Napoleonic Peace - at the point of a sword

A rough sketch of an outline of a bunch of ideas I have on how Napoleon could have secured a position for France as the premier continental power:

1. Don't bother with the Continental System. It doesn't and wouldn't work, and only serves to create hostility among your client states

2. Do not invade Spain (and Portugal). With no C.S., Portugal can be left alone as long as no British armies are there. This butterflies into no invasion of Spain. If need be, keep a French army in Spain to help the Spanish drive off any British incursion.

3. Dismantle the Habsburg Empire and Prussia. They are never going to like you, and they are strong enough to back-stab you at the first possible opportunity.

- form the Kingdom of Hungary
- form the Kingdom of Bohemia
- half of Austria goes to Bavaria
- the other half (including Vienna) is kept under military occupation and some sort of collaborationist local government councill
- divide remaining Prussian lands in the west among Saxony, Westphalia and Denmark
- Berlin kept under military occupation
- all Habsburg and Hohenzollern property is confiscated and distributed as seen fit

4. Russia is too big to be conquered, so don't bother. Create a sort of 'cordon sanitaire' around it:

- form the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (OTL Duchy of Warsaw + Grand Duchy of Lithuania + Galicia+as much of Prussian lands in the east as possible)
- form Kingdom of Romania (Wallachia+Moldova+Bessarabia)
- provide these two with the means to build their own armies to fight the Russians so you don't have to.
- keep a good part of the Grand Armee in between the two new buffer states, and use it to counter any offensive Russian move, until Tsar Alexander gets tired of losing armies and goes home.

5. Keep a central reserve which can be deployed wherever the British try to land on the continent

6. Profit!!

Now of course, in the long term, the forces of German nationalism cannot be stopped. However, it would be many decades before the above arrangement would be threatened by them, and more still before the French military would be forced to withdraw behind the Rhine on account of them.

Thoughts?
 
Last edited:
While I do agree with the general aspect, I don't think Russia would accept a dismantling of Prussia, neither of the Austrian Empire, and the attempt of restablishing the PLC would provoke another war.

Austria had been defeated more times I can count, of course, but they could still pack a punch even after Austerlitz. Unless you mean that every army that Napoleon was eventually forced to deploy in the Iberian Peninsula actually became directed to the war effort in mainland Europe.

Anyways, that's an interesting scenario. I guess that sooner or later Napoleon would build another fleet and attempt another invasion of the UK.

EDIT: Putting a French army in Spain "to protect against Britain" wasn't the main reason that created a serious opposition of the Spanish population against the French, even before Napoleon decided to depose the Bourbons? I'd suggest that Spain is ignored altogether to ensure, but that provides indeed a safe haven from the UK if King Charles IV of Spain tries something funny against France.
 
A rough sketch of an outline of a bunch of ideas I have on how Napoleon could have secured a position for France as the premier continental power:

1. Don't bother with the Continental System. It doesn't and wouldn't work, and only serves to create hostility among your client states Thoughts?

Yes you have a problem because even if Napoleon did not implement his problematic and paradoxical continental blockade, he and his allies would anyway have to face and endure the british naval blockade of Britain's continental enemies.

One often forgets that the continental blockade also was the napoleonic answer to Britain's naval blockade of its continental enemies.

2. Do not invade Spain (and Portugal). With no C.S., Portugal can be left alone as long as no British armies are there. This butterflies into no invasion of Spain. If need be, keep a French army in Spain to help the Spanish drive off any British incursion.

Right. Nothing to add.

3. Dismantle the Habsburg Empire and Prussia. They are never going to like you, and they are strong enough to back-stab you at the first possible opportunity.

- form the Kingdom of Hungary
- form the Kingdom of Bohemia
- half of Austria goes to Bavaria
- the other half (including Vienna) is kept under military occupation and some sort of collaborationist local government councill
- divide remaining Prussian lands in the west among Saxony, Westphalia and Denmark
- Berlin kept under military occupation
- all Habsburg and Hohenzollern property is confiscated and distributed as seen fit

This would be turning Nappy into the caricature he actually was not : the so-called corsican ogre.

And if you have point 1, then Austria will certainly not go to war against France the way it did in 1809. One also forgets that in the long-run, Austria had much more to fear from Russia than from France and that Austria, especially Metternich, was very aware of it. The alliance between Austria and France in 1810 was not a mere sheet of paper that Austria would tear apart at the first opportunity. It actually was a long-term bet and commitment. Austria tried to become napoleonic France's closest and most important ally in a Europe that seemed destined to be ruled by France for a generation.

The point that could not be foreseen and that created a completely new deal was the extent of the disaster Napoleon suffered in Russia in 1812.

