@@Squareptune I said Napoleon. Not France itself And USA is more known for the vietnam shit because it was among their first major defeats. Possibly the first after becoming a leading nation
They more less do, the problem of the spanish war was not the regular spnish army, but the spanish guerrillas. Around 250.000-300.000 were in Spain between 1808 and 1813, even before the british invasion, as they need LOTS pf little armies to maintain control over cities and towns that simply refuse to obey and even civilians atack soldiers in the middle of the day if they were not very heavy defended.
they lose lol, this type of musket and artillery warfare ain't working against guerilla tactics and jungle across the whole country Vietnam prove that against the US. What they should do is just build a wall and ignore them like the roman did against Germanic
Big inaccuracy: Napoleon lost most of his army during the summer, due to illness, malnutrition, desertion and Borodino. The winter just finished him off (about 300 000 casualties during summer, 100 000 from winter)
You gotta cut the guy some slack too as he makes a video almost every week or more and including some factors is both difficult to do and also keep interesting and he also states in some of his videos that some minor inaccuracies may be present which hap[pens in most althist scenarios no matter who makes them.
Vos sos termo? Las Guerras Independentistas se dieron gracias al deseo de libertad y democracia propiciado por la Revolución Francesa. La entrada de Napoleón a España envalentonó a los liberales para liberarse del yugo español, y dando gracias al bonapartismo. Todas las Independencia hispanoamericanas fueron declaradas en contra de la España borbona, con el sonido de "Larga Vida al Emperador Bonaparte"
Yes Mexico would probably not exist as an independent federal republic,However it probably would game some autonomy.Similar to how Canada Remains as part of the Commonwealth with the British Monarch as the head of state.
Spain would be interesting in this timeline since they would be an actual player in 19th and 20th century geopolitics if they werent devastated by the peninsular war.
They were already in a hurry. Too feudal agrarian. No development of markets. Constant lack of infraestructure improvement. Even if they continue having the colonies, they ultimatly found the ottoman ending.
7 місяців тому+33
@@TheKarofaar What a total lack of knowledge of the Spanish economy of the 18th century, the scenario you say may be that of the second half of the 17th century, but with the arrival of the Bourbons in the year 1700, the kingdom was revitalized; Spain would not have become the greatest naval competitor of the British Empire if it did not have a decent economic and political structure on the peninsula. The idea of Spanish backwardness is a half-truth, narrated by those English travelers of the 19th century, who arrived in a destroyed Spain after the Napoleonic wars and who wrote with many prejudices about the situation of the place; Extrapolating that to the previous century is a sign of total ignorance, because even Spain managed to be the first country to carry out a medical vaccination expedition around the world (that does not make it a backward and feudal country).
La llegada de los bobones un renacimiento economico. COmparado con la real mierda en la que estaba. Porque te digo yo que no estaba renaciendo al mismo nivel que el resto de europa. La guerra no le hizo bien, pero su propio sistema nobiliario era decadente y sin vision de futuro. Puedes redundar todo lo que quieras en lo que podria haber sido, pero el sistema de servidumbre y alquiler de ganado aun estuvo presente en tiempos de mi padre. Y todo bajo gobierno borbon o sucedaneo.
That's true. Most people don't realize that, even if Spain was somewhat behind other European powers in industrial development, the biggest damage was done during the invasion, where both English and France took advantage to destroy lots of Spanish industrial facilites, which made the gap huge from that poibt onwards.
that are facts, only since the French and the English togheter in the napoleonic war destroying, raiding and devastating the peninsula is where Spain become irrelevant for the next centutires.
Several points: 1. Spain was eager to invade Portugal (unlike your assertion that they were reluctant to start a war) if parts of Portugal were handed to them. That was the initial plan. 2. It is far more likely that the "secret Napoleonic ending" with the troops in reserves is what happens. Napoleon marched with 600,000 troops because that was the maximum number of troops he could supply on paper (within the Empire). 3. Having half a million extra troops after the invasion of Russia will probably keep Prussia and Austria loyal. If they try something, Napoleon will still win and force a harsh deal before Russia can change things. Napoleon spoke several times of dismantling Prussia and that might have been the ending here. 4. The reason Russia would have trouble winning the war by themselves is that it would require them to wage offensive war. In OTL Russia and the Coalition won because they outnumbered the French and were fighting mostly on Coalition territory. Russia will have significant difficulties fighting deep into French Empire territory while also being outnumbered. The most likely ending is that the French Empire borders would hold (maybe minus Duchy of Warsaw) for now, but utter chaos begins after Napoleon's death or some other pivotal event.
Spain was upset that france went behind their back and sold louisiana. I dont think they'll be in a hurry to be selling land, especially when they were at this time having border disputes with the US
Spain is literally a landmine, step on it by the north and you get trapped in the most akward terrain on South europe. That can't be good for an invasion...
To me, the Spain situation was the beginning of the end of Napoleon. It ruined his reputation that he turned on an ally like he did which caused other nations to trust him less and got his armies tied up in a needless Guerilla War that brought him down. I think the plan to invade Portugal was sound but he should have left Spanish Politics and its Monarchy alone.
The war of the 5th coalition would not have happened in this timeline. The reason why Austria felt comfortable with going for a fourth round with France was that Napoleon and most of his best troops were occupied in Spain.
okay I just want to point some inaccuracies. Spain's colonies were already declaring independence by 1811, mostly due to the capture of Spain by the French, not because of the spanish constitution which Ferdinand didn't want to abide for in 1815. Napoleon went to invade Portugal in support of Spain
Yeah, but most support for indepence came after 1814, before that the idea of independence wasnt very popular among the general population, because the 1812 constitution had given considerable benefits for Americans.
I'm sorry to tell you that there's one thing you assume is wrong. The countries of Hispanoamerica did not begin their separation processes because Ferdinand VII later removed the liberal Constitution, on the contrary. Most of these movements began when the Cortes, constituted in 1810, began to evaluate what a liberal constitution would look like, which took power away from the church and the creoles who were the real power of the different viceroyalties. Ferdinand VII's belated attempt to remove this constitution was an attempt to revoke independence processes that were no longer going to be revocable, because the Creoles were already thinking about their power as rulers and how to take away the lands and the old rights of the native tribes that had secured them by pacts with the Crown. In fact, many archives in those territories were burned to make copies of these agreements with the Crown disappear. Documents that in the few cases that could be saved are even now, wielded by these indigenous peoples as a demonstration of their rights and lands that were taken from them by the recent republics established by these Creoles. In fact, many of these native peoples were part of the royal forces, simply because they knew what would happen if the Crown lost royal authority there... Which is exactly what happened to them. Starting mostly a century and a half or even more of obscure extermination and cultural normalization... not by the "conquerors" three centuries earlier, but by the rulers of the new republics. Even so, it is undeniable that Ferdinand VII was a nefarious ruler and that Spain, at least its peninsular part, began a 19th century and part of the 20th century to simply forget. It is certainly not true that the Spanish forces were incompetent... in fact, the navy was far more competent than the French navy and the faulty chain of officers that the republican purges had left behind, to the point that an incompetent of the stature of Villenueve who should never have gone on under normal circumstances to command a ship, was not only raised to that position, but also to the position of commander. but ended up in command of the combined fleet at Trafalgar. In fact, a good part of the victories victories of the combined naval detachments of France and Spain against british naval power during the previous 20 or 30 years were thanks to Spanish naval commanders.
