L’Aigle Triomphant: A Napoleonic Victory TL

But at the cost of having to garrison a hostile desert country. That would cost significantly more then the piracy. Heck you could just do a bombardment of the main harbors and call it a job well done,
Why would you bother going into the desert? I am speaking of the coast you now where peoples actually live. Algeria, Tunis and Tripoli are basically the Somalia of the time bombing them won't solve the problem the pirates will set up shop a little further and resume their raiding and slaving. And the region is still relatively lightly populated it's not yet the massive population of the 20th century. Even the US intervention otl didn't stop piracy, bombing the place would do nothing.
 
Last edited:
But at the cost of having to garrison a hostile desert country. That would cost significantly more then the piracy. Heck you could just do a bombardment of the main harbors and call it a job well done,
There's also imperial pride and cultural supremacy to consider. It's the mid-19th Century. Leveraging your country's might to depose a millennia old cultural rival (Islam) with the bonus of interfering with piracy and slavery of Christians? That sounds exactly like something a powerful nationalist empire would do. Especially if you want to keep conservative military elements busy on the periphery.
 
There's also imperial pride and cultural supremacy to consider. It's the mid-19th Century. Leveraging your country's might to depose a millennia old cultural rival (Islam) with the bonus of interfering with piracy and slavery of Christians? That sounds exactly like something a powerful nationalist empire would do. Especially if you want to keep conservative military elements busy on the periphery.
Let's not forget the french empire do not have the insight we have.
 
Why would you bother going into the desert? I am speaking of the coast you now where peoples actually live. Algeria, Tunis and Tripoli are basically the Somalia of the time bombing them won't solve the problem the pirates will set up shop a little further and resume their raiding and slaving. And the region is still relatively lightly populated it's not yet the massive population of the 20th century. Even the US intervention otl didn't stop piracy, bombing the place would do nothing.
Thing is, the French policymakers thought the same thing at the time, but they kept having to invade more into the desert and dump more resources to pacify one more tribe, then one more tribe, then one more tribe, then one more tribe...

Like I said, France is riding high on glory and dosen't need any more prestige, especially because any military build up is gonna alarm Europe (especially the Brits), so Napoleon might want to "suggest" the idea to the Spaniards and let them waste money and man on colonizing and pacifying the area, couple that with the fact they're still allies and France suddenly has access to brand new ports it can use from a friendly power, sold a lot of manufactured goods to a country and will have french image improved in Spain by having supported them " in The Last Crusade", Napoleon would certainly be crafty enough to do so.
 
Thing is, the French policymakers thought the same thing at the time, but they kept having to invade more into the desert and dump more resources to pacify one more tribe, then one more tribe, then one more tribe, then one more tribe...

Like I said, France is riding high on glory and dosen't need any more prestige, especially because any military build up is gonna alarm Europe (especially the Brits), so Napoleon might want to "suggest" the idea to the Spaniards and let them waste money and man on colonizing and pacifying the area, couple that with the fact they're still allies and France suddenly has access to brand new ports it can use from a friendly power, sold a lot of manufactured goods to a country and will have french image improved in Spain by having supported them " in The Last Crusade", Napoleon would certainly be crafty enough to do so.

I dunno, I think French policymakers would be thinking pretty much the same thing ITTL as they did OTL when it comes to Algeria. Conservative elements will always be looking for an outlet to showcase military might and, with Europe at peace, the next closest spot is across the Mediterranean. Besides, by the time Algeria is on the docket, Napoleon I is probably going to be in a mausoleum in Saint-Denis.
 
I dunno, I think French policymakers would be thinking pretty much the same thing ITTL as they did OTL when it comes to Algeria. Conservative elements will always be looking for an outlet to showcase military might and, with Europe at peace, the next closest spot is across the Mediterranean. Besides, by the time Algeria is on the docket, Napoleon I is probably going to be in a mausoleum in Saint-Denis.
I suspect that Egypt is more likely to be France's target than Algeria if France seeks expansion in Northern Africa.
 
I suspect that Egypt is more likely to be France's target than Algeria if France seeks expansion in Northern Africa.

