Napoleon defeats Russia (1812)

[David Oudinot]

I found a piece relevant to the royal schema in Bourienne’s memoirs (unfortunately, format was almost unreadable). For whatever it worth he claims that in a conversation with him Davout expressed expectation that he is going to be appointed viceroy of the Duchy (B’s comment: “a fate that I would not wish to the Poles”) and that the French officers would be granted “starostwo” (ownership of the crown land with some administrative functions). When B expressed doubts that the Poles would take lightly distribution of their land to the foreigners, D presumably answered “who cares about their complaints, sword overrules everything and deals with all problems.” Burienn concludes episode saying that he hopes that if Napoleon is going to restore Poland he would select as a ruler someone of a truly high birth whom everybody is going to respect.
https://books.google.com/books?id=3GGiO06amDkC&pg=PA100&lpg=PA100&dq=даву+в+польше&source=bl&ots=KU6aTxqDQb&sig=ACfU3U2wk29mDfE7ZNEnP2KIqEcMWJlXGA&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwj-tJbfgLjmAhViplkKHQQBCMIQ6AEwBXoECAYQAQ#v=onepage&q=даву в польше&f=false

Unfortunately, Napoleon would not do that (Unfortunately, Napoleon would not do that (unless a more complicated POD is done in case one wants to speculate on what a Kingdom of Poland would be like under this or that king).

Remember that Napoleon in OTL was very unconcerned about the Polish issue and that in this TTL he is looking to create a satellite state that functions as a watchdog. He was never sincerely interested in appointing kings that are ideal for the population in question but are ideal for their interests.

Unfortunately, Napoleon would not do that (unless a more complicated POD is done in case one wants to speculate on what a Kingdom of Poland would be like under this or that king).

On the issue of land, in this TTL Poland has more land than it ever had in OTL, there is no reason to complain about that although I clearly understand the point that he could become an authoritarian and unpleasant king as What do you say, but if that happens (which I think is unlikely to be so exaggerated) Napoleon could admonish him.

 

[alexmilman]

Unfortunately, Napoleon would not do that (Unfortunately, Napoleon would not do that (unless a more complicated POD is done in case one wants to speculate on what a Kingdom of Poland would be like under this or that king).

Remember that Napoleon in OTL was very unconcerned about the Polish issue and that in this TTL he is looking to create a satellite state that functions as a watchdog. He was never sincerely interested in appointing kings that are ideal for the population in question but are ideal for their interests.

On the issue of land, in this TTL Poland has more land than it ever had in OTL, there is no reason to complain about that although I clearly understand the point that he could become an authoritarian and unpleasant king as What do you say, but if that happens (which I think is unlikely to be so exaggerated) Napoleon could admonish him.

It is not what I’m saying. It is what Bourienne said. He also wrote that, while from time to time Napoleon was bringing up an idea of restoring Poland he never seriously considered restoration of the former Kingdom. Conversation with Davout happened in 1811 and B clearly stated that D was advocating a war (with Russia) as a way to further increase his own wealth and status: he was confident in Napoleon’s victory and the following restoration of Poland in which he would become a viceroy. B was all for the restoration of Poland but did not like what he heard from D. Neither did he hear from Napoleon about this specific schema. Judging by his general tone, he was one of the numerous “non-admirers” of Davout.

The whole “watchdog” thing has one fundamental problem which Napoleon carefully avoided in OTL. The Poles were not satisfied with the borders of the Duchy but it was too small and weak to try an independent policy. In your TL the restored Poland is much bigger and stronger which means that sooner rather than later it is going to do something about remaining “unhappiness”, in other words will try to get back Lithuania and Right Bank Ukraine (and perhaps even the Baltic provinces lost in the early XVII). Provoking war with something similar to the Balta Incident could be easily arranged and then Kingdom of Poland declares a war on Russia and Napoleon has no option but to join. “Tail” in this case would be big enough to wag the dog or, in your analogy, Napoleon would have to spend a lot of time and energy watching and controlling his watchdog. Just breaking Prussia into few pieces would create fewer problems.

 

[David Oudinot]

It is not what I’m saying. It is what Bourienne said. He also wrote that, while from time to time Napoleon was bringing up an idea of restoring Poland he never seriously considered restoration of the former Kingdom. Conversation with Davout happened in 1811 and B clearly stated that D was advocating a war (with Russia) as a way to further increase his own wealth and status: he was confident in Napoleon’s victory and the following restoration of Poland in which he would become a viceroy. B was all for the restoration of Poland but did not like what he heard from D. Neither did he hear from Napoleon about this specific schema. Judging by his general tone, he was one of the numerous “non-admirers” of Davout.

The whole “watchdog” thing has one fundamental problem which Napoleon carefully avoided in OTL. The Poles were not satisfied with the borders of the Duchy but it was too small and weak to try an independent policy. In your TL the restored Poland is much bigger and stronger which means that sooner rather than later it is going to do something about remaining “unhappiness”, in other words will try to get back Lithuania and Right Bank Ukraine (and perhaps even the Baltic provinces lost in the early XVII). Provoking war with something similar to the Balta Incident could be easily arranged and then Kingdom of Poland declares a war on Russia and Napoleon has no option but to join. “Tail” in this case would be big enough to wag the dog or, in your analogy, Napoleon would have to spend a lot of time and energy watching and controlling his watchdog. Just breaking Prussia into few pieces would create fewer problems.

1. At this time of TTL it is clear that there will be a war with Russia. Poles just have to wait.

2. Poland was enlarged in this TTL because Napoleon was less permissive to allow Prussia, an ally but ambivalent and resentful country, to continue existing because of the possibility of causing a revolt in Germany.

3. The Poles are quite ready not to counteract Napoleon, who has already demonstrated by what was said in point two, that he can dismantle a complete country if he finds it unreliable.

4. Davout is King of Poland and as such will deny any infamous proposal to go to war with Russia without having Napoleon's prior approval.

5. If Poland, in spite of everything, comes up with the line, it will mean its dismantling and its distribution with Russia and maybe Sweden or Austria. This is the worst possible scenario for Poles and they know well what it is to be distributed by their enemies. I don't think they're idiots enough to risk a Fourth partition.

If Bourienne said about Live and lets live, I apologize if I offended you what I wanted to say is just as the cited comment says.

 

[alexmilman]

1. At this time of TTL it is clear that there will be a war with Russia. Poles just have to wait.

2. Poland was enlarged in this TTL because Napoleon was less permissive to allow Prussia, an ally but ambivalent and resentful country, to continue existing because of the possibility of causing a revolt in Germany.

3. The Poles are quite ready not to counteract Napoleon, who has already demonstrated by what was said in point two, that he can dismantle a complete country if he finds it unreliable.

4. Davout is King of Poland and as such will deny any infamous proposal to go to war with Russia without having Napoleon's prior approval.

5. If Poland, in spite of everything, comes up with the line, it will mean its dismantling and its distribution with Russia and maybe Sweden or Austria. This is the worst possible scenario for Poles and they know well what it is to be distributed by their enemies. I don't think they're idiots enough to risk a Fourth partition.

If Bourienne said about Live and lets live, I apologize if I offended you what I wanted to say is just as the cited comment says.

Bourienne said nothing about live and let live: I quoted him as related to Davout and the alleged Polish schema.

