Plausibility Check: Supreme Napoleon Victory

[GohanLSSJ2]

I had an idea with two great friends of mine for a complete victory for Napoleon, including the following achievements:

1) Break up Austria-Hungary into... Well, Österreich and Hungary.

2) Don't seek to take over Moscow. Just focus on liberating the Baltics, Poland and emancipating the Ashkenazim.

3) Beat the Ottomans out of Europe, to the point of taking over Constantinople.

4) Tying to all the above... Napoleon declares himself... IMPERATOR ROMANVM.

How possible can these scenarios be?

Discuss.

PS: My best friend had another idea to compliment this. He may be posting it here.

 

[King of the Uzbeks]

Nitpick: Austria-Hungary didn't exist. It was just Hapsburg land.

 

[Lee-Sensei]

My idea will be a growing and wildly popular movement named in honor of Barbarosa I. A movement with the dreams of uniting the Holy Roman Empire to its former glory. They have noble ideals, and even perhaps form their own charter under the movement's name, that of the "Sons of Barbarosa." They have a ruling council and the leader is given the name of Barbarosa III and Barbarsoa IV when it comes to the next one. The ruling council ALL agree on the code, and any changes have to be unanimous. They soon grow to wield so much power that they have the authority to strip members of their title if they are caught violating the code, and they fancy themselves civilized gentlemen, so it would be something like treating women or kids badly. In fact, they wield so much authority and power that anyone caught violating the code on the first offense can be excommunicated and blacklisted. At some point, the Pope begins to great threatened by the kind of respect and power they have, which is why they side with Napoleon after he crushes the Russians to declare himself not only Emperor, but to merge his office with Pope and declare himself political AND religious leader, basically complete and absolute ruler, for ALL of Europe, which is when they fall out with him. In fact, Napoleon combining the political office with Papal authority is what dooms the concept of a centralized Earthly religious figure in this timeline, because when Napoleon is overthrown, the Vatican burns down along with his ambitions, and from then on, each nation has its own religious leader, whether officially or not.

I doubt Napoleon would want to encourage Pan-Germanism.

 

[Dathi THorfinnsson]

Napoleon's biggest problem, IMO, is that he didn't know when to stop. (Sort of like Alexander.)

I think you'd have to have him die after achieving the bulk of his conquests, with a clear line of succession. (Which would be a problem, too. I could just see his marshals being latter day Diadachoi.)

 

[CanerKoseler]

Without defeating the British, Napoleon will never be able to achieve a total victory. Britain will constantly fund and organize coalitions which will eventually bleed the already overstreched French Empire white.

 

[Matteo]

Without defeating the British, Napoleon will never be able to achieve a total victory. Britain will constantly fund and organize coalitions which will eventually bleed the already overstreched French Empire white.

I disagree. In fact in 1812 Napoleon was about to win. Without the russian campaign disaster, the conflict would have ended rather soon by a lasting settlement, one which would have been very favourable to France, although It would have had to make important concessions to Britain.

The point is that Napoleon unexpectedly screwed his russian campaign. It was planned as a 2 years campaign with a sound and quite easy attainable goal : snatching former greater Poland-Lithuania away from Russian. The russian strategy of retreat was far more a forced move than a genious plan and tram : Russia had no other option to avoid an almost certain defeat.

Napoleon trapped himself by deciding to chase the russian army as far as supposedly necessary to have the tsar accept peace on french terms. This is no sound strategic goal.

But if Russia had been successfully rolled back to its 1793 of 1772 western border, then I think there would have been a general settlement between France and Britain in the next year of couple of years. And It would have been very close to a "Pax Gallica".

There was no need to defeat the Royal Navy or to invade successfully Britain to reach such a result. Just have Britain lose any short-median run perspective of having strong allies on the continent to oppose french hegemony.

If you can't beat them, join them. And try to wreck things from inside.

 

[Analytical Engine]

I disagree. In fact in 1812 Napoleon was about to win. Without the russian campaign disaster, the conflict would have ended rather soon by a lasting settlement, one which would have been very favourable to France, although It would have had to make important concessions to Britain.

