What If Napoleon Accepted The Frankfurt Proposal?
Vložit
- čas přidán 3. 02. 2023
- Watch next: "Every Significant Mongol Successor State; How The Mongols Fell in 1857"
• Every Significant Mong... -~-
#possiblehistory #napoleon #napoleonicwars #victoria #france #britain #congressofvienna
What if - in an alternate timeline - Napoleon had accepted the 1813 Frankfurt proposals? After being defeated in the battle of Leipzig Napoleon lost control over all lands East of the Rhine, resulting in a pause in hostilities. Metternich, the Austrian diplomatic, drafted a peacedeal to propose to Napoleon. France would retreat to their natural boundaries at the Rhine, Alps and Pyrenees. Napoleon would remain the emperor of this still formidable France, and the bloodshed would seize.
In our timeline Napoleon, being Napoleon, denied this peacedeal holding out hope for a total victory in the end. Soon though, this would prove unrealistic as the coalition forces marched on Paris. Napoleon attempted to negotiate, but as France's defeat appeared inevitable he was demanding too much. Napoleon got defeated and deposed in 1814.
But what if - in an alternate timeline - Napoleon did surrender in 1813, leaving France with their natural boundaries and a Bonaparte dynasty in charge?
If you like the content please like, comment and subscribe, it helps smaller channels like mine to get noticed!
If you want to support the channel you can go to my Patreon or become a member! You will get early access to video's and will be allowed to suggest priority video subjects!
/ possiblehistory
/ @possiblehistory
www.buymeacoffee.com/Possible...
Possible Extra's a channel where we do not necessarily history related stuff, like podcasts and more!
/ @theobserverph
Gaming Channel:
/ @deletedchannel1010
Feel free to follow or join our social media platforms:
/ possiblehistory
/ possiblehistor1
/ discord
/ possible_history0
Most of our music by Beta Records. He's great, check him out!
Link: goo.gl/peHHCX
A lot of other music by Kevin McLoad. The Copyrightfree Music Creator
/ kevinmacleodarchive
Thank you for watching! Consider subscribing for at least one (alternate) history video every single week. To help this video and my channel grow, please take the time to leave a like a comment, it really helps out immensely, even if you just comment something simple like "hi"
3 part alternate history request.
What if america purchased Canada west of Ruperts land.
What if america annexed northern Mexico.
What if america put effort into their territories gained during the Spanish American war. Industrialization, English education, military fortifications, american business.
@@JTL1776 you already gaind northern teritory,texsas,new mexsico...
@@JTL1776 due to political unstability in the region,there is chance of mexsicans revolting,it will put USA in 1800s Vietnam but in Mexsico
@@JTL1776 🤨🤨🤨
@@jokekopter2509 MANIFEST DESTINY.
Napoleon II admired his father a lot, and said that he preferred Josephine to have been his mother, so he would definitely carry on Napoleon's legacy
I don't blame him; his actual mother was A word I cannot say on CZcams.
His mother was... Less than affective to Napoleon the II...
But it is said that at least emperor Francis was very loving of him
What an utter chad.
@@savagedarksider7259 tell me
Also I think that’s not true
@@savagedarksider7259 Does it rhyme with punt?
With Napoleon's death, it isn't just the medical technology that pushes his death back.
The stress added by seeing everything he created brought to ruin surely took some years off of his life.
That, and the British poisoned him with arsenic
@@jkelsey555 Fact
@@jkelsey555 no
@@jkelsey555 *accidentally* poisoned him with arsenic (and he'd been subject to that all his life)...
the mercurous chloride that British doctors gave him to try and treat his many ailments, however...
@@jkelsey555If he was poisoned, it was virtually certain that it was by his French Doctors at the instigation of the French monarchy.
0:39 for all everyone talks about “invading Russia in winter”, Napoleon very clearly lost 3/4 of his forces before reaching Moscow, and 1/2 of his force before even reaching the halfway point, mostly between Vilnius and Vitebsk.
Most people only see this period of history in superficial view. The Russian campaign wasn't what ended Napoleon. It was the Spanish invasion. Even after losing in Russia he had a good chance of winning in Germany, but his troops were tied down in Spain.
@@NeverGoingToGiveYouUp000 Napoleon had around 300,000 men in Spain while he invaded Russia. He had excellent marshals like Massena, Soult, and Suchet and if Napoleon used a fraction of the troops he would have used in Russia and redeployed them to Spain, he would have won the peninsular campaign and Britain would have been badly beaten.
@@andyying1770 Exactly, all those 300,000 troops were tied down, he could've used them during the German campaign. With all those troops he could've regained his influence in Germany back and defeated the sixth coalition.
Masséna was good, but he was already way past his prime, Soult is a decent general, but as an independent commander he wasn't that good. Instead of putting Masséna incharge he should've put Suchet or went himself, had suchet been at the battle of Vitoria, Wellington would've been beaten. It's said if Lannes didn't die he would've been the one to lead the troops in Spain instead of Masséna.
So many things we know now from hindsight.
@@andyying1770 how would he supply those troops?
Exactly, having thousands more ( even HUNDREDS of thousands) would have meant nothing because they wouldn't have been able to supply them
you could say all of Metternich's fears were eventually realized with the Austro Prussian war, British empire, and Russian empire or Soviet union
Wasn't Metternich the one who fed Prussia with half of Saxony? Really stupid move. Also giving Prussia Rhineland gave them alot of industrial power.
@@alexzero3736 he gave Prussia these to not give them Poland back. The goal was, by shifting Prussia west, to force France and Prussia to directly fight against each other if one tried to invade the lowlands
@@alexzero3736 He betted on France wanting to gain their territory back, the Prussians wouldn't be able to defend it since they don't have access, and lose the land. The problem in this, France never tried to regain their territory because they thought everybody would destroy them if they did, which probably wouldve happened
@@KaotikBOOO It did work but the time delay was so long by the time it happened Austria is now allied with Germany
@@alexzero3736so why was Austria given their lands back when they were the last one to enter the coalition? According to your logic Austria does not deserve territory since Prussia doesnt
The situation of Napoleon II is very tricky in this timeline. If he's too ambitious to restore french hegemony, he can lead his empire to disaster. If he's too conservative, he can trigger another french revolution (french people frenchpeopling). Also I think Great Britain will do anything to ruin his plans and isolate him diplomatically.
