[JamesTornC]

wasn't that all of Italy? Also what of Austria?

[kenowinnumberss]

What If?-Forum.

[Nosmas]

No way he wins in Russia the way this was moving away from being only regular, open battle-centered warfare (which he could have won maybe with better preps, but not the irregular part).

[didrexx]

Napoleon had to overextend himself, otherwise he wouldn't have been Napoleon. It's like asking what would've happened if Alexander hadn't continued into India.

[kentbrookug]

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. Against father czar? That would be very difficult to achieve. The Russian elites were loyal even when Moscow was lost. Even trying to gain support by freeing serfs would be difficult IMO.

I can't really imagine a republican Russia in the 19th century, certainly not in the first half of it. Enlightened thought which Nappy stood for (to some extent) was indeed popular in certain Russian circles but many of them were aristocrats themselves (prime example Cath the Great herself) and tried to couple enlightened principles with autocratic rule of the czar, who would reform the country "from above", since the vast majority of people, esp. peasants and serfs were seen as unfit to lead any modernization out of themselves (like the French did).

For a more modern, even republican Russia you need a real civic society which gives input for changes in law, education, administration, a beginning industrialization etc. which did not exist in the mainly agrarian Russia in the same way it did in western Europe. And freeing serfs only would not automatically have created these conditions, as Russia itself learned when serfdom was finally abolished in the 1860ies among other reforms then under the impression of the lost Crimean War which increased pressure to modernize drastically.

[stutnerman]

For one thing, I guess a couple of things would not exist that do exist today. A selection:

• Belgium. If he hadn't overextended himself, what is nowadays Belgium would have been France and stayed France.
• The Dutch language. It would have been as good as rooted out (both Flanders and The Netherlands gone).
• The Lion at Waterloo. As Napoleon was never defeated, it wouldn't have been erected.

Food for further thought:

• 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?
• Would communism have risen or would the French Republic have been able to push its values onto Russia over time?

...

[Tyncneiff]

Napoleon had to overextend himself, otherwise he wouldn't have been Napoleon. It's like asking what would've happened if Alexander hadn't continued into India. Yes, but you could turn this thing around. Let's say - what if he would have died before he could overextend himself?

[stuntduood]

Wasn't the age of piracy over by then?

[dWSOj26H]

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.

[Vegeinvalge]

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.

[DoctorNiCYDEn]

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.

[irridgita]

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.

[ricochettty]

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.

[VrQsgM7c]

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

[FoetAgerhot46]

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

[77rexulceme]

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.

[Figelac]

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?

[abOfU9nJ]

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?

[mpegdvdclip]

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...Do_de_la_Plata

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_...gena_de_Indias