What if Napoleon didn´t over-extend himself?

[Heraclitus]

Wasn't the age of piracy over by then?

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Wasn't the age of piracy over by then?

You refer to the cliché Carribean piracy I suppose?

I don't think he meant piracy in that sense, but rather harassing trade ships with quick hit and run tactics.

Would Germany have formed from its small states, the way it did? And would there have been a Great War and indeed, a second World War?

Probably not really the way it did if the states were under French rule. I don't think they would be allowed to form a federation with all the whistles and bells, and consequently there wouldn't have been the whole Large (with Austria-Hungary) vs Small Federation issue.

But a German union was inevitable, in a time when nationalism took off, and nations tried to expand their cultural dominance to their entire territory (France raped Brittany and the Alsace, Spain did likewise etc).

Don't know if Holland would be culturally assimilated, but Flanders would surely have been. The whole north-west of France spoke Flemish not that long ago, and look what they've done in such a short notice...

A WWI war memorial in Steenvoorde (A Flemish name btw) mentions these names

Camerlynck, Cleenewerck, Decoster, Decreus, Degrave, Deheegher, Dejonghe, Delbaere, Demol, Dequeker, Dereeper, Devey, Huyghe, Plaetevoet, Ryckewaert, Sansen, Spetebroot, Vanderlynden, Vannobel, Vannoorenberghe, Vanpeene, Vantorre, Verhille, Weillaert.

All Flemish back then, but nowadays...
I'm sure Flanders would have been assimilated very quickly

[Dry]

This is a rather strange what-if question, as all napoleonic wars were declared by his enemies - England (6 coalition wars).

The spanish case is special. It's more a revolt from a p-ed off ally.

And France did not really overstretched, as after beating Austria (1805) and Prussia (1807), France sign peace and withdraw.

France had to beat Austria (5th coalition) a second time (1809) to have it tamed.

Neither Austria nor Prussia were 'occupied', neither under french rule, but tied to peace with France by treaty.

When facing a 6th coalition, Napoleon indeed had to go as far as in Russia to fight his ennemies (through austrian 'allied' territory).

So, shouldn't the question be: What if England had not be so eager to beat Napoleon, that they forced him to beat the enemies she put against him several times, until dragging him in the plains of Russia?
Or:
Would Bonaparte (The consul) have become Napoleon (the emperor, the conqueror) without England's persistence to crush the french revolution (and then the self-proclaimed emperor)?

My answer: enlightment ideas wouldn't have spread to all Europe.
Napoleon might have been a dictator, but without his conquests, europe probably wouldn't have been as democratic as it is.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Traianvs
Don't know if Holland would be culturally assimilated, but Flanders would surely have been. The whole north-west of France spoke Flemish not that long ago, and look what they've done in such a short notice...
[...]
All Flemish back then, but nowadays...
I'm sure Flanders would have been assimilated very quickly

Spanish lower lands (Belgium), principality of Liege, Rhenany and Piemont had been annexed to France after the first coalition war against revolutionnary France (Napoleon not involved yet).
Those regions, all of them since long under french cultural influence, become to be known as 'new france'.
The level of knowledge of french among the elites (officers) in those regions was such, that they were virtually french.
Later, during Napoleon time, people drafted from those regions were indeed included in 100% 'french' units, not 'french allies' units.

Holland on the other side (the united provinces) had been beaten and a new republic, the batavian republic had been created. They were NOT french, but french allies.

So, indeed, in the new France, the new regions (belgium, rhenany, piemont) would probably have become something similar to Britany, Alsace or Bearn: french for everybody, but with local dialect(s) surviving among the few.

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Napoleon needed some means to strike back at Britain. He chose to enact the "Continental System", a Europe-wide boycott of British goods. What if instead of declaring the Continental System Napoleon had used the methods that England used against Spain in the 16th century - piracy? In the 18th century French warships had enjoyed an advantage in speed over the English. What if Napoleon had used that edge to his advantage, by commissioning fast privateers to harass British shipping?

British commerce would have kept growing and more than offset the losses, as it did each other time France tried this in the 17th and 18th centuries. Mahan devotes a significant chunk of The Influence of Seapower Upon History to the shortcomings of this kind of cruiser warfare. Spain was more vulnerable to it because its commerce was in the form of heavily laden treasure ships on a few routes between the Americas and Spain, while British commerce was more diffuse.

[Dr Strangelove]

The Continental system did indeed hurt the British economy - it just happened to hurt France's relations with the rest of Europe worse. Had Napoleon ignored England's persistant, repeated attempts to bribe the rest of Europe into defeating him could he have survived?
If there had been no Continental System there would have been no Peninsular War or War of 1812. So let's say that Napoleon never decrees the boycott of British goods, and he doesn't get involved in an war on the Iberian peninsula. He does defeat the allies in 1809 and 1810, forcing Prussia, Austro-Hungary and Russia into an alliance with him. What then? Surely the english will eventually fund another war against him, but how and when. Also, the Continental System eventually became a two-way embargo, with the English eventually establishing a blockade of the entire coast of western and southern europe. Would the english have established their blockade without the provocation of Napoleon's europe-wide boycott of English goods?

