Example Map.png


This time, unlike my last TL, I want to avoid France's dramatic population lag and confirm them as the #1 Power, more effectively neutering the UK and Russia.

The lore this time is simple. I want to prevent Napoleon's four greatest mistakes.
1. Not Dismantling Prussia.
2. The Continental System.
3. Invading Spain.
4. Invading Russia.

(POD) In 1806, Austria joins the fourth coalition. As a result, however, the allies are even more cocky and less coordinated, allowing Napoleon to still achieve all victories from the IRL 4th and 5th coalitions combined. This accomplishment greatly stresses Napoleon, whose patience snaps after Freidrich Stapps' failed assassination attempt. Napoleon dismantles Prussia (strike 1), with Austria only saved by offering Marie Louise's hand in marriage. The Franco-Russian alliance only survives because Napoleon promises to immediately assist in the Russo-Turkic War

As Prussia is destroyed, Austria petrified, and Russia allied, Napoleon's anti-British sanctions are mild, since there is less need to stop trade (strike 2). As Portugal is still an outspoken British Ally, Napoleon still occupies Portugal with Spain, but does not seize the throne, as he considers Iberia beneath him, and instead turns his gaze to the Balkans (strike 3).

The Ottomans are steamrolled by the combined Franco-Russian onslaught, pushed fully out of Europe. Soon after the war, the alliance falls apart over disagreement of control of New Byzantium and the Bosporus, starting the 5th Coalition. Alexander, high from overwhelming victory, is the aggressor, and Napoleon destroys two Russian armies before seizing Vilnius Alexander is forced to make peace. The loss of Lithuania leads to his assasination by Russia's francophobic nobility, who then force his brother and new Tsar Nicholas to join the British in a 6th coalition. This fails catastrophically, with Napoleon seizing everything west of the Dneiper and Daugava rivers to serve as a buffer for the newly created Poland. Britain finally sues for peace in 1814 at the Vienna Conference, ending the coalitions.

The map above is the draft, and I want advice on the circles in particular (or sometihng else very glaring.

1. The original Franco-Spanish treaty carved Portugal into kingdoms under Spanish influence that would revert to Spain if there was no heir. How does this look? Also, if he doesn't pick his brother, who does Napoleon choose to rule Spain in the arbitration?

2. The Balkan borders are based on Catherine the Great's Greek Plan. I figured Alexander I would love to fulfill his beloved grandma's dream, and I figured Napoleon would agree as he would want Austria to focus on the Balkans and not Italy or Germany.

3. How plausible is it that after Nicholas fails in the 6th coalition that there is a civil war and Napoleon props up a pretender in St. Petersberg?

4. Is it even possible to weaken Russia to the point where Qajar Persia can retake land from them?

I know 3 and 4 are a stretch. I want to weaken Russia as much as possible, though I know this is absurd. I am looking for advice on how to do this.

Finally, any further advice on how I can realistically weaken the UK and Russia is appreciated.

One idea for the UK is to have them join the Confederates in the Civil War to weaken the pro-French Americans. This causes massive public backlash and helps lead to the UK, not France, having a tendency for protests and riots.
 
Most of Africa wasn't settled, it was subjugated. To subjugate you need to march an army in and have it not get malaria.
Ok here's another option. Whatever the British are selling to Europe (who I presume made up most of the trade volume at this point) offer it at reduced rates, economy be damned. Make it clear the deal only works if they don't trade with the UK, sorta a soft continental system.
 
Ok here's another option. Whatever the British are selling to Europe (who I presume made up most of the trade volume at this point) offer it at reduced rates, economy be damned. Make it clear the deal only works if they don't trade with the UK, sorta a soft continental system.
I appreciate the enthusiasm. Unfortunately as someone a bit further down the 19th century rabbit hole, the reason the Continental System failed was Britain had access to resources France simply didn't. Anything that could not be natively grown or harvested from Europe proper was outside French control because of the blockade.
 