If they decide to go on a military excursion while Napoleon is still alive I'd see that for sure. If he decides to maintain peace until his death (whether it's the same as OTL or later), I wonder if his successor would go for Egypt. More likely to get into conflict with the Ottomans that way. Algeria is more removed from the Sublime Porte and has a more obvious cassus belli.
 
I suspect that Egypt is more likely to be France's target than Algeria if France seeks expansion in Northern Africa.
This, Egypt is better in every way to Algeria in population, resources and strategic location, plus Napoleon wasn't someone who forgot slights (real or otherwise) so he'd definitely take the chance to "avenge the Armee of Le Orient" and take it's important assets for himself.

Early Suez canal by Napoleonic France?
 
No because the barbary states piracy must be ended and Morocco isn't enought to stop it. Algier, Tunis and Tripoli must be neutralized if the mediteranean slaves trade is to be destroyed.
Thing is, French invasion of Algeria started mostly because the reinstalled bourbon kings needed something to give them legitimacy to the people and this had the best casus beli ("moorish slavers attacking good christians"), in here, Napoleon doesn't need to prove himself to anyone so there's no reason for him to go and start a costly war against a resistant population for no gain other than some coastal strip.

Like I said, it's better to build up the French navy and have them gain experience by patrolling the Mediterranean and using allied and satellite states harbours to strike at them, and to let the Spanish actually deal with the costs of brutalizing and colonizing those areas, it gives them something to do, would "rally the people around the flag" and gives a excellent opportunity for French businesses to sell guns and other necessities to the Spanish given they're still lagging behind, it's easy, it's cheap and it allows France to wash any hands in accusations of "war mongering" "barbaric crimes against the local population" and "building their armies for disrupting the balance of power"
Personally, I think of it as a middle ground here. I do agree with what you say though. The reason for the French invasion of Algeria was only to shore up support in home (which ultimately failed shortly after they took Algiers because the July Revolution happened literally three weeks afterwards), not to end the Mediterranean slave trade. Napoleon has nothing to prove and though it is unknown whether or not he would have issues at home by 1830 ITTL, it is also hard to say if Napoleon would still be alive by 1830. On paper he should, he did die age 51, but whether if it was the results of the poison that weakened over time and failed to kill him then and there, or by more natural causes (or by something that could be treatable in France but not in Saint Helena) is so up in the air that only the man upstairs knows for sure. Either way, if Nappy lives to see 1830, or if it happens earlier, it's not going to be Nappy to do it.

With that being said however, just because Nappy wouldn't do it doesn't mean that you can't have someone else do the job. As you said Kurd, the Spanish monarchy needs to rebuild its legitimacy after the debacle with Ferdinand and they could definitely benefit from this scheme. As an alternative to throw around, the Neapolitans under Joseph Bonaparte could also play this role as well, being probably the only significant regional power in Italy that isn't one of the current continental hegemons that control much of the boot. I'd also make an argument for the Bourbons of Sicily proper, but I dunno if they're even still around.
Why would you bother going into the desert? I am speaking of the coast you now where peoples actually live. Algeria, Tunis and Tripoli are basically the Somalia of the time bombing them won't solve the problem the pirates will set up shop a little further and resume their raiding and slaving. And the region is still relatively lightly populated it's not yet the massive population of the 20th century. Even the US intervention otl didn't stop piracy, bombing the place would do nothing.
^This. We're far and away removed from the Scramble for Africa and no country was willing to make a play at conquering empty desert this early into the game, just to put in perspective, the conquest of Algeria, not Algiers or the coastline, but the lands that would make up the modern day People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, wasn't completed until 1903, 73 years after the conquest of Algiers.
 
Last edited:
Personally, I think of it as a middle ground here. I do agree with what you say though. The reason for the French invasion of Algeria was only to shore up support in home (which ultimately failed shortly after they took Algiers because the July Revolution happened literally three weeks afterwards), not to end the Mediterranean slave trade. Napoleon has nothing to prove and though it is unknown whether or not he would have issues at home by 1830 ITTL, it is also hard to say if Napoleon would still be alive by 1830. On paper he should, he did die age 51, but whether if it was the results of the poison that weakened over time and failed to kill him then and there, or by more natural causes (or by something that could be treatable in France but not in Saint Helena) is so up in the air that only the man upstairs knows for sure. Either way, if Nappy lives to see 1830, or if it happens earlier, it's not going to be Nappy to do it.

