Modern Alternate history: Napoleon and the steam engine

Remove this Banner Ad

JoondalupJ said:
Well what if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War? I reckon a lot would be different . Someone wrote on here once that it would have made no difference . I'm not so sure?
Click to expand...
Even if the Confederates had won the Battle of Gettysburg and then marched on Washington to sue for peace, as was their plan - I don't think the Confederacy would have held together for very long.
 
Redalert said:
Fair enough, but what does he then do about Russia? The war may be won, but in a few years they'll be back, and chances are they'll be feeling pretty threatened by a giant French empire.
Click to expand...
Don't know about that. He may after taking Britain , decide to leave Russia alone totally, he would also have an open ended power vacuum to the new world.

The French blocked the English in Chesapeake Bay?? I think (not sure on that area of blockage) a bit earlier, so he may have had enough sense to only bite off what he could eat. Russia has winter to defend itself , especially in those times army on foot and horse, why bother when you rule western Europe , you've conquered the Brits , like your Norman cousins did several hundred years before in 1066, why go and start a s**t fight with Russia. The French would rule the world along side the Yanks, although the north American continent may have posed a different story. What would have happened there?

If the success with what that inventive mechanical developments this thread talks of happening , Russia may have been off his radar. He'd got England at last!!

Its great to think about , maybe his ambition would have stuffed him in the end anyway.
 

Log in to remove this ad.

The Speaker said:
Napoleon's demise is often a favourite of alternate histories. What if he won Waterloo? (Not much would change). What if he didn't invade Russia? What if he beat Portugal, and Spain properly?

The thing is, none of these really account for the one thing that actually caused all of Napoleon's problems - the United Kingdom.

Everything revolved around the fact Napoleon could not crush the UK. Why not? Because of that useful natural border called the English Channel, and the small matter of the Royal Navy. Britain's naval system allowed it and its allies to overcome the continental system. Russia's reopening of trade with the UK was the cause of the invasion of the French, as was Portugal doing the same.

But what if Napoleon had found a way to successfully invade the UK early on? There is a quote attributed to him, regarding the steamboat: "Would you make a ship sail against the wind and currents by lighting a bonfire under her deck? I pray you, excuse me, I have not the time to listen to such nonsense." This was said to Robert Fulton, whom Napoleon also commissioned to make a submarine, which he did, but dismantled it before Napoleon actually saw it for himself.

So, what if Napoleon had actually embraced both the steam boat and the submarine? All he needed to do was control the Channel for long enough to put his substantial army on the British Isles. Would he have been able to do so with this new technology, and would he have then been able to conquer the UK? What effect would this have had on the rest of Europe, and indeed the rest of the world?
Click to expand...

still would have lost because france was far too timid when it came naval tactics in the napoleonic wars.

The french lost countless naval battles because they would disengage from a fight rather than risk losing a ship. Even if France embraced the steam engine and could win more battles at sea she would still have to face guns when pulling into port, which she could not avoid.

if france was willing to surrender blockades against opponents she outnumbered she for fear of having her ships sunk what are the odd's she would risk getting in range of british port's, guns with much longer more accurate range with a brand new state of the art steam boat?
 
Admiral Byng said:
If it was Robert Fulton in charge, they probably wouldn't have got a single working ocean going vessel, so the outcome would be much the same.

The British didn't like the idea of submarines and torpedoes and all that. So they paid him to change sides and develop his ideas in Britain instead. But he was largely ignored, basically given a workshop and a servant to serve tea and just left to tinker around. An insurance policy just in case he ever did get one of his inventions to work.
Click to expand...
YES but we're talking about "If France had got steam and subs and were a bit more advanced and had won Waterloo. This is an IF. Not what actually happened.
 
The_Reaper said:
Very concerned if Napoleon goes ahead with creating a Polish state.
Click to expand...
I still reckon if things panned out and France had total advantage and defeated England , and she would have put troops on British soil, then the attacking of Russia before or after , would be stupid, they'd have a great chance to rule the new world a hell of a lot better than any one else , keep Canada, why fight Russia. Depending on when the advances of technology came into action. Bonaparte may have already stuffed himself up in Russia , and some bright spark would say when he came back, ruined, "Well your Excellency if you waited a year we now have a fleet of subs and some steam ships, better than any one else in the world, and you had to go and bloody well try and take out the bloody Russians before we'd finished inventing."
We can now invade England , Napolean would have said, sorry , broke, got to wait for three years or so , by then the English would have built subs battleships heaven knows what.
Because they would have seen the technological advances the French civil society were up to while silly Napolean was freezing his bum off in Russia, and pretending he'd conquered Moscow.
 
JoondalupJ said:
Yes I'd like to know why, everything would have been different , imagination ?
Click to expand...
If he'd conquered Britain he still would have invaded Russia as they were still a threat in the East. Also, he was a glory seeker and would have been drawn East eventually. Having invaded Russia, they would have suffered the same fate and the rest would have played out as in history. Britain after all was only one of many powers in Europe lining up against France.
 
He'd also have further problems suppressing the British and Prussia while he undertook other campaigns, don't forget he has to tie down a lot of troops across his empire to reduce the risk of revolt from his subjugated nations. Also I tend to agree that Napoleon doesn't seem like the type to sit on his laurels and consolidate his empire, he spent the majority of his reign at war and it wouldn't be in his character to sit back for any great length of time.
 
