading power.

For a while, yes. It was OTL.

Flemish? Unless you mean Dutch, not a chance. Walloons liked France.

[/B][/QUOTE]

I was speaking of Dutch.
Napoleon hegemony won't have be stated by this peace. In internal matter, i think the politician willing to keep a "democratic" shape to the empire would have been more active with peace. The war was the best tool to keep people in line (i speak about the "republican" not the monarchist"). So i'm not so sure Napoleon would have keep a huge "hungry" for europe dominance. The reforcement of his line would have been his first goal.

I don't really think that England/France would keep dualing too much for colonies. Napoleon hasn't too much view on colony and when in he has it was so utopic... Since 1763, the french colony policy was most aim toward trade and the second colonial phase (19th) was only used by the gouvernement to create diversion.

France even with a belgium and few rhine territories was far to compete with UK economy. And the Navy has been already crippled for a long time by the noble migration and the western provinces dissent. Not until a political appeisement stated between Monarchist/Republicans/Bonapartistes (and soon the radicals and socialist republican) should navy seriously rebuild.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Irsich
I was speaking of Dutch.

Who had a king. I don't see them being overtly nationalistic.

Actually, I do. Hmm. They might tie themselves to the Germans, actually.

Originally posted by Irsich
Napoleon hegemony won't have be stated by this peace. In internal matter, i think the politician willing to keep a "democratic" shape to the empire would have been more active with peace. The war was the best tool to keep people in line (i speak about the "republican" not the monarchist"). So i'm not so sure Napoleon would have keep a huge "hungry" for europe dominance. The reforcement of his line would have been his first goal.

You don't think so? According to Schlom's book, Napoleon's plan was to ultimately drive the British out of India, via a route through Egypt, north Africa, etc.

Napoleon was showing signs of megalomania towards the end.

But I agree, for a while, until his succesor's death, things should be calm.

Originally posted by Irsich
I don't really think that England/France would keep dualing too much for colonies. Napoleon hasn't too much view on colony and when in he has it was so utopic... Since 1763, the french colony policy was most aim toward trade and the second colonial phase (19th) was only used by the gouvernement to create diversion.

Napoleon liked colonies. Look at his plans for louisiana and haiti in the new world. In fact, he actually se up what we would call a colonial empire in europe.

Originally posted by Irsich
France even with a belgium and few rhine territories was far to compete with UK economy. And the Navy has been already crippled for a long time by the noble migration and the western provinces dissent. Not until a political appeisement stated between Monarchist/Republicans/Bonapartistes (and soon the radicals and socialist republican) should navy seriously rebuild.

It has a chance. It's all of western europe, basically.

It won't crush Britain, but Britain will be heavily militarized.

 

[unmerged(8830)]

Mine is based on a victory at Waterloo, with Napoleon, seeing the massive Russo-Austrian armies to the East, makes peace.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Snow King
Mine is based on a victory at Waterloo, with Napoleon, seeing the massive Russo-Austrian armies to the East, makes peace.

Waterloo would not get what you're describing.

 

[Morpheus506]

I say that this is a really good idea. I think that it could be modeled fairly well by simply having Jefferson and the USA being friendly to France and they could help them against the Royal Navy, possibly giving France the chance to beat England.

Maybe having Napoleon fail less badly in Russia, too.

 

[Alyosha]

Just to further my argument on a strong Great Britain, I'm taking a quote from my high school European History text:

The continental system, organized to exclude British goods from the continent and force the 'nation of shopkeepers' to its knees, was a failure. Instead, it was France that suffered from Britain's counter-blockade, which created hard times for French artisans and the middle class.

(From "A History of Western Society: Sixth Edition" McKay/Hill/Buckler, co. 1999 Houghton-Mifflin Company)

A think if history teaches us one thing its that an autocratic, military ruled regime will begin to stagnate fairly quickly compared to a freer, more open market oriented economy. Take the example of Soviet Russia, which was able to quickly industrialize after the fall of the Monarchy/Republic, but after years of militarism, saw its economy degrade and fail.