As for the rest, as I already said, I found the schema too accident prone and hard to control (Davout May find h8mself in the situation similar to one of Constantine in 1830) and, once created, dismantling this state would require a war. But this is your TL.

 

[David Oudinot]

Bourienne said nothing about live and let live: I quoted him as related to Davout and the alleged Polish schema.

As for the rest, as I already said, I found the schema too accident prone and hard to control (Davout May find h8mself in the situation similar to one of Constantine in 1830) and, once created, dismantling this state would require a war. But this is your TL.

Constantine of the Decembrist Rebellion? No, for God's sake, that's too exaggerated.

In OTL there were two important parties in Poland (as in other European countries): the profrancés led by the popular Prince Józef Poniatowski and another anti-French who claimed that Napoleon would not restore Poland in a durable way. In this TTL, the Poles have seen that Napoleon has an interest in restoring Poland since that means a strong ally against a possible war against Russia. The detractors of Napoleon are running out of arguments and will surely change to criticize Davout or say that an alliance with Napoleon is not a true independence, however, their opinions that were more or less heard in OTL are left to deaf ears in this TTL since Napoleon demonstrated in 1808 and 1809 that if he is interested in the creation of a Polish kingdom, as long as he remains obedient to France. The Poles will remain loyal to Napoleon not only because they hope to obtain more land in the next Franco-Russian conflict but also because he is the greatest guarantor of his independence while Davout will ensure that the opposition to Napoleon is completely nullified by force and Poniatowski for the words.

The army of the Duchy of Warsaw needs to be restructured as they have more land, men and weapons, which was interrupted by the Fifth Coalition War and will resume with the coronation of Davout. At least by 1812, the Poles will have a respectable army, but they won't use it until Napoleon raises his hand in approval. However, with Davout as king of a decent Poland, Napoleon will be periodically informed of anything since he is interested in knowing how well he is doing in this new allied kingdom.

The thing is that in OTL, the Poles were loyal to Napoleon reluctantly since they were vulnerable while in TTL, the Poles are loyal to Napoleon willingly since this has confirmed their aspirations. The Poles are simply not unconscious enough to say: ''We have a lot of land and soon an army, let's make war on Russia (which officially remains Napoleon's ally) since we can on our own initiative without Napoleon's approval''.

Remember to feel free to express your criticism, I seriously consider them.

 

[alexmilman]

Constantine of the Decembrist Rebellion? No, for God's sake, that's too exaggerated .

Decembrist rebellion was in 1825 (interesting way to identify Constantine ) and I explicitly mentioned 1830, which is Polish Uprising and related circumstances which would be not too different: expectation that the Poles would be grateful forever no matter how much they are pressed is highly optimistic.

BTW, Napoleon was not really looking for the allies (Russia was the only real exception; even with post-1809 Austria it was not a completely equal partnership ). He was looking for the obedient vassals. And to be obedient, vassal has to be reasonably weak and dependent.

 

[Wendell]

I'm envisioning the area in black as the remnant "Prussia" and the western border of your Poland. What do you think?

 

[David Oudinot]

I'm envisioning the area in black as the remnant "Prussia" and the western border of your Poland. What do you think?

The Polish western border is correct, but Prignitz, Altmark and Magdeburg were ceded to the Kingdom of Westphalia in this TTL.

 

[David Oudinot]

Decembrist rebellion was in 1825 (interesting way to identify Constantine ) and I explicitly mentioned 1830, which is Polish Uprising and related circumstances which would be not too different: expectation that the Poles would be grateful forever no matter how much they are pressed is highly optimistic.

BTW, Napoleon was not really looking for the allies (Russia was the only real exception; even with post-1809 Austria it was not a completely equal partnership ). He was looking for the obedient vassals. And to be obedient, vassal has to be reasonably weak and dependent.

OK, my mistake, it happens that I remember that Tsar always by the Decembrist Rebellion.

The Polish uprising of 1830 was due to circumstances that are unlikely to happen in the Napoleonic kingdom of Poland since by definition the innovations of the Napoleonic system that were removed in OTL by Russia will be respected.

The expectation that the Poles would be grateful forever no matter how much they are pressed is not what I propose (although in OTL that was what happened) but that the Poles will significantly relieve their pressure with obtaining economically profitable lands, the ability of creating an autonomous defensive army that can reasonably stop a serious invasion of their country for a considerable time until Napoleon arrives to help them (in OTL they defended themselves from Austria, but despite being surpassed 2 to 1, they were not invaded by the Austrian main army that was also a novice and was learning the Napoleonic tactics) and its own King that although he is not Polish he is not king of another country besides having the support of the powerful Bonaparte and the popular Poniatowski. The Poles have been treated with consideration in this TTL so they would reasonably be highly pleased with France since even all their uncertainties about whether Napoleon will resurface Poland or not have already been positively satisfied.

Napoleon really sought as many vassals as allies since apart from Russia, he sought an alliance with Austria, Spain and Prussia, however the alliance with Austria was not sincere despite the marriage to Marie-Louise, with Napoleon Spain had reasonable suspicions after that Godoy issued before the Battle of Jena, an ambiguous proclamation in which an attempt could be made to get rid of Napoleon and Prussia similar to Spain, too ambiguous and dangerously resentful.

In this TTL Napoleon preferred to replace Prussia with Poland since the latter would be more motivated to support him in case of any eventuality.

 

[alexmilman]

OK, my mistake, it happens that I remember that Tsar always by the Decembrist Rebellion.

The Polish uprising of 1830 was due to circumstances that are unlikely to happen in the Napoleonic kingdom of Poland since by definition the innovations of the Napoleonic system that were removed in OTL by Russia will be respected.

The expectation that the Poles would be grateful forever no matter how much they are pressed is not what I propose (although in OTL that was what happened) but that the Poles will significantly relieve their pressure with obtaining economically profitable lands, the ability of creating an autonomous defensive army that can reasonably stop a serious invasion of their country for a considerable time until Napoleon arrives to help them ...

Napoleon really sought as many vassals as allies since apart from Russia, he sought an alliance with Austria, Spain and Prussia ...

To start with, Constantine never was a Tsar: during the life of AI he relinquished his rights in favor of his younger brother, Nicholas. But in 1830 he was a viceroy of Poland.

Regarding the “removed Napoleonic innovations”, Congress Poland received one of the most liberal constitutions in Europe with the effective parliament, army of its own, independent currency, its own penal code and even customs and fortresses on its border with Russia. Of course, there were regular violations but Napoleon also was not exactly sticking to the letter.

As for the “defensive army”, your are somewhat optimistic. During the Napoleonic Wars Poland contributed over 200,000 and in 1812 Polish contingent was the biggest foreign unit, 54,549. Quite obviously, that a MUCH BIGGER Polish state would be able to raise an army at least 2 - 3 times bigger: in 1830 Congress Poland raised 150,000. By the standards of 1809 army of 120 - 150,000 could be considered quite “offensive”: at that time Russia rarely could engage more than 100,000 on a single front (Polish war of 1792 - 90K, 3rd coalition - 50K, 4th coalition - 120k, War of 1806 - 1812 - usually around 80K). Quite enough for invading Lithuania (and raising 15 - 20K there) and then asking Napoleon for help. Just as nobody invaded the Duchy of Warsaw until after defeat of 1812, nobody would attack a bigger Poland unless there is a plan to start a new war with Napoleon.

