No Russo-Turkish War of 1806-1812

If there is no war of 1806 between the Ottomans and Russians, what are the chances of an early Napoleonic defeat? Is there even a chance to defeat Napoleon? Will he even invade Russia?

@alexmilman considering Russia is your era I would expect you have an answer to this.
 
If there is no war of 1806 between the Ottomans and Russians, what are the chances of an early Napoleonic defeat? Is there even a chance to defeat Napoleon? Will he even invade Russia?

@alexmilman considering Russia is your era I would expect you have an answer to this.

This depends: could you clarify the point at which the stumbling towards violence is halted? Do the Ottomans simply take no overtly anti-Russian steps as a result of a lack of French pressure and a desire by Selim not to rock the boat while he's manuvering his New Order troops domestically and greasing the right palms to crack down on Janissary autonomy and monopoly of force in the Balkans? Or are the yeilding to St. Petersburg's protests over the change to the status quo in the Danubian Principalities and allowing Russian traffic into the Med? I ask because the former situation would likely result in a continued neutrality for the OE and give them a chance to push further reforms and keep Selim on the throne, while the later could spin into the Empire joining the Cohalition.
 
If there is no war of 1806 between the Ottomans and Russians, what are the chances of an early Napoleonic defeat? Is there even a chance to defeat Napoleon? Will he even invade Russia?

@alexmilman considering Russia is your era I would expect you have an answer to this.

Thanks for passing the buck. :teary:

I don't think that an absence of the war with the Ottomans in 1806 would have a critical impact on the events elsewhere. In 1806 Russians had approximately 40,000 troops advancing into Moldavia and this number increased to 80K only after Peace of Tilsit. Of course, if we assume that all these extra 40K had been present in East Prussia by the early 1807 then one may speculate about a possible outcome of the Battle of Eylau: instead of an approximate parity of the numbers Bennigsen would have approximately 110K vs. 75K French. This, of course, involves a lot of "IFs" and does not address his questionable ability to develop a field victory into a strategic one (Bennigsen was an experienced and capable general but he clearly had his limitations on strategic level). As an additional food for thought, AFAIK, during that campaign both sides had been suffering from food shortages so how these extra 40K would be supplied is anybody's guess.

Anyway, my understanding is that on this stage of the War of the 4th Coalition Napoleon had general advantage in the numbers at it would be mostly an issue of him bringing these numbers to the front while Russian army of that period did not have big strategic reserves. And, of course, it did not have Napoleon. So, IMO, the chances to defeat Napoleon (as in "winning a campaign") would be extremely slim no matter what.

As for the invasion of Russia, it was years away and in 1812 he invaded while Russia had a bigger and better organized army than in 1807.
 
Thanks for passing the buck. :teary:

I don't think that an absence of the war with the Ottomans in 1806 would have a critical impact on the events elsewhere. In 1806 Russians had approximately 40,000 troops advancing into Moldavia and this number increased to 80K only after Peace of Tilsit. Of course, if we assume that all these extra 40K had been present in East Prussia by the early 1807 then one may speculate about a possible outcome of the Battle of Eylau: instead of an approximate parity of the numbers Bennigsen would have approximately 110K vs. 75K French. This, of course, involves a lot of "IFs" and does not address his questionable ability to develop a field victory into a strategic one (Bennigsen was an experienced and capable general but he clearly had his limitations on strategic level). As an additional food for thought, AFAIK, during that campaign both sides had been suffering from food shortages so how these extra 40K would be supplied is anybody's guess.

Anyway, my understanding is that on this stage of the War of the 4th Coalition Napoleon had general advantage in the numbers at it would be mostly an issue of him bringing these numbers to the front while Russian army of that period did not have big strategic reserves. And, of course, it did not have Napoleon. So, IMO, the chances to defeat Napoleon (as in "winning a campaign") would be extremely slim no matter what.

As for the invasion of Russia, it was years away and in 1812 he invaded while Russia had a bigger and better organized army than in 1807.

Considering there is no war in 1806 and Nappy still invades Russia in 1812, loses the campaign and it goes pretty much like OTL with Nappy eventually being banished to St. Helena. Is there a likely chance of a war with the Ottomans post-1815 over the Danubian Principalities? Or will the Russians retreat from the Principalities when the War is over?
 
This depends: could you clarify the point at which the stumbling towards violence is halted? Do the Ottomans simply take no overtly anti-Russian steps as a result of a lack of French pressure and a desire by Selim not to rock the boat while he's manuvering his New Order troops domestically and greasing the right palms to crack down on Janissary autonomy and monopoly of force in the Balkans? Or are the yeilding to St. Petersburg's protests over the change to the status quo in the Danubian Principalities and allowing Russian traffic into the Med? I ask because the former situation would likely result in a continued neutrality for the OE and give them a chance to push further reforms and keep Selim on the throne, while the later could spin into the Empire joining the Cohalition.

The French Ambassador has never the chance to convince Selim III to declare war. He either dies or suddenly leaves Istanbul or just fails. The Ottomans are better off without the war with possibly no coup of 1807, but I wonder how much it will affect Russia and France without the same war.
 
The French Ambassador has never the chance to convince Selim III to declare war. He either dies or suddenly leaves Istanbul or just fails. The Ottomans are better off without the war with possibly no coup of 1807, but I wonder how much it will affect Russia and France without the same war.

Well, without the costs of fighting the Turks it does mean the Russians can recover their miltary numbers and raise a new warchest moderately faster than IOTL: while like @alexmilman said I'm not sure the 3rd or 4th Coalition Wars are going to be very much changed Russia will be more willing and able to renegade on the Continental System earlier. Let's say a year quicker. That,or Russia could intervene on France's side in the 5th Coalition War and take a bite out of Austria and work with France to align the Ottomans via some intence threatening stares.
 
Top