This really changed the balance of powers. But in 1813, Napoleon continued to act as if there had been such a major change in the balance of powers and to make the concessions that would have driven Austria to remain an ally of France.


As far as Prussia was concerned, I am torn between 2 points ov view.
On the one hand, yes, in late 1811/1812, when intelligence reports informed Nappy that Prussia was considering an alliance with Russia against France in case of a russian offensive in Poland, Nappy, from a certain point of view, should not have restrained himself in threatening Prussia of being dismantled if it ever betrayed him.
But, on the other hand, this is hindsight and such a dismantlement seems necessary only when we know that the russian campaign will end in a disaster. It was in fact not at all foreseeable that it would end in a disaster. And Prussia was in fact some kind of second rank player after 1806/1807.


4. Russia is too big to be conquered, so don't bother. Create a sort of 'cordon sanitaire' around it:

- form the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth (OTL Duchy of Warsaw + Grand Duchy of Lithuania + Galicia+as much of Prussian lands in the east as possible)
- form Kingdom of Romania (Wallachia+Moldova+Bessarabia)
- provide these two with the means to build their own armies to fight the Russians so you don't have to.
- keep a good part of the Grand Armee in between the two new buffer states, and use it to counter any offensive Russian move, until Tsar Alexander gets tired of losing armies and goes home.

This was the original war plan. A 2 years-campaign with the strategic goal of snatching greater Poland away from Russia and rolling it back to something close to its pre 1772 borders.
The problem is that Napoleon gave up that plan in august 1812 and went for the strategic nonsens of whasing the russian army as far as necessary to fight a big pitched battle that would force tsar Alexander to accept peace and resumingt the continental blockade.

5. Keep a central reserve which can be deployed wherever the British try to land on the continent

Problem : a navy is much faster than an Army

6. Profit!!

Now of course, in the long term, the forces of German nationalism cannot be stopped. However, it would be many decades before the above arrangement would be threatened by them, and more still before the French military would be forced to withdraw behind the Rhine on account of them.

Thoughts?

Nobody can force the sovereigns of the german States into a united Germany if they keep the support of their french hegemon that is as dominant as a victorious napoleonic France would be. It took a very strong Prussia and a genious Bismarck to force unification on the different german States and after defeating separately first Austria and its german allies and then France.
 
While I do agree with the general aspect, I don't think Russia would accept a dismantling of Prussia, neither of the Austrian Empire, and the attempt of restablishing the PLC would provoke another war.

Probably, but Napoleon prevailed OTL under worse circumstances, so I don't see why he wouldn't here.

Austria had been defeated more times I can count, of course, but they could still pack a punch even after Austerlitz. Unless you mean that every army that Napoleon was eventually forced to deploy in the Iberian Peninsula actually became directed to the war effort in mainland Europe.

Even if it wasn't, Napoleon was able OTL, with the forces he had, to conquer both Austria and Prussia (4th & 5th coalition) and defeat the Russian army sent to help (Battle of Friedland)

Anyways, that's an interesting scenario. I guess that sooner or later Napoleon would build another fleet and attempt another invasion of the UK.
Probably, although I'm a bit skeptical of his chances.

EDIT: Putting a French army in Spain "to protect against Britain" wasn't the main reason that created a serious opposition of the Spanish population against the French, even before Napoleon decided to depose the Bourbons? I'd suggest that Spain is ignored altogether to ensure, but that provides indeed a safe haven from the UK if King Charles IV of Spain tries something funny against France.
From what I've read, French armies were initially welcomed by the civilian population (before the backstabbing, i.e. when they were on their way to invade Portugal).



Yes you have a problem because even if Napoleon did not implement his problematic and paradoxical continental blockade, he and his allies would anyway have to face and endure the british naval blockade of Britain's continental enemies.

One often forgets that the continental blockade also was the napoleonic answer to Britain's naval blockade of its continental enemies.
It was their answer, but it was akin to shooting yourself in the left foot because your enemies shot you in your right foot.

There was no way post Trafalgar for Napoleon to lift the blockade. Moreover, as long as he controlled Europe, the British blockade was of no mortal danger to him. He could easily afford to remain blockaded by Britain for the rest of his life and not give a damn.


This would be turning Nappy into the caricature he actually was not : the so-called corsican ogre.
Who would be left to call him that, that didn't do so OTL? The British can't really invade Europe by themselves, the Russians are contained by Napoleon's new buffer states and everyone else is either happy to get their independence from him or has no army and a French garrison to remind them of their station. The Habsburgs and Hohenzollerns would be rotting in a dungeon cell, so who cares what they think? :p


And if you have point 1, then Austria will certainly not go to war against France the way it did in 1809. One also forgets that in the long-run, Austria had much more to fear from Russia than from France and that Austria, especially Metternich, was very aware of it. The alliance between Austria and France in 1810 was not a mere sheet of paper that Austria would tear apart at the first opportunity. It actually was a long-term bet and commitment. Austria tried to become napoleonic France's closest and most important ally in a Europe that seemed destined to be ruled by France for a generation.

