DBWI: Continental System falls apart

What if Napoleon’s Continental System had come apart before Britain sued for peace in 1818? Would this allow the Brits to focus enough troops on the US to prevent the fall of Canada?
 
Difficult question,in fact Birtiain was stuck between the Anglo-American war and the wars with Napoleon, some people say they make the worse choice by fighting both war they should have abandoned Europa mainland to the french or America to the united states.

After 1815 it would be too late but before they could have by putting more energy to fight against the united state and adopt a more defensive attitude against Napoleon hoping he makes a mistake seen the continental system was really unpopular in begining (it was only from 1817 that things started to get better economically for the european countries) without the pitiful English defeats in the European mainland many others country would revolted against napoleon and with time maybe he would lose one of these wars, but it was a risky bet that they did not dare to take
 
Difficult question,in fact Birtiain was stuck between the Anglo-American war and the wars with Napoleon, some people say they make the worse choice by fighting both war they should have abandoned Europa mainland to the french or America to the united states.

After 1815 it would be too late but before they could have by putting more energy to fight against the united state and adopt a more defensive attitude against Napoleon hoping he makes a mistake seen the continental system was really unpopular in begining (it was only from 1817 that things started to get better economically for the european countries) without the pitiful English defeats in the European mainland many others country would revolted against napoleon and with time maybe he would lose one of these wars, but it was a risky bet that they did not dare to take

Hmmm. I tend to agree.
 
What if Napoleon’s Continental System had come apart before Britain sued for peace in 1818? Would this allow the Brits to focus enough troops on the US to prevent the fall of Canada?

I suppose this depends on to just how much of the continent chooses to withdraw from the system. Spain and Austria certainly wouldn't, and if you're only looking at say Sweden it's not going to be enough trade to allow Britain to "pry open" her diplomatic options on the Continent or provide enough purse-money to sufficently bribe one of the Great Powers to sufficently reform her military and rebel against the Napoleonic order. But if you could get, say, The Ottomans or the Russians to pull out it might shake things up enough that Napoleon would have to leave Paris and his domestic organization of the French State, resulting in a delay of French production sufficent enough to tempt other players to turn back to Britain for their industrial needs.
 
I suppose this depends on to just how much of the continent chooses to withdraw from the system. Spain and Austria certainly wouldn't, and if you're only looking at say Sweden it's not going to be enough trade to allow Britain to "pry open" her diplomatic options on the Continent or provide enough purse-money to sufficently bribe one of the Great Powers to sufficently reform her military and rebel against the Napoleonic order. But if you could get, say, The Ottomans or the Russians to pull out it might shake things up enough that Napoleon would have to leave Paris and his domestic organization of the French State, resulting in a delay of French production sufficent enough to tempt other players to turn back to Britain for their industrial needs.

Which of those two is more likely, iyo?
 
Which of those two is more likely, iyo?

Judging by what happens IOTL? The Russians by far. Everybody knew the Russians were reluctant allies and partners of the French at best; Czar Alexander tried to start that "League of Armed Neutrality" before Tilst, after all, and resented the establishment of The Grand Duchy of Warsaw and the agitation it's existance caused in her own Polish territories. He also hated the liberal-reformist governmental tendencies of the Empire and refused to impliment any of them in his own domain, unlike Mahmud II who deeply admired and was eager to emulate L'Empereur Libéral. Russia would also be in a better position to trade with Britain via the Arctic Sea as well, and could provide Britain with the vital naval stores that would have allowed her to properly maintain and repair the Royal Navy during its repeated (failed) expeditions to the Continent. Sure, Napoleon would never be able to defeat them in a pitched battle... but attrition over years of being pushed to their limits eventually just wore the British ships down to the point they coulden't muster the naval budget needed to maintain the blockade on France or the supply routes to the Americas.
 
