Portugal conquered by Napoleon

PoD: November 29th, 1807, only Maria I and half of the court escape Napoleon's grasp, escaping with 13 ships. Left behind are the other half of the court, Prince Regent John, and 10 Portuguese war ships. Therefore, the majority of the Portuguese royal family and a large portion of the Portuguese fleet in Luisbon have been captured by Napoleon and Godoy.

Portugal is split between Northern Lusitania (ruled by Charles III of Parma), Portugal (ruled directly by France), and Algarves (ruled by Manuel de Godoy). As a result, Napoleon decides against an attempted conquering of Spain by the Grand Army, at least for now. How do the Napoleonic Wars play out without the Peninsular War?
 
Last edited:
PoD: November 29th, 1807, only Maria I and half of the court escape Napoleon's grasp, escaping with 13 ships. Left behind are the other half of the court, Prince Regent John, and 10 Portuguese war ships. Therefore, the majority of the Portuguese royal family and a large portion of the Portuguese fleet have been captured by Napoleon and Godoy.

Portugal is split between Northern Lusitania (ruled by Charles III of Parma), Portugal (ruled directly by France), and Algarves (ruled by Manuel de Godoy). As a result, Napoleon decides against an attempted conquering of Spain by the Grand Army, at least for now. How do the Napoleonic Wars play out without the Peninsular War?

An independent Brazil is going to play a part. That's what's going to happen.
 

Lusitania

Donor
What happened to the remaining 280 ships? What happened to the English Navy?

If this is going to happen then your POD has to be sooner and the French control the seas.

The whole purpose of taking over Portugal was to gain the Portuguese fleet. It was Napoloeon's hope that together with Portuguese, Spanish and French Navies he had a fleet large enought to challenge the British Navy and break their hold the British Naval supremecy.
 
What happened to the remaining 280 ships? What happened to the English Navy?
OP fixed. Sorry for the mistake. I meant most of the ships in Lisbon. I assume the rest of things with the fleet would go OTL until butterflies kick in. Without having to simultaneously fight Spain, would Napoleon's objectives be met, or would they (the fleet, that is) retreat to Brazil?
 

Lusitania

Donor
OP fixed. Sorry for the mistake. I meant most of the ships in Lisbon. I assume the rest of things with the fleet would go OTL until butterflies kick in. Without having to simultaneously fight Spain, would Napoleon's objectives be met, or would they (the fleet, that is) retreat to Brazil?

The assumption that there would not of been a Peninsula war is also a bit wrong. For there to be no peninsula war then Spain has to be on Frances side. If that was to happen and Spain sided with France then she would of been cut off from her colonies and King Ferdinand was a dead goose.

Spain was practically bankrupt and the loses of the colonies and the money they brought would of spelled disaster for the Spanish Monarch. The alliance between France and Spain was Godoy. Not betwen the Spanish Monarch and France. Ferdinand would of turned against Napoleon to save his own kneck. Also the inability of large armies living off the land without killing the peasants made fighting in the Peninsula very difficult. How was the French going to support all the troops they needed to occupy the land.

The Duke of Wellington imported his food from North Africa so that he did not turn the people against him.
 
I have a feeling that it wouldn't be so straightforward for the rest of the war vis a vis Portugal. If Napoleon doesn't conquer Spain it just compounds it. So Nappy marches his army back out and probably conducts another raid in Germany, maybe another attack on Austria. In the meantime, there are probably about 15-20,000 French soldiers left in Portugal. I get the feeling that all that will happen here is the British will wait until Napoleon has reengaged, and simply pick up where they left off - invade Portugal, raising support from the disarmed former Portuguese army, they march on Lisbon while half the French army is still dispersed controlling the countryside. The likely result is that the French hole up in the city until the Royal Navy throttles it, and the French in the countryside don't have the strength to break the siege, either being routed or marching away to avoid being massacred. Lisbon eventually falls, the Anglo-Portuguese march on "North Lusitania" and free it without much bother - with Napoleon so far away and Spain at best an anxious observer the French simply lack the strength to resist properly and would have to wait months to be properly reinforced, by which time the British could have mobilised 60,000 men themselves, like IOTL. Napoleon either has to start all over again, or turns on Spain, hoping to advance to Portugal without leaving a wet paper ally in the way again. Either way, he's just lost an army and about 2 years of planning.

