AHC: Have Napoleon "Win" The Napoleonic Wars

TickTock The Witch's Dead · Apr 23, 2015

Your task is to have Napoleon's empire to survive and for him and the other powers to agree to leave each other alone. How can Napoleon still keep his empire and not get deposed?

EDIT: When I said what I meant that Napoleon and his enemies can agree on a long-lasting truce rather than Napoleon win the conflict I think I may have confused you guys.

Matteo · Apr 23, 2015

There has been several threads on this topic. You can find them with the research tool.

And there are many possible answers to your question.

The most obvious being : not messing-up the russian campaign in 1812 since It was what caused the downfall of Napoleon's empire.

Readman · Apr 23, 2015

I think the first among several things is you need someway, somehow for a means to have L'Empereur stop believing his own Hype that everything would always go his way. I can think offhand of a couple different situations where in he has just Simmered the hell down and not bent on conquest he could have consolidated his gains. It just wasn't his style though as he seemed to always try to better himself.

I think generally agreement can be had that, of course, invading Russia was of a course Bad Idea and right on top of the list of things one Should Not Try. Sorry I know it's very "general" and light on specefics but im certain theres probably others with better ideas

TickTock The Witch's Dead · Apr 23, 2015

Matteo said:
There has been several threads on this topic. You can find them with the research tool.

And there are many possible answers to your question.

The most obvious being : not messing-up the russian campaign in 1812 since It was what caused the downfall of Napoleon's empire.

Readman said:
I think the first among several things is you need someway, somehow for a means to have L'Empereur stop believing his own Hype that everything would always go his way. I can think offhand of a couple different situations where in he has just Simmered the hell down and not bent on conquest he could have consolidated his gains. It just wasn't his style though as he seemed to always try to better himself. I think generally agreement can be had that, of course, invading Russia was of a course Bad Idea and right on top of the list of things one Should Not Try. Sorry I know it's very "general" and light on specefics but im certain theres probably others with better ideas

Even with no invasion of Russia or Spain Britain had enough money to fund Napoleon's downfall. So I want a situation in which Napoleon and his enemies can agree on a permanent truce.

Namayan · Apr 23, 2015

RandomWriterGuy said:
Even with no invasion of Russia or Spain Britain had enough money to fund Napoleon's downfall. So I want a situation in which Napoleon and his enemies can agree on a permanent truce.

They can try. As long as the grand army is intact, I doubt even an alliance/coalition can bring napoleon down as proven by coalition wars fought pre Russian invasion. The allies already had a hard time bringing napoleon down at Waterloo when france didn't havent the same resources as pre Russian invasion.

Matteo · Apr 23, 2015

I don't think so. By 1812, although Spain was a quagmire, Napoleon had quite a solid control over most of Europe. He was not about to fall. He caused his own downfall not by going to war against Russia (Russia wanted this war and It had become unavoidable) but by messing-up the campaign.

Had he driven the campaign as planed (a 2 years long campaign to snatch great Poland away from Russia), he would have won it and Britain would have been forced to come to the table of negotiations.

Anyway, the 2 powers needed and wanted to make peace. On good terms of course. But Napoleon would have ended aknowledging that Spain was uncontrolable and that he needed to evacuate the Country and give it a king acceptable to the population.
Napoleon also knew France and Europe needed to trade with Britain as much ad Britain needed to trade with Europe. He may have wanted some kind of preferential customs and trade conditions for french industries, but this was not unacceptable not unovercomable for Britain.
Napoleon did not need to keep the german north sea coast he had annexed only to implement his continental blockade. And he would have quickly face the necessity of handing back all central Italy to independant italians States.

Tjakari · Apr 23, 2015

Readman said:
I think the first among several things is you need someway, somehow for a means to have L'Empereur stop believing his own Hype

But...he is the hype.

But on a serious note, there are few ways to actually get a lasting peace out of Napoleonic France where no one gets shafted, the reason why there was a coalition to begin with was the fact of just how strong France was. Pound for pound it was the strongest nation in Europe and it was effective, everyone understood that the beast next door was not only a threat to their interests but also an existential threat in the case of Napoleon.

France had no respect for any balance of power, their entire platform for the longest time had to hold superiority over all their enemies and kick their teeth in when they forgot it. You can't have a peace when one side is ready to fight, die and win as they've always done and a side who knows for a fact that any peace is just a wait till France shafts it and goes after them one at a time.

unprincipled peter · Apr 23, 2015

I'm not sure there is any way for Napoleon/France to truly win. They can hold on for a while, but it's not going to be a forever peace (by forever, I mean a foreseeable future). Virtually everything Nap did ensured that the world was a boiling pot of water with only the pressure of military victory holding the lid on. Every now or then someone will sense a little bit of weakness and try to pop that lid off. Even IF (a big if) Nap backtracked in Spain, led a successful Russian campaign, and got Britain to the peace table, the peace is only going to last until France had a hiccup.