It depends on what you mean by conservative. If he's as liberal and enlightened as his father, the Republicans would have likely stayed a minority and would not have gain enough influence to launch a revolution.
Most of the revolutions of the XIXth century were becauuse the monarchy was too harsh on people, and replaced them with other monarchies. I think that Napoleon II or Napoleon III would have played along, instead of opposing each reform like the kings did. For example, the revolution that pushed away the last king of France was about lowering the tax needed to vote. Honestly, I don't see that being an issue in the French Empire, because the elections wouldn't matter as much with a powerful but popular leader.
The problem would be if the emperor ever became unpopular, then they could have a revolution and be replaced by anyone ^^'
@@krankarvolund7771 and he was also sickly and died young in our timeline
What if Sweden won the great northern war.
This is a popular suggestion I see.
I'm down for it.
As a Swede, yes please. Here, have a like.
Even better; What if Gustavus became Emperor of the HRE?
If only it had happened
I am a swede. I know charles XII and Sweden won't many battles where the Russians, poles, Danes and so on outnoumbered the Swedish forces.
This where the famous scorched earth tacticts comes in where Tsar Peter and the Russians ran away from Charles XII and the smaller swedish forces while keeping small forces behind for the swedes to fight. The russians expected to lose all of the small engangments which they of course did. All of this happned while main army of the Russians went around and scorched most of Belarus, Ukraine and parts of modern day russia due to this, it lowered the Swedish supplies so much that outside Poltava the Russians decided set camp and wait for the Swedish army to come. Same strategy they have tried at different times for some years up until Poltava and it had been a total failure so far for the Russians until the battle of Poltava happened, where the Russians defeated a big chunk of the Swedish army the Swedish were still outnumbered at the battle of Poltava. The russian was more than twice the size of the Swedish force. Even with all this tsar peter almost lost the battle of Poltava but due to having more supplies and a bigger force the Russians managed to turn the battle and defeat the Swedish force.
Napoleon 2 was also a Habsburg. I think Austria and France would have been more closely aligned. I imagine the complete isolation of Spain from Italy as a consequence
Im 6 months late but this would cause Italy not being united aswell
France with natural borders will never not be satisfying to look at.
Best france
@@hugosetiawan8928 Prussia coping and seething rn
@@rebeccalassetter1726 A small price to pay for salvation.
@@rebeccalassetter1726 Amen
I think Britain would likely support the French side of the Great War, Nd for a few reasons.
Reason One: Public Sympathy
With the Napoleonic Wars being quite in the past, I think the enlightened liberalism of France would be a convincing factor the the public. I could easily see relations between the British and French populations bettering over shared enlightened values like equality, abolitionism, and forms of parliamentarianism.
The public may also have sympathy for many of the independence movements, and these more harshly affect the Russian bloc than the French bloc, with the primary ones in the French bloc being beneficial to British strategical positions. Sympathy with the Poles and Hungarians would likely be pretty strong.
Reason Two: Containing Russia
France has been mostly contained. With the Treaty of Frankfurt, Britain was able to gain an, allbeit half, victory over France and contain them away from continental hegemony. The same cannot be said for Russia, who has a far easier time in expanding into places where Britain has a far more vital interest; the Middle East.
Between France and Russia, Russia simply poses a far larger threat to British interests in this region. I could also see France being far less colonial in this timeline due to having stronger Napoleon nostalgia, and thus prerfering bettering their continental position over their colonial one. This would put them even less in contention with Britain.
Reason Three: more balanced of power in a French victory
Britain would likely know that France would find it far harder to establish hegemon over large regions of Europe than Russia. Russia could easily expand their sphere into Orthodox Europe and the middle east, while France pretty much only has Italy (both establishing influence in border Germany). The French victory would therefore continue a better balance of power, and therefore be more beneficial to British interests
Great war won't happen since Germany won't be united.
I would argue against reason one, simply because fighting the French was a British tradition.
@@Barwasser And yet in 1914 (and earlier in Crimea against Russia) this wasn't the case.
I wouldn't be so certain France would be less colonial, especially if a new ruler wishes to show that they too can be an expander like Napoleon. The other points, I agree.
@@Barwasser That could change though, heck Queen Victoria personally conducted diplomacy with Napoleon III in our REAL timeline, out of a desire to end the Anglo-French feud. A common enemy and some shared goals can be enough.
Speaking of the 1848 Revolutions. Would you make a video of What would happened if the 1848 Revolutions succeded?
This one would be awesome
The nationalism would ramp up into overdrive even more than OTL. Constant ethnic warfare would engulf Europe from about 1860 onwards, possibly leading to socialist revolutions in the exhausted republics.
This would be brilliant - constitutional German empire, independent Big Hungary, you name it
It suceeded in France
@@donpollo3154 Republic of Great Germany
Literally all of Europe had turned against him, being pushed from all sides, all the nations were still fearful of what he could do when all the odds were stacked against him.
A few suggestions:
What if America didn't return to isolationism after ww1 and declared war on Germany together with France and Britain?
What if the Ente and the central powers made a "nothing or very little changes" peace after Russia made peace?
What if Friedrich III (The 100 Days) Kaiser lived to the age of ~90?
What if England won the 100 Years war?
What if France completely won the War of the Spanish Succession?
Great vid as always btw.
First one is pretty obvious, USA would bring troops to Europe in 1940 just like UK did but with more numbers, and with more numbers allies could successfully defend Belgium and France, Ardennes breakthrough won't happen turning the war in Hitler's nightmare, a bloody stalemate. Stalin after some time would realize that best chance is to attack right now, USSR would invade Poland and Romania, Hitler would be assassinated and the war would end at early 1942.
Btw Italy would still be ruled by Mussolini, the guy would be hero of nation like Franco in Spain. Italy would keep Istria and it's colonies, except Ethiopia. With time Libya would be Italianized and oil reserve here would be discovered making Italy rich... ( dreams, dreams). Also USSR would have much less influence in Europe, Warsaw pact would be smaller. Maybe Cold War would be colder? BTW as war in Europe ended faster allied and Soviet troops would be free to beat down Japan 3 years earlier.
