L’Aigle Triomphant: A Napoleonic Victory TL

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Did Haiti owe the money to European creditors generally or France specifically when all that went down, is what I wonder?

I read this and it looks like the debt was solely owed to France. The US just tried to isolate Haiti. This is all 19th century btw so ignore the part after that century.

But yeah if Britain protects Haiti from US and French threats AND saves Haiti from dealing with the enormous debt, I can definitely see that country doing a lot better though there’d still be serious problems like deforestation (thanks to France cutting down all the trees for the plantations) and poor leadership.

 

[PhilKearny]

I have serious doubts if France can get its navy back up after Trafalgar. Hell I say Britain will make sure to exert as much naval power as powerful after Napoleon’s victory.

Where will Britain get the money to finance this powerdul navy? Britain's going broke and much poorer than in IOTL. It's been spending wildly while it's economy is shrinker.

Britain's lost a fortune in the continental wars, both paying for its army and financing these wars, with no return on the mone.

Britain's also wasted a fortune in it's Latin American adventures.

Britain's lost much of its army and even more of the army's artillery and other equipment. Re-building and re-equipping the army will cost several fortunes.

Maintaining the Royal Navy's marginally effective blockade is not only costing Britain another fortune, but it's also wearing out the Royal Naval. Plus, the Royal Navy has no allied navies, so its duties have increased.

Further, the Royal Navy is having trouble finding enough men to man its ships--they've been forced to impress more men. This shortage of men only can become worse as the navy will have to compete against the army for men as the army has to rebuild. (And the loss of all the army's artillery in Europe means the army will be competing with RN for material and labor needed to make cannons.)

Beside spending all that money in its foolish wars, Britain's losing major sources of revenue. Britain's lost all its trade in the Baltic, with France, with Iberia, and with much, if not all, the rest of Europe. Britain's also lost much of its trade with Latin America . Plus, its facing more competition in maritime trade, particularly with America. With trade down, goods will be scarce, and prices will rise. Plus, the treasury's revenue will be down, so paying for the RN will be more difficult.

Another smaller thing is that in this time line the RN has suffered more losses than in OTL. These losses are small, but they they are still losses. They affect morale of the RN, lowering--and raising that of the RN's opponents.

With less money, fewer men, more duties, no allies, greater losses, and lower morale, I doubt the Royal Navy in this time line is anywhere near

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

Where will Britain get the money to finance this powerdul navy? Britain's going broke and much poorer than in IOTL. It's been spending wildly while it's economy is shrinker.

Britain's lost a fortune in the continental wars, both paying for its army and financing these wars, with no return on the mone.

Britain's also wasted a fortune in it's Latin American adventures.

Britain's lost much of its army and even more of the army's artillery and other equipment. Re-building and re-equipping the army will cost several fortunes.

Maintaining the Royal Navy's marginally effective blockade is not only costing Britain another fortune, but it's also wearing out the Royal Naval. Plus, the Royal Navy has no allied navies, so its duties have increased.

Further, the Royal Navy is having trouble finding enough men to man its ships--they've been forced to impress more men. This shortage of men only can become worse as the navy will have to compete against the army for men as the army has to rebuild. (And the loss of all the army's artillery in Europe means the army will be competing with RN for material and labor needed to make cannons.)

Beside spending all that money in its foolish wars, Britain's losing major sources of revenue. Britain's lost all its trade in the Baltic, with France, with Iberia, and with much, if not all, the rest of Europe. Britain's also lost much of its trade with Latin America . Plus, its facing more competition in maritime trade, particularly with America. With trade down, goods will be scarce, and prices will rise. Plus, the treasury's revenue will be down, so paying for the RN will be more difficult.

Another smaller thing is that in this time line the RN has suffered more losses than in OTL. These losses are small, but they they are still losses. They affect morale of the RN, lowering--and raising that of the RN's opponents.

With less money, fewer men, more duties, no allies, greater losses, and lower morale, I doubt the Royal Navy in this time line is anywhere near

Yes but doesn’t Britain still have colonies it took from France and the Netherlands like the Guyanas and Indonesia? I say Britain is also offset by owning new colonies.

Besides will much of continental Europe actually abide by the Continental System for long? Eventually some nations are going to try to trade with Britain again the moment they sense weakness in France.

 

[Kurd Gossemer]

Yes but doesn’t Britain still have colonies it took from France and the Netherlands like the Guyanas and Indonesia? I say Britain is also offset by owning new colonies.

It doesn't matter much if their navy is shit and can't properly defend it, like what happened to the Portuguese during their wars with the Dutch, the spice islands certainly looked pretty painted with Portugal's colors... But it didn't change the fact they were overextended and badly manned so they were easily conquered by the Dutch, and that Portugal not only had access to Spain's resources but also could count with more men and Money then the British here.