In 1806, Austria joins the fourth coalition. As a result, however, the allies are even more cocky and less coordinated, allowing Napoleon to still achieve all victories from the IRL 4th and 5th coalitions combined.
I frankly don't follow. For one, I'm finding it a bit hard to believe Austria joining in right after the humiliating defeat at Austerlitz. The difference between Austria & Russia is that one came out of that war nearly scots free and the other lost 1/6 of their total population. Subsequently, why do the allies get "more cocky", if Austria threw in it'd have quite the opposite effect.

Napoleon dismantles Prussia (strike 1), with Austria only saved by offering Marie Louise's hand in marriage.
Napoleon divorce talks with Joséphine doesn't happen til nearly 2 years after the POD. ML's marriage is worthless.

Napoleon's anti-British sanctions are mild, since there is less need to stop trade (strike 2).
Why? The eradication of Prussia has very little effect on the war in the seas. British naval dominance is still present, the continental system is still in full swing. And the POD has very little effect on Russian trade with Britain.

Consider Napoleon had no intention of honoring the Treaty of Fontainebleau I doubt he would give the areas to be stipulated after the war to Spain.

Russia has been unable to decisively win against the Ottomans for 6 years iotl, the war would be carried by Napoleon. It's unlikely he'd just appease Russian demands. It's also worth noting that:
1677874936926.png
1677874969593.png

Napoleon is going to overextend himself with this Balkan campaign.

Very unlikely.

Not unless you have Sokolnicki convince Napoleon to balkanize Russia during the 1812 campaign.

weaken the pro-French Americans
The Americans were not pro-French. Jefferson's trade embargo was intended to hurt France as well (it had no effect)

If you want to hurt Britain you need to have France supersede Britain on the seas.
 
I frankly don't follow. For one, I'm finding it a bit hard to believe Austria joining in right after the humiliating defeat at Austerlitz. The difference between Austria & Russia is that one came out of that war nearly scots free and the other lost 1/6 of their total population. Subsequently, why do the allies get "more cocky", if Austria threw in it'd have quite the opposite effect.
I mean, in real life Austria thought it was a genius idea break their peace treaty to attack Napoleon without allies in the 5th coalition.
Napoleon divorce talks with Joséphine doesn't happen til nearly 2 years after the POD. ML's marriage is worthless.
It's a more desperate gamble that Napoleon accepts for the legitimacy.
Why? The eradication of Prussia has very little effect on the war in the seas. British naval dominance is still present, the continental system is still in full swing. And the POD has very little effect on Russian trade with Britain.
It's not that the war on the seas changes, but Britain can't send weapons to dissidents in Europe because no one is willing to fight Napoleon after Prussia's dismantlement. There is still sanctions but nothing as harsh as the CS.
Consider Napoleon had no intention of honoring the Treaty of Fontainebleau I doubt he would give the areas to be stipulated after the war to Spain.
How would he administer Portugal if it's 400 miles away from France or its puppets? Dismantling a British ally and foothold on the continent and tossing the scraps to a Spain he doesn't care about seems decent.
Russia has been unable to decisively win against the Ottomans for 6 years iotl, the war would be carried by Napoleon. It's unlikely he'd just appease Russian demands. It's also worth noting that:
View attachment 814937View attachment 814938
Napoleon is going to overextend himself with this Balkan campaign.
That's not too fair. Russia didn't attack with their full force during the Ottoman Campaign, they were forced to redirect more than half the army to the Austrian border, blunting their offensive.

In this timeline the Ottomans have to fight on three WIDE fronts. Also that map is disingenuous since Napoleon can stage troops in the Austrian Empire.

Also Napoleon didn't appease Russian demands, the Greek Plan only covered borders, not spheres of influence. That is why Byzantium caused the alliance to fall apart.
Very unlikely.


Not unless you have Sokolnicki convince Napoleon to balkanize Russia during the 1812 campaign.
I have no idea how to actually do this.
The Americans were not pro-French. Jefferson's trade embargo was intended to hurt France as well (it had no effect)

If you want to hurt Britain you need to have France supersede Britain on the seas.
That's fair. I don't think it realistic for Britain to be superceded but I can drop the point about the US.
 
I mean, in real life Austria thought it was a genius idea break their peace treaty to attack Napoleon without allies in the 5th coalition.
It's a lot more complicated than simply leeroy jenkin Napoleon. Austria also spent over 3 years preparing.

