A Napoleon Victorious Scenario

[unmerged(8830)]

The idea that Napoleon's Empire would fall apart 30 years after its inception is to me, laughable. Napoleon actually had one of the most streamlined and efficient economic systems in Europe: The Napoleanic Code, which many of the other states copied to make themselves competition for France. It was not something like the USSR, with its disaterous five year plans. This just seems to be more bias by people in free market states that think no other system could work.

In short, I think it would still be alive and well after 30 years, and perhaps, given Napoleon's death by that time, it may have been more liberal than the real France was.

 

[Ichabod]

I agree with Snow King, had Napoleon kept France at the Rhine, the empire would not have fallen to nationalism. We can take the Austrian and Ottoman examples- weak(relatively), diverse, over-expanded empires that lasted for centuries. Had France kept the imperial systems-had there been no restoration- it is doubtful that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 would have occured, muchless that Rhineland recruits would have been able to defeat the French armies. It just is not practical to say that the French Empire could vanish without foreign conquest.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Snow King
The idea that Napoleon's Empire would fall apart 30 years after its inception is to me, laughable. Napoleon actually had one of the most streamlined and efficient economic systems in Europe: The Napoleanic Code, which many of the other states copied to make themselves competition for France.

The code was a set of laws, not an economic system. His economic system was actually very, very, poor. This is why we had widespread smuggling, corruption, economic depressions in germany.

I

Originally posted by Snow King
t was not something like the USSR, with its disaterous five year plans. This just seems to be more bias by people in free market states that think no other system could work.

Well, Napoleon's didn't. See the comments made about how Berg was being pauperized. Poland was suffering too, actually; the price of grain was falling, causing nobles to go bankrupt.

Originally posted by Snow King
In short, I think it would still be alive and well after 30 years, and perhaps, given Napoleon's death by that time, it may have been more liberal than the real France was.

I don't know. France wasn't a "well ordered police state" with an emperor in 1845, so I'm not sure you could argue that.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Ichabod
I agree with Snow King, had Napoleon kept France at the Rhine, the empire would not have fallen to nationalism. We can take the Austrian and Ottoman examples- weak(relatively), diverse, over-expanded empires that lasted for centuries.

Austria: Lost Lombardy, Veneto to sardinia-italy.

Ottomans: Lost most of the balkans via popular revolts. Lost Egypt to a military depot. (I'm not talking about Napoleon, either).

France might not fall. The Grand Empire, set up around napoleon as its cornerstone, would.

Originally posted by Ichabod
Had France kept the imperial systems-had there been no restoration- it is doubtful that the revolutions of 1830 and 1848 would have occured, muchless that Rhineland recruits would have been able to defeat the French armies. It just is not practical to say that the French Empire could vanish without foreign conquest.

I'm not talking about rhineland recruits. I'm talking recruits from the Confederation. Who all had armies which acquited themselves quite well.

In fact, at Leipzig, the confederation deserted him.

 

[Ichabod]

But Austria and the Turks held their empire together for centuries. The reson revolts broke out in the 19th century were the French revolution, had the monarchy not been re-established, one cannot just assume that nationalist revolts would have plagued a French Empire.

Could, and more importantly would, the Confederation have invaded the French Empire? Especially without the British.

 

[Irsich]

I never said that the french empire would vanished. But i think, external trouble and internal "ask of freedom" would have made it far more peacefull than it was. Same for the nationalities (german, Wallon , Flemish). To integrate them and keep them quiet, Empire have to be more liberal...

In germany, no need for war: the confederation should have united under Bavaria with a Napoleon agreament for exemple. So the german would have been united in the south and maybe some state would have asked to join one by one. Prussia and Austria would be kept apart by the Empire will for a time but after 20/30 years the sucessor should have grant the Prussian access to this union. ("laissant rentrer le loup dans la bergerie" )

Italy would have a kingdom under Beauharnais in the North and Joseph in Naples. (At the time, i think the peace need to keep Spain out from direct bonaparte control for the English to accept, so Joseph keep Naples). What would have been the way they used to unify the land. And what about the risk of rebellion if they don't. One more point on Italy: The Austria alliance of the Empire put them in an obligation to support Austria Estward and to forget about Poland if they the Habsbourg to accept giving some provinces to Italy.

About the France/England struggle (second hundred years war), i don't think Napoleon would get too much support to DOW on england. In the french politic spirit the struggle was close in 1783. The french get the revenge from 1763 and get access to the american trade. With revolution a new war began but it was a France vs Europe war.

