What if Napoleon didn´t over-extend himself?

[Dr Strangelove]

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

No. At the battle of New Orleans Andrew Jackson enlisted the services of local pirates to bolster his small battalions of regulars and the local militia.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by 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.

How were they going to pull that off. The reason that Napoleon III was able to put Maxmillian on the throne of Mexico in 1862 is because Mexico had p.o.'ed the European powers by defaulting on loans. The French arrived with the blessing of the British. The US was of course tied down with its own Civil War. Without the US being distracted and British support there's no way that an Austria prince is going to wind up ruling Mexico.

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

I don't understand how you propose that France and Spain would manage to retain control of Latin America and the Caribbean. In order to do so they would have to obtain naval superiority.

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.

These weren't going to happen without naval superiority.

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

Napoleon had the chance to procure three innovations, but he refused because he wa actually a rather conservative person. These three inventions, each offered to him by their inventors were: steamships, percussion caps and steam railroads. You could have fun with the supposition that he acquired all three.

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


He coulda won if he'd have gone in to establish a Repubic of Spain and a Republic of Russia. Then the locals would have been on his side. But invading to extend the borders of the French Empire led to guerilla wars against him.

There actually was an attempt to establish a liberal regime in Spain, but reactionary elements rose up against it. The guerilla movement in Spain really was as much ideological as it was nationalistic. The Spanish had very little love for their royalty, but the clergy in Spain had planted into the minds of the Spanish people that the French were the enemy of the Holy Church. The Spanish fought against liberalism as much as they fought for their country.

Anyway, by 1809 any pretense that the French weree fighting for democratic ideals had long perished. They perished when at his coronation Napoleon snatched the crown from the Pope's hand and placed it on his head all by himself.

[Heraclitus]

Originally posted by Dr Strangelove
I don't understand how you propose that France and Spain would manage to retain control of Latin America and the Caribbean. In order to do so they would have to obtain naval superiority. These weren't going to happen without naval superiority.

Most of the French colonies I proposed where French in the real world, despite British naval superiority. The only exception is Quebec but like I said the US allied with France at an opportune moment. Egypt was also not French but British, but again I assume Napoleon won in this world, would it be beyond belief that he would go back to Egypt and have another try? Especially with the Ottoman empire imploding.


Also the Napoleonic wars where the reason Spain lost Latin America, is it not unimaginable for France to get those back for its vassal Spain in case of its victory.


Also I didn't specify how Napoleon won, him implementing those three innovations may have been the reason he won.


So you think an independent Mexico would be better? Ok, I suppose Germany is strong enough with Scandinavia, Austria and African and Asian colonies.

You have a point about the Caribbean. I wonder would it be too much of a stretch to assume Cuba became a US state in this world and is now part of the Confederacy with France and England having each one city on different islands?

[Dry]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
Most of the French colonies I proposed where French in the real world, despite British naval superiority. The only exception is Quebec but like I said the US allied with France at an opportune moment. Egypt was also not French but British, but again I assume Napoleon won in this world, would it be beyond belief that he would go back to Egypt and have another try? Especially with the Ottoman empire imploding.

This reminds me a book on the french navy around that time.
There was a chapter on France geopolicy. How they view the situation and what was their goal.
Even before the american revolution, French had understood they had not naval superiority in the atlantic and that maintaining their american colonies was a costly business.
The american revolutuion was in the air and they thought their carabean colonies would be cought in the revolution.
They were thus in search for alternatives.
Their specific plan to replace the carabean colonies (producing their sugar) was Egypt. The main reason for France to look toward Egypt, was to replace far away, transatlantic colonies, with closer, mediteranean ones. Their studies had proven that sugar and cotton could be produced in Egypt.
In fact, beyond the specific case of Egypt, their big idea was to make the Mediteranean sea, their sea. Atlantic for the Brits, Mediteranean, for the French.
This was the french strategic plans, even before the french revolution.
The French revolution tried to implement, the first step: Egypt. That's why Napoleon was sent there.

After getting power, Napoleon decided to abandon the french american colonies. Not that he had no interest, but strategically speaking, they were not sustainable, they would have cost too much energy to maintain.

If you want a plausible Napoleon victory, then you might consider France achieving her goals: ally with USA to weaken UK; give all the french american colonies to USA; build a french empire around the mediteranee; leave only Spain and Turkey off their control, but but give them all North Africa, Middle East, Greece and all Med. small Islands.


My plausible scenario would be:
Spain and England ally to share the Atlantic/Americas. For game purpose only - very unlikely in the real world - : Portugal might have become so close to the Sanish/Brits that they become part of the comonwealth. Give portugese colonies to England, Portugal homeland to Spain.

France and USA have allied and have decided that Americas are USA playground, Europe and Africa are French playground. Each one will stay on their side of the Atlantic. Give all French colonies to USA, give France most of mediteranean countries. And a lot of African ones.

Germany: has focussed on the Baltic. Same as France, make the baltic sea german (you may leave St Peterburg russian if you like). You may give them Poland and Austria, but don't give them access to the mediteranean sea.
I do not see any plausible scenario for german remote colonies, except some neutrality toward the Spain/Brit alliance that would allow Germany to colonize some worthless colonies.

Russia: As you stated, she lost part of her european side to the Germs, but they still hold St Peterburg and Sevastopol.

Turkey: independant. She is too important for all players, so they have come to some international agreement, that no one would get her.

[Heraclitus]

Ok giving all the French colonies to USA seems reasonable as does giving Greece to France.


Keeping Turkey independant also seems doable since


But a Spanis-British Alliance is a bit much. What if I make Portugal a British City and make most of Brazil British too while making Spain French and assume Bolivar's dream of a United States of South America came into being?

[Dr Strangelove]

No, giving the French colonies to the US is not reasonable. Despite the fact that some US frigates performed well agaqinst British frigates the US reaqlly didn't have the means to project her power into the Caribbean. The British still ruled supreme o the oceans and seas. Did you know that by the end of the Napoleonic Wars the Royal Navy had captured or sunk more than 90% of the world's non-British shipping?

[Barnabas]

The independece of Latin America happened because Napoleon deposed the spanish king put and his brother as king of Spain.

If that had not happened, no revolts in Latin America.

Even if England ruled all over the seas, the spanish colonies would have remained self ruling but nominally loyal, waiting for the war to end.

The spanish colonies never relied on Spain to defend themselves from the attacks of the enemies of Spain, because there was nothing Spain could do, it was always the locals, if you want to check out some information try to read about the brittish attempt to conquer Cartagena in the 18 century, and the two british invasions of Buenos Aires during the napoleonic wars, they must have wiki articles.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/British_invasions_of_the_R%C3%ADo_de_la_Plata

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Cartagena_de_Indias

[Dr Strangelove]

Originally posted by Barnabas
The independece of Latin America happened because Napoleon deposed the spanish king put and his brother as king of Spain.

If that had not happened, no revolts in Latin America.

In Heraclitus' proposed scenario:

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.

Yes, I'm aware of England's abortive attempts to gain control of the colonies spain lost. IIRC some British newspapers also did not miss the irony of England, who claimed to be saving the world from French tyranny, was at the same time enthusiastically trying to expand her overseas empire. There's a famous political cartoon of Napoleon and Pitt carving up pieces of the globe together.