AHC/WI: Napoleonic peace

[DAv]

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.

Napoleon really didn't want to create an independent Poland. He used the hopes of others to get what he wanted, but never really created it when he had the chance. He always had the impression that the Tsar could be bent to his wishes and sacrificed strategy and common sense in this belief. If he creates Poland, well he's going to create even more animosity from Prussia, Austria and Russia. He needs a victory of some sort before too long, Austria will become restless, Prussia will be looking for an out and Spain will continue to bleed with his forces stretched throughout all of Europe. The supply situation was dire even before the Grand Armee set out as well.

 

[Mixxer5]

Napoleon really didn't want to create an independent Poland. He used the hopes of others to get what he wanted, but never really created it when he had the chance. He always had the impression that the Tsar could be bent to his wishes and sacrificed strategy and common sense in this belief. If he creates Poland, well he's going to create even more animosity from Prussia, Austria and Russia. He needs a victory of some sort before too long, Austria will become restless, Prussia will be looking for an out and Spain will continue to bleed with his forces stretched throughout all of Europe. The supply situation was dire even before the Grand Armee set out as well.

I'm not talking about independent Poland- Napoleon works for himself and for France (in this exact order), not for Poles, Germans and so on. But rebuilding Poland from nothing is much better deal for him, than dealing with Prussia and Austria. He can dismantle them, thus gaining smaller and more manageable states, while Poland- even big- is forced to fight Russia. Poles won't start any revolt against Napoleon, because they'll be occupierd by Russia. If any side starts to win- then Napoleon can upset the balance (although this is unlikely that any side would get upper hand- Russia loses its best lands, while Poland fights biggest state in the world).

In my opinion, if Napoleon wants (or rather wanted) to win, than he must do more of what he did- Divide et impera. So no small state will be strong enough to stand against Napoleon and all these small states will dislike each other much enough to never band against their overlord. And Poland- no matter how strong- won't ever turn west out of fear of Russia. Napoleon can support Poland as much as he wants, until Tzar reaches breaking point (because he can't fall back forever) and agrees on demands or is deposed.

 

[DAv]

I'm not talking about independent Poland- Napoleon works for himself and for France (in this exact order), not for Poles, Germans and so on. But rebuilding Poland from nothing is much better deal for him, than dealing with Prussia and Austria. He can dismantle them, thus gaining smaller and more manageable states, while Poland- even big- is forced to fight Russia. Poles won't start any revolt against Napoleon, because they'll be occupierd by Russia. If any side starts to win- then Napoleon can upset the balance (although this is unlikely that any side would get upper hand- Russia loses its best lands, while Poland fights biggest state in the world).

In my opinion, if Napoleon wants (or rather wanted) to win, than he must do more of what he did- Divide et impera. So no small state will be strong enough to stand against Napoleon and all these small states will dislike each other much enough to never band against their overlord. And Poland- no matter how strong- won't ever turn west out of fear of Russia. Napoleon can support Poland as much as he wants, until Tzar reaches breaking point (because he can't fall back forever) and agrees on demands or is deposed.

How is he going to force the Tsar back when he's going to have to occupy all these new states he's building? Austria, Prussia and the nations of Germany certainly aren't going to allow themselves to be broken up and if they have to turn to Russia, that's what they'll do. Even if they dislike each other, they'll hate Napoleon more because he's going to cock things up for himself with his dictatorial ways and probably do a damned fool thing like replace a native Monarchy for one of his relatives, again. To do as you say, he's going to have to station troops in Germany, Poland, Austria, the Balkans, Germany and not forgetting the running sore that was Spain.

There's be no reason for Russia to really attack since Napoleon will have stretched himself out far too much. The instant he tries to gather up his forces in such a scenario, that'll just give someone the opportunity to strike at a flank and he's going to have to cover that. He can't occupy every square mile of Europe, he doesn't have the strength. And he isn't going to go for an independent Poland, because he was enamoured with the Tsar in a fashion, he believed he could bring him to heel. The only way to get a general peace favourable to France in the Napoleonic Wars is to kill off Napoleon at some point.

 

[Booster Gold]

Britain would've kept throwing money at Napoleon's enemies regardless of who he was or what he did until he knuckled under and she had the economy to do it indefinitely. The bottom line was that a United Europe was a threat to Britain and she would do everything in her power to stop it.

 

[Matteo]

Napoleon really didn't want to create an independent Poland. He used the hopes of others to get what he wanted, but never really created it when he had the chance. He always had the impression that the Tsar could be bent to his wishes and sacrificed strategy and common sense in this belief. If he creates Poland, well he's going to create even more animosity from Prussia, Austria and Russia. He needs a victory of some sort before too long, Austria will become restless, Prussia will be looking for an out and Spain will continue to bleed with his forces stretched throughout all of Europe. The supply situation was dire even before the Grand Armee set out as well.