It's a more desperate gamble that Napoleon accepts for the legitimacy.
There's no way Napoleon throws Joséphine under the bus for this so haphazardly.

It's not that the war on the seas changes, but Britain can't send weapons to dissidents in Europe because no one is willing to fight Napoleon after Prussia's dismantlement. There is still sanctions but nothing as harsh as the CS.
Britain wasn't simply sending weapons to rival powers nor was the continental system established for this alone. Napoleon wants to economically starve Britain. The continental system had a significant effect on grain imports to Britain. But the continental system was never uniform to begin with. France opened the ports of Dunkirk and Gravelinesfor English smugglers who acquired the appropriate licenses. In 1809, both the French and British governments were willing to allow legal trade between the two countries in exceptional cases.

How would he administer Portugal if it's 400 miles away from France or its puppets? Dismantling a British ally and foothold on the continent and tossing the scraps to a Spain he doesn't care about seems decent.
This wouldn't be the first time he could set up a client Kingdom. And there's every incentive to betray Spain as otl.


Russia didn't attack with their full force during the Ottoman Campaign,
No one ever does.

since Napoleon can stage troops in the Austrian Empire.
No he cant? It never opened its borders to French troops, even in 1812.

Also Napoleon didn't appease Russian demands, the Greek Plan only covered borders, not spheres of influence.
And this alt treaty never stipulated such? Seems willfully ignorant on both Paris and Moscow's part.

I have no idea how to actually do this.
Maybe if Russia/Alexander was more averse to budding up Napoleon at Tilsit. Napoleon might be less inclined to leave Russia intact.

I don't think it realistic for Britain to be superceded
France was on track to have more ships than Britain til his war in Russia completely drained his manpower. He had to supplant supplies from the Navy to compensate.
 
View attachment 814683

This time, unlike my last TL, I want to avoid France's dramatic population lag and confirm them as the #1 Power, more effectively neutering the UK and Russia.

The lore this time is simple. I want to prevent Napoleon's four greatest mistakes.
1. Not Dismantling Prussia.
2. The Continental System.
3. Invading Spain.
4. Invading Russia.

(POD) In 1806, Austria joins the fourth coalition. As a result, however, the allies are even more cocky and less coordinated, allowing Napoleon to still achieve all victories from the IRL 4th and 5th coalitions combined. This accomplishment greatly stresses Napoleon, whose patience snaps after Freidrich Stapps' failed assassination attempt. Napoleon dismantles Prussia (strike 1), with Austria only saved by offering Marie Louise's hand in marriage. The Franco-Russian alliance only survives because Napoleon promises to immediately assist in the Russo-Turkic War

As Prussia is destroyed, Austria petrified, and Russia allied, Napoleon's anti-British sanctions are mild, since there is less need to stop trade (strike 2).

The problem with this part is that the Brits established naval blockade well before Napoleon formalized the CS. So badically he is allowing free British trade while the Brits are blocking French naval trade leaving only trade by land which is more complicated and expensive.

As Portugal is still an outspoken British Ally, Napoleon still occupies Portugal with Spain, but does not seize the throne, as he considers Iberia beneath him, and instead turns his gaze to the Balkans (strike 3).

The Ottomans are steamrolled by the combined Franco-Russian onslaught, pushed fully out of Europe.

Possible in theory but very difficult logistically: prior to the late 1870s Russians had very serious problems with getting supplies even to the Danube theater and routinely suffered huge losses to the epidemic diseases while campaigning in the Bulgaria-Rumania. The French advance from the West would not be an easy walk either if they go through the mountains. Advance along the Danube would require marching through the Austrian territories.
Soon after the war, the alliance falls apart over disagreement of control of New Byzantium and the Bosporus, starting the 5th Coalition.
Now, if the previous step is happening, wouldn’t it be a prerequisite to come to the agreement regarding the critical issues before start marching? Either agreement is achieved and conflict is not going to happen or it is not and there is no joined campaign.
Anyway, the disagreement is unlikely by at least two main reasons: (a) Napoleon can’t maintain control over the Straits without very serious difficulties (look at the communication line) and (b) the Straits are absolutely useless for him because he does not have a navy.