Now, back to the issue of the allies, you seemingly missed the point: with none on your list did Napoleon look for the equal partnership. He did established such a partnership with Paul I and tried to do the same with Alexander I but was rejected.

 

[David Oudinot]

To start with, Constantine never was a Tsar: during the life of AI he relinquished his rights in favor of his younger brother, Nicholas. But in 1830 he was a viceroy of Poland.

Regarding the “removed Napoleonic innovations”, Congress Poland received one of the most liberal constitutions in Europe with the effective parliament, army of its own, independent currency, its own penal code and even customs and fortresses on its border with Russia. Of course, there were regular violations but Napoleon also was not exactly sticking to the letter.

As for the “defensive army”, your are somewhat optimistic. During the Napoleonic Wars Poland contributed over 200,000 and in 1812 Polish contingent was the biggest foreign unit, 54,549. Quite obviously, that a MUCH BIGGER Polish state would be able to raise an army at least 2 - 3 times bigger: in 1830 Congress Poland raised 150,000. By the standards of 1809 army of 120 - 150,000 could be considered quite “offensive”: at that time Russia rarely could engage more than 100,000 on a single front (Polish war of 1792 - 90K, 3rd coalition - 50K, 4th coalition - 120k, War of 1806 - 1812 - usually around 80K). Quite enough for invading Lithuania (and raising 15 - 20K there) and then asking Napoleon for help. Just as nobody invaded the Duchy of Warsaw until after defeat of 1812, nobody would attack a bigger Poland unless there is a plan to start a new war with Napoleon.

Now, back to the issue of the allies, you seemingly missed the point: with none on your list did Napoleon look for the equal partnership. He did established such a partnership with Paul I and tried to do the same with Alexander I but was rejected.

Okay, I'm reminding myself of Constantine, I've read about him a long time ago, but I focused more on his brother Nicolas I. Discussing with you is very productive.

It is true that the Poland of Congress possessed one of the most liberal constitutions in Europe, but Alexander I gradually eliminated those freedoms. In a Napoleonic Poland the opposite would happen, the constitution would be made with more liberal time.

During the war of 1809 against Austria, the Duchy of Warsaw mobilized a total army of 69,120 men and in the Russian Campaign it amounted to 100,000 troops with effort (despite the above this amount was too poor to separate them into an army of their own by what Napoleon divided them into his main army), the Duchy of Warsaw would not have endured an invasion of the archduke Charles and less a Russian invasion (that if Napoleon did not invade Russia, the Russians would have gathered an overwhelming army to invade the duchy). In this TTL Poland would be strong enough to have an effective defensive army that would allow Napoleon more time to react to any eventuality. My idea of the Polish army is that with the TTL lands they will have the ability to maintain a considerable and efficient defensive army while reducing the pressures of extreme militarization a few years ago.

Regarding the allies, of course Napoleon did not seek an equal partnership with them, after all his goal is to turn France into the hegemon of Europe, however that does not mean that he sought the support of certain countries (although he did so from a overwhelming way). In this TTL Napoleon already knew the consequences of the French occupation in Spain and dismantled Prussia to prevent something similar happening in Germany while expanding the Duchy of Warsaw in 1808 and 1809 to finally create an ally related to their interests.

 

[alexmilman]

Okay, I'm reminding myself of Constantine, I've read about him a long time ago, but I focused more on his brother Nicolas I. Discussing with you is very productive.

It is true that the Poland of Congress possessed one of the most liberal constitutions in Europe, but Alexander I gradually eliminated those freedoms. In a Napoleonic Poland the opposite would happen, the constitution would be made with more liberal time.

During the war of 1809 against Austria, the Duchy of Warsaw mobilized a total army of 69,120 men and in the Russian Campaign it amounted to 100,000 troops with effort (despite the above this amount was too poor to separate them into an army of their own by what Napoleon divided them into his main army), the Duchy of Warsaw would not have endured an invasion of the archduke Charles and less a Russian invasion (that if Napoleon did not invade Russia, the Russians would have gathered an overwhelming army to invade the duchy). In this TTL Poland would be strong enough to have an effective defensive army that would allow Napoleon more time to react to any eventuality. My idea of the Polish army is that with the TTL lands they will have the ability to maintain a considerable and efficient defensive army while reducing the pressures of extreme militarization a few years ago.
.

Well, putting aside speculations about potential for more or less liberal constitution and its implementation under Napoleon (taking into an acco7nt that the Poles would be under obligation to supply troops at his demand and that in OTL he provided the Duchy with the French Governor General, I would not bet too much on a future independence; neither would be the local nobility excessively happy if further liberalization meant abolishment of the serfdom), I’m afraid that you have rather common illusion regarding the size of the Russian army during period in question.

For most of the XVIII and during the early XIX Russian army was not too big and a big part of it were various types of the garrison troops. This is why after Friedland Russia run out of the field troops and had to ask for peace. Steep increase of the size started only after Tilsit or rather when Barclay was appointed minister of war and by 1812 the process was not, yet, completed. In other words, within your time frame Russia would not be in a position to attack a country with army of 150 - 200K backed up by Napoleon (not to mention that in 1806 - 1812 it had been at war with the Ottomans). OTOH, it can be quite realistic to expect that a strong Polish state may try to get back the Russian-held territories which were considered Polish and on which they could realistically expect a considerable local support (as happened in 1812).

In 1812 Napoleon did not create a separate Polish army not because 100K was too small number. Russian 1st army had approximately 120K, 2nd army between 49 and 57K, 3rd army under 50K. He did not want too big non-French units (which could result in too much of an independence) and, in general, he did not have a formal command structure above the corps level. Even Davout was not made a commander of all troops operating against the 2nd Russian army (which resulted in a typical quarrel that allowed Bagration to escape).

 

[David Oudinot]

Well, putting aside speculations about potential for more or less liberal constitution and its implementation under Napoleon (taking into an acco7nt that the Poles would be under obligation to supply troops at his demand and that in OTL he provided the Duchy with the French Governor General, I would not bet too much on a future independence; neither would be the local nobility excessively happy if further liberalization meant abolishment of the serfdom), I’m afraid that you have rather common illusion regarding the size of the Russian army during period in question.

For most of the XVIII and during the early XIX Russian army was not too big and a big part of it were various types of the garrison troops. This is why after Friedland Russia run out of the field troops and had to ask for peace. Steep increase of the size started only after Tilsit or rather when Barclay was appointed minister of war and by 1812 the process was not, yet, completed. In other words, within your time frame Russia would not be in a position to attack a country with army of 150 - 200K backed up by Napoleon (not to mention that in 1806 - 1812 it had been at war with the Ottomans). OTOH, it can be quite realistic to expect that a strong Polish state may try to get back the Russian-held territories which were considered Polish and on which they could realistically expect a considerable local support (as happened in 1812).

In 1812 Napoleon did not create a separate Polish army not because 100K was too small number. Russian 1st army had approximately 120K, 2nd army between 49 and 57K, 3rd army under 50K. He did not want too big non-French units (which could result in too much of an independence) and, in general, he did not have a formal command structure above the corps level. Even Davout was not made a commander of all troops operating against the 2nd Russian army (which resulted in a typical quarrel that allowed Bagration to escape).

