How to make Napoleon's Russian Campaign succeed?

[Yorel]

As the title said, this thread is to explore the different possibilities of how to make the Russian Campaign a success instead of Napoleon's downfall. There might have been several threads on the subject, but I haven't been on the board long enough to remember those.

To explore the subject, I have some questions...

First : How good was Napoleon's strategy in the Russian Campaign? Does he need to use another than the one he used?

Second : On August 16 and 17 of the year 1812 occured the Battle of Smolensk during which the city was razed. Though a French victory, the battle did not allow Napoleon to use Smolensk to supply is army as the city was in ruins. The Battle only occured because the Russian Commander (Bagration) disobeyed Orders. If that Battle hadn't took place and Smolensk had fallen intact in French hands, would this have helped Napoleon's campaign?

Third : Did Napoleon had a chance of capturing (or killing, be it willingly or in the course of a battle) Czar Alexander I? If so, what would he have done with Alexander if he was a prisonner?
I once thought of this possibility and imagined Alexander would be overthrowned if he was captured and replaced by his pro-french brother Constantine, but that does no longer seem a very likely option...

Fourth : If the Russians had suffered a major defeat during the campaign, what would have been the consequences?

Fifth and last : Napoelon once said that if he had left Moscow two weeks earlier than he did, he would have been able to crush Koutouzov's army. Is that true? And if so, what would be the consequences?

 

[Big Tex]

First : How good was Napoleon's strategy in the Russian Campaign? Does he need to use another than the one he used?

The strategy was decent if the Russians had been accommodating and played the game the way Nappy thought they would. If what I know is correct Napoleon simply wanted a major battle against the Russians in the Baltic region, no further than Belorussia at most. Instead of getting his battle the Russians harried him, fell back, minor engagements and skirmishes and before anyone knew it Smolensk occurred and Moscow was in sight.

What Napoleon should have done was have a defined target instead of hoping for a decisive engagement with the Russian army. St. Petersburg would have been a game changer and resupply (the true reason for Nappy defeat) could have occurred along the coast. Someone has done a very good TL on this strategy...I'll link to it in a bit.

Second : On August 16 and 17 of the year 1812 occured the Battle of Smolensk during which the city was razed. Though a French victory, the battle did not allow Napoleon to use Smolensk to supply is army as the city was in ruins. The Battle only occured because the Russian Commander (Bagration) disobeyed Orders. If that Battle hadn't took place and Smolensk had fallen intact in French hands, would this have helped Napoleon's campaign?

Capturing Smolensk intact would have only delayed the inevitable. Nappy's supply wagons were far to stretched thin and by this time where being harassed almost unopposed by Russian cavalry (especially the Cossacks). Smolensk gives his army a small boost in morale and some life but not enough to make up for the losses they endured from the start of the invasion through say Minsk..

Third : Did Napoleon had a chance of capturing (or killing, be it willingly or in the course of a battle) Czar Alexander I? If so, what would he have done with Alexander if he was a prisonner?
I once thought of this possibility and imagined Alexander would be overthrowned if he was captured and replaced by his pro-french brother Constantine, but that does no longer seem a very likely option...

I don't think so, Russia is a big country and the Tsar has lots of options. If Nappy goes after St. Petersburg then Alexander can fall back to Moscow. French cavalry are not in a position to sneak up on the Tsar and catch him like that, they lost far to many horses before they even got into Russia proper. I remember seeing something about during the retreat from Moscow French cavalry had essentially been forced to become an foot infantry squad. The only way Nappy and Alexander are going to meet face to face is under a white flag at a negotiating table and by that point Nappy will have had his victory.

Fourth : If the Russians had suffered a major defeat during the campaign, what would have been the consequences?

No one won the campaign...it just happens that the French couldn't replace the losses they incurred and weren't on their home turf.

Fifth and last : Napoelon once said that if he had left Moscow two weeks earlier than he did, he would have been able to crush Koutouzov's army. Is that true? And if so, what would be the consequences?

I don't know about this one. Koutouzov has the reinforcements, the supplies, and everything going for him but Nappy conquered Europe for a reason...he was a brilliant general. He consistently showed on the battlefield that he could defeat superior armies with inferior forces. So I wouldn't put it past him...by this point though the French are licked. Hundreds of cannons were lost on the retreat and as I said above the French cavalry was cavalry in name only. Anything big after Borodino is hard to see the French winning decisively.

I'm not an expert on the invasion but once Nappy pushed through Belorussia he was just asking for defeat. A smart and collected general who understood the strain on his supply lines, the hefty price his army was already paying, and everything involved would have turned back towards the Baltic and gone after St. Petersburg. But then again we have the gift of hindsight so thats easy to say and speculate. Hope this helps!

 

[Big Tex]

Here is the link to Zach's fine "Napoleon's Victory [Long]" TL btw.

Be forewarned that it is really long...but thats because its really good

 

[Yorel]

The strategy was decent if the Russians had been accommodating and played the game the way Nappy thought they would. If what I know is correct Napoleon simply wanted a major battle against the Russians in the Baltic region, no further than Belorussia at most. Instead of getting his battle the Russians harried him, fell back, minor engagements and skirmishes and before anyone knew it Smolensk occurred and Moscow was in sight.

So... If the Russians do not apply their "scorched earth" tactics and don't keep retreating, then Nappy has a chance of battling them and winning?
I ask because I read that Barclay de Tolly's action were not liked among the Russian commanders and, because of this, Barclay was replaced by Koutouzov later in the campaign (who still continued to use the tactic). If the Russian Etat Major had forced Barclay de Tolly to battle, maybe Napoleon would have gotten the battle he was looking for?

What Napoleon should have done was have a defined target instead of hoping for a decisive engagement with the Russian army. St. Petersburg would have been a game changer and resupply (the true reason for Nappy defeat) could have occurred along the coast. Someone has done a very good TL on this strategy...I'll link to it in a bit.

If Napoleon was planning on attacking St. Petersburg directly, could he have asked for Swedish help? Sweden is not that far from the Russian capital and has a little grudge against Russia as it lost Finland in a previous war.

I don't know if this would have succeeded given the relationship between Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, Marshall of Napoleon and soon to become Charles XIV of Sweden, and l'Empereur were not at their best (they considered each others as rivals and didn't really liked one another) and the fact that the Russian had already signed a treaty with Sweden.

Hope this helps!

Thank you. It sure has helped me a lot.

Here is the link to Zach's fine "Napoleon's Victory [Long]" TL btw.

Be forewarned that it is really long...but thats because its really good

Thanks for pointing out that timeline, but I've already read it and I know it is very good. I'm waiting for the next udpate and hope it will come quickly ^^

On a side note, it is not about a successful Russian Campaign, but about the fact that there was no Peninsula War (another reason for Napoleon's defeat on the continent).

 

[mattep74]

If Napoleon was planning on attacking St. Petersburg directly, could he have asked for Swedish help? Sweden is not that far from the Russian capital and has a little grudge against Russia as it lost Finland in a previous war.

I don't know if this would have succeeded given the relationship between Jean Baptiste Bernadotte, Marshall of Napoleon and soon to become Charles XIV of Sweden, and l'Empereur were not at their best (they considered each others as rivals and didn't really liked one another) and the fact that the Russian had already signed a treaty with Sweden.

There was a reason Sweden didnt interveen in the conflict in 1812. Bernadotte knew that taking back Finland was only a invitation for more wars with Russia. Better to ally with Nappys opponents and get Norway. Norway had been a pain in the back for a long time since it was a place were the danes could launch offensives.