Y sí todo eso es verdad, ¿Por qué lo primero que hicieron los países hispanoamericanos tras la independencia fue redactar sus propias constituciones que garantizaban la igualdad entre los ciudadanos y en muchos casos la laicidad del estado? Aunque a los hispanistas les duela, la realidad es que los independentistas americanos estaban inspirados por los ideales de libertad e igualdad de la ilustración y querían desprenderse del poder absoluto y abusivo del Imperio Español. No fue simplemente una búsqueda de poder, incluso si algunos de ellos buscaban poder, la mayoría de las tropas que lucharon en los ejércitos independentistas, tanto criollos como indígenas, mestizos, negros y mulatos creían en la igualdad y en la libertad. Sólo tenemos que ver cómo todos los países hispanoamericanos abolieron la esclavitud antes que España. México lo hizo en 1813, Colombia en 1851, Argentina en 1853, Perú en 1854, solo por poner algunos ejemplos, mientras que España no abolió la esclavitud hasta 1870. ¿Como encaja todo esto con la fantasía hispanista de que los independentistas americanos se negaban a evolucionar y querían mantener el régimen virreinal mientras que la península era la que quería liberalizar el país? No tiene ningún sentido, es una mentira histórica creada por personas que se niegan a reconocer que los ideales de independencia estaban más que justificados. Además, la reimplantación del absolutismo no fue para intentar conservar los territorios en América, sino porque Fernando VII quería ser monarca absoluto y los nobles y el clero le prometieron su apoyo para reimplantar la monarquía absoluta en el Manifiesto de los Persas.
@@albertojimenez7294 you assume the Spanish Empire to be more abusive than the secular republics, which the subsequent: civil wars, rebellions, land thefts, and attempted ethnic cleansings prove otherwise. You also make the mistake of assuming Revolutionary leaders were Enlightenment idealist, as apposed to using buzz words to rile up the masses for their political ambitions. By the way the Enlightenment is a failed philosophy by prideful men who believed an individual could have superior morality over the 1000 years of church wisdom. As for slavery, the church pushed for *Los Leyes Nuevas* passed by Charles V in 1542 which banned slavery of indigenous people which was in line with the Papal Bull "Sublimus Deus" in 1537 opposing enslavement. The problem with slavery in the Americas wasn't legality, but enforcement, which would require more absolute centrialized power for the crown. You can not enforce "Equality" while having people enjoy the privellages afforded to them by their forefather without violence. This is why latin America has always had civil unrest, because the ideas of the Enlightenment cannot be peacefully upheld. Independence from Spain was a mistake fueled by greed and/or incompetence.
@@jayk4828 Do you know how many civil wars there were in the Spanish Empire? As soon as the conquest of the Inca Empire finished, there was a civil war between Francisco Pizarro and Diego de Almagro. And a few years later there was a revolt of the encomenderos directed by Francisco Fernández Quirón. Also, are you seriously telling me that independence was a bad idea because the republics have suffered civil wars and crises?If we follow this logic, then the reconquest should never have happened. How many civil wars and crises have Spain and Portugal had since they became independent from the Arabs? This argument has no logic: it's like if my neighbor is doing work on his house, I complain because it makes a lot of noise and he complains telling me that if he doesn't do the renovation his house will collapse.The solution you give us to this problem is that my neighbor's house should never have been built If there is no house there is no noisy reform and if there is no republic there are no civil wars. See how ridiculous that sounds?
@@jayk4828 1,000 years of church wisdom? There are 2 fallacies in that sentence: 1. Ad Antiquitatem Fallacy: The fact that these laws have existed for 1,000 years does not make them better than new laws. Something is not better because it is more older. 2. Ad Verecundiam Fallacy: or authority fallacy. Just because something is said by the church or any other institution given authority does not make it true. Were the Enlightenment proud for challenging dogmas that made no sense? For trying to investigate the world in a rational way? Hispanists are a sect and the more Hispanists I know, the clearer I am.
Honestamente no habria probalidades de que eso ocurriera La cultura de España es conformista, la cultura inglesa es ambiciosa EEUU estaba mejor preparado para una guerra con cualquier potencia militar de esa epoca
The government of Portugal was moved to Rio de Janeiro, it wasn’t replaced (at least legitimately). The reconquest started from Lisbon with the British and Portuguese fighting back, the proofs are still in the territory if you want to see it. History many times ignores important details.
The problem with that is Napoléon did not lose in Russian from not having enough troops. He crush the Russians. The problem is everyone either starved to death or died of cold as France was poorly equipped for the Russian winter and the russians burned everything as they retreated. Having more troops in this situation only mean starve faster and more losses to weather. Napoléon needed winter coast for his troops and a reliable supply line from home.
The spanish crown never had colonies like England or France. These american territories were provinces of the crown with big authonomy called virreinatos, de Nueva España, de la plata y de Perú
Would war of the fifith coalition even still happen in this timeline? Austria started it in part because of spain, so I heavli doubt a war of a fifith coalition as we know it would even occur.
The Colonies didn't rebel because Ferdinand didn't accept the constitution. And in the case of Mexico they literally rebelled under Augustin Iturbe because of the liberal constitution.
En los VIRREINATOS* existía un fuerte espíritu liberal propiciado por la Ilustración, la Independencia Estadounidense y la Revolución Francesa. Los virreinato iniciaron su lucha contra el yugo español aprovechando de que los realistas se encontraban concentrados luchando contra el glorioso ejército francés.
Would it be feasible for Napoleon, when planning his war with Russia, to have counted on and to have manoeuvred his armies such as to encourage Russia to devastate their own lands even more, or would that still fall into the category of OOC patience for him?
4:12 map is wrong, half of that united states was part of the spanish lousiana territory. That huge territory was joinked by napoleon and sold to the US after napoleon seized the Spanish throne.
@@rewriting-history Point is, if france didn't invaded spain, US would never have gotten the spanish louisiana, and the video is about napoleon not invading spain!
@@thierryfromgwada9312 Good point, that's right, i completly forgot the 1800 San Ildefonso treaty. Bad business for spain and the legacy of his great governor Galvez.
what if the house of bagrationi was restored in Georgia and Armenia after the collapse of the Soviet union and the two countries united under a bagrationi monarchy
Spain never had colonies, they were Spanish American kingdoms, with their own self-government and armed forces, and the reason for the secession of the American territories was, first, the French invasion and the imposition of Joseph Bonaparte as King, as in the peninsula, in America defence boards were formed to fight against the invader, and the other was the approval of the constitution of 1812, where not all of Spanish society was represented, many American royalists were conservatives and when they saw that constitution formed by Freemasonry they changed sides, not to mention the rebellion of irrigation with the troops that were going to help the royalists in America.
Las Guerras Independentistas Hispanoamericanas se produjeron en contra del realismo e inspirados por los ideales de libertad e igualdad de la Ilustración, la Independencia Estadounidense y, por sobre todo, la Revolución Francesa. Gloria a Francia, Gloria a Napoleón y Gloria a Pepe Botella por ayudarnos a liberarnos del yugo gallego
What if Napoleon, instead on going full on Moscow, haltef his force and made them dig trenches to wait for logistic to be able to arrive and resupply the army in Russia and repeates this until he reached Moscow?