What I meant was that the Russian army would have increased significantly if Napoleon had not invaded Russia in 1812 since they would have more time to arm it. I do not see the illusion that I have and I even agree with you that for that time frame Russia would not have yet deactivated the Duchy of Warsaw.

100,000 Poles in their own command, are prone to terrible casualties and a dangerous independence in command so Napoleon preferred to dilute them in his main army (although this is more suspicious of Napoleon than anything else since Poniatowski was very willing to respect the orders of Napoleon). In this TTL, the Poles would be commanded mainly by Davout and Napoleon can rely on him to control the Poles (since he mistrusts a little of them) if he gives them to go by his side (something unlikely).

In OTL, the Duchy of Warsaw was very pressured by Napoleon and they still followed him although of course if Napoleon won, how long would they continue like this? in OTL he did not win, but in this TTL, the Duchy of Warsaw has received more land and therefore any economic pressure has been substantially reduced.

 

[David Oudinot]

Attention!!

This prototype of alternative history has been modified severely to increase consistency, it is recommended to reread all parts.

The fourth part dealing with the Russian Campaign of 1812 has been completed. Enjoy reading.

Russian Campaign (1812)

Prologue

Since the Erfurt Congress in 1808, Franco-Russian relations had strained and the creation of the Kingdom of Poland in 1809 by Napoleon only managed to add more fuel to the fire.

In 1809, Napoleon sent a marriage proposal to Russia in order to marry Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna (only 14 years old) as she wanted to legitimize her empire by being married to a member of one of the most prestigious royal houses in Europe, have an heir and reconcile Franco-Russian relations. In 1810 he receives a courteous rejection from Tsar Alexander who alleges that the girl's mother will not be willing to marry her daughter until she is at least 16 years old. Napoleon's response was to announce his commitment to the Austrian archduchess Marie-Louise so that Alexander understood that the two commitments had been negotiated at the same time.

Marriage of Napoleon and Marie-Louise by Georges Rouget

Also in 1810 France annexed for himself the Duchy of Oldenburg with the excuse of strengthening the Continental System, the czar did not take this at all well because this duchy was ruled by his uncle Peter Friedrich Wilhelm of Oldenburg getting to demand Napoleon compensation to his uncle for this and even requested that a duchy be created in Western Galicia, territory that was given to the Poles in the Treaty of Schönbrunn. Napoleon refused to respond to the tsar's requests.

Another important issue was the Continental System imposed by Napoleon throughout Europe in order to seriously harm the British economy and thus force Britain to a peace agreement, however this caused a serious setback in the Russian economy (although it helped the national industry) so in 1810 Tsar Alexander introduced free trade with neutral countries allowing trade with Great Britain from intermediaries and increased tariffs on luxury goods, which were mainly supplied by France. All this caused outrage in the French emperor who understood those actions as a way to violate the Continental System and harm the French economy.

In 1811 it became clear to Alejandro that France would not bother to help Russia with its war in Turkey and that the war with this country would be imminent so it stationed Russian troops near the Kingdom of Poland and prepared the political ground by signing an alliance with Sweden (which I was resentful of Napoleon over the occupation of the Swedish Pomeranian) and Britain (thus ending the war with this country) in 1812 as well as ending the war with Moldova and Turkey to secure its southern flank and have more men at its disposal

.

Tsar Alexander I of Russia


The Grand Army

In 1812, the French Empire with its subordinate states had approximately 80 million people out of the 172 million that inhabited Europe, according to some reports 726,000 men were mobilized to invade Russia (counting allies and reinforcements). 14 different nationalities participated in the campaign: French, Polish, German, Italian, Swiss, Austrian, Spanish, Prussian, Portuguese, Croatian, Belgian, Dutch and Lithuanian. Napoleon also had reserves of 130,000 to 220,000 in the garrisons of Central Europe and 80,000 men of the National Guard in France. In the initial stage, Napoleon was able to gather 492,000 soldiers, of which 235,000 were French and 257,300 were of another nationality (except Belgians and Dutch who served in the French army). The Grand Army consisted of 10 Corps, the Imperial Guard, 3 Corps of Reserve Cavalry, the Polish Royal Army of Davout and an Austrian corp led by General Schwarzenberg.

Officer and soldier of the Old Guard hunter on foot, circa 1811

Russian Army of 1812

For its part, Russia had a population of more than 40 million people in 1812. The attack of Napoleon's army was received by troops stationed on the western border: Commander Barclay de Tolly's First Western Army and Commander's Second Western Army Pyotr Bagration with a total of 153,000 soldiers and 758 guns. The Third Western Army of Commander Alexander Tormasov with 45,000 men and 168 guns, was located further south in Volyn with the aim of containing Austria. In Moldova, Admiral Chichagov's army (55,000 men and 202 guns) who would join the Third Western Army in Volyn. In Finland was the corp of the Russian general Steingel (19,000 men and 102 guns). In the Riga area there was a regiment led by Lieutenant General Essen and up to 4 Reserve Corps were located further from the border.

Throughout the war, 4 recruitment calls were announced that could attract more than 400,000 people, however, it would take time to prepare them.

The active irregular Cossack troops were a total of 20-25 thousand light cavalry troops (although 117,000 were listed on the official lists).

Portrait of Count Michel Barclay de Tolly, commander of the First Russian Western Army and commander in chief of the Three Western Armies in 1812

Beginning of the War

On June 22, 1812, Napoleon launched the following proclamation to his army:

''Soldiers !! The Second Polish War has begun. The First ended in Friedland and in Tilsit with Russia promising to be in perpetual alliance with France and in the war with England; Now Russia is breaking its oath. Russia does not want to give any explanation of its strange behavior until the French eagles leave the Rhine and thus leave our allies in the hands of their arbitrariness.

Russia is passionate about fatality. Your destiny must be fulfilled. Does she think we have degenerated? That we are no longer soldiers of Austerlitz? She puts us between dishonor and war. The choice cannot be doubtful. We keep going! We cross the Niemen! Let's take the war to its borders!

The Second Polish War will be as glorious for French weapons as the first; but the peace we will make will bring a guarantee for ourselves and will put an end to the disastrous influence of Russia, which for fifty years has been exercised in the affairs of Europe.

In our imperial camp, in Vilkivishki, June 22, 1812.


Napoleon''

The proclamation was included in the second bulletin of the Grand Army, on the same day, the French ambassador to St. Petersburg, Jacques de Lauriston, delivered this proclamation in the form of a note to the President of the State Council and Committee of Ministers of Russia Nikolay Saltykov, officially declaring war.

Jacques de Lauriston

On the afternoon of June 23, a detachment of the Cossack Regiment of the Russian Imperial Guard three miles upstream from the Niemen, near the city of Kaunas. The Cossack regiment noticed a suspicious movement on the opposite bank of the river and when it got completely dark, a company of French sappers crossed the river in boats, the Cossack regiment when noticing the arrival of French, launched into the attack beginning the first actions of the war.

At midnight on June 24, French troops crossed the Niemen River along four bridges built over Kaunas by sappers. At 6 in the morning, the French avant-garde entered the fortress of Kaunas. At night, Tsar Alexander I was in the country palace of General Bennigsen in Vilnius, where he was informed of the invasion of Napoleon.

The first formal confrontation between the French and Russians took place on June 25 near the village of Barbariski. Skirmishes also occurred in Rumšiški and Popartsy.

