this post was submitted on
18 points (80% like it)
24 up votes 6 down votes

reddit is a source for what's new and popular online. vote on links that you like or dislike and help decide what's popular, or submit your own!

all 14 comments

[–]alaricus 7 points8 points ago

Really hard to say. The American Revolution was more than just money and people that were no longer part of the British Empire. It spawned a lot of thinkers and ideas and spread them out into the world. Without the American Revolution, is there a French Revolution? Without the French Revolution, no Napoleon. What happens to the monarchies of Europe?

The American Revolution is honetly one of the largest and most important wars of the era.

[–]Hetzer 6 points7 points ago

Without the American Revolution, is there a French Revolution? Without the French Revolution, no Napoleon.

Throw in a potential earlier end to slavery in the US and it's starting to sound better and better.

[–]morgenstern 4 points5 points ago

What? Napoleon was one of the best things that could have happend to Europe. Put down those British history books, will you?

[–]Hetzer 0 points1 point ago

I don't think the Napoleonic code is worth the hundreds of thousands of deaths and shattering of institutions (such as the Holy Roman Empire) that lead to greater militarism in Europe (and eventually the World Wars).

[–]morgenstern 6 points7 points ago

Millions of deaths.

But the French were not the aggressors here. They merely chopped the heads of own their feudal lords. The remaining ancien régimes of Europe were not amused, and attempted to reverse all the progress made in France through millitary force. But unlike the scared, conscripted peasants of Austria or Russia, the French soldiers actually had something real to fight for. Combined with Napoleon's millitary prowess, the various reactionary coalitions were defeated half a dozen times. As Hegel said in Jena: “It is impossible not to admire him”.

I believe the French revolution and the spread of the Napoleonic code in Europe was a direct precursor to the revolutions of 1848. It is a terrible tragedy that the Frankfurt National Assembly and their counterparts elsewhere failed. Had they not, Europe would have looked very different in the following hundred years.

[–]Hetzer 0 points1 point ago*

But the French were not the aggressors here. They merely chopped the heads of own their feudal lords. The remaining ancien régimes of Europe were not amused, and attempted to reverse all the progress made in France through millitary force.

But instead of simply defeating the coalition that invaded France Napoleon decided that he needed to rule all of it. And talk to the people pacified in the Vendee for a little perspective on the Revolution itself.

But unlike the scared, conscripted peasants of Austria or Russia, the French soldiers actually had something real to fight for.

The French used conscription as well.

I believe the French revolution and the spread of the Napoleonic code in Europe was a direct precursor to the revolutions of 1848. It is a terrible tragedy that the Frankfurt National Assembly and their counterparts elsewhere failed. Had they not, Europe would have looked very different in the following hundred years.

And yet those revolutions were dismal failures, granting greater strength to the reactionaries (and killing thousands more in the process).

Napoleon's military achievements are remarkable, but his goal was bloody-handed empire, an attempt to remake Europe in his own image. Disastrous.

[–]LordZodd 15 points16 points ago

Americans would still speak English.

[–]jonsayer 4 points5 points ago

The US east coast would have grown up a dominion of the British Empire, possibly part of the same dominion as Canada, the formerly Spanish areas would still be Spanish. Louisiana would be French. The North American map would be very different, and there would not be one dominant power as there is today.

Depending on your point of view, the Spanish may have kept Louisiana because Napoleon wouldn't have conquered them because he never came to power because there was no French Revolution because there was no US Revolution to cause debt in France and an eventual crisis. Maybe.

[–]Lennon789 4 points5 points ago

Good post, but France didn't conquer Louisiana from the Spanish. The French originally gave Louisiana to Spain as part of the 1763 Treaty of Paris, received it back in 1800 due to the secret Treaty of San Ildefonso, and sold it to the United States in 1803. Each one of these details would have been altered dramatically by the absence of an independent United States.

[–]bloodfyr 2 points3 points ago

Provided the rest of history still unfolded the way it did, I'd wager to guess that we would've likely been granted our independence eventually, like Canada and India. We'd probably be in the Commonwealth (though I think we're technically eligible to join now). We would've been present in WWI and WWII from the very beginning like the other British colonies, though I'm not as much of an expert on those two wars to know how much of an effect that would've had.

[–]budgie93 2 points3 points ago

The only reason we don't let you in is because we know you'll dominate the commonwealth games haha

[–]Mokazra 0 points1 point ago

It most likely would have ended up more like the other British colonies of South Africa, India, Hong Kong, etc. They would have held on as long as they could until someone decided to throw their asses out.

[–]n1njapanda 2 points3 points ago

The United Provinces of South Canada.

[–]Piratefishy 2 points3 points ago

They would probably have developed like Canada and Australia. Both are still technically under the rule of the monarchy, but are constitutionally independant (however, the queen has the right to disband the government, as happened in the 1970s in Australia).