France controls Europe...for a time...

hey, all. one of the things im working towards in my ATL is that Napoleonic France wins the wars against Britain and has de facto control over much of Europe for a time before eventually shrinking down to a slightly beefed-up version of OTL France.

anyway, i'm trying to figure out how i can make this the most plausible. here's a run down of what i have so far for it, but keep in mind that this is a work in progress and just about everything is subject to change:

  1. the French Revolution goes as it did IOTL: Robespierre rises and falls, Napoleon I replaces him and names himself Emperor of the French
  2. the Napoleonic Wars are mostly the same as IOTL, but there are some changes that ive determined thus far to make it a bit better for France: for one, Napoleon convinces the Mamelukes to join forces with him to defeat the Ottomans and British. there may need to be other events in the first part of the wars which make France lose only slightly
  3. perhaps more importantly than getting help from Egypt, Napoleon calls off invading Russia, instead deciding to deal with threats closer to home (namely Britain and the Germans)
  4. after Napoleon is deposed and sent into exile at Elba, Britain tightens its grip over Europe; perhaps Napoleon's actions have stirred revolutionary fever in other parts of the continent. all in all, this causes Britain to lose some of its support
  5. when Napoleon returns, he uses what Britain has done against it to garner more support for himself. consequently, Britain and Prussia have fewer allies while Napoleon has more when it comes to the Battle of Waterloo and Wellington and Blucher are killed in the battle
  6. at the same time as Napoleon's return, infantry warfare breaks out between Britain and the United States in Canada, so the British have to divert some soldiers to defend their colonies. as a result, they are not at full strength in EITHER war and lose both of them
  7. after Napoleon wins at Waterloo, he turns his attention to the British across the channel, the Germans next door, and the Russians on the horizon, who are still threats to France. in particular, the Russians are still pretty much at full strength, having not been fighting Napoleon before. France tries to invade Britain, occasionally making landfall but never taking any beachheads, and holds back the Germans in occupied territory for years until Napoleon's death, which is officially attributed to cancer but rumored to be the work of assassins, at the same date as IOTL
  8. when Napoleon I dies, the "Channel Wars" essentially end in an armistice while Napoleon II decides to focus on conquering the Germans; at this time, France has alot of its old imperial territory on the continent, Italy is an ally, and Austria is on speaking terms with France. perhaps they have also undergone a revolution, but more peacefully than France did (ie, their royalty is still around, but no longer influential)
  9. after the Germans are conquered (though not necessarily annexed; they may just become puppet states, except maybe for a fully conquered Prussia), France turns its attention more towards Russia and they essentially go into a cold war, with some brief skirmishes but never going into full-blown war until 1894 when a treaty is signed to end hostilities between the two nations
  10. as a result of France's domination (and possibly annexation) of the Low Countries and German states, colonies belonging to those countries declare independence and hold loyalty to their original royal houses instead of to France (think of it like the OTL commonwealth being independent but still loyal to the crown). these include the Dutch East Indies and Boer republics. other colonies may become French or even Austrian or Italian colonies while some OTL colonies that appeared later are butterflied away or into the control of different countries
i seem to have lost my train of thought; hopefully, ill get it back on track soon, but in the meantime, i would really appreciate getting some help on this

im gonna need to do some more reading on the napoleonic wars, but this is the gist of what im going for with this. and remember, everything about this is all subject to change, as im still working on trying to make it as plausible as possible
 
[*]the Napoleonic Wars are mostly the same as IOTL, but there are some changes that ive determined thus far to make it a bit better for France: for one, Napoleon convinces the Mamelukes to join forces with him to defeat the Ottomans and British. there may need to be other events in the first part of the wars which make France lose only slightly
[*]perhaps more importantly than getting help from Egypt

The point of conquering Egypt was not so much to hold the land itself. According to "Tricolor and crescent: France and the Islamic world" (2003), p. 13:

"In 1798, Napoleon prepared for a campaign to Egypt. He wanted to harm British trade in the middle East, thereby enhancing the trade dominance enjoyed by France since the days of the Ottoman capitulations, but he also dreamed of marching on either Constantinople or India... For the latter possibility, he planned to link with a Muslim opponent of the British dominance in India, Tippoo Sahib." See: http://books.google.com/books?id=o4vrUbMK5eEC&pg=PA13#v=onepage&q&f=false