Not exactly.

Napoleon was following what he thought were his strategic interests.

And his idea, from the beginning of his rule (1799/1800) was to build a grand alliance with Russia to have some kind of french-russian condominium on continental Europe and check Britain.

This is why he was very reluctant to have a polish State reborn. He did not want to antagonize Russia.

But he never could have a real and sincere agreement with Alexander I. Alexander I wanted to confront Napoleon at all costs and he very cleverly duped Napoleon at Tilsitt.

But from late 1810 on, Napoleon at last understood and accepted that Alexander wanted war and that a new war with Russia was unavoidable.

This is why, this time, the price for a victorious russian campaign would be Poland.

 

[DAv]

Not exactly.

Napoleon was following what he thought were his strategic interests.

And his idea, from the beginning of his rule (1799/1800) was to build a grand alliance with Russia to have some kind of french-russian condominium on continental Europe and check Britain.

This is why he was very reluctant to have a polish State reborn. He did not want to antagonize Russia.

But he never could have a real and sincere agreement with Alexander I. Alexander I wanted to confront Napoleon at all costs and he very cleverly duped Napoleon at Tilsitt.

But from late 1810 on, Napoleon at last understood and accepted that Alexander wanted war and that a new war with Russia was unavoidable.

This is why, this time, the price for a victorious russian campaign would be Poland.

Except, Naopoleon never wanted Poland free and brushed off any people who wanted to ask for it. He was so sure that he could get the Tsar on his side he was blinded to reality. Russia wouldn't have accepted it for long anyway as Napoleon's definition of ally was 'people who do exactly what I say all the time and ignore their own interests for mine'. Something was going to break sooner or later due to his attitude.

 

[Alstein]

Could Nappy have wiped Prussia off the map and given most of it to Poland?

Or even wiped Austria and given Hungary and Poland independence?

 

[Matteo]

No, this is wrong. As I explained, it is only because he wanted alliance with Russia that Napoleon did not push for a rebirth of Poland.

Alexander wanted Napoleon to commit never to reestablish a polish State and Napoleon refused to take such a commitment.

In both cases, Nappy's position was pragmatic. He did not want to antagonize Russia but he did not want to cut himself from the poles that put so much hope in him and who were an important and loyal support in eastern Europe.

But you are right about Napoleon's blindedness. Tilsitt was a total mistake but the situation that brought this mistake was not Nappy's responsibility.

He wanted to make peace after Austerlitz but the tsar refused and pushed Prussia to war.
When Prussia was crushed, Napoleon wanted to make peace again but the tsar refused again and pushed the king of Prussia to continue hostilities.
This is what drove the french army into eastern Prussia and caused an uprising of the poles inside the prussian territories, who flocked to fight among the french.

At this time, there was no turning-back possible. Napoleon could not say to the poles : " be kind and resume obeying the prussian king". He had no choice but to create a duchy of Warsaw.

This was a casus belli for Russia. Nappy devised a peace treaty that was astonishingly favourable to defeated and hostile Russia. But he had created a new geopolitical situation that scared Russia to death (40% of the russian high nobility's fortunes were made of properties and serves taken in Poland) and contained a permanent casus belli with Russia : the creation of a new polish State.

Napoleon should have had Alexander's hostile Russia pay the price of continuing war for 2 more years after Austerlitz in order to secure a more solid peace.

 

[Simreeve]

Or even wiped Austria and given Hungary and Poland independence?

IOTL he transferred the Tyrol from Austria to his ally Bavaria... who then had to fight against a lengthy insurgency there. Any other nation to which part of Austria was transferred might face a similar problem. IOTL he allegedly offered the throne of Hungary to Prince Esterjazy, who was apparently seen as the only Hungarian nobleman with enough influence and support to manage the job... and who refused the offer.

 

[Mixxer5]

How is he going to force the Tsar back when he's going to have to occupy all these new states he's building? Austria, Prussia and the nations of Germany certainly aren't going to allow themselves to be broken up and if they have to turn to Russia, that's what they'll do. Even if they dislike each other, they'll hate Napoleon more because he's going to cock things up for himself with his dictatorial ways and probably do a damned fool thing like replace a native Monarchy for one of his relatives, again. To do as you say, he's going to have to station troops in Germany, Poland, Austria, the Balkans, Germany and not forgetting the running sore that was Spain.