What I'm saying is, the only reason the British are holding those colonies is because neither the French or Spanish are focused on it yet, specially because actually holding these colonies is sucking in money and men that would be better spent on the mainland.

 

[TickTock The Witch's Dead]

It doesn't matter much if their navy is shit and can't properly defend it, like what happened to the Portuguese during their wars with the Dutch, the spice islands certainly looked pretty painted with Portugal's colors... But it didn't change the fact they were overextended and badly manned so they were easily conquered by the Dutch, and that Portugal not only had access to Spain's resources but also could count with more men and Money then the British here.

What I'm saying is, the only reason the British are holding those colonies is because neither the French or Spanish are focused on it yet, specially because actually holding these colonies is sucking in money and men that would be better spent on the mainland.

Except Britain still has a better navy and will definitely try to focus on preventing France from getting a serious colonial empire. Not to mention it still has a head start in Africa with South Africa and in Asia with India.

Will France find a way to rebound? Absolutely. But I don’t think one should underestimate British potential to strike back.

 

[Noblesse Oblige]

Except Britain still has a better navy and will definitely try to focus on preventing France from getting a serious colonial empire. Not to mention it still has a head start in Africa with South Africa and in Asia with India.

Will France find a way to rebound? Absolutely. But I don’t think one should underestimate British potential to strike back.

Or given the current situation, preventing France from getting "ANY" colonial empire.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

Or given the current situation, preventing France from getting "ANY" colonial empire.

No July Monarchy/Charles X could make it a lot less likely that France goes after Algeria in 1830. A big reason Charles invaded Algeria in the first place was to increase his popularity after the Bourbon Restoration. No Restoration, no Charles, probably no French Algeria in 1830.

 

[Drizzt]

Regarding the Colonial Empires of anyone who's not Britain:
IMHO the situation there is like in a WW1 stalemate: Germany cannot force Britain to leave it's colonies, but Britain cannot force Germany to leave the French channel coast either. If it wants them gone, it'll have to return some colonies. Likewise here, with Britain ruling the waves, it can indeed prevent France, Spain, etc from getting any colonial empire. But France can totally exclude British trade from the continent, throw the combined resources of Europe into a shipbuilding program that Britain is too broke to match, etc. It'll have to give somewhere.

 

[holycookie]

Regarding the Colonial Empires of anyone who's not Britain:
IMHO the situation there is like in a WW1 stalemate: Germany cannot force Britain to leave it's colonies, but Britain cannot force Germany to leave the French channel coast either. If it wants them gone, it'll have to return some colonies. Likewise here, with Britain ruling the waves, it can indeed prevent France, Spain, etc from getting any colonial empire. But France can totally exclude British trade from the continent, throw the combined resources of Europe into a shipbuilding program that Britain is too broke to match, etc. It'll have to give somewhere.

France is in the same situation as Imperial Germany. A European nation can have a wonderful army and an ok navy, a wonderful navy and an ok army. But you can't have both. France will have to prioritize the army or the navy. The army probably makes more sense in my opinion.
england is so powerful because of its island so its navy shines. Often the navy itself is not enough, tradition and culture impact the proficiency of a naval war. In this factor, the other three nations with such a tradition are Portugal, Netherland, and Spain in that sequence.

 

[MiniaAr]

A UK that loses (or doesn't win) the Napoleonic wars is going to be less dominant on the Seas that she was IOTL. She won't be able to get to send a winning fleet to ALL the seas in the world. I think it's possible for the French navy to achieve local superiority in a couple of theaters, just as they did in history with the battle of Grand port and their local superiority in the Indian Ocean for a short while.

I think that French local superiority in the Western Mediterranean can be achieved. And from there, the conquest of Algeria can proceed if the Napoleonic government want to go on conquest without upsetting the very favorable European order.

 

[Wendell]

A UK that loses (or doesn't win) the Napoleonic wars is going to be less dominant on the Seas that she was IOTL. She won't be able to get to send a winning fleet to ALL the seas in the world. I think it's possible for the French navy to achieve local superiority in a couple of theaters, just as they did in history with the battle of Grand port and their local superiority in the Indian Ocean for a short while.

I think that French local superiority in the Western Mediterranean can be achieved. And from there, the conquest of Algeria can proceed if the Napoleonic government want to go on conquest without upsetting the very favorable European order.

I think Islands and Asia will be more of a focus first, and France being able to hold its own in places at sea could have reverberations not just for islands and harbors the French control, but could spur the US into a larger naval expansion earlier.