Judging by what happens IOTL? The Russians by far. Everybody knew the Russians were reluctant allies and partners of the French at best; Czar Alexander tried to start that "League of Armed Neutrality" before Tilst, after all, and resented the establishment of The Grand Duchy of Warsaw and the agitation it's existance caused in her own Polish territories. He also hated the liberal-reformist governmental tendencies of the Empire and refused to impliment any of them in his own domain, unlike Mahmud II who deeply admired and was eager to emulate L'Empereur Libéral. Russia would also be in a better position to trade with Britain via the Arctic Sea as well, and could provide Britain with the vital naval stores that would have allowed her to properly maintain and repair the Royal Navy during its repeated (failed) expeditions to the Continent. Sure, Napoleon would never be able to defeat them in a pitched battle... but attrition over years of being pushed to their limits eventually just wore the British ships down to the point they coulden't muster the naval budget needed to maintain the blockade on France or the supply routes to the Americas.

That raises an interesting question. Why didn’t he do that, IOTL?
 
That raises an interesting question. Why didn’t he do that, IOTL?
A few reasons, if I remember rightly - Napoleon's promise of territorial compensation for the Russians at the expense of Persian and the Ottomans (sometimes even with their consent...), and the acceptance of Russian arbitration in the Prussian crisis of 1811, were probably the main ones. The brief ascendancy of the French party in St Petersburg was pretty useful too, before that all came crashing down with the October War.
 
That raises an interesting question. Why didn’t he do that, IOTL?

Do you even need to ask that question? The French army had been marching across the Continent pulling crushing victories out of almost any situation seemingly without fail. To break with the Continental System would mean running the risk of another land war with France and her allies (Both the formal sphere and independent-but-aligned nations like the OE and Denmark) which Alexander had no reason to believe he could win. You'd need to break the French reputation for invincibility for him to be willing to take that plunge without excessive provocation... but given only Russia (or the stalwartly loyal OE at the tail end of the wars and the New Order reforms) had the military capacity to even raise armies of the required size to have a theoretical chance of victory you run into the chicken-or-the-egg problem

A few reasons, if I remember rightly - Napoleon's promise of territorial compensation for the Russians at the expense of Persian and the Ottomans (sometimes even with their consent...), and the acceptance of Russian arbitration in the Prussian crisis of 1811, were probably the main ones. The brief ascendancy of the French party in St Petersburg was pretty useful too, before that all came crashing down with the October War.

The Prussian Crisis and internal political shifts were certainly big factors, though I'm personally of the school that St.Petersburg never really believed in Napoleon's promises of territory. The Emperor was known for his diplomatic... shall we say "creativity" at this point (The Spanish court could attest to that), and records indicate that Talleyrand's high level agents were already in talks with the Sublime Porte to facilitate the Hindoostan Expedition and future political and economic status of the subcontinent.

France played the Ottoman-Russian animosity like a fiddle during the war years, clearly recognizing that threatening to fully back one would check any move back towards Britain by the other. If the two hadent had to fear war with one another, or indeed could have allied/co-operated (Perhaps by British gold), a meaningful gap in the Continental System could have easily formed that might even encourage the defection of Sweden and Austria, which would lead to its complete breakdown.
 
Do you even need to ask that question? The French army had been marching across the Continent pulling crushing victories out of almost any situation seemingly without fail. To break with the Continental System would mean running the risk of another land war with France and her allies (Both the formal sphere and independent-but-aligned nations like the OE and Denmark) which Alexander had no reason to believe he could win. You'd need to break the French reputation for invincibility for him to be willing to take that plunge without excessive provocation... but given only Russia (or the stalwartly loyal OE at the tail end of the wars and the New Order reforms) had the military capacity to even raise armies of the required size to have a theoretical chance of victory you run into the chicken-or-the-egg problem



The Prussian Crisis and internal political shifts were certainly big factors, though I'm personally of the school that St.Petersburg never really believed in Napoleon's promises of territory. The Emperor was known for his diplomatic... shall we say "creativity" at this point (The Spanish court could attest to that), and records indicate that Talleyrand's high level agents were already in talks with the Sublime Porte to facilitate the Hindoostan Expedition and future political and economic status of the subcontinent.

France played the Ottoman-Russian animosity like a fiddle during the war years, clearly recognizing that threatening to fully back one would check any move back towards Britain by the other. If the two hadent had to fear war with one another, or indeed could have allied/co-operated (Perhaps by British gold), a meaningful gap in the Continental System could have easily formed that might even encourage the defection of Sweden and Austria, which would lead to its complete breakdown.

What do you think France would have to give up if France lost?
 