From June 29 to 30, another group of soldiers moved near Prienai, south of Kaunas, under the command of the viceroy of Italy Eugène de Beauharnais. Almost at the same time, further south, near Grodno, on June 30, 4 Corps crossed the Niemen under the command of the King of Westphalia, Jérôme Bonaparte.

To the north, near Tilsit, the First Corp of Marshal MacDonald crosses the Niemen. In the southern direction, from Warsaw across the river Bug, the Austrian corp of Schwarzenberg enters Russia.

On June 28, Vilnius is busy. On June 30, General Assistant Balashov offered Napoleon a proposal from Tsar Alexander to withdraw his troops and make peace. Napoleon refused. After an atypical hesitation of what to do next, Napoleon left Vilnius on July 16.

The Great Army crossing the Niemen (1812)

North Direction

Napoleon launched Marshal MacDonald's First Corp towards St. Petersburg. The First Corp should occupy Riga and then join the Second Corp of Marshal Oudinot and move on to Pskov. The base of MacDonald's body were French veterans. MacDonald besieged Riga intensely forcing the surrender of his military governor Magnus von Essen. He then proceeded to capture Daugavpils and join the Second Corps of Marshal Oudinot who had captured Polotsk.

Jacques MacDonald, Marshal of the First Corp of the Grand Army

The two corps marched on General Wittgenstein's forces (25,000 men). Wittgenstein, upon being informed of the union of the two French corp, tried to withdraw, but was intercepted in Sebezh beginning The Battle of Sebezh (1812). Wittgenstein's forces were annihilated and the First and Second Corp had a free way to go to Pskov and capture her.

Peter Wittgenstein, defeated in the Battle of Sebezh by Marshals MacDonald and Oudinot.

Central Direction

The Second Western Army of Bagration that was close to Białystok (after Commander Barclay de Tolly retired from Vilnius to the First Western Army), tried to join the First Western Army, but when he arrived in Lida 100 km from Vilnius, he realized that the French would not allow it. Bagration withdrew to the south with Cossacks of General Platov covering his rear guard who performed well against a French skirmish near Grodno and defeating the Seventh Division of Coraceros of the Grand Army (3000 men) in The Battle of Mir (1812), preventing destruction.

Cossack cavalry deployed at Mir (1812)

Napoleon sent Davout and his Polish army (120,000 Poles reinforced with 20,000 Lithuanians) to cut Bagration. Davout launched into the persecution and occupied Minsk on July 8 while Jérôme attacked Bagration from the west, but Bagration with rapid marches and successful battles (in Grodno and Mir), moved away from Jérôme's troops and avoiding Minsk.

On July 19, the Second Western Army of Bragration was in Bobruisk near the Berezina River while Davout settled in Mogilev on July 21. Bagration, approaching the Dnieper River 60 km below Mogilev, sent July 15,000 men under the command of Nikolay Raevsky to delay the advance of Davout and reach Vitebsk where he would meet with the First Western Army of Barclay of Tolly

On July 23 The Battle of Saltanovka (1812) is fought, Raevsky courageously leads his 15,000 men, but is decisively defeated by Davout. On July 24, Davout intercepts Bagration near Bykhov starting The Battle of Bykhov (1812) where Davout defeats the Russian Second Western Army. After rendering Bagration useless, Davout builds a bridge in the Dnieper and goes to Smolesnk who captures July 26 and Jérôme arrives late on July 28 to reinforce Davout.

General Rayevski leading his men into combat at the Battle of Saltanovka. (1812)

While the above was happening, Barclay de Tolly arrived in the city of Vitebsk on July 23 where he wanted to wait for Bagration. To avoid the French advance, he sent to the Fourth Corp of Osterman-Tolstoy who met the French vanguard on July 25 starting the Battle of Ostrovno that despite being a French victory, the Russians inflict tremendous casualties on their cavalry. On July 27 The Battle of Vitebsk (1812) is fought. Commander Barclay de Tolly expected Bagration to meet him, however he did not know that Bagration had already been defeated by Davout at the Battle of Bykhov on July 24. On the dawn of 27, Napoleon and Barclay mobilized their troops and fought fiercely in the vicinity of Vitebsk. Around 11:30 the Russians are defeated by Napoleon, thus annihilating the First Russian Western Army.

French infantry repulsing attacks from Russian cavalry at Vitebsk (1812)

South Direction

The French Seventh Corp under General Reynier was to cover the right flank of Napoleon's main forces of the Third Western Army of General Tormasov. Reynier took the location along the line Brest - Kobrin - Pinsk. On July 27, Tormasov surrounds Kobrin and defeats his garrison and then passes to Brest and then Pinsk.

Alexander Tormasov, commander of the Third Russian Western Army in 1812

When Napoleon realized that Reynier could not defeat Tormasov, he decided to send the Austrian corp of Schwarzenberg to his aid. Reynier and Schwarzenberg unite and attack Tormasov on August 12 near Gorodechno, forcing the Russians to retreat to Lutsk.

Karl Philipp, Prince of Schwarzenberg and General of the Austrian Corp in the Russian Campaign (1812)

Treaty of Vitebsk (1812)

On August 1, Napoleon is already informed that Davout and Jérôme have captured Smolesnk and that MacDonald and Oudinot are located Pskov, near St. Petersburg. With this data, he intercepts a Russian messenger who was sent to replace communications with Barclay, to send him back to St. Petersburg with a message to Tsar Alexander, which said that the First and Second Russian Western Army have been destroyed while the Third is in process and that if the peace was not signed, The Grand Army would arrive at the gates of Moscow and St. Petersburg.

On August 10, Napoleon receives an answer: The Tsar agrees to meet him at Vitebsk to sign the peace.

On August 14, Tsar Alexander arrives Vitebsk to discuss peace. On August 16, after several deliberations, the Treaty of Vitebsk is signed based on the following points:

1. Creation of the Grand Duchy of Lithuania and its personal union with Poland under the Polish King Ludwik II Mikolaj Davouta.

2. Re-establishment of the Franco-Russian alliance.

3. Consistent, complete and severe application of the Continent System in Russian territory.

4. A substantial compensation from Russia to France.

5. Return of prisoners captured by both parties.

6. Recognition by Russia of the conquests of the French Empire and its allies.

7. The withdrawal of the French and their allies from Russian territory.

With the treaty signed, Napoleon announced the withdrawal of Russian territory the next day and began on the 19th. Russia and France were at peace again. On September 28, 1812, the Grand Army effectively leaves Russia.

View of the city of Vitebsk where the Treaty of Vitebsk (1812) was signed, which ended the war of the same year between the Russian Empire on one side and the French Empire on the other and its allies, by Józef Peszka

While the Tsar was willing to continue fighting Napoleon despite the destruction of two of his Three Western Armies, the Russian aristocracy no longer had faith in continuing to sustain the war effort after learning of the defeat of Barclay and Bagration. The Continental System was not really so harmful to the Russian economy while the war interrupted all economic activity and allocated the entire budget to the arms factory (which was useless without an army) being more profitable to ask France in the peace agreement, a reduction in the tariffs of both countries.

The military also thought that it would be best to accept Napoleon's peace because the Great Army had captured several army heads, morale was at its worst and salaries were increasingly reduced.

All this convinced the Tsar, who was afraid of being killed by the aristocracy like his father, of signing peace with the French emperor.