There's be no reason for Russia to really attack since Napoleon will have stretched himself out far too much. The instant he tries to gather up his forces in such a scenario, that'll just give someone the opportunity to strike at a flank and he's going to have to cover that. He can't occupy every square mile of Europe, he doesn't have the strength. And he isn't going to go for an independent Poland, because he was enamoured with the Tsar in a fashion, he believed he could bring him to heel. The only way to get a general peace favourable to France in the Napoleonic Wars is to kill off Napoleon at some point.

That's why we need PoD as far as 1807 or even 1805. Then Napoleon could dismantle Prussia and Austria (Austria 1805, Prussia 1807), say to Tzar "go to hell" and rebuild Poland.

Tzar can't be everywhere at once- if Napoleon goes slowly against Russia, than either Tzar attacks fortified Duchy of Warsaw- giving Napoleon time to catch him. Otherwise he must either withdraw further into Russia, or go straight at Grande Army- which won't end good- as usual. So, Napoleon must fortify regions he conquers, he may also ally with Ottomans- who have enough strength to attack in Caucasus and Crimea, forcing Tzar to divide his forces. It will be crawl, but Tzar won't be able to reconquer any lost territory before Napoleon have time to catch him- which may be disastrous.

EDIT:

IOTL he transferred the Tyrol from Austria to his ally Bavaria... who then had to fight against a lengthy insurgency there. Any other nation to which part of Austria was transferred might face a similar problem. IOTL he allegedly offered the throne of Hungary to Prince Esterjazy, who was apparently seen as the only Hungarian nobleman with enough influence and support to manage the job... and who refused the offer.

Well- Galicia won't cause problems- all uprisings there during Austrian rule were Polish (last was Ukrainian but against Poles), so I don't think that returned to Polish state Galicia will revolt.
As of Bohemia and Hungary... I can't see them wanting to become subjects of Austria again (even if they become independent reluctantly), but it might be more tricky than just making them client states. On the other hand- it's better to have few small states to deal with than single Austrian empire...

 

[Mikestone8]

Incidentally, if the chart reproduced on Wiki can be believed, the GA had already lost close to half its strength by the time it reached Smolensk, never mind Moscow.

So even conquering "Greater Poland" [1] was going to involve a massive level of attrition - surely unsustainable in the long run.

[1] Most of which was inhabited by Ukrainian or Belorussian peasants, mostly Orthodox in religion, who would no doubt have been only too happy, given the slightest encouragement from the Tsar, to massacre any Polish landlords who came out on the French side.

 

[Mixxer5]

Incidentally, if the chart reproduced on Wiki can be believed, the GA had already lost close to half its strength by the time it reached Smolensk, never mind Moscow.

So even conquering "Greater Poland" [1] was going to involve a massive level of attrition - surely unsustainable in the long run.

[1] Most of which was inhabited by Ukrainian or Belorussian peasants, mostly Orthodox in religion, who would no doubt have been only too happy, given the slightest encouragement from the Tsar, to massacre any Polish landlords who came out on the French side.

It didn't happen for hundreds of years and it will happen now?

Anyway- You forgot about single thing- these territories were occupied by uniates- not strictly Orthodox (and peasants were of mixed ethnicity, plenty of Poles lived in Belarus and Ukraine up to WWII. And cities- while small- were either Polish or Jewish). Uniates were brutally persecuted by Orthodox church as heretics and that's one of reasons why November uprising stretched pretty far. I don't think it'll matter to them whether they are ruled by Poles (who never infringed on religious freedom) or by Russians (who did).

 

[Saphroneth]

Incidentally, if the chart reproduced on Wiki can be believed, the GA had already lost close to half its strength by the time it reached Smolensk, never mind Moscow.

So even conquering "Greater Poland" [1] was going to involve a massive level of attrition - surely unsustainable in the long run.

[1] Most of which was inhabited by Ukrainian or Belorussian peasants, mostly Orthodox in religion, who would no doubt have been only too happy, given the slightest encouragement from the Tsar, to massacre any Polish landlords who came out on the French side.

Typhus is a heck of a leveller. Turns out putting half a million young men in unsanitary conditions in close quarters results in lice everywhere.

 

[Simreeve]

As of Bohemia and Hungary... I can't see them wanting to become subjects of Austria again (even if they become independent reluctantly), but it might be more tricky than just making them client states. On the other hand- it's better to have few small states to deal with than single Austrian empire...

Bohemia at that time was dominated by German-speakers rather than by Czech nationalists, and those were accustomed to Habsburg rule.
If Napoleon makes it "independent" then who does he put in charge there?
Thinking about it, his best bet would probably to have given it to the Elector (later King) of Saxony, whose claim to inheritance through Habsburg ancestry I think might actually have been arguably better than that of the Austrian Emperor (I haven't checked the family tree, but if he's descended from the Saxon elector who was on the losing side during the War of Austrian Succession then this is the case) but with a guarantee of considerable local autonomy. But would Nappy follow that policy, or would he try to install either one of his family members or one of his Marshals instead?