Alexander, high from overwhelming victory, is the aggressor, and Napoleon destroys two Russian armies before seizing Vilnius Alexander is forced to make peace.

See above about conflict lacking any sense.
The loss of Lithuania leads to his assasination by Russia's francophobic nobility, who then force his brother and new Tsar Nicholas to join the British in a 6th coalition.
Don’t take it personally but there are two silly things in a single statement:
(a) Why would “francophobic nobility” kill Alexander for fighting against Napoleon?
(b) A rudimentary familiarity with the Russian history would tell you that Nicholas was not heir to the throne at that time.


This fails catastrophically, with Napoleon seizing everything west of the Dneiper and Daugava rivers to serve as a buffer for the newly created Poland. Britain finally sues for peace in 1814 at the Vienna Conference, ending the coalitions.
The map above is the draft, and I want advice on the circles in particular (or sometihng else very glaring.
Yes, there is a glaring #3. You can find why by reading “Treaty of Nystad” on wiki. 😉

3. How plausible is it that after Nicholas fails in the 6th coalition that there is a civil war and Napoleon props up a pretender in St. Petersberg?
Fantasy.

4. Is it even possible to weaken Russia to the point where Qajar Persia can retake land from them?
Even greater fantasy.

I know 3 and 4 are a stretch. I want to weaken Russia as much as possible, though I know this is absurd. I am looking for advice on how to do this.
Landing of the pro-French ASBs will be helpful. As an alternative, why not start with learning something on the subject before posting? FYI, OTL Russia was weakened “as much as possible” by the efforts of its own rulers and without unrealistic schemas of yours.

One idea for the UK is to have them join the Confederates in the Civil War to weaken the pro-French Americans. This causes massive public backlash and helps lead to the UK, not France, having a tendency for protests and riots.
Errr… perhaps I missed something fundamental in your post but are you proposing for the UK to join the Confederacy during Napoleon’s life time?
 
1677972067565.png

The French border should look like this with Nice being part of France and North Brabant being part of the Netherlands.
 
View attachment 815195
The French border should look like this with Nice being part of France and North Brabant being part of the Netherlands.
It's just personal preference for Nice, given I feel France's "natural" border stops quite well at the river separating Nice from the rest of France. Brabrant was also just blatant preference for a complete Rhine border. There's a weak reason in the timeline but the real one is I felt these were the most aesthetically pleasing French borders.

For Nice I feel I can argue since Italy is in a personal union with France the exact border did not matter, and France considered Nice, much like Wallais in Switzerland, just occupied Italian territory.
 
It's just personal preference for Nice, given I feel France's "natural" border stops quite well at the river separating Nice from the rest of France. Brabrant was also just blatant preference for a complete Rhine border. There's a weak reason in the timeline but the real one is I felt these were the most aesthetically pleasing French borders.

For Nice I feel I can argue since Italy is in a personal union with France the exact border did not matter, and France considered Nice, much like Wallais in Switzerland, just occupied Italian territory.
Yeah, but re: Nice... Mountain ranges/drainage divides tend to make more formidable (and defensible) "natural borders" than rivers do.
With Italy in personal union, it may not matter so much, at the time, but... there is always the future to consider ;)
 
The problem with this part is that the Brits established naval blockade well before Napoleon formalized the CS. So badically he is allowing free British trade while the Brits are blocking French naval trade leaving only trade by land which is more complicated and expensive.
Good point. Though could there be a middle ground between no restrictions and full on embargo? I feel even a less total Continental System would lead to better results economically and diplomatically for Napoleon's allies.
Possible in theory but very difficult logistically: prior to the late 1870s Russians had very serious problems with getting supplies even to the Danube theater and routinely suffered huge losses to the epidemic diseases while campaigning in the Bulgaria-Rumania. The French advance from the West would not be an easy walk either if they go through the mountains. Advance along the Danube would require marching through the Austrian territories.
While the war was grueling, it was grueling for both sides. Even on the defensive the Ottomans were gradually pushed back by a Russia who had to reserve troops for fear of Napoleon's invasion. An entire additional front and army from France I would argue would turn the scales much faster, as the Ottomans must spread themselves even more thin against more foes.