@@French_officer_of_1e_Regiment Okay, i got it. But Moscow was burnt, no needed to make a siege there. Make a siege on the cities all along the way to Moscow, i don't understand why it should be better. Anyway, Napoleon couldn't afford to stay too long, out of France. Soldiers would be demoralized, and would quit, the other enemies could attack elsewhere, and riots could rise in France. It's why Napoleon always wanted a quick peace treaty.
@@thierryfromgwada9312 not sieging Moscow, haven't you read the comment bro? Why would the russians burn their litteral capital when the french digged defensive positions 20? 40? Km away from that? Also this does not mean that they could have then rushed all full in once reinforcements arrive to keep on going As for riots and rebellions, okay sure i can see that happening, but as we see in the actual History it seemed that riots didn't happen once Napoleon left for russia
@@French_officer_of_1e_Regiment Your comment is still not clear. A defensive position, 40 kms away from Moscow, for what ?? To wait for what ? Reinforcement ? Supply ? How could they take an advantage doing this ? How could Napoleon feed thousand of soldiers in a hostile land for a long time ?? The same thing happened in Egypt, and it ended up in a disaster. Did you ever read about Napoleonic era ? They fed on the beast, take all the ressources in the land they passed though. They cannot stay a long time. I say it again, Napoleon never stayed a long time out of France. It was a revolutionnary era, very unstable, inside and outside.
With massive army french army and allies would definitely split army in 2 or 3 offensive fronts. One army would march into moscow, second will go from northern part of bessarabia and third army will go through north provinces near baltic sea. Which would mean that, if russia tries to defend its capital, moscow and ruthenian regions will fall. If russia tries to keep central moscow, then the capital at st.petersburg and ruthenia will fall.
Well yes but supplying that amount of troops deep within enemy terretory would still be a huge issue then Napoleon should change charectar and go for a more slow-paced war and then Who knows what would happen
The Poles advised Napoleon not to go to Moscow looking for a major battle and glory, but to simply occupy the friendly areas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, recently taken by Russia, up to the Dvina and Dnieper. King Jerome of Westphalia is also to blame, as his slowness prevented from defeating the Russian armies before they had united near Smolensk.
Cool mentioning the 1812 Spanish Constitution. It made the Spanish empire into a single Spanish “nation” with a united parliament and regional voting system. Without the chaos of Napoleon’s invasion, it would have been interesting to see how Spain and its colonies developed.
What if he didn’t break character but rather attacked multiple spearheads, if he tried to take Moscow, Petersburg, and Kiev, would the Russians surrender?
From Latin-America, we owe a LOT to Napoleon. The chaos of the Viceroyalties having to choose between the new governors in Spain and the exile original government allowed us to fight for independence while their backs were turned. We NEEDED that to happen! ❤
Let's all forget that the Peninsular wars were essentially to occupy Portugal. Oh boy, how that went well.. 3 times ! Stomping on Spain was an "unfortunate collateral damage" by the cynic Napoleonic troops.... BTW, 10% of the population of my district (Coimbra) was massacred by French troops. Civilians.
ah, at 3:26... that is so funny to think that the Spanish colonies would stand a chance against the United Kingdom of Portugal and Brazil. So, in this scenario, Spain invades Portugal on its own and stages an all-out world war in south America and incursions in Africa? Spain could have some success in Europe, but the Brazilian State was one of the most well developed of the Empire, and the track record of clashes against Spanish troops clearly favored the Portuguese in South America. So forget about that. Uruguay would for sure not exist, and Perhaps not even Argentina and Paraguay. Then you had the Andes.. no way to cross and attack in force from that side, or even organize an attack accross the amazonian tropical forest.... About Portugal proper, the fight would be more difficult there, but if Wellington was still deployed there to give a hand, the same result as 1640 would happen: victory for Portugal. The only piece of land easy to invade in Portugal is Alentejo. The rest is a nightmare for any Spanish army, as proven countless times.
@@romeufrancisco7041 Solo Argentina o Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata, para ese momento, era tan fuerte como Brasil (a pesar de tener mucha más población), de hecho, ganaron la mayoría de batallas en la guerra Cisplatina. Con la ayuda del resto de países hispanos, Brasil hubiera sido totalmente aniquilada. Lo que es realmente gracioso es intentar comparar el desarrollo de los países hispanos con Brasil, que quedaba muy por detrás (Y se nota a lo largo de toda su historia) por eso nunca tuvieron ni un solo nobel, ni siquiera en la actualidad podrían contra el resto de Sudamérica, solo Colombia tiene tantos efectivos militares como Brasil... No te hagas p@j@s mentales, tu nacionalismo no te deja ver la realidad._.
What if Napoleon didn’t invade Russia and kept his focus on Spain (And possibly helping America as well depending on what you come up with) Edit: Essentially they would have a million troops in Spain rather than Russia like in this timeline
In 1812, Canada defended itself by itself. So i dont think Canada would lose in this new scenario even with Napoléon helping the US. However, Canada would probably separate from Britain much earlier then in our timeline. Either because Britain failed to send anything in its time of need (in our time line help arrived 1 year late) or if Napoléon invades Britain instead of Russia, the Royal family would flee to Canada making it the mainland of the British Empire. The reason the Parliament of Canada is almost identical to the one in London is because that was literally the backup plan for the British if Britain were ever to fall. Even with Napoléon's help, the 1812 US army is still a disorganized mess who can only fire once then run away and the US army of 1812 is still a very small army. If Britain lost its mainland and had its backup plan activate to have its new capital in Canada, just the retreating forces would be more then enough to reconquer the US. So its actually bad for the US if Britain loses against Napoléon.
I love your videos RH but I have a problem with your discord server: We were voting on which major we want to be and i voted Qing. The other people that voted Qing were 2 people that didnt even play any roleplay and blazing who played Germany last roleplay. Blazing got chosen and when we started a new rp before the ww1 i played as Soviet union and the mods said we can do anything and even like Vatican had 100000000 troops and when i allied to Nazi Germany Confalt said "thats why you didnt get chosen as a major. " I know its unrealistic but the rp before when Chromeo played USA and became communist and allied to USSR nobody said anything to him and when that rp Blazing as Germany allied to France nobody said anything to him either. I think the rp sometimes shouldnt be realistic but it isnt fair that if it isnt allowed to be unrealistic then mods should be punished too not only casual players and Blazing didnt even want to count me to play a major because the rp before i sold all my Industry and bought all army and attacked Germany(Blazing) 10 mins before the rp ended. I love your videos and your rp and everything but the mods arent fair and the same rules should be applied for casual players and rp mods. Sorry for the long text.
@@futurixta What are you talking about bro ? The video talk about what would happen of Napoleon has never invaded Spain. And you talk about spanish colonies to defend. Why spanish would need to fight against france, if Napoleon hadn't invaded France ?
If Napoleon had never invaded Spain and Russia, perhaps there would still be a very widespread France in Europe and perhaps a descendant of his, a Bonaparte, would reign there.
