Or have him go away into exile but with a permanent possibility that he (or someone like him) might come back.
That was pretty close to what happened OTL, save that the departure was involuntary, and it preserved the peace for nearly half a century.
AHC/WI: Napoleonic peace
- Thread starter Tredecimus
- Start date
Or have him go away into exile but with a permanent possibility that he (or someone like him) might come back.
That was pretty close to what happened OTL, save that the departure was involuntary, and it preserved the peace for nearly half a century.
To get the peace to help preserve Napoleon's Empire, exile wouldn't do it. He'd have to be dead, both to prevent further catastrophes like Russia and to keep the Allies happy not to try and take it down further.
How does he avoid messing it up?
His war aim, iirc was to compel the Tsar to rejoin the Continental System. But the Tsar can't because it would ruin the Russian economy, and likely cost him his throne (which in Russia means his life as well). So the war is being fought for an impossible objective, and it's just a matter of where and how Napoleon comes a cropper.
Last edited:
The initial plan was a 2 years campaign to roll Russia back of the former kingdom of Poland. This was a precise and limited objective for which he had a clear superiority. This is why the russians retreated.
To win a war, you need precise and rational military objectives that force your opponent to agree to the fact he's defeated and want to sign a peace treaty.
It's only in August 1812 that Napoleon changed his plan and went for Moscow which was a strategic nonsense.
Have him be serionsly ill or wounded, or have him listened to his best lieutenants.
To win a war, you need precise and rational military objectives that force your opponent to agree to the fact he's defeated and want to sign a peace treaty.
It's only in August 1812 that Napoleon changed his plan and went for Moscow which was a strategic nonsense.
Have him be serionsly ill or wounded, or have him listened to his best lieutenants.
Derek Pullem
Donor
Russia is too late.
Spain is the critical point but actually I'd argue that the key turning point was the appointment of various members of his family to the thrones of Europe.
By appointing members of his family to be Kings of Holland, Westphalia and Naples he virtually ensured the perpetual conflict with the Royal Houses of Europe.
After all, if he could do it to these middle ranking nations then why would he stop at that.
And "uniting" France and Spain has been the cause of numerous wars both before and after Napoleon.
If Napoleon had taken the same approach as he did with the Grand Duchy of Warsaw i.e. found a suitable ally to take on the throne of these nations or even accepted a neutered King controlled by a "peoples" parliament (French dominated of course) then perhaps he could have managed a balancing act between empowering France and scaring the Coalitions.
He would never have been accepted by Britain and he could not have imposed anything like the Continental System. But since France itself often bypassed the continental system to obtain clothing and dyes for it uniforms from British traders (true!) it could have come to terms with it.
In a sense Europe would return to a situation similar to Charles V - a colossal multi-national empire bound by alliances and family but one which the peripheral nations had to come to terms with
Spain is the critical point but actually I'd argue that the key turning point was the appointment of various members of his family to the thrones of Europe.
By appointing members of his family to be Kings of Holland, Westphalia and Naples he virtually ensured the perpetual conflict with the Royal Houses of Europe.
After all, if he could do it to these middle ranking nations then why would he stop at that.
And "uniting" France and Spain has been the cause of numerous wars both before and after Napoleon.
If Napoleon had taken the same approach as he did with the Grand Duchy of Warsaw i.e. found a suitable ally to take on the throne of these nations or even accepted a neutered King controlled by a "peoples" parliament (French dominated of course) then perhaps he could have managed a balancing act between empowering France and scaring the Coalitions.
He would never have been accepted by Britain and he could not have imposed anything like the Continental System. But since France itself often bypassed the continental system to obtain clothing and dyes for it uniforms from British traders (true!) it could have come to terms with it.
In a sense Europe would return to a situation similar to Charles V - a colossal multi-national empire bound by alliances and family but one which the peripheral nations had to come to terms with
Spain was a terrible mistake. But Russia was not too late. This is only hindsight that given such a deceptive image.
Historian Oleg Sokolov has demonstrated quite brillantly that, if one set side the sources written after and concentrates on the sources written at the time of the campaign of Russia or just before it, then one realized that most well-informed people in Europe thought Napoleon would win the russian campaign.
In the age of nations, there was no need to put one's family member of the throne of a country to run this country.
Historian Oleg Sokolov has demonstrated quite brillantly that, if one set side the sources written after and concentrates on the sources written at the time of the campaign of Russia or just before it, then one realized that most well-informed people in Europe thought Napoleon would win the russian campaign.
In the age of nations, there was no need to put one's family member of the throne of a country to run this country.
Which proves what, except that most people in Europe were as ignorant about Russia as was Napoleon himself?
Not most people. Well-infiormed people.
It is not Russia that trapped Napoleon in its steppes. It is Napoleon who trapped himself.
He changed a good strategic plan dor a losing one and he did so and lost because he was impatient. Russia badly needed Napoleon to make such a mistake. Because if he had not, then retreating was a worthless strategy.
Losing control of greater Poland was a terrible loss for Russia in terms of resources. It was the most developed part of the empire.
Either Russia would have been forced either to come back trying to take it back and offer Napoleon the big pitched battle he wanted in conditions very favourable for him. Or Russia would have been forced to cut its losses and go for a peace much less lenient that at Tilsitt.
It is not Russia that trapped Napoleon in its steppes. It is Napoleon who trapped himself.
