napoleon invades ottoman empire unstead of russia?

. On the other hand closing the eastern Med' to the British and slowly expelling them toward Gibraltar

How on earth does he close the Eastern Med (or indeed any part of it) to the RN? Britain holds Gib and Malta already, has the use of Sicily's ports and can if necessary capture bases further east as required. And once we start supporting Turkish armies in Anatolia, as in Spain, we should be able to make a nice running sore of it.
 
With the Turks as allies the British can also use Cyprus.

Also... without ruling da waves, how does he crosses the straits?
 
With the Turks as allies the British can also use Cyprus.

Also... without ruling da waves, how does he crosses the straits?

And from what I know of the country concerned, it would take long enough even to reach Constantinople. In 1877/8 it took the Russians months to work their way down there. So Britain would have plenty of time to help the Turks build a "Torres Vedras" to defend their capital.
 
Something to consider- the US had strong trade ties to the Ottoman Empire (I'm refering to it as Turkey) during this time, there's a reason US ships were getting seized by the Barbary states in North Africa... because US ships were there in large numbers. A lot is written about the triangle trade with Europe and Africa because of the slave trade and its impact on US history, but at the time the more important triangle actually was the US-Turkey-China triangle. The US had official relations since 1780 with Turkey and it was a big source of opium to sell to China, the USA having nothing else at the time to sell the Chinese. Later on in OTL President Monroe would make a speech declaring that the USA would not support the Greeks against the Turks and not get involved in European affairs... but it has come down to us for the less important at the time part- the Monroe Doctrine that Europe would not be allowed to interfere in the Americas.

A Napoleon occupied and therefore extinct Turkey would affect the US economy if Napoleon didn't allow US shipping to and from Turkey. We could see War of 1812 butterflied away and instead a more intense and longer Quasi War. If no Turkey, and Greece is nominally independent under French tutelage, there is less reason for Monroe to make his speech, less reason to throw in the Monroe Doctrine (which was empty and was simply piggybacking on already established British policy that OTHER European powers were not to interfere with the newly independent nations in the Americas or set up spheres, because British policy was open door and free trade).
 
How on earth does he close the Eastern Med (or indeed any part of it) to the RN? Britain holds Gib and Malta already, has the use of Sicily's ports and can if necessary capture bases further east as required. And once we start supporting Turkish armies in Anatolia, as in Spain, we should be able to make a nice running sore of it.
Depends on POD whether Malta is British, they captured it from the French in 1800 OTL.
 
Well tell all this to Alexander the Great, with his logistics in Greece and the head of his army in India... Even if the logistics have grown heavier with time, the French can also use local ressources more effectively than Alexander could (for instance maybe no order of armours in Greece like Alexander did ask for while in the 'stan region, because Napoleonic forces use less armours and more clothes). Also it could lead Napoleon to think out of the box and listen to some out of the box concepts such as steam machines for his logistics (he did after all reject a proposal for a steam ship, but a steam charriot might be seen as better)... So I would not dismiss it out of hand, even if its indeed not the most probable outcome. On the other hand closing the eastern Med' to the British and slowly expelling them toward Gibraltar : if such a strategy was started before Trafalgar, you could see the war turn out differently (especially if the French managed to capture Ottoman ships, even if not the best ships their some 15 hulls of the line and 5 to 10 frigates could prove usefull later on...)

This won't happen. Alexander didn't have to deal with gunpowder supplies, numerous large and hostile states in his home region eager to take apart his empire and the sheer scale of the religious animosities that had developed between Christians and Muslims. The French system of logistics couldn't even cope in Spain when it came to concentrating forces and fell apart completely in Russia, how the Hell are they supposed to do any better in the middle of hostile Iran? The entire idea of a march to India is foolhardy, at its best.
 
Let us also remember that when Alexander crossed Mesopotamia the place was still green, because the irrigation channels were still well-maintained. After the Mongols passed through, leaving their usual trail of dead bodies everywhere, the water management system fell to bits and much of the land between the rivers became a bit of an armpit. To have a French army passing through there... well, you might get a tattered Marshal Ney arriving on the borders of Afghanistan, waving a broken sword and burbling about the honour of France requiring him to eat the leg of that drummer boy, but you might not get anyone else.
 
