Dead Napoleon before the Egyptian expedition: military effects?

Let's say Napoleon dies before he starts pushing the Egyptian expedition but after his 1797 victories in Italy. With no destruction inflicted on the French Med fleet, no war with the OE, and extra troops available in Italy, how does the War of the Second Coalition change? Off the top of my head, Russia wouldn't be able to sail through the Bosphorus and siege Corfu with OE cooperation.This probably means the Ionian islands remain French departments no?
 
Let's say Napoleon dies before he starts pushing the Egyptian expedition but after his 1797 victories in Italy. With no destruction inflicted on the French Med fleet, no war with the OE, and extra troops available in Italy, how does the War of the Second Coalition change? Off the top of my head, Russia wouldn't be able to sail through the Bosphorus and siege Corfu with OE cooperation.This probably means the Ionian islands remain French departments no?

Not sure about the war, but I can say there will be a big change for the Ottomans in Egypt.
 
Let's say Napoleon dies before he starts pushing the Egyptian expedition but after his 1797 victories in Italy. With no destruction inflicted on the French Med fleet, no war with the OE, and extra troops available in Italy, how does the War of the Second Coalition change? Off the top of my head, Russia wouldn't be able to sail through the Bosphorus and siege Corfu with OE cooperation.This probably means the Ionian islands remain French departments no?

The Ionian Islands will possibly become British due to later British Naval dominance. By 1805 or so.

But Napoleon dying and not taking Egypt has huge results for both Europe and the Ottomans. The fall of Egypt made the strongest push for the new Nizam-I Cedid Army. Without it, Selim III is under pressure of the conservative factions to call it off.

Without Napoleon going all imperial, there is also a great chance the HRE 'survives'.
 
The Ionian Islands will possibly become British due to later British Naval dominance. By 1805 or so.

But Napoleon dying and not taking Egypt has huge results for both Europe and the Ottomans. The fall of Egypt made the strongest push for the new Nizam-I Cedid Army. Without it, Selim III is under pressure of the conservative factions to call it off.

Without Napoleon going all imperial, there is also a great chance the HRE 'survives'.

You also have Malta remaining under the control of the Knights, which means Britain has a greater motivation to seize control over a naval base in the Med. somewhere east of Gibraltar. Provided Venice isn't restored via butterflies (Likely, given Austria got out with it even after it's repeated IOTL walloping), the Ionian Isles would be the most politically sound option in that camp.

However, I question weather Selim buckles under that pressure; I suppose a lot depends on both the method and ultimate result (if any at all) of handling the problem with the Mamaluks. Combining them with the loyal cavalrymen in the capital and the Nizam (In exchange for shipping them back to the Georgian border, as I recall many were requesting) he could easily suppress a Janissary mutiny, or if he sends the Corps to crush the slave-soldiers by force could entrap/weaken them both and keep the Janissary rifles far enough from his palace to get into a safe position to fully inact his reforms.

The biggest impact, however, I'd argue is political. IOTL, Nappy's coup prevented the constitutional Monarchists from gaining control of the government, and I don't know if anybody else has the nessicery reputation to have dictorial/first consul power stick. Even if you can pull together a more equal coalition to form a caretaker government willing to continue pushing the fight (which they need to do to keep the levee en mass going and living off the invaded lands rather than plundering the French grain supplies further), you'll be stuck with political infighting that hamstrings a coordinated military-diplomatic and long-term stable agenda response that proved so crucial to France's historical success
 
You also have Malta remaining under the control of the Knights, which means Britain has a greater motivation to seize control over a naval base in the Med. somewhere east of Gibraltar. Provided Venice isn't restored via butterflies (Likely, given Austria got out with it even after it's repeated IOTL walloping), the Ionian Isles would be the most politically sound option in that camp.