I'm not saying here that the fRench should be weak, but the British should not be pushovers either. After Trafalgar (and even before) the Brits ruled the waves, and even when Napoleon held territory from Sapin to Russia he could not put together another navy to compete with it. I don't understand why this would be any different 20 years later, with the French Empire having under its control millions of different peoples, how could it find money for a sizeable navy?

If one looks at any other continental or semi-continental power its clear that the navy was a major aspect that each lacked (after Rome, that is, as Rome was basically all there was in Europe until the 5th century). Charlemagne had little navy, Napoleonic France got its destroyed, Hitler's Germany had to rely on U-Boats (which in the end, didn't do the job), and Soviet Russia, although possessing a large navy, could not compete with either the UK or US in terms of a surface (or undersea) fleet.

Massive, land spanning empires are simply not going to have the time or money to spend on building a large fleet. So, while Napoleon's France should be master of the continent, that's where his mastery should stop, as he, or his nation, could not compete with the British navy.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Alyosha
I'm not saying here that the fRench should be weak, but the British should not be pushovers either. After Trafalgar (and even before) the Brits ruled the waves, and even when Napoleon held territory from Sapin to Russia he could not put together another navy to compete with it. I don't understand why this would be any different 20 years later, with the French Empire having under its control millions of different peoples, how could it find money for a sizeable navy?

Because it does rule millions of people?

http://www.napoleonguide.com/navy_sizes.htm

Britain's Ships of the Line
1808-09 1811 1813 1814
113 107 102 99

1807 1808-09 1813
34 45+* 80**
* Combined Fleet With Spain.
** Excluding 35 under construction

In other words, had nappy not been defeated, he would've gained numerical superiority;

Myself, I don't think this would hvae been the case, adn britain would've had a qualitative edge. But the maritime question was over this; whoever controlled western europe would control a lot of shipping.

To say that Britain could simply laugh at the continent doesn't work out.

Having said that, napoleon's navy shouldn't be as large. But the mediterranean should be hotly contested; the atlantic a war zone; and the channel british.

Originally posted by Alyosha If one looks at any other continental or semi-continental power its clear that the navy was a major aspect that each lacked (after Rome, that is, as Rome was basically all there was in Europe until the 5th century). Charlemagne had little navy, Napoleonic France got its destroyed, Hitler's Germany had to rely on U-Boats (which in the end, didn't do the job), and Soviet Russia, although possessing a large navy, could not compete with either the UK or US in terms of a surface (or undersea) fleet.

Well, the problem is that charlemagne's navy was a northern european; I simply don't see how we can argue this.

I will add that to suggest that the resources of Europe won't dwarf Britain's isn't right. To argue that britain and russia will outweigh europe, maybe marginally, does make sense.

Originally posted by Alyosha Massive, land spanning empires are simply not going to have the time or money to spend on building a large fleet. So, while Napoleon's France should be master of the continent, that's where his mastery should stop, as he, or his nation, could not compete with the British navy.

Umm. America was a massive land spanning empire, really. Not to be rude, but you're simplifying the issue; and I don't think we should be able to say "Britain will be number 1."

Britain would have a lot of repressive policies; it would be a time when all good Britons join the militia and think good patriotic thoughts; unions would be considered Jacobin/Bonaparte sympathizers.

Or it could be the bastion of liberty.

 

[Faeelin]

I will also add that the continental blockade was hurting Britain; all detailed books on the napoleonic era agree on this.

The problem was that it was hurting Europe more. What saved Britain was latin america, and also russia.

 

[unmerged(18023)]

I think the best would be a scenario in which Napoleon's empire is still intact, but btoh Russia and Britian remian as superpowers. Austria is a major power whose alleigance becoems hotly contested in any war.


As for the matter of the naval forces, the ships of the French and allied navies were actually fo a better quality then british warships. THey were faster, more manuverable and carried more guns. The British advantage lay in seamanship, their sailors spent much more time at sea and were more experienced...