Why wouldn't it be? A French Army roaming around the Balkans would have no more effect on events at sea than one in Spain or Russia.
One does not need Malta when attacking Spain or definitely Russia. Malta and the Med Sea becomes more important when you are attacking the Ottomans. Napoleon could reach some sort of accommodation with Sicily (that dynasty gets a member on the throne of Greece?) in return for help; leaves the British without their best Med ally and ups the chances for Malta to weather the war.

Edit- could even promise Sicily the island of Cyprus and some sort of trade rights in the Levant/Lebanon; preferred trade rights through the Straights to Russia. Sicily could see they could become quite rich.
 
Interesting I can see why Austria and Russia might be interested but what does France get out of it?
Well, in theory he might get the Tsar to abide by the Continental System if he's dangling the Dardanelles, with the tantalizing possibility of Egypt later on, a double blow to the British. And he might again fall prey to his doomed desire to try and find a negotiated peace Britain will actually stick to, and think that this would force them to the table.

The problem I have with it is that he historically negotiated hybridized status quo or better w/regards to civil code in any appropriated lands, even if they were adjoined to other states. Would Alexander play ball on annexed territories, or would Napoleon rubber stamp serfdom? I can't see the latter, espevi ally when dealing from strength as he was at the time. If the former, you might see an earlier end to serfdom in Russia as it accommodates it's enfranchised Aegean territories.
 
One does not need Malta when attacking Spain or definitely Russia. Malta and the Med Sea becomes more important when you are attacking the Ottomans. Napoleon could reach some sort of accommodation with Sicily (that dynasty gets a member on the throne of Greece?) in return for help; leaves the British without their best Med ally and ups the chances for Malta to weather the war.

Edit- could even promise Sicily the island of Cyprus and some sort of trade rights in the Levant/Lebanon; preferred trade rights through the Straights to Russia. Sicily could see they could become quite rich.

The only thing that the Bourbons of Sicily want is Naples, something that by 1812 is firmly in the greedy hands of Murat. Ferdinand IV was a rather stubborn conservative who was very like his father, Charles III of Spain (translation: at times almost dementedly reactionary). He would view Cyprus with bafflement. Moreover, he'd never be stupid enough to turn on the British, who were defending Sicily at the time from invasion. If he was offered Cyprus his reaction would a) be bafflement, b) lead to him asking how he could possibly get forces there and c) ask why more people weren't Catholic, risking a religious insurrection.
 
Well, in theory he might get the Tsar to abide by the Continental System if he's dangling the Dardanelles, with the tantalizing possibility of Egypt later on, a double blow to the British. And he might again fall prey to his doomed desire to try and find a negotiated peace Britain will actually stick to, and think that this would force them to the table.

Constantinople! C'est l'empire du monde!
Napoleon 1807
There is no way he is going to let the Russians anywhere near the "capital of the world" let alone Egypt.
don't forget in 1798 Napoleon invaded Egypt with 38000 troops and in 1799 he marched north to invade the Turks. He got as far as Acre where he was stopped dead by the local turkish troops and one (1) british ship.
Ottoman Turkey in 1800 was a great power and Napleon treated it as such..
 
Didn´t great numbers of Christian Greeks and Armenians used to live there, too ?

If their fate a century later is anything to go by, they would be too weak for their attitude to make much difference.

In any case did they get on any better with Catholics than with Moslems?
 

Redbeard

Banned
This won't happen. Alexander didn't have to deal with gunpowder supplies, numerous large and hostile states in his home region eager to take apart his empire and the sheer scale of the religious animosities that had developed between Christians and Muslims. The French system of logistics couldn't even cope in Spain when it came to concentrating forces and fell apart completely in Russia, how the Hell are they supposed to do any better in the middle of hostile Iran? The entire idea of a march to India is foolhardy, at its best.

Food, gunpowder, cloth, shoes and even muskets and bronze cannons can be made and acquired locally. But of course it is important whether you are in constant hostile territory or the locals rather see you as a good customer, but so it would be anywhere. But keeping up a flow of replacements for personell losses would be extremely difficult and costly.

In short it would take an incredible amount of gold to execute such a campaign and probably not worth it. Add to that the losses alone from marching columns of replacements troops for thousands of km - probably not worth it. I could much better see the French supporting Russian and Austrian campaigns vs. Persia and Balkans respectively. At least that would keep two potential rivals occupied.
 
Top