<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>