The Second is ridiculous, 14 points demanded creation of free Poland, and letting go Russia and Ukraine. While treaty of Brest- Litovsk reduced Polish territory significantly and took big chunk from Russia, also placing loyal administration in Ukraine.
but england won the hundred years war, cause after the war they lost all the territory in france (basically a won) and stopped being french
@@alexzero3736 The battle of France wasnt lost due to a lack of manpower of equipment. It was lost due to a mixture of bad deployment, whichnot even (lets's say 500,000 Americans, they wouldnt be able to deploy more without having proper reasoning like Pearl Harbor or the Zimmermann-Telegram) US Forces could have fixed and an incompetent officer corps. The American AirForce and Army was in such a dire state in 1940, they had no tanks challenging the Panzer III and IV, poor training and equipment and no experienced officers. Their bad generals nearly cost them North Africa irl, even after they had improved strenght.
Stalin had no reason to side with the allies, except Hitler as their common enemy. And in this timeline, they were still good allies. Romania wasnt on the german side until well after France and Hitler wouldnt be assasinated. THe only thing diffent would be the war at sea. THe german long range subs would be succesful more early, but the war at sea would have ended in 1941, due to overwhelming power by the allies. Mussolini would be a hero, even if it happend like you said. His entire regime was close to collaps before the war, Sicily just sped it up
@@lordbeaverhistory Ardennes breakthrough happened due to gap in defense around Sedan, USA troops could close it! Also P there was no PZ-4 tanks in France, main tanks of Germany in 1940 were Pz- 1 machine gun tank and PZ -2 20mm canon tank, Hell even Rommel himself was cautious about French tanks as his panzer division consisted of armoured automobiles more than tanks. Technical advancement of Wehrmacht is overestimated.
Romania may not join the war, but it was the main source of oil for Germany, so it would be anyway important to stop exports.
@@alexzero3736 at first: Stop calling it PZ 1. Thats wrong. Second, the Panzer I was largely replaced by 1940. The Panzer 2 still made up the majority, along with the 38t. The IIIs and IVs were rare, but each tank division had enough to encouter heavier armour. The best the US could field would be the M2. Yes, much of the Panzer Division were Grenadiers, Pioneers and Motorcycles, but still, each Panzer Division had around 40 Tanks, that werent Panzer IIs. Rommel for example crushed an entire French Tank Brigade in a single night, a stunt unable if he hadnt had capable armour.
Edit: There were Panzer IVs in France, few in number, but there were some.
The gap at Sedan wasnt filled, because it was seen pointless to deploy troops there. THe Allies werent lacking troops, they had enough troops south and north that could have filled the gap.
Here's my own little scenario inspired by the video, hope you like it : 1825, after the death of his father, Napoléon II becomes the new emperor of a very liberal and stable France (with its natural borders). Initialy, the 14 years old teenager doesnt rule the country, a regency council rulling for him until he comes of age. With very strong liberal ideas and powerfull ministers rulling for the emperor such as Talleyrand, I could see more and more power being removed from the imperial crown, the emperor still having some power but probably not being absolutist. The regency might also cool down the tensions with the United Kingdoms, like in our reality where Talleyrand improved the relation between the French Bourbon monarchy and Britain. When Napoleon II is crowned emperor near 1830, he has to gain prestige and therefore as in our own timeline, France starts to colonize Algeria, most of Europe not paying attention to it. Napoleon II therefore gains prestige by expending a new French colonial empire in North Africa and latter in Indochina. Being the grandson of Francis II of Austria, the relations between France and the Austrians become very warm despite France being liberal and becoming progressively more democratic. During the first years of Napoleon II's reign, the industrial revolution becomes more and more important in France who quickly becomes a very developped country and the 2nd industrial power in the world behind the UK. This industrial revolution, might see the economic relationship with anglo-saxon countries becoming stronger, French loans helping the American industrial revolution and trade increasing between the two sides of the channel. The USA would probably be both a close ally of France, an historicall ally who has absolutely 0 reason to oppose them and also become quite close as in our reality to Britain due to economic and cultural reasons. In 1848 however, the Springtime of Nations happens, big nationalistic movments appearing in Germany, Austria and Italy. This event might see Germany unify quicker to try and balance the power of France near the Rhine. Austria would be destabilized by such an event and like in our reality Italy would also unify thanks to Austria being unstable. In the east, Russia would see this as an opportunity to gain influence in the Balkans and also in the middle east, this could bring France and Britain closer together, the British seing it as a danger for the Balance of power and the French seing it as a threat to their Austrian allies. As in our reality, a war similar to the Crimean war could see France and Britain working together even if this would not necesseraly happen, the British maybe still being suspicious about France. The British and the French might also work together during the wars in China if France has interests in the region with its colony in Indochina. Then come the 1870s, at this point it is hard to say if a war would break out between France and Germany, the Germans having united faster and becoming quite strong could try to invade France in order to unify the German people, however such a move would be quite dangerous since it could be seen as a threat to the Balance of power and could be a very difficult war to win France being way more industrialized, populated and stable compared to what it was in our timeline. Therefore the tensions might just continue to rise with time. In the 1890s, european powers still decide to divide Africa between themselves, in this scramble for Africa, Germany might get some more lands than in our reality with the Congo being up for grabs and France probably struggling a bit more to gain lands due to British reluctance to see France becoming too powerfull. Finally comes the 1900s, by this point Napoleon II would be dead and we cannot know who his successor would be but with France being more democratic, his rule may not have a big impact on the French Empire's policies. In this decade, the two main world powers are of course the British and the French, however, their hegemony starts to decline with Germany and Russia having gained power (maybe getting closer) and the USA becoming a very industralized nation, starting to take the number 2 spot and continuing to grow to become the first economic power. If a world war happens starting with a conflict between France and Germany over the germanic populations in the French Empire or between Russia (who may be allied to Germany) and Austria (probably still allied to the French Empire) over the Balkans, WW1 would happen. This version of WW1 could be very destructive and would be very hard to win for both sides, the front on the Rhine might see some very heavy combat but would be very hard to pierce, France and Germany being very similar in sizes. The war might be determined by Britain, Italy and the USA. If France and Austria are fighting Germany and Russia, I am sure the Italians would help Germany to gain lands in both Austria and France. The USA might still stay isolationist but they would be quite close to France diplomatically and economically and to Germany culturally (many americans being from german origins) however I wouldnt see a WW1 where the US joins Germany since they wouldnt really gain anything from the war. The last unknown is Britain, after 70 years of trade, joint policies to maintain the balance of power and diplomatic efforts from France they might join the war with the French if for exemple the German try to cross the Rhine by invading from neutral Netherlands to destabilize French forces, in this case the war would be a win for Britain, France and Austria who would take away German colonies, maybe some german states like Silesia or Bavaria who would be ceeded to Austria and create new countries from Russia like an independent Poland (Russia might see a communist revolution happen like in our reality in that case). However, the UK could also still see France as a mistake from the Napoleonic wars, as its arch nemesis, that and the relations between German and British royal families could make Britain lean towards Germany and its allies which would make a victory really easy. The peace deal would allow the Germans to annex all the germanic regions of France, all their asian and central african colonies and maybe even Austria and Bohemia which would make Germany the strongest European power and maybe even the strongest world power, Russia would take away lands from Austria and create puppet states everywhere in the Balkans and in the remnants of the fallen Hasburg monarchy, Italy would also gain a lot achieving Italian irrendentism by annexing Tyrol, Istria, Dalmatia, Corsica, Savoy, Nice and Tunisia, the British might also get some colonies but by this point they would probably be very angry about the new map of Europe being drawned. The British could also not join anyone and in that case the war may just end in a stalemate. In any case, the two future might be very different, and we could have something quite similar to WW2 with Germany, Italy and Japan being very agressive and Russia or maybe the USSR also trying to gain hegemony over Europe. Or we could have a world where Germany and Russia are the two main powers of the world and where France and Britain might be quite agressive towards this new world order.
