Can the Napoleonic War go a bit longer.

Kongzilla · Dec 11, 2012

I've recently taken a bit of Interest in the 1750-1850 period in the last couple weeks due to playing Assassin's Creed and Napoleon Total War. I was just wondering if there is a way for the Napoleonic war to go a bit longer and maybe spread further with a a French Empire that gets more powerful after 1811.

I barely know anything about the Napoleonic era so I'm probably going to sound really stupid. Is there a way for the French Empire to become even more powerful then it was in 1811 and with almost complete control over Europe and at least a contesting ability in the Seas.

I was thinking that maybe the French don't absolutely get trashed at Trafalgar but are given a bit of a spanking. This leads to Napoleon calling off the invasion of england and instead tries to isolate them and begins pouring a bit of funding into the French Navy.

Maybe Napoleon doesn't try and Invade russia instead trying to knock Britain out of the War first. Maybe simply invading Austria to shut down pretty much the only other Hostile country on continental Europe. And as they prepare for the Invasion of Russia he trains his army in cold parts of Europe and begins stockpiling winter clothing and food(although I don't think that's possible with it being 1812 and whatnot)

With that in Mind can the war spread to America. What if the American Revolution failed. Could the war end up there with French colonists on one side and British colonists on the other duking it out. Could the Resources of America help the British and French.

So I know I probably sound really uneducated but like In said I have no idea about that section of History other then what Wikipedia tells me.

von Adler · Dec 11, 2012

Napoleon did pour massive funding into the navy after Trafalgar. The French built ships of the line and frigates all over Europe - the problem was not moeny, it was crews. You need to get the crews out to sea to sail, learn their ship and above all train in sailing and manouvering in formation for larger battles.

With the blockade, the French could not do that, and thus were relegated to a position of inferiority.

Kongzilla · Dec 11, 2012

What about the Nile. I hear he lost something like 2000+ experienced crewmen that Napoleon never recovered from. Could that battle go better for the French leading to a somewhat better navy later on.

von Adler · Dec 11, 2012

Ships in the age of sail were changing things - new sails, new rope, new rigging every now and then. Even if you have experienced sailors, they need to stretch their sea legs, get acquianted with the new characteristics of their ship, weed out incompetent crewmen and officers and above all regularly train in formation sailing - even if Napoleon would have had the sailors from the Battle of the Nile, they would have been locked in port for several years, and not much better than new recruits.

Georgie Porgie · Dec 11, 2012

The French Navy was never in a possition to compete with the British, they lacked the experienced crews (Napolean needed artillary gunner more than naval gunners), the time at sea to train up new crews, the food / water supplies (most of his armies lived of the land - difficult to do when there is none) and the industrial infrastructure. The GB Navy had the two largest factories in the world (at Portsmouth and Catham) to support the ships - the French had nothing near.

I would agree that the invasion of Russia was never going to work and was the reason why Napolean was finally defeated. He almost had the Russians cowed before invasion, if they became a client state then he would extend his time.

He had to stop the Brits and the best way to do this is to cut off the money he would have to reach India and from there he would cause enough damage to disrupt the British economy so much they could not afford to fight.

Kongzilla · Dec 11, 2012

So his Grand Armee goes for India instead. So the Way he could beat the British is by disrupting their economy.

Fredrick II Barbarossa · Dec 11, 2012

Kongzilla said:
So his Grand Armee goes for India instead. So the Way he could beat the British is by disrupting their economy.

umm but isnt that logistically asb and if attempted end as badly if not worse than russian invasion.

Falastur · Dec 11, 2012

Kongzilla said:
So his Grand Armee goes for India instead. So the Way he could beat the British is by disrupting their economy.

He went for India OTL. That was the purpose of his Egyptian campaign in 1798. The British simply moved in behind him, destroyed his fleet and thus his chance of resupplying his troops, and he was forced to abandon the plan after a few months. I'm not sure that he could have done any better because his fleet were never going to defeat Nelson's fleet in open battle. They even tried dirty tricks in Battle of the Nile (OK, they weren't that dirty, but they were tricks) and all they did was made the French defeat even worse...

SlyDessertFox · Dec 11, 2012

Falastur said:
He went for India OTL. That was the purpose of his Egyptian campaign in 1798. The British simply moved in behind him, destroyed his fleet and thus his chance of resupplying his troops, and he was forced to abandon the plan after a few months. I'm not sure that he could have done any better because his fleet were never going to defeat Nelson's fleet in open battle. They even tried dirty tricks in Battle of the Nile (OK, they weren't that dirty, but they were tricks) and all they did was made the French defeat even worse...

The defeat in the Battle of The Nile didn't stop Napoleon. Yes he eventually abandoned the campaign, but that was only due to his loss in Palestine (forget the battle) and the French Republic in not the best of conditions back home. Had he won in Palestine, the Ottomans might just decide that continuing to fight the French and thus weakening themselves to help support the cause of the coalition, which included their sworn enemies Austria and Russia, was not worth it. After all, Napoleon had came promising to give Egypt back over to direct Ottoman rule (it had been gaining greater autonomy). A defeat could very well convince the Ottomans to come to terms with the French.

