New Granadeseret wrote:1. Well, he IS the Spanish Prime Minister, so that section might as well become a Spanish satellite if he's put in charge of it .
2. Quendi is right: even if Napoleon liked using fancy Roman titles and regalia, handing all of Portugal over seems like an odd choice. Madrid also would have some chronic guerrilla problems during its early years, making taking over Portugal problematic at best.
--
1. Spain is going to get either the far south or north. It depends on which one he wants. I'm keeping the map blank there until he decides.
2. I'm afraid I can't allow that. The primary reason is the Ottoman Empire needs to remain strong to counteract Russian influence, and losing all of North Africa (though it's mostly an issue of Egypt) would be a huge blow to both her internal stability and income. If the Empire were weakened and the population turned against the French, there runs a real risk of Russia "sphering" them and disrupting the balance of power France needs to insure Russia is ringed with strong, French-aligned nations to prevent her from trying to taking another bite at the apple (Though, Segmentia should chime in on this).
3. I can agree to that
4. It's your Confederation, so it's your choice.
5. Denmark-Norway was already a country, and Sweden; bottled between them and Russia, would need to come to some kind of terms. I was thinking any union would be more of a Duelist structure, with a joint military, currency and customs union. After all, Sweden's branch of the Holstein-Gottorp family was about to go extinct and the nation was in political chaos: with the Danish having the upper hand one of the terms of peace could be having Frederick VI named heir to the throne of Sweden (Though keeping Sweden as a separate nation)
6. Well, the issue here is Great Britain still rules the waves, and the Portuguese and Bourbon Spaniard now have the center of their power in the New World. The standing idea I'm working with is, while France is dominate in Europe, the former members of the Coalition still put up a strong resistance in Asia and the Americas. France really can't make many demands so far as the New World is concerned beyond a White Peace, since the Imperial navy was a joke compared to the Royal one (Though this may have changed somewhat in the last 50 years; just as I'm sure the British Army has grown to better match the French threat).
I'm sticking with New Spain (And New Granada) for the Bourbons once I can work out the historical issues involved with the US.
One of the main issues is the tensions between France, Britain, and Russia: Russia doesn't like British influence in the East but similarly dislikes the Pro-French hegemony blocking her advances west. Britain hates Russia's guts and her possible threat to dominance in India and China, but also wants to break up her alliance with France to start a War of the Fifth Coalition and 'liberate' Europe. France wants the status quo, of course, since she's dominant.
1. He wouldn't remain Prime Minister after he became Prince. He was already deeply unpopular due to his extremely pro-French policies and the whole point of giving him a kingdom was to reward a staunch Bonapartist supporter with one of the best golden handshakes in modern history. It would be much more under French than Spanish influence.
-
1. OK. Since the northern region is by far the richer I expect to get it as I wants anyway.
2. Well regarding Egypt its lost to the Ottomans anyway and had been for a while. Its for all intents and purposes a sovereign state ruled by Muhammad Ali's dynasty which doesn't in anything but name (if even that) accept Ottoman leadership. By letting France take Egypt the Ottomans is actually strengthened as they won't have to deal with two costly wars between Egypt and the Ottomans.
4. Then isolation it is for those bastard Prussians.
5. The most I can think of is a personnel union in the mold of the Sweden-Norway union. Even that in the end proved too much for the Norwegians and I don't think the Danes could hope to impose more on Sweden or, in the long run, even Norway.
6. The naval inferiority of the French is being greatly exaggerated. Even after Trafalgar the French navy recovered and was able to force the British to maintain an expensive and straining blockade while Napoleon drew up plans for a huge expansion of the French navy that, if not checked by his disposition, would have allowed the French navy to grow bigger than the British one sometime in the 10s. Adding the navies of Spain, Italy, Sicily and Denmark-Norway (which as I understand the OP didn't loose its fleet) the United Kingdom would inevitably eventually have become inferior.
New Spain sounds fine but even if the Bourbons are initially able to cling on to New Granada I can't imagine them ruling it still in 1860. In fact even if they set up shop in New Spain in the 1810s successfully that won't stop the instability in their former empire and I would be surprised if they hasn't been displaced at least once by a Republic. Certainly whatever war saw New Spain loose all its northern territory to the US would have caused chaos and turmoil in the Kingdom/Empire.
Togeria wrote:-snip-
I am afraid there is a number of issues with your application. As the name suggest this RP is set in a world where Napoleon did better than in RL, in large part on Prussia's expense. The Treaty of Tilsit was made reducing Prussia to the blue on this map. Its population would probably be around ten million not the forty million of RL Prussia.