DBWI: Napoleon failed in Russia

Historyman 14

Historyman 14

One of Napoleon Bonaparte greatest accomplishments of all time was the great defeat and fall of the Russian Empire to the Grande Armée. He would go on to free the serfs (Often call a key part of his victory), give Finland back to the Kingdom of Sweden, expand the Kingdom of Poland, and create a French-dominated Cossack Hetmanate in the Ukraine.

But what if he lost in Russia and lost big? What if he did not free the serfs? If he was not ready for the Russian winter?
 

lucaswillen05

Prussia attempted a revolt in March 1813. Napoleon easily crushed this, dethroned the Hohenzollerns and dimmbered Prussia, assigning various parts to his family and Marshals. Poniatowski was made king of Poland becoming Kng Jozef I.

Had Napoleon lost in Russia he would probably have faced a more succesful Prussian uprising aided by Russia. it is hard to see this succeeding without Austrian support howver. Since this was not likely to be forhcoming I think the most likely outcome would be for Napoleon to win a defensive victory and restoring the pre June 1812 borders of his Empire. Napoleon would then have been well placed t turn his attention to Spain and most likely he would have dfeated Wellington in 1813 o 1814

Note that Napoleon ws only able to fre the serfs after Russia fell apart after the assassination of Tsar Alexander and th start of the Sccond Time of Troubles, This chaos allowed Napoleon to create the Cossack Hetmanate in 1815 What was the Russian Empire eventually became small successor states such as the Princedoms of Muscovy and Novgorod while the Ottoman Turks took over some of the southern prts of the now dfunct Russian Empre such as th annexation of Odessa 1814 and the Crimea 1815
 

aegis03florin

The Ottoman gains were however temporary... very temporary...
Remember that all its European territory will be lost via a succession of rebellions wich ended with French occupation of Constantinople and the establishment of free kingdoms of Greece, Bulgaria, Serbia and Romania. All these nations are deeply francophones.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
One doubts that Napoleon VII would be Emperor of the French, King of Italy, and Protector of the Confederation of the Rhine today, for one thing.
 

Behemoth

Not only did Sweden gain Finland as a result but they got some more territory along the Baltic coastline. The kingdom of Poland did as well which cut off some of the previously mentioned successor states from the Baltic. If Napoleon were not successful I could see Russia maintaining some of their holdings on the Baltic. I am not sure if they could keep the port of Riga though. Poland and Sweden really wanted that particular port.
 

Escape Zeppelin

Historyman 14 said:
In name only, mostly. Italy and the German States do they own thing most of the time.
Click to expand...

Which is funny because Venice keeps passing non-binding referendums to secede but never actually does it. Venice, like most of the states, are already independent in all but name, they even have their own currency. I don't know why the Italians pretend that the Emperor is oppressing them somehow when he's barely even a figurehead. Even the Pope, through his vote in the Rome Council gives him more direct authority than Napoleon VII has.
 

aegis03florin

Escape Zeppelin said:
Which is funny because Venice keeps passing non-binding referendums to secede but never actually does it. Venice, like most of the states, are already independent in all but name, they even have their own currency. I don't know why the Italians pretend that the Emperor is oppressing them somehow when he's barely even a figurehead. Even the Pope, through his vote in the Rome Council gives him more direct authority than Napoleon VII has.
Click to expand...
Uh... The emperor is mostly a figurehead in the French state too... the real power is in the hands of the prime minister wich is elected
 
FellowNerd

FellowNerd

lucaswillen05 said:
Prussia attempted a revolt in March 1813. Napoleon easily crushed this, dethroned the Hohenzollerns and dimmbered Prussia, assigning various parts to his family and Marshals. Poniatowski was made king of Poland becoming Kng Jozef I.

Had Napoleon lost in Russia he would probably have faced a more succesful Prussian uprising aided by Russia. it is hard to see this succeeding without Austrian support howver. Since this was not likely to be forhcoming I think the most likely outcome would be for Napoleon to win a defensive victory and restoring the pre June 1812 borders of his Empire. Napoleon would then have been well placed t turn his attention to Spain and most likely he would have dfeated Wellington in 1813 o 1814

Note that Napoleon ws only able to fre the serfs after Russia fell apart after the assassination of Tsar Alexander and th start of the Sccond Time of Troubles, This chaos allowed Napoleon to create the Cossack Hetmanate in 1815 What was the Russian Empire eventually became small successor states such as the Princedoms of Muscovy and Novgorod while the Ottoman Turks took over some of the southern prts of the now dfunct Russian Empre such as th annexation of Odessa 1814 and the Crimea 1815
Click to expand...
Napoleon kind of sowed the seeds of his own downfall with the break up of the Russian Empire. Without a disunited state I doubt the nationalistic energies of the russia's would have been so reform obsessed. In 1842 the Russian revolutions and the birth of the United Federal States of Russia would bring about Tocqueville's predictions of the US, and Russia dominating the world. Personally I found it amusing that a republic would force their old dynasty on the French throne, Sure they are all Napoleon's but their also Romanov's.
 

aegis03florin

FellowNerd said:
Napoleon kind of sowed the seeds of his own downfall with the break up of the Russian Empire. Without a disunited state I doubt the nationalistic energies of the russia's would have been so reform obsessed. In 1842 the Russian revolutions and the birth of the United Federal States of Russia would bring about Tocqueville's predictions of the US, and Russia dominating the world. Personally I found it amusing that a republic would force their old dynasty on the French throne, Sure they are all Napoleon's but their also Romanov's.
Click to expand...
Romanovs?
Since when the European dynasties are determined by the mother branch ? and no, it was not a morganatic mariage... The grandfather of the current Emperor might not had the best claim on the throne... but that do not make him a Romanov...

And UFSR are disputed the seccond most powerful state in the world....
 
FellowNerd

FellowNerd

aegis03florin said:
Romanovs?
Since when the European dynasties are determined by the mother branch ? and no, it wwas not a morganatic mariage...

And UFSR are disputed the seccond most powerful state in the world....
Click to expand...
It just goes to show that republican's don't understand monarchies. And Yes, it is disputed but we can't deny the strength of the Russians hard and soft power around the globe, especially in Central Asia and South Asia
 

Escape Zeppelin

aegis03florin said:
Uh... The emperor is mostly a figurehead in the French state too... the real power is in the hands of the prime minister wich is elected
Click to expand...

That's true but he hypothetically reports to the emperor and more importantly he's only the prime minister of France. The Prime Minister has no direct authority over the other states of the Empire and while he controls the purse-strings he must still rule through the Emperor's appointed Governor-Generals. And we all know that the Governor-Generals must be chose from their prospective states which makes their loyalty to France minimal at best. On paper the Prime Minister might have the authority to pass decrees in Naples or Munich but in reality he cannot do anything that the Governor-Generals don't want.

If the Emperor and the French government ever agreed on anything the rest of Europe's slide toward autonomy might be curtailed but that's not likely to happen. Especially when it comes to the Emperor's direct holding in Africa.
 

NolanFoster

I agree that if Napoleon had failed, the Tsar regime would have remained and Russia wouldnt have developed as quickly. It would have been mired in conservative reaction instead of developing strong democratic institutions and undergoing an industrial revolution from the 1840s-1900s like the US. We probably wouldnt have seen the end of serfdom until mid century at least. An industrial revolution will start late in the century, but it wont be sustainable, and Russia will have no credible democratic institutions to handle a growing urban working class. Expect more turmoil once it reaches the 20th century.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top
Top