British Intervention in the Corsican Crisis 1768-1806

OMG are you a serious a British invasion of Russia, I'm sorry but I think this is ASB I just do not think Britain has the strength at all to invade the country and btw what land in central Asia did Britain take

Britain has a world-spanning empire. If anyone has the strength to invade Russia, it's Britain, especially in the beginning of the 19th Century. Central Asia on the Russo-Indian border would be Afghan and Turkmen lands, but how deeply into the Turkic regions the British penetrated is another story altogether.

I hope you're not setting Bonaparte up for a disaster like the OTL French invasion of Russia, but the 'delusional' Tsar gives me hope that there will be at least some Britwankery going on ;). Good work William, I'm enjoying this TL.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Britain has a world-spanning empire. If anyone has the strength to invade Russia, it's Britain, especially in the beginning of the 19th Century. Central Asia on the Russo-Indian border would be Afghan and Turkmen lands, but how deeply into the Turkic regions the British penetrated is another story altogether.

I hope you're not setting Bonaparte up for a disaster like the OTL French invasion of Russia, but the 'delusional' Tsar gives me hope that there will be at least some Britwankery going on ;). Good work William, I'm enjoying this TL.

Britain has a few bits of Bengal and Circars, had lost most of its colonies, and was in no way in a position to invade Russia in terms of manpower in that period. The level of Rule Brittania behind this idea is absolutely ridiculous. They failed the invasion of Rio de la Plata, how are they supposed to handle Russia?
 
Britain has a few bits of Bengal and Circars, had lost most of its colonies, and was in no way in a position to invade Russia in terms of manpower in that period. The level of Rule Brittania behind this idea is absolutely ridiculous. They failed the invasion of Rio de la Plata, how are they supposed to handle Russia?

You haven't read the timeline. The British have already conquered India ITTL with Nappy on their side. Hence the 'shared border with Russia'. This timeline supposes a much, much more powerful Britain, much earlier.

It's a legitimite Britwank timeline. So sue him.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
You haven't read the timeline. The British have already conquered India ITTL with Nappy on their side. Hence the 'shared border with Russia'. This timeline supposes a much, much more powerful Britain, much earlier.

It's a legitimite Britwank timeline. So sue him.

Right, I forgot...
Also it's not really as legitimate as it's made out to be - conquest doesn't work like EU3 IRL and I'll remind that Nappy's conquest fell apart.

And Rio de la Plata still remains. A succesful british invasion of Russia in 1812 is reverse Sealion.
 
Right, I forgot...
Also it's not really as legitimate as it's made out to be - conquest doesn't work like EU3 IRL and I'll remind that Nappy's conquest fell apart.

And Rio de la Plata still remains. A succesful british invasion of Russia in 1812 is reverse Sealion.

A successful invasion of Russia is a Sealion for anyone in this period. I just think that given the circumstances the Brits have the best shot at it. Nappy's conquests did fall apart, yes - but whose to say the British ones won't also? Anyway, the British colonial model lasted for centuries, whose to say the same model won't last again? Europe isn't going to gang up on Britain for a few colonial wars like it did with Nappy OTL. Colonial wars aren't any threat to say, Prussia or Austria, not now at least.

Rio de la Plata probably won't happen, given that Spain isn't collaborating with France ITTL.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
A
Rio de la Plata probably won't happen, given that Spain isn't collaborating with France ITTL.

I just meant as an example of Britain's glorious amphibious capabilities in the period. In Spain they were backed by a rebellious population, in Russia they're going to be opposed.

And the british colonial model only lasted on a large scale for a century. The US was not the same model as India.
 
The British invasion of Rio de la Plata was simply an offshoot of the Napoleonic War. Not a full scale invasion like TTL's invasion of Russia. And the invasion of Rio de la Plata didn't have two of the greatest commanders in world history leading it. And the invasion of Russia was nowhere near an amphibious assualt. And yes, they will be faced with a rebellious populace, but that in no way detracts from the overall campaign. Armies have occupied territory filled with rebel forces for centuries.