Tippoo Sahib, is actually Tipu Sultan, de facto ruler of Mysore (1750-1799, 1782-1799). He held the title of dalwai, or commander-in-chief. The dalwais of Mysore were the equivalents of the Shoguns of Japan. They held near-absolute power in the name of a figurehead hereditary ruler. Tipu Sultan was killed while defending his capital Srirangapatna from a full-scale British assault. A young Arthur Wellesley (later Duke of Wellington) first distinguished himsel on this campaign. For details see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tippoo_Sahib#Fourth_Mysore_War

Napoleon calls off invading Russia, instead deciding to deal with threats closer to home (namely Britain and the Germans)

There are some problems with this idea. While France was the one declaring war against Russia, the Russian military staff had its own plans for an eventual War. Since 1811, they were considering ways to invade the Grand Duchy of Warsaw. They wanted to occupy or fully annex the city of Warsaw and the free city of Danzig (modern Gdańsk).

The British had focused most of their efforts on the Peninsular War (1808-1814), but they had only seen limited success by the point the Russian campaign started. An Anglo-Portuguese victory at the Battle of Almaraz (18-19 May, 1812) set the stage for a planned invasion of Spain. But said invasion faired poorly until its leader Charles Wellesley, 1st Earl of Wellington (1769-1852, later upgraded to a Duke) won a surprise victory at the Battle of Salamanca (22 July, 1812). While it established Wellington's reputation as the best offensive general in the entire British army, the victory was partly influenced by chance events. French general-in-command Auguste Frédéric Louis Viesse de Marmont (1774-1852) and second-in-command Jean Pierre Francois Bonet (1768-1857) received severe injuries early in the battle. The French Army remained leaderless for about an hour before Bertrand Clausel (1772-1842) assumed command duties. By that time the battle was nearly lost and Clausel mostly organized the retreat.

The victory at Salamanca is the event which forces the French to evacuate Andalusia and allows the Anglo-Portoguese forces to briefly capture Madrid (6 August). Naturally, Wellington could not hold Madrid for long, but the sack of the city permanently cripled the viability of the regime under Joseph Bonaparte. Prior to Andalusia the British and Portoguese were not seen as the primary threat to the French Empire. Note that Napoleon was deep within Russia during the Battle of Salamanca.

As for the Germans, they were not actively in conflict with Napoleon when the Russian campaign began:

*Francis I, Emperor of Austria (1768-1835). Napoleon's father-in-law. Austria remains a somewhat reluctant ally of France. It contributed troops to the invasion of Russia, while still trying to convince Alexander I that peace should be achieved. Following the failure of the campaign, Austrian foreign minister Klemens Wenzel von Metternich (1773-1859) attempted to convince Napoleon of the necessity of peace. Metterrnich insisted that concessions should be made to ensure the safety of both the Habsburgs and the Bonapartes. Napoleon refuses to even consider making concessions to the Russians. Austria ends their alliance in February, 1813. Before switching sides in April. The deciding factor was Austrian fears of a Russian invasion crushing their defenses.

*Charles, Grand Duke of Baden (1786-1818, reigned 1811-1818). Baden is closely allied to France, since Napoleon helped quadruple the size of its territories. Charles himself is married to Stéphanie de Beauharnais, an adoptive daughter of Napoleon himself. Baden continued its alliance with France until switching sides in 1813. The Battle of Leipzig (Battle of the Nations, 16-19 October, 1813) was the decisive event in causing the change of alignment.

*Maximilian I Joseph, King of Bavaria (1756-1825). Bavaria is closely allied to France and has become the most powerful member of the Confederation of the Rhine. The Bavarians contributed troops to the invasion of Russia and suffered some of the heavier casualties. Bavaria changes sides in 1813, with the Treaty of Ried (8 October). It was facing a threat of invasion from Austria and there were fears that Bavaria could loose its independence in case of a defeat.

*Napoléon Louis Bonaparte, Grand Duke of Berg and Cleves (1804-1831, reigned 1809-1813). A nephew of Napoleon. Naturally loyal to his uncle. He is still underage during the invasion. French bureaucrats rule in his name, chief among them was Pierre Louis Roederer (1754-1835). The Grand Duchy never changes sides. It was occupied by Prussia in 1813 and was fully annexed in 1815.

*Louis I, Grand Duke of Hesse (1753-1830, reigned 1806-1830). Allied to Napoleon, who helped him become a Grand Duke. Louis has reasons to worry in the event of a Russian victory as several of his dispossessed cousins serve as officers of the Russian army.