 

[alexmilman]

Finally, the fourth part dealing with the Russian Campaign of 1812 has been completed. Enjoy reading.

Russian Campaign (1812)

Prologue

Since the Erfurt Congress in 1808, Franco-Russian relations had strained and the creation of the Kingdom of Poland in 1809 by Napoleon only managed to add more fuel to the fire.

In 1809, Napoleon sent a marriage proposal to Russia in order to marry Grand Duchess Anna Pavlovna (only 14 years old) as she wanted to legitimize her empire by being married to a member of one of the most prestigious royal houses in Europe, have an heir and reconcile Franco-Russian relations. In 1810 he receives a courteous rejection from tsar Alexander who alleges that the girl's mother will not be willing to marry her daughter until she is at least 16 years old. Napoleon's response was to announce his commitment to the Austrian archduchess Marie-Louise so that Alexander understood that the two commitments had been negotiated at the same time.

Marriage of Napoleon and Marie-Louise by Georges Rouget

Also in 1810 France annexed for himself the Duchy of Oldenburg with the excuse of strengthening the Continental System, the tsar did not take this at all well because this duchy was ruled by his uncle Peter Friedrich Wilhelm of Oldenburg getting to demand Napoleon compensation to his uncle for this and even requested that a duchy be created in Western Galicia, territory that was given to the Poles in the Treaty of Schönbrunn. Napoleon refused to respond to the tsar's requests.

Another important issue was the Continental System imposed by Napoleon throughout Europe in order to seriously harm the British economy and thus force Great Britain to a peace agreement, however this caused a serious setback in the Russian economy (although it helped the national industry) so in 1810 Tsar Alexander introduced free trade with neutral countries allowing trade with Great Britain from intermediaries and increased tariffs on luxury goods, which were mainly supplied by France. All this caused outrage in the French emperor who understood those actions as a way to violate the Continental System and harm the French economy.

In 1811 it became clear to Alexander that France would not bother to help Russia with its war in Turkey and that the war with this country would be eminent so it stationed Russian troops near the Kingdom of Poland and prepared the political ground by signing an alliance with Sweden (who was resentful of Napoleon over the occupation of the Swedish Pomeranian) and Britain (thus ending the war with this country) in 1812 as well as ending the war with Moldova and Turkey to secure its southern flank and have more men at its provision.

Portrait of Alexander I by George Dawe

The War begins

Napoleon formally invaded Russia with a monstrous multinational army on June 24, 1812. The French advance was rapid and victorious, achieving an occupation of the city of Vilnus with relative speed, however Napoleon was stunned by the withdrawal of the Russian army as he hoped to defeat him in one or two battles within Lithuanian territory and thus force the tsar to sign a peace according to its terms. Napoleon hesitated about 18 days with an atypical indecision of him. After finishing his reflections he ordered the Polish army of Davout to head towards St. Petersburg, meanwhile he and Marshal MacDonald would persecute the Russians.

The Great Army crossing the Niemen River

Davout approached Riga and began a fierce siege that quickly surrendered to the city and then met with marshal Oudinot avoiding a possible defeat in the Battle of Klyastitsy by defeating Commander Peter Wittgenstein and recently the bases for the march to St. Petersburg.

Meanwhile, Napoleon after setbacks in his advances because of the slowness of his brother Jérôme and the horrible losses of Murat in the battle of Ostrovno arrived in Vitebsk where the main Russian army led by Barclay de Tolly was seen. On the good side for Napoleon, the men of Marshal McDonald reinforced by the VI Corps of the Marshal Gouvion St. Cyr defeated the Russians inferior in number in the Battle of Saltanovka what happened a McDonald intercepting the Russian army of Bagration before he could escape to Smolensk by achieving a tactical victory in the Battle of Dashkovka that inflicted casualties on the Russians, but could not prevent Bagration from withdrawing from Smolensk.

General Raevsky leading a detachment of the Russian Imperial Guard at the Battle of Saltanovka

Battle of Vitebsk

The commander of the so-called First Russian Army, Barclay de Tolly (who throughout the campaign followed a strategy of burnt and withdrawn land to enter Napoleon's forces into Russian territory while meeting with the Second Army) decided to prepare for the battle in Vitebsk where he planned to meet with the Second Army commanded by Pyotr Bagration. The Russian aristocracy was pressuring him to stop giving land to Napoleon and face him directly and even Barclay de Tolly himself thought that a direct confrontation against a worn out French army could lead to a tactical victory that would boost his man's morale, However, upon learning that the Second Army was defeated in Saltanovka and Dashkovka, he proceeded to retire to Smolensk, and decided to change his plans and also retire to Smolensk to meet with Bagration. With the arrival of the French, Barclay concentrates on delaying the French so that his main army can retreat neatly to Smolensk, to accomplish this objective he orders General Peter Ludwig von der Pahlen to launch a dilatory action. Napoleon, excited to face the Russians, planned to confront the enemy forces without pressuring them and thus incite them to compromise their forces, but the Russian army was already in retreat (detail that he did not know) and their numbers were insufficient for a prolonged battle. Convinced that the Russians would fight with him the next day he decided to wait for his reinforcements, however the Russians managed to withdraw smoothly to Smolesnk without giving the long-awaited battle to Napoleon. Faced with this situation, the French emperor decided to rest with his troops in Vitebsk to reorganize them and regain strength.

French infantry repulsing attacks from Russian cavalry at Vitebsk.

Battle of Smolensk

In Vitebsk, Napoleon once again had an atypical indecision in him, even thinking of staying in the city, waiting for the winter and continuing the campaign the following year, but with the news that Davout and Oudinot were already Pskov and the meeting of both the First As the Russian Second Army in Smolesnk made him resume the march, in this way he left on August 13 towards the mentioned city.

On August 16, the Battle of Smolesnk began, Napoleon ordered an intense bombing of the city that was successful at first, but the lack of equipment to climb the city walls delayed his capture until the French forces managed to break the walls the day 17, but again Barclay ordered the withdrawal to be at a disadvantage and it was commissioned that the city that was already considerably lit in fire, be burned down and any supply or lodging destroyed to retire on August 18 leaving the city of Somlesnk considerably useless for the French army.

Battle of Smolensk by Albrecht Adam

Battle of Borodino

Barclay de Tolly was replaced by Mikhail Kutuzov in the command of the Russian army while Napoleon was aware that Novgorod had fallen before the Franco-Polish forces and were preparing to besiege St. Petersburg. Faced with this situation, Kutuzov had to choose between jumping into the Russian capital and leaving Moscow to Napoleon or confronting Napoleon and hopefully stopping him. Kutuzov weighed this carefully while withdrawing his forces from Napoleon's advance. Finally Kutuzov decided to confront the French in the village of Borodino since he considered that facing the worn-out army of Napoleon would be much easier than risking being caught by that same army in his rearguard in the case of leaving for the capital.

The Battle of Borodino was bloody with great losses for both sides, highlighting a powerful use of artillery and a brutal French attack against fiercely defended Russian fortifications. When the French finally managed to push the Russians back, the decisive moment came. Napoleon knowing that the Russian army was again beating in retreat, the proximity of Moscow and the siege of St. Petersburg by Davout and Oudinot, decided to compromise their Imperial Guard, which inflicted a high amount of casualties on retreating Russians and raised the morale of the French troops for a final and decisive attack. On September 7, the Battle of Borodino was decisively won by Napoleon's forces (although at a very high casualty cost) that captured the Russian Army High Command. On September 9 after a firm resistance, the capital of Russia, St. Petersburg falls before the forces of Davout and Oudinot.

