AHC/WI: Napoleonic peace

[Alstein]

In the case of Prussia, it's not going to be able to do much on its own with an enlarged Poland.

Tell Austria you lose the Polish land, but we'll support anything against Russia in the Balkans and you can keep that? They may not be a reliable ally, but they can be won over.

If Russia tries something, beat his armies then win his slice of Poland in the peace deal.

A Franco-Austrian-Polish alliance might be a bit tricky, but it would dominate Europe.

 

[Matteo]

There was that feeling in post-1807 and Britain had been able to strike at Napoleon through Spain, something that they'd been doing quite successfully while they'd also been expanding their markets elsewhere in the world along with exploiting smuggling opportunities in Europe. While Napoleon was strong, his position in that period wasn't invulnerable.

It is Napoleon who stroke himself in Spain. Once he went there, Britain logically went too.

Britain had nothing more to expand elsewhere. And it could not stay at war with all continental Europe forever. It would be going to bankrupcy if it did.

 

[Mike]

In the case of Prussia, it's not going to be able to do much on its own with an enlarged Poland.

Tell Austria you lose the Polish land, but we'll support anything against Russia in the Balkans and you can keep that? They may not be a reliable ally, but they can be won over.

If Russia tries something, beat his armies then win his slice of Poland in the peace deal.

A Franco-Austrian-Polish alliance might be a bit tricky, but it would dominate Europe.

Agreed. It wouldn't dominate Europe, there's still Russia, but it would be powerful enough.

Napoleon's biggest mistake was not going to Spain or Russia, but in actually thinking he could enter into alliance with Russia. It is Austria that he should have courted. To do that, Napoleon should have just ripped apart Prussia and given the bits to Poland and Austria.

 

[DAv]

It is Napoleon who stroke himself in Spain. Once he went there, Britain logically went too.

Britain had nothing more to expand elsewhere. And it could not stay at war with all continental Europe forever. It would be going to bankrupcy if it did.

That's what I meant, Napoleon had opened the door for Britain to attack it and let them weaken his position. Britain's economy had been badly impacted, but so had all of Europe's. Britain managed to find ways to circumvent the Continental Blockade and the Peninsular War gave their army the opportunity for victories while France lost resources in it. If he had avoided Spain, a peace could be made but I doubt it would have lasted too long.

 

[Matteo]

If he successfully defeats Russian, Britain will have no partner lent for any coalition against napoleonic France.

This is probably why it will go for peace.

 

[DAv]

If he successfully defeats Russian, Britain will have no partner lent for any coalition against napoleonic France.

This is probably why it will go for peace.

They were fighting in Portugal and Spain without partners further east. A defeat of Russia (Unlikely as that is as well), would be a blow, but not a deadly one.

 

[Mikestone8]

They were fighting in Portugal and Spain without partners further east. A defeat of Russia (Unlikely as that is as well), would be a blow, but not a deadly one.

And how permanent would it be?

Napoleon can't keep the Grand Armee in Russia forever, and as soon as he leaves the Tsar (Alexander or another) can start getting ready for the next round. Why should any peace Napoleon manages to impose on Russia (supposing he ever can in the first place) last any longer than the Peace of Amiens with Britain?

 

[DAv]

And how permanent would it be?

Napoleon can't keep the Grand Armee in Russia forever, and as soon as he leaves the Tsar (Alexander or another) can start getting ready for the next round. Why should any peace Napoleon manages to impose on Russia (supposing he ever can in the first place) last any longer than the Peace of Amiens with Britain?

Pretty much this. Russia isn't going to stick to the Continental Blockade, it was hurting too much from it and Napoleon couldn't really damage it too much so that it'd never be able to resist. Really, if he just dropped the Continental Blockade and trying to force other nations to do it, he'd be all the better for it.

 

[unprincipled peter]

in 1807, Nap was sitting on top of the world. Prussia and Austria had been defeated and sitting on the sidelines. Austria was revamping their military, but without an opening, were planning on demobilizing. Spain gave them an opening. Of course they quickly got stomped.

The continental system has been estimated to hurt France and it allies more economically than it did England. And it was one of the basic reasons Russia (and everyone else, too) couldn't get along with France.

Those were two massive self inflicted wounds that helped spell the end of Napoleonic France.

Get rid of the CS (don't implement it to begin with), and then in 1807 work toward convincing the neighbors you want peace. there's an opening for a working toward peace, but Nap showed he had no interest in a mutual peace, but rather that the only peace was going to be a dictated peace. that is not conducive to a lasting peace. As Austria showed, Nap's method of installing peace is only going to last until someone thinks they have a shot at tumbling the guy with his boot heel on their neck.