Still, it could cause problems for the British for a while in that they have to explain why they failed to defend Portugal the first time around, rather than having a miraculous feat of resistance to play to their (at this point fledgling) reputation.
 
The assumption that there would not of been a Peninsula war is also a bit wrong. For there to be no peninsula war then Spain has to be on Frances side. If that was to happen and Spain sided with France then she would of been cut off from her colonies and King Ferdinand was a dead goose.
Valid point. I admit the majority of my knowledge on the subject comes from wikipedia. Who exactly would've cut them off though? The Royal Navy + Brazilian* Navy?
Spain was practically bankrupt and the loses of the colonies and the money they brought would of spelled disaster for the Spanish Monarch. The alliance between France and Spain was Godoy. Not betwen the Spanish Monarch and France. Ferdinand would of turned against Napoleon to save his own kneck.
But at the time of the POD, Charles IV is still King of Spain, and Godoy his PM. Ferdinand wouldn't be installed until the Mutiny of Aranjuez, which could possibly be butterflied away ITTL.
Also the inability of large armies living off the land without killing the peasants made fighting in the Peninsula very difficult. How was the French going to support all the troops they needed to occupy the land.
I suppose Napoleon could keep a tighter reign on his troops behavior. Not sure how plausible that is. We would probably have to prevent the French occupations of San Sebastian, Pamplona, and Barcelona, which IMO weren't strategically vital to the campaign in Portugal, but rather the war with Spain which I want to prevent TTL. (Note: I am not necessarily trying to create a Napoleon wins scenario!)

And, as you said, the problem with supporting the troops. I suppose they could do something similar to what Arthur did. So, basically, we most likely need a secondary POD here to achieve the stated goal of preventing the Peninsular War. :p Any suggestions?
Actually, forget about the aforementioned stated goal, I like this a lot too. What would be the possible repercussions in Falastur's scenario?
 

Lusitania

Donor
Valid point. I admit the majority of my knowledge on the subject comes from wikipedia. Who exactly would've cut them off though? The Royal Navy + Brazilian* Navy?

The royal Navy would of imposed the same blockade on Spain it did on France. It attacked and practically destroyed the Danish navy so that Napoleon could not get it. So they definitely would of stopped all comunication between the Colonies and Spain spelling trouble for who ever is in power.

But at the time of the POD, Charles IV is still King of Spain, and Godoy his PM. Ferdinand wouldn't be installed until the Mutiny of Aranjuez, which could possibly be butterflied away ITTL.
While Charles IV was still alive and while the mutiny could be buterflied away could he stay in power? I really doubt that.

I suppose Napoleon could keep a tighter reign on his troops behavior. Not sure how plausible that is. We would probably have to prevent the French occupations of San Sebastian, Pamplona, and Barcelona, which IMO weren't strategically vital to the campaign in Portugal, but rather the war with Spain which I want to prevent TTL. (Note: I am not necessarily trying to create a Napoleon wins scenario!)

The French soldiers were not known for their niceties on top of that Paris stippulated that the occupied region had to support the troops causing them to forcebly take food from the peasants condeming them to starvation and creating more rebels.


And, as you said, the problem with supporting the troops. I suppose they could do something similar to what Arthur did. So, basically, we most likely need a secondary POD here to achieve the stated goal of preventing the Peninsular War. :p Any suggestions?

The issue here is that the British will control the waves and impose a naval blockade so any foods will needed needs to come either from the occupied areas or France. Incidentely this was the reason that sugar was extracted from Sugar beets because France could not get sugar from the Carribean.

