napoleon egypt

Mrstrategy

Banned
what mistakes cause napoleon to lose his invasion of Egypt?
  • number of troops/ships?
  • Egypt population?
  • supplies?
  • ....?
 

longsword14

Banned
what mistakes cause napoleon to lose his invasion of Egypt?
  • number of troops/ships?
  • Egypt population?
  • supplies?
  • ....?
> No proper end game.
How long would it take to subdue Egypt? How would the road to India be opened through the long route filled with hostiles?
The Orient was not the Directory's main aim, a fact Napoleon new very well, yet how could he expect a major effort sent in his direction?

> Allies
The Egyptian population was not going to be quiet. The French had not thought the invasion and the subsequent occupation in advance. They would not have any decent allies in the region.

> Any extended campaign had to be done in the teeth of RN opposition in the Med. The state of the French Navy at the time was such that it could not assure any landing of sustained support.
A lot of troops got quite sick,had to march in deserts fending off hostiles, combine it with the destruction of the supporting flotilla the soldiers would get demoralised.
 
@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
 
I am no expert in this but I always assumed the invasion had two objectives:
First the directors wanted to get the young ceasar and his loyal troops as far from Paris as possible.
Second Napoleon knew he was in no position to seize power yet and was glad to have an opportunity to gain renown away from any interference.
From this point of view the aims were achieved and any incidental hiccups could be blamed on the navy.
 

longsword14

Banned
@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 ? 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.
 
Suez ? 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.
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
 
@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

I think what's more likely is that if they avoid naval disaster long enough, and he gains land control of the region, he forces Britain to the treaty table as he has a blade to their lifeline. And barring the Nile I think he pulls that off. People are saying it was going to be a long campaign, and that's true if permanent conquest is the goal. But I think it was a move for leverage...plus he was a Romantic about the East.

Once Nelson destroyed his fleet, though, that put the ball back in his court as now he's the one without a lifeline. What's incredible isn't that the commander disobeyed his direct orders, it's that neither a victory nor holding their position were necessary. Just stay alive, that's all that was needed. I think this is where Napoleon's distrust of naval strategists began, because this was such a big-picture missing gaffe that can only be explained by citing unknowable nautical 'wisdoms'.
 

longsword14

Banned
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
You mean the canal, one that did not exist? Or are you speaking of the port ?
 
You mean the canal, one that did not exist? Or are you speaking of the port ?
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.
 

longsword14

Banned
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.
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.
 
An interesting butterfly of Brueys not foolishly destroying his fleet is what Nelson surely will stay on the blocus in the eastern Mediterranean. No heroes' triumph in Naples, no lady Hamilton, but maybe also no declaration of war from Ferdinand IV. The war is simply delayed, as the queen's hate of the Révolution is a driving force in the neapolitan court. But some months could bring a change : Championnet was relieved of command in february 99 in the general purge of the Jacobin generals. Another general, for example Moreau, could be nominated, gain glory, and become an alt-Bonaparte. Would not be ironic to see Bonaparte finally becoming a russian feld-marshall, as Moreau was, for spite of losing his shot at the top spot ?
 

longsword14

Banned
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.
 
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.

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.
 

longsword14

Banned
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.
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.
Talleyrand's trump card would most likely be this army faction (Brune's) which he could align with the plotters in the government. Mind you, I really do not believe Talleyrand of being capable of engineering a coup using the army if one faction, say Napoleon's was determined to step in. The force to be used against Napoleon at the right moment is just not there.
 
Top