*Karl Theodor Anton Maria von Dalberg, Grand Duke of Frankfurt (1744-1817, reigned 1810-1813). A former Archbishop of Mainz serving as a secular ruler. Most of the administration of his state consists of French officials. He is childless and his designated heir Eugène Rose de Beauharnais (1781-1824), a stepson of Napoleon. Framkfurt never changed sides. It was invaded by Coalition forces in 1813 and partitioned following the fall of Napoleon. The lion's share of its grounds was given to Bavaria.

*Frederick William III, King of Prussia (1770-1840, reigned 1797-1840). Nominally an ally of Napoleon. Actually much of his country, including Berlin, is under direct occupation. Prussia was forced to contribute troops to the invasion of Russia. With the treaty of Kalisz (28 February, 1813), Prussia switches sides as a new ally of Russia. It was the first ally of Napoleon to switch sides. Most of its population resented the foreign occupation and the choice seemed easier to them.

*Frederick Augustus I, King of Saxony (1750-1827, reigned 1806-1827). An ally of Napoleon with a somewhat spotty record. Saxony contributed troops to the invasion of Russia. In 1813, Saxony tried to secure alliances with both sides of the conflict. This backfired spectacularly as Saxony became the major point of contention and battleground of the War of the Sicth Coalition. Frederick Augustus ended up joining Napoleon's side in the Battle of Leipzig. He became a prisoner of war for a few years, his country was occupied by the Prussians. Prussian occupation ended in 1815. But "57% of Saxon territory and 42% of the Saxon population was turned over to Prussia."

*Jerome Bonaparte, King of Westphalia (1784-1860, reigned 1807-1813). A younger brother of Napoleon, mostly loyal to his brother. He personally led Westphalian forces in the invasion of Russia. His country has one of the most liberal constitutions in Europe and the population is mostly content. But the economy was always fragile and the expenses of 1812 bankrupted the state. Westphalia never changed sides. It was captured by a combined russian and Prussian invasion in October, 1813.

*Frederick I William Charles, King of Württemberg (1754-1816, reigned 1805-1816). A loyal ally of Napoleon. However his dynastic connections allowed to maintain contacts with two other key players of the Napoleonic Wars. He was an uncle of Alexander I of Russia and a son-in-law of George III of the United Kingdom. Württemberg contributed troops to the invasion of Russia. Most of these troops died in russia and the kingdom had little to no army in 1813. It played a small role in events until switching sides in November, 1813.

*Ferdinand, Grand Duke of Würzburg (1769-1824, reigned 1805-1814). A member of the Habsburg-Lorraine, formerly Grand Duke of Tuscany. He was allied with Napoleon until 26 October, 1813. he officialy switched sides in November, 1813, mostly following the example of his kinsmen in Vienna.

These were the members of the College of Kings in the Confederation of the Rhine, plus the equally influential Austria and Prussia. The rest of the German states were minor players.

[*]after Napoleon is deposed and sent into exile at Elba, Britain tightens its grip over Europe; perhaps Napoleon's actions have stirred revolutionary fever in other parts of the continent. all in all, this causes Britain to lose some of its support

The problem here is the Congress of Vienna (September, 1814-June, 1815) which was actually deciding the fate of Europe and its colonies. The United Kingdom didn't gain a dominant position in the Council and was mostly interested in gaining distant colonies or legitimizing its rule over areas occupied during the Napoleonic Wars. For example, the Cape Colony (in modern South Africa) was occupied by the British since 1806, but de jure British rule begun in 1814.. Its main contribution to the Congress was the creation of the so-called Congress System. " In the Congress system, the main signatory powers met periodically (every two years or so) and collectively managed European affairs. This system was successfully used to resolve the Polish-Saxon crisis at Vienna and the [Eastern Question (question of Greek independence) at Laibach. The following ten years saw five European Congresses where disputes were resolved with a diminishing degree of effectiveness. Finally, by 1822, the whole system had collapsed because of the irreconcilable differences of opinion between the United Kingdom, Austria, and Russia, and because of the lack of support for the Congress system in British public opinion." See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Congress_of_Vienna and http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Robert_Stewart,_Viscount_Castlereagh#Diplomatic_career

[*]when Napoleon returns, he uses what Britain has done against it to garner more support for himself. consequently, Britain and Prussia have fewer allies while Napoleon has more when it comes to the Battle of Waterloo and Wellington and Blucher are killed in the battle
[*]at the same time as Napoleon's return, infantry warfare breaks out between Britain and the United States in Canada, so the British have to divert some soldiers to defend their colonies. as a result, they are not at full strength in EITHER war and lose both of them

Two points on this suggestion.

