"Alternate History: What If Napoleon Conquered Europe?" Topic

Interesting…

YouTube link

Amicalement
Armand

I thought he pretty much did conquer Europe.

"I thought he pretty much did conquer Europe."
Not the most important bit.

He did.

I refuse to do this again.

Brechtel, please feel free. One question, though: why does no one on TMP ever run posts imagining the glorious utopia which would have resulted from Louis XIV's conquest of Europe? Or Philip II? Why are hereditary near-absolute monarchy, censors, secret police and arbitrary imprisonment somehow better when carried out by His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I, Emperor of France and King of Italy?

Taller hats.

Good point Robert. We just played a 15mm Age of Valour game Thursday, hypothetical 1706ish. The Elector Max vs.Eugene. The outnumbered French and Allies defeated the Army of the Low Countries, victory points and casualties.
It got me thinking about what if, several early resounding French victories during the WSS.
What would be the long term effects.
I know that the long dragged out war bankrupt France, a short war would obviously be better.

He did conquer Europe. It was the staying conquered that he had trouble with…

The tide comes in, the tide goes out.

Just like Britain once had an Empire and now they haven't got diddly squat.

Hey! I resent that observation!

We still have the Isle of Wight…

Brechtel, please feel free. One question, though: why does no one on TMP ever run posts imagining the glorious utopia which would have resulted from Louis XIV's conquest of Europe? Or Philip II? Why are hereditary near-absolute monarchy, censors, secret police and arbitrary imprisonment somehow better when carried out by His Imperial Majesty Napoleon I, Emperor of France and King of Italy?

Who here has mentioned 'the glorious utopiq'? Outlandish statements that misrepresent previous discussions are not helpful.

And Napoleon was never Emperor of France, he was Emperor of the French, which is quite different. Just as the Napoleonic marshalate were not marshals of France, but marshals or the Empire.

MiniPigs… dude! (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

And the Falklands 😘

Ha!….

Amicalement
Armand

There is the famous apocryphal story about the American tourist who gets into a London Black Cab. The cabbie asks him if he is enjoying his trip, and the guy says he's having a great time as he has never been to Europe before.

The cabbie replies "you ain't there yet, mate. This is Britain."

Europe is a geographical as well as a political expression. Britain is geographically in Europe. England is part of Britain.

"Germany" in 1815 was a geographical expression, as was "America". You could be American but not of the 13 states nor even of north America.

Fog in the Channel

Minipigs:

"Time has conquered; the wind has blown away
Caesar and Alexander and all their sway;
Tara and Troy have made no longer stay -
England, too, will have its day."

(Lyrical translation from the original Irish)

Unfortunately for Napoleon they hadn't invented the rib c/w outboard motor in 1805

(smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Brechtel198, you wrote that:

"And Napoleon was never Emperor of France, he was Emperor of the French, which is quite different. Just as the Napoleonic marshalate were not marshals of France, but marshals or the Empire."

I'm sure that distinction was greatly appreciated by Spanish civilians who were pillaged and ill-treated by French troops who had invaded their country…

Arthur1815 +1

"Emperor of the French" sounds a bit like that other French megalomaniac who wanted to subjugate Europe, thus starting the 2nd Hundred Years War – 'L'etat c'est moi.'

Mind you, probably more apt to ask "How can you govern a country which has 246 varieties of cheese?" (de Geulle, another man, like Napoleon III with delusions of grandeur.)

Just like Britain once had an Empire and now they haven't got diddly squat.

Wrong.

It is now known as the British Commonwealth.

"…I'm sure that distinction was greatly appreciated by Spanish civilians who were pillaged and ill-treated by French troops who had invaded their country…"

Well, in honor of the truth… they also appreciated the british in Badajoz…

link

San Sebastian… Ciudad Rodrigo…Vitoria… etc.

War is hell….

Amicalement
Armand

WW2 started when Japan attacked two colonies of the American empire, Hawaii and the Philippines.

link

indeed, we are in an english-speaking forum, with a very heavy british biais, and it is very curious how the anti"-nappy-boney" british party as usual is recalling "Spain" systematically as if it was "the" definitive argument against Napoleon, they imagine their British Army like it was probably viewed as the great liberators and allied of this country while the others were of course the bad, the evil and etc…

they forget that the guerrilleros and the british were very very very very far to be considered like that by the Spaniards and until today, that it was the first Spanish civil war of the 19th century,
concerning your own "desilusions of grandeur", sorry but the first massive emigration of Spaniards into France was not in 1939 with la Retirada nor before in the years 1880-1930 due to economic reasons nor with the Carlists but in 1814 in your hated Napoleonic France following the French Army, I suggest to them to use the so-called "Peninsular War" and so-called Guerra de Independencia as a definitive anti-Napoleonic argument con muchisimas mas precauciones …
if the forum would count more spanish-speaking people many here would have surprises about the british army's illusions of grandeur in the so-called "napoleonic wars" in continental Europe including seen from Spain

Armand,
I did not seek to deny or excuse the atrocities committed by British troops upon the inhabitants of cities they took by storm in the Peninsula, but to point out the irrelevance of Brechtel's distinction between 'Emperor of France' and 'Emperor of the French' so far as those 'visited' by the French Army were concerned.

There would, of course, have been no such sieges had the Emperor not chosen to force the Spanish royal family to abdicate and to install his brother as King of Spain…

Regarding the Spanish sieges. Under the Rules of War, once the attackers a fortified city that had a breach in the walls and failed to surrender the city could be stormed and sacked. The French Commanders knew this be still chose to follow the orders from Napoleon not to surrender. Once a fortress were stormed any commander and officers lost control of the army, this was a pattern going back to the 17thC. I do note that cities in Spain stormed by the French were treated with kid gloves.

Would I be right in thinking that the traffic from Spain to France in 1814 consisted in no small part of the class of Spaniard dubbed afrancesado and, like those who collaborated with invaders in other countries at other times, might not be treated kindly after siding with a French usurper and the armies that supported him?