In 1806 Napoleon make-up the refuse peace so opinion would think it was english fault. He did it 'cause he now most of France want PEACE. French made a civil and external war for almost 14 years (17 years including the troubles at the beginning of revolution)
Just after Austerliz some "grognards" welcome Napoleon with "Vive l'empereur, Vive la paix". Should Napoleon accept the peace he would have been force to give much more freedom and i agree to think that empire would have been more liberal than France was in 1840. But i think this freedom would have made it far more peacefull.

About colonies: Napoleon made plans... He alwas did. But, a colonial developpement should have been made without hurting too much England (Mexico, East Asia, taking back Haïti...). The high point would have been Egypt. May be a war should have start on the topic. But what would have been the Austria action if Napoleon was fair with them in 1806 and support their claim in Balkans?

 

[Irsich]

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

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

Metternich asked collaboration like Talleyrand asked to be fair with tha Austrian after Austerliz and to made an alliance with them. When Napoleon realized it was the good "horse" to bet on (in 1809) it was too late. Austria have been to much humiliate and was just taking a breath for revenge.

About the soldiers. Yes he won. But don't think that gave him too much popularity. A lot of coup were thinked even during his victory and most "Maréchaux" were not reliable to defend him.
In 1815, Napoleon return was succesfull 'cause of the stupidity of the monarchist who made every mistakes it was possible in the given time.
What Ney said to his soldiers when he betray Louis XVIII show the spirit the veterans had. in two word "We will just defend France, no more war far away from France..." (that's only the idea).

Victory was not enought to keep Napoleon out of troubles. He was a bit paronoïac against his generals and had some reasons to be for some of them.

 

[Ichabod]

I never said that the french empire would vanished. But i think, external trouble and internal "ask of freedom" would have made it far more peacefull than it was. Same for the nationalities (german, Wallon , Flemish). To integrate them and keep them quiet, Empire have to be more liberal...

I agree that the Empire would have to go through a couple decades of peaceful reform to gain the trust, so to speak, of the new nationalities that make up the frontiers.

In germany, no need for war: the confederation should have united under Bavaria with a Napoleon agreament for exemple. So the german would have been united in the south and maybe some state would have asked to join one by one. Prussia and Austria would be kept apart by the Empire will for a time but after 20/30 years the sucessor should have grant the Prussian access to this union. ("laissant rentrer le loup dans la bergerie" )

lol, agreed, and very amusing , where does it come from, I seem to remember the phrase from somewhere, but I cannot remember for the life of me.

Italy would have a kingdom under Beauharnais in the North and Joseph in Naples. (At the time, i think the peace need to keep Spain out from direct bonaparte control for the English to accept, so Joseph keep Naples). What would have been the way they used to unify the land. And what about the risk of rebellion if they don't. One more point on Italy: The Austria alliance of the Empire put them in an obligation to support Austria Estward and to forget about Poland if they the Habsbourg to accept giving some provinces to Italy.

I am sorry, but I cannot see a Napoleonic Eastern Europe without a Poland. It just does not seem natural. I think a better solution would be to split the Ottomans Balkan holdings between Russia and Austria and restore Poland. It might cause some tensions between Russia and Austria but it would rid Europe of the Ottoman Empire, (I suppose) not step on anyone else's toes that had not already been stepped on but the problems of the Ottoman Empire and partition of Poland. It would also give the Poles their freedom which would make France and England happy.

A question, how far should France's Italian border extend? I would assume that they would control at least Piedmont and Milan, probably not Lucca and Linguria though.

 

[Faeelin]

But Austria and the Turks held their empire together for centuries. The reson revolts broke out in the 19th century were the French revolution, had the monarchy not been re-established, one cannot just assume that nationalist revolts would have plagued a French Empire.

"A number of factors came together to alter [the german lack of nationalism]: the shock of defeat; a sense of humiliation; the onerous financial burden imposed on the defeated states; the devastation caused by French armies as they marched through... the rise in the cost of living connected with the system of Fench customs... all of these contributed to bringing about two major changes of a quite contrary nature: the administrative reform of the german states along French lines, and the discovery of germany as a nation" (Germany, a New History, 102).

Which are pre-monarchy, and all napoleon's doing.

"The experience of occupation by napoleo'ns soldiers gave words such as fatherland and nation a new force, turning them into rallying cries" (104).

Could, and more importantly would, the Confederation have invaded the French Empire? Especially without the British.

Better question: Can the French keep the germans on the right bank of the rhien down, if they have russian/british assistance?

out the soldiers. Yes he won. But don't think that gave him too much popularity. A lot of coup were thinked even during his victory and most "Maréchaux" were not reliable to defend him.

