Napoleonic Breakway States in Russia

What if Napoleon had popularity of the minorities in russia,like Whilhem II and Hitler had in both world wars(well,unitl hitler do what he did),and after begining saved by example,a estonian girl, at a battle against russian forces, did take advantage of his popularity to create allied/satellite kingdoms and recruit people from these kingdoms and even russian colaborationists to overtrown russia

What would change and who would be these satellites and its territories(in a map),and how this would change the history of russia and france
 
What if Napoleon had popularity of the minorities in russia,like Whilhem II and Hitler had in both world wars(well,unitl hitler do what he did),and after begining saved by example,a estonian girl, at a battle against russian forces, did take advantage of his popularity to create allied/satellite kingdoms and recruit people from these kingdoms and even russian colaborationists to overtrown russia

What would change and who would be these satellites and its territories(in a map),and how this would change the history of russia and france
It would be rather difficult for Napoleon to save Estonian girl because he was nowhere close to Estonia and, sorry, but a proposed scenario is plain silly. The same goes for the parallels with WWI and WWII.

Nappy was popular in Lithuania because its nobility counted on restoration of the PLC. That was it. The ruling class of the Baltic provinces was quite loyal to the Russian empire, Russian army was packed with the officers and generals from that region and there was no reason for them to look for any changes. Anyway, Nappy was not in the region and as a result could not create any satellite states there.
 
on restoration of the PLC.
And relying on non-existent (at that time) nationalisms like Belarusian or Ukrainian would piss off his really valuable asset - Poles, who could defect to anti-Napoleonic coalition (and it was proposed to Poniatowski by tsar Alexander multiple times), so why Nappy would try to actively lose his only valuable ally inside the empire in exchange for...nothing? Because Belarussian/Ukrainian peasants were neutral or pro-Russian, so no support from them, and supporting them means losing only group actually willing to support him. I think better plan to improve Napppy's shots at winning would be actually listen to Józef Poniatowski and go south, to Ukraine - climate isn't as harsh as in central Russia, more Polish presence means more collaboration from locals and there is always a possibility of wooing Turkey into alliance.
 
What if Napoleon had popularity of the minorities in russia,like Whilhem II and Hitler had in both world wars(well,unitl hitler do what he did),and after begining saved by example,a estonian girl, at a battle against russian forces, did take advantage of his popularity to create allied/satellite kingdoms and recruit people from these kingdoms and even russian colaborationists to overtrown russia

What would change and who would be these satellites and its territories(in a map),and how this would change the history of russia and france
The only group I can think of are Poles and Lithuanians. The Ukrainians have no sense of nationalism yet, neither are the Baltic nobles unhappy with Russia. Alexander I has to be on Ivan the terrible level of a Czar to get everyone hate him and support Napoleon... which is not the case. Prior unhappiness of Russian Rule is also an option but that was not the case either.

In OTL Nappy can only create an extended Poland and Lithuania.
 
A Livonian state would probably be possible, but it would have to be tied to Poland and/or Lithuania. Most of the soldiers and governors would be foreigners, like German and Polish, or even French settlers or Russian defectors.
 
Maybe a Tartar state in the Crimea and/or a Cossack state of some sort (remember that "Cossack" is not the same as "Ukraininan").
 
My suggestion is more about the area rather than ethnic-nationalistic approach
But splitting the area is counterproductive to goals of Napoleon, most of nobility of that area wanted to be governed from Warsaw/whatever Poland's capital would be and in case of victory, Nappy would need strong buffer state so boosting Poland (whose elites would praise him as a God, because he restored independence with borders close to that from Poland's Golden Age) would be optimal solution from his POV.
 
If anything, might Napoleon just go "screw it, I'm going to restore the Russian Principalities. Who wants a crown?" instead?
He definitely seemed to like giving his relatives and marshals titles.
So maybe he could try going for "every large-ish city in Russia is getting a prince. requirements for becoming a prince: fighting for me against the Tsar."

I don't think it would help in making him more popular in those areas however.
 
But splitting the area is counterproductive to goals of Napoleon, most of nobility of that area wanted to be governed from Warsaw/whatever Poland's capital would be and in case of victory, Nappy would need strong buffer state so boosting Poland (whose elites would praise him as a God, because he restored independence with borders close to that from Poland's Golden Age) would be optimal solution from his POV.
I am not talking about splitting it. I am saying these two areas would be the most likely places to be cut from Russia.
 
I am not talking about splitting it. I am saying these two areas would be the most likely places to be cut from Russia.
So than yes, it's most likely (but we should notice that for early XIXth century man Poland encompassed a lot of modern Ukraine, and Lithuania a lot of modern Belarus).
 
A Livonian state would probably be possible, but it would have to be tied to Poland and/or Lithuania. Most of the soldiers and governors would be foreigners, like German and Polish, or even French settlers or Russian defectors.
It would not be possible by two main reasons:
1. Nappy would have to run a completely different campaign to get there and such a campaign would not led to achieving his intended goal: forcing Alexander to make a peace on Nappy’s conditions.
2. Practically all noble class of the area would be unhappy because under the Russian Empire they were getting things which the restored PLC under Napoleon could not give them: preservation of the serfdom and great opportunities on the civic and military service. Look at the list of the prominent figures in 1812. Quite disproportional number of them were from the Baltic provinces and on the lower levels the numbers were much greater.
 
