What would've happened had the French not invaded Egypt in 1798? Let's say one of the higher ups in the Republic realizes that it's impossible to control the place in the long term thanks to the presence of the Royal Navy.

Would France have won the War of the Second Coalition faster with Napoleon and at least 20.000 extra French soldiers staying in Europe? What would've happened to Jean-Baptiste Kléber, since his assassination would be averted? Would he have become one of Napoleon's marshals? Same question goes for Desaix, since he wouldn't be killed at Marengo.

What about the Ottoman Empire? I read that the Nizam-i-Cedid Army of Selim III proved its worth there, which strengthened the reformist faction against the Janissaries. However, at the same time one can argue that the invasion seriously weakened this very group, since:

  • It interrupted the eight-month long siege of Vidin, capital of the state created the rebel Osman Pazvantoglu (who allied himself with rogue Janissaries) which stretched from Belgrade to the Black Sea and whose raids devastated much of Wallachia and Serbia;
  • It allowed Muhammad Ali Pasha to rise to power.
Thoughts?
 
What would've happened had the French not invaded Egypt in 1798? Let's say one of the higher ups in the Republic realizes that it's impossible to control the place in the long term thanks to the presence of the Royal Navy.

Would France have won the War of the Second Coalition faster with Napoleon and at least 20.000 extra French soldiers staying in Europe? What would've happened to Jean-Baptiste Kléber, since his assassination would be averted? Would he have become one of Napoleon's marshals? Same question goes for Desaix, since he wouldn't be killed at Marengo.


Thoughts?
One thing would be extremely interesting, confrontation of the greatest general of the previous generation (Suvorov) and the raising star (Bonaparte). Opinions regarding the outcome vary (Duffy was betting on Suvorov big the French would probably disagree) but this would be really fascinating both for the contemporaries and for the future historians. Both personages would have a solid excuse in the case of a loss: Bonaparte would blame the Directorate and Suvorov (and the Russians) Austrians. 😂
 
What would've happened had the French not invaded Egypt in 1798? Let's say one of the higher ups in the Republic realizes that it's impossible to control the place in the long term thanks to the presence of the Royal Navy.

Would France have won the War of the Second Coalition faster with Napoleon and at least 20.000 extra French soldiers staying in Europe? What would've happened to Jean-Baptiste Kléber, since his assassination would be averted? Would he have become one of Napoleon's marshals? Same question goes for Desaix, since he wouldn't be killed at Marengo.

What about the Ottoman Empire? I read that the Nizam-i-Cedid Army of Selim III proved its worth there, which strengthened the reformist faction against the Janissaries. However, at the same time one can argue that the invasion seriously weakened this very group, since:

  • It interrupted the eight-month long siege of Vidin, capital of the state created the rebel Osman Pazvantoglu (who allied himself with rogue Janissaries) which stretched from Belgrade to the Black Sea and whose raids devastated much of Wallachia and Serbia;
  • It allowed Muhammad Ali Pasha to rise to power.
Thoughts?

France not losing around 20-30k soldiers is a big +... I also asume Malta is not conquered either so the Knights of St. John remain in Malta.

Can't say whether France will win the Second Coalition. They probay will with Napoleon and 20,000 extra soldiers. I can only assume.

The Nizam-I Cedid reforms continue albeit without showing how they are. Their dirst performance could be against the Janissaries who may revolt in Istanbul.

I agree with Osman Pazvantoglu removed far sooner from Vidin. This may also be one of the first campaigns the New Army shows its worth. Eastern Balkans are likely to remain within the control of Ottoman Central Authorities, about 30 years earlier. A big plus for the Ottomans in terms of finances and manpower source.

The biggest advantage is Mehmed Ali. That is if we assume things go like OTL. Mehmed Ali removed the Mamluks and Janissaries while enforcing the reforms Istanbul wanted, in Egypt. This gave him the advantage over the Ottoman Authorities. But if the reforms are going on, the Ottoman Authorities are at least two decades ahead of Egypt, without halting it in 1807. So Mehmed Ali coming in power is not the biggest issue for the Ottoman Empire.
Assuming he doesn't, the Ottomans have easier time to restore order in the provinces and far mor earlier, even Egypt by removing the Mamluks. The biggest threat would be Ali Pasha Tepelene.

No Napoleonic invasion of Egypt also means likely no Russo-Turkish participation in the Ionian Islands. Which means the islands becomes a target for the Royal Navy. Selim III admirer of France and even had sympathy for the revolutionaries. He was forced into the war due to the invasion of Egypt. Though, then again, the Ottomans could join regardless considering how close to comfort the French are next to the Ottoman Empire. If a Russo-Turkish War breaks out the Ottomans have the advantage of no Russian Navy in the Mediterranean, if there is no Russo-Turkish Campaign in the Ionian Islands. Which means no blockade of the Straits like OTL.
 
Probably removed like in Iraq but far more earlier (1810s instead of 1831 in Iraq).
That's quite a lot of time for the mamluks to consolidate their domain and for the ottomans to get more problems elsewhere. How likely would be for the Ottoman Empire to end up like the Mughal Empire? (that's more a question for my own TL)
 
That's quite a lot of time for the mamluks to consolidate their domain and for the ottomans to get more problems elsewhere. How likely would be for the Ottoman Empire to end up like the Mughal Empire? (that's more a question for my own TL)

If the House of Osman is extinct and a Giray Sultan is accepted then you are closely to a situation where Imperial authority starts is Istanbul and ends between Edirne and Bursa.
 
