WI: No Major European Conflicts Post-Napoleon

  • Thread starter Deleted member 186022
  • Start date

Deleted member 186022

The uneasy peace established after Waterloo lasts until the present day, with the exception of absolutely unavoidable conflicts, such as perhaps the various Balkan uprisings against the Ottomans. What are the the long-term consequences, primarily concerning technology, demographics, and geopolitics?
 
PolishMagnet

PolishMagnet

You need a dominating force to chaperone. We have Europe as it is today because after ww2, the US helped push Europe in that direction. UK had a role in this as well, but not as much.
 

octaviuz

This might be ASB but I think it might have the greatest effect on Germany of the Great Powers. The various upheavals in France (Bourbon to Orleans to Nap III) are fairly internally driven but does the German Empire happen without the Austrian and French conflicts?
Irish Home Rule in the UK was definitely affected by WWI but I don't know that international conflicts played a role in that debate in the 19th century.
 

Deleted member 186022

Intergallactic said:
How is this even possible
Click to expand...
It is quite possible. Removing Prussian and Russian expansion would do a great deal. If Charles X wasn't such a reactionary the Bourbons would likely last in France, and slowly reform into a constitutional monarchy. Carlist Wars can easily be avoided. With enough French and Austrian interference, Italian unification can probably be prevented even with a 1815 POD.
PolishMagnet said:
You need a dominating force to chaperone. We have Europe as it is today because after ww2, the US helped push Europe in that direction. UK had a role in this as well, but not as much.
Click to expand...
Not really. All you need really is significant economic globalisation, which can be achieved even in a multipolar world. There are PODs on here where the world wars don't occur, and are on all accounts relatively peaceful.
octaviuz said:
This might be ASB but I think it might have the greatest effect on Germany of the Great Powers. The various upheavals in France (Bourbon to Orleans to Nap III) are fairly internally driven but does the German Empire happen without the Austrian and French conflicts?
Irish Home Rule in the UK was definitely affected by WWI but I don't know that international conflicts played a role in that debate in the 19th century.
Click to expand...
Indeed, I've addressed France. However, with a 1815 POD there is still potential for Ireland to remain with the UK, especially if the famine is less severe.
 

Deleted member 186022

And with Germany, a strong Austria and France alliance + a neutered Prussia is enough to prevent unification. You would likely see a Bavarian and Baden-Wurttemberg state in the South and Prussia consolidate much of the North.
 

skarosianlifeform

There will be colonial rivalries in Africa, SE, Central and East Asia, and Oceania.

But with a gentleman's agreement that any colonial conflict stays on colonies only (so no fighting or even blockade in Europe), agreement that can even be formalized into a written multilateral Geneva-style treaty, those rivalries could NOT lead to war in Europe.

Even the inevitable Anglo-Russian conflict over Ottoman Empire might be covered by such a treaty (with the Brits being allowed to send troops in Ottoman land, and ships in Ottoman waters, to defend against Russians, but no attack into Russia proper (for example Crimea) or anti-Russian blockade or commerce raiding.
 

Lalli

I can't see that in Europe is not any major wars in 200 years. It sounds almost ASB. You should change human nature greatly avoiding all wars since 1815. There was too lot of rivalry between great powers and some simply wanted some war since they saw that as big necessy. One thing would be no world wars but no single major war in one continent of 200 you are needing some intervention of ASBs.
 

Deleted member 186022

Lalli said:
I can't see that in Europe is not any major wars in 200 years. It sounds almost ASB. You should change human nature greatly avoiding all wars since 1815. There was too lot of rivalry between great powers and some simply wanted some war since they saw that as big necessy. One thing would be no world wars but no single major war in one continent of 200 you are needing some intervention of ASBs.
Click to expand...
It really isn’t. Again, there are many posts on here exploring scenarios in which the World Wars are avoided and peace in Europe lasts until present day, we’re are simply pushing the timeline back 100 years.

If you look at the justifications for most wars post Napoleon, they could of entirely been avoided (except for the Balkan uprisings) as they were mainly caused by aggression or internal strife.

The rivalry between the Great Powers can take different forms and doesn’t have to devolve into outright warfare. I also question your assumption that warfare is somehow ‘human nature’.
 

Deleted member 186022

skarosianlifeform said:
There will be colonial rivalries in Africa, SE, Central and East Asia, and Oceania.

But with a gentleman's agreement that any colonial conflict stays on colonies only (so no fighting or even blockade in Europe), agreement that can even be formalized into a written multilateral Geneva-style treaty, those rivalries could NOT lead to war in Europe.

Even the inevitable Anglo-Russian conflict over Ottoman Empire might be covered by such a treaty (with the Brits being allowed to send troops in Ottoman land, and ships in Ottoman waters, to defend against Russians, but no attack into Russia proper (for example Crimea) or anti-Russian blockade or commerce raiding.
Click to expand...
Indeed, perhaps not as formalised as you’ve described but a general culture in Europe that the peace must be kept and that the continent must remain stable.
 

skarosianlifeform

Galba Otho Vitelius said:
Supposing Napoleon succeeds in constructing a stable empire encompassing Europe, and that remains stable for two centuries?
Click to expand...
Then, he needs a way to neuter Britain for good. Like, somehow, the Royal Navy gets smashed, and England gets invaded, and then forced to demilitaritze itself for 30 years, relinquish all colonies and give independence to Ireland and Scotland, and possibly the French keeping bases/garrisons in several English coastal cities as well as London itself.

Because as long as Britain remains independent and a great power, it will keep encouraging other continental countries to make war against France, and the various states in Germany, Scandinavia, Italy and Iberia will always hope to regain their full independence (instead of forced economical and diplomatical alignment on France, or full-blown vassal status for some) because they'll know that Britain is there and ready to help. Which, inevitably, will lead to an endless cycle of wars (with maybe some periods of peace but again followed by another war).

