OOC: I say hmm when I’m presented with something that sounds interesting but I’m unsure how to respond.
Try to find the way out of the schema of your own creation
OOC: I say hmm when I’m presented with something that sounds interesting but I’m unsure how to respond.
Fair
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".![]()
What do you mean earlier demise? The Bonapartes are still on the french imperial throne, as constitutional monarch but still there.How about Nappy's earlier demise? It seems that the System was his idea fix so a government of his successor (baby Nappy) can get rid of it as a part of the peace treaty with Britain.
What do you mean earlier demise? The Bonapartes are still on the french imperial throne, as constitutional monarch but still there.
How about Nappy's earlier demise? It seems that the System was his idea fix so a government of his successor (baby Nappy) can get rid of it as a part of the peace treaty with Britain.
But as the Emperor said, "l'impossible n'est pas français".
The siege of Gibraltar was hard-fought and could have failed. In fact, the Spanish campaign overall looked dangerous for Napoléon for awhile. His decision to withdraw Joseph from the throne and restore Ferdinand VII was a bold decision - a rare admission that he had erred - and helped win over enough of the Spanish population to his side to suppress the insurgency. Recall that there were Spanish defenders at Gibraltar who defected to the French side after the restoration.
Imagine if he had kept Joseph on the throne. I really question whether he could have triumphed in Spain, and by extension, the entire system could have unraveled.
He means Napoleon I/ The Great, not the Bonaparte Dynasty.
... but Britain was allowed to trade again after the final peace was signed on Guernsey. Sure, they faced tariffs because they refused to join the Concordant Continental in the following years, but France was hardly going to sustain war policies towards the British economy once they conceded to French hegemony over west/central Europe.
Joseph really was too liberal of a monarch for the Spainish to tolerate, true. His attempts at anti-clericalism and land reform sat really poorly among the vast majority of the population outside of Aragon-Catalonia. Perhaps he stays there if Louis Napoleon had proved a more competent leader and kept up his relations with his Imperial sibling? I can't imagine Napoleon the Great is going to be willing to pull his brother out without another throne to compensate him. Or would it be more likely he carves a new kingdom out of the Illyrian region earlier? Maybe put Joseph on a partitioned off Argonese throne?
That's a good question. It's funny to think that Joseph was a king three different times (Naples, Spain, Holland) - is that a record? He was better suited for Holland but it's said that he always missed Naples...
Probably the climate.That's a good question. It's funny to think that Joseph was a king three different times (Naples, Spain, Holland) - is that a record? He was better suited for Holland but it's said that he always missed Naples...
OOC:Corsica, there is no way France would lose Corsica.Can you blame him? Just look at pictures of the Chateau Murat and its estate: its almost tropical! Who wouldn't prefer that to the drafty, austere halls of The Hague? Still, Napoleon had to put somebody on a throne outside his blood relatives on the throne SOMEWHERE if he wanted marriage oppritunities, and you can't deny one of his most accomplished Marshals was the perfect choice, especially for putting down the pro-Sicilian guerrilla fighters in the area. Isolating the Bourbons on the island was key to continueing the blockade that finally brought down Gibralter and the pro-English "Kingdom" on Corsica.
Parce-que c'est un forum de langue anglaise malheureusement.Pourquoi parlez-vous anglais?
Ah, C'est affreux. Anglais.Parce-que c'est un forum de langue anglaise malheureusement.
But as the Emperor said, "l'impossible n'est pas français".
The siege of Gibraltar was hard-fought and could have failed.
In fact, the Spanish campaign overall looked dangerous for Napoléon for awhile.
His decision to withdraw Joseph from the throne and restore Ferdinand VII was a bold decision - a rare admission that he had erred - and helped win over enough of the Spanish population to his side to suppress the insurgency. Recall that there were Spanish defenders at Gibraltar who defected to the French side after the restoration.
Imagine if he had kept Joseph on the throne. I really question whether he could have triumphed in Spain, and by extension, the entire system could have unraveled.
