Can Napoleon be defeated if he doesn't invade Russia?

Nappy's mistake was (read historian Oleg Sokolov) that he wanted russian alliance at all costs and could not realize nor accept before late 1810/early 1811 that the conflict with emperor Alexander I was unavoidable because Alexander wanted it. It was not a personal problem but a geopolitical one : the polish question put Napoleon and Russia on a collision course.

I agree. I always thought that Napoleon should have gone for an alliance with Austria and Poland against Prussia and Russia. He should have torn apart Prussia when he had the chance and given the bits to Poland and Austria. Austria was not dead-set against Republican France and independant Poland so a reconciliation between Austria and France was possible.
 
I agree. I always thought that Napoleon should have gone for an alliance with Austria and Poland against Prussia and Russia. He should have torn apart Prussia when he had the chance and given the bits to Poland and Austria. Austria was not dead-set against Republican France and independant Poland so a reconciliation between Austria and France was possible.


Why not give Poland to Austria as well?

Then Austria extends all the way to the Baltic, forming a continuous barrier between Russia and the West. In that situation, it's far harder for Alexander to make territorial gains even if he wins.

Of course, Napoleon will have to write off the Continental System as far as Russia is concerned. The Tsar won't put up with that indefinitely, given that Russia's biggest export is ship's stores and hence his biggest customer is the RN.
 
Is it not possible for there to be a detente between Britain and Napoleon with Britain accepting french hegemony over the continent in return for France accepting British hegemony elsewhere?

No it isn't. Once France will become hegemony of Europe, Britain will loose its dominance elsewhere. This is matter of "when" not "if".
That is why Britain can't accept any power dominating Europe.
 
Why not give Poland to Austria as well?

Napoleon has obligations to Poland since Poland has always supported Napoleon. Furthermore, Poland didn't like Russia either; had some of the best soldiers in Europe; and Austria shouldn't be too powerful.

Of course, Napoleon will have to write off the Continental System as far as Russia is concerned. The Tsar won't put up with that indefinitely, given that Russia's biggest export is ship's stores and hence his biggest customer is the RN.

That's true.
 
Napoleon has obligations to Poland since Poland has always supported Napoleon. Furthermore, Poland didn't like Russia either; had some of the best soldiers in Europe; and Austria shouldn't be too powerful.


I think that puts the cart before the horse.

Poland was pro-Napoleon because he set up the Duchy of Warsaw, not vice versa. Iirc Poland had been an ally of France in the long ago, but not recently. And a smallish satellite state right over on Russia's border was apt to be more of a liability than an asset.

True about Austria, but even acquiring all of Poland would only make up for past losses in Belgium and Italy - probably not even that, as the Polish and Prussian lands wouldn't have been as rich.
 
I don't know . . . Napoleon had a three-year opportunity between Wagram and Russia to do something about the "Spanish ulcer" and chose to personally stay away. It seems like he figured out at some point during that time that it was going to be a difficult war to win and didn't want to throw everything he had at it.

I think that with no Russian invasion, Napoleon maybe sends in some reinforcements - enough to maintain more or less of a stalemate there - but doesn't go for broke as he did in Russia. Eventually Britain enters into peace negotiations (as it did in 1806 - they weren't always determined to fight him to the death) - in TTL they wouldn't have the huge morale boost they got from learning of the Grande Armée's collapse. It'd probably be a short, Amiens-type peace, though. Napoleon may write off Spain, since he can't subdue it anyway, but won't give up much else, and the British are unlikely to want to return most of their overseas conquests to him, either.

Maybe he was also

1 Worried about the worsening situation with Russa and preferred to stay in Pars. Austria had achieved a tactical surprise in 1809 nearly leading to a French defeat at the start of the campaign. Perhapps Napoleon wanted to be closer to the front of what he knew was goin to be a serious war
2 He wated to concentrate on consolidate his position in Central/WEastern Europe. Spain may have been viewed as of secondary importance.
3 Dynastic reasons. For the sake of hi dynasty Napoleon needed a son with his new wife Marie Louise.
 
I think that puts the cart before the horse.

Poland was pro-Napoleon because he set up the Duchy of Warsaw, not vice versa. Iirc Poland had been an ally of France in the long ago, but not recently. And a smallish satellite state right over on Russia's border was apt to be more of a liability than an asset.

True about Austria, but even acquiring all of Poland would only make up for past losses in Belgium and Italy - probably not even that, as the Polish and Prussian lands wouldn't have been as rich.

Many Polish haad previously fought for the French Republic. Weren't there quite a few Polish Legions and similar floating about during the Revolutionary Wasrs?
 
Tell that to the defenders of Acre.

The siege of Acre was in 1799 during the Egypt expedition.

Initial talks of peace began in Al Arish on 30 January 1800 and the Treaty of Paris on 25 June 1802 ended all hostilities between France and the Ottoman Empire, resecuring Egypt for the Ottomans.

End of game...

Interesting. Which is the other country that didn't want to fight France according to Napoleon?

Denmark...

