Napoleonic Victory: Plausible?

RCTFI

Would a Napoleonic victory in the Napoleonic Wars be plausible? If so, under which circumstances?
I'm not necesarily talking about a succesful invasion of Britain, although if you can think of a way that that could happen, that'd be cool. The criteria for it to qualify as a Napoleonic Victory should be, I think, merely that Napoleon remains Emperor until he dies of natural causes and is succeded by one of his sons, while at the same time having expanded France's borders at least a little.
Well? Ideads?
 

RCTFI

Yeah...

MerryPrankster said:
If the Peace of Amiens held, I think that would count.
Click to expand...

Yeah... I guess that would count. Hmmm... well, what about a successful invasion of Britain? I was thinking something along the lines of both no Trafalgar and the French getting the Danish fleet. Would that give them enough of an edge to match the Royal Navy?

What do you think?
 

MerryPrankster

RCTFI said:
Yeah... I guess that would count. Hmmm... well, what about a successful invasion of Britain? I was thinking something along the lines of both no Trafalgar and the French getting the Danish fleet. Would that give them enough of an edge to match the Royal Navy?

What do you think?
Click to expand...

Beats me.

I figure if Nappy doesn't try for all the marbles and stays content with Amiens, he might well stay in power for a heck of a lot longer.
 

RCTFI

Probably...

MerryPrankster said:
Beats me.

I figure if Nappy doesn't try for all the marbles and stays content with Amiens, he might well stay in power for a heck of a lot longer.
Click to expand...

Well, probably. I wa jut thinking about how to have the biggest Napoleonic French Empire when I asked about that thing with the Danish fleet.

Hmmm... could he have won in Russia? I mean, the winter was so deadly that nothing short of ASBs changing the climate seem likely to have made anything but seizing a nice warm city to spend the winter in seem pleasant... could he have done that, beaten the Russians and secured a winter camp where he wouldn't have his Grand Army freeze and starve to death?
 

Marky Bunny

Yes, I am going to say it, Waterloo. Destroy Wellington's army cut him from the sea, destroy Blucher. It would have been a mortal blow to Britian and Prussia. Napoleon would have been in full flow at this point, then he could have turned and defeated the Russians and Austrians, or at least forced them to recoginse him as Emperor of France, which by 1815 is all he wanted.
The 1815 Constuitation signed during the 100 days allowed for a semi-democracy with Napoleon at its head. It was far different to the system for which he ruled France prior to 1814.
He also wanted by this point to get the heads of Europe to arrage on a common currency (the Franc of course), but also a joint European Council, with all states taking part.
 

DAv

Yes, I am going to say it, Waterloo
Click to expand...

Waterloo is too little, too late. By that time, the Heads of Europe were absolutely determined to be rid of Buonoparte once and for all. He would have been overcome in a similar way as to 1814. One possible TL is that Buonoparte doesn't invade Spain thus never depleting himself of much needed resources and men during 1808-1814. Without a second front to fight on, Britain may have come round to recognising the Napoleonic Empire.
 

RCTFI

Good!

DAv said:
Waterloo is too little, too late. By that time, the Heads of Europe were absolutely determined to be rid of Buonoparte once and for all. He would have been overcome in a similar way as to 1814. One possible TL is that Buonoparte doesn't invade Spain thus never depleting himself of much needed resources and men during 1808-1814. Without a second front to fight on, Britain may have come round to recognising the Napoleonic Empire.
Click to expand...

Nice idea! The Peninsula War really was a nasty little war, one that distracted him from his real necessary goals, namely to beat the crap out of Prussia and Austria until the British stopped supporting them and gave him what he wanted. Plus, even if the Spanish troops were pretty much worthless, having them not shooting at his men and possibly helping (improbable in the extreme, and I acknowledge that) would be a plus... nice idea, really.
 
Thande

Thande

Donor
Avoiding the Peninsular War is probably the most likely answer.

The trouble with Napoleon is that you can say "well, he would have won if he hadn't invaded Spain or Russia and just accept the status quo" but the thing is, if he didn't do that, he wouldn't be the Napoleon who had fought his way to the top.

Maybe the best way is for Napoleon to die of one of his countless diseases in 1807, before the Peninsular War, and the throne to pass to his son with a conservative marshal as regent...although of course that largely obviates RCTFI's original WI conditions.
 

