4 ms·
For as much as history portrays Napoleon as a dictator (which he was), it neglects that most of his adversaries were ALSO dictators who did equally horrible thi
by exelius 11y ago
For as much as history portrays Napoleon as a dictator (which he was), it neglects that most of his adversaries were ALSO dictators who did equally horrible things.
In Napoleon's mind, he wasn't as much conquering Europe as liberating it from the clutches of nobility. Napoleon viewed himself as a better kind of dictator than the other European monarchs: one who rose to power through his own merit and who selected men for tasks based on their abilities, not their bloodlines. This narrative was decidedly less popular outside of France -- which had essentially executed all of its nobility in the preceding decades, so there was nobody left to disagree. But it really was a war of ideals over who should rule: an arbitrary (and increasingly inbred) line of inherited nobility, or the best man for the job?
If Napoleon had won at Waterloo, Europe would have saved itself a century of war. But the USA would also not exist in its current form -- much of the reason for the rise of American dominance in the 20th century was because Europe was rebuilt after WWII by the American war machine cranking out large quantities of steel and industrial machinery.
And who knows how the 20th century would have turned out without the US as a global superpower. Maybe without war and famine in 19th century Europe, there's never a migration and the central US remains as uninhabited as Siberia. It's fun to think of the "what if?" questions,
- walshemj 11y agoor America could have ended up next on Napoleons list - lets be honest the US army in 1812 would have been no Mach for Napoleon.
- timtadh 11y agoThat would have never happened without British involvement, since they controlled the sea. Furthermore, as the article pointed out, Napoleon and America shared similar ideals. Finally, fighting a war in your homeland is infinitely easier than the supply lines Napoleon would have had to maintain to fight in America. It would have been absurdly expensive and would have opened France up to attack from its unfriendly neighbors. In conclusion, I do not think there is a likely scenario that envisions an America under Napoleonic rule.
- walshemj 11y agoTrue up to a point after you crown your self emperor any pretence of republicanism is long gone one option would be 1 Napoleon wins in Europe does a deal with UK give me Europe and you can have the Americas oh and I want Lousiana back one of my cousins wants to be a king. or 2 Napoleon stays true his ideals and backs slave rebellions in the south and caribbean
- exelius 11y agoI think Napoleon likely would have allied with the US over the long term. The US did not have the baggage of nobility, was ruled by enlightenment thinkers, and we already had a common enemy in the British. That said, the US was a sparsely-populated backwater outpost at the time with only about 7 million inhabitants (a million of whom were slaves). For comparison, the population of Europe during the same time was close to 140 million. We simply didn't have the manpower, infrastructure or money to meaningfully contribute to a European conflict at the time.
- smacktoward 11y agoNot to mention the enormous logistical difficulties of landing and supplying a cross-Atlantic amphibious army large enough to conquer a continent in the age of sail.
- S4M 11y agoNapoleon sold Louisiana to the United States of America, so most likely he didn't care too much about this region. Granted, he may have been afraid of not being able to maintain it because of a naval inferiority, but I don't think expending in America was amongst his priorities.
- yellowapple 11y agoConsidering that America and France both shared a common enemy - Britain - during that time, that would be highly unlikely. The Louisiana Purchase also made that prospect unlikely, as did Napoleon's explicit admiration of American ideals and leadership (as the article pointed out). What reason would Napoleon have to attempt (and probably fail; the American navy was not nearly as much of a pushover as you state the army to have been) to launch a trans-Atlantic campaign against what was historically an ally and a strong cultural/political influence?
- vermontdevil 11y agoYet he installed his own son as the next emperor. So much for meritocracy.