Street_Disciple
Banned
IT CHANGED EUROPE?
my follow-up to The British capture New Orleans...
For weeks, I have been planning on writing the premise that Napoleon won a smashing victory at Waterloo, something along the lines of an Austerlitz. I have written a brief story, its short though, any longer or more detailed could me at work for years. In my last ATL, I had a continued War of 1812. In this, I included a scenario involving Wellington being defeated at Waterloo, due to the fact that had such a war continued, most of Britain’s wartime army would have been in America. Wellington, instead of commanding 68,000 men, would only have tiny English army and their Dutch mercenaries at his disposal. Napoleon would have had to face a much smaller army, which raises his chances of success which brings up to a follow up of my previous ATH.
If Napoleon had returned with a stunning victory at Waterloo, Europe would have confronted several changes. From the readings I have found on the period between Napoleon’s exile and return, Napoleonic Europe was at tension. Metternich and the Austrians had begun a movement against the Russians, who had assumed France’s place as dominant continental power following the invasion of France. Prussia was still recovering, while Sweden was determined to fight against the Russians to recover Baltic territory. Britain was weak, and depending on bribery to sway opinions in it’s favor, and the German states were uncomfortable with the re-imposition of Prussian and Austrian autocratic rule. It is very possible that a new war would’ve broken out in Europe, with most of the powers arranged against Russia. This is however, a different story. Napoleon's return changed everything. The Allies momentarily set aside their differences, to fight a greater enemy.
However, that aside, if Napoleon had won the Napoleonic wars...let's say that he wisely limits his ambitions to the area between the Nieman and the Pyranees, and beats back all external threats and internal revolts. Let us also assume that the economies of these areas do not collapse under the influence of a British blockade and the Continental System. So then let us assume that in 1815, the British taxpaying public, overwhelmed by war, especially in America, and starved of victories in both Europe and America (with there being none in Spain since Napoleon would never have attempted to invade it again) demand peace and some sort of lasting clemency is made.
As I see it from here, Napoleon would have devoted his considerable efforts to internal development in France, the extension of French influence, and forging stronger ties with the Austrians and the remaining powers of Prussia. I believe that it’s very possible that Austria would’ve sided with Napoleon against the Russians and their untrusted British allies. The “balance of power†that kept Europe generally at peace until WWI might’ve included an Austro-French axis that controlled most of western and central Europe. Napoleon’s child, whose grandson (Napoleon III) had become the Habsburg emperor, may have held a position of a Habsburg on the throne of France, or conversely, being Bonaparte on the throne in Vienna. This is were fiction kick in…Over the next nine years an uneasy peace settles over the world. In Europe, Metternich now sees Napoleon as supportive of the Ancient Regime and so pressures the other European continental powers into brokering a peace. This would have confirmed a lasting partnership between the two countries.
Napoleon dies of stomach cancer (or poisoning if you listen to the conspiracy theorists). Assuming his dynasty survives the minority of Napoleon II, and that after his death at the age of 21 a smooth transition is made to some other member of the Bonaparte family (Joseph I?) then what do we have?
Prussia, humiliated for not defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, would have still been recovering from her defeat. While in no position to challenge France’s supremacy, it would have sued for peace while boxed in between her forceful neighbors. Had Napoleon won, what might this have meant for the weary German States then?
Germany’s military humiliation was already stimulating growing nationalism. Growing German nationalism, linked with liberalism, could have possibly emerged into rebellion, which would have shaken the German states and sent shockwaves throughout the French Empire. In ensuing years ahead, German romanticism would become a noteworthy exponent of which poet Ernst Moritz Arndt, and educator Friedrich Jahn furthered nationalist sentiment. Distress would have grown yearly more intolerable, among the rural and industrial populations', until there broke out ill advised but romantic rebellions of these leaders. Prussia, bitter over her defeat, would have sided with the rebels, while hoping to regain her lost territories in the Rhineland, including Kleves and other former Rheinbund states. What’s wrong with this scenario is that if there was such a rise of Germany, it would have been crippled by the possession of the industrializing Ruhr by France, which means it might be decades before such a rise occurred.
Russia, with certainty, would be out of Europe, and would be forced to give up Poland as an independent region, a mere puppet of Napoleon’s empire. Napoleon might have tried to capture Moscow again, while hoping not to suffer the same fate as he did during 1812. He might as well have succeeded in conquering Russia. Some may suggest that if he attempted to renewed his conquest of Russia, he would have acted as a liberator instead of a conqueror. Napoleon would thus have gotten the common people on his side, since many of these people were suffering under the leadership of Czar Alexander. He may have banished serfdom from the country and gained the public support of the people.