It should be possible for a French player to achieve naval superioirty, but they'd have to work at it.

 

[Ichabod]

Alyosha, America, Britian (controlling India), and the Ottomans were all massive empires controling reat fleets, Hitler Germany also controlled almost as great a fleet as Britian (perhaps greater, I am not sure, had the French navy been loyal to Germany). The reason Russia was unable to create a strong navy for a large part of her history is simply that she did not have sufficient warm-water ports. If a nation is larger than another then they will, logically, have greater resources, both natural and human, as well as collect more taxes.

Also, the continental system is looked upon as a disaster by some modern-day historians only because it suffered some bad fortune which caused it's faliure. If the Franco-Spanish fleet had won Trafalgar, Britian would have been unable to blockade Europe to the extent that they did and subsequently, they would have been crushed. Had the Czar respected his treaty with France, it seems unlikely that Britian could have continued. Basically, the continental system almost did destroy the British.

 

[Alyosha]

I don't think we should be able to say "Britain will be number 1."

I didn't want to give the impression that Britain should be number one. I was simply defending it as I thought it was getting short changed.

What I was saying in regards to "ruling millions of people" is that its resources would be tied up in controlling this multi-national empire. True, by 1835 one can imagine that a French Empire would have lots of different nationalities in it armed forces (Russian campaign, anyone?) and bureaucracy, but the power base is still in France, and that is clearly the most important part of the empire, so it would be a largely French endeavor (of course, a lot of rebellions and change of policy in the beginning of the scneario could shift this around a bit, maybe some interesting events).

I think that one of the most major biproducts of a continent held by France would be a rapidly increased colonial drive, as Britain would be searching for replacements goods/buyers, and maybe even the U.S. would get into the game a little earlier. Would Britain significantly breach the Monroe Doctrine in order to secure its trade in the Western Hemisphere? Could be interesting, causing a bit of a tiff between the U.S. and U.K.

I don't want to appear as if I'm against this project, however. I'm responding so frequently because I like the idea, and value everyone's opinions.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Alyosha
What I was saying in regards to "ruling millions of people" is that its resources would be tied up in controlling this multi-national empire. True, by 1835 one can imagine that a French Empire would have lots of different nationalities in it armed forces (Russian campaign, anyone?) and bureaucracy, but the power base is still in France, and that is clearly the most important part of the empire, so it would be a largely French endeavor (of course, a lot of rebellions and change of policy in the beginning of the scneario could shift this around a bit, maybe some interesting events).

I actually think the scenario should start with the Empire falling apart.

CI think that one of the most major biproducts of a continent held by France would be a rapidly increased colonial drive, as Britain would be searching for replacements goods/buyers, and maybe even the U.S. would get into the game a little earlier. Would Britain significantly breach the Monroe Doctrine in order to secure its trade in the Western Hemisphere? Could be interesting, causing a bit of a tiff between the U.S. and U.K. [/B][/QUOTE]

Britain supported rebels in the new world.

I don't want to appear as if I'm against this project, however. I'm responding so frequently because I like the idea, and value everyone's opinions.

Yeah, and I agree with you for the most part. Here's how I envision it.

France: Ruler of the glorious Grand Empire. France is industrializing, centering upon Belgium and the Rhineland. Massive army, puppet spain, and italian states.

Britain: Rule, Britannia.... Britain owns the east indies, south africa, OTL's territories. Britain might warrant protectorates over latin america, but nothing too heavy.

Spain: French puppet. Poor.

The Kingdom of Italy: A 2nd rate power, an ally ands vassal of the emperor. But it should have events to try to leave the alliance. Under Eugene Bearnhais's dynasty.

Kingdom of Naples: A center of continual strife and revolutionary movements, under Murat.

Question Marks:

America. I suspect it should be more or less like it was historically.

