No Napoleon

MrHola

Banned
What for effects would the early death (as in before assuming power, let’s just say he’s stillborn) of Napoleon have on the world? My knowledge of this time period is rather limited, so I wonder what the board members opinions would be.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Militarily, not a lot. Napoleon was a very mediocre General. Politically, it's a huge butterfly. Without the Coup of Brumiere, France may remain a radical republic....
 

Germaniac

Donor
Napoleon was not a mediocre general. Young Napoleon and Old Napoleon are in fact two different Generals. The Man who led the French to victory at Austerlitz is not the same man who led the march on Moscow. Young Napoleon changed the landscape of European warfare with his Use of Artillery and his ability to weaken the enemy lines to a point where numerical superiority meant little. Old Napoleon refused to adapt. He became much more cautious and would not have taken some of the chances which he had taken before.

Napoleon used Tactics devolved by other generals and Perfected them. His ambition and short term mindset (had he contiuned fighting and shooting through his drafts the french population would be facing major hurdles when looking torwards a future germany) those were his downfalls not his strategy
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Napoleon was not a mediocre general. Young Napoleon and Old Napoleon are in fact two different Generals. The Man who led the French to victory at Austerlitz is not the same man who led the march on Moscow. Young Napoleon changed the landscape of European warfare with his Use of Artillery and his ability to weaken the enemy lines to a point where numerical superiority meant little. Old Napoleon refused to adapt. He became much more cautious and would not have taken some of the chances which he had taken before.

Napoleon used Tactics devolved by other generals and Perfected them. His ambition and short term mindset (had he contiuned fighting and shooting through his drafts the french population would be facing major hurdles when looking torwards a future germany) those were his downfalls not his strategy

No, they were the same General, but with two different armies. The basic abilities and limitations of Napoleon are constant. However, he had Berthier (at least until the Hundred Days), and Berthier could correct many of Napoleons operational flaws (such as Napoleons complete inability to grasp logistics and march tables). Nothing could correct for Napoleons utter incompetence at scouting and predicting enemy movements. However, his strengths were constant, notably his ability at propaganda, and his ability to adapt when his plans went wrong (as they did on every campaign).

Prior to 1807, Napoleon had a very high quality army which could usually win even given his fairly unsophisticated tactics, since it could react. From 1807 onwards, the French Army is quite low quality (this shows at Eylau, when it was only luck Napoleon wasn't crushed), and is getting so large it simply can't react in the way it could, and the plan becomes more important. Unfortunately Napoleon's plans were usually works of fantasy, saved by his, and his armies ability to react. As the army got larger and less able, they lost this. When the armies dropped in size again (1813-4), Napoleon was able to effectively command them again and started doing well.

Simply, Napoleon was very reasonable commanding 50,000 men. 100,000 men were beyond his span of command though. He should have been someone elses Marshal, where he'd probably perform up there with Davout, Massena and Desaix.

As to the French Army, until 1813, he rarely called up more than 80,000 from a class (for 5 years service). Hence the "French Army" (which included a lot of Italians, Germans etc.) was rarely more than 400,000. It wasn't a levee en masse, and hadn't been since the failed attempt to raise a levy in 1794 (which brought a million men into the army, who promptly deserted, bring strength back down below 300,000).
 
So someone who claims to be from England calls Napoleon a medicore General. Real shocking.


Outside your seemingly insane bias, medicore Generals don't have campains like Napoleon did in his 1st Italian campain or the the 3rd coalition. For most Generals the campains of the 2nd coalition, 4th coalition, and even the 1814 defense of France are amazing accomplishments. The 5th was a victory, he did a decent job in Egypt, he was pushing back Spain and Britain in his short time in Spain, and even had a few victories against Prussia and Russia in Germany after invasion of Russia.


At first his genius was unrivaled. It wasn't until he has getting old and arrogant that he started to lose. His enemies learned that if they trade time for space that he was very beatable as a general. Even though France still had the largest Army in the world, in the later years when his enemy armies combined they were far larger and stronger then the French. At his best, no one in his era was a better general.

There is a reason that such a hated man ruling such a hated country survived that long against Britain, Prussia, Austria and Russia.
 
This is my first post here.