And relying on non-existent (at that time) nationalisms like Belarusian or Ukrainian would piss off his really valuable asset - Poles, who could defect to anti-Napoleonic coalition (and it was proposed to Poniatowski by tsar Alexander multiple times), so why Nappy would try to actively lose his only valuable ally inside the empire in exchange for...nothing? Because Belarussian/Ukrainian peasants were neutral or pro-Russian, so no support from them, and supporting them means losing only group actually willing to support him. I think better plan to improve Napppy's shots at winning would be actually listen to Józef Poniatowski and go south, to Ukraine - climate isn't as harsh as in central Russia, more Polish presence means more collaboration from locals and there is always a possibility of wooing Turkey into alliance.
The main problem with going South is that it does not achieve any strategic goal as far as Napoleon is concerned. Polish influence on the Russian part of Ukraine was quite weak by 1812 and attempts to “restore” it (which was probably Poniatowski idea) would met the local resistance.

All these alternative speculations are completely ignoring Napoleon’s main strategic goal. His purpose was not to restore the PLC or to partition the Russian empire. As far as I can tell his main goals were to force AI to reinstate the CS and to prevent him from making noises about the “imperial” affairs (*). Nappy’s idea how to achieve this goal was simple: to destroy Russian armies close to the bordering expectation that this, as happened earlier, would force him to start talks and agree to Nappy’s demands (Tilsit #2). On the 1st part of his plan he was not unrealistic because strategic plan proposed by general von Phull and adopted by Alexander would result in the Ulm-like situation for the Russian 1st Army. Even after this plan was abandoned due to its obvious idiocy not everything was lost for Nappy because the “Russian party” in the army led by ...er... “truly Russian” (actually Georgian) Prince Bagration was itching for a major field battle no matter the odds (**). But after Barclay refused to fight a decisive battle at Smolensk (to be entrapped and destroyed) Nappy’s chance was totally gone.


______
(*) The talks preceding the war included on Nappy’s side the following subjects: revocation of tariff of 1811 which he considered personally offensive, revocation of Alexander’s declaration regarding annexation of Oldenburg, an issue of the Russian military concentration on the Neman and acknowledgement of Napoleon’s right to move as many troops as he wants on the territories of his allies. The sticking point was the last issue.
(**) This was a part of “Suvorov’s heritage”: quite a few Russian generals of that period tended to disregard the opponent’s numbers on an assumption that an energetic bayonet charge is going to solve all problems. This already backfired during the Finnish war when Russian commander in chief sent a corps of 4 - 5,000 against 12 - 14,000 Swedes with the orders to attack and chase enemy away.
 
The main problem with going South is that it does not achieve any strategic goal as far as Napoleon is concerned. Polish influence on the Russian part of Ukraine was quite weak by 1812 and attempts to “restore” it (which was probably Poniatowski idea) would met the local resistance.

All these alternative speculations are completely ignoring Napoleon’s main strategic goal. His purpose was not to restore the PLC or to partition the Russian empire. As far as I can tell his main goals were to force AI to reinstate the CS and to prevent him from making noises about the “imperial” affairs (*). Nappy’s idea how to achieve this goal was simple: to destroy Russian armies close to the bordering expectation that this, as happened earlier, would force him to start talks and agree to Nappy’s demands (Tilsit #2). On the 1st part of his plan he was not unrealistic because strategic plan proposed by general von Phull and adopted by Alexander would result in the Ulm-like situation for the Russian 1st Army. Even after this plan was abandoned due to its obvious idiocy not everything was lost for Nappy because the “Russian party” in the army led by ...er... “truly Russian” (actually Georgian) Prince Bagration was itching for a major field battle no matter the odds (**). But after Barclay refused to fight a decisive battle at Smolensk (to be entrapped and destroyed) Nappy’s chance was totally gone.
Well, I don't deny that it was quite weak, but quite weak support is surely better than no support, which Napoleon met in central Russia, isn't it? And while talking about CS and restoring it, you forget one important thing. Grain produced in Ukraine was one of the main Russian export products to Britain at that time (Odessa was later nicknamed by historians: "European Hongkong", because there was that much grain trade with British being done by it), so cutting this export by setting up a puppet Poland in this place doesn't sound like a bad idea to accomplish the purpose of strategically weakening Britain and cutting it's trade gains.
 
So maybe he could try going for "every large-ish city in Russia is getting a prince. requirements for becoming a prince: fighting for me against the Tsar."

How?

If he splits up his army to occupy all the large cities, the Russian will destroy it in detail. If he keeps it together he only controls whatever bit of Russia irt is actually standing on.
 
How?

If he splits up his army to occupy all the large cities, the Russian will destroy it in detail. If he keeps it together he only controls whatever bit of Russia irt is actually standing on.
I never said occupy. It would happen after Russia would be defeated so new independent (French puppet) principalities would be created and Russia wouldn't defeat the Grand Army in detail because there wouldn't be a Russia (or at least it wouldn't be at war with France).
Napoleon didn't have to split his army to keep occupying Switzerland/Germany/Netherlands/Italy to keep his puppet states there up.
 
I never said occupy. It would happen after Russia would be defeated so new independent (French puppet) principalities would be created and Russia wouldn't defeat the Grand Army in detail because there wouldn't be a Russia (or at least it wouldn't be at war with France).

Why would there not be a Russia? Even if it's army were somehow totally destroyed it had plenty of manpower to raise another. And the GA can't stay sitting in Moscow (or wherever) indefinitely. All the Russians have to do is lay waste the ground wherever the GA is camped, so that it slowly starves.
 
Why would there not be a Russia? Even if it's army were somehow totally destroyed it had plenty of manpower to raise another. And the GA can't stay sitting in Moscow (or wherever) indefinitely. All the Russians have to do is lay waste the ground wherever the GA is camped, so that it slowly starves.
there wouldn't be a Russia if Russia was decisively defeated and then broken up into principalities. Also indeed, GA can't stand in a particular place forever. Which is why France and Russia would sign a peace treaty. In which, if France was winning enough could get a positive treaty for themselves. Which is where I am saying could include territories Russian Empire is giving away could be divided into independent principalities.
 
Top