Homer

I think the problem is that as long as Napoleon was successful and expanding, he was a threat to nearly everyone and Austria as well as Prussia wanted their territories back, thus there's always a reason for war. So either Napoleon keeps on winning forever, or something stops the continuity of warfare, rebellions, new coalitions against him and so on.

Britain won't accept a France that is dominating the continent, thus I can't imagine the peace of Amiens holding until 1830 or whatever year Napoleon dies. Britain would take up any opportunity to break french dominance - and on the other side Napoleon would have constant problems in keeping its dominance.

Thus I think somehow he must be defeated considerably, to avoid the ongoing incentive to fight napoleonic France, hence to get some sort of balance of powers on the continent. At the same time, the attckers shouldn't be determined to get rid of him once and for all. Thus the dominance Napoleon reached over continental europe should be avoided.

The best would be if Prussia and Austria fight Napoleon out of Germany, yet without Russian help. Russia on the other side starts a war with the Ottomans. In the following, the Austrian-Prussian alliance breaks apart since the Austrians get more interested in preventing Russian expansion into the Balkans than deposing Napoleon, and furthermore the two German rivals experience rising tensions about dividing the conquered lands and imposing a post-war regime in germany, thus Napoleon gets a 1815-like peace treaty for himself. Now all Napoleon has to do is stay quiet in Paris - rather hard to believe in my opinion.
 

Mark AH

Even after waterloo there could have been possibilities for Napoleon to stay at the Thrown because looking at the strength of the army (and the future strength) it was stronger than it was after the Battle Of Nations. But the most likely point was not to enter Spain. That waste of men gave the possibility to other countries to attack France. So The best POD for this solution would have been the Treaty of Fontainebleau of 27 October 1807.

Although I think that at almost any treaty during the Napoleonic Wars there are options for a different Europe.
 

DAv

Even after waterloo there could have been possibilities for Napoleon to stay at the Thrown because looking at the strength of the army
Click to expand...

Using the army could have extended the Buonoparte regime slightly but almost every nation in Europe was against it and determined to destroy the last of Napoleonic power. There was little, if any, chance that Prussia, Austria, Russia or Britain would allow Napoleon to continue to rule France after 1814.
 

Dutchie

Flip side to the question

The British were essential to the eventual defeat of Nap, I think we can all agree. So what could have happened to keep the Brits out of the war?

  • What if in mid 1808 London experienced another of it's periodic horrendous fires before Sir Arthur Wellesley could be dispatched to Portugal. A national catastrophe that distracts the populace and government just long enough for the French to 'secure' Iberia (though they'd still face Guerillas). Could the French close all the continental ports to a BEF given a little more time?
  • Or, continuing the fire theme: before Trafalgar a fire breaks out at either Spithead or the Nore while a good part of the RN is harboured during heavy on-shore winds. The ships can't get out, the winds fan the flames, and the reduced RN can't best the combined Spanish/French fleets.
What could convince the British that while an unpleasant situation, there's nothing they could do about Naploeon?
 

Faeelin

Banned
Thande said:
Avoiding the Peninsular War is probably the most likely answer.

The trouble with Napoleon is that you can say "well, he would have won if he hadn't invaded Spain or Russia and just accept the status quo" but the thing is, if he didn't do that, he wouldn't be the Napoleon who had fought his way to the top.
Click to expand...

I'm not so sure.

Napoleon could compromise, when necessary. Look at Tilsit, where his first instinct was to abolish Prussia. The Czar persuaded him otherwise.
 

Redbeard

Banned
I'd say a decisive French victory at Leipzig in October 1813 probably is the latest plausible PoD. The allies were hard pressed on day one at the main front at Wachau, and it is not difficult to think of minor PoDs with a great effect, incl. the allied Monarchs getting killed or captured. If the allied main army is routed Napoleon can turn on the others one by one. I doubt any of the continental powers by 1813 can raise another army in any foreseable future, and with the only intact army Napoleon can dictate the peace. UK will follow soon.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard
 

Max Sinister

Banned
Mark AH said:
If Napoleon didn’t stayed at Moscow too long, but went to St. Petersburg he might had forced a truce with Russia.
Click to expand...

But Moscow traditionally is the heart of Russia, which is why Nappy chose it. He said "Attacking St. Petersburg is like scratching Russia's head, attacking Kiev is like tickling its foot."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top