The point is that Napoleon unexpectedly screwed his russian campaign. It was planned as a 2 years campaign with a sound and quite easy attainable goal : snatching former greater Poland-Lithuania away from Russian. The russian strategy of retreat was far more a forced move than a genious plan and tram : Russia had no other option to avoid an almost certain defeat.

Napoleon trapped himself by deciding to chase the russian army as far as supposedly necessary to have the tsar accept peace on french terms. This is no sound strategic goal.

But if Russia had been successfully rolled back to its 1793 of 1772 western border, then I think there would have been a general settlement between France and Britain in the next year of couple of years. And It would have been very close to a "Pax Gallica".

There was no need to defeat the Royal Navy or to invade successfully Britain to reach such a result. Just have Britain lose any short-median run perspective of having strong allies on the continent to oppose french hegemony.

If you can't beat them, join them. And try to wreck things from inside.

And what's to stop Britain from allying with Russia later on, and trying to force the "Pax Gallica" apart? Napoleon can win in the medium term, but it would need to inflict a very harsh defeat onto its enemies to win in the long term.

 

[Hrvatskiwi]

And what's to stop Britain from allying with Russia later on, and trying to force the "Pax Gallica" apart? Napoleon can win in the medium term, but it would need to inflict a very harsh defeat onto its enemies to win in the long term.

Russia in this period isn't Russia in WWII. Demographically, they don't have the numbers to enter into a war of attrition with not only France, but most of Europe.

 

[Analytical Engine]

Russia in this period isn't Russia in WWII. Demographically, they don't have the numbers to enter into a war of attrition with not only France, but most of Europe.

An independent Russia is a threat to French dominance of Europe at any time. Also, note I specifically said long term.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Napoleon's biggest problem, IMO, is that he didn't know when to stop. (Sort of like Alexander.)

You don't need to stop if you win every time you do something. Napoleon doesn't need to stop, he need to never stop winning.

Without defeating the British, Napoleon will never be able to achieve a total victory. Britain will constantly fund and organize coalitions which will eventually bleed the already overstreched French Empire white.

Well, once Austria, Prussia and Russia are controlled by French puppet governments, I don't see who is going to take part in any coalition. At one point, Britain will be alone fighting both the US and Europe.

 

[Analytical Engine]

You don't need to stop if you win every time you do something. Napoleon doesn't need to stop, he need to never stop winning.

And what about the next Bonaparte? And the next one? And the one after that?

Well, once Austria, Prussia and Russia are controlled by French puppet governments, I don't see who is going to take part in any coalition. At one point, Britain will be alone fighting both the US and Europe.

Getting them on side is easy. Keeping them onside, on the other hand, will take considerable effort.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

Getting them on side is easy. Keeping them onside, on the other hand, will take considerable effort.

IMHO, Napoleon's big mistake was to think that he could ally the Austrian and Prussians monarchs. Because Francis I and Frederic William III would never had accepted Napoleon as one of them - France was always the revolutionary republic executing aristocrats, even after Napoleon had become emperor, had restored the nobility and had turned back some revolutionary achievements.

Since he can't become member of the club of monarchs, Napoleon must set up his own club. Napoleon has to stay the revolutionary he was in his youth. To win, he musn't stop to act like a revolutionary - at least, he has to continue to act as a revolutionary emperor.

This means:
1) no marriage with Marie Louise, the niece of Marie Antoinette
2) no peace with Austria: completly destroy the country and set up puppet kings in Bohemia, Hungary and German Austria
3) no peace with Prussia: Silesia and Pommerania can become independent kingdoms

 

[Matteo]

Russia in this period isn't Russia in WWII. Demographically, they don't have the numbers to enter into a war of attrition with not only France, but most of Europe.

Right. And losing greater Poland would have considerably weakened Russia because It was one of the most populated, most developed and richest parts of the russian empire. Now of course, Russia would have remained a big power. But It would have been much more cautious and there would have been à long lasting opportunity for peace on the continent.