And as far as this being a reverse Sealion, I can see how similarities can be drawn. But, to be perfectly honest, the Nazis had no chance of establishing superior air power against the RAF. The Brits ITTL have every chance imaginable to bring the Russian Empire to its knees. Arguably the two greatest field generals the world has ever known (in any TL) and the manpower to see it through to the end. The only problem I foresee is Nappy getting a little too trigger happy and fighting when he should withdraw. But what happens ITTL's invasion of Russia remains to be seen.
 
I'm going to take a step (chronologically) back from the arguments saying that a British invasion of Russia is impossible, and argue that Russia (or Britain) taking over Central Asia isn't really possible. There's a reason that Central Asia took so long to subdue, and a reason why Afghanistan was never conquered. The local tribes there were fiercely independent and the terrain massively suited them. The major tribes - such as the Durrani Empire - knew the score, they weren't diplomatically naive, and they knew that Russia and the UK would only try to make deals with them in order to in some way weaken the other, so they tended to reject all overtures. In fact, diplomats and spies for both countries often had to travel around Central Asia in disguise because if their nationalities were ever found out, they tended to get lynch-mobbed by local rulers and the native tribesmen and slaughtered in horrifying ways. In the early 19th Century, there's no way that Russia could get straight to the Durrani past the hordes of hostile tribes and states, and no way that the Durrani would agree to help Russia - they would see it as the first step in a Russian vassalisation and annexation. What's more, the British would not be able to just overrun Central Asia after defeating the Russians - they would be ambushed in the many thin mountain passages and enclosed gorge paths and massacred to a man, just like in OTL.

There's also the points that, in your TL the Russians invade India with a force of what was it? 33,000 men? I'll point out that in this era, yeah India only had about 15,000 British troops on station but there were approximately 200,000 Indian sepoy battalions who would support the British regulars. 33,000 Russians, even with Cossacks and against poorly-trained Indian troops, would be overwhelmed. Napoleon, when he proposed a joint invasion of India with Russia in 1805 or whenever it was, said that the two countries needed to field at least 88,000 men. 33k is just...small. That's not bringing up the fact that Russia has the biggest army in Europe excepting the French levee en masse at this point, and so a British counter-invasion would need to be huge to not be totally, totally crushed by a massively superior number of Russian troops as it approached Moscow after a 3,000 mile march through hostile territory.

Also, I'll point out that Central Asia isn't just a problem for military expeditions because of its ambush points. It also has numerous deserts that need to be crossed - deserts considered impassable by many, which took years to chart, and which defeated several Russian armies (British armies never got that far north and wouldn't have a clue where to go). A British counter-invasion is frankly going to face the hot-weather equivalent of Napoleon's invasion of Russia - they're all going to die in the desert, including Napoleon and Wellington.

I've really enjoyed the TL and if we were to put sensibilities aside I'd continue to enjoy it anyway. However, this Central Asian adventure is a bit of an impracticality if we are talking about plausible storylines...
 
Well, to be perfectly honest about the numbers, I didn't want it to turn into a 250,000 vs 250,000 right off the bat. Just a few expeditions at first to really feel out the defenses and such. I also couldn't find any concrete numbers for either army (maybe I wasn't looking in the right places) but, hey, live and learn, right?

And as far as the Central Asian occupation being impossible, I don't think impossible is the right word. Highly unlikely and hard as hell to complete? Sure. Which is why the British aren't occupying it. They are traveling through it.

I intended the Anglo-Russian War of TTL to parallel the Peninsula War OTL, to a certain degree. Russia makes an ally of the Central Asian tribes=France makes an ally of Spain. Russia goes back on the alliance=France goes back on the alliance. Russia invades India=France invades Portugal. And so on.

As far as the tribes of Afghanistan being fiercely independant, I would most definitely agree. But the Russians weren't the only ones worried about the quick British victories in India 1798-1805. I'd think they'd (Afghan tribes, as well as the rest of Central Asian tribes) realize they are caught between a rock and another rock. So when Russian diplomats show up giving generous terms of autonomy and military aid in exchange for merely being able to move unmolested through their borders, I see them jumping on it. Who knows, maybe Shuja Shah Durrani envisioned a resurgent Timurid Empire with Russian aid, and figured he'd double-cross the Tsars at a later date. Whatever the reason, the Central Asian tribes allied with the Russians against a very strong British influence ITTL. So when the Russians go back on the treaty and seize control of strategic waterways and cities, the Afghan tribes look at the oncoming British Army as a sort of liberator (albeit with a shitton of suspicion as well).