Also, instead of invading Russia, Napoleon should have tidied things up back in Spain, where shit was hitting the fan. Had he done that, he would deprive the British of any foothold on the continent.

Another thing. The Napoleonic Wars did spread to America. The war of 1812 was a direct result of British impressment due to the Napoleonic wars.

Elfwine · Dec 11, 2012

slydessertfox said:
The defeat in the Battle of The Nile didn't stop Napoleon. Yes he eventually abandoned the campaign, but that was only due to his loss in Palestine (forget the battle) and the French Republic in not the best of conditions back home. Had he won in Palestine, the Ottomans might just decide that continuing to fight the French and thus weakening themselves to help support the cause of the coalition, which included their sworn enemies Austria and Russia, was not worth it. After all, Napoleon had came promising to give Egypt back over to direct Ottoman rule (it had been gaining greater autonomy). A defeat could very well convince the Ottomans to come to terms with the French.

And that - the Ottomans coming to terms with the French - would hardly help him.

Also, instead of invading Russia, Napoleon should have tidied things up back in Spain, where shit was hitting the fan. Had he done that, he would deprive the British of any foothold on the continent.

Portugal? Yes, I'm counting it separately from Spain.

Also, how is Napoleon going to deal with the guerrillas that are making it impossible for his army to hold anywhere that they're not actually present at?

Another thing. The Napoleonic Wars did spread to America. The war of 1812 was a direct result of British impressment due to the Napoleonic wars.

Which really didn't matter in terms of impact on the Napoleonic Wars - the War of 1812, that is.

And I find it telling that the region most effected by British impressment was the least in favor of the war, whereas the area support for the war - and Madison - was strongest was the South and West.

Coincidence? I doubt it.

SlyDessertFox · Dec 11, 2012

Elfwine said:
And that - the Ottomans coming to terms with the French - would hardly help him.

Why wouldn't it?

Portugal? Yes, I'm counting it separately from Spain.

The whole of the peninsula I guess.

Also, how is Napoleon going to deal with the guerrillas that are making it impossible for his army to hold anywhere that they're not actually present at?

Well if I remember correctly, when Napoleon himself was in Spain, he had enormous success against the guerillas. So much so, that he left, feeling the job was done.

Which really didn't matter in terms of impact on the Napoleonic Wars - the War of 1812, that is.

And I find it telling that the region most effected by British impressment was the least in favor of the war, whereas the area support for the war - and Madison - was strongest was the South and West.

Coincidence? I doubt it.

Ironic indeed.

Elfwine · Dec 11, 2012

slydessertfox said:
Why wouldn't it?

Because he's still fleetless, cut off from reinforcements, and a long way from India?

The whole of the peninsula I guess.

Well if I remember correctly, when Napoleon himself was in Spain, he had enormous success against the guerillas. So much so, that he left, feeling the job was done.

And then they came back.

Ironic indeed.

Or a sign that Mr. Madison's War had more to do with Western ambitions than New England sailors.

Kongzilla · Dec 12, 2012

What about quantity over quality. can the french just use more ships in the place of well trained crews.

Can Napoleon force the Russians to invade Central Europe forcing them to fight on Napoleons terms instead of on theirs in the dead of winter.

Elfwine · Dec 12, 2012

Kongzilla said:
What about quantity over quality. can the french just use more ships in the place of well trained crews.

Can Napoleon force the Russians to invade Central Europe forcing them to fight on Napoleons terms instead of on theirs in the dead of winter.

1) No. War doesn't work like that. Especially war at sea in the age of sail, which is enormously dependent on having well trained men.

Seriously, the Royal Navy would have to give out so much prize money it's not even funny if Napoleon tried that.

2) There's no reason Alexander would invade in the dead of winter.

Kongzilla · Dec 12, 2012

I meant france fighting in Russia in the Dead of winter. Maybe I didn't word it correctly. I'm not very good at grammar.

Elfwine · Dec 12, 2012

Kongzilla said:
I meant france fighting in Russia in the Dead of winter. Maybe I didn't word it correctly. I'm not very good at grammar.

Alexander is still going to be fighting more on his terms than Napoleon's if the fighting is in Poland. Poland is a lot closer to Russia.

Kongzilla · Dec 12, 2012

True but wouldn't poland be incredibly hostile to the Russians. They might be facing the same Guerilla tactics the French faced in spain.

Elfwine · Dec 12, 2012

Kongzilla said:
True but wouldn't poland be incredibly hostile to the Russians. They might be facing the same Guerilla tactics the French faced in spain.

They didn't OTL when they crossed Poland, why would they here?

Kongzilla · Dec 12, 2012

Ahhh yep that's true. I thought they hated the Russians and were more into the French.

If Alexander does invade, would they be defeated. I mean Napoleon out numbered the Russians when he invaded but I assume they weren't prepared for that. Would the Russians have a large advantage over Napoleon.

Elfwine · Dec 12, 2012

Kongzilla said:
Ahhh yep that's true. I thought they hated the Russians and were more into the French.

If Alexander does invade, would they be defeated. I mean Napoleon out numbered the Russians when he invaded but I assume they weren't prepared for that. Would the Russians have a large advantage over Napoleon.

Not necessarily. How many men does Napoleon have with him?