As for Napoleon's departure, since this TL depends on Napoleon being more aggressive in his peace terms, would it be plausible he could inform the Austrians they were to participate and let troops through their country? Without the Spain debacle the Austrians would not have had fear of "Friendly" French troops in their lands, especially as he is now married into their family.
Now, if the previous step is happening, wouldn’t it be a prerequisite to come to the agreement regarding the critical issues before start marching? Either agreement is achieved and conflict is not going to happen or it is not and there is no joined campaign.
Anyway, the disagreement is unlikely by at least two main reasons: (a) Napoleon can’t maintain control over the Straits without very serious difficulties (look at the communication line) and (b) the Straits are absolutely useless for him because he does not have a navy.
That's fair, and I'm happy to drop this idea. I simply wanted a reason for Russia and France's alliance to fall apart to lead to war, but that seems easy enough, and doesn't need to be this specific example.
Don’t take it personally but there are two silly things in a single statement:
(a) Why would “francophobic nobility” kill Alexander for fighting against Napoleon?
(b) A rudimentary familiarity with the Russian history would tell you that Nicholas was not heir to the throne at that time.
Yeah, I was absolutely reaching on that one. My flimsy reasoning is that the Russians killed Paul for being close to Napoleon, and so there is recent precedent for Russian nobles murdering Tsars that are seen to fail in their role. But I can drop this. Odds are I don't need to make rediculous excuses, Russia would go for round 2 with Napoleon anyway to get back Lithuania.

As for Nicholas, my bad. I just knew he became the next Tsar after Alexander I IRL, nothing more.
Yes, there is a glaring #3. You can find why by reading “Treaty of Nystad” on wiki. 😉
Alright, I'll drop it.
Fantasy.


Even greater fantasy.

Landing of the pro-French ASBs will be helpful. As an alternative, why not start with learning something on the subject before posting? FYI, OTL Russia was weakened “as much as possible” by the efforts of its own rulers and without unrealistic schemas of yours.
I'm posting this TL here specifically because I'm looking for advice and that I don't know everything. Don't get me wrong you are giving me great feedback but I feel you don't need to be rude about it.


Errr… perhaps I missed something fundamental in your post but are you proposing for the UK to join the Confederacy during Napoleon’s life time?
My bad. Separate. I was thinking of the long-game where France is the preliminary power and not the US.

Overall, you have given me a lot of good points. How about this instead for a POD and ensuing events:

POD - Napoleon dismantles Prussia in the 4th Coalition. France and Russia ally to invade the Ottomans. The war stagnates due to the issues you stated above. While French troops are tied up in the Balkans and with Russian assurances to be slow to assist (basically like Spain IRL), Austria attacks (1808, 5th coalition). Like IRL they still fail, the marriage happens, but the terms are slightly harsher, with Napoleon taking advantage of Austria's location and forces them to join the war, pushing future staging grounds further south and greatly expanding the front and troops available for the Franco-Russian alliance, finally fully defeating the Ottomans.

A few years later for one of the laundry list of possible reasons including Polish territory or Austria falling into France's sphere, Russia declares war against Napoleon (1812, 6th Coalition), loses, and loses Lithuania. A few years later they try again (1814, 7th coalition) fail, with France seizing Kiev and pushing post-war borders to the Daugava and Dnieper Rivers, mostly for the entire area between Poland and the Rivers to act as a buffer zone for future Russian aggression.

Thoughts?

Edit: Also for this updated TL Russia still keeps St. Petersberg and the Caucuses, so 3 and 4 are null.
 
Last edited:
Yeah, but re: Nice... Mountain ranges/drainage divides tend to make more formidable (and defensible) "natural borders" than rivers do.
With Italy in personal union, it may not matter so much, at the time, but... there is always the future to consider ;)
If Nice is absolutely integral to the idea of the "Natural Borders" of France in the early 19th century I will give and let France have it, despite the fact it slightly ruins the otherwise quite straight border.
 
