Could Napoleon have stopped before invading Russia?

It's possible he would not invade Russia, but you would need something significant to derail a megalomaniac who warred whenever possible.

Hell, he's probably one of my favorite historical characters, but he definitely had some issues with reality as time went on.
 
It's possible he would not invade Russia, but you would need something significant to derail a megalomaniac who warred whenever possible.

Hell, he's probably one of my favorite historical characters, but he definitely had some issues with reality as time went on.
For a warmonger he did not declare a lot of war himself did he?
 
Napoleon really seems to have had a big problem with the idea that other rulers might actually dare to have policies that weren't "doing what Napoleon Bonaparte wanted".


Even within the family itself.

Iirc, Lucien tried to do a bit of thinking for himself, but finally just gave up and cleared off to America. There was only room for one Godfather.

And as for Louis - -
 
I asked a question last year and it was what if Napoleon did not invade Russia but used the 500,000 men to Spain to deal with the guerillas? What you guys think would have happened if he did that? Would he crush the insurrection or would it get worse?
 
I asked a question last year and it was what if Napoleon did not invade Russia but used the 500,000 men to Spain to deal with the guerillas? What you guys think would have happened if he did that? Would he crush the insurrection or would it get worse?

Logistics are going to be fun if he tries that. Not sure if it would be worse than Russia, but that's not saying much
 
Napoleon really seems to have had a big problem with the idea that other rulers might actually dare to have policies that weren't "doing what Napoleon Bonaparte wanted".

Exactly, just look at the fate of his brother king Louis Napoleon of Holland, when he actually tried to be a king for Holland (koning Lodewijk I van Holland aka koning Lodewijk de Goede (king Louis the Good)). Louis Napoleon for instance did little (or not enough) to actually impose the Continental System, which was disastrous for the trade based Dutch economy (and was thus not liked).
Furthermore he declared he was Dutch and renounced his French citizenship and tried to speak Dutch, he also made his ministers (including French ones) speak Dutch at court. He also made objections to Napoleon's plan to reduced the value of the French loans of Dutch investors.
Furthermore he refused to contribute troops for Napoleon's invasion of Russia (still he allegedly suffered from lunacy....).
Finally the British landed an army in 1809 and the French had to send an army to repel the British. After that Napoleon invaded in 1810, forced his brother to abdicate and he annexed the kingdom of Holland in the Empire of the French.

In general Louis was popular in Holland except for his luxurious and thus expensive taste.

And king Louis was a relative; most of the other monarchs of Europe were just biding their time (waiting) until they could restore the order.
Russia, Britain, but also Prussia and Austria were waiting for a sign of weakness. None of them liked that Napoleon (a parvenu) told them what to do, but some were at times forced to do so.
 
I wonder if the parvenu aspect would have been more bearable had Napoleon been less . . . domineering.

Never extending invitations to the club is one thing, joining together with powers you have rivalries with just to get rid of him is another, and I cannot overstate how much that sounds like a sign of well merited concern.
 
Exactly, just look at the fate of his brother king Louis Napoleon of Holland, when he actually tried to be a king for Holland (koning Lodewijk I van Holland aka koning Lodewijk de Goede (king Louis the Good)). Louis Napoleon for instance did little (or not enough) to actually impose the Continental System, which was disastrous for the trade based Dutch economy (and was thus not liked).
Furthermore he declared he was Dutch and renounced his French citizenship and tried to speak Dutch, he also made his ministers (including French ones) speak Dutch at court. He also made objections to Napoleon's plan to reduced the value of the French loans of Dutch investors.
Furthermore he refused to contribute troops for Napoleon's invasion of Russia (still he allegedly suffered from lunacy....).
Finally the British landed an army in 1809 and the French had to send an army to repel the British. After that Napoleon invaded in 1810, forced his brother to abdicate and he annexed the kingdom of Holland in the Empire of the French.

In general Louis was popular in Holland except for his luxurious and thus expensive taste.

And king Louis was a relative; most of the other monarchs of Europe were just biding their time (waiting) until they could restore the order.
Russia, Britain, but also Prussia and Austria were waiting for a sign of weakness. None of them liked that Napoleon (a parvenu) told them what to do, but some were at times forced to do so.

Or for another example consider big brother Joseph--forced to abdicate the throne of Naples, which he liked, and sent to Spain, where he was supposed to crush the original guerilla insurgency, AND send Napoleon oodles and oodles of money whenever Napoleon wanted it.
 
he might not have declared too many wars, but he sure as hell started them.
if you don't think the continental system was a big f* u too britian and a sort of, come get us then i don't know what is.

Yes, but the Continental system wasn't good for many parts of mainland Europe either. Especially in those areas, which made and make their living with trade like the Netherlands, but the French authority in general had trouble enforcing it. Although it attempted to hurt the British economy, it actually was a two-edged sword, it was more like hurting the British economy by hurting your own (then again unlike Britain and the Netherlands, France wasn't a traditional champion of free trade).
 
Last edited:
With France not invading Russia, I'm not sure if they would still have to avoid invading Spain though. Though a Franco-Russian alliance during the Napoleonic Wars would have a big effect on overseas colonies.
 
Yes, but the Continental system wasn't good for many parts of mainland Europe either. Especially in those areas, which made and make their living with trade like the Netherlands, but the French authority in general had trouble enforcing it. Although it attempted to hurt the British economy, it actually was a two-edged sort, it was more like hurting the British economy by hurting your own (then again unlike Britain and the Netherlands, France wasn't a traditional champion of free trade).


Indeed, as I understand the matter even France couldn't hold to the Continental System.

When the Grand Armee set off into Russia, I understand that most of its boots were made in Manchester.
 
Last edited:
Can you keep it civil?

What? As somebody else has already pointed out,it was a joke, not an insult:confused:

With France not invading Russia, I'm not sure if they would still have to avoid invading Spain though. Though a Franco-Russian alliance during the Napoleonic Wars would have a big effect on overseas colonies.

They could try avoiding attacking Spain because (a) it was a pretty scummy move (seriously, Spain was Napoleon's *ally* at the time - I'm genuinely curious as to how those defending him as some sort of pacifist excuse this); and (b) more importantly, it was a stupid one in that it blew a hole in the Continental System and gave Britain a secure foothold onthe mainland for the first time in years.

I don't think a Franco-Russian alliance is realistic in all but the very short term, BTW. But then it's not necessary, all that is really needed is for Napoleon to accept Russia as a neutral and an equal. But as has already been mentioned, Napoleon has a problem with the concept of equals.

Indeed, as I understand the matter even France couldn't hold to the Continental System.

When the Grand armee set off into Russia, I understand that most of its boots were made in Manchester.

Nitpick, but the boots were made in Nottingham. IIRC it was the greatcoats that were made in Manchester. Not that this affects your point of course:D
 
Top