Presuming Nap did indeed die a natural death (not poisoned), when he dies in 1821, you bet your sweet bippie the rest of the world bursts apart. As someone else said, Nap totally unbalanced the balance of power in France's favor, and that's not a sustainable situation. If you consider staying on top until death did Nap part, then yeah, he could have won the wars.

TickTock The Witch's Dead · Apr 23, 2015

Matteo said:
I don't think so. By 1812, although Spain was a quagmire, Napoleon had quite a solid control over most of Europe. He was not about to fall. He caused his own downfall not by going to war against Russia (Russia wanted this war and It had become unavoidable) but by messing-up the campaign.

Had he driven the campaign as planed (a 2 years long campaign to snatch great Poland away from Russia), he would have won it and Britain would have been forced to come to the table of negotiations.

Anyway, the 2 powers needed and wanted to make peace. On good terms of course. But Napoleon would have ended aknowledging that Spain was uncontrolable and that he needed to evacuate the Country and give it a king acceptable to the population.
Napoleon also knew France and Europe needed to trade with Britain as much ad Britain needed to trade with Europe. He may have wanted some kind of preferential customs and trade conditions for french industries, but this was not unacceptable not unovercomable for Britain.
Napoleon did not need to keep the german north sea coast he had annexed only to implement his continental blockade. And he would have quickly face the necessity of handing back all central Italy to independant italians States.

unprincipled peter said:
I'm not sure there is any way for Napoleon/France to truly win. They can hold on for a while, but it's not going to be a forever peace (by forever, I mean a foreseeable future). Virtually everything Nap did ensured that the world was a boiling pot of water with only the pressure of military victory holding the lid on. Every now or then someone will sense a little bit of weakness and try to pop that lid off. Even IF (a big if) Nap backtracked in Spain, led a successful Russian campaign, and got Britain to the peace table, the peace is only going to last until France had a hiccup.

Presuming Nap did indeed die a natural death (not poisoned), when he dies in 1821, you bet your sweet bippie the rest of the world bursts apart. As someone else said, Nap totally unbalanced the balance of power in France's favor, and that's not a sustainable situation. If you consider staying on top until death did Nap part, then yeah, he could have won the wars.

Is such a peace possible and why would it not last due to balance of power?

Matteo · Apr 23, 2015

The idea of the impossibility of a lasting peace if there is no balance of powers is a coubtersense.

When there is an hegemonic power, other powers are detered to attack. It is change of balance that is often the cause for conflict and the result of conflicts that cause a change of balance.

By its existence, an hegemonic power can enforce cooperation and peace.

Bee · Apr 23, 2015

The Western prong of the invasion of Russia failed to reach St. Petersburg. What happens if the bulk of the Grande Armee is directed to the Western theater and captures St. Petersburg and the Czar himself?

No advance on Moscow, just hold the line and prevent any relief from coming. Also, Sweden was (surprisingly) allied with Russia during this campaign; it would help Napoleon's cause if Sweden changed sides in exchange for territory. If you can think of a way to have France's involuntary allies, Austria and Prussia, pull their weight in the Russian campaign, it's good for Napoleon however it turns out, but the difficulties are obvious.

Matteo · Apr 23, 2015

Capturing Saint Petersburg was as much a strategic nonsense and suicide than capturons Moscow.

That's what I called messing up the initial strategy which consisted in liberating Poland-Lithuania and waiting there to defeat the russian army when it would attempt a military come-back.

Ivir Baggins · Apr 23, 2015

Bee said:
The Western prong of the invasion of Russia failed to reach St. Petersburg. What happens if the bulk of the Grande Armee is directed to the Western theater and captures St. Petersburg and the Czar himself?

No advance on Moscow, just hold the line and prevent any relief from coming. Also, Sweden was (surprisingly) allied with Russia during this campaign; it would help Napoleon's cause if Sweden changed sides in exchange for territory. If you can think of a way to have France's involuntary allies, Austria and Prussia, pull their weight in the Russian campaign, it's good for Napoleon however it turns out, but the difficulties are obvious.

Getting Sweden on side is as simple as not seizing Swedish Pomerania. Firm support for the Ottomans would have helped, as they were at war with Russia 1807-12. And if Napoleon is serious about a Kingdom of Poland under Poniatowski, then Russia loses much of its west with barely a fight. It's easy to make things easier for Napoleon, but he never did any of those.

Also, for the love of God, don't take so many troops. Of the alleged 600k he had, approx half didn't actually exist (if Russian spies and Berthezene's estimates are to be believed), and of those 50k died before Vitebsk, and the rest were horribly mismanaged. Not having all of the cavalry under Murat would have helped massively, considering that he was extremely wasteful of horses, there wasn't enough fodder, and France was short on mounts as it was.

unprincipled peter · Apr 23, 2015

if it's a totally lopsided unbalance of power, peace can be had. But this isn't an eagle vs a mouse situation. There's too much lack of balance to be acceptable, not enough lack of balance to be enforceable.

