Napoleon stays in Elba.

Wouldn't it be a case of who he could be fighting, than the fighting it's self? If it was, as mentioned, for the Greeks he may be left alone to get on with it. The French may not be too happy about that, the rest of Europe could think it's fine, he's not fighting us.

My thoughts entirely!especially if he could remain unseen at the beginning in a certain mountain range I had already mentioned;he wouldn't need to play front line leader,but the thinking and planning general until the liberation was entrenched.He would have his French body of high ranking volunteers to do the job for him.Later,few Europeans would still be interested in him...
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 14881

Wouldn't the Habsburgs be shitting themselves if Nappy tried to build a Napoleonic Byzantium?
 
Napoleon in Spain and Mexico? Now that would make a good timeline.

For some reason, this seems to be a really popular idea in this forums. Anyway, in 1821, Mexico was seeking an european ruler to hand over the Imperial Crown of Mexico but none accepted.
 
How do you mean Cimon?

1) All Russian sovereigns look for exit in the Mediterranean
2) Since they have the double headed eagle on their flag they covet Constantinople for almost the last 300 years
3) If Napoleon later threatens to unhinge the Ottomans(not something that difficult for him at that time) and threatens Constantinople,eastern Mediterranean would get very interesting...
 
For some reason, this seems to be a really popular idea in this forums. Anyway, in 1821, Mexico was seeking an european ruler to hand over the Imperial Crown of Mexico but none accepted.

They offered it to Napoleons brother Jerome but he turned it down, perhaps Napoleon takes interest if he is offered it instead?
 
I can't seem to find anything about British-Ottoman relations at this time. Would they be happy that someone is taking them on, and not themself's? The church, or christians in general be happy that the Turks are getting a bashing and are out of the Balkan area? What could Austria say? As said before this may make a good TL.
 
I can't seem to find anything about British-Ottoman relations at this time. Would they be happy that someone is taking them on, and not themself's? The church, or christians in general be happy that the Turks are getting a bashing and are out of the Balkan area? What could Austria say? As said before this may make a good TL.

What had started to dominate the European power politics at that time was the celebrated 'Eastern Question';the fate of the empire of the "sick man of Europe"(Ottoman/Turkish empire) and how every major power in Europe would take advantage of it preventing at the same time possible gains by any other.

Britain had taken advantage of the Ottomans during the wars against Napoleon(Egyptian expedition) and Britain had shared an interest with the Turks that was shown at the siege of Acre by Napoleon.
 
What had started to dominate the European power politics at that time was the celebrated 'Eastern Question';the fate of the empire of the "sick man of Europe"(Ottoman/Turkish empire) and how every major power in Europe would take advantage of it preventing at the same time possible gains by any other.

Britain had taken advantage of the Ottomans during the wars against Napoleon(Egyptian expedition) and Britain had shared an interest with the Turks that was shown at the siege of Acre by Napoleon.

Wasn't that more of a case of anyone who fights Nappy must be good for Britain? If Napoleon isn't fighting Europe, as such, would anyone care? A lot of troops and sailors are now out of a job. Would they join a European army under him?
 
Wasn't that more of a case of anyone who fights Nappy must be good for Britain? If Napoleon isn't fighting Europe, as such, would anyone care? A lot of troops and sailors are now out of a job. Would they join a European army under him?

1)that was one aspect of it;the other was the known aim of Russia for the straights of Dardanelles and Constantinople that England was trying to prevent its fruition and also the continuous attempts of Austria to subjugate the Slav Balcans and further afield...

2) the old soldiers, rank and file,of the Grand Armee and sailors of France,along with other European sympathisers would follow easily if they were approached and certain networks were already in place in Europe and certain French officers were serving away from France furthering the interests of France in Eastern Mediterranean and the Indian subcontinent.
 
My thoughts entirely! Especially if he could remain unseen at the beginning in a certain mountain range I had already mentioned; he wouldn't need to play front line leader, but the thinking and planning general until the liberation was entrenched. He would have his French body of high ranking volunteers to do the job for him. Later, few Europeans would still be interested in him...
I'm fairly sure that the various European powers were keeping an eye on him via warships patrolling the area and paying people on the island itself. If he disappears from view for any length of time that's going to cause people to become concerned, if he disappears whilst a body of high ranking volunteers made up of his allies suddenly turn up helping run things in Greece then people are going to start making connections and asking some forceful questions. As others have said Napoleon was absolutely toxic as far as the rulers of the other European states were concerned, the Greeks would be seriously shooting themselves in the foot in my opinion. I could see the other powers deciding to throw the Greeks under the bus since better the Ottomans control the place than a Napoleon-led state.
 