But there is something wrong with this scenario. Napoleon did not see himself as a revolutionary element, but instead as one of the regular legitimate rulers of Europe (the greatest of them surely). To foment revolution would have been ill advised and would alienate the foreign rulers he had hoped to recognize him, and would have shaken the very foundations of his own throne. Once an invasion started, there was no hope of this sort of scheme succeeding. No amount of words or promises could have overborne the negative impression provided by the reality of the French Army; a looting, burning, stealing plague of locusts. The serfs would have largely fled, hid in the forests, and fought a ruthless guerilla war against their invaders, seeing no fulfillment or promise from their new rulers. Had Napoleon succeeded in a second attempt to invade Russia, then he simply would have set up some sort of puppet czar, a mere figurehead of Napoleon’s control, not someone of the people or of revolutionary ardor.
Napoleon might have also been troubled by Sweden, whose king had been a former aide of him, and had been regarded as a traitor. Sweden (under Bernadotte), would be urging for a fight against the Russians to recover Baltic territory, now occupied by Napoleon. So, if Sweden should side against Napoleon with the remaining powers of Russia, the outbreak of war would have resulted between these powers, ending towards either way.
As for England, Napoleon’s aim would be to remove England from the scene of affairs and from the counsels of the monarchs of Europe. England, while isolated from Europe, would have been forced to seek dominance in her overseas influence. While adjusting her broaden power, England would have encountered an unexpected ally. Although Britain would have been removed from the stage of affairs in Europe, her influence would be replaced with trade with the US, the newly declared sole ruler of North America (that being after the accession of Canada).
Britain and a young and bigger United States would grow progressively closer; as was seen in Britain’s willingness to become involved in the War Between the States. Indeed the Monroe Doctrine, which stated the U.S.’s refusal to tolerate any new European incursions in the Western hemisphere, was in fact also in spirit guaranteed by the Royal Navy. No-one could colonize the western hemisphere without the permission of Her Majesty's government. Thus, for any European power, even Napoleon, war with an Anglo-American alliance would have been unthinkable and definitely something to be avoided.
Challenged by this, Napoleon would have probably tried to strengthen France’s own international influence. One approach, and probably the most likely, is the conquest of the Middle East. This was a dream that backed Napoleon’s mind, ever since the abortive Egyptian Campaign of 1798. In this approach, he would most undoubtedly conquered Greece from its cynical Turkish rulers. From here, he would have begun the makings of a French Mediterranean fleet to secure his conquest, and from there, tried to threaten the very roots of the British Empire in India during the course of an invasion through Iraq, Syria, and Persia. While his ambitions might have been at odds with Britain’s, he would have encountered no serious opposition. And quite possibly, he may have found a role for Islam to play within his empire.
What might all this have meant to the Jews of Palestine (excerpts taken from the novel ‘What If?’). This question certainly invites speculation as to what effect might have come. At his early years as a potent military leader, Napoleon expressed some serious desires for a liberal-minded emancipation of French Jewry. His desire was met, and in 1797, he had issued such a proclamation, solemnly declaring that Jewry “…had the right to a political existence as much as any other nationâ€. Had he found a purpose for Judaism to coincide in his Empire, might the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine appear over a century before the creation of Israel? If it did, how long would the Arabs tolerate France’s existence in their region?
A positive feature in Ottoman administration was the religious toleration generally extended to all non-Muslims. This, however, might not have stopped the massacres and discriminatory fiscal practices. In Constantinople, the Greeks and Armenians commonly held a privileged status and were very influential in commerce and politics. The despotic system of government was diminished only by the observance of Muslim law. Then too, for how long would the Turkish warriors prove to be helpful allies or vanquishable foes?
Meanwhile, hoping to restore relationships with Spain, Napoleon would have sought to reduce the colonial status of the Latin American states that had recently gained independence from Spain. Let’s say that Napoleon supports all the Spanish colonial empires in Central and South America. Angered by such a Spanish reacquisition, Britain and her American ally would have smacked in the Monroe Document. Britain, still dominant in the overseas arena, retains its colonies in the Caribbean. Britain and the US both support and instigate revolutionary movements against Spain in another ongoing cold war (more like a commercial war) against France. This virtual war would put Britain in an arms race, while being poised for war, one, which may have lasted up to the mid 1850’s or even beyond that during the 1900’s/
As we end this ATH, what does all this mean for France. France itself is invigorated by the addition of Holland, North Italy, and the Ruhr. But France is a dictatorial state, ruled by an Emperor with no limits to his power. Increasing nationalism leads to revolts, which in turn leads to repression. As autonomy in many places in Europe becomes a growing concern (especially in Prussia), the powers of the army grow year by year. Attempts to control Europe’s economy lead to the development of a “black economyâ€â€¦ in other words, the corruption of the main economy. So what do we have in a Napoleon dominated France by 1900? The same thing that happened to Rome at its decline, and to Soviet Union in 1980’s....
my follow-up to The British capture New Orleans...
