What if Napoleon Bonaparte never came to power?

[MaxtheRoadWarrior]

Originally Posted by rishi85

Would you say Europe as a whole would have benefited or no?

I am surprised at so much attention being given to minor historical outcomes (America's acquisition of Louisiana would hardly have been dead in the water had Napoleon never risen to power) at the expense of his broader historiographic implications.

Napoleon is typically considered the catalyst of nationalism in Europe. Most studies of German and Italian unification commit huge passages to Napoleon (e.g. the Burschenschaften in Germany) and rightly so. Aside from exciting ideas of liberalism and nationalism throughout Europe, he was the antithetic villain craved by many traditionalist aristocrats seeking to firmly establish conservatism in the modern age. The Concert of Europe, the constant quest for balance and stability all wrapped in a covert desire for supremacy and supplanted by overwhelming and sometimes violent nationalism.

Forget the Louisiana Purchase, the entire course of 19th, 20th, and 21st century could potentially be turned on its head. No raging nationalism likely means no concert of nations or campaign for national unification, which as a consequence would mean no World Wars, which would be absolutely huge.


The man's affects on culture, politics, and society in the 19th century are second to none, and I can think of few who could rival him between 1500-1930.

[texdav]

Then we would be talking about some other guy. His ambitions had been repeated time and again over centuries by other European leaders. Last was Hitler in WWII.

[jbgusa]

Originally Posted by Dd714

The Napoleonic Wars embroiled the entire continent of Europe into two decades of war that cost the lives of approximately 5 million. It also turned France into one of the first model police states, a pattern to follow for both Nazi Germany and Soviet Russia.

That being said - of course these two decades of war include the Revolutionary France period that was undergoing the terror of daily guillotines, as well as wars with it's neighbors, years before he assumed power. Europe, regardless of who was in power, was in an almost constant state of war with each other and was undergoing revolutionary influences and changes that would impact the continent regardless of who was in power. Napoleon makes the history books, rightfully so, because he was just so good at what he did, and undoubtedly he was a genius. But his ultimate impact on history in my opinion is minimal. France for instance, in 1812 ended up the same as where it started in 1792 - same borders, with a monarchy in power.

Europe was always a cross between a nut house and a charnel house. One of the beneficial aspects of that and other wars was to fuel one of the great "brain drains" of history from Europe to the newly emerging U.S. One of the reasons we're so much better off than the rest of the world is we received the best, the most motivated people. These people could not have been less interested in continuing, non-stop pot-stirring and conflict.

Napoleon was just an exaggerated example of what was wrong with Europe. And yes, a side benefit was receiving the Louisiana Purchase. I am convinced that we would have wound up with that land anyway, much the way we acquired Texas, New Mexico, Colorado,m Utah, California and Arizona. As well as Oregon and Washington.

[Old Gringo]

Things would be different today.

Of course, if Hadrian had somehow fashioned some Transformer robots back in 112 AD, things would be different, also.