Effect of a conquest of Great Britain on the economy of Europe, circa 1790 to 1815

[Matteo]

Cheap middlemen, the British held their dominance by being cheap...expensive middlemen get cut out, which is precisely what would happen to the British Merchant Marine in the latter half of the 20th century. Thus if Britain loses its marine then European and by extension global trade suffers too.

Ditto the loss of cheap British finance...

Ditto the loss of cheap British manufactured goods...

Likely European business and industry is retarded by the fall of Britain. France mind won't care because France will be reaping the benefits and while it might lose on an absolute scale the French are only going to notice they are doing better than all of the other losers.

Like you suggest Antwerp may well become a port comparable with a depressed London, still neither combined will likely amount to the London that was.

Overall Europe is poorer but France might be richer. Given past performances however it is quite likely to squander its advantages. The Germanies might well rise later in this scenario but in time they will probably rise and if the British do not recover then there will be no one to bail the French out when they do.

So ultimately I suppose German wankers (speaking technically to their AH styles not their personality/habits) will be the big winners but the French should get to strut for decades possibly even an entire century.

Britain loses big time here.

I maintain the expensive middleman. What you are forgetting is that Britain's power in the late 18th century was was largely founded not on peaceful free trade but on violently established mercantilist monopoly.

Britain did not like fait competition. Britain user its military naval power to kill competitors and establish quasi-monopolies. And those quasi-monopolies, especially the one on India, enabled Britain to make huge profits and to accumulate huge amounts of capital.

 

[Alt History Buff]

I maintain the expensive middleman. What you are forgetting is that Britain's power in the late 18th century was was largely founded not on peaceful free trade but on violently established mercantilist monopoly.

Britain did not like fait competition. Britain user its military naval power to kill competitors and establish quasi-monopolies. And those quasi-monopolies, especially the one on India, enabled Britain to make huge profits and to accumulate huge amounts of capital.

I partially agree. Great Britain obviously had a monopoly on their own Empire but not the Dutch, Spanish or Portuguese. The fact that so many British goods were legally traded (at presumably higher tariff rates) over domestic offerings) or smuggled in proves that Britain was an efficient manufacturer (textiles, etc) of a wide variety of goods and a competitive trader/middleman.

Certainly, they did not have an advantage in trading terms with the United States after the Revolutionary War, but still swiftly took over all significant trade after the war due to better pricing and quality products. The French were disappointed that American consumers picked the best option.

Britain provided a lot of manufacturing even during the wars (indirect trade). Europe would be harmed.

I can't decide how much the banking issue would have harmed overall the European/global economy.

The EAC was largely self-sustaining due to their taxation on Bengal and subject territories (most of India hadn't been conquered until after the Napoleonic Wars) but would have been dependent on the Royal Navy. France would have had to methodically overrun Cape Colony, Ile de France (Mauritious), and then start assaulting the Company trading posts 1x1 before moving on to Bengal.

 

[Tanc49]

As the home of the industrial revolution it's hard to see how a temporary French victory would curtail Britain's economic power.

As an offshore maritime power with an overwhelming superiority in naval strength Britain was invulnerable to any one European power.

It would not entirely curtail it but it would very probably make some people think about their investment. Capital like stability. It was in Amsterdam until there was trouble and then it went in London cause it seemed safer. If London is invaded/occupied (even if there is no damage) puts that statement in question. Is London truly the safest place for my money?

Also, as you said, anyone can mount an army and invade Paris (not anyone but...) which is why Paris was not a particularly big financial centre. Now if London is invaded, probably can't happen everyday but it shows it CAN happen