The point that could not be foreseen and that created a completely new deal was the extent of the disaster Napoleon suffered in Russia in 1812.

This really changed the balance of powers. But in 1813, Napoleon continued to act as if there had been such a major change in the balance of powers and to make the concessions that would have driven Austria to remain an ally of France.
Austria was a reasonable mid-sized power, and as such could always become a threat. It could also easily be broken up, given its composition. Therefor, why gamble on whether Metternich keeps his word or not, when you simply don't have to?



As far as Prussia was concerned, I am torn between 2 points ov view.
On the one hand, yes, in late 1811/1812, when intelligence reports informed Nappy that Prussia was considering an alliance with Russia against France in case of a russian offensive in Poland, Nappy, from a certain point of view, should not have restrained himself in threatening Prussia of being dismantled if it ever betrayed him.
But, on the other hand, this is hindsight and such a dismantlement seems necessary only when we know that the russian campaign will end in a disaster. It was in fact not at all foreseeable that it would end in a disaster. And Prussia was in fact some kind of second rank player after 1806/1807.
Like Austria, Prussia was reasonably big. Any vassal too big for his britches is a disaster waiting to happen.


Problem : a navy is much faster than an Army
True, but OTOH the landing force will have to take some sort of fortified location, giving ample time for the army to arrive from the interior.

Nobody can force the sovereigns of the german States into a united Germany if they keep the support of their french hegemon that is as dominant as a victorious napoleonic France would be. It took a very strong Prussia and a genious Bismarck to force unification on the different german States and after defeating separately first Austria and its german allies and then France.
This is true of the ruling princes, but I was thinking more along the lines of popular discontent that periodically erupts into a massive uprising with the first bad harvest or French sign of weakness.
 
Rather than impose a monarchist vision of Europe, Napoleon does everything you are proposing but does not become Emperor.

Retain the "Consul for life" position at the head of a "republic" and use the concept of republicanism to dismantle the Prussian and Austrian states (and rebuild the Polish and Romanian ones). If you want a classical example then you are looking at the Roman Principate era with client states modelled on the Roman (powerless) senate and Augustus.

Completely against Napoleon's meglomaniac tendencies but assuming a nationalist republics power base can be found in Austria and Germany (difficult but not impossible), this would leave him with a coherent political message to the peoples of Europe and leave him with a hostile Spain, UK and Russia (and Turkey).

Spain may well dissolve into a civil war between pro-republican liberals and monarchists which will remove that threat. Russia can be portrayed as the reactionary tyranny that it was and can be held off pretty much indefinitely by the new republics backed by France. Uk eventually gets fed up backing failed wars and learns to live with the new "republics". The constitutional monarchy of the UK is, after all, not that far away from the "republic" model - it just has a more powerful senate and less powerful "First man"
 

Agree in principle. This does however raise the issue that now Napoleon cannot put his relatives in charge of various places; that and the fact that a Germany united by nationalism can be a significant threat to France in its own right.
 
Nobody can force the sovereigns of the german States into a united Germany if they keep the support of their french hegemon that is as dominant as a victorious napoleonic France would be.

They would be pressured from two directions: the increasingly nationalistic German public and the wish of the more ambitious governments of German states to increase their influence and gain a better (negotiating) position vis à vis others and especially France.

It took a very strong Prussia and a genious Bismarck to force unification on the different german States and after defeating separately first Austria and its german allies and then France.

Bismarck's Prussia did force a German unification on Prussian terms.
In the middle of the 19th century, it was not a question whether Germany would be centralised, but on whose terms.
The states of the Third Germany were more willing to be subordinated to a German government than Prussia and Austria.
 
Agree in principle. This does however raise the issue that now Napoleon cannot put his relatives in charge of various places; that and the fact that a Germany united by nationalism can be a significant threat to France in its own right.

Germany would not need to be united (although that would be the logical conclusion of the process). A Westphalian Republic, Saxon Republic, Bavarian Republics alongside a Prussian Republic (e.g. Consulate Italy) could be workable.

The question of Napoleon's relatives is a vexed one (for Napoleon). it would of course be possible to make them ambassadors to the new republics - not quite as attractive but perhaps no less influential politically.
 
1) no Continental System (as stated)
2) don't invade Russia
3) don't be a git and put your brother on the Spanish throne. Ferdinand was a useless weak reed of an ally, sure. But better that than the massive bleeding ulcer that Spain became.
4) maybe remember that loose hegemony is better than a resented iron fist.

That might do. One of his biggest problems was knowing when to stop.
 
Top