The getting lost part isn't hard to fix. Afghan guides. I'm sure the tribal leaders would like to have a "spy" in the Brits camp, just to be sure they don't get turned on like the Russians did, and the Brits don't want to get lost.

And now the desert issue. I agree. It's a pain in the ass. I didn't even think about the real-life consequences of taking a quarter million soldiers across Central Asia and then invading Russia. My mistake. But what if they followed the plan of the Mongol invasions of Russia in the early 13th century (marching up the western side of the Caspian Sea) and taking Moscow from the south? I'd have to edit back and have Nappy and Wellington stop at the border of one of the present day 'stans. But that's an easy fix.

Again, first TL. Thoughts?
 
Well, to be perfectly honest about the numbers, I didn't want it to turn into a 250,000 vs 250,000 right off the bat. Just a few expeditions at first to really feel out the defenses and such. I also couldn't find any concrete numbers for either army (maybe I wasn't looking in the right places) but, hey, live and learn, right?

And as far as the Central Asian occupation being impossible, I don't think impossible is the right word. Highly unlikely and hard as hell to complete? Sure. Which is why the British aren't occupying it. They are traveling through it.

I intended the Anglo-Russian War of TTL to parallel the Peninsula War OTL, to a certain degree. Russia makes an ally of the Central Asian tribes=France makes an ally of Spain. Russia goes back on the alliance=France goes back on the alliance. Russia invades India=France invades Portugal. And so on.

As far as the tribes of Afghanistan being fiercely independant, I would most definitely agree. But the Russians weren't the only ones worried about the quick British victories in India 1798-1805. I'd think they'd (Afghan tribes, as well as the rest of Central Asian tribes) realize they are caught between a rock and another rock. So when Russian diplomats show up giving generous terms of autonomy and military aid in exchange for merely being able to move unmolested through their borders, I see them jumping on it. Who knows, maybe Shuja Shah Durrani envisioned a resurgent Timurid Empire with Russian aid, and figured he'd double-cross the Tsars at a later date. Whatever the reason, the Central Asian tribes allied with the Russians against a very strong British influence ITTL. So when the Russians go back on the treaty and seize control of strategic waterways and cities, the Afghan tribes look at the oncoming British Army as a sort of liberator (albeit with a shitton of suspicion as well).

The getting lost part isn't hard to fix. Afghan guides. I'm sure the tribal leaders would like to have a "spy" in the Brits camp, just to be sure they don't get turned on like the Russians did, and the Brits don't want to get lost.

And now the desert issue. I agree. It's a pain in the ass. I didn't even think about the real-life consequences of taking a quarter million soldiers across Central Asia and then invading Russia. My mistake. But what if they followed the plan of the Mongol invasions of Russia in the early 13th century (marching up the western side of the Caspian Sea) and taking Moscow from the south? I'd have to edit back and have Nappy and Wellington stop at the border of one of the present day 'stans. But that's an easy fix.

Again, first TL. Thoughts?

A few weeks back I'd have agreed with you on uncertainty of some factors, and not wanting to fully buy into certain mythos' about Central Asia's impenetrability. However I bought a book recently on the Great Game, and it portrays the situation through the recital of the accounts of the various explorers and diplomats from both sides, and seriously - the area was a hellhole. The early British explorers had to disguise themselves as Muslim pilgrims because their lives were literally under so much threat that they could not afford to cross the vasts of Asia with any suggestion of being European. The tribes of the area were fiercely independent, and I mean "go down fighting to the last" fiercely. It took Russia until into the 20th century to cement its rule up to the borders of Afghanistan OTL do remember. The Durrani are going to be insulted by the offer of autonomy because they truly believed themselves capable of destroying any invader by the use of the terrain in their advantage, and let's not forget that they resisted several invasions successfully. The Russian diplomats who made that offer would be executed for sure - and I say this because it actually happened OTL. When the British marched to Kabul in 1839, one man came back alive - and they spared him so that he could tell the tales of the Afghan brutality to serve as a warning. Also I'm not mentioning here that to get to the Durrani, the Russians would somehow have to get through Kokand, Bukhara and several petty states in the way which historically took them about 50 years to pacify.

