Hmm... nothing saying it can't be in addition to Emperor of France. I guess that you could just have him do it on a random urge... I mean select the right time and he controls most of the European holdings. North Africa may be a bit more trouble though...
Perhaps in Cyrenica and other regions near Egypt. But not any futher... why?Take those out of the picture and things look much rosier for the French. Victory in Egypt gives him free reign in much of North Africa.
I think this is the best scenario. Integrate his Italian, Illyrian, and Swiss holdings and influenced areas, along with soon-to-be-taken territory in Greece, Istanbul, and Aragon, and created a Roman Empire to be ruled in personal union with his French Empire.Actually, I prefer the idea of Napoleon setting up both a French and a Roman Empire, and ruling both of them under a personal union.
Well, Napoleon used camels, not horses, in some of his campaigns in Egypt-at least for a time. These could ease the pressure from further desert campaigns if they catch on.Perhaps in Cyrenica and other regions near Egypt. But not any futher... why?
1. His naval support was all but completely destroyed at the Battle of the Nile, so Nappy can't move any significant force by sea.
2. Deserts are not the nicest places to march a large army through... particularly an army that has fairly minimal logistical support.
Firstly, Rome was part of the French empire, so more likely is either a Roman Empire centered around Constantinople (an Easr Roman Empire), or else France becomes the core of the Roman Empire, but the said empires capital is made to be Paris.Actually, I prefer the idea of Napoleon setting up both a French and a Roman Empire, and ruling both of them under a personal union.