Mrstrategy
Banned
what mistakes cause napoleon to lose his invasion of Egypt?
- number of troops/ships?
- Egypt population?
- supplies?
- ....?
> No proper end game.what mistakes cause napoleon to lose his invasion of Egypt?
- number of troops/ships?
- Egypt population?
- supplies?
- ....?
Suez ? in 1798?@longsword14 I think the end game holds. Sure, for goods it relied on the good hope route but the BEIC relied heavily on Suez for its communications.
The Admiral in charge of the French fleet didn't obey Napoleon orders which were simple: you see the RN coming, you run.
The Admiral tried to be a smartass and hold his ground. Then one English captain saw a breech and exploited it. Then a lucky shot utterly destroyed the French flagship.
If the French fleet hadn't been destroyed the expedition would have had more chances
Suez for communications yep. For goods, the maritime road is much better, but letters and small parcels can go overland at Suez without adding much costSuez ? in 1798?
Yes, for that particular engagement, sure. The actions of the French naval commander were mostly responsible for not just losing the engagement, but the destruction of so many ships.
I am uncertain about the long term prospects. Napoleon's expedition was going to be longer than he expected.
@longsword14 I think the end game holds. Sure, for goods it relied on the good hope route but the BEIC relied heavily on Suez for its communications.
The Admiral in charge of the French fleet didn't obey Napoleon orders which were simple: you see the RN coming, you run.
The Admiral tried to be a smartass and hold his ground. Then one English captain saw a breech and exploited it. Then a lucky shot utterly destroyed the French flagship.
If the French fleet hadn't been destroyed the expedition would have had more chances
You mean the canal, one that did not exist? Or are you speaking of the port ?Suez for communications yep. For goods, the maritime road is much better, but letters and small parcels can go overland at Suez without adding much cost
I'm speaking of the land bridge.You mean the canal, one that did not exist? Or are you speaking of the port ?
Still, would the British squeal quickly or would the French Navy be in serious trouble by then? If the Navy could supply the army and Napoleon does not get bogged down in fighting locals then it might be possible though it would be fraught with risk.I'm speaking of the land bridge.
Goods would have to be debulked and carried by camels, which adds to cost and complexity.
That is however not an issue for letters and communication flow.
Nah, Moreau would not try and depose the Directory, while anyone with a lick of sense could see it was highly unreliable and purged itself. Napoleon, might however have to make his coup a lot more bloodier.Another general, for example Moreau, could be nominated, gain glory, and become an alt-Bonaparte.
Nah, Moreau would not try and depose the Directory, while anyone with a lick of sense could see it was highly unreliable and purged itself. Napoleon, might however have to make his coup a lot more bloodier.
Depends. Napoleon was quite determined to stick his foot in. How was the army deployment around the time of the coup by Sieyes ? Will have to check for any other rival faction around Paris that could intervene against Napoleon moving in.Maybe not Moreau, but Bonaparte did not organize the Brumaire coup all by himself. In fact he was not Sièyès' first choice. Had not Joubert make such bad choices, he would have been the "sword" the Brumairiens wanted. Even Talleyrand had another trump up his sleeve with Brune.
Re-reading Talleyrand's biography, I find out he took a bribe (of course) in exchange for turning a blind eye to the Neapolitan's annexation of Benevento in 1798. Maybe even the war (Franco-Neapolitan) could be averted without Nelson's resounding victory.