GURPS Napoleonic victories: are they plausible?

Bonapart-1
Nelson died in an attack on Bologne in 1801. Without Nelson, Trafalgar ended as a Franco-Spanish victory, and Napoleon dictated peace from the Tower of London in 1806. France lost the War of 1812 trying to retake Lousiana from America, and the French Empire came apart in a series of Italian, German and colonial rebellions in 1848-1850; Russia and America (which annexed Mexico in 1853) are dominant powers quarreling over China in 1895.
Bonaparte-2
Napoleon manages to rout and kill Wellington at Waterloo in 1815. The British stock market and government fell, leading to a reforming Whig cabinet. Napoleon II is the grand statesman of Europe, and in 1863 makes noises about intervening in the American Civil War.
Bonaparte-3
Napoleon hung onto Minsk and Smolensk in Russia, and resumed the war in 1813 for four more years against an increasingly mad Czar Alexander. Russia eventually collapsed, breaking the Coalition; in 1913 the Kingdom of Poland is threatening a global war against the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.
Bonaparte-4
Was covered in an earlier thread and considered implausible.
Bonaparte-5
In 1809 both Wellington and Napoleon are killed in battle; Metternich negotiated a peace that left the half-Hapsburg Napoleon II on the throne of France. Austria fell to Communist revolutionaries in 1919 after defeating Prussia and Russia in the Great War, in 1921 Napoleon V is rallying the West to destroy the new revolution.
Bonaparte-6
I consider this implausible because of the Butterfly Effect erasing Napoleon, but lets grant his existence for the sake of argument. The Corsican revolutionary Paoli dies in 1759, so Nappy is born Genoese. During the revolutionary era, he unifies Italy in the Roman Republic and conquered Greece and Egypt. Rome allied with Britain and the United States in the War of 1914 against Austria, Germany and Turkey. Caproni's jets and Fermi's atom bomb (apparently dopplegangers just insist on being born here) make Rome the first superpower in the 1940s and in 1969 the technology of the ATL is actually ahead of OTL's at the time.
 
Bonapart-1
Nelson died in an attack on Bologne in 1801. Without Nelson, Trafalgar ended as a Franco-Spanish victory, and Napoleon dictated peace from the Tower of London in 1806. France lost the War of 1812 trying to retake Lousiana from America, and the French Empire came apart in a series of Italian, German and colonial rebellions in 1848-1850; Russia and America (which annexed Mexico in 1853) are dominant powers quarreling over China in 1895.
Bonaparte-2
Napoleon manages to rout and kill Wellington at Waterloo in 1815. The British stock market and government fell, leading to a reforming Whig cabinet. Napoleon II is the grand statesman of Europe, and in 1863 makes noises about intervening in the American Civil War.
Bonaparte-3
Napoleon hung onto Minsk and Smolensk in Russia, and resumed the war in 1813 for four more years against an increasingly mad Czar Alexander. Russia eventually collapsed, breaking the Coalition; in 1913 the Kingdom of Poland is threatening a global war against the Anglo-Japanese Alliance.
Bonaparte-4
Was covered in an earlier thread and considered implausible.
Bonaparte-5
In 1809 both Wellington and Napoleon are killed in battle; Metternich negotiated a peace that left the half-Hapsburg Napoleon II on the throne of France. Austria fell to Communist revolutionaries in 1919 after defeating Prussia and Russia in the Great War, in 1921 Napoleon V is rallying the West to destroy the new revolution.
Bonaparte-6
I consider this implausible because of the Butterfly Effect erasing Napoleon, but lets grant his existence for the sake of argument. The Corsican revolutionary Paoli dies in 1759, so Nappy is born Genoese. During the revolutionary era, he unifies Italy in the Roman Republic and conquered Greece and Egypt. Rome allied with Britain and the United States in the War of 1914 against Austria, Germany and Turkey. Caproni's jets and Fermi's atom bomb (apparently dopplegangers just insist on being born here) make Rome the first superpower in the 1940s and in 1969 the technology of the ATL is actually ahead of OTL's at the time.