As for the Afghan guides "wanting to be in the British camp" - I'm not sure what purpose they would serve as spies. They wouldn't be privy to any information except where the army was going, and that would be pretty obvious from the start - Russia. The British army would move so slowly, with its cannon and its baggage, that it would be easier for the Durrani, or whoever, to just shadow the army with scouts riding through the hills and staying on the horizon - they would be able to see the British column far more easily than the British could see their scouts, and even if they were seen, in this era it was a feature of military expeditioning to know that you were being followed. Occasionally generals would send cavalry out to try to scare off the scouts, but it so rarely worked that essentially the scouts often didn't really mind too much about being seen - and the invading army just shrugged its shoulders and waved at the scouts as they marched along.

As for the idea of the Mongols - that's fine, so long as you can assume that the entire British expedition is riding on horseback with 10 horses each, thus allowing them to travel at some crazy fast pace like 100 miles a day or some such. It also relies on Russia being at middle ages technological status and thus not really having a ton of fortresses in the way and having constant communication with Moscow to organise a response. But I agree that the route is the route they would follow, definitely.

I'm sorry, I just can't see a way that the Central Asia could be pacified or that the British could feasibly hope to invade Russia from the south. However, I will reiterate that I have enjoyed this storyline so far, and I would happily continue to read if you decided to write this story anyway. It's just that personally I wouldn't see it as a feasible historical alternative. Sorry and all...
 

archaeogeek

Banned

The bit about cannons is probably going to be pretty bad: the french and austrians IOTL had worked very hard on their field artillery and the Year XI system was basically Gribeauval on steroids; it wasn't universal even by 1812 but it was very very useful for mountain deployments like through Switzerland; I doubt Britain would enact it, the british army was very conservative for these things.
 
Falastur, thanks so much for the input. I was hoping to avoid having Wellington, Napoleon, and Horatio Nelson completely raping the Americans in the War of 1812 by having them be preoccupied with an antagonistic Russia, but alas, I guess Nappy will land at New Orleans and Wellington will light the torches in Washington. I need to go back to basically the second part of the TL and change everything around. Do I just go back and hit the Edit or should I just delete it and make a new post?
 
Falastur, thanks so much for the input. I was hoping to avoid having Wellington, Napoleon, and Horatio Nelson completely raping the Americans in the War of 1812 by having them be preoccupied with an antagonistic Russia, but alas, I guess Nappy will land at New Orleans and Wellington will light the torches in Washington. I need to go back to basically the second part of the TL and change everything around. Do I just go back and hit the Edit or should I just delete it and make a new post?

Well first things first - if you are just looking for a fun story, then write what you wanted to write anyway. If you want to go for something believable though, I personally would retcon the update, but if you are unhappy with the idea then don't.

There are other things you can do though. Mess around with the French Revolutionary Wars, have Russia sign a Treaty of Tilsit style alliance-of-sorts with the French (i.e. an attack Britain pact) which doesn't fall through so quickly - no Continental Plan probably means an alliance would be longer-lasting anyway, and the Continental Plan was Napoleon's idea after all - and then have Russia antagonise Britain enough to justify an invasion. You might need to include a war in Europe to validate a Franco-Russian alliance, but that shouldn't be hard to achieve. Without a Napoleon figure in charge of France, the wars become less of a "take down Napoleon at all costs" therefore it becomes more acceptable for countries like Russia to ally France in an alliance of opportunity to take the pressure off France who would be under attack from Austria and Spain, or somesuch. You seem to have a new charismatic in charge of France (no Napoleon, I'm sure) so I reckon there'd be enough threat there to generate an Austro-Prussian alliance (or Coalition, if we are using Napoleonic Wars analogues) which otherwise shouldn't be done unless absolutely necessary since Austria and Prussia were natural rivals in the same way Britain and France were, and had been antagonising each other a lot recently.