Sorry but your colour scheme switches all the time, and it makes it confusing. You start with France in blue and Britain in red, pretty standard. But when France invades Spain France is red, and then USA is also red. Why not just stick to France+allies blue and Britain+allies red?
austria attacked in 1809 because napoleon was busy invading spain and they thought they couldve crush napoleons german army before he arrives from the spanish front, britain sent general moore because the spaniards were rebelling so neither of those things will happen had napoleon not invaded. A small british venture in portugal after the francospanish invasion couldve happen with the same wellington/dalrymple/junot affair but i think its improbable to britain to launch such risky attack without a major spanish rebelion to distract the french but its possible. Napoleon after will still invade russia problably with even more troops (i will think an additional 200.000) and will still loose, even more badly but if he like in your secret scenario SPOILER ALLERT holds a large reserve in poland and germany he then will probably win an eventual war of the 6 coalition (in this scenario 5) since he won the battles of lutzen and bautzen. if russia was not able to take at least warsaw and enter berlin then prussia and sweden will not have joined the coalition they only joined because of the russian advance even a reserve of 200.000 in poland will have halted the russians giving time to napoleon to recruit more troops, in our timeline he was able to amass more than 200.000 troops the vast majority conscripts for the beginning of the 1813 german campaign after the disaster in russia. Austria however will probably join because lacking the beat up of 1809 they would have a big ready army by the time in search of revenge from austerlitz, if they joined with at least 200.000 if not more troops and with the russians are able to push the french reserve out of poland then sweden and prussia will also join, if napoleon defeats them then not. the more napolen holds in reserve the better for him
Spain helping the same US that were constantly harrasing spanish Florida? Doesn't make sense to me. Also, in 1812, 600.000 soldiers left France, but not all of them actually reached Russia. About 200.000-300.000 is more like it. That army had a lot of non french troops, so I think in this scenario, what Napoleon would do is sending an army about the same size (600.000) but made only (or at least, mostly) of french soldiers. I don't think he could really handle a bigger army.
History fiction is entertaining. There is an important point regarding this theory. The king of Spain Carlos IV and his son Fernando VII were possibly the most corrupt, irresponsible, mediocre, cowardly and traitorous kings in Napoleon's time. Fernando betrayed his father to become king and Carlos IV betrayed Spain by handling the crown to Napoleon. These monarchs confirm the decline of Spain, that will loose power, influence, land and prestige for ever since.
"Depends if they annex Portugal and its territories after the war" Like they would win... tsk tsk tsk They would lose that... badly, like the spanish always do against us, there are only two countries who can consistently beat up the spanish, Spain and Portugal.
Pero Napoleón no invadió España, sus tropas entraron con un Tratado y luego quisieron derrocar a la familia real. No hubo batallas de frontera, sólo combatio con el ejercito del Sitio de Gibraltar y perdió en Bailén.
you really think france would dominate europe if they win with spain as allie? spain with portugal and all south america would be the first global power again
What if spain had good rulers since 15th century?? This will be like the video u did on what if spain never collapsed but it will be a lot earlier especially covering the golden era of spain which might be very interesting..
Napoleon made so many bad choices. He undermined the French Republic by lies, lost armies in Russia, Spain, Egypt and Haiti. He missed a huge opportunity when he failed to grab his chance in Ireland. Terrible strategist.
Napoleón NO invadió España. Francia y España eran aliados contra Inglaterra. España permitió la entrada de tropas de Napoleón las cuales ocuparon traidoramente el país. Pero los españoles sacaron a los franceses a "patadas' .
They would still have to go because in that case Spain would invade with the support of some French. And yeah, I agree, there is no chance in hell that the Spanish colonies would stand a chance against the Portuguese armies in Brazil. The manpower available was far superior to the Spanish colonies of Argentina, Uruguay or Paraguay. Bolivia would have a real hard time to participate because they needed the troops to keep the natives in line... honestly, that war would potentially accelerate the end of the Spanish empire. With the occupation of Argentina, Brazil would become basically a continental fortress, protected by the Andes in the West and by an unforgiving tropical forest in the Northwest.
Spain was the vietnam of napoleon or well, vietnam was the spain of USA
France's vietnam was vietnam
@@Squareptune I said Napoleon. Not France itself
And USA is more known for the vietnam shit because it was among their first major defeats. Possibly the first after becoming a leading nation
Lol nice one
But USA already had their own Spain
Spain was Sicilian expedition of Napoleon.
What if France kept invading Spain every 10 months after
10 month and 10 like
They more less do, the problem of the spanish war was not the regular spnish army, but the spanish guerrillas. Around 250.000-300.000 were in Spain between 1808 and 1813, even before the british invasion, as they need LOTS pf little armies to maintain control over cities and towns that simply refuse to obey and even civilians atack soldiers in the middle of the day if they were not very heavy defended.
they lose lol, this type of musket and artillery warfare ain't working against guerilla tactics and jungle across the whole country Vietnam prove that against the US. What they should do is just build a wall and ignore them like the roman did against Germanic
Thats what people do when they think anticrhist lead evil revolutionary republican frenchies are invading your country 😂@@juanbarbosasiguenza5883
More senseless loses in the French side, if they end Up winning they Will just get a destroyed and useless country by then.
Big inaccuracy: Napoleon lost most of his army during the summer, due to illness, malnutrition, desertion and Borodino. The winter just finished him off (about 300 000 casualties during summer, 100 000 from winter)
BuT RuSsIaN wInTeR iS iNvInCiBlE
i mean the winter caused a retreat
Of course, but I cannot mention everything. I decided to leave this detail off, maybe I shouldn't have.
You gotta cut the guy some slack too as he makes a video almost every week or more and including some factors is both difficult to do and also keep interesting and he also states in some of his videos that some minor inaccuracies may be present which hap[pens in most althist scenarios no matter who makes them.
@@rewriting-historyit's okay we love you and that's what us nerds in the comments are for, to give more context.
Love you
The 1st Mexican independence was declared against Bonapartist Spain, with shouting of "Long Live King Ferdinand".
Vos sos termo? Las Guerras Independentistas se dieron gracias al deseo de libertad y democracia propiciado por la Revolución Francesa. La entrada de Napoleón a España envalentonó a los liberales para liberarse del yugo español, y dando gracias al bonapartismo. Todas las Independencia hispanoamericanas fueron declaradas en contra de la España borbona, con el sonido de "Larga Vida al Emperador Bonaparte"
Yes Mexico would probably not exist as an independent federal republic,However it probably would game some autonomy.Similar to how Canada Remains as part of the Commonwealth with the British Monarch as the head of state.
Spain would be interesting in this timeline since they would be an actual player in 19th and 20th century geopolitics if they werent devastated by the peninsular war.
They were already in a hurry. Too feudal agrarian. No development of markets. Constant lack of infraestructure improvement.
Even if they continue having the colonies, they ultimatly found the ottoman ending.
@@TheKarofaar What a total lack of knowledge of the Spanish economy of the 18th century, the scenario you say may be that of the second half of the 17th century, but with the arrival of the Bourbons in the year 1700, the kingdom was revitalized; Spain would not have become the greatest naval competitor of the British Empire if it did not have a decent economic and political structure on the peninsula. The idea of Spanish backwardness is a half-truth, narrated by those English travelers of the 19th century, who arrived in a destroyed Spain after the Napoleonic wars and who wrote with many prejudices about the situation of the place; Extrapolating that to the previous century is a sign of total ignorance, because even Spain managed to be the first country to carry out a medical vaccination expedition around the world (that does not make it a backward and feudal country).
La llegada de los bobones un renacimiento economico. COmparado con la real mierda en la que estaba. Porque te digo yo que no estaba renaciendo al mismo nivel que el resto de europa. La guerra no le hizo bien, pero su propio sistema nobiliario era decadente y sin vision de futuro.