I agree with those who are arguing against the notion that Napoleon was not a great general. He may not have been the innovative general of his time, but it is hard to argue with the military success that the French had for quite a few years under Napoleon.

That being said, Napoleons mistakes as well as his successes are probably very distinctive to Napoleon. It would be hard to see what shape the latter stages of the French Revolution would have taken had Napoleon not been around. I think we can be safe to assume that the Directory would have fallen eventually, though what shape or when that fall might have occurred would be tough to determine. Obviously part of this would depend on whether some of Napoleon's pre-consular campaigns would have been fought by a different general.

As a general guess, had Napoleon not been around for 18 Brumaire, I think the revolutionary governments of France would have continued the trend to the establishment of some sort of dictator. At that point, the question would be, was the dictator more of a politician or a general? If the former, I think it is safe to say, that Revolutionary France would have ultimately been unable to resist the pressures by foreign nations and ultimately, the monarchy might have been restored as early as 1806 or 1807. If he had been more of a general, he might have postponed the restoration of the monarchy, but might well have been unable to hold power for too long. Either way, I think it is safe to say, France and Europe would have been very different.

--
Bill
 

67th Tigers

Banned
So someone who claims to be from England calls Napoleon a medicore General. Real shocking.


Outside your seemingly insane bias, medicore Generals don't have campains like Napoleon did in his 1st Italian campain

In which he dispersed his forces in the face of unknown enemy dispositions, and was only saved by Alvinczy being utterly incompetent?

or the the 3rd coalition.

The one where he failed to locate the main enemy army, overshot it, exposed his lines of supply and retreat and was only saved by Mack being extremely subpar?

For most Generals the campains of the 2nd coalition,

The won that Napoleon lost and was saved by Desaix, who conveniently got himself killed in the process and allowed Napoleon to claim credit?

4th coalition,

Where he missed the main Prussian Army, made an absolute hash of fighting it's rearguard and was saved by Davout?

and even the 1814 defense of France are amazing accomplishments.

Although of course, he lost, and lost badly. Although he did show some degree of finese not seen in years.

The 5th was a victory,

Really? Iberia, open wound that never healed. The Austrian campaign seriously damaged the prestige of France and Napoleon.

he did a decent job in Egypt,

He lost an entire army, effectively destroyed French power in the Mediterranean and got himself captured into the bargain. For no net gain.

he was pushing back Spain and Britain in his short time in Spain, and even had a few victories against Prussia and Russia in Germany after invasion of Russia.

but was utterly defeated.

At first his genius was unrivaled. It wasn't until he has getting old and arrogant that he started to lose. His enemies learned that if they trade time for space that he was very beatable as a general. Even though France still had the largest Army in the world, in the later years when his enemy armies combined they were far larger and stronger then the French. At his best, no one in his era was a better general.

No, the French Army wasn't the largest in the world. The Russian one was, by a large margin. In terms of total men under arms, the British had the largest military in the world.

In round figures:

France: 450,000 regulars and 80,000 National Guards
Britain: 330,000 regulars and 400,000 Volunteers
Prussia: 75,000 regulars and 90,000 Landwehr
Austria: 400,000 regulars and 100,000 irregulars
Russia: 540,000 regulars, and 160,000 irregulars
 

67th Tigers

Banned
Iberia qualifies more as a very big political error rather than a military one, I think.

Ruthless, but politically sound. The problem is Iberia is a military resource desert ever bit as bad as Russia. The land couldn't feed armies, and food had to be shipped overland from France (expensive) or by sea from Britain (cheap). The French had to disperse armies to occupy land for subsistance, while the British, fed from the sea, could concentrate whereever they chose.
 
His brother Louis was someone in the directorate, so whe still have a Bonaparte in the history books, But ..........

No Joseph on the throne of Naples, Naples remains under the control of the King of Sicily. Britain doesn't get Malta.
No Kingdom of Italy, North Italy remains more divided. Savoy does not get Sardinia at the Congress of Vienna, Duke of Savoy doesn't have the base to become King in the 1860's.
Together -- No Unification of Italy in the 1860~1870's.

No Joseph on the throne of Spain, No Liberal Cortez or Liberal Constitution.
No Exile and Restoration for King Ferdinand VII, No Latin American revolt in the 1810's~1820's

OTL's 1840's Mexican/ American becomes TTL's Spanish/ American war, US takes Cuba, Northern Mexico [Mex cession].