The other condition for a stable peace in Europe (while the Napoleonic order is maintained) would be that Russia doesn't try to challenge France for the domination of the continent.

Which is possible, but requires that (1) again, Britain is completely declawed, so there's no hope or risk of Britain gold funding another Russian campaign, (2) the Russians are smashed during the alternate 1812 war, maybe instead of Napoleon campaigning into Russia proper, he manages to encourage a rebellion of Serfs across Russia, leading to a Russian civil war that collapses the Tsardom, and/or lures the Czar into campaigning in Polish and German lands, where Nappy has the advantage, and so Russia learns its lesson, and (3) Russia gets major concessions from Napoleonic France, such as a green light for taking over Constantinople and the Straits from the Ottomans as well as conquering Persia, and later expanding into China. And both Russians and French agree to keep any colonial conflict in Asia only (and never in Europe), and to always try to solve those colonial conflicts with talking first.

With the British and Russians out, the Spaniards, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedes and Danes aren't in position to resist French hegemony, nor are the smaller German and Italian states. And soon the Spaniards will need more and more French support to stave off rebellions in Latin America, as well as growing US (and possibly Brazilian) expansionism, while smaller Italian and German states will rely on French help against nationalists who want to create unified Italy and unified Germany (at the expense of the existing princes).

Prussians and Austrians might be slightly tempted to, but Prussians will also be encircled (with the pro-French Poles who really hate them on their backs, French bases in the Duchy of Warsaw, and possibly Swedish presence or threat in Pomerania). Or Prussia might even have ended up dismantled completely at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, after one coalition war too many. Austrians, in addition to be militarily crushed a few times, might be bought off with expansion in the western Balkans (possibly gaining Montenegro, Kosovo and Albania), and then will eventually be busy juggling all the restive ethnicities of their empire (and fear that, should a conflict arise with France, some ethnic rebellions will immediately start thanks to French support). Austria might also see France as the reason why Russia isn't tempted to export panslavism to the Croats, Slovenians, Czechs and Slovaks.
 

Deleted member 186022

skarosianlifeform said:
Then, he needs a way to neuter Britain for good. Like, somehow, the Royal Navy gets smashed, and England gets invaded, and then forced to demilitaritze itself for 30 years, relinquish all colonies and give independence to Ireland and Scotland, and possibly the French keeping bases/garrisons in several English coastal cities as well as London itself.

Because as long as Britain remains independent and a great power, it will keep encouraging other continental countries to make war against France, and the various states in Germany, Scandinavia, Italy and Iberia will always hope to regain their full independence (instead of forced economical and diplomatical alignment on France, or full-blown vassal status for some) because they'll know that Britain is there and ready to help. Which, inevitably, will lead to an endless cycle of wars (with maybe some periods of peace but again followed by another war).

The other condition for a stable peace in Europe (while the Napoleonic order is maintained) would be that Russia doesn't try to challenge France for the domination of the continent.

Which is possible, but requires that (1) again, Britain is completely declawed, so there's no hope or risk of Britain gold funding another Russian campaign, (2) the Russians are smashed during the alternate 1812 war, maybe instead of Napoleon campaigning into Russia proper, he manages to encourage a rebellion of Serfs across Russia, leading to a Russian civil war that collapses the Tsardom, and/or lures the Czar into campaigning in Polish and German lands, where Nappy has the advantage, and so Russia learns its lesson, and (3) Russia gets major concessions from Napoleonic France, such as a green light for taking over Constantinople and the Straits from the Ottomans as well as conquering Persia, and later expanding into China. And both Russians and French agree to keep any colonial conflict in Asia only (and never in Europe), and to always try to solve those colonial conflicts with talking first.

With the British and Russians out, the Spaniards, Portuguese, Dutch, Swedes and Danes aren't in position to resist French hegemony, nor are the smaller German and Italian states. And soon the Spaniards will need more and more French support to stave off rebellions in Latin America, as well as growing US (and possibly Brazilian) expansionism, while smaller Italian and German states will rely on French help against nationalists who want to create unified Italy and unified Germany (at the expense of the existing princes).

Prussians and Austrians might be slightly tempted to, but Prussians will also be encircled (with the pro-French Poles who really hate them on their backs, French bases in the Duchy of Warsaw, and possibly Swedish presence or threat in Pomerania). Or Prussia might even have ended up dismantled completely at the end of the Napoleonic Wars, after one coalition war too many. Austrians, in addition to be militarily crushed a few times, might be bought off with expansion in the western Balkans (possibly gaining Montenegro, Kosovo and Albania), and then will eventually be busy juggling all the restive ethnicities of their empire (and fear that, should a conflict arise with France, some ethnic rebellions will immediately start thanks to French support). Austria might also see France as the reason why Russia isn't tempted to export panslavism to the Croats, Slovenians, Czechs and Slovaks.
Click to expand...
France doesn't have the ability to sustain a European empire during the 19th century due to their demographic issues. France's population growth started to slow down prior to the revolution, around the 1760s, compared to every other country who started to slow in the 1920s. The Napoleonic Wars exacerbated this as millions of Frenchmen died. Even if after the Empire unravelled France retained their natural borders, they would not be able to assimilate the Rhineland, and Flanders would still be majority Flemish despite having Francophone cities. 1/5 or France would be speaking German/Flemish and 2/5 would be speaking Occitan or some other Francophone language. It is untenable.

For the purposes of this scenario, it is better to have a multipolar world. Though France in this scenario would be far better off then OTL, as without a united Germany they would be the dominant force in the continent. And with the Bourbons in charge there will be less liberalism in France, so their demographics will be better. Likely 45-50 million instead of 40.5 million in 1900.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top