I have a feeling that it wouldn't be so straightforward for the rest of the war vis a vis Portugal. If Napoleon doesn't conquer Spain it just compounds it. So Nappy marches his army back out and probably conducts another raid in Germany, maybe another attack on Austria. In the meantime, there are probably about 15-20,000 French soldiers left in Portugal. I get the feeling that all that will happen here is the British will wait until Napoleon has reengaged, and simply pick up where they left off - invade Portugal, raising support from the disarmed former Portuguese army, they march on Lisbon while half the French army is still dispersed controlling the countryside. The likely result is that the French hole up in the city until the Royal Navy throttles it, and the French in the countryside don't have the strength to break the siege, either being routed or marching away to avoid being massacred. Lisbon eventually falls, the Anglo-Portuguese march on "North Lusitania" and free it without much bother - with Napoleon so far away and Spain at best an anxious observer the French simply lack the strength to resist properly and would have to wait months to be properly reinforced, by which time the British could have mobilised 60,000 men themselves, like IOTL. Napoleon either has to start all over again, or turns on Spain, hoping to advance to Portugal without leaving a wet paper ally in the way again. Either way, he's just lost an army and about 2 years of planning.

Still, it could cause problems for the British for a while in that they have to explain why they failed to defend Portugal the first time around, rather than having a miraculous feat of resistance to play to their (at this point fledgling) reputation.

Exactly,

If Britain shows up then Spain has a a huge problem either they side with France and leave themselves open to British attack or they turn on France and leave themselves open to an invasion from France. Meanwhile French forces spread out over the country are not in any shape and condition to take on 50 to 60 thousand British forces. By the time France can get re-inforcements to Portugal the French forces there will of been defeated.

When France invaded Portugal in 1807 the were forced marched all the way through Spain and Portugal trying to get to Lisboa. By the time they got there the French soldiers could hardly stand. If they had encountrered any large army they would of been surely beat.
 
So, this just postpones a French invasion of Spain by a year or two? Alright, how do things go differently with 50,000 or so British troops already on the continent, and about 15,000-20,000 French troops dead?
 
Could Spain have just stayed neutral in the first place? Particularly if Napoleon backs the idea since he wants to concentrate on the East? If so, what happens?
 
Charles remains King of Spain.
Joesph remains King of Naples.
No Guerrilla uprising, tying down thousands of French troops.
Probably Spanish troops join French troops in Occupation
Britain has major problem with the Coalition. It probably collapses, and Britain need to spend Time and Money to establish a new one.

Britain needs to prepare for a major Invasion, with no ports in British hands this means landing on the beach, with a chance of french counter attack, before the beachhead is established.
Even after the Beachhead, British troops remain vulnerable till after they capture a Port.

With this it will be 2~3 years before Britian is ready to invade.
?Can only guess what this extra time will mean to the politics of Europe?
 
I promise it's not iberian corporatism, but I think Lusitania is pointing in the correct direction.

Charles IV was not in good position in the eve of the french invasion, and specially Godoy had a lot of enemies. The mutiny of Aranjuez was only the end act of a long fight behind the scene in the spanish Court. Also, siding with the frenchs was not very popular, specially after Trafalgar.

In order to attack Portugal, Napoleon needs spanish soil, and to cross Spain he needs spanish autoritation (if he don't want war with Spain) so, Godoy should be indispensable in his plans. And Godoy's personal ambition probably would push Spain to side with France. With the eventual blokade imposed by the Royal Navy, and ulterior shortage, the political climate in the country can deteriorate quickly, and a TTL mirror version of the mutiny of Aranjuez it's very possible.

The problem now, is that Ferdinand VII was under bonapartist influence. Specially Junot had a close eye on him, because Napoleon, (and everyone else, because it was a not a secret at this time) knew the inner problems in the Royal Palace of Madrid, and he hoped take adantage of it (as he did). Therefore, my bet is for Spain siding with France but paying a high price in social unrest that could have a troublesome outcome.

OTOH, if Napoleon actually wants to avoid war with Spain, he should observe the Treaty of Fontainebleau (I assume the treaty is still in force in TTL), that means only 28.000 french troops crossing Spain and not the 100.000 he put in Spain in OTL, so, as Lusitania says, if they meet a large army, they have no hope.
 
Last edited:

Lusitania

Donor
Could Spain have just stayed neutral in the first place? Particularly if Napoleon backs the idea since he wants to concentrate on the East? If so, what happens?