The marshals weren't that reliable. But that doesn't mean a republic restoration. It means a splendid little civil war over who rules the empire after his death. Bernadotte, a supposed jacobin, turned his side quickly enough.

n germany, no need for war: the confederation should have united under Bavaria with a Napoleon agreament for exemple. So the german would have been united in the south and maybe some state would have asked to join one by one. Prussia and Austria would be kept apart by the Empire will for a time but after 20/30 years the sucessor should have grant the Prussian access to this union. ("laissant rentrer le loup dans la bergerie" )

Why would prussia join a french construct? And why would Napoleon want the germans to unify? The confederation functioned as a weak buffer state. Germany won't unify without neutralizing france.

Italy would have a kingdom under Beauharnais in the North and Joseph in Naples. (At the time, i think the peace need to keep Spain out from direct bonaparte control for the English to accept, so Joseph keep Naples). What would have been the way they used to unify the land. And what about the risk of rebellion if they don't. One more point on Italy: The Austria alliance of the Empire put them in an obligation to support Austria Estward and to forget about Poland if they the Habsbourg to accept giving some provinces to Italy.

Italy was only to go to Bearnhais if nappy didn't have a second son.

About the France/England struggle (second hundred years war), i don't think Napoleon would get too much support to DOW on england. In the french politic spirit the struggle was close in 1783. The french get the revenge from 1763 and get access to the american trade. With revolution a new war began but it was a France vs Europe war.

He had support after amiens. Why wouldn't he have support to build a navy to oppose Britain?

Just after Austerliz some "grognards" welcome Napoleon with "Vive l'empereur, Vive la paix". Should Napoleon accept the peace he would have been force to give much more freedom and i agree to think that empire would have been more liberal than France was in 1840. But i think this freedom would have made it far more peacefull.

Napoleon, conqueror of europe, beloved by the soldiers... give democracy and freedom why? This is a guy who assumed the title of emperor.

Heck, look at his policy regarding schools at france. Most of them had strong milistaristic overtones.

bout colonies: Napoleon made plans... He alwas did. But, a colonial developpement should have been made without hurting too much England (Mexico, East Asia, taking back Haïti...). The high point would have been Egypt. May be a war should have start on the topic. But what would have been the Austria action if Napoleon was fair with them in 1806 and support their claim in Balkans?

He was perfectly fair in 1806. The Austrians attacked him; he annexed not erritory to france directly. And they were considering war in 1807, remember.

I agree that the Empire would have to go through a couple decades of peaceful reform to gain the trust, so to speak, of the new nationalities that make up the frontiers.

What frontiers? Inside France, the flemish, and rhineland germans were enthustiastic supporters of hte emperor; he called brussels the second capital.

The Confederation, Italian kingdom, and so forth were all screwed over in his one way common market.

I'd tell you the phrase if I Knew what it meant.

Poland would presumably be around, in some form; and I think the ottomans would be too.

France would include liguria, and maybe tuscany/roma. But not milan.

 

[Irsich]

Originally posted by Faeelin

The marshals weren't that reliable. But that doesn't mean a republic restoration. It means a splendid little civil war over who rules the empire after his death. Bernadotte, a supposed jacobin, turned his side quickly enough.

That's right. so to be able to keep a good hand on France i think Napoleon would have to give a bit more freedom so the population will keep quiet and support him again a "coup" attempt.

Why would prussia join a french construct? And why would Napoleon want the germans to unify? The confederation functioned as a weak buffer state. Germany won't unify without neutralizing france.

The Rhinebund give germany a national feeling (along with the french occupation). It was the embryon of a confederation. With a came back to the peace i think that Bavaria, Saxe... would try to get each time France run in a few trouble. The Germans States asked every time about compensations to the help they gave to Napoleon. Napoleon may be would oppose that idea of unification but what about his heir? The nephew Napoleon III was very open to the right of nation and never oppose to unification of any nation.
About Prussia, should Napoleon be victorious and allied to Austria they would have been put either in a Russian alliance/"vassalization" or trying to integrated a german confed under french agreement or outbreaking a war. Prussia won't stand alone in front of a France/Austria and i think they would try to enter a confed germany embryon if this one began to organized outside french leadership.
Of course this hypothese give an opportunity to germany to force union in a war with France. But this would happen a lot before 1870.

Italy was only to go to Bearnhais if nappy didn't have a second son.

