I need help figuring out my newest Napoleon Victory TL (Map included
- Thread starter Saramello
- Start date
The problem I have with this timeline is that it doesn't make much sense for both the Ottomans and Russians to be completely crushed as empires to such an extent. While it is possible for the Franco-Russian assault to have succeded in crippling the Ottoman forces, the UK most likely would have helped them, sending men to defend the Balkan front and using superior naval skills to annihilate the French fleet like in OTL, stopping a naval invasion and keeping supplies from reaching the frontline forces. The Greeks, sensing an opportunity and having to choose between Turkish and French hegemony, would probably rise up and fight against both sides. They could have been tempted to join the Turkish side if the British guaranteed them, which would further hinder a French advance. If the British were really cocky, they could attempt an invasion of Italy, splitting the French forces up and potentially even getting the Austrians to join the Coalition.
Now, with Russia. It's common knowledge that an invasion of Russia would be near impossible to achieve. It's also known that Russians are fierce when they are invaded. Every nation that invaded Russia, even the Nazis and OTL's Napoleon, who almost captured Moscow, had to deal with Russian onslaughts constantly. It would make now sense for a surrender to happen at Vilnus, when there was still many men eager to join the army and support their country and many cities between Vilnus and Saint Petersburg. Let's say that, somehow, the unbreakable Russian spirit that would no doubt have fought to the last man, was broken. It would make no sense for the French to occupy the capital and force the government to relocate to another city while leaving the country mostly the same? Most nations, when in this scenario, would occupy a bit of land, occupy all of the land directly, or set up a puppet regime. Not occupy capital territory while somehow keeping the nation intact.
Besides those oddities, however, this is a great alternate timeline and I'd love to see your take on a world war or even cold war in this timeline.
Now, with Russia. It's common knowledge that an invasion of Russia would be near impossible to achieve. It's also known that Russians are fierce when they are invaded. Every nation that invaded Russia, even the Nazis and OTL's Napoleon, who almost captured Moscow, had to deal with Russian onslaughts constantly. It would make now sense for a surrender to happen at Vilnus, when there was still many men eager to join the army and support their country and many cities between Vilnus and Saint Petersburg. Let's say that, somehow, the unbreakable Russian spirit that would no doubt have fought to the last man, was broken. It would make no sense for the French to occupy the capital and force the government to relocate to another city while leaving the country mostly the same? Most nations, when in this scenario, would occupy a bit of land, occupy all of the land directly, or set up a puppet regime. Not occupy capital territory while somehow keeping the nation intact.
Besides those oddities, however, this is a great alternate timeline and I'd love to see your take on a world war or even cold war in this timeline.
IIRC, Napoleon had every intention of keeping Holland attached to the French Empire.
Just few comments:
- As was stated by Napoleon, the goal of a war is to destroy enemy’s army, not to capture the geographic places. And, short of the plain incompetence, catching the Russian army in a position where it had to stand and fight to the end with no ability to retreat was a difficult task. In OTL Napoleon failed to do this under very favorable conditions: there were two joined Russian armies with the bickering commanders. Just an ordinary victory would not be enough (Smolensk and Borodino did not end the war).
- In OTL Napoleon captured Vilno within the first few days of 1812 campaign with absolutely no impact upon further course of a war.
- Going to Vilno and (after that) to St.Petersburg and Kiev is kind of running in all directions simultaneously and Napoleon would hardly do something of the kind because his style was to concentrate force on the main direction.
- While capture of St.Petersburg was technically possible, setting a “puppet government” there wasn’t because nobody was going to recognize it. Legitimate ruler of Russia (of which there could be only one at a time) must be crowned in Moscow, by a high ranking member of the Russian Orthodox Church. The ruler must be crowned with the imperial regalia and he must belong to the Orthodox Church.
- Now, what would happen if Napoleon manages to destroy the Russian army near the border? Situation is going to be “catastrophic but not serious” (😉) because the field army on a western border under any scenario represented a fraction of the total Russian military force. Post-Friedland analogy is not applicable because the 4th Coalition was a cabinet war but invasion immediately triggers prestige factor (as in 1812). Space is pretty much unlimited and Napoleon does not have enough forces to cover all important directions. Getting deep into Russia is catastrophic on its own: in 1812 he came to Borodino with only 120-140,000 after giving only two medium scale battles (Smolensk and Vatutino Hill) and few small-scale encounters. Which means that Alexander would have plenty of time and space to raise the new armies as happened in OTL: by the early 1813, most of the army of 1812 was lost and the troops fighting in 1813-14 were mostly contingents raised and trained in 1812 (before and during the invasion) and early 1813.
Last edited:
Yeah. Im going to post a new revised map. Russia keeps st. Petersberg and caucuses.
But Napoleon still keeps the other seized territory. Unlike IRL His war against russia started defensive, and he doesn't care about Moscow (and now st petersberg). Also Lithuanian nobles welcomed Napoleon, meaning if Napoleon tool Lithuania and didn't fertilize the warsaw-moscow road with his entire damn army he has a decent chance of keeping it.