However, I question weather Selim buckles under that pressure; I suppose a lot depends on both the method and ultimate result (if any at all) of handling the problem with the Mamaluks. Combining them with the loyal cavalrymen in the capital and the Nizam (In exchange for shipping them back to the Georgian border, as I recall many were requesting) he could easily suppress a Janissary mutiny, or if he sends the Corps to crush the slave-soldiers by force could entrap/weaken them both and keep the Janissary rifles far enough from his palace to get into a safe position to fully inact his reforms.

The biggest impact, however, I'd argue is political. IOTL, Nappy's coup prevented the constitutional Monarchists from gaining control of the government, and I don't know if anybody else has the nessicery reputation to have dictorial/first consul power stick. Even if you can pull together a more equal coalition to form a caretaker government willing to continue pushing the fight (which they need to do to keep the levee en mass going and living off the invaded lands rather than plundering the French grain supplies further), you'll be stuck with political infighting that hamstrings a coordinated military-diplomatic and long-term stable agenda response that proved so crucial to France's historical success

In OTL, Selim got most support after the quick conquest of Egypt. Without the fall of Egypt you'd still have Selim to continue the reforms. And if a new catastrophe of a war happens against either Russia, France or the Qajars then yes, he still gets backing from all except Janissaries.

The reason the reforms of Selim failed were because of the war with Russia in 1806 when the bulk of the Army was at the front. And even then there was a garrison of Nizam I Cedid forces to halt the Janissary coup. But the commander who was supposed to use them didn't and joined the reactionaries.
 
In OTL, Selim got most support after the quick conquest of Egypt. Without the fall of Egypt you'd still have Selim to continue the reforms. And if a new catastrophe of a war happens against either Russia, France or the Qajars then yes, he still gets backing from all except Janissaries.

The reason the reforms of Selim failed were because of the war with Russia in 1806 when the bulk of the Army was at the front. And even then there was a garrison of Nizam I Cedid forces to halt the Janissary coup. But the commander who was supposed to use them didn't and joined the reactionaries.

Speaking of the war in 1806, without Napoleonic meddling and the Russo-French diplomatic dancing/penetration into the Balkans that entire conflict seems likely to be butterflied away. Add that to the fact that France is likely to keep its military expeditions closer to home due to, as I stated above, internal infighting forcing a greater focus on domestic affairs and I'm fairly certain you aren't going to be seeing any military disasters. While that certainly forces him to slow down the reforms (or organize what amounts to a reverse coup against the reactionary elements) in the end it probably dramatically increases his odds of success. Meanwhile, without the experiance/forced reorganization and strategic reforms created in Russia and Austria by their own defeats in the Napoleonic Wars and you're likely to see a greater parity between the nations of Eastern Europe for longer.
 
Speaking of the war in 1806, without Napoleonic meddling and the Russo-French diplomatic dancing/penetration into the Balkans that entire conflict seems likely to be butterflied away. Add that to the fact that France is likely to keep its military expeditions closer to home due to, as I stated above, internal infighting forcing a greater focus on domestic affairs and I'm fairly certain you aren't going to be seeing any military disasters. While that certainly forces him to slow down the reforms (or organize what amounts to a reverse coup against the reactionary elements) in the end it probably dramatically increases his odds of success. Meanwhile, without the experiance/forced reorganization and strategic reforms created in Russia and Austria by their own defeats in the Napoleonic Wars and you're likely to see a greater parity between the nations of Eastern Europe for longer.

True that. The Nizam-I Cedid Army did perform well before the coup of 1807. Without Napoleon there is only Moldova and the Ionian Islands as tension points for war. But without, Selim III is safe.
 
The Ionian Islands will possibly become British due to later British Naval dominance. By 1805 or so.

But Napoleon dying and not taking Egypt has huge results for both Europe and the Ottomans. The fall of Egypt made the strongest push for the new Nizam-I Cedid Army. Without it, Selim III is under pressure of the conservative factions to call it off.

Without Napoleon going all imperial, there is also a great chance the HRE 'survives'.

