L’Aigle Triomphant: A Napoleonic Victory TL

excellent story i hope you can continue it
if not, will the French and the Russians take over the European territories from the Ottomans or will they leave the "sick man" of Europe alone
 
excellent story i hope you can continue it
if not, will the French and the Russians take over the European territories from the Ottomans or will they leave the "sick man" of Europe alone
Oh we'll get to the Ottomans! Bear in mind Russia is at war with them even as we speak.
 
Oh we'll get to the Ottomans! Bear in mind Russia is at war with them even as we speak.
Very interesting, so far even if I’m not quite sure that Alexander is going sincerely appreciate Napoleon’s help in this specific war out of fear that in addition to the desired result (Finland) he may get a much less desirable permanent French military presence in Sweden which, in the case of the future unpleasantries, may be more dangerous than Swedes in Finland. Then, of course, it would live Archangelsk as the only “napoleon-free” port and even this with some caveats. So if you want a continued …er… “brotherly love” between these two, moving French troops out of Sweden would be a reasonable even if uncharacteristic action by Napoleon (OTOH, in your TL he already did something unexpectedly intelligent by leaving Spain alone so no hope is lost). 😜

BTW, maybe you find a nice way to get rid of both Alexander and Constantine? IIRC,at this specific time Constantine was in a pacifistic mood but with him nothing could be taken for granted. Something like a nice cholera pandemic (yes, I know that the 1st one in Europe started in 1817 but can you move it ahead of a schedule a little bit? Death in a toilet seems fittingly “unheroic”) or typhus (already available). 😜 Russia is left with very young Nicholas at the helm and for a while is not active internationally.

As for the Ottoman War, the OTL Russian goals were quite modest with no grandiose plans like capturing the Straits. Just an absence if tensions with Napoleon would provide enough resources to finish it ahead of the schedule.

And how about Sweden’s dynastic crisis and their sincere wish to please Napoleon?
 
Last edited:
Very interesting, so far even if I’m not quite sure that Alexander is going sincerely appreciate Napoleon’s help in this specific war out of fear that in addition to the desired result (Finland) he may get a much less desirable permanent French military presence in Sweden which, in the case of the future unpleasantries, may be more dangerous than Swedes in Finland. Then, of course, it would live Archangelsk as the only “napoleon-free” port and even this with some caveats. So if you want a continued …er… “brotherly love” between these two, moving French troops out of Sweden would be a reasonable even if uncharacteristic action by Napoleon (OTOH, in your TL he already did something unexpectedly intelligent by leaving Spain alone so no hope is lost). 😜

BTW, maybe you find a nice way to get rid of both Alexander and Constantine? IIRC,at this specific time Constantine was in a pacifistic mood but with him nothing could be taken for granted. Something like a nice cholera pandemic (yes, I know that the 1st one in Europe started in 1817 but can you move it ahead of a schedule a little bit? Death in a toilet seems fittingly “unheroic”) or typhus (already available). 😜 Russia is left with very young Nicholas at the helm and for a while is not active internationally.

As for the Ottoman War, the OTL Russian goals were quite modest with no grandiose plans like capturing the Straits. Just an absence if tensions with Napoleon would provide enough resources to finish it ahead of the schedule.

And how about Sweden’s dynastic crisis and their sincere wish to please Napoleon?
Constantine is definitely somebody I want to use more of... though how exactly to make that happen best is still an open Q. Your suggestion isn't a bad one! Still need to find Nap a good bride who can bear him a son (unlike poor Josephine) as well.

IIRC, Russia just wanted modern day Romania (in effect - Wallachia and Moldavia) in order to have a presence on the Danube, no?

We'll be exploring Sweden's new dynasty here soon... suffice to say it shall not be Bernadotte on the throne this time around! (I have another name/dynasty in mind for that)
 
Constantine is definitely somebody I want to use more of... though how exactly to make that happen best is still an open Q.

The fundamental problem with him was that he seemingly inherited (without obvious reason) all his bad qualities (which was formed by the dedicated and continued effort of his “loving” mother to keep him permanently humiliated ) without any of the good ones like sincere wish to establish an order, fight corruption, limit expenses, etc. As a ruler he would be a disaster for everyone.

Your suggestion isn't a bad one! Still need to find Nap a good bride who can bear him a son (unlike poor Josephine) as well.

Well, you can make Alexander to override his mother and give his sister to Nappy before he dies: the mother did not have any real power, anyway. Of course, there would be usual the provisions about her retaining Orthodox faith. What’s the problem?
IIRC, Russia just wanted modern day Romania (in effect - Wallachia and Moldavia) in order to have a presence on the Danube, no?