Redalert said:
He'd also have further problems suppressing the British and Prussia while he undertook other campaigns, don't forget he has to tie down a lot of troops across his empire to reduce the risk of revolt from his subjugated nations. Also I tend to agree that Napoleon doesn't seem like the type to sit on his laurels and consolidate his empire, he spent the majority of his reign at war and it wouldn't be in his character to sit back for any great length of time.[/QUOTE
Yes present not past and redalert you are bopth right. When we take Napoleans character into the story , you are correct , the little aggressor would have thought he could rule the whole world , the Ruskies would have been on the menu.
Sometime in the next week a show on fox' Studio chanell has a three part mini series about Wellington and Waterloo, I think Monday night, maybe 7.30, but it could be EST so I had better check for myself over here, WA.
Click to expand...
 
Redalert said:
He'd also have further problems suppressing the British and Prussia while he undertook other campaigns, don't forget he has to tie down a lot of troops across his empire to reduce the risk of revolt from his subjugated nations. Also I tend to agree that Napoleon doesn't seem like the type to sit on his laurels and consolidate his empire, he spent the majority of his reign at war and it wouldn't be in his character to sit back for any great length of time.
Click to expand...

JoondalupJ said:
Yes present not past and redalert you are bopth right. When we take Napoleans character into the story , you are correct , the little aggressor would have thought he could rule the whole world , the Ruskies would have been on the menu.
Sometime in the next week a show on fox' Studio chanell has a three part mini series about Wellington and Waterloo, I think Monday night, maybe 7.30, but it could be EST so I had better check for myself over here, WA.
Click to expand...
 

(Log in to remove this ad.)

A working steam engine is one thing, having one powerful enough to drive a ship is another, which took until the 1840s to develop.

The bigger (related) advance was armored ships, which took another 10 years. (and another 10 before 'full sized' steam/armoured warships were built).

So to relate back to the OP's hypothetical, if Napoleon had pursued that, then best case he might have had a few small steam frigates and/or transport ships...If they built enough and there had been a long enough period of windless days (so the steam ships could traverse the channel, while the Royal Navy couldn't move) then the might have been able to ship the troops needed across the channel....Seems unlikely though, and the supply lines would have been cut as soon as the wind picked up.
 
telsor said:
A working steam engine is one thing, having one powerful enough to drive a ship is another, which took until the 1840s to develop.

The bigger (related) advance was armored ships, which took another 10 years. (and another 10 before 'full sized' steam/armoured warships were built).

So to relate back to the OP's hypothetical, if Napoleon had pursued that, then best case he might have had a few small steam frigates and/or transport ships...If they built enough and there had been a long enough period of windless days (so the steam ships could traverse the channel, while the Royal Navy couldn't move) then the might have been able to ship the troops needed across the channel....Seems unlikely though, and the supply lines would have been cut as soon as the wind picked up.
Click to expand...
Hypothetically , what if Orville and Wilbur ( not Mr Eds owner) had been born in France 100 years earlier , Napoleon may have been able to bomb England from the air. Then we would really be driving on the other side of the road and talking very fuuuneeee!.
 
The Speaker said:
So, what if Napoleon had actually embraced both the steam boat and the submarine? All he needed to do was control the Channel for long enough to put his substantial army on the British Isles. Would he have been able to do so with this new technology, and would he have then been able to conquer the UK? What effect would this have had on the rest of Europe, and indeed the rest of the world?
Click to expand...

Hitler obviously thought this too.
 
JoondalupJ said:
Well what if the Confederacy had won the American Civil War? I reckon a lot would be different . Someone wrote on here once that it would have made no difference . I'm not so sure?
Click to expand...

The Confederacy were never at any point going to win the Civil War. And whatever glimmer of hope they may have had disappeared the moment Lincoln found two generals who could win - Grant and Sherman. The North had so many soldiers trained that never heard a shot fired - they didn't need them.
 
telsor said:
Not really. There is little indication that the Germans gave a lot of thought/planning to invading the UK.
Click to expand...

I think they thought the UK would simply roll over once mainland europe was conquered. I feel they thought the UK, like Denmark, was culturally similar to themselves thus would form part of the Aryan allegiance.
 
Power Raid said:
I think they thought the UK would simply roll over once mainland europe was conquered. I feel they thought the UK, like Denmark, was culturally similar to themselves thus would form part of the Aryan allegiance.
Click to expand...

At the very least, they expected/hoped the UK would stay neutral.
 
Partridge said:
The Confederacy were never at any point going to win the Civil War. And whatever glimmer of hope they may have had disappeared the moment Lincoln found two generals who could win - Grant and Sherman. The North had so many soldiers trained that never heard a shot fired - they didn't need them.
Click to expand...
Yes but at one stage early in the war I believe the North were expecting to get run over by Confederate cavalry. Maybe rumour and fearmongering , but the early parts weren't too great for the Union. But seriously I don't know for sure. Later of course things changed . Funny that Grant and Lee and other generals from both sides fought along side each other in the Mexican war. Civil war is just horrific, well any war is , but your own people fair dinkum?
 
JoondalupJ said:
Yes but at one stage early in the war I believe the North were expecting to get run over by Confederate cavalry. Maybe rumour and fearmongering , but the early parts weren't too great for the Union. But seriously I don't know for sure. Later of course things changed . Funny that Grant and Lee and other generals from both sides fought along side each other in the Mexican war. Civil war is just horrific, well any war is , but your own people fair dinkum?
Click to expand...

Basically at the start Lincoln couldn't find the right general. They always had superior arms and resources, but struggled to find the right commander. Once they did in Grant it was inevitable.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

SBD Gonzalez
The true cost of the British Raj?
Replies
7
Views
851
Johnny Bananas
Johnny Bananas

Remove this Banner Ad

Back
Top