Napoleon had the east pretty much in his pocket. Prussia had been beaten and Duchy of Warsaw taken from them. The Austrian had lost 20-30% of their people and territory and lastly Russia had been bought off by giving it Findland.

He only went back east after Russia was convinced by GB to leave the continental system and trade with them again. That allowed for the disasterous Russian campaing.

The success of Napoleon strategy depended on breaking the British Empire's Navy Supremecy that was why he wanted Spain and Portugal in his pocket. He really needed their ships especially after Tafalgar.
 
He only went back east after Russia was convinced by GB to leave the continental system and trade with them again. That allowed for the disasterous Russian campaing.

This is a pretty major oversimplification of Napoleon's relations with Russia.

The Russians were not "bought off with Finland". They didn't particularly want the place: their foreign policy had been southward-orientated since the Great Northern War ended and they ended up taking it over because Sweden happened to have its capacity to resist utterly broken and the Swedes had been persistently irredentist for the last century (that had actually mostly wound up after 1792, in government circles at least, but the Russians have never been willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to protecting Petersburg).

The Treaty of Tilsit happened because once Russia accepted that there was nothing to be done about French control of western Europe, and the French accepted that they could not (in 1807) invade Russia, they had no immeidately conflicts of interest seperate from the general wariness of an upstart, expansionist power.

Finishing the war with Sweden (and thus having more resources available to finish that with the Ottomans) was one thing that made the Russians drift away from the Tilsit settlement, but there were more important factors. The commercial strangulation of CoSys made literate opinion increasingly hostile to the French alliance, and then the 1809 war demonstrated that, tactically speaking, everyone was on the level now, and at the same time brought the problem of Poland back to the fore.

It was the resultant alienaton that made the Russians resolve to break with CoSys (which happened before 1812). We didn't "convince" them, they convinced themselves in accordance with their own interests (we were actualy pretty crap at convincing people: our diplomacy in Austria could sink to "We have money! We'll give you money if you throw Metternich out of the window!").

Now, obviously, a big power on the edge of Europe and a big power in the centre will find it hard to agree on everything (especially the Near East) in the long term; but if Napoleon's plans in Spain don't go arse-end up, which delays or averts 1809* and creates problems for Britain, we might make a compromise peace before Napoleon decides to resolve the Russian question shortly and sharply.
 
I Blame Communism While I agree with most of your analysis I don't think a lasting peace between Britain and imperial France was possible. Napoleon didn't want any rivals to his power so as long as Britain is independent its going to seem a threat. Similarly, as long as Imperial France is a) occupying the low countries, b) seeking to blockage Britain by their embargo and c) seeking to use their vast resources to build up a new fleet to rival the RN there is no basis for Britain to agree a peace with France. Steve
This is a pretty major oversimplification of Napoleon's relations with Russia.

The Russians were not "bought off with Finland". They didn't particularly want the place: their foreign policy had been southward-orientated since the Great Northern War ended and they ended up taking it over because Sweden happened to have its capacity to resist utterly broken and the Swedes had been persistently irredentist for the last century (that had actually mostly wound up after 1792, in government circles at least, but the Russians have never been willing to give anyone the benefit of the doubt when it comes to protecting Petersburg).

The Treaty of Tilsit happened because once Russia accepted that there was nothing to be done about French control of western Europe, and the French accepted that they could not (in 1807) invade Russia, they had no immeidately conflicts of interest seperate from the general wariness of an upstart, expansionist power.

Finishing the war with Sweden (and thus having more resources available to finish that with the Ottomans) was one thing that made the Russians drift away from the Tilsit settlement, but there were more important factors. The commercial strangulation of CoSys made literate opinion increasingly hostile to the French alliance, and then the 1809 war demonstrated that, tactically speaking, everyone was on the level now, and at the same time brought the problem of Poland back to the fore.

It was the resultant alienaton that made the Russians resolve to break with CoSys (which happened before 1812). We didn't "convince" them, they convinced themselves in accordance with their own interests (we were actualy pretty crap at convincing people: our diplomacy in Austria could sink to "We have money! We'll give you money if you throw Metternich out of the window!").