By reading what you said in your scenario there is a chance that in this great war the Brits ally with the Germans and the USA ally's with the French which would be quite an interesting scenario
When it comes to ww1, i could see Austria collapsing a few decades before and Germany making it a puppet if not annexing all of it. This would make force Britain to side with the french and ottomans. Later Russia would have its communist revolution and America joining on the franco-british side after an American vessel was sunk by Germany(like in real life). Germany and Russia lose. This would also set up for a very similar ww2. I could also expect the ottomans even though winning to still collapse and Poland getting a bigger territory in this timeline
So cool to see a competent alternate history chanel rise finally!
Great video! A lot of alternate history channels go with really crazy premises, it's good to see one that is extremely plausible.
this was amazing. love your in depth research. I never knew that the original peace deal made agreements about putting down revolutions.
I love how sober this is, you're a very capable historian!
Thank you for doing a video about this, I always wanted a video about that possibility
I personally believe that Russia and France would ally with each other. They have absolutely no overlapping interests. If they faced Austria and Prussia, France would have Italy and Germany, Russia would have Polond, Hungary and the Balkans.
In your scenario Hannover would still become independent. Following this I think it is very likely that the British would try to support Prussia in order to help form a strong counterweight in central Europe that could oppose Russia but especially France. This protestant Prussia would then be their strongest ally in Europe. On top of that the Anglo-French Rivalry would in this scenario never have started to cool down but rather just escalated. There might be constant colonial wars between those nations just waiting to escalate further.
I think the British would support in an alternative 1848 the formation of a German State under Prussia. Trough French intervention it might only be possible to form a North German confederation. Eventually there would be a war between Prussia and France over the control over the rest of the German states as in our timeline in 1870 but perhaps already following the the formation of the North German confederacy. The British and Dutch would most likely side with the Germans and depending of the outcome of this war France might loose all its gains and be reduced to the same borders as in 1871.
All this will depend on:
1. Which Side does Russia side with. Their main rival might be France but it might as well be Briton at this point
2. Which side to the German states side with. Some might choose the more liberal France, some Prussia but most importantly will be the now much weaker Austria
Depending on this there might either be a super strong Mega Germany or a peak Napoleonic France Europe
You understand that this France would be much stronger than IRL, right? Belgium under control and Rhine create much better defensive and offensive position for France. Bismarck would be much more cautious... But what's also important liberal France would be more inclined to help revolutions in Europe including 1848, and destroy Habsburg monarchy. So France would drove Austria from Italy early, with conditions that France gets Savoy and Nice and some mutual alliance treaty. Considering Hungarian uprising, Austria would be powerless to do anything about Italy. Also different leadership of France would not be so eager to keep Rome under the Pope... So Italy would unify in 1861 including Venetia and Rome. And France would get a loyal ally, together they could control Mediterranean without fear of British fleet. Also Suez channel this time could be French...
Also France would support liberal uprisings in Germany... So 1848 would be basically a repeat of Napoleon wars but with different cause. Prussia would not be in any position to defeat France... Their only hope to hold is help from Russia and Britain.
Germany won't unite in 1848 just because monarch " Won't ever take crown from a gutter ".
@@alexzero3736 I mostly dont disagree with you. But even a "liberal" France would certainly suppress every attempt at unifying the German states under an independent Monarch. There would however certainly still be the desire to unify as a way to defend themselves against future conquests of the French. Historically Prussia almost formed a North German State under its King in 1849 and in this timeline it would likely be supported by Russia and Britain. Austria would be wildcard, because they might submit to Prussian hegemony but they also just might try to be the opposite to Prussia and try to form a south German confederacy. This would highly depend on the decisions France makes. If they are diplomatically somewhat competent they would try to have as many allies as possible.
I totally agree with your judgement about the developments in this Italy, but only if you assume that France doesnt go insane 20 years after Napoleon. France historicity tried to conquer Italy multiple times and the two most important reasons they stopped trying in our timeline war Napoleon 3 Being a huge Fan of the italian Nationalists and his France being in a way more precarious situation diplomatically. But this more arrogant France with its Monarchs trying to emulate Napoleon much more might behave different.
So the only guaranteed ally France would have in my opinion is Hungary, which would heavily relay on the French for its protection.
Alternatively, there is the very likely possibility for a very loyal Italy and even a friendly Austria, which would still be stronger then Hungary in every regard. But in case of an Austrian ally, Hungary would side with Prussia and Briton or even submit to Russia in some way without compromising its official independence.
All in all I think my assessment of this alternative history still stands and this Great European war would be decided in on great war depending on the web of alliances and how Russia judges the situation, possibly siding with the loosing side to achieve a neutral outcome with itself as kingmaker on top, but most likely choosing with side offers them better terms. So either offering all of the Balkan and maybe Hungary oder offering most of Prussia. Something like that.
