"What would Britain look like if Napoleon had won the Battle?" Topic

"It's the 200th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. The Duke of Wellington's victory over Napoleon's army in 1815 put an end to Napoleon's ambitions to rule all of Europe.

But what if Napoleon had won?

"Waterloo is interesting, because it's won by the forces of reaction and Blucher and Wellington are supreme reactionaries," General Sir Richard Shirreff told BBC's Newsnight programme.

"They are in a sense beating the forces unleashed by the French revolution."…"
Full article here
link

Amicalement
Armand

exactly the same.

No Waterloo Station or bridge; no pubs bearing names such as Waterloo, Wellington,&c.; in my home town no Anglesey Road, Uxbridge Street &c., &c.

Not much of a difference. No bank holiday. Less statues of the duke…..

I suppose it might have a minor ripple, losing the battle, Wellngton would lack the clout to make pm. Delaying Catholic emancipation or even postponing it for a few decades.

Quite possibly the biggest ripple from the Anglo-Germans losing at Waterloo would be no Belgium.

Napoleon is still defeated by the combined Austro-Russians with some help from Prussia, but GB's role in Europe is seriously dented.

Eventually history swings back into lien with what we now know, but without the boost for Nationalism that the Belgians gained from being part of the Coalition that beat Napoleon, would there be the drive for independence in 1830 ?

Presumably Abba would have sung 'Waterloo' in French about 'at Waterloo, Wellington did surrender'

The Oriental Club would have needed someone else to be the first chairman…

Couple of battles lost wouldn't change that much – any one remember Gross-Görschen and Bautzen? Or even the six days campaigns in 1814…..

The Navy still commanded the sea and the British banking system would still supply gold to keep the 7th Coalition fighting.

The knock on effects. So we presume the British are thrown off the continent. The Prussians would be significantly defeated. That would lave the Austrians and Russians who were not advancing in concert. So Austria loses, Russia sues for peace. So, assuming L'Empereur decides he is tired of fighting (the people are!) the French border will likely cover the Rhine lands including Belgium and Netherlands.

If we keep all things equal, that would make it pretty tough on the German's in WWI as now they would be fighting on a front entirely under 1 command. There could be no sneak attack through Belgium and the Netherlands. In WW2, France might be able to complete the Maginot line thus slowing or discouraging the German invasion and giving France time to build up even further. The US might not have to fight in Europe. Russia might not swallow up eastern Europe. All kinds of stuff like that. The Geo-Political landscape might likely be significantly different.

Napoleon would have been exiled a a while later. He didn't win a navy.

A defeat at Waterloo would have reduced Great Britain's standing in Europe but a lot depends on how the campaign plays out

It may be that the Austrians and Russians invade and beat Napoleon, ensuring an Austrio-Russian alliance that speaks ill for Prussia's hopes to dominate Germany (this would, at least in my humble opinion, be a good thing)

Alternately the Prussians get beaten soundly, and the Austrian Emperor recalls that Napoleon is his beloved son-in-law; the British leadership who are patriotic but practical and who have been very unimpressed with the recycled Bourbons reckon that their money could be better spent in other places and a negotiated peace leaves Napoleon in France, maybe with a bit of Belgium as well – again the Prussian role in Europe is much diminished, probably for the general good

In neither case would Napoleon invade the UK and the effects on UK politics would be ripple effects, not direct; the Royal Navy was not going away no matter what happened on the fields of Waterloo

Napoleon would have been exiled a a while later. He didn't win a navy.

Cancer is cancer. Napoleon still dies in 1826 of whatever was ailing him. Stomach cancer?

I like your thread Who asked this joker! (smile)
(The first one!).

Interesting to think what would happen if Napoleon remain at his throne but died in 1826.

Who succeeded to the throne?
His young son?

Amicalement
Armand

Not only for Britain, Prussia, Russia, etc. The whole European history would have changed completely. Think back, there will be no united Germany states, no Franco Prussian War, No Crimean War, no WWI, WWII. What 100 years peace after Waterloo? Given time if Napoleon had lived long enough, what possibilty would there be for a united Europe. How great it is for EU now? Anyone tired talking about Waterloo? I am!

Who succeeded to the throne?

Napoleon II. This would probably cement good relations between France and Austria. Then we would also have Louis-Napoléon Bonaparte (AKA Napoleon III) who likely would have ascended the throne after Napoleon II died in 1832.

The French would totally refuse to speak English, oh wait….

