Is there any wat that Napoleon's GRANDE ARMEE could actually have won against Russia instead of being subjected to the harshness of the Russian winter & depradations of the Russian scorched earth policy ?
Napoleon wins in Russia 1812
- Thread starter Melvin Loh
- Start date
Yes,
Plan for a two year campaign ( or more )
Stop in Kiev for Winter, behind fortifications and with supplies.
Proclaim emancipation of serfs and distribution of land to them.
Offer to extend concordat to orthodox clergy after previous proclamation has had effects ( biggest owner of serfs in Russia was the Church )
Plan for a two year campaign ( or more )
Stop in Kiev for Winter, behind fortifications and with supplies.
Proclaim emancipation of serfs and distribution of land to them.
Offer to extend concordat to orthodox clergy after previous proclamation has had effects ( biggest owner of serfs in Russia was the Church )
Susano
Banned
The "catastrophe" (for Napoleon, for Europe it was a good thing) of 1812 could have been prevented, but there is no way Napoleon could have won. Russia had basically limitless ressources of manpower, while the French manpower ressoruces were dwindling at a catastrophal rate. Besides, Napoleon was used to quick campaigning, basically all coalition wars were over within a year. Such a quick success just wont be possible in Russia, though.
And freeing serfs wont do much. The Russian people had sucessfully been indoctrinated religiously to see Napoleon as the Antichrist, or at least as an anti-Russian and anti-orthodox enemy.
And freeing serfs wont do much. The Russian people had sucessfully been indoctrinated religiously to see Napoleon as the Antichrist, or at least as an anti-Russian and anti-orthodox enemy.
I Blame Communism
Banned
Also, restore the Kingdom of Poland. But all of these come down to two things: one is just more cautious military planning, but the other is a revolutionary assault on the whole Russian state. This is the rub, as Napoleon's objective was to force an intact Russia back into the continental system.
So "Yes, but it'd take luck a big PoD."
One can overestimate Russia's supplies of manpower, and underestimate Napoleon's. Sure, the Tsar could keep demanding every hundredth, twentieth, tenth serf, but this wasn't any more effective than Napoleonic conscription (in fact it could be less, since the landlords were laothe to part with any but the sickliest and weakest serfs), and while the tsar had Russia, Napoleon had large parts of Europe. Witness how he lost the larger part of an army in Russia, summoned a new one into being and won battles with it, lost a lot of that one at Leipzig and trhough the subsequent defections, and then conjured up another one for the 1814 campaign which, while a forlorn hope, was tactically some of his finest hours. Sure, they were down to the "Marie-Antoinettes" by then, but as I said, Russia's manpower supply was prone to turn up poor quality recruits. And the reason Napo had to keep raising new troops was because of the winter retreat. It wasn't like his troops were just fated to die in 1812. That they could have avoided that fate is rather the point.
Funny story courtesy of Zamoyski: they had been so indoctrinated that when some Russian villagers met a Polish Uhlan who said "God Bless You!" by way of a greeting (and such basic phrases can be understood across the languages), they, having thought that Napoleon's minions all worhsipped Satan, immediately became friendly. Not that the Russians didn't run a formidable propraganda operation, but it was prone to overstretch like this, and then there were the Poles, who in western Ukraine, Belarus, and Lithuania were pretty much the whole of the educated elite. Czartoyski had got his "Vilnius Education District" extended even to Kiev.
Last edited:
In 1812? Difficult.
Avoiding the slaughter at Eylau and producing a much more convincing victory instead would probably get the Russians negotiating with more urgency than IOTL.
And if he wants to not fight Russia anymore, he could really just let them have free hand with Turkey in the meanwhile while he squeezes the British from Spain.
There are ways to avoiding the 1812 campaign and getting more leverage over the Russian governenment. However, once the Patriotic War in its OTL form started, his large, poorly-supplied army was doomed from the get-go. He may, however, do better with other (more confrontational) commanders in charge of the Russian army. If they sustain a few major losses, he can disperse his troops better and forage from more ground. The Russians would face the choice of scorching even more earth or negotiating.
Avoiding the slaughter at Eylau and producing a much more convincing victory instead would probably get the Russians negotiating with more urgency than IOTL.
And if he wants to not fight Russia anymore, he could really just let them have free hand with Turkey in the meanwhile while he squeezes the British from Spain.