Would the British be able to gain naval dominance in the Med without the Egyptian expedition though?

I have actually repeated the idea that the fall of Egypt strengthened the reformists againsts the conservative factions but after further research, the only indication of that seems to be a single comment about a notable in Syria who supposedly retracted his earlier complaints about the New Order troops after seeing them in action. And even that was from writings from a reformist with a vested interest in presenting the New Order as being effective. Are there any other sources about how the invasion of Egypt effected the reformers?

If anything, I've found after further research that no invasion of Egypt would actually be a huge boon to the reformists. Hadji Mustafa Pasha had great success in arming and working with the Serbs to expel the Janissaries and had even pushed the powerful notable Osman Pazvantoğlu (who had allied with the Janissaries and attacked Belgrade) back to his capital Vidin where he was being sieged in 1798. Napoleons invasion ruined that and forced Selim III to divert crucial forces to Egypt while allowing the Janissaries to return and leaving Pazvantoğlu alone. The Janniesiers that murdered Hadji Mustafa and resumed severely oppressing the Serbs and ignoring the autonomy and privileges Selim had previously granted. This is what caused the first Serbian uprising. The invasion of Egypt is also what allowed Mehmet Ali to come to power.

You also have Malta remaining under the control of the Knights, which means Britain has a greater motivation to seize control over a naval base in the Med. somewhere east of Gibraltar. Provided Venice isn't restored via butterflies (Likely, given Austria got out with it even after it's repeated IOTL walloping), the Ionian Isles would be the most politically sound option in that camp.

However, I question weather Selim buckles under that pressure; I suppose a lot depends on both the method and ultimate result (if any at all) of handling the problem with the Mamaluks. Combining them with the loyal cavalrymen in the capital and the Nizam (In exchange for shipping them back to the Georgian border, as I recall many were requesting) he could easily suppress a Janissary mutiny, or if he sends the Corps to crush the slave-soldiers by force could entrap/weaken them both and keep the Janissary rifles far enough from his palace to get into a safe position to fully inact his reforms.

The biggest impact, however, I'd argue is political. IOTL, Nappy's coup prevented the constitutional Monarchists from gaining control of the government, and I don't know if anybody else has the nessicery reputation to have dictorial/first consul power stick. Even if you can pull together a more equal coalition to form a caretaker government willing to continue pushing the fight (which they need to do to keep the levee en mass going and living off the invaded lands rather than plundering the French grain supplies further), you'll be stuck with political infighting that hamstrings a coordinated military-diplomatic and long-term stable agenda response that proved so crucial to France's historical success

Where did you hear that the CM's were going to gain control? Why wouldn't Sieyes just pick another general like Moreau to carry out the coup? I mean, he wanted Joubert in the first place and only went for Napoleon after Joubert died, Napoleon returned, and Moreau referred him to Napoleon.
 
True that. The Nizam-I Cedid Army did perform well before the coup of 1807. Without Napoleon there is only Moldova and the Ionian Islands as tension points for war. But without, Selim III is safe.

Indeed, and neither were large enough priorities for Russia (Who still had the Caucauses and taming of Siberia to handle, as well as potential flashpoints with Sweden and her allies over their recent seizure of Finland and conflicting claims/tensions over the partitioned Poland with Austria and Prussia) to be the one pushing to instigate a war, which would give Selim all the breathing space he needed for both civil and military reforms. Granted, exactly how much benefit that nets the Empire depends a great deal on just how much the Austrians get out of the continued Revolutionary Wars and what lessons they integrate (A relatively easy victory would, in my opinion, hamstring them in the long run as it would allow them to sit comfortably in their old disorganized, top-heavy, and regional-mess limited conscription pre-war system, but without the huge gains on Prussia's part and sticking consolidation of the minor states would likely result in them focusing their attentions back north towards the Germanies as a chamption of continued/restored HRE decenteralization under their hegemony).