If Napoleon pressing further into Russia benefited the Russians, why would they surrender at Vilnus? Even if the whole western army was crushed, Napoleon, to avoid a catastrophic deafeat, wouldn't advance far into Russia. This would give the Russians plenty of time to enlist more men and send them on their way as the French weren't trying to outright capitulate the Russians. This would lead to a stalemate with the French occaisionally perforrming incursions into Russian border cities and, in turn, the Russians building up a new army everytime one was destroyed. This would make both sides pretty desperate for a way to win the war, so either the French actually invade Russia and either win, somehow, or get pushed back. Once this happened, the Russians could potentially push further into eastern Europe, which would suck for Napoleon. If the Russians wanted to invade eastern Europe first, then the opposite would most likely happen. Using his faster tactics, Napoleon could catch up to and probably destroy the invading Russians. Then, the gates would be wide open for the French to blitz to Saint Petersburg before any new army could be raised. So if either side sends in a full army, then they would lose the war. This would most likely cause a white peace to be signed, especially if the Ottomans took the advantage of a weakened France and Russia to regain as many lost territories as possible. So, to summarize, neither the Russians nor French would benefit from this war and the map would mostly be the same. If either side did launch a full military incursion then that side would probably lose. During this tedious conflict, if neither side really launched a full attack, the Ottomans could take the opportunity to attempt reconquest due both powers being weakened severely.
From what I understand about the Napoleonic Wars: Napoleon's greatest strength was his army and capacity to win battles even stacked against him. His downfall came when he chased the Russian Army trying to get that decisive victory, which destroyed his army and manpower in the process and therefor his greatest strength. The entire Russian strategy in the Franco-Russian war was "don't fight Napoleon." Which very nearly failed since this "cowardice" enraged the Russian nobility and it's only thanks to the stubbornness of the generals that won out.
If Napoleon doesn't over-extend himself and only focus on significantly closer and practical targets like Vilnius and Kiev forces the Russians to attack HIM instead of vice-versa, which plays directly into his strength.
Yeah. I'm going to make a new more conservative map, with Russia keeping the Caucuses and St. Petersburg. However I would argue even with British help (which was mostly resources, the Brits don't have the best soldiers), the Ottomans facing a concentrated French and Russian attack would eventually buckle. I
Heavily disagree. the Greeks welcomed European intervention in the 1820s. Napoleon and Alexander are like all of Europe's monarchies extremely Philhellenic, and Greece's distance from both Moscow and Paris would ensure influence would be kept at a relative minimum. They would welcome them with open arms.
The British can't simultaneously support the Greeks and Ottomans. And if there's one single constant in the Napoleonic Wars, it's that the British cannot hold a front against Napoleon alone. Every British victory was aided by Austrians, Spanish, Portuguese, etc. Brittannia rules the waves, but absolutely not the land. That's what allies are for, hence the amusing British line "We will fight Napoleon to the last Austrian!"
See above and below. 1. I'm remaking the map with Russia retaining St. Petersberg. 2. Invading Moscow or SP is definitely tough, but Kiev and Vilnius are less than half the distance away, and both area significantly easier to travel and seize. The Lithuanians welcomed Napoleon, and Ukraine isn't a hard land to march through (pre 2022 of course).
If that's the case, you might like my more conservative TL I made 5 months ago where. Here's the last post, which covers the outbreak of WW1, and the comment links the other posts in the series. You might enjoy it.
Was planning two different maps, never got fully around to it.
Most likely the Holy Alliance wins. Poland is overrun and partitioned between Russia and Germany, with Russia getting most of it. The Illyrian Federation is broken up between Hungary, Serbia, and Italy, with Croats getting extremely nationalistic and constant bouts of terrorism.
The French Empire is dismantled, with their colonies divided among the victors. France is stripped of all land that could reasonably be taken.
The North German Confederation eats the South German Federation and much of the Rhineland, but Wilhelm II oversteps the agreed treaty, annexing more of France and newly freed Netherlands and creating a super Germany that very quickly alienates itself from Russia and the UK, and now competing with Russia for influence in the Balkans, setting the scene for WW2.
>>>Perhaps subsume Prussia by including it in a greater Confederation of the Rhine ruled by a Senate where each polity gets one vote regardless of size?
>>>Difficult to do without risking profit to the UK but perhaps tolerating low-level smuggling is better than the alternative in this case. Or just raise taxes on anything imported from British territory and/or carried by British ships such that only the wealthy can consider purchasing their goods.
>>>Would require better bartering and probably recreating the Iberian Union, but it was Charles IV whose appeal to Napoleon resulted in the abdications of Bayonne around 1808. Keep Charles IV on the throne with French help, especially if they get Portugal in return for support, and Spain may continue to answer to Paris (Ferdinand likely leads a government-in-exile from Lisbon then London though)
>>>Either take the time to improve the roads once in-country and advance more slowly at the risk of Russin resistance stiffening after Smolensk *or* avoivd it altogether by giving Russia more say in the how the Continental System was enacted as well as territories on its border divided.