November 1813: Napoleon quickly and unequivocally accepts the Frankfurt terms
- Thread starter David T
- Start date
I have thought about this. I could see him trying to expand in the Pacific and establish French colonies in parts of Australia or New Zealand that the British do not control.
Who's going to sign the treaty, and do the Americans even want to sign this early? There haven't been any preparations for it, even the British offer of peace in late 1812 was rebuffed. It's going to take at least six months for anything to happen, and most likely a full year... at which point both sides will be waiting to see how the 1814 campaigns go.
This is very true and, taking into an account that the coalition wars started well before Napoleon came to power, it is probably fair enough to talk about a general anymosity on all sides which could at some points disappear and then reappear due to the various sets of the objective and subjective factors.
However, one thing is reasonably clear: Napoleon was trying to elevate France into the position which can not be be sustained: the country simply was not a leading economic power in Europe and attempts to overcome this problem by the purely military and political methods were doomed to trigger opposition.
Or, economy aside, we can try to find parallels with Louis XIV and his (much more moderate in scope) attempts to dominate Europe: France has the biggest population (during Napoleon’s time Russia had approximately the same but a much less effective recruitment system) and the biggest army, which could be equaled only by a coalition. Louis underestimated the “coalition” part and so did Napoleon. So basically Nappy could be declared as a follower of the traditional French policy started by Richelieu.
Last edited:
They will sign it on about the same schedule as OTL.
Napoléon may give his consent to the Frankfurt proposals right away but the actual peace treaty will probably take months to negotiate, just like Amiens did.
I don't think the war in America is really much different here. OTL the British had a free hand to go after the US after the spring of 1814 but they really did not, they opened peace negotiations not long after.
If Ghent gets signed on time it will be late 1814, but an 1814 which sees much larger British involvement. A very small POD can see Baltimore sacked and a British victory at Plattsburgh which would be more than enough to see America beg for peace, no matter how harsh the terms. In this scenario you might even see another incursion to New Orleans simultaneous to the Chesapeake campaign and that could result in victory too.
I disagree. While I think Napoleon would, if peace could be made, try to keep the peace for a long time in self-preservation, he wasn't always sluggish in his later campaigns. Note his brilliant Six Days' Campaign of 1814 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days'_Campaign). He defeated Blücher's 50,000-56,000 troops with an army of 30,000, and inflicted 17,750 casualties in four battles while losing only 3,400 men. Sure, he was getting old and his later campaigns left much to be desired, but I don't think it can all be explained by age.
Last edited:
I highly doubt Briton would except the Frankfort proposals, for one thing it keeps Belgium as part of France, something Briton has been keeping out of anyone's hands sence time immemorial, pulse this seems the best time to destroy a threat to the UK not make peace. If Briton wasn't willing to make peace after Ferdinand then it's not going to make peace agenst a much weaker napolion.
And Daladier. We anglophones tend to overlook the role of France, which was an equal partner with Britain in that decision.
The first shots were fired by Germany. The war was two days old when Britain and France declared war.
But very likely, no Battle of New Orleans, which means a much lower profile for Andrew Jackson. He'd still be the conqueror of West Florida and victor over the Red Sticks, so he'd have a basis for a significant political career, but his appeal would be weaker.
The collapse of the Federalists in 1816 and the "unopposed" re-election of Monroe in 1820 are still very probable. Thus 1824 could be (as IOTL) a chaotic mess. Jackson would run, as would Clay and Adams. (Crawford?) Several alternate possibilities arise:
Clay finishes in the top three, and strong-arms the House into electing him, as many historians argue was likely. However, considering the outrage sparked by the election of second-place finisher Adams OTL, this could be political suicide for Clay.
Adams finishes first and Clay third. The House balks at the impudent pretentions of Clay, and elects Adams as OTL. There is no howling about a "corrrupt bargain" or claims by Jacksonians that "We wuz robbed!" Adams might even win a second term.
Adams finishes first by one EV and Crawford third; Clay is excluded. Jackson, enraged and frustrated, makes a deal with Clay (giving away the kitchen sink to overcome Clay's distaste). Adams supporters raise the howl. Then President Jackson finds he cannot stomach letting Clay run the government for him (per the Deal) and fires him. Jackson is reviled as a double-dealer, and for corruption due to his aggressive practice of the "spoils" system.
Last edited:
Skallagrim
Banned
It simply must be this one. Not because it is the most likely, but because the irony is so very delicious...
The real trick is getting Russia to actually agree to it. Prussia would follow along with whatever Russia did, and Britain would be in no position to continue the war with Austria, Russia, and Prussia all coming to the table with France.
I don't think it'd be a lasting peace though. With France at its natural boundaries, there's no real way to divide the spoils among Russia, Prussia, and Austria in a way that would leave them content. If you think there was a Polish-Saxon crisis, wait until they try to find a settlement without the Rhineland and without Russia getting the glory of deposing Napoleon. Russia is still going to flex its muscles, there's no reason for them to just accept an Austrian peace settlement. Especially not when Prussia and Britain will back Russia completely.
