<p>What would have happened if Napoleon beat back Wellington in the Battle of Waterloo, managed to outsmart Blucher in the battlefront, and forced a ceasefire between France and Britain/Prussia/Russia. It’s interesting to think about… at least from a historical perspective.</p>
<p>America would be much smaller than it is now.</p>
<p>Disagree with the above…America would be bigger or the same size. Napoleon sold us Louisiana because he could not defend it from us and he needed the money. Quebec might have been next, or there would have been no effect on us in terms of territory. N1 beleieved all the important real estate was in Europe, the middle east, and India.</p>
<p>The effect of success at Waterloo? Your question sor tof implies that this would be the “last” battle, not just success at this battle and defeat somewhere else three weeks later, right? Well then, more democratic and republican revolutions in europe, although a lot of the passion for this had been exhausted by the summer of 1815. Probably a relatively quiet period after the war, as a lot of the fire had run out of N1 by this time, and out of the French nation (the largest, most prosperous, and most powerful in Europe, by far) was pretty much exhausted too. But success in recovering his throne would have made the English terribly nervous (they were sitting on a powder keg of social unhappiness), and focused them even more intently on thier traditional enemy, France.</p>
<p>Many ideas inherited from the Revolution or promulgated by N1 such as education for all of the masses (including women), tolerance of religious minorities such as Jews, and end to fuadal rights and land ownership, especially for the church, creation of a landed agricultural middle class, elections to ratify politcal change, Europe as a single entity in need of political, social, and economic union would have been advanced by 200 years.</p>
<p>Many people consider the Napoleonic wars to be “World War Zero” or alternatively the first European Civil War. since the outcome was a substantial return to the status quo ante, the wars were a huge waste…progress was very limited as a result of the Revolution and wars.</p>
<p>Also, because of the relative populations of the states in 1815, success at Waterloo would mean that French would certainly have been the new unifying language of the European state. Recall that the big powers were Russia, Austria, Spain, France and Brtiain. Bonaparte had held and united Italy into just two states: Success at Waterloo would have given his brother in law Giocchino control of the entire pennisula as a subordinate to N1 (just my view: some think it would have gone to Joseph). Western Germany was not yet a nation, and was in any event under the control of another of N1’s brothers, the incompetant Jerome. Had N1 succeeded, this territory (like northwestern Italy) would have become part of France with the French language replacing the local french-german patois. </p>
<p>Since N1’s son was born to the archduchess of Austria, success at Waterloo would have led to union between these two empires at the heart of Europe…imagine a single state comprised of France, Germany, the low countries, Austria, Italy, Poland and the Balkans, united under a vigorous and expansionist republican state, with modern tools for assimilating territory and peoples, and for supressing dissent, and with a huge, excellent army.</p>
<p>Europe, like China, would be one country today, with one language, one civil code, and several state-sponsored variants of Christianity for religion.</p>
<p>Wow. Very informative reasonabledad, thanks! </p>
<p>On a similarly related note:
Since Berlioz re-arranged La Marseillaise in 1830, I’m presuming what we hear now isn’t the same as what heard strains of when he marched in through Berlin after making short work of the Prussians at the height of his empire.</p>
<p>Good question. I think you’re right, but am not really sure.</p>
<br>
<br>
<p>Agreed. Plus he sold the US Louisiana about a decade before Waterloo and the other events envisioned in the original post.</p>
<p>If Boney just succeeded in forcing a cease fire, I don’t think the world would be all that different today. Map of Europe would have different lines and borders, but world power might be much the same. However, if he had actually won the war outright, that is actually invaded, defeated, and conquered Britain, the world would be a very different place.</p>
<p>We might not have ended up with a public education system modeled on that of the Prussian militarized state.</p>
<p>Actually tlaktan Napoleoi banned La Marseillaise.</p>
<p>Napoleon wins at Waterloo and Britannia still rules the waves. God and the Angels are still on the side of Anglo-Saxon liberalism. The French Revolution was a political and intellectual dead end. What didn’t die at Waterloo was buried by Reagan when he blew the Berlin Wall down with a few magic words - and a six hundred ship Navy, robust economy, and the full support of free men everywhere. </p>