There are ways to avoiding the 1812 campaign and getting more leverage over the Russian governenment. However, once the Patriotic War in its OTL form started, his large, poorly-supplied army was doomed from the get-go. He may, however, do better with other (more confrontational) commanders in charge of the Russian army. If they sustain a few major losses, he can disperse his troops better and forage from more ground. The Russians would face the choice of scorching even more earth or negotiating.
The Sandman
Banned
Well, another thing that might help is Napoleon being more capable at realpolitik (probably meaning Talleyrand has more influence) and realizing that in the long term it's not possible for a revolutionary empire such as his to peacefully coexist with a reactionary absolutist monarchy like Russia. The very existence of a place with more liberal laws and societal structures is an existential threat to the Russian government, and they will act accordingly.
What this means is that he starts planning for how to screw with Tilsit before he even finishes signing the treaty. In other words, prop up the Ottomans and Swedes with money, advisers, trade, and some military equipment, along with any intelligence you can glean from the Russians. And don't fuck up in Spain and thus have a huge chunk of your army tied down fighting partisans and then the British.
Once Tilsit is signed, Napoleon's main priority should be shifting in a proper siege force to pry the British out of Lisbon and thus eliminate their last continental stronghold. Then actually stick to Amiens, thus ensuring that when he does go after Russia he only has one front to deal with.
What this means is that he starts planning for how to screw with Tilsit before he even finishes signing the treaty. In other words, prop up the Ottomans and Swedes with money, advisers, trade, and some military equipment, along with any intelligence you can glean from the Russians. And don't fuck up in Spain and thus have a huge chunk of your army tied down fighting partisans and then the British.
Once Tilsit is signed, Napoleon's main priority should be shifting in a proper siege force to pry the British out of Lisbon and thus eliminate their last continental stronghold. Then actually stick to Amiens, thus ensuring that when he does go after Russia he only has one front to deal with.
I Blame Communism
Banned
There are many problems with this thesis. For one thing, however Russian society actually worked, Alexander liked to think of himself and be thought of as an enlightened, liberal, popular ruler who's reign was nevertheless green-lighted by God. Subtract one messiah complex and this idea is not terribly unlike Napoleon. He wasn't an ideological reactionary like Nicholas I, or certainly he wasn't one in 1807 through 1812.
For another, Russia managed just fine through long, long years of various tyrannies, even as the July Monarchy was passing its Sympathy for Poland resolutions. And then of course under Alexander III, another reactionary, Russia made an alliance with Europe's only republican and most liberal great power/ The Marseilles was banned right up until it was being played for the French ambassador. That didn't destroy Russian society.
Actually, while it's a very interesting question, I think the evidence suggest sthat it was Britain who was mainly responsible for sabotaging Amiens. It makes sense in terms of national interest, and there's Malta.
What effect would changing Borodino into a Jena-Auerstadt have? By this point we've have had the invasion as in OTL but would the Russians have been able to take a disaster of that scale on their own soil or would the Czar have made peace? We might see renewed wars in later years but Napoleon will not have lost the Grande Armee in Russian and could use it in Spain or to crush any attempts by Austria or Prussian to return to power. With somthing like this we might see the Revolutionary and Napoleonic wars slowly die out as Napoleon, England and Russia run out of men and money fighting in Portugal, Poland or at sea.
In the military sense Napoleon's best chance of winning would be to avoid a gargantuan invasion in the first place. The Grand Armee lost something like 2/3 of its strength before Borodino (started with 450,000-600,000 at Borodino only 120,000-150,000) and such large numbers were really contrary to what Napoleon was trying to do anyway. The purpose of all of Napoleon's campaigns was the decisive defeat of the opposing army and just as importantly Napoleon showed in the Wagram campaign and Borodino that he couldn't control an army over 100,000 with his usual brilliance. So really his best bet was to bait the Russians with an army of around 95,000 (preferably French veterans) and win a decisive battle on the frontier. Unfortunately winning the military campaign wouldn't be beating Russia as a country, for that the best bet might be capturing the Czar, but for the purposes of the OP's question the "Petit Armee" stands the best chance of catching or baiting the Russian Army into battle before the scorched earth/summer heat/frozen winter kills off the fruit of the continental militaries.