Puedes redundar todo lo que quieras en lo que podria haber sido, pero el sistema de servidumbre y alquiler de ganado aun estuvo presente en tiempos de mi padre.
Y todo bajo gobierno borbon o sucedaneo.
That's true. Most people don't realize that, even if Spain was somewhat behind other European powers in industrial development, the biggest damage was done during the invasion, where both English and France took advantage to destroy lots of Spanish industrial facilites, which made the gap huge from that poibt onwards.
that are facts, only since the French and the English togheter in the napoleonic war destroying, raiding and devastating the peninsula is where Spain become irrelevant for the next centutires.
Several points:
1. Spain was eager to invade Portugal (unlike your assertion that they were reluctant to start a war) if parts of Portugal were handed to them. That was the initial plan.
2. It is far more likely that the "secret Napoleonic ending" with the troops in reserves is what happens. Napoleon marched with 600,000 troops because that was the maximum number of troops he could supply on paper (within the Empire).
3. Having half a million extra troops after the invasion of Russia will probably keep Prussia and Austria loyal. If they try something, Napoleon will still win and force a harsh deal before Russia can change things. Napoleon spoke several times of dismantling Prussia and that might have been the ending here.
4. The reason Russia would have trouble winning the war by themselves is that it would require them to wage offensive war. In OTL Russia and the Coalition won because they outnumbered the French and were fighting mostly on Coalition territory. Russia will have significant difficulties fighting deep into French Empire territory while also being outnumbered.
The most likely ending is that the French Empire borders would hold (maybe minus Duchy of Warsaw) for now, but utter chaos begins after Napoleon's death or some other pivotal event.
Spain was upset that france went behind their back and sold louisiana. I dont think they'll be in a hurry to be selling land, especially when they were at this time having border disputes with the US
I said that they would be looking to sell, but after the war.
Spain is literally a landmine, step on it by the north and you get trapped in the most akward terrain on South europe. That can't be good for an invasion...
To me, the Spain situation was the beginning of the end of Napoleon. It ruined his reputation that he turned on an ally like he did which caused other nations to trust him less and got his armies tied up in a needless Guerilla War that brought him down. I think the plan to invade Portugal was sound but he should have left Spanish Politics and its Monarchy alone.
Greed my friend
Spain can only be beated by himself
The war of the 5th coalition would not have happened in this timeline. The reason why Austria felt comfortable with going for a fourth round with France was that Napoleon and most of his best troops were occupied in Spain.
What if the Spanish Empire never fell and Spain restored the Western Roman Empire
XDDDDD
Better world and no woke
okay I just want to point some inaccuracies.
Spain's colonies were already declaring independence by 1811, mostly due to the capture of Spain by the French, not because of the spanish constitution which Ferdinand didn't want to abide for in 1815.
Napoleon went to invade Portugal in support of Spain
Yeah, but most support for indepence came after 1814, before that the idea of independence wasnt very popular among the general population, because the 1812 constitution had given considerable benefits for Americans.
@@ArgentineLeader In fact, many royalists became independentists because they didn't want the liberalism of the 1812 constitution
@@ArgentineLeaderThe common people was very religious and monarchist. They didn't give a shit about liberalism, enlightment or the "nation"
@@rexchiliae I know
@@rexchiliae Interesante, no lo sabía
I'm sorry to tell you that there's one thing you assume is wrong. The countries of Hispanoamerica did not begin their separation processes because Ferdinand VII later removed the liberal Constitution, on the contrary. Most of these movements began when the Cortes, constituted in 1810, began to evaluate what a liberal constitution would look like, which took power away from the church and the creoles who were the real power of the different viceroyalties.
Ferdinand VII's belated attempt to remove this constitution was an attempt to revoke independence processes that were no longer going to be revocable, because the Creoles were already thinking about their power as rulers and how to take away the lands and the old rights of the native tribes that had secured them by pacts with the Crown. In fact, many archives in those territories were burned to make copies of these agreements with the Crown disappear. Documents that in the few cases that could be saved are even now, wielded by these indigenous peoples as a demonstration of their rights and lands that were taken from them by the recent republics established by these Creoles. In fact, many of these native peoples were part of the royal forces, simply because they knew what would happen if the Crown lost royal authority there... Which is exactly what happened to them. Starting mostly a century and a half or even more of obscure extermination and cultural normalization... not by the "conquerors" three centuries earlier, but by the rulers of the new republics.
Even so, it is undeniable that Ferdinand VII was a nefarious ruler and that Spain, at least its peninsular part, began a 19th century and part of the 20th century to simply forget.
It is certainly not true that the Spanish forces were incompetent... in fact, the navy was far more competent than the French navy and the faulty chain of officers that the republican purges had left behind, to the point that an incompetent of the stature of Villenueve who should never have gone on under normal circumstances to command a ship, was not only raised to that position, but also to the position of commander. but ended up in command of the combined fleet at Trafalgar.
In fact, a good part of the victories victories of the combined naval detachments of France and Spain against british naval power during the previous 20 or 30 years were thanks to Spanish naval commanders.
Y sí todo eso es verdad, ¿Por qué lo primero que hicieron los países hispanoamericanos tras la independencia fue redactar sus propias constituciones que garantizaban la igualdad entre los ciudadanos y en muchos casos la laicidad del estado?
Aunque a los hispanistas les duela, la realidad es que los independentistas americanos estaban inspirados por los ideales de libertad e igualdad de la ilustración y querían desprenderse del poder absoluto y abusivo del Imperio Español. No fue simplemente una búsqueda de poder, incluso si algunos de ellos buscaban poder, la mayoría de las tropas que lucharon en los ejércitos independentistas, tanto criollos como indígenas, mestizos, negros y mulatos creían en la igualdad y en la libertad.
Sólo tenemos que ver cómo todos los países hispanoamericanos abolieron la esclavitud antes que España.
México lo hizo en 1813, Colombia en 1851, Argentina en 1853, Perú en 1854, solo por poner algunos ejemplos, mientras que España no abolió la esclavitud hasta 1870.
¿Como encaja todo esto con la fantasía hispanista de que los independentistas americanos se negaban a evolucionar y querían mantener el régimen virreinal mientras que la península era la que quería liberalizar el país?
No tiene ningún sentido, es una mentira histórica creada por personas que se niegan a reconocer que los ideales de independencia estaban más que justificados.
Además, la reimplantación del absolutismo no fue para intentar conservar los territorios en América, sino porque Fernando VII quería ser monarca absoluto y los nobles y el clero le prometieron su apoyo para reimplantar la monarquía absoluta en el Manifiesto de los Persas.
@@albertojimenez7294 you assume the Spanish Empire to be more abusive than the secular republics, which the subsequent: civil wars, rebellions, land thefts, and attempted ethnic cleansings prove otherwise.
You also make the mistake of assuming Revolutionary leaders were Enlightenment idealist, as apposed to using buzz words to rile up the masses for their political ambitions.
By the way the Enlightenment is a failed philosophy by prideful men who believed an individual could have superior morality over the 1000 years of church wisdom.
As for slavery, the church pushed for *Los Leyes Nuevas* passed by Charles V in 1542 which banned slavery of indigenous people which was in line with the Papal Bull "Sublimus Deus" in 1537 opposing enslavement. The problem with slavery in the Americas wasn't legality, but enforcement, which would require more absolute centrialized power for the crown.