@@gearlordgeneration6673 Independent Hungary? What about Russian expeditionary force in Hungary? You think this time Russia won't be an ally of Austria? And Hungarian revolution would succeed?
Yes I based that of the video here. One way or another around 1848 Hungary would become Independent and Russia would not be allied to Austria
You all are forgetting the butterfly effect. If this scenario played out, we might not see an 1848 revolution like in our timeline. We might see such revolutions earlier, or not at all. I would guess earlier as Napoleon would embolden revolutionary sentiment.
an actually thoughtful althistory vid that acknowledges uncertainty and historical contingency and thinks thru the implications of its premise… you simply love to see it
Thanks for the video
This was a fantastic watch!
9:15 - I think the more resonable thing Napoleon could do is to calm down from the constant stress of fighting. He would also be looking to win back the favour of the French population as you rightly pointed out and rebuild his Grande Armee. That depends on what limits the Allies put on him. Plus Napoleon has the favour of his Marshalls, but SOME may defect. Napoleon will think long and hard before he does anything and when he does, you cannot resist against the God of War.
Just discovered your videos and damn are they good. "What if the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth was never partitioned?" would be my suggestion. Here's to more future content!
Real question is "how could PLC be never partitioned?" because they literally did everything on their part to make it happen.
@@mdokuch96 True. That is probably a better form of the question
Great video!
Also heres a video idea, what if Operation Unthinkable was launched?
This was awesome!
So good I had to watch it twice!!
Great job again! Keep going
Wow, your videos are so thorough. An alternate version of you must be making videos that very closely resemble us!
Interesting. TY for the video.
Loved this video
Man I would love your style of video and narration for actual history! Any recommendations?
Great video!
finally someone did it and with quality
Great video
Great video! Gonna subscribe
Very nice Video!
Good stuff !!
Don't know how I haven't found your channel before welp time to binge
Awesome video
Great video.
Excellent video! So happy I stumbled upon your great channel.
Buddy you are going to be big one day. Dont stop making videos.
Awesome video.
I like the British Russian Prussian alliance ending. It is more plausible way for Britain to retain it's greater empire. They could agree to a split of Asia between them, Britain keeping India, Dutch holdings and probably Egypt, in return Russia could expand into the ottoman empire and open another front against France in the future : the Mediterranean. Russian expansion being driven by the need for a warm water port all year round would be fulfilled.
Nice video!
Would Murat remain as a king of Naples? That could change a lot, south italy could be as modern as the north. Great scenario
As a southern Italian, I respectfully disagree, South Italy was exploited for centuries at that point, its hopes of recovering, I feel like, we're long gone
*were
@@svedenska4535 least nationalistic southern italian
@@svedenska4535 What do you think was the turning point? When did the South irreversibly fall behind the North?
Murat could unify Italy from South.
Just discovered your videos. Already dropped a like. Here's to more future content. And if you're reading this: please do "what would happen to society if all people beyond the age of 30 suddenly died?".
Cool video! 👍
Underrated chanel
Very Nice Video
In that ending scenario I'd expect Britain to support the side that will keep the status quo the most. Also with Napolean deceased they might have less trouble with supporting France, though that depends on what kind of ruler Napoleon II would be.
What if Napoleon didn't invade Russia, and instead, stayed with the gains he has? And came up with even newer and better tactics?
If he made a good face-saving deal with Russia, withdrew from Spain, and defeated Austria and Prussia once or twice more, he would have probably kept his empire. I don't know if his government & empire would have long survived his death, though.
That means allowing Russia to trade with Britain and the end of the "Continental System" since other powers will follow suit.
Meanwhile, Britain will continue blockading France and consolidates its power in the rest of the world (at that time Britain took control of the rich East Indes from the Netherlands, along with slew of other French colonies in the Americas and Asia).
With rapid industrialization in Britain, and France bleeding dry in Iberia, the balance of power move ever slowly in the direction disadvantageous to France. IMO Napoleon simply can't allow that.
The Russian invasion like most people think isn't what ended Napoleon. But had he not invades Russia he could've gone to Spain himself and finish the job, instead of leaving it too poor Masséna.
@@LD-Orbs Honestly, if he had led a third of his Russian invasion force into Spain and Portugal instead, he might have ended organised resistance in Spain (or at least diminished it greatly), so not really a reason to get out of Spain. Austria and Prussia likely wouldn't even be a hostile party in that case. Austria both from earlier defeats and new better ties and Prussia due to being defeated before.
If you mean a deal with Russia after the Russian invasion, that wouldn't have happened, Russia would have pushed their advantage to limit French power on the continent.
If Napoleon lives long enough to see his son come of age well educated, it is likely he could take his place after relatively stable in France. Ofcourse other power might have attempted something at this point (mainly Prussia, the UK and Russia), but overall the French empire would be in a decent spot I'd guess.
@@MDP1702 Indeed/ Also Napoleon himself is much better commander than Massena too. With higher manpower and himself leading the troops its not that hard to imagine him making spain to capitulate.
Nice Video ^^
Very interesting video
Great job with the video.
What if Mary I gave birth to A son ?
What if Catherine the great sided with Britain during the American Revolution ?
What if Edward V wasn't usurp ?
What if Richard III won the Battle of bosworth ?
What if Edward 6th didn't die early and married Mary, Queen of Scotts ?
What if Ferdinand the Seventh of Spain had A son to succeed him ?
If the Russians sided with the British, nothing would change. There would be very few changes other than giving American diplomats a real headache
If Mary gave Birth to a son we would have Habsburg England. Cursed
@@hessen5498 That's IF he lives to adulthood .
Winning in Bosworth would had only postpone the Tudor victory
Edward and Mar marring is just a UK sooner
If Ferdinand were to have had a son there would had never been carlists, meaning spain would be probably in a better situation during the 19th, 20th and 21th centuries
Probably no Franco, probably no joining WW1, who knows about WW2
nice vid I love them. Can u do smt abt Bulgaria?
great video, greatings from argentina
Interesting video.
This was an intresting take
Good video
good stuff
That was so interesting!