If Nice is absolutely integral to the idea of the "Natural Borders" of France in the early 19th century I will give and let France have it, despite the fact it slightly ruins the otherwise quite straight border.
Your map, your call :)
I wouldn't consider Nice essential, exactly... and it was probably a good bit more ethnically Italian at the time of your POD than it became in later years. Just my own opinion on the relative merits of montane borders vs. riverine borders ;)
 
Your map, your call :)
I wouldn't consider Nice essential, exactly... and it was probably a good bit more ethnically Italian at the time of your POD than it became in later years. Just my own opinion on the relative merits of montane borders vs. riverine borders ;)
Montane?
Do you mean Mountain?
 
Yeah, I was absolutely reaching on that one. My flimsy reasoning is that the Russians killed Paul for being close to Napoleon,

No, his assassination had very little to do with him being close to Napoleon and not too much to do with him getting confrontational with the Brits: most of the people directly involved did not have to care about that one way or another. As in the case of his father, it was mostly personal. He managed to alienate a number of people with his erratic behavior and even those presently in power, like Palen, wanted stability. Not that most of them got it under Alexander.

and so there is recent precedent for Russian nobles murdering Tsars that are seen to fail in their role.
No, it was about the expected benefits. In the case of his father, the plotters expected and got considerable (some of them - huge) personal benefits from bringing CII to power. At least Palen expected to retain a very high position he held and even increase his importance (instead he was sent to his estates), Bennigsen never made it into fieldmarshal and I’m not sure that the lesser figures benefited either. A hope that there will be return to CIIs lawless times also did not materialize.
The reason was simple: unlike CII who had no rights to the throne and had to keep bribing her supporters to remain in power (there was a legitimate heir to the throne), AI was a legitimate heir (even more so by Pauline Law) and did not have to kiss anybody’s butt to stay in power. Anyway, the alternative (Constantine) was not pleasing.

But I can drop this. Odds are I don't need to make rediculous excuses, Russia would go for round 2 with Napoleon anyway to get back Lithuania.
That’s tricky. To lose Lithuania it has to agree to a peace saying so and why would AI agree to such a peace unless Nappy really pushed him into a corner which, as was demonstrated in 1812, was almost impossible to do with the existing logistics? In the state “no peace, no war” Nappy would either have to maintain a permanent presence of a really big force in Lithuania, which is close to impossible taking into an account its limited resources and Nappy’s engagements elsewhere, or to be ready to lose it as soon as presence in the region is decreasing. Taking into an account that value of the area is close to zero, why would Nappy bother to go into all that trouble?
As for Nicholas, my bad. I just knew he became the next Tsar after Alexander I IRL, nothing more.
He became the next emperor because Constantine gave away his right but the reason was not there, yet.

Alright, I'll drop it.



I'm posting this TL here specifically because I'm looking for advice and that I don't know everything. Don't get me wrong you are giving me great feedback but I feel you don't need to be rude about it.



My bad. Separate. I was thinking of the long-game where France is the preliminary power and not the US.

Overall, you have given me a lot of good points. How about this instead for a POD and ensuing events:

POD - Napoleon dismantles Prussia in the 4th Coalition. France and Russia ally to invade the Ottomans. The war stagnates due to the issues you stated above. While French troops are tied up in the Balkans and with Russian assurances to be slow to assist (basically like Spain IRL), Austria attacks (1808, 5th coalition). Like IRL they still fail, the marriage happens, but the terms are slightly harsher, with Napoleon taking advantage of Austria's location and forces them to join the war, pushing future staging grounds further south and greatly expanding the front and troops available for the Franco-Russian alliance, finally fully defeating the Ottomans.

A few years later for one of the laundry list of possible reasons including Polish territory or Austria falling into France's sphere, Russia declares war against Napoleon (1812, 6th Coalition), loses, and loses Lithuania. A few years later they try again (1814, 7th coalition) fail, with France seizing Kiev and pushing post-war borders to the Daugava and Dnieper Rivers, mostly for the entire area between Poland and the Rivers to act as a buffer zone for future Russian aggression.

Thoughts?

Edit: Also for this updated TL Russia still keeps St. Petersberg and the Caucuses, so 3 and 4 are null.
 
Top