I know but Napoleon Had only one son. I'm not sure he would get a second. So i went on the Beauharnais idea.

He had support after amiens. Why wouldn't he have support to build a navy to oppose Britain?

I really think Amiens peace have been mostly broken by the British. The people support Napoleon not so deeply. Révolution and Empire always been trouble time in France. The civil war stop openly just to see some opposants becoming bandits and plotting in secret. They just went back to war with a "job to finished". But after getting a so good (hypothetical!) treaty, i really don't think the french opinion would support another offensive war.

Napoleon, conqueror of europe, beloved by the soldiers... give democracy and freedom why? This is a guy who assumed the title of emperor.
Heck, look at his policy regarding schools at france. Most of them had strong milistaristic overtones.

Napoleon wasn't beloved by his soldiers. Only the guard loved him (for the good money and advantage he gave to them. Soldiers grumble against him more and more from 1806-1812. After Russia they just fight to defend their country. Already said, but should LOUIS XVIII and the monarchists have a little more tact for the people opinion, "cent jours" wouldn't have been possible.
Napoleon wasn't so self confident that you think about his popularity and each time he loose (Egypt, Russia) was the first to withdraw, lefting his soldiers in bad position to try political rescue of his power at Paris

He was perfectly fair in 1806. The Austrians attacked him; he annexed not erritory to france directly. And they were considering war in 1807, remember.

He was fair in the idea he has to breakdown Austria. If he should have wanted to bring them to an alliance, instead of thinking about the russian, he would have let Austrian territory out of Germans States claims. So he should have give a bit more autonomy to the Rhinebund to compensate this...

What frontiers? Inside France, the flemish, and rhineland germans were enthustiastic supporters of hte emperor; he called brussels the second capital.
The Confederation, Italian kingdom, and so forth were all screwed over in his one way common market.
I'd tell you the phrase if I Knew what it meant.
Poland would presumably be around, in some form; and I think the ottomans would be too.
France would include liguria, and maybe tuscany/roma. But not milan.

Belges people were so enthusiastic that they made a good amount of Wellington army at Waterloo and fight well.
But even if they were enthusiastic in 1810, i'm not sure they would stay like this for the whole 19th. Most pluricultural entity has to give at least a formal decentralization. + Napoleon won "great" but i'm almost sure the opposants (in core France) would gather their political forces to asked about more freedom and they should meet the Germans and belges one.
Internal Empire politic became more and more dictatorship after Austerliz.

About Poland, like i said i'm sure it would be a tipmatter for the empire diplomacy. Maybe the Warsaw duchy should have been stated but it would be at the price to support Austria strongly in the Balkans and to face Russia.

About Italy, there would be some territories included in France sure. But a union of Italy Kingdom and Naples by dynastical or political agreement would have been possible in a few decade.

 

[Irsich]

Originally posted by Ichabod

I agree that the Empire would have to go through a couple decades of peaceful reform to gain the trust, so to speak, of the new nationalities that make up the frontiers.

lol, agreed, and very amusing , where does it come from, I seem to remember the phrase from somewhere, but I cannot remember for the life of me.

I am sorry, but I cannot see a Napoleonic Eastern Europe without a Poland. It just does not seem natural. I think a better solution would be to split the Ottomans Balkan holdings between Russia and Austria and restore Poland. It might cause some tensions between Russia and Austria but it would rid Europe of the Ottoman Empire, (I suppose) not step on anyone else's toes that had not already been stepped on but the problems of the Ottoman Empire and partition of Poland. It would also give the Poles their freedom which would make France and England happy.
A question, how far should France's Italian border extend? I would assume that they would control at least Piedmont and Milan, probably not Lucca and Linguria though.

"Loup dans la bergerie" Used a lot in french, don't know were it come from...

About Poland, I'm not sure Napoleon would support to much the idea but he would have too 'cause of the army opinion. Lot of polish people fight for France even before the warsaw duchy was stated and they get some sympathy from part of the opinion. Plus, France was Already opposed to the partition of Poland in the 18th. So their will be a kind of Polish problem in the scenario i'm thinking about.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Irsich
That's right. so to be able to keep a good hand on France i think Napoleon would have to give a bit more freedom so the population will keep quiet and support him again a "coup" attempt.

But there was no indication that he would do any such thig OTL. That's just it; he set himself up as the cornerstone of the Empire, and the game should be dealing with the effects of his removal.

He was a breads and circuses type guy, and that worked very well in France.