 

[holycookie]

A UK that loses (or doesn't win) the Napoleonic wars is going to be less dominant on the Seas that she was IOTL. She won't be able to get to send a winning fleet to ALL the seas in the world. I think it's possible for the French navy to achieve local superiority in a couple of theaters, just as they did in history with the battle of Grand port and their local superiority in the Indian Ocean for a short while.

I think that French local superiority in the Western Mediterranean can be achieved. And from there, the conquest of Algeria can proceed if the Napoleonic government want to go on conquest without upsetting the very favorable European order.

yes i agree the uk is not the seven headed beast it would be in real life. it's a beast with 4 or 5 heads, dangerous but not so overwhelming. The mediterranean is probably a french lake. Unless France is something really stupid. The expansion of France would be in the African region linked to the Mediterranean.
India and Asia in general are probably beyond France's reach. Maybe Portugal/Brazil/Spain/Dutch can help modernize Japan so that someone can compete in Asian oceans with the UK.
Regarding what Wendell said about the USA I think it's very unlikely, it's a new nation like many of the new world that will focus on solidifying. Trying to compete with uk and having border disputes is not a smart idea. The outcome of the war of 1812 already indicates this. The USA is in a more uncomfortable position than in our reality. Less chance of error, with more danger surrounding it . the country could ask for help from france but this will lead to an irritation from spain regarding mexico. It is not an enviable situation.

 

[MiniaAr]

I agree completely.

Of course the UK is remaining the number one naval power for the forceeable future but it's not becoming the superpower it was for most of the remaining XIXth century for the simple reason that a Napoleonic France remaining in control of most if not all of Western Europe is going to cost the UK in terms of lost trade quite a lot.

 

[alexmilman]

Beside spending all that money in its foolish wars, Britain's losing major sources of revenue. Britain's lost all its trade in the Baltic,

The Baltic trade, at least as far as trade with Russia is involved, was not a source of the revenue: Britain had negative trade balance since at least mid-XVIII. It was a source of the strategic materials (hemp, flax, iron, tar, fat, timber, etc.) needed for the navy and not easily (or realistically) replaceable from other sources. In other words, this was hurting ability to maintain the British Navy. Can’t tell to which degree but probably substantially. Let’s say, the only alternative source of a timber outside Russia-Scandinavia would be across the Atlantic. The hemp growing in Canada started only in 1801 and technology historically used in the colonies was not good for the naval cables. High quality tar was something of Finnish monopoly, etc.

Self-sufficiency in these areas would take time and a lot of money and effort.

 

[Drizzt]

The mediterranean is probably a french lake. Unless France is something really stupid. The expansion of France would be in the African region linked to the Mediterranean.

Speaking of: Who owns Gibraltar ATM? Did a French aligned Spain ever retake it during all those Alt-Napoleonic-Wars? I must admit I don't recall, but that would decisively change the matter of who's navy controls the Mediterranean.

 

[PhilKearny]

The Baltic trade, at least as far as trade with Russia is involved, was not a source of the revenue: Britain had negative trade balance since at least mid-XVIII. It was a source of the strategic materials (hemp, flax, iron, tar, fat, timber, etc.) needed for the navy and not easily (or realistically) replaceable from other sources. In other words, this was hurting ability to maintain the British Navy. Can’t tell to which degree but probably substantially. Let’s say, the only alternative source of a timber outside Russia-Scandinavia would be across the Atlantic. The hemp growing in Canada started only in 1801 and technology historically used in the colonies was not good for the naval cables. High quality tar was something of Finnish monopoly, etc.

Self-sufficiency in these areas would take time and a lot of money and effort.

Thanks for the post. I didn't know that Britain has a negative balance of trade with the Russians. I did know that Baltic lumber was important for the RN, particularly for masts, but wasn't aware about the other strategic materials.

 

[KingSweden24]

Speaking of: Who owns Gibraltar ATM? Did a French aligned Spain ever retake it during all those Alt-Napoleonic-Wars? I must admit I don't recall, but that would decisively change the matter of who's navy controls the Mediterranean.