For weeks, I have been planning on writing the premise that Napoleon won a smashing victory at Waterloo, something along the lines of an Austerlitz. I have written a brief story, its short though, any longer or more detailed could me at work for years. In my last ATL, I had a continued War of 1812. In this, I included a scenario involving Wellington being defeated at Waterloo, due to the fact that had such a war continued, most of Britain’s wartime army would have been in America. Wellington, instead of commanding 68,000 men, would only have tiny English army and their Dutch mercenaries at his disposal. Napoleon would have had to face a much smaller army, which raises his chances of success which brings up to a follow up of my previous ATH.
If Napoleon had returned with a stunning victory at Waterloo, Europe would have confronted several changes. From the readings I have found on the period between Napoleon’s exile and return, Napoleonic Europe was at tension. Metternich and the Austrians had begun a movement against the Russians, who had assumed France’s place as dominant continental power following the invasion of France. Prussia was still recovering, while Sweden was determined to fight against the Russians to recover Baltic territory. Britain was weak, and depending on bribery to sway opinions in it’s favor, and the German states were uncomfortable with the re-imposition of Prussian and Austrian autocratic rule. It is very possible that a new war would’ve broken out in Europe, with most of the powers arranged against Russia. This is however, a different story. Napoleon's return changed everything. The Allies momentarily set aside their differences, to fight a greater enemy.
However, that aside, if Napoleon had won the Napoleonic wars...let's say that he wisely limits his ambitions to the area between the Nieman and the Pyranees, and beats back all external threats and internal revolts. Let us also assume that the economies of these areas do not collapse under the influence of a British blockade and the Continental System. So then let us assume that in 1815, the British taxpaying public, overwhelmed by war, especially in America, and starved of victories in both Europe and America (with there being none in Spain since Napoleon would never have attempted to invade it again) demand peace and some sort of lasting clemency is made.
As I see it from here, Napoleon would have devoted his considerable efforts to internal development in France, the extension of French influence, and forging stronger ties with the Austrians and the remaining powers of Prussia. I believe that it’s very possible that Austria would’ve sided with Napoleon against the Russians and their untrusted British allies. The “balance of power†that kept Europe generally at peace until WWI might’ve included an Austro-French axis that controlled most of western and central Europe. Napoleon’s child, whose grandson (Napoleon III) had become the Habsburg emperor, may have held a position of a Habsburg on the throne of France, or conversely, being Bonaparte on the throne in Vienna. This is were fiction kick in…Over the next nine years an uneasy peace settles over the world. In Europe, Metternich now sees Napoleon as supportive of the Ancient Regime and so pressures the other European continental powers into brokering a peace. This would have confirmed a lasting partnership between the two countries.
Napoleon dies of stomach cancer (or poisoning if you listen to the conspiracy theorists). Assuming his dynasty survives the minority of Napoleon II, and that after his death at the age of 21 a smooth transition is made to some other member of the Bonaparte family (Joseph I?) then what do we have?
Prussia, humiliated for not defeating Napoleon at Waterloo, would have still been recovering from her defeat. While in no position to challenge France’s supremacy, it would have sued for peace while boxed in between her forceful neighbors. Had Napoleon won, what might this have meant for the weary German States then?
Germany’s military humiliation was already stimulating growing nationalism. Growing German nationalism, linked with liberalism, could have possibly emerged into rebellion, which would have shaken the German states and sent shockwaves throughout the French Empire. In ensuing years ahead, German romanticism would become a noteworthy exponent of which poet Ernst Moritz Arndt, and educator Friedrich Jahn furthered nationalist sentiment. Distress would have grown yearly more intolerable, among the rural and industrial populations', until there broke out ill advised but romantic rebellions of these leaders. Prussia, bitter over her defeat, would have sided with the rebels, while hoping to regain her lost territories in the Rhineland, including Kleves and other former Rheinbund states. What’s wrong with this scenario is that if there was such a rise of Germany, it would have been crippled by the possession of the industrializing Ruhr by France, which means it might be decades before such a rise occurred.
Russia, with certainty, would be out of Europe, and would be forced to give up Poland as an independent region, a mere puppet of Napoleon’s empire. Napoleon might have tried to capture Moscow again, while hoping not to suffer the same fate as he did during 1812. He might as well have succeeded in conquering Russia. Some may suggest that if he attempted to renewed his conquest of Russia, he would have acted as a liberator instead of a conqueror. Napoleon would thus have gotten the common people on his side, since many of these people were suffering under the leadership of Czar Alexander. He may have banished serfdom from the country and gained the public support of the people.