1 - Nelson's death =/= successful French invasion. The Brits have other admirals, and all those ships. And if Napoleon and the Grande Armee do cross the Channel, who's minding the store? It won't help Napoleon to take London if he loses Paris to the Austro/Russo/Prussian alliance which would surely take advantage of his absence, nasty people that they are.

2 - Winning at Waterloo still leaves more Prussians (they aren't all with Blucher) and the Russians, Austrians, and Spanish to deal with. Napoleon simply doesn't have enough troops to hold them all off. It'll be 1814, but worse odds.

3 - Even if 1812 in Russia turns out better there's still the little problem of Spain, and how long before Prussia and Austria decide to try their luck again? Not long, especially if the Russians hold out. There will be trouble long before 1913.

5 - Considering that Napoleon is dead before he even marries Marie-Louise, how does he have an heir already? Unless his powers extend beyond the grave, not possible.

Even then, if one of Napoleon's brothers or Eugene is the heir, will Metternich accept them? Or will he insist on a Bourbon restoration?

6 - Yeah, some plague has wiped out the butterflies here.
 
1 - Nelson's death =/= successful French invasion. The Brits have other admirals, and all those ships. And if Napoleon and the Grande Armee do cross the Channel, who's minding the store? It won't help Napoleon to take London if he loses Paris to the Austro/Russo/Prussian alliance which would surely take advantage of his absence, nasty people that they are.

2 - Winning at Waterloo still leaves more Prussians (they aren't all with Blucher) and the Russians, Austrians, and Spanish to deal with. Napoleon simply doesn't have enough troops to hold them all off. It'll be 1814, but worse odds.

3 - Even if 1812 in Russia turns out better there's still the little problem of Spain, and how long before Prussia and Austria decide to try their luck again? Not long, especially if the Russians hold out. There will be trouble long before 1913.

5 - Considering that Napoleon is dead before he even marries Marie-Louise, how does he have an heir already? Unless his powers extend beyond the grave, not possible.

Even then, if one of Napoleon's brothers or Eugene is the heir, will Metternich accept them? Or will he insist on a Bourbon restoration?

6 - Yeah, some plague has wiped out the butterflies here.
This.
GURPS authors just don't seem to realise how heavily the balance of power at sea was in Britain's favour during that period, or the several solid reasons why that was the case.
 
Even then, if one of Napoleon's brothers or Eugene is the heir, will Metternich accept them? Or will he insist on a Bourbon restoration?
Considering how people reacted during the attempted Malet coup, pretty much completely ignoring Napoleon's testament putting aside Napoleon II and acquiesing to the reinstitution of the republic I don't think the Bonepartes are in a good position. One of Napoleon's generals taking over either as monarch/dictator or at least draping it with the pretence of returning to the Republic is just as likely as a Boneparte inheritance or Bourbon restoration, at least in the short to mid-term I'd say.
 
As others have said, Nelson or not it is highly unlikely that the French are going to be able to beat the Royal Navy at sea. Even given comparative numbers in Ships of the Line, the French and Spanish crews had spent so long in port they simply we nowhere near as capable of their British equivalents.
 
I disagree completley.

There are a number of cases needed to be built in case of the French, I shall further develop this in this post.
 
As others have said, Nelson or not it is highly unlikely that the French are going to be able to beat the Royal Navy at sea. Even given comparative numbers in Ships of the Line, the French and Spanish crews had spent so long in port they simply we nowhere near as capable of their British equivalents.
Plus _ Britain had a deeper pool of trained seamen from which to draw, more & better-organised shipyards, better access to the necesary materials (much of the Franco-Spanish fleet at Trafalgar was operating with sails and rope that really needed replacing, for example) partly because we'd been blockading shipments to France, more care taken for shipboard health & hygiene, and probably more effective tactical doctrines too: look up 'the weather gauge' and 'firing on the upwards roll'/'firing on the downwards roll'...
Oh, and of course those of our officers who'd been in service since before the Revolution hadn't -- unlike their French counterparts -- undergone an ideologically-based purge, or seen people promoted over their heads on the basis of revolutionary fervour rather than ability...

Plus, the lengthening history of British naval victories over the French during those wars had affected morale accordingly in both navies.
 
Top