I would love to see your take on what would’ve happened if Napoleon didn’t try to invade Russia originally, instead keeping his focus on his war against Spain, Portugal and Britain (trying to diplomatically resolve the issue of Russia trading with Britain)
Good Video
this was fun
This is my favourite alternate history POD
can you do a video on different peace offers during the revolutionary and Napoleonic wars?
Ceuta appears as Portuguese on the maps, but by that time it was already Spanish. Even so, very good video, congratulations!
Finally someone made this video
Hi cool vid
Well done good sir.
hi, good video
Amazing video.
Idea to next video: What if the Vikings created a permanent settlement in America
This was a very interesting video, I very much appreciate the incorporation of the liberal revolutions in the late 1840s
I am curious if you’ve ever thought of doing a video on the Decemberists uprisings in Russia?
For all Napoleon's military victories and missteps (Invading Spain & Russia) his biggest failure was not seeking a long term peaceful political solution to defend his military gains, principally with Britain or at the very least with Russia and Austria.
Great video! Though I think that not mentioning the Greek Revolution as a possible inciting event to a Great War is a bit of a missed opportunity. Especially with how Russia may have attempted to exploit it to make a play for Istanbul.
Yeah, I kept expecting that, especially since how in our timeline it showed the first crack in the Versailles Treaty order before the ink was dry. But I suppose that could be part of what he means by "Ottomans continue to decline."
AHAHAHHA YES I'VE BEEN LOOKING FOR SOMETHING LIKE THIS BRO
I might add, as someone from Spain, in the spanish section 15:40 that in 1820 there was a military rebellion in order to reinstate the Cadiz constitution led by Rafael de Riego. This lieutenant actually succeded and because of this, during 3 years there was a liberal regime (as in, a constitutional monarchy) until "The Hundred Thousand Sons of Saint Louis" (this is, a french army) came down to reinstate Ferdinand the VII of Spain's absolutism, as this rebellion and liberal regime was an attack to the legitimacy of the monarch.
This army, in this alternate timeline, would have never invaded into Spain, as it was a bourbon army sent by the holy alliance. This would have meant several things for Spain:
1) There's a liberal goverment now in Spain, which won't be getting out soon (if there isn't any absolutist coup): This would have probably more time for Spain to modernize in relative peace.
2) In 1820 there was still a major control by the spanish forces inside of Latin America, although such control was tenous. At the same time, many of these countries took the Cadiz constitution and made them theirs and changed it a bit depending on what the country needed. Around 1820, the only countries in latin america which were already independent were the southern ones, this is: Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay. At the same time, the Cadiz constitution would abolish the viceroyalties of Spain in the region, with these regions being annexed as kingdoms into the country in the same status as Castille or Aragon to give an example, as well as giving more autonomy to these regions. This would have meant, maybe, a creation of a spanish commonwealth of sorts. This wouldn't mean that there weren't gonna be countries which would become independent: Argentina, Chile, Paraguay and Uruguay at this point in time were already independent (and there was a Bolivar making trouble around Venezuela and Colombia), but it could have meant that Mexico, Colombia, the central american countries, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia would have a similar status to that of Canada. At the same time, the race relationships (I think all of them, we're talking mestizos, criollos, you know the drill) in these countries were abolished by this new constitution, this is, no more encomiendas and no more spanish feudal rule over natives, as everyone would become a citizen of Spain. The possibilities for these as these 3:
2.1) Mexico, Center-America, Colombia, Venezuela, Ecuador, Peru and Bolivia become spanish states with autonomy, with their citizens becoming spanish citizens.
2.2) Only Peru and Bolivia become spanish states with autonomy (as a year later in OTL, most of America became dominated with independentist forces except these 2 places).
2.3) Spain just takes the L like OTL and leaves.
At the same time, I might add that this constitution would also allow censitary voting right. Not everyone would be able to vote but those who are in a wealth range.
3) With these two combined, it could have meant a stronger Spain than in OTL, as they have a bigger period of peace, under a liberal goverment which will try to curtail noble privileges, and an entire continent to still get resources out of (with spanish industries taking the lead as... it is their territory) to feed into an industrial force which is beginning to come into place in Catalonia and the Basque country (and might there be another industrial heartland, let's say Seville as it is close to America, or Madrid gets more industrialized, who knows, really). This would mean that Spain would get stronger, I don't know to which level.
4) If Mexico is inside this "Commonwealth", then there might not be an American-Mexican war for manifest destiny as it would become a harder battle against the whole of the "spanish commonwealth". The americans might try, and probably succeed, but the war would be a lot bloodier that in OTL
5) If industrialization kicks off thanks to cheap latin american goods (being latin america the equivalent to India in this scenario), then there might be a migration from latin america towards Spain to work on the factories, in a sort of reverse migration of sorts.
And aside from that, I might point out that in this timeline, these things might happen to Spain in what would Ferdinand the VII do:
1) Ferdinand just takes the L: Best outcome for Spain, no drama, no more weakness inside of it.
2) Ferdinand makes a counter-coup and it succeeds: Spain like in OTL, absolute decline.
3) Ferdinand makes a Counter-coup and it fails:
3.1) Ferdinand still rules in house arrest.
3.2) The rule is given to a family member of the bourbon. This would mean maybe his brother starts ruling (which would be hilarious to have a carlist liberal king).
3.2.1) The rule is given to a family member of the bourbon. Someone from the House of Orleans could start ruling Spain like in OTL's France.
3.3) The rule is given to a different house in the continent. This could lead to a war of Spanish succesion between the different european houses. This could mean from a Napoleon ruling Spain (again) to a Habsburg to maybe even a Romanov.
3.4) No need for a king (or no one wants to be king of Spain), it's first spanish republic time (most unstable tbh).
Aside from that, I might add that in the european war 20:25 , since if Britain intervenes it would create one french behemoth or one german behemoth, it would probably not intervene or lightly intervene in order to get some more island in the mediterranean or so, and just let them out to fight for themselves until they're both tired and just make peace or just support the ottoman empire and try to not get Germany into the fraught. Russia is for Britain not only an enemy in Europe, but in Asia too, as they're close to India. So what I could see with that is that Austria collapses, Hungary takes it's place as the important player in the balkans, Italy is united thanks to french interference and italian nationalists, which would probably make it kinda troublesome for France to control, and Prussia unifies the german lands that aren't under french control including Austria (and probably takes control of the Czech and slovakian lands), with the polish/ukrainian sections of Austria being probably controlled by Russia by itself. Maybe there is a polish situation but with switzerland now getting partitioned between but I don't think so. The ottoman empire would be weakened but it would still continue to control land on the balkans, but maybe Romania and/or Greece become independent.
