Napoleonic victory with the invasion of Russia?

RGB

cimon said:
Napoleon would have won easily in the North because Koutouzow had already pointed(correctly OTL) that Napoleon's aim would be Moscow;
If he marched North,he would have the entire Polish cavalry protecting his right flank and they could harass the Russians in their approach...
Click to expand...

Polish cavalry was very good, but I doubt it would be decisive by its lonesome. Russia had very effective light cavalry forces itself, and matched up pretty well against the Poles.

Secondly, the Northern Force was already there to shadow and block the French from attacking new directions, something they did very well. It gave several battles, most of which were very bloody for the French, achieving the strategic goals of the Russian command. Northern Force couldn't stand up to the Grande Armee put together, but it could buy enough time for the Russians under Kutuzov to catch up and give them a Borodino on the way to St.Petersburg.

Finally, yes, any coastal route is going to be harassed by the Russian navy, and non-coastal routes through the Baltics have incredibly poor logistics at the time.

Going for Moscow was a huge mistake, but it's not like the Russians didn't have contingency plans. Going for Petersburg might not be any better.
 

Socrates

Couldn't Napoleon set up puppet states along the coast to prevent Russian access to the Baltic. That way the continental system could work.
 

Matteo

Not in the time of the military campaign : not long enough and nobody would commit to his side in a land that most people expected not to become french or polish.
 

TickTock The Witch's Dead

In my opinion, I absolutely believe Napoleon should head to St. Petersburg. In the meantime, he should persuade Sweden, Austria, and the Ottomans to join him in exchange for Russian territory.

Napoleon would win, and this could cause disaster for Russia. Alexander would be forced into peace. He would have to submit to Napoleon's authority and pay a large indemnity. Russia would lose Finland to Sweden while Poland may regain some lost Polish land. Austria would gain some land while the Ottomans would take some Caucasian territories and Crimea. Napoleon would establish a new state in Russian Baltic territory.

Basically, military occupation is a no-go as Russia is simply too big. But give them a decisive, crushing blow and Russia would succumb to French power.
 

Matteo

Well. This is not what Bernadotte calculated since he refused that Sweden join the napoleonic coalition against Russia, although Napoleon had proposed a restitution of Finland to Sweden.

Bernadotte asked instead for ... Norway ! And Norway belonged to Denmark, à french ally. Bernadotte had secretly negotiated a deal with Britain and Russia. That is also because he did not think possible to hold Finland in the long run against a hostile Russia. And I think he was right because it was foreseeable that there would be a relative but nonetheless real rollback of the french domination, influence, and "projection" capacity of France in the long run, when Napoleon is dead.

And the ottoman empire had just concluded peace with Russia, at a very good price. That's the reason why he did not want to be involved in the franco-russian war. At least for the first year of the conflict. If Napoleon had implemented his planned 2 years campaign strategy, things would have been different and an ottoman intervention in 1813, on the side of a Grande Armée holding Poland in its 1772 frontiers, would have been highly likely.
 
Last edited:

cimon

RGB said:
Polish cavalry was very good, but I doubt it would be decisive by its lonesome. Russia had very effective light cavalry forces itself, and matched up pretty well against the Poles.

Secondly, the Northern Force was already there to shadow and block the French from attacking new directions, something they did very well. It gave several battles, most of which were very bloody for the French, achieving the strategic goals of the Russian command. Northern Force couldn't stand up to the Grande Armee put together, but it could buy enough time for the Russians under Kutuzov to catch up and give them a Borodino on the way to St.Petersburg.

Finally, yes, any coastal route is going to be harassed by the Russian navy, and non-coastal routes through the Baltics have incredibly poor logistics at the time.

Going for Moscow was a huge mistake, but it's not like the Russians didn't have contingency plans. Going for Petersburg might not be any better.
Click to expand...

Now this is a very wrong thinking:Russsian cavalry was next to useless as it was proved in Austerlitz and you don't turn a demoralised and defeated cavalry into a first class force in seven years especially with Russian finances and lack of modern organisation and Napoleonic cavalry's invincibility(commanded by Myrat) at that time;

From Guadalkivir to Niemen there were military forces nearing a million men;Napoleon was prepared for Russia;his Austrian allies who were reputed about their cavalry 'inter allia'(probably the best in Europe due to its Hungarian element) had aspirations East(at least the incorporation of Moldova) and along with other allies would occupy Ucraine which would claim independence with its Cossak element at first;Russia was not liked and it was looked down on by other Europeans(relegion playing its part of course, that had already persuaded many Italians to participate)

The Poles being one aspect of the future Russian worries since they had claims east and the Buelorussians thinking nostalgically about independence and at worse autonomy...and theOttoman factor being on the verge...
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top