Napoleonic Victory: Plausible?

[stevep]

Maybe the best way is for Napoleon to die of one of his countless diseases in 1807, before the Peninsular War, and the throne to pass to his son with a conservative marshal as regent...although of course that largely obviates RCTFI's original WI conditions.

Thande

Agree with the 1st part but as far as I'm aware his only legitimate son was the one by the Austrian princess Louise-Marie and he didn't divorce Josephine and marry her until about 1813.

If he had died earlier, then the question of the succession to the empire could have led to someone more willing to accept the independence of other powers and hence more acceptable to them in turn. However who that would have been and how much uncertainty and disorder inside the French empire would have resulted is a big question. Not sure if he had any recognised successor for the empire at that point. Suspect not.

Would be a very strange world as France at that point included large slices of Germany and Italy as well as what is now Belgium. Whether nationalism would have split it apart over time or they would have been converted?

Steve

 

[Thande]

Thande

Agree with the 1st part but as far as I'm aware his only legitimate son was the one by the Austrian princess Louise-Marie and he didn't divorce Josephine and marry her until about 1813.

If he had died earlier, then the question of the succession to the empire could have led to someone more willing to accept the independence of other powers and hence more acceptable to them in turn. However who that would have been and how much uncertainty and disorder inside the French empire would have resulted is a big question. Not sure if he had any recognised successor for the empire at that point. Suspect not.

Would be a very strange world as France at that point included large slices of Germany and Italy as well as what is now Belgium. Whether nationalism would have split it apart over time or they would have been converted?

Steve

Bah, this is why I need to do more Napoleonic research

I believe France at this point also included Dalmatia, or was that not added until around 1812?

 

[Mark AH]

But Moscow traditionally is the heart of Russia, which is why Nappy chose it. He said "Attacking St. Petersburg is like scratching Russia's head, attacking Kiev is like tickling its foot."

Moscow was the heart of Russia, but it was useless to stay at Moscow, by going in the direction of the government Napoleon would have done at least something. Don’t forget that in that era it was more a fight between governments than that those government’s were listing to the people.

We all would agree that the campaign of 1812 wasn’t helping building the empire.

 

[Mark AH]

Thande

Agree with the 1st part but as far as I'm aware his only legitimate son was the one by the Austrian princess Louise-Marie and he didn't divorce Josephine and marry her until about 1813.

If he had died earlier, then the question of the succession to the empire could have led to someone more willing to accept the independence of other powers and hence more acceptable to them in turn. However who that would have been and how much uncertainty and disorder inside the French empire would have resulted is a big question. Not sure if he had any recognised successor for the empire at that point. Suspect not.

Just for the records, Napoleon divorced Josephine on 15 December 1809 and married Marie-Louise of Austria on 11 March 1810. The king of Rome was born on 20 March 1811.

One of the problems with Napoleon was that he was always surrounded with the same people for example his family (capable for there function or not) Talleyrand and Fouche.

 

[Homer]

Napoleon could compromise, when necessary. Look at Tilsit, where his first instinct was to abolish Prussia. The Czar persuaded him otherwise.

The problem is not whether Napoleon could compromise, but whether everybody else could!

Britain cannot accept the mouth of the Rhine in French hands, nor can it accept any french dominance on the continent, neither in Italy nor in Germany. Therefore to get a british-french compromise you'd need France being reduced considerably. What is even more important is, however, that the British believe thereafter that France wouldn't become expansionistic again, although under Napoleon. That's quite hard to believe actually: The man that conquered Europe now reduced to a smaller France loosing everything he achieved...

Prussia and Austria cannot accept French dominance in Germany and Italy, either. They are determined to get their lost territories back. And they're united in this wish.

Germans, Spanish, Italians - you name it: they want to get rid of the French occupants.

Thus to last, the napoleonic empire must be reduced to France's pre-war borders of about 1793, or maybe a little later. However, France must loose Italy, Germany, the Rhine frontier and large parts of Belgium. And Napoleon has to accept that in the aftermath. And the other powers must have the impression that Napoleon accepts this. I can't see how this is going to be.

 

[Advernt]

But what if he had won a devestating victory at Liepzig? Perhaps the utter destruction of most of the allied armies , on a scale more impressive than Austreliz? And what if , as others have suggested , that most of the Monarchs ( This borders on ASB ) were unable to extricate themselves from the massacre , and were cut off and cut down?

Another potential POD is his invasion of Russia - what if Moscow was not raze to the ground - or if he had not delayed in Vilna?

The only way he could have mantained his power after waterloo would have been via an ASB scenario where both Blucher and Welligton was killed , and their armies utterly gutted - and he followed up on that triumph ,and proceeded to whip the contiental powers apart one more time - and the European courts were massacred in the process.

Ofcourse , should he suceed , this will turn into a French Wank.

 

[Nekromans]

Maybe the best way is for Napoleon to die of one of his countless diseases in 1807, before the Peninsular War, and the throne to pass to his son with a conservative marshal as regent...although of course that largely obviates RCTFI's original WI conditions.