 

[Mikestone8]

It didn't happen for hundreds of years and it will happen now?

Quite possibly, given that the Orthodox Church was portraying Napoleon as the Antichrist.

Anyway- You forgot about single thing- these territories were occupied by uniates- not strictly Orthodox (and peasants were of mixed ethnicity, plenty of Poles lived in Belarus and Ukraine up to WWII. And cities- while small- were either Polish or Jewish). Uniates were brutally persecuted by Orthodox church as heretics and that's one of reasons why November uprising stretched pretty far. I don't think it'll matter to them whether they are ruled by Poles (who never infringed on religious freedom) or by Russians (who did).

I've heard of the Uniates, but as I understand it they were nowhere near a majority in most of the areas we are talking about.

 

[Mixxer5]

Bohemia at that time was dominated by German-speakers rather than by Czech nationalists, and those were accustomed to Habsburg rule.
If Napoleon makes it "independent" then who does he put in charge there?
Thinking about it, his best bet would probably to have given it to the Elector (later King) of Saxony, whose claim to inheritance through Habsburg ancestry I think might actually have been arguably better than that of the Austrian Emperor (I haven't checked the family tree, but if he's descended from the Saxon elector who was on the losing side during the War of Austrian Succession then this is the case) but with a guarantee of considerable local autonomy. But would Nappy follow that policy, or would he try to install either one of his family members or one of his Marshals instead?

I agree- I simply don't think that even those Germans will want to join Austria after it's broken- whoever will become ruler of these territories, will most likely want to keep his power and becoming vassal of Habsburgs won't help.

Quite possibly, given that the Orthodox Church was portraying Napoleon as the Antichrist.

So how did treaty of Tilsit passed? Deal with the devil? And how is it possible that plenty of nobles did joined Napoleon when he went east?

I've heard of the Uniates, but as I understand it they were nowhere near a majority in most of the areas we are talking about.

1. They were present only in areas we're talking about (Belarus and Ukraine)

2. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polish–Lithuanian_Commonwealth#Demographics_and_religion

"Just before the first partition of Poland, the Commonwealth's population stood at some 14 million, including around 1 million nobles,[89] 4,7 million Uniates and 400,000 Orthodox Christians."

Previously I wanted to say that there was about 2 millions of uniates before partition, but it seems I had it wrong. Out of 10-14 millions of Commonwealth citizens 1/3 were uniates. It's overwhelming over 400k Orthodox.

 

[unprincipled peter]

DAv,
the other side of the coin is that the coalition powers always made a situation where Nap had to keep his knives out. There are certainly points at which either side could have just sucked it up and accepted peace, and have been better off than OTL (except Britain, which, although it spent tons of money, came out of the whole deal smelling like a rose, but Britain also could have ended up cast by the way side if it had lost). Nap made it hard for the coalitions to accept a truce, and the coalitions (namely Britain) made it hard for Nap to accept a truce. Neither side is blameless.

 

[unprincipled peter]

dang refresh doesn't take one to the last page. my response to DAv is probably yesterday's news by now.

 

[unprincipled peter]

I don't think Nap ever intended to have any sort of a unified Poland. First, he recognized that such would be a thorn in everyone's side (this could be a very useful thing). NO ONE wanted a unified Poland. Not Prussia, not Austria, not Russia, and certainly not France. It would just make problems for him. He was too busy defeating all those powers. putting a thorn in the equation makes them tougher to subjugate. and then Poland itself might get uppity. I think Nap's mindset was that a resurgent Poland is just another power he would have to control.

Did Nap ever play one power against another? not really. His mindset was to crush all and bring them to his side. a prudent move would have been to support Poland, use them against 3 of his enemies as an ally. instead, it was his typical mindset: control any given enemy, or coalition of enemies, and force each and every one of them to his will. The only 'allies' Nap ever had were ones he forced into obedience. He was a dunce when it came to playing power politics. He had two thoughts when it came to dealing with enemies: crush them and let them live, subjugated, or crush them and put a relative on the throne.

 

[Matteo]

You are certainly right about Russia and Prussia.

But you are wrong about Austria. In march 1812, as the war with Russia was coming close, France and Austria signed a treaty by which Austria agreed to give Galicia to a polish State, in exchange for getting Illyria back.

Austria had no reason to fear a polish State. Il fact, it was one of the pillars of the alliance of Bourbon France and Habsburg Austria in the middle of the 18th century. The problem is that Prussia and Russia's will to expand at the expenses of Poland some way forced Austria to participate in the break-up of Poland.