So yeah, to move on, just have something like that go down, and have Britain retaliate with either an attack on the Saint Petersburg, or a one-country Crimean War. The aim should not be for the British to conquer large parts of Russia because it's infeasible, just to land a lot of troops and cause problems for Russia - perhaps occupy Saint Petersburg (then the Russian capital) if they are very lucky. However, the very landing of Napoleon and Wellington gives you the opportunity to then have them be as successful as you want them to be - it's possible that a crushing victory at Saint Petersburg could cause them to capture a few other major cities and deal some damage. Dismantling Russia ain't gonna happen, but you can have them win some important battles and really make names for themselves. The Crimea offers much the same opportunity except no Saint Petersburg - and marching all the way across Russia isn't really likely either. But occupying all the Crimea and a bit of the surrounding area would be a devastating defeat to Russia all the same.
 
This is my second update of my TL. Disregard the last update, it was proven to be slightly implausible. So I’m doing another one and hoping this one is better. Y’all will have to go easy, I’m in the hospital with appendicitis and kind of loopy from the morphine. If anything is unrealistic just let me know and I’ll try again. I want this to be as accurate as I can possibly make it. Feel free to be as nit-picky as you want to be, but bear in mind that little things like exact troop numbers and such are awful hard to find. Thanks for whatever input you decide to… well, input.

British Intervention in the Corsican Crisis 1806-1812, version II

Tensions rise in Europe as First Consul Emmanuel-Joseph Sieyès of France has finished consolidating his power. France had earlier taken control of several areas of Europe (during the War of the Second Coalition, 1800-1804) turning them into client states, among them the Batavian Republic, the Cisalpine Republic, and the Helvetic Republic (France failed in its 1798 invasion of Italy, thus the Papal States remain under the Papacy). After five years of assembling and training the nearly 350,000 troops of the Armée Populaire and extinguishing any remaining royalist sympathizers, the French again turn their attentions to conquest, namely the Holy Roman Empire (late 1808). Francis II of the Holy Roman Empire is well aware of the threat the French Consulate poses. After bringing the Austrian Empire into the Holy Roman Empire, he has dealt with much hostility between the Austrians and the Prussians. The upcoming invasion could well be the catalyst for a great reconciliation, if it were handled properly. Frederick William III, King of Prussia was also facing the threat of invasion, but this from the east. Imperial Russia, under Tsar Alexander I, wishes to add all of Poland to her borders, not just the portion she received in the Third Partition. As the two nations are about to begin a war against a common enemy, Tsar Alexander I and First Consul Sieyès begin an alliance, made official by the Treaty of Venice on February 20, 1809. (Venice being a neutral city). Francis II seeks to gain the full support of Prussia by marrying his eldest daughter, Marie-Louise, to the Prussian heir, Frederick William IV. They are married on March 2, 1809. Francis II implores his brother-in-law, King Fredrick I of the United Kingdom to send aid, which Fredrick I readily agrees to. He sends 200,000 troops under the joint command of General Sir Arthur Wellesley and Lieutenant-General Sir Napoleon Buonaparte, which lands at Danzig in April 1809. The Royal Navy, under Rear-Admiral Sir Horatio Nelson, returns to the English Channel in search of the French Navy. The combined armies of France and Russia attack the Holy Roman Empire in May 1809 with a force of over half a million (250,000 French and 290,000 Russian). General Wellesley takes half of the 200,000 British troops, with a force of 100,000 Austrians following shortly thereafter, and meets the Armée Populaire in the Batavian Republic. The Coalition force is initially outnumbered by the French, although the superior leadership of Wellesley leads to early British victories. After seizing the northern half of the client republic in June 1811 and the city of Brussels in early July 1811, Wellesley is faced with the remainder of the Armée Populaire (100,000) with only roughly 60,000 troops free (another 80,000 troops are holding key cities in the Batavian Republic as garrison against a French naval invasion). Reinforcements from Austria are fast approaching, but they may not make it in time for Wellesley to hold Brussels. He decides to force the battle away from Brussels at a small town called Waterloo. For three days, (July 9,10,11 1811) the British hold the line against waves of French troops. On the third day, it begins to look as if the French will break the line, until the Austrian reinforcements arrive under the command of the Archduke Charles, younger brother of Francis II. The Austrians shatter the right flank of Field Marshall Louis Alexandre Berthier at the same moment that Wellington's army counter-attacks and drives the French army in disorder from the field. With the Armée Populaire virtually destroyed, Wellesley marches onward to Paris and restores Louis XVIII to the throne. Meanwhile, in the Baltic, Rear-Admiral Sir Horatio Nelson has found the French fleet and then some; he has also found the Russian fleet. Outnumbered thirty-six ships to twenty-three ships, Nelson goes against every naval doctrine in existence and divides his forces in the face of a numerically superior enemy. His gamble works, however, as his forces destroy twenty-five French and Russian ships without losing a single British vessel. Admiral Nelson is wounded in this Battle of the Baltic by a French sharpshooter, but recovers during the voyage back to England. Meanwhile, in Poland, 100,000 British troops under the command of Lieutenant-General Sir Napoleon Buonaparte, 150,000 Prussian troops under Field Marshal Prince von Blücher and the rising star of Colonel Carl von Clausewitz , and another 100,000 Austrian troops under Karl Mack von Leiberich are making things hard for the Imperial Russian Army under Field Marshall Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly. After numerous victories, such as the Battles of Warsaw (August 1809), Krakow (March 1810), and Königsberg (June 1811), the Allied forces now stand at the border of Russia. Peace negotiations have not gone as planned, as Alexander I, now incensed at his army’s defeats, vows never to surrender to the British. Lieutenant-General Sir Napoleon Buonaparte then receives orders straight from King Fredrick I himself, orders meant to end the war for good; invade Russia and take St. Petersburg, beginning June 24, 1812. Tragedy strikes in the Holy Roman Empire as the heir to the throne, Archduke Franz Karl dies in a horse-riding accident, leaving the matter of succession open entirely. The best claim to the throne is that of Frederick William IV of Prussia, married to Francis II's eldest daughter. But will the Austrians accept a Prussian Holy Roman Emperor?
 