Battle of Borodino by Louis-François Lejeune

Arrival to Moscow

On September 14, Napoleon arrives in Moscow who surrendered without resistance from Mayor Fyodor Rostopchi who understands that at this point any opposition is useless.

At night there was a small fire in the city of Moscow, but it was extinguished before it became a major problem by the city firefighters.

On September 18, Napoleon receives a message from the Polish king Davout that St. Petersburg has been successfully submitted and that the news of the destruction of the Russian army has convinced Tsar Alexander to discuss peace in the city of Tver, near Moscow. The French emperor, eager to show himself as an involuntary invader who only wanted to resume friendship with Russia, accepts the Tsar's request and on September 19, 1812 he leaves for Tver.

Oil painting:View of Moscow.

Treaty of Tver

Napoleon arrives in the city of Tver on September 22 and meets the Tsar in the famous Travel Palace, built in a neoclassical estuary by order of Catherine the Great of Russia in 1766.

The meeting lasted two days, in which Napoleon imposed on Tsar Alexander the Treaty of Tver (1812) the following points:

1. The recognition of all Napoleonic conquests in Europe.

2. The transfer of the Duchy of Lithuania to the Kingdom of Poland by personal union in the figure of Davout.

3. Re-establishment of the Franco-Russian alliance. Which means that Russia must return to war against Brittany.

4. Consistent and complete application of the Continental System by Russia.

5. The payment of substantial compensation to France by Russia because of the ravages caused by the war.

6. Cooperation of Russia with the French Allied Army through the proportion of housing and food.

In return Napoleon agrees to:

1. Do not make Finland independent or transfer it to Sweden.

2. Ensure the Russian territorial integrity of the Kingdom of Poland and the Duchy of Lithuania.

3. Help Russia in a future war against Turkey.

4. Consistent and complete application of the Continental System throughout Europe and the transfer of commercial advantages to Russian products.

5. Guarantee that the rights of the Russian nobility and the integrity of their peasants will be protected.

The Treaty was ratified by the Polish king, the Russian tsar and the French emperor on September 24.

After the signing of the Treaty of Tver, Napoleon establishes Moscow and redistributes troops through the captured cities, ordering total discipline and respect for the civilian population, which is appeased by a proclamation of the Tsar in which he declares that we no longer have to fear To the French friend.

Napoleon's Great Army prepares for the arrival of winter in November. With the arrival of winter, all troops rest until the arrival of spring and thus be able to return to their respective countries.

On March 15, 1813, The Great Army leaves back to France. On May 11, Napoleon is received in cheers by the city of Warsaw, being considered the Protector of Poland while King Davout is cheered for leading the Polish troops to victory. On May 29, Napoleon arrives in Paris where he is cheered as The Emperor of Europe.

Travel Palace, where the Treaty of Tver (1812) was signed

1. Napoleon never considered a war with Russia which would involve major attack in two directions (which would go against his general system of concentrating force on the main direction). However, if we assume your premise we have the following:
2. Scenario under which a lesser French force led by less skilled generals is achieving the greater results than in OTL (cutting and destroying Bagration, which Davout in OTL failed) is excessively optimistic.
3. The same goes for Smolensk - Borodino thingy: Nappy initially has 100K less than in OTL and proportionally less at Borodino and yet achieves much more than in OTL including capture of both Kutuzov (who was far enough from the field) and Barclay. Deployment of the Old Guards would change little in a general schema of things: Russian positions on the left flank and center had been already taken but the retreat route could not be cut off. In your TL Napoleon at Borodino has noticeably smaller force than in OTL due to the absence of the Polish troops (and the best marshal) so in the best case (for him) scenario commitment if the Guards producing the OTL results.
4. Rastopchin was not a mayor of Moscow but governor-general.
5. In OTL Napoleon brought to Moscow less than 90K. If he starts with having 100K less on the main direction he comes with 70 - 80K and even in a lesser position to dictate anything from Moscow than in OTL.
6. Caption under the picture showing fighting at Saltanovka is wrong: Raevsky commanded 7th infantry corps, which did not include the Guards. The painting shows attack of the Smolensk infantry regiment which Raevsky personally led.
7. St.Petersburg was a purely bureaucratic capital and meant little in the terms of keeping Russia at war so the only thing it’s capture means is that there are two widely separated French forces suffering from supply problems and in need to commit a considerable force just to maintain communications. Not a decisive argument for Alexander to ask for peace.
8. The peace arrangements and an assumption that the French troops would behave nicely on a conquered territory just because they were ordered to do so are not realistic. Where on the captured territory would they get supplies during the winter is anybody’s guess (Smolensk was burned and countryside on the route pretty much destroyed). Dispersing the troops among numerous winter quarters meant that they are going to be attacked piecemeal (see Clausewitz’ opinion on the subject). Keeping in mind that the French cavalry was in a sorry state well before Borodino anfpd that it’s leaders had no clue about the proper arrangements for the winter, situation would be quite lousy.

To make the long story short, not convincing. No offense.

 

[Deckhand]

I'm sure the next part will be where the Polish Navy defeats the Royal Navy and allows the invasion of Britain. It seems to be the way this timeline is going. Into the round hole with it.

 

[David Oudinot]

1. Napoleon never considered a war with Russia which would involve major attack in two directions (which would go against his general system of concentrating force on the main direction). However, if we assume your premise we have the following:
2. Scenario under which a lesser French force led by less skilled generals is achieving the greater results than in OTL (cutting and destroying Bagration, which Davout in OTL failed) is excessively optimistic.
3. The same goes for Smolensk - Borodino thingy: Nappy initially has 100K less than in OTL and proportionally less at Borodino and yet achieves much more than in OTL including capture of both Kutuzov (who was far enough from the field) and Barclay. Deployment of the Old Guards would change little in a general schema of things: Russian positions on the left flank and center had been already taken but the retreat route could not be cut off. In your TL Napoleon at Borodino has noticeably smaller force than in OTL due to the absence of the Polish troops (and the best marshal) so in the best case (for him) scenario commitment if the Guards producing the OTL results.
4. Rastopchin was not a mayor of Moscow but governor-general.
5. In OTL Napoleon brought to Moscow less than 90K. If he starts with having 100K less on the main direction he comes with 70 - 80K and even in a lesser position to dictate anything from Moscow than in OTL.
6. Caption under the picture showing fighting at Saltanovka is wrong: Raevsky commanded 7th infantry corps, which did not include the Guards. The painting shows attack of the Smolensk infantry regiment which Raevsky personally led.
7. St.Petersburg was a purely bureaucratic capital and meant little in the terms of keeping Russia at war so the only thing it’s capture means is that there are two widely separated French forces suffering from supply problems and in need to commit a considerable force just to maintain communications. Not a decisive argument for Alexander to ask for peace.
8. The peace arrangements and an assumption that the French troops would behave nicely on a conquered territory just because they were ordered to do so are not realistic. Where on the captured territory would they get supplies during the winter is anybody’s guess (Smolensk was burned and countryside on the route pretty much destroyed). Dispersing the troops among numerous winter quarters meant that they are going to be attacked piecemeal (see Clausewitz’ opinion on the subject). Keeping in mind that the French cavalry was in a sorry state well before Borodino anfpd that it’s leaders had no clue about the proper arrangements for the winter, situation would be quite lousy.