Germany in this fact would be a HELL of a lot stronger, but it would also have problems of it's own, as it's populace has several slavic people, and there's a real divide between protestant germans and catholic ones (in OTL Bismark was shot by a catholic lone wolf because of it's opression towards catholics).
In fact, I might add, why isn't Greece independent in this timeline? I don't think that with a napoleon agreeing to the frankfurt proposal that they wouldn't revolt, right? Aside from that, I might say that Britain could also just switch sides constantly between Russia and France trying to balance the great powers in Europe.
Thanks a lot for making these videos, btw.
Edit: In fact, adding that Spain would be somewhat stronger (and most importantly, liberal), we might get a case that Spain joins whichever country opposes Great Britain. You see, spanish liberals didn't believe in Portugal as a concept (in fact, during the second republic there were plans to invade and annex Portugal), which, I mean, Spain is an union of countries inside of Iberia (Castille, Galicia, Catalonia, Andalucia, the Basque country...) kinda like Yugoslavia, and so, having an independent country inside of your territorial claiming isn't that good (To put a comparison, Castille -> Serbia, Catalonia/Valencia/Balearic Islands -> Croatia, Basque country -> Slovenia, Andalusia -> Bosnia, Galicia -> Kosovo, Portugal -> Albania). So we might have gotten Spain conquering Portugal and inmediately getting into the conflict and trying to conquer Gibraltar, meanwhile battling agains the colonies in the far east. This might lead to the US taking the opportunity and declaring war against the spanish for Mexican territories. This war would lead to WW1 in 1850, or WW2 if they would consider the napoleonic wars as WW1.
Need more Napoleon content
Hey bro, what happened to that Soviet Union vs Nazi Germany 1v1 video you had on the channel?
I have an idea this could be done in 1 or 2 videos or a series the idea is what if you took an extremely great ruler and made them incompetent and on the other side take an incompetent or average ruler and make them as prolific as alexander the great, napoleon or Aurelian
HI! also i think you got it quite nailed down with your assessment. I am however unsure if Prussia would really have been idle while italy and hungary revolted. Would have been way to tempting getting in a jab at Austria. Might have led to Prussia and France coming to a mutual understanding at least... thats more on the wishlist though then anything concrete
In regards to the UK, you are right it is a wild card. The main issue that both outcomes deeply shift the balance of power, meaning neither would result in a decent status quo. Given the context the video and your argument that the Dutch would most likely not be in control of the East Indies as such ensuring the lowlands remain neutral its way less of a concern, the UK may end up just letting the fire rage in Europe and see who is left standing in the ashes. The UK may just chose to focus on the bolstering of its colonies and reap the economic benefits of being a neutral nation with a navy to ensure no one could challenge them. The effects of war at this stage of industrialisation in places like the Rhineland might just allow the UK to maintain an industrial hegemony of goods in Europe.
A weakened Russia means less competition in the Great Game which the UK might be able to better spread out its control over the Indian sub continent and therefore have the spare resources to spend towards the newly acquired British East Indies. A weakened France and therefore a weakened Ottoman Empire means an endeavour into the Arabian peninsular could see far less challenge (Remember the UK secured the Aden Protectorate in 1839) and Oceania might see a far smaller French presence meaning more islands for the UK to grab. While the war would be fought in Europe the real benefits for the UK would be seen everywhere else in the world, with a dwindling Spanish Empire, non-existent Dutch Empire it only leaves the Portuguese as the nation who could best focus on countering them in global colonial ambitions.
This is possibly the Best case scenario for Austria as it would still remain as one of the strongest powers in Europe , contrary to our timeline where it grew into a weak amalgamation of state after the defeats in the Brothers War between Austria and Prussia.
Although it's difficult to assume what consequences it would have on history With Italy and Germany never being able to form and being replaced by practically puppet states of Austria.. maybe it would be a better world where the World Wars never happen as we know from our timeline that the Habsburg's were more interested in keeping the balance of power than conquest..and even if war commences between the Great powers it unlikely to be a World War with Austria and Britain being staunch allies against Napoleonic and Russian agression.
Ironically, Austria expending their power was precisely which kicked off WW1
@@MDP1702 Well Emperor Franz Josef did go to war not because he wanted to annex Serbia,but to preserve his dynasties prestige and he tried to make sure that other Great powers wouldn't intervene but he was very wrong on that. It was Conrad who urged for war and Germany's blank cheque that made him sign the declaration of war on Serbia..he even proclaimed "So,it would be a terrible war".
And Russia under Tsar Nicholas wanted to assert it's prestige after humiliation in the Russo-Japanese war ,so it egged itself on to supporting Serbia even though she knew it may lead to war with Germany and Austria -Hungary.
There is a lot more context I can put into it ...but in short Austria didn't start the war to gain more power and annex Serbia but to punish her .
And can you blame them for that , the killing of Franz Ferdinand was equal to A Russian agent shooting Joe Biden today ...what do you think would happen other than all out war
Hey Possible History I Am subbed to your channel with notifications on! But I can’t continue to comment on your videos due to my school now 😭 But keep up the good work! ❤
i love these videos mate keep up the good work
If I understand correctly, our timeline's Napoleon III grew up in Britain as the son of Louis who was expelled from the Netherlands by his brother. That's why Britain wasn't very scared when he did declare himself emperor. In a similar scenario which would probably happen since Napoleon did conquer the Netherlands, I suspect that France and Britain would ally, because Louis Napoleon, a.k.a. Napoleon III, would probably be in power by this time and even if not he would still be a good connector between the 2.
Great!
A major effect of the war ending in 1813 in Europe means the _other_ war Britain was involved in at the time is likely to have some significant changes. The War of 1812 was, from the point of view of the UK, a sideshow. Wellington, who had been offered command in North America, had provided his professional assessment that the tactical and strategic reality was that the United States couldn't be completely defeated, and his own experience in the Peninsular War, especially observing what the Spanish had cost their French occupiers, was that trying to was pointless. It had been demonstrated that Canada could be defended, which had been the principle war aim, and the British had no real territorial ambitions against the Americans, thus the essential _status quo ante bellum_ Treaty of Ghent.
