How much if the Ottoman Empire could Napoleon conquer?

I'm not sure why a war would take place, maybe relating to the attempts to starve Britain, or Napoleon's ego leads him to want to control more of the world, or he wants to recreate Rome, whatever the reason. If say he retains Russia as an ally and launches the invasion around 1812, or that he defeated Russia decisively in the 1812-13 time period and invades afterwards at the peak of his power.

Could the Ottoman Empire resist a total conquest of their European land, or could France even take the fight to the Middle East?
 
I would say no to France being able to fight the Ottomans for any length of time. On the one hand the two are separated by vast tracts of ocean. Oceans which would likely be patrolled by the Royal Navy, which the French navy usually lost to in a fight. And on the other France and the Turks are separated by the Austrians. Who would be loathe to allow the French to not only cross through their territory, but also move supplies and re-enforcement's to the army once a war with the Turks had begun.

As for the matter of the French army being able to fight and win against the Turks I would say yes definitely. France in the era discussed had perhaps the best army in the world. And in Napoleon they had one of the best field commanders to ever live. The Ottomans would have no one even close. And much of their European holding would be populated largely by non Turkish, Christian peoples who would likely assist the French. Or at least not resist French occupation to much.
 
Geography won't be too much of a problem - the French Empire bordered the Ottoman Empire in Europe after 1805. The Ottomans were less than halfway through a badly needed military reform; furthermore, they had an active rebellion in Serbia and a volatile situation all over, with Christian and Muslim resentment threatening to boil over in dozens of different ways and places. So Napoleon should be able to conquer most, or all, of the Ottoman possessions in Europe. As for what France gets to annex or establish protectorates over - that depends on Napoleon's relations with Austria and Russia. If they are participating in the campaign as allies, they will have their own demands in the Balkans; if not, France can theoretically do whatever it wants with all the territory.
 
Maybe somewhere from the Balkans to Constantinople by a long land route without sea journeys, then the rest can be defended or taken by the British, Napoleon's enemies and Russia.
And, better be the conquest occur after 1809 for sufficient and pure land routes with acknowledgement of the limitations of the British Navy and Austrians can impose.
 
In a stand-up fight, nobody could beat the Grande Armee in 1812 (except obviously the Russian general Winter).

Invading the decaying Ottoman Empire in order to liberate local peoples (Serbs, Greeks, Bulgarians, Romanians) would see anti-Ottoman revolts pop up all over the place.

My guess is they could take Constantinople in a single campaign season.
 
Even if everything else gets taken, they'll be able to defend mountainous Anatolia. Their core population is there.

Since very mountainous Switzerland wasn't that much of a problem for Napoleon and his armies won in areas where the core populations of states much stronger than the Ottomans were, then I doubt they can do anything if Napoleon can find a way across the Bosphorus.
 
I would say no to France being able to fight the Ottomans for any length of time. On the one hand the two are separated by vast tracts of ocean. Oceans which would likely be patrolled by the Royal Navy, which the French navy usually lost to in a fight. And on the other France and the Turks are separated by the Austrians. Who would be loathe to allow the French to not only cross through their territory, but also move supplies and re-enforcement's to the army once a war with the Turks had begun.

First, the Mediterranean is not an ocean. Second, the Illyrian province was a thing.
 
-Subtly Plugs own TL-

But seriously, I think that from a military only standpoint that Napoleon could have marched on Constantinople by 1800. The Ottoman army is completely incompetent, and the French could recruit from the locals.

However: The main opponent to Nappy is disease and exhaustion. Plague would and did tear through is army. There's also the problem of the garrisoning conquered land. While a lot of the locals, especially in Palestine and Lebanon, hated the Ottomans, the Mamluks in Egypt would never lay down and accept a French takeover.

In the end, I can see the French taking Egypt and a good chunk of the Levant, but without reinforcement he can't get much farther. Recruiting locally would probably allow him to consolidate said territories, but marching into Anatolia is a pipe dream at best.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
So, is Anatolia outside their capabilities?

Here's a question, although sea supply lines across the Mediterranean between Europe and Egypt/Levant will become untenable if under constant British attack, can British seapower be as powerful an impediment across the Dardanelles and Bosporus?

I mean, if the French sweep the Balkans, can they get an army across the straits using locally acquired boats, keep them supplied that way and by living off the land, and also protect their crossings with shore-based artillery?

While a lot of the locals, especially in Palestine and Lebanon, hated the Ottomans,

Interesting, I wasn't aware of that. Was that a common thing across multiple confessions in the region, Muslim, Christian, Jews, Druze? What was behind it?

I also found it interesting that you considered an approach to Anatolia from the south rather than the Bosporus. But to be fair, the closest the French ever *did* get in OTL was Syria.
 
Apropos "Mediterranean supply lines": Maybe the French should try to take Sicily, Sardinia and Malta before they do this? But how feasible would that be?
 
Top