Since no one has screamed ASB at the last update, I'll assume it's all reasonably plausible (if anyone read it, that is). So here's the third update.

(Still on pain meds from having my appendix ripped out, so if there's any errors, I deny responsibility)


British Intervention in the Corsican Crisis, 1812-1816


The summer of 1812 proves to be a trying one for Lieutenant-General Sir Napoleon Buonaparte. Faced with invading the enormous monster that is Russia, he racks his mind for the perfect invasion, one that offers the best chance of success. Aware that his supply line would be severely tested, he suggests hugging the Baltic coastline so the Royal Navy can help with supplying. To make sure everything is done properly, he places Prussian Major-General August Neidhardt von Gneisenau in charge of supplying the invasion. Noticeably absent from either side are the Polish, refusing to fight for either of the two armies since both had earlier partitioned Poland. Napoleon knows that he must take St. Petersburg before late January to avoid the freezing of the Gulf of Finland. Russian Field Marshall Michael Andreas Barclay de Tolly knows that he cannot stand against the Allied army, but Tsar Alexander I forces him to either fight or relieve himself of command. Against his better judgment, he meets the Allied army at Riga (July 2, 1812). Reinforced by conscripts, the Russian army numbers around 360,000 troops, compared to the 275,000 of the Allies. The Battle of Riga was a decisive Allied victory, and also the bloodiest battle in the British invasion of Russia. The casualties were worse in the long run for the Allies, because the Russian casualties could easily be replaced from their massive population. Alexander I replaces Barclay with Field Marshal Mikhail Kutuzov, who promises to defeat the invading army in what the Russians now term The Great Patriotic War. Napoleon continues toward St. Petersburg with the Royal Navy just offshore, full of supplies. The Royal Navy, back under the command of Admiral Horatio Nelson, now 1st Viscount Nelson and 1st Duke of Bronté, continues to be wary of naval attacks, but after the Battle of the Baltic, the French and Russian navies are of little threat. Napoleon’s forces enter St. Petersburg on September 27th, 1812. Expecting to find Alexander I offering terms of the Russian surrender, he is shocked to find the Russian capital almost deserted. Word soon reaches his army that Alexander I ordered the evacuation of St. Petersburg and has moved his capital to the historical city of Moscow. Without any city officials to organize the feeding and lodging of the soldiers, the Allied soldiers are forced to find their own. Looting and fires soon followed, although they were stopped in short order. With his army of 190,000 camped in the former capital, Napoleon makes the decision to follow Alexander I to Moscow with 100,000 troops (leaving 90,000 in garrison at St. Petersburg) and hopefully put an end to this war. Attacking Moscow is easier said than done, as soon found out by Napoleon and his army. Infused with a massive amount of conscripts, Kutuzov’s army, numbering 330,000, holds Moscow and fights off the Allied army (October 4, 1812). The Allied defeat is due less to the Russian’s leadership or fighting ability as to the ineptness of Austrian Field Marshal Karl Mack von Leiberich, whose incompetence led to a failed assault on Moscow. Field Marshal von Leiberich died in the battle, leading Napoleon to replace him with Prussian Carl von Clausewitz, newly promoted to Lieutenant-General. The Austrians are far from content with this arrangement, but are pacified when their new general proves to be an unconditionally better leader than the late Field Marshal von Leiberich. For six days, Napoleon’s army retreats