No, I think this would satisfy the "dying of natural causes" clause - what's more natural than disease?

 

[Prinz Richard Eugen]

Stay out of Spain. There was nothing to fear from an attack by the Spanish across the Pyrenees. The Spanish had been reasonable allies - even to the point of losing their fleet to Nelson. And, of course, they gave Louisiana to Napoleon. This war costs 200,000 to 300,000 casualties and allows Britian a foothold in Europe (along with a source of manpower for allies). With the south safe, more troops are available for Russia - many of them are Frech or good allies. The marshals stuck in Spain would have been useful in 1812.

 

[Alratan]

You could see my Sun Never Sets TL as being closer to a Napoleonic victory TL than OTL. It, like several suggestions above, have Napoleon dying (in my case during the early stages of the invasion of Russia), and then having his client states jumping ship whilst bickering about who's going to be Regent paralyzes the French commanders. This results in a Napoleonic France (albeit Napoleon II), substantially larger than OTL.

 

[stevep]

Just for the records, Napoleon divorced Josephine on 15 December 1809 and married Marie-Louise of Austria on 11 March 1810. The king of Rome was born on 20 March 1811.

One of the problems with Napoleon was that he was always surrounded with the same people for example his family (capable for there function or not) Talleyrand and Fouche.

Mark

Thanks for that. Should have remember that as its in a lot of TLs that I have played about with. Memory is obviously going.

Steve

 

[HurganPL]

Prussia and Austria cannot accept French dominance in Germany and Italy, either. They are determined to get their lost territories back. And they're united in this wish.

Could Napoleon ally with Austria promising to return Silesia from Prussian hands and turning Prussia into Austria's vassal ?

 

[stevep]

Could Napoleon ally with Austria promising to return Silesia from Prussian hands and turning Prussia into Austria's vassal ?

I did read once that Napoleon offered to return Silesia to Austria after the crushing defeat of Prussia in 1806/07. However the Austrian government allegedly took the longer view and decided that Prussia needed Silesia and Austria needed Prussia as a counter to Napoleonic France. However could have the Austrians taking a different viewpoint.

Steve

 

[Jared]

Napoleon could compromise, when necessary. Look at Tilsit, where his first instinct was to abolish Prussia. The Czar persuaded him otherwise.

The problem wasn't getting him to compromise, it was getting him to stay satisfied with what he'd achieved. There were several points in his career when Napoleon could have stopped and being considered the victor of the Napoleonic Wars. But he didn't really stop for long. And I suspect that changing that would make him no longer Napoleon, and thus less likely to end up at the head of France in the first place.

 

[Grey Wolf]

Treaty of Amiens

1802... Napoleon was only First Consul. I'd find this difficult as a POD for a successful EMPIRE for without war to bind the nation together I'm not sure that any attempt to gain the purple would not be met by renewed civil war within the French Republic

Also, even if he did become Emperor its going to be a very different Bonaparte dynasty since his brothers have no thrones, and thus no real power or influence. Implementing an Imperial Succession Law in this instance would seem a very hazardous occurrence. It might well end up with a non-hereditary emperor, sort of analogous to the elected monarchy of Poland.

He also has no sons of his own, nor any real chance of getting any as none of the old royal houses are going to give him a wife in this scenario. He will remain married to Josephine, and his adopted children (Eugene, Hortense and I believe their cousin Stephanie) would be his immediate line.

Whether they would have be able to rise to positions of sufficient importance to challenge for the succession in this scenario is not certain

Best Regards
Grey Wolf

 

[Redbeard]

But what if he had won a devestating victory at Liepzig? Perhaps the utter destruction of most of the allied armies , on a scale more impressive than Austreliz? And what if , as others have suggested , that most of the Monarchs ( This borders on ASB ) were unable to extricate themselves from the massacre , and were cut off and cut down?

Another potential POD is his invasion of Russia - what if Moscow was not raze to the ground - or if he had not delayed in Vilna?

The only way he could have mantained his power after waterloo would have been via an ASB scenario where both Blucher and Welligton was killed , and their armies utterly gutted - and he followed up on that triumph ,and proceeded to whip the contiental powers apart one more time - and the European courts were massacred in the process.

Ofcourse , should he suceed , this will turn into a French Wank.

The monarchs actually in OTL were in real danger of being run over by a French charge (day one at main front IIRC).

Anyway if the allied armies had been decisively defeated I doubt any of them would have had the resources, financially or manpower wise to raise new armies.

I don't see how Wellington and Blücher being dead after Waterloo should be significant.

Even with the British and Prussian armies killed to the last man (incl. Wellington and Blücher) by ASBs or whatever there still awaits the Russian and Austrian armies each much bigger and at least as good than what the French can field in 1815. Add to that the small German states also converging on France, most were with the Austrians, the Bavarians alone counting 50.000 men.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard