Napoleon limits himself in Russia, or doesn't attack

I'm doing some long range planning for one of my TLs and I need a bit of help with something.

Napoleon looks at the Logistics needed to take Moscow and decides he can't support that kind of logistic operation, even though he could win the military battles.

He decides on one of two things. The first idea that comes to my mind is he does a limited campaign, something logistics can support, say to Minsk, and build defenses and make the Russians come to him and cut them off and destroy them. Then get a peace treaty.

Secondly he just says out Russia, deciding its not worth destroying his army in Russia.

Thoughts???
 
This is Napoleon we're talking about. He's going to need a pretty good reason to believe he can't just crush Alexander - who he seems to have genuinely thought was weaker than Alexander really was - and make him make peace from a position of crushing triumph by Napoleon.
 
He decides on one of two things. The first idea that comes to my mind is he does a limited campaign, something logistics can support, say to Minsk, and build defenses and make the Russians come to him and cut them off and destroy them. Then get a peace treaty.

Easier said than done. And IF the Russians do not oblige, but always stay just outside of reach? They can afford to wait, they are in friendly territory, on defense. Napoleon can't. He must defeat the Russians and move on. So, he must seek the decisive battle or lose the war.

Secondly he just says out Russia, deciding its not worth destroying his army in Russia.

Thoughts???

He might, but would have to tolerate the Russians trading with the British and constantly be on guard in case the Russians decide to rejoin the party. I really think Russians did not like Napoleon's Duchy of Poland and would use the first opportunity to strike it down.
 
The best bet is to change Napoleon's perceptions of what he can accomplish in Russia, it does not need to be any less grandiose.

Perhaps Russia's betrayal leads Napoleon to believe that a state so far on the edge of French military projection ability cannot EVER be trusted, so it needs to be broken down.

Napoleon looks to the Baltics. After leaving Poland and taking Vilnius Napoleon heads north into Latvia and Estonia to use the memories of "Good old Swedish Times" to get support of not only the locals, but Sweden by promising influence in the new "Confederation of Livonia" and of course Finland. Copenhagen has already happened and Sweden was opportunistic in the Napoleonic wars, giving it Finland plus perhaps Karellia and influence in a new Livonia while hurting Russia could satisfy Napoleon. Combine this with a very short trip from Estonia to St. Petersburg and you have a successful and limited Russian campaign, assuming France can court Sweden.
 
The best bet is to change Napoleon's perceptions of what he can accomplish in Russia, it does not need to be any less grandiose.

Perhaps Russia's betrayal leads Napoleon to believe that a state so far on the edge of French military projection ability cannot EVER be trusted, so it needs to be broken down.

Napoleon looks to the Baltics. After leaving Poland and taking Vilnius Napoleon heads north into Latvia and Estonia to use the memories of "Good old Swedish Times" to get support of not only the locals, but Sweden by promising influence in the new "Confederation of Livonia" and of course Finland. Copenhagen has already happened and Sweden was opportunistic in the Napoleonic wars, giving it Finland plus perhaps Karellia and influence in a new Livonia while hurting Russia could satisfy Napoleon. Combine this with a very short trip from Estonia to St. Petersburg and you have a successful and limited Russian campaign, assuming France can court Sweden.

"good old Swedish times" aren't exactly missed. And the logistics aren't exactly favorable by that route either.
 
This is Napoleon we're talking about. He's going to need a pretty good reason to believe he can't just crush Alexander - who he seems to have genuinely thought was weaker than Alexander really was - and make him make peace from a position of crushing triumph by Napoleon.

I agree completely.

Napoleon excelled at tactics (where he was an absolute genius) not at strategy. In other words he knew how to win a battle or campaign but not necessarily a war. His entire career was based on winning one or two decisive battles and then either taking or threatening to take the enemy's capital. Up until Russia that had been enough to win every war except for Spain. Where interestingly enough he ran into an enemy that wouldn't make peace with him no matter how many battles he won or cities he occupied.

The lesson was right there, but he refused to learn it.

His mind set was that Alexander was terrified of him and that as soon as he won one or two battles he would come begging for terms. When that didn't happen he was sure taking Moscow would be enough. For Napoleon winning a battle was always the answer. It would never occur to him that NOT fighting might be the right solution.

So unless there is some radical change, he falls deathly ill and is bed ridden, there is a revolt somewhere, I don't see him not invading or stopping short of Moscow.
 
So unless there is some radical change, he falls deathly ill and is bed ridden, there is a revolt somewhere, I don't see him not invading or stopping short of Moscow.

The only other thing I can think of is Napoleon deciding to "put it off until later" while focusing one of the other problems that are wearing down his empire, but that's not really much of a change for the better.
 
The best bet is to change Napoleon's perceptions of what he can accomplish in Russia, it does not need to be any less grandiose.

Except Nappy believed he was an impersonation of God of War and nothing was impossible for him and his grognards. He defeated the Russians a few times already.

BTW Sweden would be hard to get to join. Bernadotte was not really keen to have Napoleon command him around. And Nappy hated his guts also. Besides how could Sweden trust they would be treated as equals? Napoleon didn't really give anything to anyone, ever.
 
Except Nappy believed he was an impersonation of God of War and nothing was impossible for him and his grognards. He defeated the Russians a few times already.

BTW Sweden would be hard to get to join. Bernadotte was not really keen to have Napoleon command him around. And Nappy hated his guts also. Besides how could Sweden trust they would be treated as equals? Napoleon didn't really give anything to anyone, ever.

Sweden joining is more of a problem TBH than having Napoleon be limited in goals. Napoleon was in the gates of Vienna and could very well have done much more to Austria, instead he ringed France with buffer states ala Westphalia and the Confederation of the Rhine. If Napoleon believes that doing the same in Russia with Livonia, Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Ukraine *though the last 2 are more of a stretch* can accomplish the same level of total victory over Austria he will do it.
 
Sweden joining is more of a problem TBH than having Napoleon be limited in goals. Napoleon was in the gates of Vienna and could very well have done much more to Austria, instead he ringed France with buffer states ala Westphalia and the Confederation of the Rhine. If Napoleon believes that doing the same in Russia with Livonia, Lithuania, Ruthenia, and Ukraine *though the last 2 are more of a stretch* can accomplish the same level of total victory over Austria he will do it.

Well, he could be reasonable enough with peace. But to dictate peace, he first needed total victory. And that he is not gonna get in Russia. It was simply different kind of war and he failed to understand it. He believed that the Russian armies would scatter and the generals would just roll up and die wherever he showed up. What he should have done was to study the fate of Hannibal real real hard and learn something from it.
 
Well, he could be reasonable enough with peace. But to dictate peace, he first needed total victory. And that he is not gonna get in Russia. It was simply different kind of war and he failed to understand it. He believed that the Russian armies would scatter and the generals would just roll up and die wherever he showed up. What he should have done was to study the fate of Hannibal real real hard and learn something from it.

True.

Give him the idea that stripping Russia's access to the west plus taking the capital in St. Petersburg is a better idea than taking Moscow.
 
I once read that Napoleon said that taking St Petersburg would be like scratching Russia's head, taking Kiev would be like tickling its foot, but taking Moscow would be hitting its heart.
 
I once read that Napoleon said that taking St Petersburg would be like scratching Russia's head, taking Kiev would be like tickling its foot, but taking Moscow would be hitting its heart.

Well, heck, he was two-thirds right. Taking Moscow is more along the lines of "pricking Russia's belly button with a needle," but of course he'd have treated the best option as a good option rather than see that he couldn't succeed.
 
Top