[Solomwi]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
The Continental system did indeed hurt the British economy - it just happened to hurt France's relations with the rest of Europe worse.

No doubt. My response was dashed off during the end of class, so I may not have been clear. I was only measuring the two approaches as regards the stated goal of hurting British trade. If the goal is merely to strike at British commerce, the Continental System was by far the better choice. Piracy would not have been up to the task even though, as you mention, avoiding the knock-on effects of the CS would have probably been much more beneficial to Napoleon than an effective blow against the British economy. Your larger question is interesting, and I'm ashamed to say I don't have a good answer at the moment.

[Will9]

Originally posted by Dry
This is a rather strange what-if question, as all napoleonic wars were declared by his enemies - England (6 coalition wars).

The spanish case is special. It's more a revolt from a p-ed off ally.

And France did not really overstretched, as after beating Austria (1805) and Prussia (1807), France sign peace and withdraw.

France had to beat Austria (5th coalition) a second time (1809) to have it tamed.

Neither Austria nor Prussia were 'occupied', neither under french rule, but tied to peace with France by treaty.

When facing a 6th coalition, Napoleon indeed had to go as far as in Russia to fight his ennemies (through austrian 'allied' territory).

So, shouldn't the question be: What if England had not be so eager to beat Napoleon, that they forced him to beat the enemies she put against him several times, until dragging him in the plains of Russia?
Or:
Would Bonaparte (The consul) have become Napoleon (the emperor, the conqueror) without England's persistence to crush the french revolution (and then the self-proclaimed emperor)?

My answer: enlightment ideas wouldn't have spread to all Europe.
Napoleon might have been a dictator, but without his conquests, europe probably wouldn't have been as democratic as it is.

Spain wasn't just pissed off, Napoleon had overthrown their monarchy and installed his brother as king. It wasn't a revolt, they were resisting a French take over of the country. If he hadn't installed his brother as king, Spain would have stayed by his side.

In Russia, he could have used better planning to avoid his disaster at the hands of the Russian winter.

[Victor Galis]

I've always wondered if Napoleon could have bought off the English somehow. By that I really mean, what if he'd found a way to keep them neutral. Possibilities I'd considered:

1) Complete opposite of the Continental System. Suppose he'd offered tarriff-free access to all French-controlled Europe to British merchants so long as Britain behaved nicely.
2) Sold Louisiana and/or other colonies to the British instead of the Americans in exchange for money and future neutrality, maybe even proposed some Treaty of Tordesillas-style arrangement.
3) Sold them a large part of his fleet (pre-Trafalgar obviously) as a sign that he'd not be a threat.

================================

Alternatively, I wonder what would have happened if he'd overthrown Austria and Prussian monarchies and replaced them with dysfunctional democracies, not for love of freedom, but just to make it really hard for those countries to mobilize against him again.

[Heraclitus]

Russia to hard. Austria could work.

[Dry]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
Napoleon needed some means to strike back at Britain. He chose to enact the "Continental System", a Europe-wide boycott of British goods. What if instead of declaring the Continental System Napoleon had used the methods that England used against Spain in the 16th century - piracy? In the 18th century French warships had enjoyed an advantage in speed over the English. What if Napoleon had used that edge to his advantage, by commissioning fast privateers to harass British shipping?

You mean if Napoleon had commissoned more privateers.
Certainly, you've heard of most famous french corsair: Surcouf

In May, 1800, Surcouf took command of La Confiance, a fine and fast 18-gun ship from Bordeaux undergoing repairs in Île de France.

Beginning in March, he led a brilliant campaign which resulted in the capture of nine British ships. On 7 October, 1800, in the Bay of Bengal, La Confiance met the 38-gun Kent, a 1200-ton East Indiaman with 400 men and a company of naval riflemen. Despite being outnumbered three to one, the French managed to seize control of the Kent.

And to answer your question:

In 1803, at the breaking of the Treaty of Amiens, First Consul Napoleon Bonaparte personally offered him the title of captain and command of a frigate squadron in the Indian Ocean. Surcouf, however, refused, for two reasons: first, he would not have been allowed to operate as independently as he desired; and second, he believed that the war against England should be waged with economic means (i.e., by attacking its merchant navy) rather than direct naval assault. His arguments did not fall on deaf ears: in 1805, Napoleon chose a blockade against England rather than direct confrontation, and allowed privateers to operate with relative impunity. Surcouf left in good terms, and was made officer of the Légion d'Honneur on 18 July 1804.

On 2 March [1807], Surcouf returned to sea on a specially built three-master, the 20-gun Revenant. Le Revenant was constructed under special directives by Surcouf himself, with a completely coppered hull, and a remarkable (for the time) top speed of 12 knots.

Surcouf arrived at Île de France in June, defeating the British blockade and capturing several ships on the journey. During the subsequent campaign, which was to be his last, Surcouf captured 16 British ships, partly because British ships tended to lower their flag in defeat as soon as they realised their opponent was Surcouf.