Do you even need to ask that question? The French army had been marching across the Continent pulling crushing victories out of almost any situation seemingly without fail. To break with the Continental System would mean running the risk of another land war with France and her allies (Both the formal sphere and independent-but-aligned nations like the OE and Denmark) which Alexander had no reason to believe he could win. You'd need to break the French reputation for invincibility for him to be willing to take that plunge without excessive provocation... but given only Russia (or the stalwartly loyal OE at the tail end of the wars and the New Order reforms) had the military capacity to even raise armies of the required size to have a theoretical chance of victory you run into the chicken-or-the-egg problem



The Prussian Crisis and internal political shifts were certainly big factors, though I'm personally of the school that St.Petersburg never really believed in Napoleon's promises of territory. The Emperor was known for his diplomatic... shall we say "creativity" at this point (The Spanish court could attest to that), and records indicate that Talleyrand's high level agents were already in talks with the Sublime Porte to facilitate the Hindoostan Expedition and future political and economic status of the subcontinent.

France played the Ottoman-Russian animosity like a fiddle during the war years, clearly recognizing that threatening to fully back one would check any move back towards Britain by the other. If the two hadent had to fear war with one another, or indeed could have allied/co-operated (Perhaps by British gold), a meaningful gap in the Continental System could have easily formed that might even encourage the defection of Sweden and Austria, which would lead to its complete breakdown.
Austria had nothing to gain from turning on France, Napoleon II was half Habsburg afterall if anything they might a have backed the continental system by getting further concession and at this point Sweeden no longer mattered as a military power.
 
What do you think France would have to give up if France lost?

Define "lost". I mean, are we talking a single Coalition campaign where Britain and her allies get the upper hand, shaking loose some of the edges of the later Concordant Continental? Negotiated settlement from a position of economic weakness by France as part of the Continental system collapsing? Redcoats parading down the streets of Paris?

Austria had nothing to gain from turning on France, Napoleon II was half Habsburg afterall if anything they might a have backed the continental system by getting further concession and at this point Sweeden no longer mattered as a military power.

Of course they do; diplomatic freedom from Napoleon's iron grip during the war years, funding to revamp its military establishment from the old decentralized, top-heavy system, the return of Illyria and Tyrol, safety for her naval traffic, and potential gains in the Italian Peninsula and Germanies. Granted, other than the territorial loses these concerns disappeared once the Treaty of Guernsey was signed and the radical war measures imposed by Napoleon were quickly phased out, but as long as the Coalition Wars are still flaring things are only bound to get worse in terms of the Anglo-French crossfire.
 
What if Napoleon’s Continental System had come apart before Britain sued for peace in 1818? Would this allow the Brits to focus enough troops on the US to prevent the fall of Canada?

How could it come apart?

As everybody knows, the System became quite effective after the French kicked the Brits out of Spain and Portugal and after the British government in a fine act of a suicidal policy introduced in 1808 the corn laws and high tariffs on the imports of iron as a response to the Tilsit Treaty (augmented by the trade agreement that opened French markets to the Russian exports coming from the Black Sea to the French-controlled Mediterranean). The only potentially serious obstacle to the System was a personal hate that Alexander felt toward Napoleon (as a true narcissist, he could not tolerate that anybody but himself is being referenced as a "great" man). However, in the best Russian traditions, he had a deadly stroke, as his father (some historians insist that it was actually a deadly fit of hemorrhoids, as was the case with his grandfather). There is absolutely no proof to the rumors that Count Caulaincourt, the French Ambassador to the Russian court, was somehow involved or that general Bennigsen (who eye witnessed his father's stroke) was invited as an adviser. Alexander's brother, Constantine, ascended the throne and dedicated himself to his favorite occupation: parade ground drilling of the troops.

For a short while there was a minor misunderstanding with Sweden around 1810 but the problem was resolved by Franco-Swedish trade treaty (French Empire needed as much iron as it could get), a promise to NEVER occupy Swedish Pomerania and a nice pension secretly given to the newly-elected Crown Prince (the funds had been delivered through his wife, residing in Paris).

There was, of course, a semi-officially recognized amount of smuggling (the malicious rumors attributed its regular organization to Marshal Bernadotte while he was governing German territories) but the balance was going into the French favor: demand for the whisky on the Continent (especially with the competing French and Russian products) could not outweigh demand for the fashionable French female underwear in Britain but it never was a problem (imperial treasury had been getting its cut by giving "patents").