Of course, in the long run, the situation would have evolved and there could and would have been new groundless for conflict and change in the balance of powers. But this would only happen after 15 or 20 years.

The big other big mistake of Napoleon was in the Tilsitt in 1807 when he granted tsar Alexander peace terms that the latter did not even dare dream about. It encouraged Russia to prepare for the next year while having Russia pay a price for its willing to continue war after Austerlitz and after the campaign against Prussia. That's why Napoleon had to start It all again in 1812.

It sur quite funny to see that a man so often depicted ad a genious made so huge mistakes. His flow was that be was too pride : excessive pride can lead to very stupid decisions.

 

[GohanLSSJ2]

Indeed. Napoleon needs to bring down Britain to at the very least not being able to fund more coalitions against him on the mid term. I'm further debating what to do with Russia. My idea was to focus on liberating Poland, the Baltics (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia) and Finland, as well as carving an Ashkenazim state out of territory part of the "Pale of settlement" (Though the idea is that said state becomes a part of the Kaiserreich) while letting the Russians run away into Siberia as Napoleon focuses on strengthening these newly freed territories.

 

[Alcsentre Calanice]

I'm further debating what to do with Russia.

Lucien is still unemployed - maybe the most republican Bonaparte wants to become Tsar of all Russias?

 

[DAv]

Indeed. Napoleon needs to bring down Britain to at the very least not being able to fund more coalitions against him on the mid term. I'm further debating what to do with Russia. My idea was to focus on liberating Poland, the Baltics (Lithuania, Estonia, Latvia) and Finland, as well as carving an Ashkenazim state out of territory part of the "Pale of settlement" (Though the idea is that said state becomes a part of the Kaiserreich) while letting the Russians run away into Siberia as Napoleon focuses on strengthening these newly freed territories.

Napoleon can't control Russia, it's too big, too far and won't stay tied to the Continental System for long as it did too much damage to its economy. Either the Continental System goes, or Napoleon's going to have to raise another army to bring it to heel. And keep in mind that the Grand Army was losing men in droves before they even reached the Russian border due to extremely poor logistics.

 

[Tredecimus]

Napoleon needs a friendly Russia. At the same time he needs an insurance in case Russia doesn't want to be friends anymore. That insurance comes in the form of a strong Poland.

Napoleon also needs to bring Britain to a heel. But the Continental System is the worst possible option because it also hurts his allies. Maybe instead of a total shutdown of trade, he can use other methods of economics sabotage, like raising tariffs on British products or something similar.

 

[Swiffness]

merge his office with Pope and declare himself political AND religious leader

haha wow. Now that takes balls. Extra points if Catholic extremist terrorists dream of rebuilding the Papacy.

 

[dandan_noodles]

The idea I've toyed with starts with having no continental system; all that seemed to do was hurt the French economy and drag them into their two most disastrous wars. Instead, I was thinking of taking a page from the ancient Spartans. Instead of sending thousands of Frenchmen to their deaths in vast citizen armies, send staffs of French officers to train and advise enemies of Great Britain in colonial theatres. A better American army brings the pain in an invasion of Canada, British Indian possessions come under attack, that kind of thing. Minimal French commitment of resources for disproportionate strain on the British.

I think acceptance of a French Empire in the long term is a real possibility for the continental monarchs; Alexander I was enamoured with Napoleon for some time, and even as the Coalition armies were poised to drive Napoleon out of Germany, they were proposing to let France keep most of its conquests in exchange for peace. Marrying Marie-Louise and passing the throne down to the Eaglet will help legitimize the Empire as a proper monarchical state.

 

[Tredecimus]

I think Napoleon became too obsessed with controlling German lands. It would've been better if he actually prioritize pushing for the Rhine frontier instead of going beyond that. Not to mention his client states sucked. Instead of propping them up to at least a credible force he just set them up as recruitment centers; he might as well annex them if that's the case.