He changed a good strategic plan dor a losing one and he did so and lost because he was impatient. Russia badly needed Napoleon to make such a mistake. Because if he had not, then retreating was a worthless strategy.
Losing control of greater Poland was a terrible loss for Russia in terms of resources. It was the most developed part of the empire.
Either Russia would have been forced either to come back trying to take it back and offer Napoleon the big pitched battle he wanted in conditions very favourable for him. Or Russia would have been forced to cut its losses and go for a peace much less lenient that at Tilsitt.
Not really, Russia would have held out despite the pressure put on them. Napoleon's state of readiness for the campaign was an utter shambles to the point he hadn't even prepared proper maps until just before it. The Tsar wouldn't have surrendered and Napoleon couldn't really damage enough to force them into submission as it would have taken time that would have allowed for greater Coalition building between the allies. A pitched battle would have just had Russia retreat and Napoleon would have had to chase after them if he wanted any kind of peace.
If they were prepared to burn Moscow I think we may safely assume they would sacrifice Poland if hey had to.
Russia would not have held because It had car less resources than all coalized Europe under Napoleon. Russia would have had to move while the others would be solidly entrenched in greater Poland.
Tsar Alexander would not have had to surrender but he would have had to face a real situation. All the point is about who is setting the pace. Running into the depth of Russia just made sense if and only if Napoleon made the mistake of following him. By sticking to the plan, Napoleon would have forced Alexander either to come and confront his army, or to face and accept a fait-accompli.
And if he does not come-back, It is probable that the ottoman empire is going to change his mond and to attack in southern Ukraine. "deal now or the price will become higher".
Saphroneth
Banned
What about if Napoleon doesn't come to power in the first place? Before that things did look like they were settling down a bit...
How does he occupy the whole of "Greater Poland"? If he spreads the Grand Armee all over that vast region, he invites the Russians to pick it off in detail . If he keeps the GA together, then he doesn't have Greater Poland, only those particular corners of it where his troops are actually stationed.
It's all a bit like the predicament of the British Army in the ARW. It could capture and occupy ant cormer of the country that it chose, but it's authority only extended as far as its picket lines.
You sure? I always got the impression that he got his opening exactly because the Directory was so unpopular.
Russia had vast resources, especially if it's not invaded and trade with Britain resumes. Napoleon's resources on the other hand, while vast, has to deal with protecting his flank against Austria and fighting a losing war in Spain. Never mind that he has to keep an eye on Prussia. He's going to be stretched out.
Actually, Alexander would have had to do sod all really. Napoleon has to be the one who moves as he has to get his victory. The Tsar can just wait for Europe to turn against Napoleon as they did OTL. Even in Spain, there's a front there that Napoleon won't be able to fully ignore if Wellington does as well.
Not really, the Ottoman Empire isn't going to move too much and if Napoleon teams up with the Muslims? Not really going to make the Tsar negotiate.
unprincipled peter
Donor
I'm agreeing with Matteo on the Russia thing.
Many tend to think of Russia as a definite insane loss, fait accompli from the moment Nap thought up an invasion. That's baloney.
Nap disregarded the advice of his generals, and got sucked into a morass. By this point, Nap's best commanding days were behind him. I've seen it argued that Davout was by far his superior at that point in time, and I sort of agree. Davout had an alternate plan for invasion, but Nap wanted none of it. My opinion is that Nap blundered, and blundered badly. most mindlessly apply this to the blunder being to attack Russia at all. Space/winter did make Russia formidable. that doesn't make French defeat inevitable. Had an alternative plan been tried, or had Nap been not so foolish as to hand all initiative to the Russians, things may have turned out otherwise. They may have turned out the same, but that was not inevitable.
Many tend to think of Russia as a definite insane loss, fait accompli from the moment Nap thought up an invasion. That's baloney.
Nap disregarded the advice of his generals, and got sucked into a morass. By this point, Nap's best commanding days were behind him. I've seen it argued that Davout was by far his superior at that point in time, and I sort of agree. Davout had an alternate plan for invasion, but Nap wanted none of it. My opinion is that Nap blundered, and blundered badly. most mindlessly apply this to the blunder being to attack Russia at all. Space/winter did make Russia formidable. that doesn't make French defeat inevitable. Had an alternative plan been tried, or had Nap been not so foolish as to hand all initiative to the Russians, things may have turned out otherwise. They may have turned out the same, but that was not inevitable.
And the instant he made a misstep, out come the knives. Napoleon had basically made it so that the other nations had plenty of reasons to go after him. Best thing for a general peace would be his death before Tilsit.
If Napoleon dies, than it's hardly "Napoleonic" peace.
Nevertheless- how long can Tzar flee from Napoleon forces, avoiding pitched battle? Especially with Poles setting their state on his westernmost lands? During November uprising Poles rose up to Kiev and Polotsk- if Napoleon gives them opportunity to build a new state, then they will do so. And Greater Poland will easily be able to field army equal to Prussian (which- I assume- will be dismantled by Napoleon). And Poles will be die-hard (and willing!) allies of Napoleon- if Russians win, then Poland will be partitioned again.
Also- why do You think that Napoleon have to win quickly? He can slowly attach pieces of Russia to Poland- shortening supply lines, weakening Russia and strengthening Poland. He won't give anyone opportunity to think that he's losing, because he won't be losing- Tzar will either slowly fall back or will be forced to fight in the field- but not like otl, with Grand Army lacking supplies and suffering from attrition.