I'm fairly sure that the various European powers were keeping an eye on him via warships patrolling the area and paying people on the island itself. If he disappears from view for any length of time that's going to cause people to become concerned, if he disappears whilst a body of high ranking volunteers made up of his allies suddenly turn up helping run things in Greece then people are going to start making connections and asking some forceful questions. As others have said Napoleon was absolutely toxic as far as the rulers of the other European states were concerned, the Greeks would be seriously shooting themselves in the foot in my opinion. I could see the other powers deciding to throw the Greeks under the bus since better the Ottomans control the place than a Napoleon-led state.

Could that depend on what the Turks do? WI the Greeks start off a few years early, say 1817 and the Turks come down a lot harder? Europe send Nappy off in some kind of 'black opp's'? A bit silly I know, but hell there have been things a lot more silly.
A war against Jonny Turk 100 years early. What I know about this part of history is not much, and there have been many more replies than I thought there would be, and thank you for that.
Lets face it, there are enough of us here to make a very good/bad TL for this.
Whose up for it?
 
I'm fairly sure that the various European powers were keeping an eye on him via warships patrolling the area and paying people on the island itself. If he disappears from view for any length of time that's going to cause people to become concerned, if he disappears whilst a body of high ranking volunteers made up of his allies suddenly turn up helping run things in Greece then people are going to start making connections and asking some forceful questions. As others have said Napoleon was absolutely toxic as far as the rulers of the other European states were concerned, the Greeks would be seriously shooting themselves in the foot in my opinion. I could see the other powers deciding to throw the Greeks under the bus since better the Ottomans control the place than a Napoleon-led state.

Simon,

I would generally agree Simon,that it would have been a course of events as you predict,but let's examine detractors that would influence the predictions:

As I have mentioned in the Colonel's Thread:
1) Napoleon could land in Mani,a long mountain range,practically autonomous and with a long history of risings against the Turks and totally controlled by a certain family who later played a leading role in the Greek revolution of 1821.You could lose an entire army and a mountain of supplies there and none would notice...

2) many Europeans,romantics or adventurers volunteered to fight against the Turks during the revolution;Germans,French,English(among them Cochrane George and Byron...) that formed a corps of Philhellenes under the German general Norman.Some more French would not draw special attention at least in the first years...

3) the revolution would take place normally in 1821 so that it would take advantage of the revolution of Ali Pasha of Epirus that was a major diversion for the Turkish army especially when Hursit Pasha took the bulck of the Turkish army of Peloponnese to fight north in Epirus.
4) When the revolutions starts Napoleon would have free supply sea lines because the Greek revolutionary navy had achieved supremacy over the Turks and later Egyptians,Tunisians and Turks in Eastern Mediterranean.

5) That was in very general lines the situation could be developed,the details I could explain although I have outlined a lot in colonel's Thread apart from the training part.The plot that the Colonel perceived was excellent and after the start which he sets the possibilities are endless...
 
Last edited:
Could that depend on what the Turks do? WI the Greeks start off a few years early, say 1817 and the Turks come down a lot harder? Europe send Nappy off in some kind of 'black opp's'? A bit silly I know, but hell there have been things a lot more silly.
A war against Jonny Turk 100 years early. What I know about this part of history is not much, and there have been many more replies than I thought there would be, and thank you for that.
Lets face it, there are enough of us here to make a very good/bad TL for this.
Whose up for it?

The Greek revolution tallthinkev needed a strong diversion to start in mainland Greece and that was the seddition of Ali Pasha,called Tepelenli, of Epirus which caused the departure of Hursit Pasha governor of Peloponnese with the balck of his army to face Ali Pasha of Epirus and assume command
of all Turkish forces converging at Epirus and be the Ottoman army's supreme commander of the war.
The Greek revolution had originally started in nowdays Romania on the 20th February 1820 when the Greek prince Alexander Ypsilantis,general in the Czar's army, crossed the river Pruth and raised the flag of revolution against the Turks;the revolution failed since it attracted the undivided attention of three pashas with their armies headed by the pasha of Vraila.
That was the reason the Greeks waited for a diversion that would have drawn the attention of of the Sultan and it was known to the Greeks for many years that Ali was preparing to revolt against the Sultan since many Greek warlords were in Ali's sevice.Ali was a meticulous man.Equally well the Greek revolution needed a lot of preparation due to the difficulties dictated by facts of geography,personal interests,etc;that is why Napoleon could act as a unifying influence behind the scenes and directing the war until his time came.

I agree with your thought that someone should continue the Thread as it was started by the colonel and take on from there.I will help as much as I can and I hold all basic information at my fingertips.
 
Last edited:
Top