Most plausibly successful Egyptian Expedition (1798-1801)

So, assume that Napoleon Bonaparte and Jean-Baptiste Kléber are more successful in their Egyptian Expedition. As a PoD, i propose a French victory at the Battle of The Nile (1798), or at least no destruction of the French fleet at it. The expeditionary army's supply problem is vastly reduced as a result of this, and they attain more projection power into Syria.
Could Napoleon and Kléber estabilish a French protectorate over formerly Ottoman Egypt? If so, then for how long, considering the PR of the French occupying forces among the Egyptian Muslim population?
What are the effects on British India, the Ottoman Empire, and the French Republic?
 
So, assume that Napoleon Bonaparte and Jean-Baptiste Kléber are more successful in their Egyptian Expedition. As a PoD, i propose a French victory at the Battle of The Nile (1798), or at least no destruction of the French fleet at it. The expeditionary army's supply problem is vastly reduced as a result of this, and they attain more projection power into Syria.
Could Napoleon and Kléber estabilish a French protectorate over formerly Ottoman Egypt? If so, then for how long, considering the PR of the French occupying forces among the Egyptian Muslim population?
What are the effects on British India, the Ottoman Empire, and the French Republic?
Requires a stronger French Navy to support the French Army with reinforcements and to prevent the Royal Navy to stop Napoleon.
 
Would it count if Nappy and friends were more successful in Egypt alone? In that case, I'd argue he could have very easily succeeded if the expedition diden't antagonize the Ottomans and march into Syria, but rather stayed behind in Egypt to consolidate their position there and build up the presence and supplies to actually get to British India: perhaps establish a merely temporary French protectorate or (at least nominally) acknowledging Ottoman suzerainty/civil goverance of the region while maintaining independent military operations and establishing facilities under private ownership (Say, the French government gets overthrown while they're still in Egypt, and Nappy dosen't swear allegiance to the new regieme)
 
So, assume that Napoleon Bonaparte and Jean-Baptiste Kléber are more successful in their Egyptian Expedition. As a PoD, i propose a French victory at the Battle of The Nile (1798), or at least no destruction of the French fleet at it. The expeditionary army's supply problem is vastly reduced as a result of this, and they attain more projection power into Syria.
Could Napoleon and Kléber estabilish a French protectorate over formerly Ottoman Egypt? If so, then for how long, considering the PR of the French occupying forces among the Egyptian Muslim population?
What are the effects on British India, the Ottoman Empire, and the French Republic?
But how does the French even win?The quality of French naval personnel was complete trash.They didn’t lose because of bad luck,but because of deeply flawed structural problems.
 
But how does the French even win?The quality of French naval personnel was complete trash.They didn’t lose because of bad luck,but because of deeply flawed structural problems.
While i don't doubt that the French Navy had its share of structural problems (mainly lack of strategic focus and scarcity of truly good admirals), i just really don't see how it utterly prevents the French and their allies from winning any engagement at all.
Looking at an overview of the Battle of The Nile, it really seems like Nelson and his subordinates' sound judgement at the right moments decided the battle. Nearly all of the major naval victories of the Napoleonic Wars (Nile, Copenhagen, Trafalgar) were won because of his tactics. He even lost a battle to the Spanish, losing his arm during it -- he could have even died.
I wouldn't count an equipment or numbers gap, because the French (or their subordinates) were often at parity with the British on that.
 
While i don't doubt that the French Navy had its share of structural problems (mainly lack of strategic focus and scarcity of truly good admirals), i just really don't see how it utterly prevents the French and their allies from winning any engagement at all.
Looking at an overview of the Battle of The Nile, it really seems like Nelson and his subordinates' sound judgement at the right moments decided the battle. Nearly all of the major naval victories of the Napoleonic Wars (Nile, Copenhagen, Trafalgar) were won because of his tactics. He even lost a battle to the Spanish, losing his arm during it -- he could have even died.
I wouldn't count an equipment or numbers gap, because the French (or their subordinates) were often at parity with the British on that.
The problem was that the French navy,from the admirals to the lowliest sailor had a lot to catch up with in terms of skill. The sailors simply could not fire their guns as fast and as accurate as the British ones do for example.
 
The problem was that the French navy,from the admirals to the lowliest sailor had a lot to catch up with in terms of skill. The sailors simply could not fire their guns as fast and as accurate as the British ones do for example.
But that could be made up for by better judgement and opportunity-seizing by the French commanders, or by worse judgement by the British commanders, which could open up more of these opportunities to the French. A less experienced commander than Nelson could have committed more mistakes, such as forfeiting a check on the depth of water in order to pursue the French faster, for example, which could give the French an advantage.
I can understand the reason for France not managing to achieve total naval superiority against Britain (overall logistics), but sometimes i just get upset over so many people treating British naval superiority as a truism.
 
Last edited:
But that could be made up for by better judgement and opportunity-seizing by the French commanders, or by worse judgement by the British commanders, which could open up more of these opportunities to the French. A less experienced commander than Nelson could have committed more mistakes, such as forfeiting a check on the depth of water in order to pursue the French faster, for example.
I can understand the reason for France not managing to achieve total naval superiority against Britain (overall logistics), but sometimes i just get upset over so many people believing in British naval superiority as a truism.

I think the bigger issue is maintaining the naval dominance in the long enough term to keep the steady stream of reinforcements flowing into Egypt that would be required to maintain a full military occupation while still sending out a field army. Fundimentally, Nappy only has one main military force and so runs into the "Hannibal Problem" if he can't get outside support/shielding/reinforcement: he can win as many battles as he wants, but the moment he leaves a territory behind it becomes all too easy to have it taken back and get cut off if his enemy is willing to provide enough pressure, and attrition will, in not too long a time, wear his field army down through illness, desertions, ect.

This is why I suggested that he needs to either limit the scope of his expansion, or get the Ottomans to indirectly service him by garrisoning/managing the territory he leaves behind. And that his army is going to be far more effective as a force multiplier fighting the Company forces in India rather than professional European armies.
 
I will be writing TL on this soon, or Napoleon's success in conquering Egypt is the backstory to the main story. I also have some literature on consequences on what would have happened if Napoleon just did done one simple act.
 
Top