I don't think it'd be a lasting peace though. With France at its natural boundaries, there's no real way to divide the spoils among Russia, Prussia, and Austria in a way that would leave them content. If you think there was a Polish-Saxon crisis, wait until they try to find a settlement without the Rhineland and without Russia getting the glory of deposing Napoleon. Russia is still going to flex its muscles, there's no reason for them to just accept an Austrian peace settlement. Especially not when Prussia and Britain will back Russia completely.
My feeling is that the British are not going to insist on much more favorable peace terms from the Americans than those of Ghent. They know perfectly well that this peace with Napoleon might not last longer than that of Amiens and don't want to have too many troops bogged down in fighting in North America.
Last edited:
They made big demands at Ghent in OTL when it was a draw, so any TL where Britain puts even an iota of extra effort it means they're going to make demands. Clay was willing to cave until Adams put some spine in him and held out until the outcome of the campaign season meant that Britain made no serious headway. Plattsburgh and Baltimore were very near run things in OTL, a few extra ships or more troops could make the difference between OTL and hefty demands.
Was Baltimore really that close? Brooke's orders were so conservative, I don't think he could ever feel confident enough to mount a full attack. Also, his force was outnumbered 2 to 1 by reasonably well-dug in defenders.
Garetor
Gone Fishin'
What interests me most about this are the long-term economic benefits. Assume the peace is held: this is HUGE for France's industrialization. Vast seams of iron and coal, an expanded coastline, and an easily-defensible border. If French birthrates remain low, they might even become an emigration destination as they draw men from Germany and Italy to feed their factories.
Dave Shoup
Banned
It's worth noting that - historically - Napoleon abdicated, and renounced any claims for his heirs (the first time) on April 6 1814, and that treaty was ratified 13 April. The British reinforced their expeditionary forces in North America and attacked at Plattsburgh (with an 11,000 strong force) in September, 1814; they attacked at Baltimore (with a 5,000-strong force, plus the fleet) the same month. The Treaty of Ghent was signed on Christmas Eve, 1814. The British (with an 8,000-strong force) attacked at New Orleans Jan. 8, 1815. Ghent was fully ratified in February.
Napoleon landed in France from Elba on March 1, 1815. Waterloo was over (essentially) June 18, 1815.
If Napoleon accepted the Frankfurt Terms in November, 1813, the reality is whatever "extra" forces the British can spare for North America - based on what they were able to do historically in 1814, maybe 10,000 or so troops - are still facing crossing the North Atlantic in the winter of 1813-14, waiting for the thaw and spring rainy season to pass, and then (possibly) launch attacks on the northern border, the Atlantic Coast, or the Gulf Coast, or all three - in the summer ... so, maybe rather than launching offensives in September, they may get them underway three or four months earlier, so ... May or June, 1814?
For what it's worth, the lines hadn't changed much since 1813, when the Americans had won Lake Erie in September and had won the Thames in October, 1813. Since the death of Tecumseh at the Thames was pretty close to the end of any real prospect of a "native" alliance in the Old Northwest, it's a reasonable conclusion that the side that lost the most in the 1812-15 war had already lost the war.
Doesn't seem like a huge differentiator, actually.
Last edited:
It seems like an article of faith around here that just as literally any POD before June 1940 leads to France curbstomping the Wehrmacht and carrying through to Berlin by Christmas, any POD before January 1815 leads to the entire Northwest Territory, Louisiana Purchase, and half of Maine being taken by the British.
I should add real quick that the Duke of Wellington opposed the hardline negotiating at Ghent, saying the campaigns had gone too poorly to make serious demands.
Dave Shoup
Banned
Haven't been here long enough to see that, but just looking at the calendar and what the British actually could "spare" in 1814 after Boney dropped out the first time, it doesn't seem like a huge change.
And even if Napoleon is somewhat cowed in November, 1813 and agrees to the Frankfurt terms, as long as he's still on the throne, especially in a France that is stronger than it was historically, is it really likely the British are going to send more - or even as many - reinforcements across the Atlantic, in a situation where he was (ostensibly) down for the count and locked up on Elba?
If anything, given the OP, the British are less likely to send more forces westward in 1814 than they did historically.
Yeah, but would Wellington know about it?
Haven't been here long enough to see that, but just looking at the calendar and what the British actually could "spare" in 1814 after Boney dropped out the first time, it doesn't seem like a huge change.
And even if Napoleon is somewhat cowed in November, 1813 and agrees to the Frankfurt terms, as long as he's still on the throne, especially in a France that is stronger than it was historically, is it really likely the British are going to send more - or even as many - reinforcements across the Atlantic, in a situation where he was (ostensibly) down for the count and locked up on Elba?
If anything, given the OP, the British are less likely to send more forces westward in 1814 than they did historically.
Yeah, but would Wellington know about it?
They'd do it because they must have realized that the Americans were hanging by a thread, is how I assume the thinking goes. And they'd take whatever risks were necessary to neuter the USA forever because Decades of Darkness is really popular around here.