Then again, the question about "focusing" troops on the US is not clear. The Brits, after being completely kicked out of the Continent (they managed to hold Gibraltar until 1811 when it was personally taken by the Emperor himself but description of this brilliant campaign is not a subject of this discussion), moved most of their available troops to defend Canada. Except, of course, for 9,000 troops sent in 1808 under command of lieutenant general Arthur Wellesley to help the Latin American patriot Francisco de Miranda: by 1812 most of them, including the commander, died from the tropical diseases and the rest had been evacuated to Jamaica. The troops in Canada had been fighting valiantly but Canadian maple syrup proved to be disastrous for their teeth and by 1812 the British force had to capitulate due to inability to tear the paper cartridges with a gunpowder.

In other words, what you are proposing as a scenario belongs to the category "impossible". :)
 
How could it come apart?

As everybody knows, the System became quite effective after the French kicked the Brits out of Spain and Portugal and after the British government in a fine act of a suicidal policy introduced in 1808 the corn laws and high tariffs on the imports of iron as a response to the Tilsit Treaty (augmented by the trade agreement that opened French markets to the Russian exports coming from the Black Sea to the French-controlled Mediterranean). The only potentially serious obstacle to the System was a personal hate that Alexander felt toward Napoleon (as a true narcissist, he could not tolerate that anybody but himself is being referenced as a "great" man). However, in the best Russian traditions, he had a deadly stroke, as his father (some historians insist that it was actually a deadly fit of hemorrhoids, as was the case with his grandfather). There is absolutely no proof to the rumors that Count Caulaincourt, the French Ambassador to the Russian court, was somehow involved or that general Bennigsen (who eye witnessed his father's stroke) was invited as an adviser. Alexander's brother, Constantine, ascended the throne and dedicated himself to his favorite occupation: parade ground drilling of the troops.

For a short while there was a minor misunderstanding with Sweden around 1810 but the problem was resolved by Franco-Swedish trade treaty (French Empire needed as much iron as it could get), a promise to NEVER occupy Swedish Pomerania and a nice pension secretly given to the newly-elected Crown Prince (the funds had been delivered through his wife, residing in Paris).

There was, of course, a semi-officially recognized amount of smuggling (the malicious rumors attributed its regular organization to Marshal Bernadotte while he was governing German territories) but the balance was going into the French favor: demand for the whisky on the Continent (especially with the competing French and Russian products) could not outweigh demand for the fashionable French female underwear in Britain but it never was a problem (imperial treasury had been getting its cut by giving "patents").

Then again, the question about "focusing" troops on the US is not clear. The Brits, after being completely kicked out of the Continent (they managed to hold Gibraltar until 1811 when it was personally taken by the Emperor himself but description of this brilliant campaign is not a subject of this discussion), moved most of their available troops to defend Canada. Except, of course, for 9,000 troops sent in 1808 under command of lieutenant general Arthur Wellesley to help the Latin American patriot Francisco de Miranda: by 1812 most of them, including the commander, died from the tropical diseases and the rest had been evacuated to Jamaica. The troops in Canada had been fighting valiantly but Canadian maple syrup proved to be disastrous for their teeth and by 1812 the British force had to capitulate due to inability to tear the paper cartridges with a gunpowder.

In other words, what you are proposing as a scenario belongs to the category "impossible". :)

Hmmm.
 
(OOC: um... What are we supposed to do with this?

Though ... do you mind if I borrow this premise of the Continental System holding up? I'd like to elaborate on it)

OOC: I say hmm when I’m presented with something that sounds interesting but I’m unsure how to respond. And yes, for sure.
 
OOC: I say hmm when I’m presented with something that sounds interesting but I’m unsure how to respond. And yes, for sure.

Wunderbar

And pardon my odd question. It just seemed like an unessicery and wasted post when you didn't really ask any questions or convey any information, so I was making sure I wasn't missing anything
 
How could it come apart?