AFAIK, not even that: it wanted to retain the pro-Russian rulers of the principalities and to have a small stretch of a border on the Danube (there were no serious tangible interest in that river).
We'll be exploring Sweden's new dynasty here soon... suffice to say it shall not be Bernadotte on the throne this time around! (I have another name/dynasty in mind for that)
Now, this seriously upsets me because I really like Bernadotte. And what are you going to do about him? 🥲
 
The fundamental problem with him was that he seemingly inherited (without obvious reason) all his bad qualities (which was formed by the dedicated and continued effort of his “loving” mother to keep him permanently humiliated ) without any of the good ones like sincere wish to establish an order, fight corruption, limit expenses, etc. As a ruler he would be a disaster for everyone.



Well, you can make Alexander to override his mother and give his sister to Nappy before he dies: the mother did not have any real power, anyway. Of course, there would be usual the provisions about her retaining Orthodox faith. What’s the problem?


AFAIK, not even that: it wanted to retain the pro-Russian rulers of the principalities and to have a small stretch of a border on the Danube (there were no serious tangible interest in that river).

Now, this seriously upsets me because I really like Bernadotte. And what are you going to do about him? 🥲
That's the rub that makes Yekaterina a difficult candidate; her being Orthodox makes her a tough sell in France (though the convention to have boys raised in the faith of the father and girls in the faith of the mother within European royalty is a potential workaround). Napoleon's brothers and nephews still have roles to play too, I imagine.

Oh I like him too! As a Swede it's hard not to be a homer haha. He'll have plenty of value to Napoleon over the years to come.
 
That's the rub that makes Yekaterina a difficult candidate; her being Orthodox makes her a tough sell in France (though the convention to have boys raised in the faith of the father and girls in the faith of the mother within European royalty is a potential workaround).

Napoleon's brothers and nephews still have roles to play too, I imagine.

Taking into the account that, even comparing to the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanovs the Bonaparte family were not even aristocratic and that Nappy did not have a habit over paying excessive attention to the wishes of his relatives, I’d suggest that the arrangement you mentioned would work just fine.

Oh I like him too! As a Swede it's hard not to be a homer haha. He'll have plenty of value to Napoleon over the years to come.
Well, here we have a serious problem. Unlike pretty much all marshals, Bernadotte did not consider himself a servant. He promised loyalty but not servitude and preferred to retain as much of independence as he could and, both in the military and administrative affairs, performed better as a reasonably independent player than as a subordinate. His bad relations with Berthier resulted in him being regularly set up, which did not improve situation and on the top of this there were his “gasconades” (addresses to his troops, which were pissing off Napoleon). Of course, after each specific case he managed to restore the relations because Nappy was a sucker to a primitive flattery coming from the unexpected corner but what Nappy could offer to him in a long run? Pretty much nothing meaningful.
 
Taking into the account that, even comparing to the Holstein-Gottorp-Romanovs the Bonaparte family were not even aristocratic and that Nappy did not have a habit over paying excessive attention to the wishes of his relatives, I’d suggest that the arrangement you mentioned would work just fine.


Well, here we have a serious problem. Unlike pretty much all marshals, Bernadotte did not consider himself a servant. He promised loyalty but not servitude and preferred to retain as much of independence as he could and, both in the military and administrative affairs, performed better as a reasonably independent player than as a subordinate. His bad relations with Berthier resulted in him being regularly set up, which did not improve situation and on the top of this there were his “gasconades” (addresses to his troops, which were pissing off Napoleon). Of course, after each specific case he managed to restore the relations because Nappy was a sucker to a primitive flattery coming from the unexpected corner but what Nappy could offer to him in a long run? Pretty much nothing meaningful.
Could work, though it looks like the Russian Dowager Empress was already lining her up for Oldenburg by the point of the POD. Rats. Same goes for my backup option for Nappy, Maximilian of Bavaria's daughter, Caroline.
 

Deleted member 143920

Still need to find Nap a good bride who can bear him a son (unlike poor Josephine) as well.
@KingSweden24 @alexmilman As for Napoleon's marriage, I had previously mentioned Catherine of Russia, although that doesn't seem the case anymore. Napoleon could still marry Marie Louise or maybe have Maria Augusta of Saxony, but she is definitely too old for Napoleon. He could also marry Maria Beatrice of Savoy (my favourite out of these suggestions) and in exchange give her father the former kingdom of Etruria to make him an ally. Another suggestion would be Amalie of Baden or Caroline of Denmark, although religion might be an issue. Other than that, I'm not sure since every other match would be from an insignificant Duke as most of the great powers in Europe have daughters that are either too young, too old or already married.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Could work, though it looks like the Russian Dowager Empress was already lining her up for Oldenburg by the point of the POD. Rats. Same goes for my backup option for Nappy, Maximilian of Bavaria's daughter, Caroline.
The Dowager Empress could operate as long as she was allowed by her son. If he seriously wants something different (not the case in OTL), his will prevails (as was the case with the CS, which she opposed with the, typically, most idiotic arguments): he is an autocrat and if she is unhappy, she can depart to Gatchina or some other place to show her unhappiness but she does not have any real power. Ah yes, she can refuse to give a parental blessing (nice to have but not necessary because the issue of a dowry is not in her hands) but that’s pretty much it.