To make the long story short, not convincing. No offense.

1. In OTL, Napoleon sent Marshal McDonald and Marshal Oudinot to St. Petersburg, but failed because McDonald did not have enough artillery to capture Riga and could not join Oudinot to rescue him from Wittgenstein. In TTL, Davout takes care of that with the expanded and improved Polish army.

2. In this TTL, McDonald defeated the Russians in Saltanovka because he had better numbers than Davout, however when he intercepts the Bagration army he is slowed and cannot prevent his withdrawal. It really was no better result than OTL.

3. Napoleon has more men in this TTL since the forces he sent in the previous point in OTL are mostly Polish in this TTL.

4. I knew this, I wrote it that way because in my notes it was faster than writing General Governance. I will correct it.

5. Napoleon has more forces available than in OTL and the Russian main army was dismantled.

6. I did not know (although I had my doubts about this photo).

7. Alexander asks for peace because St. Petersburg and Moscow were captured while the Russian main Russian army was shattered. He simply cannot do anything else if he wants to keep his throne.

8. You are right on this point, but you do not understand that the text presented only explains that Napoleon promised that he would prevent his army from wreaking havoc on the population, not that he would not wreak havoc on the population. On the dispersion of troops, the French army did not disperse them far from Moscow but in an area where there are enough men to fight guerrillas or unite if necessary.

Don't worry, you don't offend me. You are only giving your opinion and supporting it.

 

[G-6]

Good timeline regardless of convincing or not

 

[David Oudinot]

Good timeline regardless of convincing or not

Personally, I want this TTL prototype to be as consistent as possible, which is why I edit it whenever I see an error in the consistency I want to convey.

Despite the above, I am very grateful for your words of encouragement as they increase my interest in building this timeline.

 

[alexmilman]

1. In OTL, Napoleon sent Marshal McDonald and Marshal Oudinot to St. Petersburg, but failed because McDonald did not have enough artillery to capture Riga and could not join Oudinot to rescue him from Wittgenstein. In TTL, Davout takes care of that with the expanded and improved Polish army.

2. In this TTL, McDonald defeated the Russians in Saltanovka because he had better numbers than Davout, however when he intercepts the Bagration army he is slowed and cannot prevent his withdrawal. It really was no better result than OTL.

3. Napoleon has more men in this TTL since the forces he sent in the previous point in OTL are mostly Polish in this TTL.

4. I knew this, I wrote it that way because in my notes it was faster than writing General Governance. I will correct it.

5. Napoleon has more forces available than in OTL and the Russian main army was dismantled.

6. I did not know (although I had my doubts about this photo).

7. Alexander asks for peace because St. Petersburg and Moscow were captured while the Russian main Russian army was shattered. He simply cannot do anything else if he wants to keep his throne.

8. You are right on this point, but you do not understand that the text presented only explains that Napoleon promised that he would prevent his army from wreaking havoc on the population, not that he would not wreak havoc on the population. On the dispersion of troops, the French army did not disperse them far from Moscow but in an area where there are enough men to fight guerrillas or unite if necessary.

Don't worry, you don't offend me. You are only giving your opinion and supporting it.

In OTL McDonald’s corps was sent to cover the left flank by advancing toward Riga. Doing noticeably more was not realistic and did not make sense within framework of the overall Napoleonic strategy of putting most of the force on a single direction. Actually, Nappy explicitly formulated this by listing 3 options, Moscow or St. Petersburg or Kiev, but not two of them. Advancing in the diverging directions with no ability to join forces was not Napoleonic. Anyway, greater Polish army comes at the expense of the OTL Prussians and the Polish troops marching with the main force (Poniatovski corps and the units distributed among other troops) so the main force is smaller than in OTL while the left flank is stronger.

How exactly Napoleon without the Polish troops with him would end up having more troops on the main direction escapes me. Ditto for McDonald having the greater numbers than Davout (who would give him a bigger force than OTL 1st corps?). Now, as far as ability to outmaneuver Bagration is involved, Davout could manage this under the favorable circumstances but McDonald was not in the same “weight category” as Bagration. Look at his record: the guy was a prick with no understanding of strategy but he was a superb tactician with a very impressive record. OTOH, the OTL McDonald’s performance in 1812 was anything but impressive and, anyway, he was made a marshal not for any brilliant maneuvering but for a personal bravery at Wagram.

Now, putting aside the AH part, setting the French troops around Moscow was not practical. Actually, Murat’s cavalry was placed outside the city and it did not work well because it was in such a sorry state that even feeding the horses (we are talking the early fall) was problematic (Zamoyski gives a number of the scary first hand accounts on that subject). Spreading out the infantry would not be much better: it was looting regardless the orders (similar situation existed in Smolensk when commandant pretty much lost control over the situation).

Moscow would be OK if Napoleon could control his own troops but the problem was that he could not: the French contingents had been routinely looting pretty much everywhere in Europe and only very few marshals ever had been trying to stop this. Personally, I can name only two: Bernadotte (absent in OTL and your TL) and Davout (absent in your TL). Why would they not loot seeing example on the very top? Nappy himself “appropriated” a nice fur coat for a retreat and pretty much everybody was trying to get some trophy because this was a part of the system. Population left the city spontaneously, without any orders (and against the official assurances) so this would be the case anyway. Troops with a low discipline in a pretty much abandoned rich city with a lot of food, drink and loot spells trouble especially taking into an account that Napoleon’s army pretty much lacked a mechanism for the orderly placement of the troops, collecting and distributing the supplies, etc. Not that this would be a trivial task even under the better circumstances. Again, in OTL the only corps commander who managed placement of his troops in a decent order and took care about more or less orderly supply was ... Davout. Even Davout did nothing to prepare the horses for the winter march so the only ones prepared for the task were horses of Naploeon’s household. Knowledge was available but nobody cared.

If the troops are placed in the villages and small towns outside Moscow, even a minimal control is absent and an idea of paying for food with gold simply was not there so, with the very few exceptions, the locals were opposite to happy and the Russian raiding parties had a complete freedom of action. Especially taking into an account that in your TL the Polish cavalry is far away. As a side note, I was greatly surprised with the fact that the Polish cavalry in the 1812 proved to be not better than French (which means REALLY BAD) in the terms of taking care of their horses both in summer and winter. How could they forget the centuries of a great experience?

Even a greater battlefield success at Borodino changes little because the French army is shrinking at a rather scary rate on the march without any battles, just thanks to the desertions and diseases. Nappy before Borodino was already not an existential threat to Russia (see Clausewitz) and by most of the relevant accounts Russia still had a reserve of between 200 and 250K of the “2nd line” troops (not counting the newly raised troops which needed training and weapons), including 55K on the Danube, and could raise additional 50 - 80k irregulars (out of 117K Cossacks only 20 - 25K had been deployed in 1812). Russian industry was producing up to 1000 cannons and between 46 and 90K muskets annually and could count on the considerable British supplies (as in OTL) so playing for time was OK. Napoleon’s supply bases were far away. The same goes for the uniforms (especially winter clothes) and footwear.

To end on a positive note, photo of the Road Palace in Tver is correct (with the allowances or post 1812 modifications).