Most plausible Europe after a Napoleonic victory?

[Neoteros]

I am planning to do a mod for A House Divided whose POD is a plausible victory of Napoleon, in order to create an Athens/Sparta-like scenario in which London controls the seas, while Paris dominates the continent. How can such a scenario come true? The most obvious answer would be to have Napoleon's troops mirror Alexander's, realizing that invading Russia is nothing but a suicide and forcing l'Empereur to return to France and start to reorganize his domains. But how will he deal with the lands he conquered? What will the map of Europe look like? If someone has an idea, help me

 

[MSZ]

This is probably the anwser to what you are looking for:
https://www.alternatehistory.com/discussion/showthread.php?t=90610
A long and really good read, so get some food and drinks ready once you start

On a personal note: I did once think about making a Napoleonic victory timeline. My general thoughts were that the 1812 offensive against Russia would take place through the Baltic states to Petersburg, allowing Napoleon's army to experience a milder climate so that it can take the Capital and keep it for launching another offensive in 1813 against Moscow and Ukraine. Problem with this was that a) Britain still dominated the Baltic, making the ses-supply-lines there just as vulerable as those going through the Russian swamps and plains; so somehow France would have to muster a force capable of blocking the Danish straits first b) Summer was just as seadly for the Grandee Armee as winter was, so launching any further campaigns in 1813 would still be likely to end a failure; this might be butterflied with capitalizing more on the victories he had earlier, go easier on Spain to get Spanish manpower, use the liberated Balts as allies, return more territories to for Polish support, maybe break the Habsburg Empire to bring Hungary to his side c) Even if Russia was to capitulate by having lost Petersburg, Moscow and Kiev, that wouldn't keep Britain from fighting on, as it can live with the continental blockade better than France can, outproducing all of Europe in naval production to keep itself safe, while the French Empire goes bankrupt and tears itself apart through the nationalistic movements it started itself. The least France would have to to get peace would be to withdraw from the Netherlands and Flanders wholesale, which Napoleon knowing his ego would not do. So unless the French Empire magically solves its problems after defeating Russia (grain from Ukraine, trade with the rest of Russia), the Napoleonic wars would go on for a few more, but still lead to a French defeat.

 

[Simreeve]

But was Napoleon actually psychologically capable of stopping?

 

[Faeelin]

But was Napoleon actually psychologically capable of stopping?

Sure, why not? Britain sated itself after it seized the best parts of the world's maritime empires or forced them into its economic orbit.

 

[Simreeve]

Sure, why not? Britain sated itself after it seized the best parts of the world's maritime empires or forced them into its economic orbit.

Maybe because he didn't really show any sign of doing so OTL? An individual dictator and an (at least) semi-democratic nation don't really make very good comparisons with each other.

 

[MSZ]

But was Napoleon actually psychologically capable of stopping?

Sure, why not? Britain sated itself after it seized the best parts of the world's maritime empires or forced them into its economic orbit.

I think what Simreeve is refering here to is the historological theory of Napoleon being such an egomaniac who lusted for constant war, always having "one last battle" to fight so his dominion could be complete, that he couldn't accept lasting peace.

It is a British theory though - one meant to paint him badly/worse. There really isn't isn't buch evidence to back, especially with most of his wars being defensive ones, started by the coalitions against him.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

I am planning to do a mod for A House Divided whose POD is a plausible victory of Napoleon, in order to create an Athens/Sparta-like scenario in which London controls the seas, while Paris dominates the continent. How can such a scenario come true? The most obvious answer would be to have Napoleon's troops mirror Alexander's, realizing that invading Russia is nothing but a suicide and forcing l'Empereur to return to France and start to reorganize his domains. But how will he deal with the lands he conquered? What will the map of Europe look like? If someone has an idea, help me

I was actually working on a mod like that for vanilla Vicky2. If you'd like, I could send you some of the files. PM me.

 

[Faeelin]

IIt is a British theory though - one meant to paint him badly/worse. There really isn't isn't buch evidence to back, especially with most of his wars being defensive ones, started by the coalitions against him.

I know.

I can think of one major fluke Napoleon comitted, the invasion of Spain. Everything else? Well, can someone point something out to me?

I mean, Britain went to war with various Indian states, the United States, Spain, the Netherlands, Russia, the Ottoman Empire, and Denmark during this period. It seized an entire subcontinent, Malaya, tried to seize Argentina and Uruguay (because it could really?), tried to seize Santo Domingo, invaded Egypt, and yet we always view France as a warmonger.