Not that I’m too much into the matchmaking schemas but it seems that in your TL the Russian marriage is important for both sides because (unlike OTL) they do want an alliance with a certain degree of a sincerity. With the possible exception of Austrian marriage none of the rest addresses much more than a purely breeding issue (alliance with some minor German or Italian state is pretty much meaningless geopolitically).
 
Last edited:
The Dowager Empress could operate as long as she was allowed by her son. If he seriously wants something different (not the case in OTL), his will prevails (as was the case with the CS, which she opposed with the, typically, most idiotic arguments): he is an autocrat and if she is unhappy, she can depart to Gatchina or some other place to show her unhappiness but she does not have any real power. Ah yes, she can refuse to give a parental blessing (nice to have but not necessary because the issue of a dowry is not in her hands) but that’s pretty much it.

Not that I’m too much into the matchmaking schemas but it seems that in your TL the Russian marriage is important for both sides because (unlike OTL) they do want an alliance with a certain degree of a sincerity. With the possible exception of Austrian marriage none of the rest addresses much more than a purely breeding issue (alliance with some minor German or Italian state is pretty much meaningless geopolitically).
Fair point. Maybe I'll stick to that one, then, to not jumble up too many other royal marriages of this time too badly
 
Fair point. Maybe I'll stick to that one, then, to not jumble up too many other royal marriages of this time too badly
And now. when we have that major issue settled, how about you being a loyal Swede and reconsider your evil plans regarding the ruling dynasty? (*) 😂😂😂😂😂😂

_________
(*) As the most important consideration, which other couple would provide more anecdotes and national entertainment then the founders of the present dynasty? 🤪
 
And now. when we have that major issue settled, how about you being a loyal Swede and reconsider your evil plans regarding the ruling dynasty? (*) 😂😂😂😂😂😂

_________
(*) As the most important consideration, which other couple would provide more anecdotes and national entertainment then the founders of the present dynasty? 🤪

You mean THIS guy's descendants won't wear THIS hat??
 

Attachments

  • Silly Hat.jpg
    Silly Hat.jpg
    40 KB · Views: 53

You mean THIS guy's descendants won't wear THIS hat??
I was commenting only about the founders, not the following generations but, anyway, the prince you are talking about just gave himself a trouble to be born and, while he was initially a top candidate, he was not approved by Nappy, did not fit a desired profile (military experience) and let himself to be easily outmaneuvered by a complete outsider. Most of the wiki page on him is about his marriage and children. Sweden at that time was in a very difficult situation and, IMO, needed much more than just a well-bred nothing.
 
I was commenting only about the founders, not the following generations but, anyway, the prince you are talking about just gave himself a trouble to be born and, while he was initially a top candidate, he was not approved by Nappy, did not fit a desired profile (military experience) and let himself to be easily outmaneuvered by a complete outsider. Most of the wiki page on him is about his marriage and children. Sweden at that time was in a very difficult situation and, IMO, needed much more than just a well-bred nothing.
After losing Finland and having its king couped out only to be replaced by an indigent, it certainly did!
 
Rule of the Seas
Rule of the Seas
"...what I would give instead to have my feet on the Continent, helping drive the Corsican from every conquered capital, than here, to do what?"

- Arthur Wellesley


The successful defeat of Sweden in the Finnish War - which ceded all of Finland to Russia as a grand duchy, left Sweden with an invalid, childless and weak new King inheriting a political crisis, earned France and Denmark substantial indemnities in turn that would bankrupt the poor Scandinavian kingdom for decades and forced it into the Continental System - also included a rare naval defeat for the Royal Navy at the Oresund. Though no Trafalgar or Copenhagen, not even close, the battle and the subsequent exit of Sweden from the war left Britain outside the Baltic and suddenly bereft of formal allies anywhere in Europe, but otherwise in command of both the North Sea and the Mediterranean and thus able to continue to enforce its will regarding a blockade of French ports and defending the expansion of British trade worldwide in the absence of competition. It was a strange stalemate, that France utterly dominated Europe now as 1809 dawned but Britain dominated beyond, each desiring what the other had, with Britain lacking an army or alliance to challenge Paris and France lacking a navy to challenge London.