Poland: Russian? French ally? Independent and militarized? To make it more workable, I suspect you'll want a russian ally.

Confederation of the Rhine: Does Germany unite earlier against their French oppressors? Or do they remain divided french puppets??

Austria: Who knows what to do with Austria?

 

[Ichabod]

I am not sure exactly what you want from this scenario, but regardless, if Napoleon is in power, there must be a Polish state. The Czar could be a part of the Polish government (as a council member or whatever form the government takes) if you wanted Russian involvement, and as a French ally which would tie them to France. There is no way Poland would exist in a Napoleonic world under the post-1815 situation of Russian administration without severe revolts.

I think that Germany would remain loyal to France for as long as France is strong. Same goes for Austria.

As far as the navy, with timber from Scandinavia and Russia, Shipbuilders from Italy, and iron from France, the French navy under a peaceful decade or so would easily outstrip the British.

Perhaps Britian could take control of Indochina and Indonesia with France eventually taking China and perhaps Japan creating a second battlefield outside of Europe.

One question, where will the Ottoman Empire and Egypt be in this scenario?

 

[Irsich]

Originally posted by Faeelin
Who had a king. I don't see them being overtly nationalistic.
Actually, I do. Hmm. They might tie themselves to the Germans, actually.
You don't think so? According to Schlom's book, Napoleon's plan was to ultimately drive the British out of India, via a route through Egypt, north Africa, etc.
Napoleon was showing signs of megalomania towards the end.
But I agree, for a while, until his succesor's death, things should be calm.
Napoleon liked colonies. Look at his plans for louisiana and haiti in the new world. In fact, he actually se up what we would call a colonial empire in europe.
It has a chance. It's all of western europe, basically.
It won't crush Britain, but Britain will be heavily militarized.

Napoleon colonial idea=> His dream were, dreams.... I was never understand really well that you couldn't drive a colonial empire like you drive a continental one. In my "what if" (1806) Nappy already get shamed by Trafalgar (in wich his faults existed) and drive back his focus to Europe. But in 186 he was far away from european domination and this peacefull status quo

Flandern, Koln...=> FMPOV dutch and german speaking people in Napoleonic France would'nt have like the centralization of the empire.

=> Napeleon politic was a "run forward" (course en avant). He took every opportunities he could to conquer and after try to justificate it by a long thinked strategy but it was just opportunism

=> Napoleon was contest in France by some of his own soldiers. Old republicans critisized his dictature. With a 1806 peace, Napoleon wouldn't be able to keep power without giving back a dew political freedom and i don't see the french asking to contest England all over the world. India, Egypt, most english colonies and power area won't be contest. Empire may try to gain some influence over Mexico and east Asia but i think it would have enought work to deal with europe and won't try another France/England war.

=> The Austria alliance would give much work to keep (Russia/Austria expanse on balkans. Polish, German and Italian Nationalism...)

I think most people miss the Austria power in the beginning of the 19th. 1809, 1813 campaign showed Austria was still a continental power to respect.

 

[Irsich]

Originally posted by Ichabod
Also, the continental system is looked upon as a disaster by some modern-day historians only because it suffered some bad fortune which caused it's faliure. If the Franco-Spanish fleet had won Trafalgar, Britian would have been unable to blockade Europe to the extent that they did and subsequently, they would have been crushed. Had the Czar respected his treaty with France, it seems unlikely that Britian could have continued. Basically, the continental system almost did destroy the British.

Continental System needed a strong navy to be efficient. Without the monarchist province, France get very few "maritim land" were good sailor could be hired.

Also Trafalgar was a very good trap from Nelson. The aim of Villeneuve french/Spanish fleet was to drive away Nelson fleet to Antilla and came back to the channel so a "grande armée" landing in england would have been possible. But with poor sailors and very few effectives officers (most of them leave France 'cause they were nobles), a victory against the royal Navy was hard to get until 10/15 years. The continental blocus was mostly thinked after Trafalgar to force the English to peace. But (already written) the blocus was worst for europe than for England...