Originally posted by Irsich
The Rhinebund give germany a national feeling (along with the french occupation). It was the embryon of a confederation. With a came back to the peace i think that Bavaria, Saxe... would try to get each time France run in a few trouble. The Germans States asked every time about compensations to the help they gave to Napoleon. Napoleon may be would oppose that idea of unification but what about his heir? The nephew Napoleon III was very open to the right of nation and never oppose to unification of any nation.

Originally posted by Irsich
About Prussia, should Napoleon be victorious and allied to Austria they would have been put either in a Russian alliance/"vassalization" or trying to integrated a german confed under french agreement or outbreaking a war. Prussia won't stand alone in front of a France/Austria and i think they would try to enter a confed germany embryon if this one began to organized outside french leadership.
Of course this hypothese give an opportunity to germany to force union in a war with France. But this would happen a lot before 1870.

Prussia might turn to Russia. But I just can't see it join ing a french puppet. But, come on the revolution...

Yeah, I could see it.



I

Originally posted by Irsich
know but Napoleon Had only one son. I'm not sure he would get a second. So i went on the Beauharnais idea.

Hmm. I think he would've had another son, but okay.

Originally posted by Irsich
I really think Amiens peace have been mostly broken by the British. The people support Napoleon not so deeply. Révolution and Empire always been trouble time in France. The civil war stop openly just to see some opposants becoming bandits and plotting in secret. They just went back to war with a "job to finished". But after getting a so good (hypothetical!) treaty, i really don't think the french opinion would support another offensive war.

Amiens really was broken by the English. but many frenchmen didn't consider amiens a real war; it was only at sea, after all;.

Originally posted by Irsich
Napoleon wasn't beloved by his soldiers. Only the guard loved him (for the good money and advantage he gave to them. Soldiers grumble against him more and more from 1806-1812. After Russia they just fight to defend their country. Already said, but should LOUIS XVIII and the monarchists have a little more tact for the people opinion, "cent jours" wouldn't have been possible.

Agree that the hundred days (I assume that's the cent jours) would be impossible. His soldiers liked him when he won; he went downhill in 1808, I think, with spain.

Originally posted by Irsich
Napoleon wasn't so self confident that you think about his popularity and each time he loose (Egypt, Russia) was the first to withdraw, lefting his soldiers in bad position to try political rescue of his power at Paris

Indeed, which is why he didn't want to share power. His appointments of marshals as dukes and princes was brilliant, too; it made them support the empire.

Originally posted by Irsich
He was fair in the idea he has to breakdown Austria. If he should have wanted to bring them to an alliance, instead of thinking about the russian, he would have let Austrian territory out of Germans States claims. So he should have give a bit more autonomy to the Rhinebund to compensate this...

Austria didn't even want german territory; they had basically written it off to expand into the balkans.I think we can both agree that the confederation was a french buffer state. AS such, it would be under french control.

Originally posted by Irsich
Belges people were so enthusiastic that they made a good amount of Wellington army at Waterloo and fight well.
But even if they were enthusiastic in 1810, i'm not sure they would stay like this for the whole 19th. Most pluricultural entity has to give at least a formal decentralization. + Napoleon won "great" but i'm almost sure the opposants (in core France) would gather their political forces to asked about more freedom and they should meet the Germans and belges one.
Internal Empire politic became more and more dictatorship after Austerliz.

There were dutch troops, but not belgian, perse. I suggest that blegium would become another Alsace. It would be economic suiide for the industrialists to not be part of it.

Originally posted by Irsich
About Poland, like i said i'm sure it would be a tipmatter for the empire diplomacy. Maybe the Warsaw duchy should have been stated but it would be at the price to support Austria strongly in the Balkans and to face Russia.

Not that hard. Or make it a russian kingdom.

Originally posted by Irsich
About Italy, there would be some territories included in France sure. But a union of Italy Kingdom and Naples by dynastical or political agreement would have been possible in a few decade.

Heh. Heh. Heh. The murats and Bearnhais hated each other, with a passion; to the point that in 1814, the murats stabbed eugene in the back by joining the austrians.

 

[Ichabod]

I think that perhaps if Austria gets a lot of the western-central Balkans, and the eastern balkans, including Constantinople, is given to the Russians, those two powers would have no objections to releasing their Polish lands. I also think there should be a Greek state. I highly doubt that making a Polish state under Russian administration would help anyone (I assume you a talking about a situation like the one the Congress of Vienne granted to Russia).

