alternatehistory.com

The thing that strikes me about the Napoleonic Wars is Napoleon's refusal to compromise combined with Britain's refusal to compromise. Naopleon's megalomania is, I think, the easier problem. Lets say he falls off his horse in 1810 and breaks a leg, giving him a greater awareness of his own mortality. He turns his policy towards seeking stability, wanting to leave his successors a strong Empire. In a situation where he doesn't invade Russia but instead falls back on consolidating his Empire in Western Europe (i.e. France and the satellite states) can Napoleon achieve stability?

The most important factor is, I think Britain- the basic tenet of British foreign policy was to ensure that Western Europe was never under the dominance of any single power. With Napoleon consolidating in Western Europe and avoiding costly adventures, can Britain be convinced to cease it's economic campaign against France? IOTL Britain heavily subsidised Napoleons Continental enemies and so long as it was prepared to do so, Napoleon had to keep fighting them.

Without a Russian campaign in 1812 can a more cautious Napoelon either (i) descend in force on Iberia and drive the British into the sea or (ii) be willing to draw the line at the Pyrenees leaving Britain, Spain and Portugal as effectively maritime colonial powers and leaving France as the master of mainland Europe?
Top