You can not enforce "Equality" while having people enjoy the privellages afforded to them by their forefather without violence. This is why latin America has always had civil unrest, because the ideas of the Enlightenment cannot be peacefully upheld.
Independence from Spain was a mistake fueled by greed and/or incompetence.
@@jayk4828 Do you know how many civil wars there were in the Spanish Empire? As soon as the conquest of the Inca Empire finished, there was a civil war between Francisco Pizarro and Diego de Almagro. And a few years later there was a revolt of the encomenderos directed by Francisco Fernández Quirón.
Also, are you seriously telling me that independence was a bad idea because the republics have suffered civil wars and crises?If we follow this logic, then the reconquest should never have happened. How many civil wars and crises have Spain and Portugal had since they became independent from the Arabs? This argument has no logic: it's like if my neighbor is doing work on his house, I complain because it makes a lot of noise and he complains telling me that if he doesn't do the renovation his house will collapse.The solution you give us to this problem is that my neighbor's house should never have been built If there is no house there is no noisy reform and if there is no republic there are no civil wars. See how ridiculous that sounds?
@@jayk4828 It is clear that you have no idea what the ideals of the independentists were, look up what laws they proposed and then talk.
@@jayk4828 1,000 years of church wisdom? There are 2 fallacies in that sentence:
1. Ad Antiquitatem Fallacy: The fact that these laws have existed for 1,000 years does not make them better than new laws. Something is not better because it is more older.
2. Ad Verecundiam Fallacy: or authority fallacy. Just because something is said by the church or any other institution given authority does not make it true.
Were the Enlightenment proud for challenging dogmas that made no sense? For trying to investigate the world in a rational way?
Hispanists are a sect and the more Hispanists I know, the clearer I am.
What if Spain wins the American-Spanish war?
Honestamente no habria probalidades de que eso ocurriera
La cultura de España es conformista, la cultura inglesa es ambiciosa
EEUU estaba mejor preparado para una guerra con cualquier potencia militar de esa epoca
The government of Portugal was moved to Rio de Janeiro, it wasn’t replaced (at least legitimately). The reconquest started from Lisbon with the British and Portuguese fighting back, the proofs are still in the territory if you want to see it. History many times ignores important details.
3:04 the southern regions of Argentina and Chile were not under Spanish rule- they were under the Mapuché tribe.
Lore of What if Napoleon NEVER invaded Spain? Momentum 100
We did it!
The problem with that is Napoléon did not lose in Russian from not having enough troops. He crush the Russians. The problem is everyone either starved to death or died of cold as France was poorly equipped for the Russian winter and the russians burned everything as they retreated. Having more troops in this situation only mean starve faster and more losses to weather. Napoléon needed winter coast for his troops and a reliable supply line from home.
The spanish crown never had colonies like England or France. These american territories were provinces of the crown with big authonomy called virreinatos, de Nueva España, de la plata y de Perú
Would war of the fifith coalition even still happen in this timeline? Austria started it in part because of spain, so I heavli doubt a war of a fifith coalition as we know it would even occur.
Even if Napoleon initiated that conflict this time, it would still happen
It would happen anyway... British would fed the European monarchies, again and again until the Napoleon's death !
Hard to say but they would be chrushed either way
The Colonies didn't rebel because Ferdinand didn't accept the constitution.
And in the case of Mexico they literally rebelled under Augustin Iturbe because of the liberal constitution.
En los VIRREINATOS* existía un fuerte espíritu liberal propiciado por la Ilustración, la Independencia Estadounidense y la Revolución Francesa. Los virreinato iniciaron su lucha contra el yugo español aprovechando de que los realistas se encontraban concentrados luchando contra el glorioso ejército francés.
Would it be feasible for Napoleon, when planning his war with Russia, to have counted on and to have manoeuvred his armies such as to encourage Russia to devastate their own lands even more, or would that still fall into the category of OOC patience for him?
The decay of Napoleón began with the battle of bailen where Napolein was defeated for the first time. It happened in Spain
wasn't napoleon
This is a great scenario! It was really interesting to see where you eent with this!
I really appreciate that, glad you liked it!
4:12 map is wrong, half of that united states was part of the spanish lousiana territory. That huge territory was joinked by napoleon and sold to the US after napoleon seized the Spanish throne.
What is the problem? Isn't it after the sale, what is your point?
@@rewriting-history Point is, if france didn't invaded spain, US would never have gotten the spanish louisiana, and the video is about napoleon not invading spain!
That's wrong !
Louisiana has been a french territories since 1800, before the invasion of Spain : 1807
@@thierryfromgwada9312 Good point, that's right, i completly forgot the 1800 San Ildefonso treaty. Bad business for spain and the legacy of his great governor Galvez.
what if the house of bagrationi was restored in Georgia and Armenia after the collapse of the Soviet union and the two countries united under a bagrationi monarchy
Napoleon regretted invading Spain
I'm sure he did
LOVE Napoleónic Victory videos! And yay! Joseph stays in naples! Love your content ❤❤❤❤
France & Spain: we are friends 😊
France and Spain in 1807: wait, i thought we were friends?
🤮🤮🤮🤮 🇫🇷
Spain never had colonies, they were Spanish American kingdoms, with their own self-government and armed forces, and the reason for the secession of the American territories was, first, the French invasion and the imposition of Joseph Bonaparte as King, as in the peninsula, in America defence boards were formed to fight against the invader, and the other was the approval of the constitution of 1812, where not all of Spanish society was represented, many American royalists were conservatives and when they saw that constitution formed by Freemasonry they changed sides, not to mention the rebellion of irrigation with the troops that were going to help the royalists in America.
Las Guerras Independentistas Hispanoamericanas se produjeron en contra del realismo e inspirados por los ideales de libertad e igualdad de la Ilustración, la Independencia Estadounidense y, por sobre todo, la Revolución Francesa. Gloria a Francia, Gloria a Napoleón y Gloria a Pepe Botella por ayudarnos a liberarnos del yugo gallego
what if the habsburgs won the war of Spanish succession
Hubieran Repartido el imperio
Los borbones han sido y son unos traidores
@@pereximepere8439 Traidor usted, que te dejas llevar de la leyenda negra
@@pereximepere8439 ¿Quien era el rey durante la guerra del asiento? Ya que pareces admirar tanto a Blas de Lezo
@@williamGC Le admiro tanto como Vernon.
What if Napoleon, instead on going full on Moscow, haltef his force and made them dig trenches to wait for logistic to be able to arrive and resupply the army in Russia and repeates this until he reached Moscow?
Trenches ?! That warfare didn't exist at that time. They were not used fight like that bro.
@@thierryfromgwada9312
Not digging trench like ww1! I mean siege trench sorta, like siege of Vienna style
@@French_officer_of_1e_Regiment Okay, i got it. But Moscow was burnt, no needed to make a siege there. Make a siege on the cities all along the way to Moscow, i don't understand why it should be better.
Anyway, Napoleon couldn't afford to stay too long, out of France. Soldiers would be demoralized, and would quit, the other enemies could attack elsewhere, and riots could rise in France. It's why Napoleon always wanted a quick peace treaty.
@@thierryfromgwada9312 not sieging Moscow, haven't you read the comment bro?
Why would the russians burn their litteral capital when the french digged defensive positions 20? 40? Km away from that?
