Lets say that France never invaded Russia or had defeated the Russians completely and anexed Russia, or that Wellington was crushed during the peninsula wars in Spain/Portugal…or at Waterloo. There were (seemingly) myriad chances for France to retain its empire and for Napoleon to keep his thrown. Feel free to speculate on the most likely if you wish…or even the most outrageous.
My question though is what would Europe be today if France had won in the end, defeated the British or at least forced them to a peace treaty (and what would have happened to the British Empire considering both of those alternatives?). What would the impacts have been on the world? Would a French Empire still rule a united Europe today? Perhaps this French empire would have become a united Republic? How would Napoleon be looked at today had this happened? How would history be different (or the same) with a French empire stretching from the English Channel to the Steppes of Russia? Having conquered Europe and put the British down would France have continued to expand outward? To Asia? Africa? The America’s?
I know this has been debated before but thought I’d ask for some fresh insights into this alternative history. What Ifs are always fun.
The most likely probability is that the Napoleonic Empire would have faced the same fate most similar empires faced - once the founder departs, his successors can’t keep the family business running. Napoleon’s brothers and son didn’t seem to have the same abilities that the man himself had. Once Napoleon died, the Empire would have broken up when no single figure was strong enough to dominate the others and everybody tried to get their own piece.
If Napoleon had complete the conquest of Europe and I am assuming this means from Portugal to the Urals.
His Empire could have live beyond him. Charles Martel’s started the Franks down the road to Empire that Charlemagne solidified. I believe it lasted several generations and actually grew before it split.
Napoleon would have had time to strengthen the Empire and probably have begun an aggressive campaign into the Middle East and North Africa. His Great Nephew who took the Throne, as Napoleon III was fairly competant. If he had a consolidated European Empire to run he may have done a good job. I doubt the Empire would have got to the Americas. But North Africa and Middle East would have been fairly easy. Could the European Federation have taken the UK out. I would think so and if it was early enough, lets say in the 1860’s, Britain not only would not have had any help but Ireland and possibly Scotland would have aided Europe. How long would consolidation of all these lands take? If a proper military structure was built before internal politics broke up the Empire, the entire 20th century would be quite different.
I think the Empire would still fail as communism probably would have broke it up eventually.
Didn’t Napoleon have a son? Why wouldn’t he have inherited, assuming Napoleon was master of Europe and lived to a moderately old age? I think he was only in his 40’s (IIRC) when he was conquering Europe. He could have lived 20 or so more years if he wasn’t imprisoned on a small island with nothing to live for.
You probably wouldn’t see an French empire that spanned Europe. If you look at what Napoleon did do, in terms of actual annexation on the continent. was to annex parts of Italy (and later, Holland). What he preferred to do was to set up puppet states, like the Kingdoms of Holand, Spain and Naples, all ruled by his brothers, and the Confederation of the Rhine, and the Duchy of Warsaw, ruled by his allies. There’s no reason to think that he wouldn’t have done that elsewhere.
If anything, you might have seen liberal democracies develop in Europe sooner than they did. The French Revolution was a liberal revolution, and, with Napoleon’s defeat, the victorious powers set out to crush liberalism everywhere in Europe. With a Napoleonic vctory, you might not have seen the backlash.
He had a son, Napoleon Joseph. But Napoleon Senior was already 42 when his son was born. It’s unlikely the boy would have been much older than his twenties when his father died (in fact, he was 10). So while Nappy Joe would have certainly been the official heir, it’s very likely one of more of Napoleon’s brothers, Joseph, Louis, or Jerome, would have felt they had a better claim than their young nephew did. And if for some reason, unexpected harmony broke out in the Bonaparte family (which certainly wasn’t happening when Napoleon was alive), there were several Marshals in the background who would have taken a shot (literally) at seizing the Empire.
Virtually every powerful ruler has run into this: they’re never followed by a smooth succession. Alexander, Caesar, Muhammed, Cromwell, Lenin. Personally, if I were Raul Castro, I’d be worried.
Well, this assumes Napoleon would have died when he did in history. However, as ruler of France and parts of Europe he might have lived considerably longer…long enough so that his son would have made the succession. I guess you guys might be right that after his death the empire would have fragemented…sort of like what happened after Alexander died I guess. But if it had, wouldn’t todays Europe still be different? Wouldn’t the national borders be different? I thought France had actually anexed Holland and that the Dutch people actually considered themselves French. So, France would potentially have been a much larger nation than it is today. And…would there even be a Germany at all? Russian history also might have been quite different if the Tzars were deposed and one of Napoleons marshals or another brother or cousin was in charge.
One should remember that this wasn’t a total war time… you didn’t annex countries or significantly change their power structure even when victory was total.
At best I think France would be a bit bigger than they were… and Britain would eventually have dominated the seas anyway. Making France a bit poorer. While the Prussians and Germans might have gone the same way towards militarism and very effective military machine… and broken up Greater France.
Naopoleon was quite good in redoing France... but he sucked at managing the conquered and defeated nations.
Er…I thought thats exactly what France and Napoleon DID. I remember reading somewhere that Napoleon was re-writing the national boundaries at whim (as well as putting his family and marshals as puppets on the various European thrones)…and I seem to remember France directly anexing huge swaths of land directly.
He did seem to screw up badly in Spain and Russia, no doubt. But I think other European nations were fairly happy under Frances thumb. If France had managed to get the British out of the way I think things on the continent would have calmed down quite a bit giving Napoleon time to consolidate his power over Europe.
“Huge” swaths… they took a province here… and a dukedom there… but nothing like we would see in the future with whole major nations occupied.
Most of these he put on thrones were in minor or weak states. Naples, Holland and Spain for example. Austria and Prussia maintaned their status quo even when beaten several times. About being “fairly happy under Frances thumb” I don’t know. Nationalism wasn’t as evident as in the future or in Spain.
Your "what if" would be clearer if we determine if Britain and/or Russia were beaten. Certainly if France had taken the role of Sea Power from Britain they would have become the great colonizers. Eventually though Germany would grow and take over land dominance...