About the army, from the memoirs I have read, it seems that the soliders, though downcast, were still enthusiastic about their Empereur after the Russian campaigne. There was a report about how the Empereur got out of his carriage to walk alongside his men, when the soliders saw this, it made them even more meloncoly to see their Empereur in such a low position. I am not sure if this was the sympathy of the majority, but, as I said, most that I have seen seem to point twards a pro-imperial viewpoint of most soliders even after Moscow.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Ichabod
I think that perhaps if Austria gets a lot of the western-central Balkans, and the eastern balkans, including Constantinople, is given to the Russians, those two powers would have no objections to releasing their Polish lands. I also think there should be a Greek state. I highly doubt that making a Polish state under Russian administration would help anyone (I assume you a talking about a situation like the one the Congress of Vienne granted to Russia).

Russia will never get dconstantinople; that was one thing the French and British could agree on.

That's the only way I can see the Russians involved with France, but an independent poland might be possible. Just not sure if upon the emperor's death it can hold off the czar's legions. (Heck, the czar considered offering the poles independence if they'd join him against napoleon).

Originally posted by Ichabod
About the army, from the memoirs I have read, it seems that the soliders, though downcast, were still enthusiastic about their Empereur after the Russian campaigne. There was a report about how the Empereur got out of his carriage to walk alongside his men, when the soliders saw this, it made them even more meloncoly to see their Empereur in such a low position. I am not sure if this was the sympathy of the majority, but, as I said, most that I have seen seem to point twards a pro-imperial viewpoint of most soliders even after Moscow.

Yeah, the individual soldiers supported himk, but they were getting tired. Especially in spain.

 

[Avernite]

Hmm, I wonder what the Dutch position would be in this.
Ok, it seems clear that for some time they would stay as A French puppet, but what then? The Netherlands had, I think, for too long been a nation to stay as a mere puppet for too long. But behind who would they rally?

The Oranjes, or the republicans who had indeed betrayed the country tothe French, more or less, but with the introduction of a French monarchy they might have made a comeback, after all in reality they did in 1848. And would the Flemish join this, and what would the French response be if that happened? Would they strike down the revolt and fight the Dutch, risking loss of control over other puppets, or would they let the Flemish join the new Netherlands?


Would they maybe join a German federation instead, in a position of power, if that federation would be without French influence? Would they achieve a Prussian status in such a construct, or more a Bavarian one?

And what would happen to Indonesia? Independent, and later conquered by a colonial power? Under the rule of a Oranje government in exile? Outright annexed by England, together with the rest of the colonies?

And whatwould the Dutch position be after this all? A staunch english ally? Independent power, especially if united with Germany and Flandern? Minor nation like Switzerland?

Well, now my ideas of the responses:
I suspect the country would rally at around 1830-40 behind the republicans, not earlier for trust reasons after the French alliance of them, not later because of nationalism.
Probably the colonies would fall to an Oranje counter government, and Flandern would join the new republic.
Then 3 possibilities: France accepts it, France intervenes, retaking Flandern but leaving the country alone, or France invades the country. In that case, a violent response by England and maybe Prussia, either causing a new French puppeting, or a reinstating of the Oranjes.

If option 1 happens, it will likely trigger an unpuppeting of the German federation, and then it might very well cause a two-sided federation with the monarchist Prussians on one side and the republican Dutch on the other. The victory in this struggle would also determine the later fate of the Netherlands:
-A second rate, beaten part of Germany, If beaten in a destructive war.
-An independant country, if beaten but not very damaged itself.
-An equal of Prussia in a loose German federation, if indecisive yet not destructive war.
-A re-independent Netherlands & West-Germany and a Prussian East-Germany, if a destructive yet indecisive war.
-A republican Germany, where the Dutch lead, if a easy, not destructive victory.
-A west-German federation, and a large yet weak Prussia in the east on it's own, if a destructive victory.

If the French option 2 happens, the Netherlands will probably return to bickering over monarchy or republic, eventually reunite with the colonies, and be a similar nation as they really were.

If the French option 3 happens, the Netherlands will be destroyed and likely lose their colonies to England, either as repayment for English aid in reinstating the monarchy, or an English conquest if the Dutch lose and have little hope of restarting the rebellion.

Why not a second rebellion? Well, after such a war the Netherlands will be in shambles and as such have little hope of winning. After Napoleon, the country wasn't very damaged.

 

[Ichabod]

I sespect that the Netherlands would be in the same position and react in the same way as the Germans, that is as a French puppet, loyal to the Empire for as long as the Empire remains strong. I really doubt that they could have successfully broken from France, especially if England no longer contests French hegemony. Even if the Dutch seperated from France, it is doubtful they would get past the Rhine and next to impossible that they would ever control Flandres.