As everybody knows, the System became quite effective after the French kicked the Brits out of Spain and Portugal and after the British government in a fine act of a suicidal policy introduced in 1808 the corn laws and high tariffs on the imports of iron as a response to the Tilsit Treaty (augmented by the trade agreement that opened French markets to the Russian exports coming from the Black Sea to the French-controlled Mediterranean). The only potentially serious obstacle to the System was a personal hate that Alexander felt toward Napoleon (as a true narcissist, he could not tolerate that anybody but himself is being referenced as a "great" man). However, in the best Russian traditions, he had a deadly stroke, as his father (some historians insist that it was actually a deadly fit of hemorrhoids, as was the case with his grandfather). There is absolutely no proof to the rumors that Count Caulaincourt, the French Ambassador to the Russian court, was somehow involved or that general Bennigsen (who eye witnessed his father's stroke) was invited as an adviser. Alexander's brother, Constantine, ascended the throne and dedicated himself to his favorite occupation: parade ground drilling of the troops.

For a short while there was a minor misunderstanding with Sweden around 1810 but the problem was resolved by Franco-Swedish trade treaty (French Empire needed as much iron as it could get), a promise to NEVER occupy Swedish Pomerania and a nice pension secretly given to the newly-elected Crown Prince (the funds had been delivered through his wife, residing in Paris).

There was, of course, a semi-officially recognized amount of smuggling (the malicious rumors attributed its regular organization to Marshal Bernadotte while he was governing German territories) but the balance was going into the French favor: demand for the whisky on the Continent (especially with the competing French and Russian products) could not outweigh demand for the fashionable French female underwear in Britain but it never was a problem (imperial treasury had been getting its cut by giving "patents").

Then again, the question about "focusing" troops on the US is not clear. The Brits, after being completely kicked out of the Continent (they managed to hold Gibraltar until 1811 when it was personally taken by the Emperor himself but description of this brilliant campaign is not a subject of this discussion), moved most of their available troops to defend Canada. Except, of course, for 9,000 troops sent in 1808 under command of lieutenant general Arthur Wellesley to help the Latin American patriot Francisco de Miranda: by 1812 most of them, including the commander, died from the tropical diseases and the rest had been evacuated to Jamaica. The troops in Canada had been fighting valiantly but Canadian maple syrup proved to be disastrous for their teeth and by 1812 the British force had to capitulate due to inability to tear the paper cartridges with a gunpowder.

Impossible? You just pointed out several major points on which the System could be at least weakened: Britain could decide to try to fund her war effort via internal loans or tapping into her equity in the East India Company rather than try to raise the money via tariff, or concede to the continuation of American merchant traffic and her obligations under the Treaty of Paris in order to maintain a market for her own goods and a cheaper supply of grain to prevent the price-hikes that were so key in slowing down the domestic purchasing power. Czar Alexander could have reached for a little less roast beef and excersised a bit more, delaying the onset of his stroke. The revolutions in South America could have been better aligned or executed, uniting the Patriots into an effective fighting force for a Spanish crown offering them autonomy in exchange for loyal service rather than collapsing into the decades of anarchy that engulfed the Spainish-speaking portions of the continent for the better part of two decades while the court in Mexico City was forced to keep her military close out of fear of a potential French or American expedition.
 
Impossible? You just pointed out several major points on which the System could be at least weakened: Britain could decide to try to fund her war effort via internal loans or tapping into her equity in the East India Company rather than try to raise the money via tariff, or concede to the continuation of American merchant traffic and her obligations under the Treaty of Paris in order to maintain a market for her own goods and a cheaper supply of grain to prevent the price-hikes that were so key in slowing down the domestic purchasing power.

I'm afraid that you missed the point: the corn laws and tariffs on iron had been hitting Russia (the main importer of both) and Sweden (importer of iron). With the alternative French market being open, both countries had been re-orienting their exports with the corresponding political adjustments. As a result, the Britain was left without a major "useful idiot" (Russia) ready to supply troops for the endless coalitions. Alexander's personal Anglophilia and dislike of Napoleon were a factor only until his (un)fortunate but quite predictable demise.

Czar Alexander could have reached for a little less roast beef and excersised a bit more, delaying the onset of his stroke.

You obviously did not pay necessary attention to what was written (or to the Russian history). The fatal disease(s) from which both his father and grandfather perished could not be avoided by exercise or a healthier diet. You may find useful in formation by searching for "Peter III" and "Paul I" on Wiki.
 
Top