IF Nap wins in Russia, the rest of the powers are just going to regroup and wait for another opening.

IMO, France doesn't have enough oomph to subjugate the world, although it has enough to win the battles.

Raunchel · Apr 23, 2015

Creating an independent Poland could help in this regard. It would add another relatively loyal ally to France, while simultaneously weakening her enemies. With a divide and rule strategy it might be possible for the Empire to be succesful for longer. But the big problem will be succession. Napoleon II won't have the standing of his father, and that event would certainly lead to a war. So, Napoleon needs to live longer, to ease the way for his son.

unprincipled peter · Apr 23, 2015

and....
it's not just balance of power, it's the desire on both parties to use their power to settle conflicts, and dictate the peace. Nap used his victories to turn the others into quasi puppet states.

DracoLazarus · Apr 23, 2015

Matteo said:
Capturing Saint Petersburg was as much a strategic nonsense and suicide than capturons Moscow.

That's what I called messing up the initial strategy which consisted in liberating Poland-Lithuania and waiting there to defeat the russian army when it would attempt a military come-back.

Indeed, it makes sense.
Or you could have Napoleon winning Leipzig. In this case, he still stood a chance.

Mike Stearns · Apr 23, 2015

RandomWriterGuy said:
Your task is to have Napoleon's empire to survive and for him and the other powers to agree to leave each other alone. How can Napoleon still keep his empire and not get deposed?

Napoleon needs to know when he's pushing his luck and when to stop. He also needs to be able to recognize opportunities to get what he wants either through dynastic marriages or diplomacy. Those opportunities presented themselves more than once and he never really acted on them.

jb3 · Apr 23, 2015

Mike Stearns said:
Napoleon needs to know when he's pushing his luck and when to stop. He also needs to be able to recognize opportunities to get what he wants either through dynastic marriages or diplomacy. Those opportunities presented themselves more than once and he never really acted on them.

Even after Leipzig, with the Allies closing in, Metternich/Austria offered Napoleon a peace with the Allies based on the 1792 French borders (which didn't mean much at this point since ALL of Nap's satellite states like Westphalia, Kingdom of Italy, Josephite Spain had fallen) and he still refused to take it because it would be beneath the "French" empire. Napoleon thought himself another Charlemagne (this is the actual word he used when he wanted to cow the Pope into submission). There is no arguing with people like that. And while France could maintain power for awhile - as long as Russia and Britain continued to stand, Napoleon didn't have total control, there were already rumbles of nationalism in the countries France had "liberated" (especially Germany, but also Nap's own "Kingdom of Italy" which he had promised would not share the same sovereign as France after his death), couple that with France's demographic edge disappearing within a few decades (due to the non-stop wars, hundreds of thousands of French dead and much lower birthrates than every other power) and any peace beyond Napoleon himself would not last? Who would hold it? His mediocre brothers? His squabbling marshals (many of whom were good generals but not-so-great politicians)? Napoleon still dies in 1821 and you have a half-Habsburg boy as Emperor - the rest of Europe (well Russia and Britain and the remnant of Prussia) would be salivating.

TickTock The Witch's Dead · Apr 23, 2015

jb3 said:
Even after Leipzig, with the Allies closing in, Metternich/Austria offered Napoleon a peace with the Allies based on the 1792 French borders (which didn't mean much at this point since ALL of Nap's satellite states like Westphalia, Kingdom of Italy, Josephite Spain had fallen) and he still refused to take it because it would be beneath the "French" empire. Napoleon thought himself another Charlemagne (this is the actual word he used when he wanted to cow the Pope into submission). There is no arguing with people like that. And while France could maintain power for awhile - as long as Russia and Britain continued to stand, Napoleon didn't have total control, there were already rumbles of nationalism in the countries France had "liberated" (especially Germany, but also Nap's own "Kingdom of Italy" which he had promised would not share the same sovereign as France after his death), couple that with France's demographic edge disappearing within a few decades (due to the non-stop wars, hundreds of thousands of French dead and much lower birthrates than every other power) and any peace beyond Napoleon himself would not last? Who would hold it? His mediocre brothers? His squabbling marshals (many of whom were good generals but not-so-great politicians)? Napoleon still dies in 1821 and you have a half-Habsburg boy as Emperor - the rest of Europe (well Russia and Britain and the remnant of Prussia) would be salivating.

Is there a way to ensure Napoleon's empire endures? Maybe Britain is knocked out due to civil unrest at home (Luddites). Maybe Napoleon makes wise choices in securing his empire before he dies. Maybe he encourages family ties between nations. Anything else?