Spain didn’t grab it back, at least not as of ITTl’s 1814. It’s a hard but to crack

 

[holycookie]

ok, how is the world at the moment?
In Europe we have:
1- France (with the onus and bonus of controlling western Europe.)
2- Russia (Without dangerous adversaries on its borders, it is in a very comfortable situation.)
3- austria (no longer has prussia to compete for german states, but has a super france and russia as neighbors.)
4- Sweden (maybe try to unite the Scandinavian countries, but other than that I don't see what this country can do, does anyone have any ideas?)
5-Prussia (it is in a bad situation, but throughout history certain countries managed to escape certain death.)
6- Poland (close to russia, but allied with france. It is in a worse situation than austria but better than prussia.)
7-spain( puppet state, but with army and navy. Both are not very good with the possible loss of colonies in the future.)
8- UK (poor political/economic position and few loyal allies. Largest navy in the world)
9- portugal ( fled to brazil with the court, money, army/navy. What stayed in the country was basically napoleon's supporters and what didn't fit in the ships. Honestly I consider that at the moment there are two portuguese nations, One in Europe and one in America)
10 - the Ottoman empire (exists and was not attacked by the Russians)

In America we have:
1- canada ( uk loyalists, can become very strong in north america if usa goes bad.)
2- usa (surrounded by uk and mexico, complicated situation. but usa can overcome the situation if they know how to play uk vs france.)
3- mexico (if you keep all your territories, it will be a strong country, but the USA is more of a problem. Probable alliance with Canada against the USA.)
4- Colombia (try to keep venezuela and ecuador together in one country, thus being able to dispute central america against usa, mexico, canada and maybe brazil.)
5-5- Brazil (It's basically a European country in America. It probably has the biggest navy and army among American countries because it's basically Portugal. No really threatening neighbors, with good space to expand. Especially in the southern cone. Took the Guyanas for itself. It is a monarchy, which will probably be surrounded by republics. I expect bad relations with the vast majority of South American countries. Especially if Brazil follows the USA of our world with conquests/coups in neighboring countries. It may perhaps dispute the central america and take angola and mozambique. These two probably answer to Rio and not Lisbon considering that when brazil became independent, angola almost became part of brazil.)

honestly i feel a little sorry for portugal, basically the weakest part of portugal was lost. However, it was its origin. The Portuguese empire currently has no borders in Europe, living in a country 92 times larger. Considering what Portugal was able to achieve with its small size, the future is promising with the possible loss of European territory as the biggest scar. It is probably the country that hates France the most considering that at least the Prussians did not lose their capital. Honestly if the uk doesn't bother porto-brazil, it will always have an ally against france at least.

 

[Curtain Jerker]

I forget...in this timeline did Prussia lose the Rhineland territories?

 

[lusitano 1996]

ok, how is the world at the moment?
In Europe we have:
1- France (with the onus and bonus of controlling western Europe.)
2- Russia (Without dangerous adversaries on its borders, it is in a very comfortable situation.)
3- austria (no longer has prussia to compete for german states, but has a super france and russia as neighbors.)
4- Sweden (maybe try to unite the Scandinavian countries, but other than that I don't see what this country can do, does anyone have any ideas?)
5-Prussia (it is in a bad situation, but throughout history certain countries managed to escape certain death.)
6- Poland (close to russia, but allied with france. It is in a worse situation than austria but better than prussia.)
7-spain( puppet state, but with army and navy. Both are not very good with the possible loss of colonies in the future.)
8- UK (poor political/economic position and few loyal allies. Largest navy in the world)
9- portugal ( fled to brazil with the court, money, army/navy. What stayed in the country was basically napoleon's supporters and what didn't fit in the ships. Honestly I consider that at the moment there are two portuguese nations, One in Europe and one in America)
10 - the Ottoman empire (exists and was not attacked by the Russians)

In America we have:
1- canada ( uk loyalists, can become very strong in north america if usa goes bad.)
2- usa (surrounded by uk and mexico, complicated situation. but usa can overcome the situation if they know how to play uk vs france.)
3- mexico (if you keep all your territories, it will be a strong country, but the USA is more of a problem. Probable alliance with Canada against the USA.)
4- Colombia (try to keep venezuela and ecuador together in one country, thus being able to dispute central america against usa, mexico, canada and maybe brazil.)
5-5- Brazil (It's basically a European country in America. It probably has the biggest navy and army among American countries because it's basically Portugal. No really threatening neighbors, with good space to expand. Especially in the southern cone. Took the Guyanas for itself. It is a monarchy, which will probably be surrounded by republics. I expect bad relations with the vast majority of South American countries. Especially if Brazil follows the USA of our world with conquests/coups in neighboring countries. It may perhaps dispute the central america and take angola and mozambique. These two probably answer to Rio and not Lisbon considering that when brazil became independent, angola almost became part of brazil.)

honestly i feel a little sorry for portugal, basically the weakest part of portugal was lost. However, it was its origin. The Portuguese empire currently has no borders in Europe, living in a country 92 times larger. Considering what Portugal was able to achieve with its small size, the future is promising with the possible loss of European territory as the biggest scar. It is probably the country that hates France the most considering that at least the Prussians did not lose their capital. Honestly if the uk doesn't bother porto-brazil, it will always have an ally against france at least.

Please , surely there is a possibility of portugal being restored in europe