In late december 1813, during a speech to the French Senat, Napoleon said that France is fighting all of Europe except two countries, Denmark and Turkey. Saying these two countries are immune to British propaganda / influence.
 
I think it's a little disingenuous to portray the coalition forces as the primary aggressors, and Nap as the victim, as so many are attempting to do here. Nap was actively attempting full domination of the continent including forcing a disastrous economic system on the continent. There's certainly enough blame to go around, but there are only two ways the coalition forces can achieve peace: defeat Nap, or roll over and play the part of a fraternity pledge during hazing (every time Nap whacks them on the buttocks with a paddle, they say "thank you sir, may I have another?").

I think Nap has to go after Russia. Sooner or later there's going to be a showdown. Unfortunately for him, though, his only real hope of victory is for the Russians to come out and greet him. It's a reasonable expectation. That's what most countries do. Portugal set the stage by offering no resistance and running, but that's what they'd been doing for a while, so it's no small wonder that Nap ignored that warning sign. They used the scorched earth policy effectively after the first invasion, but again, who would expect a country with real military power (Russia) to burn it's own countryside instead of fighting? Nap doesn't have to follow the Russians so deep into their country, but what's the alternative? hang out in Poland waiting for the Russians to come out? You can lay siege to a city, but not a huge country. Not engaging the Russians becomes a psuedo loss, and sets the stage for diminishing prospects for Nap.

Ignoring the Russian issue means that now you have a powerful country openly defying Nap's claims to hegemony, allowing a port for entry of British goods (Nap needs to preserve the continental system to starve Britain and also to preserve the notion that he's in control of the continent) and sooner or later the eastern european natives will get restless. It's going to take longer, but sooner or later Nap's empire diminishes.

And for the earlier suggestion that Nap give Poland to Austria: Russia wants poland. They weren't going to give it up to a powerful France, so why would they give it up to a much weaker Austria?
 
I think it's a little disingenuous to portray the coalition forces as the primary aggressors, and Nap as the victim, as so many are attempting to do here. Nap was actively attempting full domination of the continent including forcing a disastrous economic system on the continent. There's certainly enough blame to go around, but there are only two ways the coalition forces can achieve peace: defeat Nap, or roll over and play the part of a fraternity pledge during hazing (every time Nap whacks them on the buttocks with a paddle, they say "thank you sir, may I have another?").

I think Nap has to go after Russia. Sooner or later there's going to be a showdown. Unfortunately for him, though, his only real hope of victory is for the Russians to come out and greet him. It's a reasonable expectation. That's what most countries do. Portugal set the stage by offering no resistance and running, but that's what they'd been doing for a while, so it's no small wonder that Nap ignored that warning sign. They used the scorched earth policy effectively after the first invasion, but again, who would expect a country with real military power (Russia) to burn it's own countryside instead of fighting? Nap doesn't have to follow the Russians so deep into their country, but what's the alternative? hang out in Poland waiting for the Russians to come out? You can lay siege to a city, but not a huge country. Not engaging the Russians becomes a psuedo loss, and sets the stage for diminishing prospects for Nap.

Ignoring the Russian issue means that now you have a powerful country openly defying Nap's claims to hegemony, allowing a port for entry of British goods (Nap needs to preserve the continental system to starve Britain and also to preserve the notion that he's in control of the continent) and sooner or later the eastern european natives will get restless. It's going to take longer, but sooner or later Nap's empire diminishes.

And for the earlier suggestion that Nap give Poland to Austria: Russia wants poland. They weren't going to give it up to a powerful France, so why would they give it up to a much weaker Austria?

So then why not just give up the continental system and not attempt to subjugate Russia. From what I've read the continental system failed to have its intended effect on Britain as Britain simply diversified by getting new trade partners elsewhere in the world.
 
So then why not just give up the continental system and not attempt to subjugate Russia. From what I've read the continental system failed to have its intended effect on Britain as Britain simply diversified by getting new trade partners elsewhere in the world.

And old ones.

Iirc the Grand Armee marched to Moscow wearing boots and greatcoats largely manufactured in Manchester and Nottingham. When the chips were down, even France couldn't adhere to the Continental System, let alone anyone else.

Napoleon was far and away Britain's greatest friend in Europe. Not content to throw away his military power in a campaign which didn't cost a single British life, he made it possible for British manufacturers to turn a fat profit out of it. In a way it was indeed mean of us to brand him as an ogre. If we'd had any gratitude we'd have given him a plinth in Trafalgar Square.
 
:D
And old ones.

Iirc the Grand Armee marched to Moscow wearing boots and greatcoats largely manufactured in Manchester and Nottingham. When the chips were down, even France couldn't adhere to the Continental System, let alone anyone else.

Napoleon was far and away Britain's greatest friend in Europe. Not content to throw away his military power in a campaign which didn't cost a single British life, he made it possible for British manufacturers to turn a fat profit out of it. In a way it was indeed mean of us to brand him as an ogre. If we'd had any gratitude we'd have given him a plinth in Trafalgar Square.

That's naughty! However we did give him Waterloo Station!:D
 
Top