No Second Empire - Great War is Germany/GB v France/Russia
 
His brother Louis was someone in the directorate, so whe still have a Bonaparte in the history books, But ..........

No Joseph on the throne of Naples, Naples remains under the control of the King of Sicily. Britain doesn't get Malta.
No Kingdom of Italy, North Italy remains more divided. Savoy does not get Sardinia at the Congress of Vienna, Duke of Savoy doesn't have the base to become King in the 1860's.
Together -- No Unification of Italy in the 1860~1870's.

No Joseph on the throne of Spain, No Liberal Cortez or Liberal Constitution.
No Exile and Restoration for King Ferdinand VII, No Latin American revolt in the 1810's~1820's

OTL's 1840's Mexican/ American becomes TTL's Spanish/ American war, US takes Cuba, Northern Mexico [Mex cession].

No Second Empire - Great War is Germany/GB v France/Russia
I really don't think America could have taken on Spain which was not invaded and still has it's Empire.
I hate those assumptions...
 
I really don't think America could have taken on Spain which was not invaded and still has it's Empire.

With thousand of Americans, including Sam Huston and ex congressman Daniel Crockett running around Texas fighting the Spanish, I don't think whe would have a chose.
And Whe were ready to fight Spain in the 1850's, just ten years later.
 

67th Tigers

Banned
With thousand of Americans, including Sam Huston and ex congressman Daniel Crockett running around Texas fighting the Spanish, I don't think whe would have a chose.
And Whe were ready to fight Spain in the 1850's, just ten years later.

Fight Spain? Even the damaged Spain was a far more formidable power than the US. In fact, that's a pretty one sided war. The Spanish will almost certainly win.
 

yourworstnightmare

Banned
Donor
His brother Louis was someone in the directorate, so whe still have a Bonaparte in the history books, But ..........

No Joseph on the throne of Naples, Naples remains under the control of the King of Sicily. Britain doesn't get Malta.
No Kingdom of Italy, North Italy remains more divided. Savoy does not get Sardinia at the Congress of Vienna, Duke of Savoy doesn't have the base to become King in the 1860's.
Together -- No Unification of Italy in the 1860~1870's.

No Joseph on the throne of Spain, No Liberal Cortez or Liberal Constitution.
No Exile and Restoration for King Ferdinand VII, No Latin American revolt in the 1810's~1820's

OTL's 1840's Mexican/ American becomes TTL's Spanish/ American war, US takes Cuba, Northern Mexico [Mex cession].

No Second Empire - Great War is Germany/GB v France/Russia

I doubt Germany would have united without the experience of the Napoleonic Wars and the rise of German nationalism (if not the French Republic tried to invade Germany in the same way Napoleon did, of course). Prussia would also be a lot weaker without all their gains in the industrial rich Rheinland. The whole 1800s would turn out very different.


nitpick; The House of Savoie ruled Sardinia since the 1720s.
 
The Napoleonic invasion of Spain meant 700.000 dead for the spanish side, as well as an incredible destruction (the french and the english allies did a "good" job). No Napoleon would also probably mean no Trafalgar and the survival of a first tier spanish navy. With that the independence of American colonies would be much harder and the outcome of a probable war with the US would depend on who alligns with the US.
 
I doubt Germany would have united without the experience of the Napoleonic Wars and the rise of German nationalism (if not the French Republic tried to invade Germany in the same way Napoleon did, of course). Prussia would also be a lot weaker without all their gains in the industrial rich Rheinland. The whole 1800s would turn out very different.


nitpick; The House of Savoie ruled Sardinia since the 1720s.

The other thing about Prussia is that, before Napoleon crushed the Prussian state in 1806-7, it was potentially veering towards being a German/Polish binational state. The Prussian monarchs learned to speak Polish, and, as far as anything I've told, generally treated their subjects fairly well. It seems to have been the national revival after their defeat and the settlement of 1815 that finally, totally, fixed Prussia as a 'German' state.
 
Fight Spain? Even the damaged Spain was a far more formidable power than the US. In fact, that's a pretty one sided war. The Spanish will almost certainly win.

This is the same Spain that couldn't hold onto Latin America in face of professional armies of illiterate peasants, isn't it?
 
Top