What If Napoleon had never invaded Russia?

[RGB]

matteo,
I mostly agree with that.

I think the 'forced retreat' is you saying potayto, me saying patahto. The russians went with an unorthodox move because, as you say, they knew simply going toe to toe with France's armies was not a good strategy.

The Russians tried long-distance retreats followed by a big battle before. The first time Emperor Alex intervened and it resulted in Austerlitz, the second time Benningsen had Napoleon successfully frustrated and doing a lot of useless activity in Prussia, right up until when Benningsen himself fell for a trap the French set for him resulting in Friedland.

So they had good reasons to suppose that if they did it perfectly this time on their own territory, it might work. It didn't quite (because none of the big battles they gave were victories even if they did chew up a lot of the Grande Armee), but then Napoleon obliged them by occupying Moscow and deciding to retreat late in the year after chasing them very deep into the country.

All they had to do was nudge him back into the road where the armies already came though earlier because it was stipped of everything, and they did. The end is known.

So it was simultaneously something they planned on, but it wasn't new, it wasn't any kind of genius move, and yes, it had to be done because Russia had less troops and less quality than you know, all of Europe under arms. Being a forced move doesn't mean they didn't plan for it, but it wasn't some unexpected masterstroke.

Both the French and Russian armies have played this exact game at least twice before on a large scale. This was just the laterest and greaterest iteration of the same.

 

[oberdada]

Honstly, I have always wondered why Napoleon didn't restore Lithuania and take St.Petersburg, either burning it or turning it into a fortress for himself. With Russia cut of from the Baltic Sea there should be that much trading with England left, shouldn't it?

Please forgive my, if i have just asked the 19th century equivalent of "What if sealion..." but I am really wondering...

 

[unprincipled peter]

I'm upstate NY.

November is NOT winter.

it's cold. bleak. still good foraging for the horses, but not much else.

But it's NOT winter. You're going to die of exposure without a blanket. but with a blanket and a fire, it's easily survivable.

Downtown Moscow may be different.

Sans the scorched earth, it's is the golden time. the crops are harvested, the livestock are fatted for winter. everything just waiting for you to take it.

It's that damned scorched earth thingy that put a damper on everything.

 

[DAv]

I'm upstate NY.

November is NOT winter.

it's cold. bleak. still good foraging for the horses, but not much else.

But it's NOT winter. You're going to die of exposure without a blanket. but with a blanket and a fire, it's easily survivable.

Downtown Moscow may be different.

Sans the scorched earth, it's is the golden time. the crops are harvested, the livestock are fatted for winter. everything just waiting for you to take it.

It's that damned scorched earth thingy that put a damper on everything.

Well, it was more the horrible logistics situation that the Grand Armee had more than anything else. Soldiers were starving to death in Poland and deserting in high numbers. To sort out the Russian invasion so it doesn't devastate that infantry and cavalry (Which was the biggest loss Napoleon suffered), you're going to have to look into changing that.

 

[Strategy]

What if Napoleon had Tsar Alexander assassinated; captured Moscow by wintering at Smolensk and continuing fresh in 1813. Then appointing a more liberal Romanov as tsar.

Potential:

1. Russia modernizes faster, thankfully avoiding the Communist Revolution.
2. More troops to defeat Wellington on the Peninsular campaign.
3. Isolated Britain means a different outcome for the War of 1812 in America.

 

[Autocrat]

Napoleon's death might actually be the only way for the French to sustain their gains. Assuming Napoleon dies in 1821 as per OTL (and hangs on until then), then some sort of diplomatic solution can be reached after his death.

Not at all. It wasn't just Nappy who was bellicose during the Wars, but also the Coalition. ANd Britain would stop at nothing to keep Europe not united under France.

 

[Amelikite]

Honstly, I have always wondered why Napoleon didn't restore Lithuania and take St.Petersburg, either burning it or turning it into a fortress for himself. With Russia cut of from the Baltic Sea there should be that much trading with England left, shouldn't it?

Please forgive my, if i have just asked the 19th century equivalent of "What if sealion..." but I am really wondering...

Napoleon usually wanted to defeat the enemies armies first, and the Russians were retreating towards Moscow, not St Pete's. Even if he could capture the Capital. turning it into a fortress would have made it thhe end of a very long supply chain,
with the Russian forces being closer. The Russians would have been in a much better strategic situation. Sooner or later Napoleon retreats, St Petes falls.

 

[DAv]

What if Napoleon had Tsar Alexander assassinated; captured Moscow by wintering at Smolensk and continuing fresh in 1813. Then appointing a more liberal Romanov as tsar.

Potential:

1. Russia modernizes faster, thankfully avoiding the Communist Revolution.
2. More troops to defeat Wellington on the Peninsular campaign.
3. Isolated Britain means a different outcome for the War of 1812 in America.

First of all, no one really went for killing other leaders of the opposing nations. Assassinations were simply not a done thing as it would set a dangerous precedent as to what could be done to retaliate. Second of all, good luck finding someone wanting to take up the position of Tsar when everyone in Russia would know you're Napoleon's puppet. You'd last maybe a year or two before you tragically cut your own throat while shaving.