<p>Incidentally the Norwegian Constitution (May 16, 1814) a veritable model of contemporary Continental - read French political thought specifically banned two groups from the country, Jews and Jesuits.</p>
<p>Enjoy all posts here . Just to add I do not think Napoleon would have been able to keep what he had won in battle at Waterloo. I suspect there would have been a larger, grander battle involving more alliances and Napoleon would have been defeated, as his army was already very weaken from it’s march into Russia . (You know, win the battle, lose the war) I don’t think there is any way he could have defeated Britian with so many ships lost at Trafalgar. </p>
<p>But it is an interesting concept of a Grand French Empire including France, Germany, Austria, Poland the Balkans, Italy, etc., ruled by Napoleon and his family. And to have French as the unifying language, oh dear!</p>
<p>
</p>
<p>Oddly enough, I was watching a PBS series on Napoleon by David McCullough, and I remember that exact quote, “when he marched into Berlin to the strains of La Marseillaise.” Since Napoleon depended so heavily on using the basic principles of the Revolution to throw himself into power, I sincerely doubt La Marseillaise was banned. </p>
<p>Apparently, the only time the Marseillaise was banned in France (since it’s creation) was during Vichy France, when they considered it a threat to Vichy France and a possible method for the Free French to garner support (as the Internationale did for the Communists just before the Red Revolution). </p>
<p><a href=“http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Marseillaise[/url]”>http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/La_Marseillaise</a></p>
<p>We would appear to have conflicting sources here. I personnally wouldn’t believe PBS if the told me Gore won the election - Oh wait they did tell me that. </p>
<p>I guess we need somebody to fact check this with a reliable source. </p>
<p><a href=“http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/marseill.html[/url]”>http://www.fordham.edu/halsall/mod/marseill.html</a></p>
<p>"Ironically, Rouget de Lisle was himself a royalist and refused to take the oath of allegiance to the new constitution. He was imprisoned and barely escaped the guillotine… Originally entitled Chant de guerre de l’arme</p>
<p>Perhaps La Marseillaise was still “legal” during the First Coalition (1792-1797) when Napoleon crushed the Prussians, Austrians, etc. and thus, the Marseillaise was played in Berlin. That would make a bit more sense. Since he would still rely on his connections with the Revolution until he was crowned Emperor, he would need all the Revolutionary “tools” at his disposal. I’d better go watch that show again. I double-checked my sources, and apparently, most of them say Napoleon I banned it during the reign of the Empire. Since the First Coalition was before Napoleon’s coronation (1804), it would have made sense.</p>
<p>In regards to comparing the Marseillaise from then to now, from what I hear, it was pretty much the same, except the Marseillaise from the past was a bit slower in tempo.</p>
<p>Napoleon banned La Marseillaise in 1799, so you are both right.</p>
<p>The Battle of Waterloo was a big deal, but in the global scheme of things, it wasn’t Napolean’s biggest defeat, simply the last (and had the highest death rate per minute.) France lost more than 80,000 men in an attempted reinvasion of Haiti in 1802, trying to defeat the only successful national slave revolt in the history of the world. Take those 80,000 men and put them back into Napolean’s army in France, and the whole world looks different!</p>
<p>Yeah imagine if he had sent that army to Louisiana instead of Haiti. It probably would have delayed Manifest Destiny by a good two weeks. Is there anybody the French haven’t managed to loose a war to? Heck they surrendered to both sides in WWII. Even the Mexicans kicked their cheese eating surrender monkey behinds in 1865.</p>
<p>I have to suspect La Marseillaise wasn’t too popular with the powers that be after the Bourbon Restoration either.</p>
<p>Louis XVII subsequently banned La Marseillaise.</p>
<p>What if iwannagoivy was president?</p>
<p>Personally, I think that even if Napoleon had won every single campaign, the empire he cobbled together would not have outlasted him. It might have unravelled even earlier as it was too hastily built out of too many disparate peoples. An even more interesting what if question is what would have happened if the Mongol leader Batu, grandson of Gengis Khan, poised on the bank of the Danube, had not hastened back in 1242 to take part in the kuriltai to choose the next Great Khan but had proceeded to invade Western Europe as he had earlier planned?</p>
<p>“Conquest alone has taken me to where I am. Conquest alone will keep me there.” – Gen. Napoleon Bonaparte.</p>
<p>Although the Mongols were fantastic conquerors, Marite, they are not-so-great administrators.</p>
<p>Well, they managed to hang on to China far longer than Napoleon hung on to his empire!</p>