What if Britian and France had been allies instead of enemies?

What if these two powers had instead of becoming archenemies, became allies, like they did in WWI? How would the Napoleonic wars been different, what would be the effects on the present or other wars (I.E. WWI)?

I don't imagine Britain actually interfering in Europe on France's side. Britain would probably allow for the occupation of Spain and probably take it upon themselves to take all of New Spain, or at least large parts of it. The British Empire would've then been expanded by several times and also prove to possibly be a hinderance to American expansion. America either would've stayed east of the Mississippi, or even annexed by Britain at a later date.

But back to regarding France, Napoleon actually might've had a chance at becoming Emperor of Europe. It was after all British funding that bought the recontruction of the Austrian and Prussian armies.

France would have raped. The end.

From what point? 1790? 1812? There's too much history to alter here and too many variables to consider.

For example, if the British had been allied to the French, the Austrians probably wouldn't have caved to British pressure to cut off supplies to Suvorov's Italian forces in 1800. There probably would have been a rather draining conflict between Russia and the UK in central Asia. Suvorov might well have gone to Paris and ended the war in 1802. Or perhaps not.

Further, the British joining the French side might have driven neutral states, or even hostile states, to join the Coalition. The Ottomans would certainly consider it a threat, and might set aside their squabbles with Russia and Austria. Denmark might join the Coalition and add its navy, which, combined with the Russian fleet, would put the coalition on almost even numerical footing with the Franco-British side. Certainly, Coalition efforts to lure the Franco-British fleet into the Baltic would be quite interesting.

I really doubt that the UK would (or could) occupy New Spain. The Spanish had difficulty dealing with all the rebel groups, and I really doubt they would see the UK as 'liberators'. So basically, the UK would be fighting all the groups that Spain was historically dealing with, PLUS the Spanish-descended rebels. In an area even larger than India. Of course, South America doesn't even bear mentioning. Any conventional military expedition that way would be suicide on a level of Napoleon's 1812 campaign.

Basically, what you've got here is a "knights vs. samurai" scenario. Unless you go back and do a detailed alteration of the whole timeline, nobody will ever agree on anything. And even then it's going to get picked apart.

Originally Posted by Swerg

Basically, what you've got here is a "knights vs. samurai" scenario. Unless you go back and do a detailed alteration of the whole timeline, nobody will ever agree on anything. And even then it's going to get picked apart.

Its the point of a what if; to imagine what might have happened. Frankly I'm more interested in what effect it might have had on the Franco-Prussian war/WWI.

As to dates, chose whatever time you want to, this obviously isn't about how realistic it would be, as it didn't happen, its just a what if. And no it's not a "knights vs. samurai" scenario" as Britain and France would become allies, and their could have been a possibility of an alliance between Napoleonic France and England; while as there was no possibility of knights fighting samurai. This would fall under something more like a parallel universe. If say Britain had decided to ally itself with the new french regime instead of vehemently opposing it, what would the outcomes have been. If I honestly need to make a timeline to stimulate the discussion I will, but Im just curious about what people think.

It would have been impossible after the French Revolution for Britain to ally with France. The British ruling class were terrified of revolution at home and were determined to support anti republican governments in Europe. France had been the natural enemy for centuries and was considered so until the end of the 19th century. Even during the Crimean War Raglan continued to refer to the enemy (the Russians in that war) as the French. Even in 1898 there was possibility of war with France during the Fashoda incident until the French decided to retreat. It was not until the Entente Cordiale in 1904 that the greater potential enemy was recognised as Germany.

I agree with Jihada, its hard to see how this would happen. It was also British government policy to work in favour of a divided Europe, and so being allied to a man whose avowed intent was to unify Europe under his own banner is to work with someone completely opposed to your own best interests. Indeed Britain was so opposed to a unified Europe that Wellington was even warning of a potential war against Prussia in 1814, as he considered that they now threatened to unify all of the Germanic states.

So, for such an alliance to stand a chance Napoleon would first have had to abandon all of his expansionist idea's.

Look I'm not trying to say HOW they allied, just wondering what the consequences would be. I know it's unlikely but it's not impossible. I'm just saying what if the british had taken that .1% chance and allied with france? What would the result have been and how would that have affected the franco prussian war & WWI.

Well assuming that Napoleon had succeeded in brokering a deal with the British government that allowed him free reign in Europe then there would not have been a Franco-Prussian War. France would have unified europe under its Imperial Crown and Germany would have been divided amongst the Imperial confederation of the Rhine and the Imperial Russian Empire.

But my guess is that it wouldn't last long. Napoleon would not be satisfied just with western Europe, sooner or later he would have wanted a colonial Empire and that would have broken the alliance with Britain and pitched the Royal Navy up against the Imperial Fleet again.

France would have gained control of Spain, but it would only be a matter of time before they turned on britain.

If Britain and France were unlikely allies there would have been no Continental System and so no need for France to cause war with its ally Spain in order to attack Portugal.