Would the British be able to gain naval dominance in the Med without the Egyptian expedition though?

I have actually repeated the idea that the fall of Egypt strengthened the reformists againsts the conservative factions but after further research, the only indication of that seems to be a single comment about a notable in Syria who supposedly retracted his earlier complaints about the New Order troops after seeing them in action. And even that was from writings from a reformist with a vested interest in presenting the New Order as being effective. Are there any other sources about how the invasion of Egypt effected the reformers?

If anything, I've found after further research that no invasion of Egypt would actually be a huge boon to the reformists. Hadji Mustafa Pasha had great success in arming and working with the Serbs to expel the Janissaries and had even pushed the powerful notable Osman Pazvantoğlu (who had allied with the Janissaries and attacked Belgrade) back to his capital Vidin where he was being sieged in 1798. Napoleons invasion ruined that and forced Selim III to divert crucial forces to Egypt while allowing the Janissaries to return and leaving Pazvantoğlu alone. The Janniesiers that murdered Hadji Mustafa and resumed severely oppressing the Serbs and ignoring the autonomy and privileges Selim had previously granted. This is what caused the first Serbian uprising. The invasion of Egypt is also what allowed Mehmet Ali to come to power.



Where did you hear that the CM's were going to gain control? Why wouldn't Sieyes just pick another general like Moreau to carry out the coup? I mean, he wanted Joubert in the first place and only went for Napoleon after Joubert died, Napoleon returned, and Moreau referred him to Napoleon.

1. If Revolutionary France ends up defeated, than I imagine France isen't exactly going to be set back up with a world-class navy. Though, without influence in Egypt, France prostrate, and a lack of any major operations within the Med. Britain may not see any NEED to establish a position of naval dominance in the region. However, if there's no Venice... the islands are just there for the taking. Britain has the right combination of naval muscle and neutrality that it seems the most likely power that Russia and the OE could agree on as a "caretaker" for the little archipelago, though maybe it gets sold off to a different Italian state.

2. I fully agree; losing control of Egypt to an expedition of Frenchies hardly was good for the reputation of the military reforms since... well, they were proving ineffective at allowing the military to do its job. That much is obvious. However, you have to remember that one of the objections that the conservatives had was exactly the privileges being granted to the Serbs for what was, in their eyes, violating the laws of a Muslim state by being allowed to carry and use arms not only around but in conjunction with the Sultan's armies (A fairly unambiguous no-no) against their favored party (The Janissaries). Now, if Selim can head off a coup than that's not a long-term issue but it certainly hightened the risk of local reactionaries making a move while he was still in a vulnerable state of mid-reform. TL;DR: Statistically higher odds for reform success but also higher odds of "Black Swan" bet/result unless they find a way to keep the conservatives distracted for a year or two.

3. I apologize: I probably phrased that wrong/too vaguely. There was a belief that pro-peace factions would gain control, who would have to adopt a policy of at least nominial Constitutional Monarchy as per the terms presented to them by the members of the Coalition, as well as the population accepting it under the strain of war-weariness rather than continued forced conscription and confiscation as part of what was become a decade-long war. As for Nappy, I would argue that his public popularity and the fact that he and his men had been far from the country for a good long while, as well as his admiration by members of most major factions within France (IE: His isolation and appeal had made it so he diden't have any hard pre-existing stances or blots on his record that could disqualify him and would make him a good "middle man" to effectively gain dictorial power: any other general would need to be running more of cohalition as "first among equals"), which allowed him to reorganize France so effectively and thus get her out of her sticky military and economic situation (Which only served to further boost his reputation and legitimacy, further stablizing an unstable France... a viritious cycle)
 
It’s my understanding that it was Napoleon’s Egyptian Campaign, and more specifically his intervention on Malta, that pushed Tsar Paul to contribute as much to the Second Coalition as he did; if I’m right in this, then it may be possible for the French Republic to make much shorter work of Austria TTL.
 
Top