The western powers didnot want Russia to gain Constantinople for fear they would gain control of the Black sea and become too powerful, i think that several agreements to respect shipping, set bounderies on Russian expansion, as well as the freeing of Poland and securing Swedish Finland and the Austrian balkans possecions -might- have changed the minds of the French and British and allowed them to give Constantinople to Russia, especially if the rest of the Ottoman colonies (in arabia, perhaps even anatolia itself) were partitioned like after World War I.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Avernite
Hmm, I wonder what the Dutch position would be in this.
Ok, it seems clear that for some time they would stay as A French puppet, but what then? The Netherlands had, I think, for too long been a nation to stay as a mere puppet for too long. But behind who would they rally?

They'd be a french puppet, and if they get uppity, get occupied. Louis Bonaparte, incidentally, was beloved in holland. This was because he had the guts to realize that french interests do not equal dutch.

Originally posted by Avernite
The Oranjes, or the republicans who had indeed betrayed the country tothe French, more or less, but with the introduction of a French monarchy they might have made a comeback, after all in reality they did in 1848. And would the Flemish join this, and what would the French response be if that happened? Would they strike down the revolt and fight the Dutch, risking loss of control over other puppets, or would they let the Flemish join the new Netherlands?

Originally posted by Avernite
Would they maybe join a German federation instead, in a position of power, if that federation would be without French influence? Would they achieve a Prussian status in such a construct, or more a Bavarian one?

Any such federation, in this ttl, would be more of one of equals than the north german confederation of OTL; but it will be a federation, not a confederation.

Originally posted by Avernite
And what would happen to Indonesia? Independent, and later conquered by a colonial power? Under the rule of a Oranje government in exile? Outright annexed by England, together with the rest of the colonies?

Indonesia, after 1803, was occupied by Britain. Just like south Africa.

Originally posted by Avernite
And whatwould the Dutch position be after this all? A staunch english ally? Independent power, especially if united with Germany and Flandern? Minor nation like Switzerland?

I suspect they'd revolt against napoleon's empire upon his death.

Hmm. Maybe we should have him die in 1834, so the game starts with the revolutions in progress?

Originally posted by Avernite
Well, now my ideas of the responses:
I suspect the country would rally at around 1830-40 behind the republicans, not earlier for trust reasons after the French alliance of them, not later because of nationalism.

Probably. The oranje will have been gone for too long, I simply imagine.

Originally posted by Avernite
Probably the colonies would fall to an Oranje counter government, and Flandern would join the new republic.

Flanders? Belgium, or just coastal flanders (Antwerp). I suspect belgium will remain part of the empire.

Originally posted by Avernite
Then 3 possibilities: France accepts it, France intervenes, retaking Flandern but leaving the country alone, or France invades the country. In that case, a violent response by England and maybe Prussia, either causing a new French puppeting, or a reinstating of the Oranjes.

Originally posted by Avernite
If option 1 happens, it will likely trigger an unpuppeting of the German federation, and then it might very well cause a two-sided federation with the monarchist Prussians on one side and the republican Dutch on the other. The victory in this struggle would also determine the later fate of the Netherlands:

I don't see why the prussians would be a great power in the federation. They don't have the rhineland, they don't have poznan, they don't have territories west of the elbe...

But they are the germans who resisted france. I suspect that decade sof napoleonic rule will put them in favor of a constitutional monarchy or a republic.

Originally posted by Avernite
-A second rate, beaten part of Germany, If beaten in a destructive war.
-An independant country, if beaten but not very damaged itself.
-An equal of Prussia in a loose German federation, if indecisive yet not destructive war.
-A re-independent Netherlands & West-Germany and a Prussian East-Germany, if a destructive yet indecisive war.
-A republican Germany, where the Dutch lead, if a easy, not destructive victory.
-A west-German federation, and a large yet weak Prussia in the east on it's own, if a destructive victory.

Would it feel safe alone, though? After all, the dutch tried that, and the french conquered them. They'd lack belgium too. I don't see dutch lead, but they might be the ones to start the revolt. Or not; they're very close to France.

Originally posted by Avernite
If the French option 2 happens, the Netherlands will probably return to bickering over monarchy or republic, eventually reunite with the colonies, and be a similar nation as they really were.

The British would've kept the colonies.

Originally posted by Avernite
If the French option 3 happens, the Netherlands will be destroyed and likely lose their colonies to England, either as repayment for English aid in reinstating the monarchy, or an English conquest if the Dutch lose and have little hope of restarting the rebellion.