But there is something wrong with this scenario. Napoleon did not see himself as a revolutionary element, but instead as one of the regular legitimate rulers of Europe (the greatest of them surely). To foment revolution would have been ill advised and would alienate the foreign rulers he had hoped to recognize him, and would have shaken the very foundations of his own throne. Once an invasion started, there was no hope of this sort of scheme succeeding. No amount of words or promises could have overborne the negative impression provided by the reality of the French Army; a looting, burning, stealing plague of locusts. The serfs would have largely fled, hid in the forests, and fought a ruthless guerilla war against their invaders, seeing no fulfillment or promise from their new rulers. Had Napoleon succeeded in a second attempt to invade Russia, then he simply would have set up some sort of puppet czar, a mere figurehead of Napoleon’s control, not someone of the people or of revolutionary ardor.
Napoleon might have also been troubled by Sweden, whose king had been a former aide of him, and had been regarded as a traitor. Sweden (under Bernadotte), would be urging for a fight against the Russians to recover Baltic territory, now occupied by Napoleon. So, if Sweden should side against Napoleon with the remaining powers of Russia, the outbreak of war would have resulted between these powers, ending towards either way.
As for England, Napoleon’s aim would be to remove England from the scene of affairs and from the counsels of the monarchs of Europe. England, while isolated from Europe, would have been forced to seek dominance in her overseas influence. While adjusting her broaden power, England would have encountered an unexpected ally. Although Britain would have been removed from the stage of affairs in Europe, her influence would be replaced with trade with the US, the newly declared sole ruler of North America (that being after the accession of Canada).
Britain and a young and bigger United States would grow progressively closer; as was seen in Britain’s willingness to become involved in the War Between the States. Indeed the Monroe Doctrine, which stated the U.S.’s refusal to tolerate any new European incursions in the Western hemisphere, was in fact also in spirit guaranteed by the Royal Navy. No-one could colonize the western hemisphere without the permission of Her Majesty's government. Thus, for any European power, even Napoleon, war with an Anglo-American alliance would have been unthinkable and definitely something to be avoided.
Challenged by this, Napoleon would have probably tried to strengthen France’s own international influence. One approach, and probably the most likely, is the conquest of the Middle East. This was a dream that backed Napoleon’s mind, ever since the abortive Egyptian Campaign of 1798. In this approach, he would most undoubtedly conquered Greece from its cynical Turkish rulers. From here, he would have begun the makings of a French Mediterranean fleet to secure his conquest, and from there, tried to threaten the very roots of the British Empire in India during the course of an invasion through Iraq, Syria, and Persia. While his ambitions might have been at odds with Britain’s, he would have encountered no serious opposition. And quite possibly, he may have found a role for Islam to play within his empire.
What might all this have meant to the Jews of Palestine (excerpts taken from the novel ‘What If?’). This question certainly invites speculation as to what effect might have come. At his early years as a potent military leader, Napoleon expressed some serious desires for a liberal-minded emancipation of French Jewry. His desire was met, and in 1797, he had issued such a proclamation, solemnly declaring that Jewry “…had the right to a political existence as much as any other nationâ€. Had he found a purpose for Judaism to coincide in his Empire, might the goal of establishing a Jewish homeland in Palestine appear over a century before the creation of Israel? If it did, how long would the Arabs tolerate France’s existence in their region?
A positive feature in Ottoman administration was the religious toleration generally extended to all non-Muslims. This, however, might not have stopped the massacres and discriminatory fiscal practices. In Constantinople, the Greeks and Armenians commonly held a privileged status and were very influential in commerce and politics. The despotic system of government was diminished only by the observance of Muslim law. Then too, for how long would the Turkish warriors prove to be helpful allies or vanquishable foes?
Meanwhile, hoping to restore relationships with Spain, Napoleon would have sought to reduce the colonial status of the Latin American states that had recently gained independence from Spain. Let’s say that Napoleon supports all the Spanish colonial empires in Central and South America. Angered by such a Spanish reacquisition, Britain and her American ally would have smacked in the Monroe Document. Britain, still dominant in the overseas arena, retains its colonies in the Caribbean. Britain and the US both support and instigate revolutionary movements against Spain in another ongoing cold war (more like a commercial war) against France. This virtual war would put Britain in an arms race, while being poised for war, one, which may have lasted up to the mid 1850’s or even beyond that during the 1900’s/
As we end this ATH, what does all this mean for France. France itself is invigorated by the addition of Holland, North Italy, and the Ruhr. But France is a dictatorial state, ruled by an Emperor with no limits to his power. Increasing nationalism leads to revolts, which in turn leads to repression. As autonomy in many places in Europe becomes a growing concern (especially in Prussia), the powers of the army grow year by year. Attempts to control Europe’s economy lead to the development of a “black economyâ€â€¦ in other words, the corruption of the main economy. So what do we have in a Napoleon dominated France by 1900? The same thing that happened to Rome at its decline, and to Soviet Union in 1980’s....