back to the relatively safe haven of St. Petersburg, fighting the entire way. The Six Days’ Campaign (October 7-12, 1812), as it would soon be called, proved to be the finest of the general’s campaigns. The Battles of Tver, Rzhev, and Novgorod in particular are instantly legendary as Napoleon inflicts massive casualties in the neighborhood of 25,000 on the much larger Russian army, compared to less than 1,500 for the Allied forces. Once at St. Petersburg, Napoleon regroups with the rest of his command only to find that reinforcements have arrived, in the form of Arthur Wellesley and 160,000 fresh troops. At the head of the approaching Russian army is Field Marshal Kutuzov, with Tsar Alexander I beside him to watch the invaders thrown back into the Gulf of Finland. In the ensuing battle, the Allied forces under Wellesley, Buonaparte, von Blücher, and von Clausewitz inflict massive losses upon the Russian army, the two most notable of which are Mikhail Kutuzov and Alexander I. With their army now headless, and having lost almost half their force, the Russians flee in disorder, leaving the march to Moscow wide open. The Allied forces put the eighteen year old brother of Alexander I, Nicolai, now Nicholas I, on the throne of Russia (October 24, 1812). The Treaty of St. Petersburg imposes harsh penalties on the Russians, the biggest of which is the annexation of Poland to Prussia and Austria and of Alaska to the British. General Sir Arthur Wellesley and Lieutenant-General Sir Napoleon Buonaparte return to Great Britain as heroes, Wellesley receiving the Dukedom of Wellington and Buonaparte ennobled as the 1st Duke of Exeter. The Congress of Vienna is held a few months later (February 1813). The main task for the congress is to redefine the borders of Europe. France’s borders are decided to be its pre-1792 border and Russia’s border is reduced to its pre-First Partition of Poland border, with Prussia and Austria assuming control of all Poland, under the banner of the Holy Roman Empire. First Consul Sieyès is exiled to the Island of Elba, where his socialist ideas will hopefully be buried. The Congress of Vienna ends in June 1814.


Note: In OTL, the War of 1812 was fought by the Americans and the British for three main reasons. 1) Trade restrictions imposed by Great Britain between America and Napoleonic France, 2) Impressment of American sailors into the Royal Navy, 3) Indian raids supplied by the British. ITTL, there are no trade restrictions, because England is not at war with France 1804-late 1808. No reason for impressment either, for the same reason. Great Britain supplying Indians with materials for raids is still present, but not enough reason to go to war. So no Burning of the White House, and no Battle of New Orleans. Anglo-American relations are gradually improving.


After the Congress of Vienna, King Fredrick I appoints Field Marshal His Grace the Duke of Wellington (Arthur Wellesley) as ambassador to France following the Bourbon Restoration. General His Grace the Duke of Exeter (Napoleon Buonaparte) lives a quiet life at his estates, watching his children (son, Joseph born 1807, son, Charles born 1808, daughter, Elizabeth born 1813) grow. The Holy Roman Empire under Francis II is now the dominant power on the Continent, and rumor has it that he plans to invade the Italian Peninsula in order to legitimize his Holy “Roman” Empire. Louis XVIII has angered almost every citizen in France, refusing to listen to the elected Senate before disbanding them and imposing taxes on tobacco, wine and salt in order to pay off the 75 million franc debt inherited from First Consul Sieyès. Another Revolution in France seems imminent unless something can be done to persuade Louis XVIII that an absolute monarchy is untenable (June 1816).
 
Top