Napoleon could have won in Russia?

Status
Not open for further replies.
Hi, I'm new here and I already know that the victory of Napoleon is one of main subjects in this forum, but, I haven't seen, 'til now, a realistic victory of Napoleon in the russian campaign. All the PODs from a napoleonic TL are from before the invasion of Russia. General Winter was that invicible? Was there anyway to win? Their luck would be better if they gone all the way to Saint Petersburg instead of Moscow? Ah, a bonus to anyone that can restore Poland-Lithuania in the end of the war!
 
If the Russian army had given battle instead of retreating, Napoleon would have won easily.

Agreed. The problem was that the Russians learned the lessons that Napoleon failed to learn in Spain and as a result were perfectly willing to use geurilla tactics against the Grand Armee.
 
That's one solution. Russian hubris...

Another interesting one I read somewhere goes like this. Napoleon realises that, given the size of Russia, this is going to be a several years campaign if Alexander doesn't capitulate. So Napoleon goes for digestible sized bites each year and plan for winter fortifications. First year objective is Kiev. In parrallel, Napoleon proclaim total emancipation of serfs and respect and protection for Orthodox Church ( with exception of serfs ). Unrest in Russia. Next year, Napoleon is in a much better position if Alexander doesn't treat.
 
It is not entirely impossible that success might have gained the interest of Sweden and the Ottoman Empire. If they start wanting old territory back, things could turn ugly for the Russians.
 

Tellus

Banned
Definitely, I think the problem was one of strategy. If your strategy relies on the enemy playing along, your plan is bad.

A more limited campaign coupled with political objectives (liberation of Ukraine and Poland first, as mentioned) would have caused big problems for the Tsar, who would have been the one put in a position where he had to seek out battle. The Tsarist regime's realities were such that the ideals of the French Revolution would have seemed incredibly seductive to the local populations had any effort been made to present the invasion as a political and revolutionary action rather than a simple military action. In other words, Napoleon needed more propaganda and more patience to win the day.

But of course, this is all hindsight. In these times, taking the enemy capital seemed to virtually ensure victory in every other country, and realizing Russia was entirely different did require non-negligible amounts of analysis and humility.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
It is not entirely impossible that success might have gained the interest of Sweden and the Ottoman Empire. If they start wanting old territory back, things could turn ugly for the Russians.

I don't know about Sweden, Charles XIII was not a fan of Napoleon, and Bernadotte was more interrested in getting Norway. Denmark was an ally of Napoleon and the Swedes had no interrests in allying with the Danes (especially since Bernadotte, who was in controll of the Kingdom was conspiring to conquer Norway). Sure the loss of the Eastern half hurt Sweden a lot, but there were just no love for Napoleon, and Swedish politics were more and more aligned towards Britain.
 
Bernadotte, who was really the power behind the throne at the time, was an oppurtunist. If things were looking well for Napoleon, he'd jump that bandwagon instead, methinks. He wanted Norway because it was easy to take - most of the establishment of Sweden at the time was looking eastwards, I think it would not be too hard to convince him to go for Finland if that looked easier than Norway.
 
It is not entirely impossible that success might have gained the interest of Sweden and the Ottoman Empire. If they start wanting old territory back, things could turn ugly for the Russians.
Sweden lost Finland in 1809 as a direct consequence of century of revanchist politics and lost most of appetite to fight Russia. Ottomans had just been beaten into pulp again, almost routinely, without putting a significant deal of effort in it. Yeah, it is very likely both countries will jump into anti-Russian coalition at first opportunity :D

A more limited campaign coupled with political objectives (liberation of Ukraine and Poland first, as mentioned) would have caused big problems for the Tsar, who would have been the one put in a position where he had to seek out battle.
Poland had been liberated from Russians almost immediately, and fat load of good it brought to Napoleon IOTL. Liberation of Ukraine from Russian yoke in 1812 sounds as plausible as liberation of California from American yoke in 1940 AD :D

The Tsarist regime's realities were such that the ideals of the French Revolution would have seemed incredibly seductive to the local populations had any effort been made to present the invasion as a political and revolutionary action rather than a simple military action.
It is more complicated than that. 1st, local population not always baited even when political emancipation had been offered (study Jewish communities and their reaction to Napoleon). 2nd, emancipation would be so complicated, it (even assuming it wouldn't be botched up) would tie up Napoleon for a decade or so. I don't think he had been prepared to fight decade-long war.
 
[FONT=&quot]How possible would it have been for Napoleon to try to get Alexander to attack him instead?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For instance what if Napoleon say occupies Denmark to close the Baltic to Anglo-Russian trade, and then threatens the Ottomans to close the Bosporus, to stop Anglo-Russian trade in the Mediterranean. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Napoleon puts his troops on defense in Poland and waits for the Russians to attack to draw them in and destroys them, and if Prussia joins in the attack he whips them too, and dismantles Prussia (or not, whatever would have [FONT=&quot]benefited[/FONT] him most).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Then after defeating Alexander’s forces he marches his army into Russia and follows whatever strategy that would have been best, either taking bits of Russia like fhaessig mentioned or going for Moscow[FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]
[/FONT]
 
[FONT=&quot]How possible would it have been for Napoleon to try to get Alexander to attack him instead?[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]For instance what if Napoleon say occupies Denmark to close the Baltic to Anglo-Russian trade, and then threatens the Ottomans to close the Bosporus, to stop Anglo-Russian trade in the Mediterranean. [/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]Napoleon puts his troops on defense in Poland and waits for the Russians to attack to draw them in and destroys them, and if Prussia joins in the attack he whips them too, and dismantles Prussia (or not, whatever would have [FONT=&quot]benefited[/FONT] him most).[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]Then after defeating Alexander’s forces he marches his army into Russia and follows whatever strategy that would have been best, either taking bits of Russia like fhaessig mentioned or going for Moscow[FONT=&quot]. [/FONT]
[/FONT]

I can't imagine that Napoleon would have the troops necessary to invade Russia in this scenario considering the considerable (though not massive) amount of troops he would need to invade and occupy Denmark and the troops that Napoleon would need to force the Ottomans to close the Bosporus. IMO this would more likely lead to another Russo-Turkish War than an invasion of Poland
 
Very possible. Even if the Russians don't give battle of they don't burn Smolensk to the ground Napoleon can winter there and then persue in the spring.
 
Top
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top