If I recall correctly, rumour got around that Napoleon was planning to install Joseph on the Spanish throne, which recent research has revealed was a distinct possibility for a few months at least (there was even a rehearsal coronation staged, which is why we can talk about Joseph the Three-Crowned - a bit pedantic, but still). Of course, once word spread of this, there was quite an outcry in Spain due to Joseph's policies in Naples, which helped to feed into other sources of discontent in Spain; Napoleon subsequently backed down, withdrawing Joseph's candidacy and officially supporting Ferdinand's succession.Now, THIS seems to be some confusion. What King of Naples had to do with Spain? After abdication of Charles IV Napoleon acknowledged Ferdinand as his legitimate successor and their meeting in Bayonne (commemorated in the famous painting by Francisco José de Goya) helped to establish the close personal relations which never had been broken. There was, of course, an unpleasant incident in Madrid when the French troops, led by Grand Duke of Berg, went into fight with the locals (by official version, few locals had been trampled by the horses but it is possible that the whole unfortunate event had been triggered by a fight over the whores in one of Madrid's bordellos). However, both Napoleon and Ferdinand took steps to stop the violence. The low-ranking miscreants on both sides had been punished and Grand Duke of Berg was reprimanded by the Emperor. All that time King Joseph I of Naples remained in his kingdom while his wife, together with her sister, Princess of Pontecorvo was on their usual shopping spree in Paris.
Good point - not that it did them much good in the long term, what with the Faro Crisis of 1826. I've heard some people (mostly frustrated nationalists) say that Britain would have been better off fighting Portugal than trying to support it.Britain still managed to get Portugual as a concession who was forced into neutrality.
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.
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.
It was a temporary lose, sure, and not recognized by anybody outside Britain, but don't you remember the 2nd Corsican Revolt? The locals had already done it once prior to Nappy's ascension as Emperor, and once The Great Siege kicked in GB was pulling out all the stops to try to pry it open... the most obvious way being by sea. It was in spring of 1811, if I recall, when the Grand Armada (Consisting of the vessels operating out of Portugal, Malta, Sicily, the Ionian Isles, and those kicked out of the OE's ports after they signed onto the Temesvár Treaties and joined the Concordant Continental trade bloc/custom's union.) massed around the Straits, and along the way they blew the main French garrison out of the southern Corsican ports to hand it back to the rebels still fighting inland. Of course, after The Battle of the Straits and the subsequent withdrawal of the fleet back to England for repairs, leaving the Med. virtually undefended, France was quick to regarrison the (quickly abandoned) port, but subdueing the hitherlands still took a good few years.OOC:Corsica, there is no way France would lose Corsica.
Good point - not that it did them much good in the long term, what with the Faro Crisis of 1826. I've heard some people (mostly frustrated nationalists) say that Britain would have been better off fighting Portugal than trying to support it.
If I recall correctly, rumour got around that Napoleon was planning to install Joseph on the Spanish throne, which recent research has revealed was a distinct possibility for a few months at least (there was even a rehearsal coronation staged, which is why we can talk about Joseph the Three-Crowned - a bit pedantic, but still). Of course, once word spread of this, there was quite an outcry in Spain due to Joseph's policies in Naples, which helped to feed into other sources of discontent in Spain; Napoleon subsequently backed down, withdrawing Joseph's candidacy and officially supporting Ferdinand's succession.
I'm less sure as to the relevance of Spain to the overall European picture, though - even if a lasting conflict had broken out there, it seems like it would have been something of a sideshow to the far more important matters in Central Europe. I doubt that Britain would have been able to take advantage of this - we saw how poor their army was at Gibraltar, and on a few other occasions - and in any case, what with the treaty system finalised at Temesvár in 1810, Britain wouldn't have been able to find any allies outside Iberia.
Good point - not that it did them much good in the long term, what with the Faro Crisis of 1826. I've heard some people (mostly frustrated nationalists) say that Britain would have been better off fighting Portugal than trying to support it.