That's quite a lot of time for the mamluks to consolidate their domain and for the ottomans to get more problems elsewhere. How likely would be for the Ottoman Empire to end up like the Mughal Empire? (that's more a question for my own TL)
If you want to screw the OE BADLY in this period, have the future Mahmud II be assassinated at the same time as Selim III. Poof, there goes the House of Osman. The Serbs would go their own way (they were already revolting in 1808) as would the countless ayans and Muhammad Ali Pasha in Egypt.
 
Last edited:
What would happen to the future expedition in egypt in the future?
Eh? It doesn't happen. The soldiers (and Napoleon, of course) would take part in multiple battles once the War of the Second Coalition begins. IIRC the allies had some initial successes that may not happen here.

One thing would be extremely interesting, confrontation of the greatest general of the previous generation (Suvorov) and the raising star (Bonaparte). Opinions regarding the outcome vary (Duffy was betting on Suvorov big the French would probably disagree) but this would be really fascinating both for the contemporaries and for the future historians. Both personages would have a solid excuse in the case of a loss: Bonaparte would blame the Directorate and Suvorov (and the Russians) Austrians. 😂
Napoleon vs Suvorov would be a battle for the ages. Neither of them were idiots (for every genius in a decisive battle there's a dumbass on the other side, just look at Austerlitz where Alexander I fell for Nappy's trap hook line and sinker) so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned into a bloody stalemate, at least the initial engagement. Of course, there are factors outside of either general's control, such as the weather, stray shots that can kill them in the middle of the fight and so on.

EDIT: Overall, I think Napoleon has the advantage since he's closer to his homeland than Suvorov is. They'd probably duke it out in northern Italy.
 
Last edited:
Eh? It doesn't happen. The soldiers (and Napoleon, of course) would take part in multiple battles once the War of the Second Coalition begins. IIRC the allies had some initial successes that may not happen here.


Napoleon vs Suvorov would be a battle for the ages. Neither of them are idiots (for every genius in a decisive battle there's a dumbass on the other side, just look at Austerlitz where Alexander I fell for Nappy's trap hook line and sinker) so I wouldn't be surprised if it turned into a bloody stalemate. Of course, there are factors outside of either general's control, such as the weather, stray shots that can kill them in the middle of the fight and so on.
That's the whole point. Besides, both are aggressive style generals stressing an attack vs. defense. Suvorov has a much greater experience but most of his troops are Austrians (to be fair, under his command they performed quite well). Of course, Napoleon in OTL eventually grew up in a much greater figure and Suvorov never commander armies of the similar size but at the time in question he is still on the early stages of his career and experience does matter. The question is how much would it matter and on this we do not have an answer. Of course, Napoleon was generally better in using artillery, but the armies operating in Italy in 1799 did not have too much of it (IIRC) so this may or may not be a decisive factor.

Then, of course, we are assuming that by the start of campaign he is in charge of all armies in Italy but this is not granted (and I doubt that the Directorate is eager to make him an excessively powerful military figure with the resources of the whole Italy in his disposal). So I'd risk to suggest that he may be placed in charge of one of the armies operating in Italy with a resulting situation being close to one of the OTL when Suvorov was able to defeat the French armies one by one. Or he may be even assigned on a different front (Switzerland, Germany).
 
Didn't napoleon's invasion of Egypt and all his findings there help gave rise to expeditions of ancient Egyptian culture?

Delayed until new interest in Egypt rises. Probably when the Suez Canal is built. Could be earlier than OTL 1873... Maybe in the 1850s?
 
Didn't napoleon's invasion of Egypt and all his findings there help gave rise to expeditions of ancient Egyptian culture?
Maybe an Ottoman governor would finance research on stuff such as the Rosetta Stone later. This could possibly mean that more mummies and treasures stay in Egypt instead of being taken to european museums and private collections.
 
That's the whole point. Besides, both are aggressive style generals stressing an attack vs. defense. Suvorov has a much greater experience but most of his troops are Austrians (to be fair, under his command they performed quite well). Of course, Napoleon in OTL eventually grew up in a much greater figure and Suvorov never commander armies of the similar size but at the time in question he is still on the early stages of his career and experience does matter. The question is how much would it matter and on this we do not have an answer. Of course, Napoleon was generally better in using artillery, but the armies operating in Italy in 1799 did not have too much of it (IIRC) so this may or may not be a decisive factor.

Then, of course, we are assuming that by the start of campaign he is in charge of all armies in Italy but this is not granted (and I doubt that the Directorate is eager to make him an excessively powerful military figure with the resources of the whole Italy in his disposal). So I'd risk to suggest that he may be placed in charge of one of the armies operating in Italy with a resulting situation being close to one of the OTL when Suvorov was able to defeat the French armies one by one. Or he may be even assigned on a different front (Switzerland, Germany).
Well experience dose matter but so dose youth, energy and a new way of fighting. Suvorov is a great general dont get me wrong but he is 70+ and has fought the traditional maneuver wars of europe against Poland and turkey, while napoleon has already altered they way wars are fought whith his first Italian campaign, one in which suvorov has had little experience with.
Also I think it would be suvorov having trouble whith multiple armys , napoleon already had control of the intier army of Italy the first time around, I don't see why he wouldn't now and the Austrians in general didn't like being under suvorovs comand and split of almost as soon as they could.
 
If you want to screw the OE BADLY in this period, have the future Mahmud II be assassinated at the same time as Selim III. Poof, there goes the House of Osman. The Serbs would go their own way (they were already revolting in 1808) as would the countless ayans and Muhammad Ali Pasha in Egypt.

Mustafa IV?

Muhammad Ali would not be in Egypt without Napoleon.
 
Top