England wouldn't have conquered part of the continent, especially if hanover turns out to be a debacle.

Originally posted by Avernite
Why not a second rebellion? Well, after such a war the Netherlands will be in shambles and as such have little hope of winning. After Napoleon, the country wasn't very damaged.

 

[Faeelin]

Originally posted by Ichabod
I sespect that the Netherlands would be in the same position and react in the same way as the Germans, that is as a French puppet, loyal to the Empire for as long as the Empire remains strong. I really doubt that they could have successfully broken from France, especially if England no longer contests French hegemony. Even if the Dutch seperated from France, it is doubtful they would get past the Rhine and next to impossible that they would ever control Flandres.

I suspect the empire would remain strong about as long as napoleon's alive. After that....

And I also suspect a sort of cold war would ensue.

Originally posted by Ichabod
The western powers didnot want Russia to gain Constantinople for fear they would gain control of the Black sea and become too powerful, i think that several agreements to respect shipping, set bounderies on Russian expansion, as well as the freeing of Poland and securing Swedish Finland and the Austrian balkans possecions -might- have changed the minds of the French and British and allowed them to give Constantinople to Russia, especially if the rest of the Ottoman colonies (in arabia, perhaps even anatolia itself) were partitioned like after World War I.

The problem is that poland was useful as a buffer state against France; france saw poland as a buffer state against russia. Constantinople gives access to the mediterranean, which no one but russia wanted. That was always the key to the eastern question, along with the suez.

 

[Avernite]

Well, my post at least fulfilled it's primary purpose: Get the discusiion going.

And Why couldn't the Dutch win? After all, in the 80 years war they did beat the largest empire of the time.

 

[Faeelin]

Thoughts from people besides Irsich and Icabod?

Sketch of what nappy needed to do:

1807 marked the famous treaty of Tilsit. At least, thought most obsevers, peace would be fought to Europe. A Franco-Russian alliance would ensure stability.

Indeed, in the warm glow afterwards, there was talk of partitioning the Ottoman Empire between the two of them; Napoleon had not yet given up his dreams of an eastern empire.

Moreover, Alexander was dismayed. He had been promised a lenient peace for Prussia, and found out that Napoleon had stripped the nation of half its territories, set up a Polish state, and threaten Russia’s western borders. While the Czar would recognize French hegemony in Western Europe, he could not tolerate French efforts to do likewise in Eastern Europe.

Equally damaging was the continental blockade. Russia, quite simply, could not be a part of it. Russia was dependent upon Britain for markets for its raw materials; the Grand Empire, at this point, could not act as a replacement. France could not buy these items, and could not sell what Russia needed; it is in this context that the Czar banned French luxury imports in 1810 [1].

Meanwhile, Napoleon had overreached himself elsewhere

Spain

Franco-Spanish relations had improved to the point where by 1808 they were allies, with over 100,000 French troops in Spain. This was generally accepted by most Spaniards, who viewed it as part of a plan for an invasion of Portugal.

Spain, for its part, was descending into chaos. Charles VI relied upon Manuel Godoy to support him, while Charles’s son, Ferdinand, opposed him. The two were opposed in a near deadly rivalry; and both asked Napoleon for help in October of 1807; indeed, Charles was right to appeal to Napoleon, for he was found dead in December. Ferdinand placed the blame on Godoy, and was appointed as the King of Spain.

Meanwhile, in Portugal, John VI had fled to Brazil with his tail between his legs; the French marshal Junot occupied Lisbon shortly thereafter. Junot took his regency seriously, and would eventually become King of Portugal under Napoleon. And while the British would consider sending a force, under Sir Admiral Wellington, it would eventually be rejected.

Wellington would be used in the south of Spain, as part of Napoleon’s master plan.

Napoleon’s plan, bluntly, involved taking Gibraltar, and then North Africa. From there, the French would occupy Constantinople, Egypt, Persia, and march to India. The glorious army would then effortlessly sweep away Britain’s holdings there, and there would be much rejoicing [2].

Britain, for its part, soon suffered severe economic problems. Widespread smuggling in Latin America helped to alleviate this, as did smuggling on the Continent [3]. The siege of Gibraltar, lasting until 1810, helped to prove Napoleon’s mastery of Europe. With the Austrians cowed, there was no option.

[1] Okay, he just put ridiculously high tariffs on them, to the same end.

[2] Or everyone dies enroute. Not one for half measures, the Emperor.

[3] I suspect that, because Britannia rules the waves, Britain would’ve managed to open up the Latin American markets, by force, if need be.