Can Napoleon be defeated before the Russian Campaign?

[Susano]

Exactly as it says: IOTL, the near-total destruction of the Grande Armee in the Russian campaign marked the beginning of his end, beginning practically immidatly with Prussia and Austria switching sides, Napoleons lets say difficult retreat through Germany and also the rest of Germany switching sides then in the Liberation Wars (well, at least thats what its called here ).

But could Napoleon already be finished off before? If not the Sixth Coalition, maybe the Fifth? I mean, it was only Austria (plus UK, but that goes without saying), but they did win at Aspern, and Wagram was a close affair. If Prussia, or what had remained of it, take Austrian successes as a sign to switch sides, and Russia remains neutral, and the UK renews efforts... could that be enough?

Or if not the Fifth Coalition, any other chance to take down Napoleon before the Russian Campaign?

 

[Orry]

Exactly as it says: IOTL, the near-total destruction of the Grande Armee in the Russian campaign marked the beginning of his end, beginning practically immidatly with Prussia and Austria switching sides, Napoleons lets say difficult retreat through Germany and also the rest of Germany switching sides then in the Liberation Wars (well, at least thats what its called here ).

But could Napoleon already be finished off before? If not the Sixth Coalition, maybe the Fifth? I mean, it was only Austria (plus UK, but that goes without saying), but they did win at Aspern, and Wagram was a close affair. If Prussia, or what had remained of it, take Austrian successes as a sign to switch sides, and Russia remains neutral, and the UK renews efforts... could that be enough?

Or if not the Fifth Coalition, any other chance to take down Napoleon before the Russian Campaign?

He could have been killed at any number of his earlier battles - but I guess that is not what you mean.

 

[Alex Richards]

Part of the problem is that the British were very reluctant to actually commit troops to Europe. Note that the main army was Wellington's on the Peninsular, and that suffered from an absurdly long list of supply failures and troop depletions due to the lack of political will for it. It was only when Wellington began to really beat the French after 1812 that he got the supplies.

 

[Thande]

I think yes, in theory, but it's not very likely if the idea is 'Napoleon sits there on the defensive and is content with his empire'. But I would say that itself is not very likely. Even if Napoleon never invaded Russia, one of his other overly grand plans would have led to French overstretch: the reason he originally invaded Spain was ultimately to try and conquer all of Africa, apparently, and Spain was a necessary first step. Not to mention his plan to join with the Russians and invade British India from the north through Afghanistan (in person with the Grand Armée). Or for that matter I could easily see him quixotically deciding to topple the Ottoman Empire and crown himself Sultan and Caliph in Constantinople - reading his writings it seems exactly like the sort of thing he'd do.

Alex: the reason why Wellington was so bad off was because Britain had tried landing troops in mainland Europe squillions of times before during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars (most notably in Flanders) and they had never gotten anywhere. For that matter, Sir John Moore hadn't gotten anywhere in the Peninsula before Wellington, either. It would be like trying to organise D-Day when 20 Dieppe-style attempts in a row had all failed.

 

[Hörnla]

Or if not the Fifth Coalition, any other chance to take down Napoleon before the Russian Campaign?

The Austrian performance during this war was surprisingly good. But I doubt that rump-Prussia was ready for such a risky endeavour in 1809.
I am also quite sure that they could probably not yet sustain a campaign to finish off le émpire.

But what about Prussia deciding to throw its weight against Napoleon in 1805? Austerlitz was a masterpiece, but even Napoleon can only do so much, or what if during the lull before the battle, the Prussians wroke havoc to the French supply lines?

 

[I Blame Communism]

Here's a scenario that rather fascinates me: suppose for some reason Alexander I doesn't get an urge to play at soldiers in December 1805 and the Russians wisely do what they'd do seven years later: keep withdrawing, as the snows settle in and the French stretch their lines of communication further and further...

The Russians were by no means finished, even after Austerlitz was fought: they still had Friedland in them, after all. They had plenty more manpower to call on, had they simply retreated closer to their borders. The Prussians, meanwhile, were mobilising their armies (they had some 160,000 ready by November, IIRC). Archduke Charles had some 80,000 men under his command in Hungary that Napoleon considered a serious threat even after Austerlitz IOTL, and if he's mucking about in Moravia they've got the chance to pull back parallel with the Russians (this scenario does depend on some incredible bloody-mindedness from the Austrian government, mind). If the French are stuck in central Europe, Britain wouldn't be compelled to quit southern Italy in such a hurry, either, and the Coalition troops might stay in Hanover - even if, as IOTL, they withdraw to Pommerania, they could still be unlocked again if the Prussians come in.

Had Napoleon been led a little further on, and then, I don't know, gotten indigestion and suffered a bloody stalemate in place of Austerlitz somewhere near the borders of Galicia, then his opponents would be receiving Russian re-enforcements, Charles would be at large in Hungary, and the Prussians could at once commit useful troops to the ongoing campaign and, with the Coalition's north German army, strike over the French LoC and pin the forces that had been left in France; and the Anglo-Russian-Neapolitan army could start making mischief in Italy at the same time. Napoleon would be in a bit of a sticky.

This scenario depends on the Austrian government being insanely tenacious. I feel it might be easier to justify if Napoleon fell off his horse at some providential moment, but that feels like a cop-out. Still, physically speaking, ignoring Austrian government morale, the Coalition could have won the third war if they'd dodged Austerlitz and brought in Prussia.

 

[Hörnla]

Here's a scenario that rather fascinates me: suppose for some reason Alexander I doesn't get an urge to play at soldiers in December 1805 and the Russians wisely do what they'd do seven years later: keep withdrawing, as the snows settle in and the French stretch their lines of communication further and further...

What can I say, excellent scenario.

 

[Anaxagoras]

Napoleon could easily have lost the Battle of Eylau in February of 1807, as it was a very near-run thing.

 

[RGB]

Napoleon could easily have lost the Battle of Eylau in February of 1807, as it was a very near-run thing.

Yes, I was about to say. That entire campaign was really well-fought by the Russians, and they potentially could have gotten a few more defeats on the French, forcing Napoleon to re-evaluate his position in the East.

 

[Emperor of Scandinavia]

I am kind of a bookish person so I feel the need to peddle another book that people should read-The Napoleon Options: Alternate decisions of the Napoleonic Wars

It is a great book that reveals man possible derisions that could have happened during the timeframe.