StarDestroyer.Net BBS

This thread is on similar lines as the previous one involving the Empire of the Rising Sun.

1-Could it have been possible that the Napoleonic Empire as of before the Invasion of Russia could have endured
2-How would the 19th and 20th centuries have unfolded with a massive Nation dominating much of Europe under the Tricolour flag?

Zor

Ah that wacky Zor!

1) No. English policy was dedicated to balance of power. The English would never allow a continental power to control the whole of Europe. Aside from Russia, the armies of the revolution had problems in Spain, Austria and Prussia.

2) We get a very differant world. For starters, there would be no world wars. That means that the countries of Europe don't go bankrupt and colonialism doesn't end. The US and Russia never assend to become global superpowers.

Also, Napoleon gets recognized as the greatest man in human history. He creates a massive AND enduring empire, something few others in history has managed to accomplish by themselves.

Zor wrote:1-Could it have been possible that the Napoleonic Empire as of before the Invasion of Russia could have endured

Only if it could consistently crush the British coalitions by military force. Naturally, that's not very likely. As of Tilsit, Napoleon pretty much doomed himself by handing Prussian and Austria humiliating peace treaties that they'd never be able to accept (Prussia was reduced to a mere rump state and Austria lost Tyrol and Carinthia, places Habsburgs had ruled since the Emperor Charles V). So long as Britain had the money, it could always count on armies popping up to challenge Napoelon.

2-How would the 19th and 20th centuries have unfolded with a massive Nation dominating much of Europe under the Tricolour flag?

A massive arms race between Britain and France, pretty much, with a lot of colonial squabbling to act as a powder keg for wars. Beyond that, who can say? A revolution would easily cause the empire to implode into another republic: eventually, you're going to get an incompetent Napoleonic heir.

As the self-declared heir to the French Revolution, Napoleon was diametrically at odds with the rest of Europe and a large Napoleonic Empire dominating the continent would never have been tolerated. By the time of Waterloo Napoleon had essentially bled France dry, and it's very unlikely that he would have been able to sustain any kind of war effort for much longer.

TC Pilot wrote:Only if it could consistently crush the British coalitions by military force. Naturally, that's not very likely. As of Tilsit, Napoleon pretty much doomed himself by handing Prussian and Austria humiliating peace treaties that they'd never be able to accept (Prussia was reduced to a mere rump state and Austria lost Tyrol and Carinthia, places Habsburgs had ruled since the Emperor Charles V). So long as Britain had the money, it could always count on armies popping up to challenge Napoelon.

Yeah, but neither Prussia or Austria were prepared to risk war with France until the Grande Armee had been annihilated in Russia; and even then, it took a virtual military coup in Prussia to secure their entry, whilst Austria only entered once the writing on the wall was very clear. Even then Austria was prepared (IIRC) to secure a limited peace with Napoleon.

IMO it could have been possible, but really (as is always the answer) Napoleon's personality ensured it wouldn't. Had he not entered the Peninsular for an attempted 'quick fix' of the fleet problem, been more conciliatory towards Russia (keeping in mind Alexander II was something of a liberal in his early years) and continued to consolidate his position after Tilsit, the Napoleonic system might have endured. But ultimately...he didn't.