With that being said however, just because Nappy wouldn't do it doesn't mean that you can't have someone else do the job. As you said Kurd, the Spanish monarchy needs to rebuild its legitimacy after the debacle with Ferdinand and they could definitely benefit from this scheme. As an alternative to throw around, the Neapolitans under Joseph Bonaparte could also play this role as well, being probably the only significant regional power in Italy that isn't one of the current continental hegemons that control much of the boot. I'd also make an argument for the Bourbons of Sicily proper, but I dunno if they're even still around.

^This. We're far and away removed from the Scramble for Africa and no country was willing to make a play at conquering empty desert this early into the game, just to put in perspective, the conquest of Algeria, not Algiers or the coastline, but the lands that would make up the modern day People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, wasn't completed until 1903, 73 years after the conquest of Algiers.
I didn't even consider the kingdom of Naples tbh, thanks for reminding me of them, but I could definitely see them do it alongside the Spanish for many of the same reasons (especially because they suffered a lot from Barbary pirates) and could "split the bill" over who gets what territory with France acting as a "mediator" between them, increase his own influence by expanding the territory of his allies and satellite states
 
^This. We're far and away removed from the Scramble for Africa and no country was willing to make a play at conquering empty desert this early into the game, just to put in perspective, the conquest of Algeria, not Algiers or the coastline, but the lands that would make up the modern day People's Democratic Republic of Algeria, wasn't completed until 1903, 73 years after the conquest of Algiers.

Absolutely, any expedition against "Algeria" would be against the Barbary Coast and its ports. It would be more like the coastal outpost colonialism of the 17th and 18th centuries than the land-grab colonialism of the late-19th.
 
Absolutely, any expedition against "Algeria" would be against the Barbary Coast and its ports. It would be more like the coastal outpost colonialism of the 17th and 18th centuries than the land-grab colonialism of the late-19th.
That's what I was advocating just the coastal region to put a end to piracy. Napoleon could even set up a puppet state there if needed.
 
That's what I was advocating just the coastal region to put a end to piracy. Napoleon could even set up a puppet state there if needed.
Yeah but again, while I agree that the piracy can be ended as per OTL (although again, I argue that ending piracy was never the point to begin with IOTL) I do not believe Napoleon needs to be the one that has to do it. Honestly, I don't even think Nappy would care about the issue anymore than Charles X did.
 
If they decide to go on a military excursion while Napoleon is still alive I'd see that for sure. If he decides to maintain peace until his death (whether it's the same as OTL or later), I wonder if his successor would go for Egypt. More likely to get into conflict with the Ottomans that way. Algeria is more removed from the Sublime Porte and has a more obvious cassus belli.
I believe any son of Napoléon would feel the urge of completing their father's grand oeuvre and proving themselves worthy of it, by conquering the place that Napoleon failed to retain.
 

Gabingston

Kicked
This, Egypt is better in every way to Algeria in population, resources and strategic location, plus Napoleon wasn't someone who forgot slights (real or otherwise) so he'd definitely take the chance to "avenge the Armee of Le Orient" and take it's important assets for himself.

Early Suez canal by Napoleonic France?
I find a French Suez Canal to be highly likely ITTL. France's naval goals would most likely be to turn the Mediterranean into Notre Mer, and if they could do that, a French Suez is not a matter of if, but when.
 
I find a French Suez Canal to be highly likely ITTL. France's naval goals would most likely be to turn the Mediterranean into Notre Mer, and if they could do that, a French Suez is not a matter of if, but when.
Yes a sea out of reach to Britain while allowing France to project force all over the world with the Suez canal.
 
I think invading Algeria would be a massive diversion of resources (OTL Algerians resisted French colonization every time) without as much strategic benefit as invading Egypt would provide. Furthermore, Napoleon would need the army at home to surpress rebels in the European countries France puppeted. On the other hand, unlike OTL there is nobody to stop this strengthened France from invading Egypt.
 
Last edited:
Top