[Eli]

Originally posted by McLaine


Yes, but you could turn this thing around. Let's say - what if he would have died before he could overextend himself?

Then it all depends on his heir.

How would the Roman Empire looked like if Julius Caesar, instead of being murdered (allowing Octavianus to consolidate the Empire) had continued with dozens of legions into Persia?

[Traianvs]

Originally posted by Eli


Then it all depends on his heir.

How would the Roman Empire looked like if Julius Caesar, instead of being murdered (allowing Octavianus to consolidate the Empire) had continued with dozens of legions into Persia?

He would have perished all the same. On their own terrain Roman armies were stronger than Parthian (not Persian at that time) cavalry dominated armies, but when Roman armies dared venture in an environment that advantaged their cavalry they could not beat them. Parthian cavalry simply used ranged hit and run tactics, harassing the main body of the army. Romans never had a chance to retaliate. On the other hand the Parthians would have never beaten Roman power on the Mediterranean east coast, despite being more favoured by the local populace

[LDiCesare]

what if he would have died before he could overextend himself?

There was a missed coup by general Malet, who made everyone believe the emperor was dead. Just about every solution (republic, bringing back a king on the throne, ...) was envisioned, except crowning Napoleon's heir.

Not overthrowing Spain would have helped immensely.
Not attacking Russia but letting them come against him, even at the cost of losing Austria, could also have saved him militarily.

[Heraclitus]

I'm thinking of building a civ4 scenario set during the time of the American Civil War in an alternative world where Napoleon won.

It starts in 1860.

I need a semiplausible scenario where there are several playable and relatively balanced nations around the world.


My first idea.

Germany is unified a few decades early and rules over Austria, it has managed to break free from France's orbit and has successfully installed a Austrian Prince on Mexico's throne. They have also bought off Holland's old colonies from France. They have control over the eastern Balkans and Greece is their vassal. They control Scandinavia and Denmark.

Russia was severely weakened, this has encouraged it to focus its forces not on the Balkans and Eastern Europe but on Asia, the great game with Britain has started early and they have put more energy into colonizing Alaska, it was also their ships not American ones that forced Japan's market open. The Meji restoration starts a decade early.

Japan has conquered Korea southern Manchuria and several cities on the Chinese coast and has helped Russia gain Mongolia and Northern Manchuria. Recently relations have cooled since Britain is offering Japan much more aid that the Russians ever did.

Napoleon's successors tried to keep Spain under their control but failed and a republican revolution took hold. A few years later much like the UK and the US in our world the two states buried the hatchet and worked together to keep the Latin American colonies under European control. Portugal a former English Ally was annexed by Spain as was most of Brazil. South America is mostly Spanish except the Guiana's and part's of Brazil which belong to France. The nation has also sought colonies in Africa but have only gotten small parcels of land. Recently as their grasp on South America grows stronger their relations with France have cooled. They are poised, much like the Germans two decades earlier, to leave France's orbit.

France controls:

Benelux
Italy
Western Balcans
All the Guiana's
Part of Brazil
all the Caribbean island states
Quebec
All of North Africa (except a Spanish Enclave, this includes Egypt)
Western Africa (much like our world's second French colonial empire)
Madagascar
Forces in Indochina that are poised to conquer it as a colony to keep an eye on the British, Japanese and Germans in the region.

Britain controls:
Modern UK
Ireland
Panama (the only British city in the America's)
Hawaii
India (either directly or as a vassal)
Tibet (worthless mostly)
A city in China
Australia & New Zeland
All of Africa that is not French or German
(note: this refers to the coast, much of inner Africa is still unexplored and unclaimed though much less so than in our 1860)

Persia:
Turkey since the collapse of the Ottoman Empire
Arabia
Jerusalem
Afghanistan

They are trying to push Russia out of Central Asia and keep Britain out of Afghanistan. They are trying to install a Muslim government in India that would rebel against British rule. They have French support.

USA:
All of modern Canada except Quebec and the Western third of British Columbia (they sought an alliance with Napoleon at the right moment, this also gave them most of the land they would have gained in the Louisiana purchase)

They do not have California, Nevada and New Mexico are Mexican (German), since the German prince was with European help than able to keep them in line.

Oregon and Idaho are still theirs but Washington is Russian.

They control Liberia (worthless size 1 city)

The Union has minimal French support. France still resents the Americans for betraying them by grabbing Texas from Mexico (when Mexico was still Spanish and Spain was in French orbit). Nevertheless they can not afford for the Union to loose since this could lead to Britain regaining Canada and the Confederate States of America becoming a British satellite.

CSA

Exactly the same as in the real world except its Westernmost claim territories (west of Texas) these are part of Mexico.

They have strong British support who want to use them as a stepping stone to return to North America.


Ethiopia is independent and controls the Sudan and the West African coast. It is at war with Britain and is loosing badly.

China is very weak but a reform minded Emperor has taken the throne.


Nations from strongest to weakest:
France
Britain
Russia, Germany
Spain, America
CSA, Japan
Persia
China
India, Ethiopia