Also this does not mean that they could have then rushed all full in once reinforcements arrive to keep on going
As for riots and rebellions, okay sure i can see that happening, but as we see in the actual History it seemed that riots didn't happen once Napoleon left for russia
@@French_officer_of_1e_Regiment Your comment is still not clear. A defensive position, 40 kms away from Moscow, for what ?? To wait for what ? Reinforcement ? Supply ?
How could they take an advantage doing this ?
How could Napoleon feed thousand of soldiers in a hostile land for a long time ??
The same thing happened in Egypt, and it ended up in a disaster.
Did you ever read about Napoleonic era ? They fed on the beast, take all the ressources in the land they passed though. They cannot stay a long time.
I say it again, Napoleon never stayed a long time out of France. It was a revolutionnary era, very unstable, inside and outside.
With massive army french army and allies would definitely split army in 2 or 3 offensive fronts. One army would march into moscow, second will go from northern part of bessarabia and third army will go through north provinces near baltic sea.
Which would mean that, if russia tries to defend its capital, moscow and ruthenian regions will fall.
If russia tries to keep central moscow, then the capital at st.petersburg and ruthenia will fall.
Well yes but supplying that amount of troops deep within enemy terretory would still be a huge issue then Napoleon should change charectar and go for a more slow-paced war and then Who knows what would happen
The Poles advised Napoleon not to go to Moscow looking for a major battle and glory, but to simply occupy the friendly areas of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania, recently taken by Russia, up to the Dvina and Dnieper. King Jerome of Westphalia is also to blame, as his slowness prevented from defeating the Russian armies before they had united near Smolensk.
Do you have source for this? I never knew this
What IF Myanmar industrialized in 1800s like Japan (Second time asking)
The problem are the British
Your voice sounds exactly like the "o cholera czy to freddy fazbear" guy
Good video btw
Cool mentioning the 1812 Spanish Constitution. It made the Spanish empire into a single Spanish “nation” with a united parliament and regional voting system. Without the chaos of Napoleon’s invasion, it would have been interesting to see how Spain and its colonies developed.
Virreinatos* Nosotros nunca fuimos colonias.
Again Perfect video 👍🗿
Appreciate that a lot!
@@rewriting-history No problem, good luck 👍😎
I watch your videos every weekend, and I can say that you deserve all my subscribers lol
I appreciate that, glad you enjoy the content!
@@rewriting-history You're welcome, you make the best mapping content on UA-cam. I am honored to have a comment from you
where do you keep getting these coins???
I already have them and I have so much more to show!
What if he didn’t break character but rather attacked multiple spearheads, if he tried to take Moscow, Petersburg, and Kiev, would the Russians surrender?
basically whatever the scenerio is, France would be in a tough situation after Napoleon's death. 👍🏻
Hey rewriting history is it just me or did norway get invade or join the war in french side bc in the map they are mark as blue?
From Latin-America, we owe a LOT to Napoleon. The chaos of the Viceroyalties having to choose between the new governors in Spain and the exile original government allowed us to fight for independence while their backs were turned. We NEEDED that to happen! ❤
Let's all forget that the Peninsular wars were essentially to occupy Portugal. Oh boy, how that went well.. 3 times ! Stomping on Spain was an "unfortunate collateral damage" by the cynic Napoleonic troops.... BTW, 10% of the population of my district (Coimbra) was massacred by French troops. Civilians.
ah, at 3:26... that is so funny to think that the Spanish colonies would stand a chance against the United Kingdom of Portugal and Brazil. So, in this scenario, Spain invades Portugal on its own and stages an all-out world war in south America and incursions in Africa? Spain could have some success in Europe, but the Brazilian State was one of the most well developed of the Empire, and the track record of clashes against Spanish troops clearly favored the Portuguese in South America. So forget about that. Uruguay would for sure not exist, and Perhaps not even Argentina and Paraguay. Then you had the Andes.. no way to cross and attack in force from that side, or even organize an attack accross the amazonian tropical forest.... About Portugal proper, the fight would be more difficult there, but if Wellington was still deployed there to give a hand, the same result as 1640 would happen: victory for Portugal. The only piece of land easy to invade in Portugal is Alentejo. The rest is a nightmare for any Spanish army, as proven countless times.
@@romeufrancisco7041 Solo Argentina o Provincias Unidas del Río de la Plata, para ese momento, era tan fuerte como Brasil (a pesar de tener mucha más población), de hecho, ganaron la mayoría de batallas en la guerra Cisplatina. Con la ayuda del resto de países hispanos, Brasil hubiera sido totalmente aniquilada. Lo que es realmente gracioso es intentar comparar el desarrollo de los países hispanos con Brasil, que quedaba muy por detrás (Y se nota a lo largo de toda su historia) por eso nunca tuvieron ni un solo nobel, ni siquiera en la actualidad podrían contra el resto de Sudamérica, solo Colombia tiene tantos efectivos militares como Brasil... No te hagas p@j@s mentales, tu nacionalismo no te deja ver la realidad._.
Good one !!!
Thanks for the support!
@@rewriting-history yw
What if usa join the Napoleon war during war of 1812?
What if Napoleon didn’t invade Russia and kept his focus on Spain (And possibly helping America as well depending on what you come up with)
Edit: Essentially they would have a million troops in Spain rather than Russia like in this timeline
In 1812, Canada defended itself by itself. So i dont think Canada would lose in this new scenario even with Napoléon helping the US. However, Canada would probably separate from Britain much earlier then in our timeline. Either because Britain failed to send anything in its time of need (in our time line help arrived 1 year late) or if Napoléon invades Britain instead of Russia, the Royal family would flee to Canada making it the mainland of the British Empire. The reason the Parliament of Canada is almost identical to the one in London is because that was literally the backup plan for the British if Britain were ever to fall. Even with Napoléon's help, the 1812 US army is still a disorganized mess who can only fire once then run away and the US army of 1812 is still a very small army. If Britain lost its mainland and had its backup plan activate to have its new capital in Canada, just the retreating forces would be more then enough to reconquer the US. So its actually bad for the US if Britain loses against Napoléon.
I love your videos RH but I have a problem with your discord server:
We were voting on which major we want to be and i voted Qing. The other people that voted Qing were 2 people that didnt even play any roleplay and blazing who played Germany last roleplay. Blazing got chosen and when we started a new rp before the ww1 i played as Soviet union and the mods said we can do anything and even like Vatican had 100000000 troops and when i allied to Nazi Germany Confalt said "thats why you didnt get chosen as a major. " I know its unrealistic but the rp before when Chromeo played USA and became communist and allied to USSR nobody said anything to him and when that rp Blazing as Germany allied to France nobody said anything to him either. I think the rp sometimes shouldnt be realistic but it isnt fair that if it isnt allowed to be unrealistic then mods should be punished too not only casual players and Blazing didnt even want to count me to play a major because the rp before i sold all my Industry and bought all army and attacked Germany(Blazing) 10 mins before the rp ended. I love your videos and your rp and everything but the mods arent fair and the same rules should be applied for casual players and rp mods. Sorry for the long text.
I appreciate that you like my videos, but this is outside of my control. Talk with somebody on the server about it!
Spain has a good fleet and could keep the trading with colonies. In fact the problem was that they needed to fight against the Frenchs
?? Not clear. Why did they need to fight against french ?