Meanwhile, let's consider the idea of a Franco-Russian alliance post Tilsit. What does this entail? Well, Russia grabbed Finland and went to war with the Ottomans in OTL. We could give it Poland, I guess, although I welcome examples of when states gave nations they defeated in war territory.

Maybe a joint invasion of the Ottoman Empire? But the Tsar wanted the straits...

Edit: I forgot the conflict in 1806 between Britain and Prussia over Hanover.

 

[MSZ]

Meanwhile, let's consider the idea of a Franco-Russian alliance post Tilsit. What does this entail? Well, Russia grabbed Finland and went to war with the Ottomans in OTL. We could give it Poland, I guess, although I welcome examples of when states gave nations they defeated in war territory.

Maybe a joint invasion of the Ottoman Empire? But the Tsar wanted the straits...

Problem with such an alliance is that there would be little to hold it together other than the necessity of temporary peace... And once thattemporary necessity is gone, realism kicks in. Russia has no reason to be part of the Continental System, France does. France has no reason to go to war with the Ottoman's, Russia does. This really can't be changed. With Alexander and Napoleon being so damn suspicious of each other, they will not commit themselves to fighting the other parties wars. Maybe Alexander's death could change that, Constantine Pavlovich being more of a military man and less of a politician, though he probably would have to fight for the throne (not sure if it would be him becoming regent, or if the not-yet-of-age Nicholas would get the throne).

Poland would be tricky issue after Tilsit, can't imagine the Poles not wanting to get back their territories, or Russia allowing them to do that, even at Austria's or Prussia's expanse. This could likely lead to war. And even if Napoleon gave up the Poles, that would just invite more rebellious activity in Russia... but could well occupy Russia for long enough to not want to bother with Napoleon, giving him the time he needs to get a peace with Britain and consolidate his rule. How much stable those two Empires would be, and if Britain would even want peace is a different matter.

 

[Last of the Stuarts]

It is a British theory though - one meant to paint him badly/worse. There really isn't isn't buch evidence to back, especially with most of his wars being defensive ones, started by the coalitions against him.

One has to ask if he was the peace loving person you paint him WHY these coalitions kept forming? I know the Brit's enjoy annoying the French but this can't be the sole reason they came into being time and time again.

 

[LSCatilina]

One has to ask if he was the peace loving person you paint him WHY these coalitions kept forming? I know the Brit's enjoy annoying the French but this can't be the sole reason they came into being time and time again.

You mean, apart the will of all the coalised to put an end to all this "Citizenship" or "down with absolutism" thing?

 

[Faeelin]

Problem with such an alliance is that there would be little to hold it together other than the necessity of temporary peace... And once thattemporary necessity is gone, realism kicks in. Russia has no reason to be part of the Continental System, France does. France has no reason to go to war with the Ottoman's, Russia does. This really can't be changed. With Alexander and Napoleon being so damn suspicious of each other, they will not commit themselves to fighting the other parties wars. .

I think an Austrian alliance has more merit; give Austria back Silesia after Tilsit (I haven't heard if this was ever considered, does anyone know?) as compensation for Lombardy, maybe Poland....

But this might be hindsight. We know Mettenrich was more cautious than Russia; but did old Boney know that?

 

[Thande]

It really depends on how and when Napoleon won. It's not like discussing Nazi victories where they were ideologically driven and had a fairly coherent map idea of how they were going to reshape Europe once they won regardless of the circumstances. Napoleon was more pragmatic, the borders in postwar Europe will be shaped depending on the precise circumstances. For example, after the Winter War of 1806 Napoleon wanted to abolish Prussia altogether (presumably breaking it up between smaller German states allied to him) but was dissuaded because Tsar Alexander would never have accepted that and Napoleon wanted the Peace of Tilsit. So if Napoleon was in a stronger position in the War of the Fourth Coalition, Prussia might have been torn apart, and this situation might have lasted long enough to destroy the idea of a greater Prussian identity in all the bits the Fredericks had conquered and added to Brandenburg. Or alternatively, like OTL in the 1806-13-ish period, Napoleon could have let a rump Prussia survive as a weak ally and Prussia could have bounced back at the first available moment, playing France and Russia off against each other. So issues like this obviously have a major effect on what "a Napoleonic victory" map looks like.

 

[Last of the Stuarts]

You mean, apart the will of all the coalised to put an end to all this "Citizenship" or "down with absolutism" thing?

So his jouney to Egypt was to help them over throw their oppresive leaders, ditto Italy, Austria ditto ad nauseum.

If Napoleon was such a republican that he scared the rest of Europe into war with him how come he kept making his brothers Kings?

I will give you the First Coalition was most likely formed to stop the French revolution spreading, the next six where there to stop French agression.