First, the British Empire already had its war with the United States. The Anglo-American War of 1812 (18 June, 1812 - 18 February, 1815). Neither side managed a decisive victory. The Treaty of Ghent ending the War resulted in no changes to the status of the two opponents. No border changes, population exchanges, etc. Why would the two countries return to war so soon after peace was achieved? Napoleon escaped Elba on 26 February, 1815. Just 8 days following the end of the War. Are you suggesting that in this timeline the treaty of Ghent was never signed and the War was prolonged? Or is this a new conflict?

Second, battles of the Peninsular War and the Anglo-American War took place at the same time. And concurrently with the French invasion of Russia. The two fronts to their war didn't particularly affect the effectiveness of the British forces. For example, Wellington's Battle of Salamanca (22 July, 1812) took place 5 days following the British victory at the Siege of Fort Mackinac (17 July, 1812). A surprise attack which allowed Mackinac Island (in Michigan) to pass into British control and inspired several Native American tribes to switch allegiances towards the British. See: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Siege_of_Fort_Mackinac

So, why would two concurrent fronts in 1815 have worst effects that the concurrent fronts of 1812? The British apparently had experience in fighting multiple wars at the same time. Compare the concurrent First Anglo-Maratha War (1775-1782), American Revolutionary War (1775-1783), and Second Anglo-Mysore War (1780-1784).

Napoleon's death, which is officially attributed to cancer but rumored to be the work of assassins, at the same date as IOTL
[*]when Napoleon I dies, the "Channel Wars" essentially end in an armistice while Napoleon II decides to focus on conquering the Germans; at this time, France has alot of its old imperial territory on the continent, Italy is an ally, and Austria is on speaking terms with France. perhaps they have also undergone a revolution, but more peacefully than France did (ie, their royalty is still around, but no longer influential)

So Napoleon I dies on 5 May, 1821 while still Emperor of the French. I have to wonder about the "Napoleon II decides" part. Napoleon II probably succeeds to the throne in an uneventful way. But he is 10-years-old at the time. How much influence does he have on the decision making? Will there be a regency council or a singular regent? Any ideas on the subject?
 
Last edited:
i guess this all goes to show just how little i really know about the period :D:rolleyes: thanks for your reply; here's some more direct responses:

  1. so napoleon instead gets a trade partner in egypt. do you think egypt would immediately become a colony/protectorate of france, or that it would be de jure independent for a while until france has the time and resources to essentially take over?
  2. okay, so ill have to remember that warsaw/poland is a relatively major power at this time. a reversal of history with russia invading france, to relative success, sounds like a good idea to me. with the weight of numbers, russia has a better chance of winning than napoleon did OTL, but how could france emerge from this as a significant power in the region? maybe an earlier version of the maginot line situated further east?
  3. its looking like a slightly less successful peninsular war would be a good way for france to emerge from the war in better sorts. perhaps, if wellsley isnt as successful in the peninsular war, he wont be sent to waterloo? that could perhaps spare him death and he could instead lead british forces during the channel wars. thoughts, anyone?
  4. if marmont and bonet dont get injured, or if its just one or the other, the france may win at salamanca ITTL. do you think a french victory here would deeply affect the outcome of the war?
  5. so if napoleon isnt in russia during salamanca, where could he be? paris? egypt? maybe some event unlike in real history makes the germans begin open war with france earlier than IOTL?
  6. it looks like, without the invasion of russia, austria would be more willing to remain an ally of france, even if only a bit moreso. baden could easily remain an ally of france, even if on the surface it renounces that when napoleon is sent to elba
  7. maybe these previous events will butterfly leipzig away, but a similar event takes place elsewhere which still forces napoleon to abdicate
  8. britain could easily be butterflied in as a dominant player with the congress of vienna, but i want to try to make this as plausible as possible
  9. thee idea with the War of 1812 was that it and the OTL hundred days happen at the same time; i may well need to change this a bit, but the US getting some more territory from britain is kind of important to the grand scheme of the timeline. perhaps the War of 1812 starts a bit later than IOTL and runs for the same amount of time, or napoleon returns earlier than IOTL, or both. like i said, i still need to make this work as plausibly as possible given my pre-determined goal
  10. for the part on the peninsular and anglo-american wars going at the same time, you have to remember that IOTL the war of 1812 was mostly a naval war; there wasn't much infantry fighting iirc
  11. you can attribute "Napoleon II decides" to me just being stupid and not having looked that up beforehand :p it would probably be a regency council instead, or maybe someone else is declared emperor of the french instead, who knows? again, i still need to work on this
 
Top