French soldiers began to complain about war in 1807. they didn't see the reason to fight 2000km from France... Napoleon won't have been able to keep a so strong power, i think.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Ichabod
I am not sure exactly what you want from this scenario, but regardless, if Napoleon is in power, there must be a Polish state. The Czar could be a part of the Polish government (as a council member or whatever form the government takes) if you wanted Russian involvement, and as a French ally which would tie them to France. There is no way Poland would exist in a Napoleonic world under the post-1815 situation of Russian administration without severe revolts.

Like in OTL? . Seriouly I agree. Poland should be independent.

Originally posted by Ichabod
I think that Germany would remain loyal to France for as long as France is strong. Same goes for Austria.

Austria, yes. Germany's princes, yes. Germany's soldiers.... well, there were anti-french movements OTL; there were german risings otl. I daresay that's going to get worse. The German choice will not be subservience to France or subservience to Russia.

Originally posted by Ichabod
As far as the navy, with timber from Scandinavia and Russia, Shipbuilders from Italy, and iron from France, the French navy under a peaceful decade or so would easily outstrip the British.

It was coming close, but I don't think they'd manage it. Like I said, though, I wouldn't want to be a British merchantmen in the med during wartime.

Originally posted by Ichabod
Perhaps Britian could take control of Indochina and Indonesia with France eventually taking China and perhaps Japan creating a second battlefield outside of Europe.

Taking Japan.... nah. It won't happen.

Originally posted by Ichabod
One question, where will the Ottoman Empire and Egypt be in this scenario?

I suspect being propped up; france, britain, and russia will all be uanble to decide how to partition it.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Irsich
Napoleon colonial idea=> His dream were, dreams.... I was never understand really well that you couldn't drive a colonial empire like you drive a continental one. In my "what if" (1806) Nappy already get shamed by Trafalgar (in wich his faults existed) and drive back his focus to Europe. But in 186 he was far away from european domination and this peacefull status quo

I repeat; napoleon still wanted to retake egypt. He had designs on north africa. He probably havr given up the new world, but not the mediterranean.

Originally posted by Irsich
Flandern, Koln...=> FMPOV dutch and german speaking people in Napoleonic France would'nt have like the centralization of the empire.

But they were among the most enthusiastic supporters he had.

Originally posted by Irsich
=> Napeleon politic was a "run forward" (course en avant). He took every opportunities he could to conquer and after try to justificate it by a long thinked strategy but it was just opportunism

Yeah, which is why by the time the scenario starts, it should be coming apart.

:ictures germans with the banner of the revolution screaming freedom::

Originally posted by Irsich
=> Napoleon was contest in France by some of his own soldiers. Old republicans critisized his dictature. With a 1806 peace, Napoleon wouldn't be able to keep power without giving back a dew political freedom and i don't see the french asking to contest England all over the world. India, Egypt, most english colonies and power area won't be contest. Empire may try to gain some influence over Mexico and east Asia but i think it would have enought work to deal with europe and won't try another France/England war.

The french had been contesting hegemony with britian since 1688. Napoleon ruled the continent. He would've had a great deal of support, especially if he had kept peace.

Originally posted by Irsich
=> The Austria alliance would give much work to keep (Russia/Austria expanse on balkans. Polish, German and Italian Nationalism...)

Austrian alliance: Play austrians against russians and brits in balkans. Polish are useful as a buffer against russians.

Italians and germans are, wel, your worst nightmare. Tremble!

Originally posted by Irsich
I think most people miss the Austria power in the beginning of the 19th. 1809, 1813 campaign showed Austria was still a continental power to respect.

Yes, but she was not going to beat napoleonic france on its own. Metternich, even historically, advicated collaboration.

French soldiers began to complain about war in 1807. they didn't see the reason to fight 2000km from France... Napoleon won't have been able to keep a so strong power, i think.

Why not? Here he's won. That counts for more than anything else, in the end.