That said, if the British were eying the soon-to-be-former Spanish colonies in the Americas as potential trading opportunities they could wield some influence over, then it would be nice to have a more established position where they could leverage power and not have to worry about the Americans trying to gain undo influence. Canada was too far north. The Caribbean possessions were nice, but it would be useful to have a position on the mainland. Like, oh, a city that had been a French port just 10 years prior at the mouth of the Mississippi.
So, it's possible that in 1813 Wellington does arrive in North America, along with more battle-hardened experienced troops then were historically sent. Not having to enforce blockades against the French, the Americans get the full attention of the Royal Navy, and that won't end well for the Americans. Depending on exactly when, the Americans might have won the Battle of Lake Erie by the time Wellington and his troops arrive. Fort Detroit, Fort Mackinac and the land captured in Michigan Territory is just too damn useful, however, so the British don't pull back from there as a result of losing control over Lake Erie and instead reinforce overland until the Navy can build some new ships on the lake. Wellington isn't looking to expand from Canada, he just wants to keep what the British already have seized, because it could prove useful when it comes time for treaty negotiations. The Great Lakes make a natural border and trying to hold ground on the south side would inevitably lead to conflict at some point in the future, but holding it for the moment could have a big payoff. Wellington's experience in India, plus working with the Portuguese and Spanish is likely to have given him an appreciation of local allies, so I suspect the relationships that were forged by Brock and Tecumseh get carried on, and First Nations who allied with the British remain so.
With the Royal Navy able to raid basically at will along the Atlantic Coast from 1813 on, all of a sudden the politicians for the southern states who had been pushing for was prior to 1812 because capturing Canada would be "a mere matter of marching" are going to have the reality come to them. Again, no attempt at occupation, but having a squadron of ships with a few hundred Royal Marines showing up off your shore, and with nothing left of a navy to stop them and no friends to call for help, is going to ruin your day. And then the British land a sufficient force to capture and hold New Orleans.
If the goal is the capture of New Orleans, then all this raiding and the maintaining of captured territory along the Canadian border is to serve one purpose: force the Americans into accepting the capture of New Orleans and a little bit of defensive territory around it. So the alternate Treaty of Ghent settles the border of Canada more or less where it is today, thus returning captured territory to the US, affirms the British have no further interest in expanding into any more of the Louisiana Purchase than the territory they've grabbed around New Orleans (making it somewhat similar to Singapore strategically), so the US still gets access across the Mississippi and trade open and down the Mississippi. The difference is that their products for export are sold in New Orleans to the British. The alternate Treaty of Ghent perhaps has the British waive any kind of tariffs on American trade going through New Orleans destined to American ports for the domestic market. Everyone knows the Americans are going to cheat that system ruthlessly, but the British aren't too worried since they're already a major buyer for much American product (like cotton) going through the port, so whatever.
It's going to be the spinoffs from here that are going to be interesting, especially if the British do abolish slavery in 1833. It's one thing to try to take an Underground Railroad from Alabama hundreds of miles north. It's another when there's free territory a lot closer. This will have the plantation elite in the south apoplectic. On the other hand, does the immediate proximity corrupt the British so that they don't go as hard abolitionist? Don't know.
Mexico will also be interesting. They're in the middle of a revolt against Spain. While a free Mexico as an ally would be useful support in keeping British Louisiana, the British can't afford to jeopardize the balance in Europe by pissing off Spain. I would expect a studious neutrality. Of course, there's a lot of shipping in New Orleans, so who knows if a few shiploads of weapons occasionally get lost and find their way into the hands of Mexican rebels? Assuming Mexico gains independence, allying with Britain is going to make the American warmongering toward Mexico look a bit more dicey.
Great scenario!
Greeeeem😊
Yoo, great video!
My suggestion: What if the Hungarian revolution and war of independence of 1848 was succesful?
Liberal, republican Austria and Hungary?
He would also be so much more of a legendary person in popular media now
no. legends need to win or to die
Can we get a video on Sweden winning the great northern war or the North Sea empire not falling/Danelaw surviving
Love this channel
Have you ever considered doing a scenario on Frederick I of Prussia becoming stadtholder of the Dutch republic? He had a claim on the title of the Prince of Orange as he was the grandson of Frederick Henry, Prince of Orange through his mother, Countess Luise Henriette of Nassau. He was in contention with Prince John William Friso of Nassau-Dietz of the Frisian Nassaus for the Stadtholdership of the country during the Second Stadtholderless period which ended when all the provinces recognised William IV, the son of John William Friso as the stadtholder of all provinces.
If napoleon gained the frankfurt borders they would be a titan of europe for all of time
My favorite part of the video is that smooth mouse click lol
7:40 arf that's a pet peve of mine, the old Victoria 2 myth that Savoy was Italian speaking or Italian dialect speaking. Savoy was actually Savoyard speaking, which is an Arpitan dialect. So if it's correct to represent Savoy as "not french-speaking", to be coherent, you would then need to expand the greyed area to the whole of the southern half of france that is Arpitan or Occitan speaking.
Ye, but Savoy was a household of Sardinia king.
@@alexzero3736 well that's the crux of the problem, people think just because the Savoy were the founder of the kingdom of Piemont-Sardinia that ultimately formed Italy that the region they come from is Italian. That makes about as much sense as to say that Hanover or Normandy is english speaking just because ruling dynasties of england came from there.
And i think doing so would be correct. Occitan is no more similar to French than Catalan is, not the same language by any means
@@nsk370 that's right, although nobody outside of France really claim Occitan or Arpitan speaking areas, so for the purpose of this video i'd represent only German and Dutch speaking areas as well as Catalan and Corsican speaking areas and maybe Basque and Breton speaking ones. maybe Occitan and Arpitan speaking areas could have been hatched or represented in a different gray though. Also even D'Oil speaking region were not really speaking french either. Gallo, Poitvein, Lorrain and Walloon etc. are very distinct, so in the most absolute sense, in 1812, about only an area around Paris and Orléans and some urban centers were really French speaking, but i think this would go beyond the scope of this video.
@@sachacendra3187Corsican was just a dialect of Italian. In fact, one of the only places that actually spoke Italian because the languages of Italy are extremely diverse.