 

[eliphas8]

One has to ask if he was the peace loving person you paint him WHY these coalitions kept forming? I know the Brit's enjoy annoying the French but this can't be the sole reason they came into being time and time again.

Just because he was aggressive doesn't mean he wont stop once French hegemony was largely established and his enemies are cowed. Being a warmonger and a fighter doesnt mean that you dont have a point for what you're doing.

 

[MSZ]

I think an Austrian alliance has more merit; give Austria back Silesia after Tilsit (I haven't heard if this was ever considered, does anyone know?) as compensation for Lombardy, maybe Poland....

But this might be hindsight. We know Mettenrich was more cautious than Russia; but did old Boney know that?

Would make sense from a pure realpolitik perspective, but Napoleon kind of was against the absolutism Austria embodied - not that ideals mattered much. There was a lot animosity between France and Austria historically - lets not forget that it was those two powers that spent most of the previous centuries battling over who has more influence over the HRE realms. By forming an alliance, Austria would have to accept permanent French domination over the Rheinbund, something it wasn't ready to do. And Metternich really didn't like those "nationalism", "citizenship", "liberalism", "freedom to nations" things Napoleon spoke highly of. So again if such an alliance formed, it would be of tactical convienience, probably even worse than an alliance with Russia as Russia was less interested in the zone of influence France felt very strongly about.

 

[LSCatilina]

So his jouney to Egypt was to help them over throw their oppresive leaders, ditto Italy, Austria ditto ad nauseum.

If Napoleon was such a republican that he scared the rest of Europe into war with him how come he kept making his brothers Kings?

Because Napoléon tought -with some reason for some places- that the better way to impose revolution's creation was to adapt them into a mix of republican and monarchic values.

But these kingdoms were nowhere close to what were imperial Russia, or Austria regarding reactionnarism or oppression.

I will give you the First Coalition was most likely formed to stop the French revolution spreading, the next six where there to stop French agression.

You miss my point : Napoleon wasn't particularly democratic. But the French Revolution wasn't either. It never avoided to have positive things as civic equality to appear and widespread thanks to Napoléon (Code Civil, someone?).

So, yes, that's frightened the old kings and emperors that were about the old fashioned way.

I would just go with 1802 war. UK is the agressor there, because they not only declared the war, but refused to apply the Treaty of Amiens in order to push Napoléon to declare war first.

 

[Last of the Stuarts]

Just because he was aggressive doesn't mean he wont stop once French hegemony was largely established and his enemies are cowed. Being a warmonger and a fighter doesnt mean that you dont have a point for what you're doing.

Yes but at what point is the hegemony established? With the defeat of the German states, Italy and Spain so the French boarders are secure? With the destruction of the HRE so that France is not challanged in Western / Central Europe? With the disruction of Russia so that France is the major power in Europe?

My general thoughts were that the 1812 offensive against Russia would take place through the Baltic states to Petersburg, allowing Napoleon's army to experience a milder climate so that it can take the Capital and keep it for launching another offensive in 1813 against Moscow and Ukraine. Problem with this was that a) Britain still dominated the Baltic, making the ses-supply-lines there just as vulerable as those going through the Russian swamps and plains; so somehow France would have to muster a force capable of blocking the Danish straits first

The quick way to close the straits is to have Sweden ally with France rather than Russia. With fortifications on both sides turned against them then it would make the journey almost suicidal. Russia would also face an army to the north as well as the south.

 

[Last of the Stuarts]

Given that Napoleon broke the Treaty of Lunéville not once but twice in the time between the start of treaty negotiations and the time the Brit's had to withdraw from Malta, plus getting a huge amount of gold from the Americans for Louisiana I'm not sure that anyone would have just handed Malta over to a no existant group (since Napoleon disolved the Knights of St John with his invasion 4 years earlier).

 

[Faeelin]

Given that Napoleon broke the Treaty of Lunéville not once but twice in the time between the start of treaty negotiations and the time the Brit's had to withdraw from Malta, plus getting a huge amount of gold from the Americans for Louisiana I'm not sure that anyone would have just handed Malta over to a no existant group (since Napoleon disolved the Knights of St John with his invasion 4 years earlier).

Okay, some thoughts here. It's not clear why the breaches of Luneville give Britain, which was not a party to the Treaty, give Britain a cause to go to war and not Austria. I'm also not sure why Napoleon's decision to sell Louisiana is an act of war either.

Meanwhile, the British didn't withdraw from Egypt, nor did they withdraw from a superb naval base in the Mediterranean. If Britain objected to handing over Malta on the grounds that there was no one to hand Malta over to, it shouldn't have signed the treaty.