@@thierryfromgwada9312 cause IRL they invaded the Peninsula, thats why Spain couldnt send troops to secure the Americas
@@futurixta What are you talking about bro ? The video talk about what would happen of Napoleon has never invaded Spain. And you talk about spanish colonies to defend. Why spanish would need to fight against france, if Napoleon hadn't invaded France ?
Can you give us an update on your fallout book?
Not started, but soon I can go ahead and start writing. I'm still in love with my first book and I hope I can do something better
If Napoleon had never invaded Spain and Russia, perhaps there would still be a very widespread France in Europe and perhaps a descendant of his, a Bonaparte, would reign there.
Sorry but your colour scheme switches all the time, and it makes it confusing. You start with France in blue and Britain in red, pretty standard. But when France invades Spain France is red, and then USA is also red. Why not just stick to France+allies blue and Britain+allies red?
Red = aggressor
Blue = defender
@@WhenDoesTheVideoActuallyStart In opening then why is Russia red?
@@commy1231 Because Lenin is a mushroom
Wait, Argentina declared independence in 1810 because of what king Ferdinand did from 1815 onward? that's real foresight
Please do what if Napoleon’s invasion of Russia was successful and what he could have done for it to be a success.
Very nice video, how do you make tour maps ?
Best memes of this channel yet Lol
9:07 another coin???
Yeah, I have a lot
Amazing thumbnail 🎉🎉🎉🎉🎉
Fantanstic video 👍
Really appreciate it!
austria attacked in 1809 because napoleon was busy invading spain and they thought they couldve crush napoleons german army before he arrives from the spanish front, britain sent general moore because the spaniards were rebelling so neither of those things will happen had napoleon not invaded. A small british venture in portugal after the francospanish invasion couldve happen with the same wellington/dalrymple/junot affair but i think its improbable to britain to launch such risky attack without a major spanish rebelion to distract the french but its possible. Napoleon after will still invade russia problably with even more troops (i will think an additional 200.000) and will still loose, even more badly but if he like in your secret scenario SPOILER ALLERT
holds a large reserve in poland and germany he then will probably win an eventual war of the 6 coalition (in this scenario 5) since he won the battles of lutzen and bautzen. if russia was not able to take at least warsaw and enter berlin then prussia and sweden will not have joined the coalition they only joined because of the russian advance even a reserve of 200.000 in poland will have halted the russians giving time to napoleon to recruit more troops, in our timeline he was able to amass more than 200.000 troops the vast majority conscripts for the beginning of the 1813 german campaign after the disaster in russia. Austria however will probably join because lacking the beat up of 1809 they would have a big ready army by the time in search of revenge from austerlitz, if they joined with at least 200.000 if not more troops and with the russians are able to push the french reserve out of poland then sweden and prussia will also join, if napoleon defeats them then not. the more napolen holds in reserve the better for him
Spain helping the same US that were constantly harrasing spanish Florida? Doesn't make sense to me.
Also, in 1812, 600.000 soldiers left France, but not all of them actually reached Russia. About 200.000-300.000 is more like it. That army had a lot of non french troops, so I think in this scenario, what Napoleon would do is sending an army about the same size (600.000) but made only (or at least, mostly) of french soldiers. I don't think he could really handle a bigger army.
History fiction is entertaining. There is an important point regarding this theory. The king of Spain Carlos IV and his son Fernando VII were possibly the most corrupt, irresponsible, mediocre, cowardly and traitorous kings in Napoleon's time. Fernando betrayed his father to become king and Carlos IV betrayed Spain by handling the crown to Napoleon. These monarchs confirm the decline of Spain, that will loose power, influence, land and prestige for ever since.
What if napoleon accept frankfurt treaty
Possible History made a video about that
bro is having 5 billion siezures at once
Lots of South American and North American countries would still be colonies
Sweet, new video
Coin mentioned💰💰💰💰💰💰
People love the coins
Napoleon could've sent 2 armies into Russia, one toward St. Petersburg and 1 toward Moscow.
I have an idea what if the union of Bulgaria and Romania happened
This is my first ever video, my friend!
@@rewriting-history what’s the video called
Could the lost soldiers in Spain aid against the Russian winters?
"Depends if they annex Portugal and its territories after the war"
Like they would win... tsk tsk tsk
They would lose that... badly, like the spanish always do against us, there are only two countries who can consistently beat up the spanish, Spain and Portugal.
Well you forgot that with more troops ge will be more faster. But it will not be a major diffrence but Russia would be weaker
So, how about Ottoman help France in the invation?
Spain didn't have colonies, this is a huge mistake.
Why didn't Napoleon invade via St Petersburg instead of Moscow?
Pero Napoleón no invadió España, sus tropas entraron con un Tratado y luego quisieron derrocar a la familia real. No hubo batallas de frontera, sólo combatio con el ejercito del Sitio de Gibraltar y perdió en Bailén.
Some people forgot that the majority of the Spanish army was in North Europe, so Napoleon basically lost to farmers and civilians.
This guy must to be totally crazy to enter Spain, very agresive people if molested, but very friendly if not.
you really think france would dominate europe if they win with spain as allie? spain with portugal and all south america would be the first global power again
Napoleonic century for every century💪💪💪.
What if spain had good rulers since 15th century??
This will be like the video u did on what if spain never collapsed but it will be a lot earlier especially covering the golden era of spain which might be very interesting..
Napoleon made so many bad choices. He undermined the French Republic by lies, lost armies in Russia, Spain, Egypt and Haiti. He missed a huge opportunity when he failed to grab his chance in Ireland. Terrible strategist.
He was more crazy that the ones that believe to be napoleon
You need to put subtitles
UA-cam auto generates them, why not use them if you need?
@@rewriting-history mine didnt work
What if u combine this senario and napoleon never invade russia
What if Rewriting History intervened in the Historian War of late 2023
What if Crassus and Publius conquered Parthia
Napoleón NO invadió España. Francia y España eran aliados contra Inglaterra. España permitió la entrada de tropas de Napoleón las cuales ocuparon traidoramente el país. Pero los españoles sacaron a los franceses a "patadas' .
Not alone.
Nice
Hope you liked it!
12:32 I would like to see it pls
If the Portuguese Royal Family still came to Brazil™, I don't bet in the Spanish colonies against Brazil/Portugal and Great Britain
They would still have to go because in that case Spain would invade with the support of some French. And yeah, I agree, there is no chance in hell that the Spanish colonies would stand a chance against the Portuguese armies in Brazil. The manpower available was far superior to the Spanish colonies of Argentina, Uruguay or Paraguay. Bolivia would have a real hard time to participate because they needed the troops to keep the natives in line... honestly, that war would potentially accelerate the end of the Spanish empire. With the occupation of Argentina, Brazil would become basically a continental fortress, protected by the Andes in the West and by an unforgiving tropical forest in the Northwest.
But wouldnt the british navy just block the french help to the USA?
The idea is Spain does this
I did say that Britain would block them, but that Spain would send troops from Mexico
Wow rewrite post new video
I did do that!
I was able to guess you are bulgarian by the accent.
Успехи
Много благодаря! Не знам как всички разпознават акцента, според мен не е толкова уникален, но явно има нещо в него. 🤣
@@rewriting-history Еми като на българин е
Do you like watching Bulgarian content?
Yes
I believe France would still lose in the end to Russia
Nos aburrimos,no?..vaya chorrada de vídeo.😎👍🏻
Ироничното е ,че на днешната дата Фердинант се е върнал на трона си.
NO WAY 3:14
FINALLY!