It's businesses making business decisions.

Check your news source of choice to align with whatever happens to be their current stance on capitalism.

1826?

1821.

Heh???? I did not make that 23Jun comment? I think I have been hacked.

In neither case would Napoleon invade the UK and the effects on UK politics would be ripple effects, not direct; the Royal Navy was not going away no matter what happened on the fields of Waterloo.

Don't be too sure. The Admiralty was extremely concerned about the pace of French ship-building from the Peace of Amiens onwards, and gave a huge sigh of relief at the First Abdication. Contrary to popular myth, the French did not give up after Trafalgar – viz. the attempts to seize the Danish, Spanish and Portuguese fleets in 1807-08, and the brief agreement to take over the Russian fleet following Tilsit. A re-invigorated Napoleon would not have left the Royal Navy unchallenged – he could not have afforded to.

Agree!

Amicalement
Armand

Simple and definitive answer, same as for all important "what if" questions: nobody has the slightest idea what would have happened. Uncountable interlocking variables at play.

Cancer, or too much teas with Sir Hudson Lowe, who, in the tradition of the Dread Pirate Roberts, made himself immune to aresenic.

Cui bono? Bonaparte was worth more to Britain alive, a tool to keep the French king in line with.

Um, better food?

But no restaurants ever open when people want to eat.

No Great War and possible Irish Independence a hundred years earlier. The Great Famine might have been mitigated as well.

"The Great Famine might have been mitigated as well."

Irish Nationalists' potatos are immune to potato blight? Who knew?!

I think the assumption here is that the Irish Nationalists wouldn't have let their own people starve to death.

1) Given the track record of pre-1900 Irish Nationalist groups to do much more than get dunk and inform on each other, I doubt they could have fed the ducks in the local park, let alone a widely dispersed population of nine million plus.

2) Very few of the official death toll of one million actually STARVED to death. Ten years ago, a researcher from UCC's history department went on a tour of Ireland seeking out surviving death certificates for the 1845-1852 period. She found 660,000, of which less than 1 in 30 listed starvation or malnutrition as the cause of death. The most popular were cholera and typhus, which themselves were the result of people coming into the towns and cities to avail themselves of the – for the time – considerable level of relief that was provided.

3) The oft-cited "solution" of land re-distribution would have achieved nothing, since nobody in Ireland – rich or poor – used crop rotation at that time and everyone used the "half-and-half" method of re-sowing spuds (instead of seed potatoes) so the blight would have continued unabated. And we all know how well "collective farming" works on a national scale, don't we.

4) Much of the problem stemmed from environmental damage from the Great Storm of 1839 and the almost total loss of the Irish fishing fleet. The last decade of the mini-ice age of 1650-1850 also produced altered migration patterns for birds and fish which removed potential food sources.

5) The one thing they might have done was to stop Irish farmers and merchants reneging on the deal they struck with the incoming Whig government in 1847 to NOT export food to Europe until the blight had been dealt with. But that would still have left them with the problem of (a) compulsory purchase/seizure, and (b) transportation and distribution (which brings us nicely back to their organisational skills……).

Sorry, but the situation wasn't just the nasty old Brits hoping we'd all die off; the death tolls from the Famine were lower than in West Wales and the Western Isles and Highlands of Scotland (where the blight also struck); and the average national mortality rate in the 1845-1852 period was less than that in London over the same period.

Huge sums of money were raised by charities in England, many of them patronised by Queen Victoria (who, contrary to popular myth – ie lies – gave the equivalent of $4 USDM of her own money, not the £5.00 GBP usually quoted). A lot of this money got to Ireland and simply disappeared; Irish evangelists also refused food aid to Catholics unless they converted to Protestant versions of Christianity. I suspect some Nationalists of that era would have put a stop to these practices, but I very much doubt they'd have had the numbers or expertise to enforce such changes all across Ireland.

Very interesting thread my friend.

Amicalement
Armand

Heart of Oak are our ships,
Jolly Tars are our men,
We always are ready: Steady, boys, Steady!
We'll fight and we'll conquer again and again.

'nuff said

I am suprised how well some can read the future

Thanks for the Irish stuff SuperMax -I knew I was walking into a contentious area and I found your post very interesting.

It's also little-known that large portions of the population of the western mainland UK died/emigrated at the same time for exactly the same reasons. There are whole communities in these parts (Wales) who disappeared at the time. The only physical evidence remaining of these communities are village churches now standing in splendid isolation (and often ruined).