I agree. Have a good supply line too. don't just hull a whole army up there with whatever they can carry. Napoleons men could have done way better with food (Russian scorch the land policy)
Oh also, I wote this on the thread of an Idiot who wanted Roman Russia for no apparent reason. Have the winter of that year be warmer and shorter. come later, leave sooner
Fearless Leader
Donor
What about avoiding the Treaty of Bucharest? I just came across an interesting tidbit today: in OTL Napoleon sent a diplomat (name escapes me at the moment) to convince the Turks to continue the conflict with Russia and sign an alliance with France. This move was barely prevented by some minor British diplomats leading to the Treaty of Bucharest being signed mere weeks prior to Napoleon's invasion.
Now with a POD of a successfull Franco-Turkish alliance, this would greatly facilitate Napoleon's invasion of Russia. In OTL the Treaty freed up some of Russia's largest armies to be able to fight the French. In TTL, with no treaty, these armies are still tied down fighting the Turks. That being the case, perhaps Napoleon would have been able to score a decisive victory...
Thoughts?
Now with a POD of a successfull Franco-Turkish alliance, this would greatly facilitate Napoleon's invasion of Russia. In OTL the Treaty freed up some of Russia's largest armies to be able to fight the French. In TTL, with no treaty, these armies are still tied down fighting the Turks. That being the case, perhaps Napoleon would have been able to score a decisive victory...
Thoughts?
The problem with Napoleon, freeing serfs and restoring Poland is that these would alienate the Russians when in fact he was trying to coax them through military defeat back into the continental blockade. Proclaiming any of these is going to add another road block to the goal of having Russia embargo Britain.
Oh also, I wote this on the thread of an Idiot who wanted Roman Russia for no apparent reason. Have the winter of that year be warmer and shorter. come later, leave sooner
The 1812 winter was very mild as it was.
In any case, it's easier to change Napoleon's logistical mistakes than change the weather.
Not really. Thats where the term "butterfly effect" originally came from, after all, if you remember
Yes, it doesn't really help that the entire concept it flawed.
But let's run with this: it's easy to change the weather of a single day. It's very difficult to make a winter warmer on average. It's very very difficult to make a warm winter even warmer.
If the "weather butterflies" were as all-powerful as that, we'd have a million POD's saying "oh, the medieval warm period never ends" and "oh, despite statistical unlikelihood, northern Russia gets warm winters for three hundred years in a row. This is why it's now muslim (sheep in karelia) and has 20 million inhabitants in 1600."
Another way of looking at it is that maybe yes, there are weather butterflies, but they are self-correcting and resistant to easy macro-changes such as a freakishly warm 1812. For every buttefly flapping its wings heating up the place, there is another making it colder, every second of every hour of every day of every month of that winter.
Macro-climatic changes require macro-events, like a Krakatoa explosion. A warm 1812 being inexplicably even warmer strikes me as a very unsatisfactory POD.
The trick with relatively warm winters is that you can still freeze to death in temperatures even above 0, and in a wet winter sudden drops to a whopping -15 can be very deadly, expecially if you're underfed and don't have a winter coat.
However, it is still easier to bring a baguette and a winter coat than change a whole year's weather.
Susano
Banned
The concept isnt flawed, its quite logical even. And even macrochanges of weather dont necessarily require macro events as cause - it can also be doen with small events and sufficiently much build up time. So, if the PoD is actually in 1800, but nothing whatsoever noticeably changes until 1812, that could well work for changing that winters temperature average, too.
That opens up things to all sorts of exploitation. In a purely "keep-the-narrative-sane" way, I'm uneasy with that. As I said, with this method you can change the gulf stream's path every hundred years, or soemthing equally drastic.
If you were to follow the butterflies zealously, 12 years is enough to get many snowball effects besides a warmerb 1812. Butterflies deny the certainty that is useful for a narrative form like history.
But, that aside:
Even if 1812 is warmer by as much as 5 degrees: the French will still freeze, because of the baguettes-and-boots situation.
In that sense, a more sound logistical base is both an easier POD and a more solid one than a warmer winter.
That said, I can understand that it's not very fun either because it changes Napoleon's character and thus diminishes the narrative.
Not according to
http://www.ruvr.ru/main.php?lng=eng&q=13816&cid=180&p=17.06.2002
The winter of 1812 came early and was extremely cold
Do you have any source for your claim?