And no reason to invade Russia to enforce the continental blocus.

I think Napoleon would have pushed for more reform like the code civil, roads, etc. without the need to tax or conscript too many people in new departments (such as holland), with the possible result the people would have actually liked being integrated in France with fewer resentment. Then expand progressively and more peacefully with more departments
And perhaps we would have avoided two costly world war and all be happier.

Do you realize all the problem we are facing nowadays are Britain's fault ?

I doubt any British government would tolerate a foreign power whether France or Germany having control over the Belgian ports with easy access to the Thames estuary,especially Antwerp and the mouth of the Scheldt river. The guarantee of Belgian independence was crucial to British defence after 1830.I doubt even the most radical politician of that time supported an alliance with France ,one reason being its occupation of the Low Countries.
France would have done better to maintain its alliance with Spain and relations with Russia and forget about the obsession with the Continental System which didn't work anyway.

I think a more interesting (and probable) question might be:
"What if Russia had allied to France?"

It was quite possible, and probably would have happened if not for Paul dying so suddenly. He had already sent his Cossack force to attack India. Paul (and many Russians) were quite angry at the British for having twice (that I know of) intentionally hindered Russia's military, killing a number of Russian soldiers in the process, and the British occupation of Malta didn't help things either.

If the Russians had joined the French, no amount of British money would have saved the Austrians and Prussians. I would not attribute this to any great military skill in the Russian camp (Paul's reforms were something of a mixed bag,) but simply to the fact that they would be dealing with two fronts, or potentially three given that the Danes might well join in.

A combined Franco-Danish-Russian fleet (especially with the Spanish assets thrown in) would be a very formidable force, combining the second, third fourth and fifth naval powers against a the British. The Royal Navy would rather quickly find itself overwhelmed.

Originally Posted by Jihada

I doubt even the most radical politician of that time supported an alliance with France. France would have done better to maintain its alliance with Spain and relations with Russia and forget about the obsession with the Continental System which didn't work anyway.

Lord Holland and his pro-revolution friends wanted it to happen, Jerome Bonaparte's kid was the heir to the British throne anyway so had someone in Britain died before their time then Britain would have ended up with France, essentially the plan was to combine the French army with the British navy and make a colonial empire across the world. So essentially that would mean killing Portugal, Spain and the Netherlands. India would have been conquered much sooner as would the Indies and the Caribbean. All of the Americas would be ruled by one European government, excluding the USA, but who knows if they want that too.

An interesting idea. They (France+GB) would have conquered all the world and then turned on each other, all the while plotting for that moment. Both nations leaders didnt bother with the "divide and rule" and Napoleon would surely not have liked to share the world with anyone.

I have sometimes thought about the prussians as an ally for France. Although crushed and seen as a minor opponent, what if Blücher would have turned against the allied forces at Waterloo and helped Napoleon instead ?

I don't think the addition of a Russian and Danish fleet would have made a lot of difference. The RN defeated the combined French/Spanish fleets at Trafalgar and the Danish fleet in a couple hours at Copenhagen. There would also be the logistical problems combining the fleets without them being defeated in detail.

Originally Posted by Jihada

I don't think the addition of a Russian and Danish fleet would have made a lot of difference. The RN defeated the combined French/Spanish fleets at Trafalgar and the Danish fleet in a couple hours at Copenhagen. There would also be the logistical problems combining the fleets without them being defeated in detail.

I'm sure adding half again to the size of the Franco-allied force at Trafalgar would not have made any difference at all. Uh-huh. Not to mention the addition of Admiral Ushakov, who pioneered the tactics that Nelson was so fond of.

And there's a big difference between a battle on the open sea and a surprise attack which used a massacre of civilians in a nation's capital to prompt the surrender of a fleet which was in harbor.

Jihada is absolutely right. British mighty navy could deal blows for all European navies at that period. And they really did it. Dutch navy was defeated earlier in French revolutionary wars for instance at Camperdown 1797. Danish fleet was defeated in 1801 and then even captured at Copenhagen in 1807. French and Spanish were defeated many times, not only at mentioned Trafalgar 1805.

Ottomans fleet avoided sea confrontations, because their ships can not defeated British Navy.
Royal Navy dominated almost all Mediterranean sea.

Russian fleet was intercepted at Lisbon and then interned. Remnants of Russian navy were blockaded on Baltic and Black Seas and feared any sea confrontations with British navy.

Only USA ships, French raiders and Danish boats made some troubles, but they also can not defeat British navy at that time.

Absolutely. The RN was designed to defeat any combination of European navies and did so. What happened at Copenhagen and similarly at Mers al Kebir in WW2 was unfortunately necessary to stop any possibility of the enemy gaining extra ships.The few losses of minor ships to enemy raiders was insignificant in the overall strategy.If the French tried to link all their allied navies in Brest or Toulon half of them would have been intercepted en route coming from different parts of the continent. The Russian Baltic fleet couldn't sail during the months it was ice bound anyway.