Though the incomes from Europe had been somewhat augmented by overseas trade (and smuggling), hard power was still the backbone of British naval policy and Britannia took advantage of her dominance at sea to consolidate her position even as Napoleon used the broad peace ushered in with the Treaty of Stockholm to allow Europe to breathe and settle under the Napoleonic Codes and Continental System. Spain was wholly cut off from her New World; in 1808 a British force was dispatched to Tobago under Arthur Wellesley to intervene in Venezuela alongside Francisco de Miranda, a patriot seeking to fight for independence, a sharp departure from their policy in their own Thirteen Colonies thirty years prior but in line with their attempts to seize Buenos Aires a year before. The British shelled Havana and seized St. Augustine later that autumn, and continued to harass formally neutral American vessels, making the outgoing Jefferson administration's Embargo Act even more unpopular in the United States.

Despite their dominance at sea, though, talk in London by early 1809 began to swirl around the long term. The Continental System was ineffective at keeping British commerce fully locked out of Europe, but the blockade was not succeeding in economically starving Napoleon, either. Feelers to the Austrians continued quietly but after the Third Coalition had ended in failure and humiliation for the Habsburgs at Pressburg, Francis I was reluctant to stick his neck out again, at least until he had rebuilt his forces sufficiently. In all, the British position was mixed, despite some positive reports from Wellesley regarding the Venezuelan Expedition, suggesting to Lord Portland's Cabinet that operations in the New World to try to force Spain to exit French hegemony could bear fruit. The question in London for those skeptical of further war was this: how long was Britain willing to go on against Napoleon alone? At what cost, to what end? How would victory be achieved? What was such a victory worth...?
 

Deleted member 143920

Rule of the Seas
"...what I would give instead to have my feet on the Continent, helping drive the Corsican from every conquered capital, than here, to do what?"

- Arthur Wellesley


The successful defeat of Sweden in the Finnish War - which ceded all of Finland to Russia as a grand duchy, left Sweden with an invalid, childless and weak new King inheriting a political crisis, earned France and Denmark substantial indemnities in turn that would bankrupt the poor Scandinavian kingdom for decades and forced it into the Continental System - also included a rare naval defeat for the Royal Navy at the Oresund. Though no Trafalgar or Copenhagen, not even close, the battle and the subsequent exit of Sweden from the war left Britain outside the Baltic and suddenly bereft of formal allies anywhere in Europe, but otherwise in command of both the North Sea and the Mediterranean and thus able to continue to enforce its will regarding a blockade of French ports and defending the expansion of British trade worldwide in the absence of competition. It was a strange stalemate, that France utterly dominated Europe now as 1809 dawned but Britain dominated beyond, each desiring what the other had, with Britain lacking an army or alliance to challenge Paris and France lacking a navy to challenge London.

Though the incomes from Europe had been somewhat augmented by overseas trade (and smuggling), hard power was still the backbone of British naval policy and Britannia took advantage of her dominance at sea to consolidate her position even as Napoleon used the broad peace ushered in with the Treaty of Stockholm to allow Europe to breathe and settle under the Napoleonic Codes and Continental System. Spain was wholly cut off from her New World; in 1808 a British force was dispatched to Tobago under Arthur Wellesley to intervene in Venezuela alongside Francisco de Miranda, a patriot seeking to fight for independence, a sharp departure from their policy in their own Thirteen Colonies thirty years prior but in line with their attempts to seize Buenos Aires a year before. The British shelled Havana and seized St. Augustine later that autumn, and continued to harass formally neutral American vessels, making the outgoing Jefferson administration's Embargo Act even more unpopular in the United States.

Despite their dominance at sea, though, talk in London by early 1809 began to swirl around the long term. The Continental System was ineffective at keeping British commerce fully locked out of Europe, but the blockade was not succeeding in economically starving Napoleon, either. Feelers to the Austrians continued quietly but after the Third Coalition had ended in failure and humiliation for the Habsburgs at Pressburg, Francis I was reluctant to stick his neck out again, at least until he had rebuilt his forces sufficiently. In all, the British position was mixed, despite some positive reports from Wellesley regarding the Venezuelan Expedition, suggesting to Lord Portland's Cabinet that operations in the New World to try to force Spain to exit French hegemony could bear fruit. The question in London for those skeptical of further war was this: how long was Britain willing to go on against Napoleon alone? At what cost, to what end? How would victory be achieved? What was such a victory worth...?

Another interesting update! Perhaps those long-term thinkers will be able to negotiate a peace with Napoleon: the return of Hanover, ending of the continental system and a few other concessions should be enough; after all, Britain has no allies left.
 
Another interesting update! Perhaps those long-term thinkers will be able to negotiate a peace with Napoleon: the return of Hanover, ending of the continental system and a few other concessions should be enough; after all, Britain has no allies left.
Hanover is definitely the sticking point, for both sides
 
Top