Now, obviously, a big power on the edge of Europe and a big power in the centre will find it hard to agree on everything (especially the Near East) in the long term; but if Napoleon's plans in Spain don't go arse-end up, which delays or averts 1809* and creates problems for Britain, we might make a compromise peace before Napoleon decides to resolve the Russian question shortly and sharply.
 
I Blame Communism While I agree with most of your analysis I don't think a lasting peace between Britain and imperial France was possible. Napoleon didn't want any rivals to his power so as long as Britain is independent its going to seem a threat. Similarly, as long as Imperial France is a) occupying the low countries, b) seeking to blockage Britain by their embargo and c) seeking to use their vast resources to build up a new fleet to rival the RN there is no basis for Britain to agree a peace with France. Steve

A peace that leaves Napoleon in command of Europe will never be in British interests, its true, but if Spain remained a French ally, Portugal was conquered, South America didn't blow up, and Russia had everything slowed down by the lack of an 1809 war, we'll be in a rather precarious position. We were showing signs of strain in 1812 as it was. With a Russia which is eager to trade with Britain but a bit warier of pissing off France, and a stronger Austria looking for a new status-quo, I think a compromise might be worked out: Napoleon needs a few colonies back to seal the deal, and I think he'll be willing to make some concessions in Europe to get them (IIRC, he had no objection in principal to selling Poland to the Russians, they just have nothing satisfactory to offer in return).

Neither side will like it, and it might end up as Amiens Mk.II: Revenge of the Bear, but I don't think it's impossible.
 
A peace that leaves Napoleon in command of Europe will never be in British interests, its true, but if Spain remained a French ally, Portugal was conquered, South America didn't blow up, and Russia had everything slowed down by the lack of an 1809 war, we'll be in a rather precarious position. We were showing signs of strain in 1812 as it was. With a Russia which is eager to trade with Britain but a bit warier of pissing off France, and a stronger Austria looking for a new status-quo, I think a compromise might be worked out: Napoleon needs a few colonies back to seal the deal, and I think he'll be willing to make some concessions in Europe to get them (IIRC, he had no objection in principal to selling Poland to the Russians, they just have nothing satisfactory to offer in return).

Neither side will like it, and it might end up as Amiens Mk.II: Revenge of the Bear, but I don't think it's impossible.

I Blame Communism

I agree that its possible but highly unlikely. The clash with Austria will still probably come, and be a hard fight.

Also if Spain stays on the French side that means that Britain can go to real work on its colonies. [With a lot more resources without the Iberian campaign commitment and subsides for allies].

By ~1810 we had pretty much cleared up the European colonies outside Latin America and either by attack, or if the commanders in charge have sense, co-operation they can quickly remove the Spanish control from much of them and make a rich additional source of revenue.

Also I can't see any deal in which Napoleon agrees not to rebuild his navy and stick to his word. Without that I can't see Britain making peace given that while the war was a burden it was one that could be borne and that peace would be far more dangerous. Similarly I'm not sure Napoleon could afford to lift the embargo on British goods. [A lot will get through via the extensive smuggling routes, given how unpopular the measure was in Europe] Even so removing it would give Britain a huge increase in economic power.

Not to mention there's the problem of what to do with the French army. If Napoleon disbands most of it he will be vulnerable to his rivals. If he doesn't he has to maintain it which he can not easily do by French taxes and continuing to foist it on neighbouring states will make them very angry.

Steve
 
I Blame Communism

I agree that its possible but highly unlikely. The clash with Austria will still probably come, and be a hard fight.

That's the thing: by 1809 Austria was near bankruptcy and had to dimiss the army and thus accept its status as a French semi-client, or else use it in a first strike and thus secure British subsidies. There were parties for both options, and it was Napoleon going to Spain that really sealed the deal.

If the Austrians attack anyway, then although there were certainly be butterflies from the military changes, things are still basically on course; if they don't, they've given up their chances for several years. I'm assuming the latter course.

Also if Spain stays on the French side that means that Britain can go to real work on its colonies. [With a lot more resources without the Iberian campaign commitment and subsides for allies].

That's true. My scenario is one specifically designed to but Britain in a sticky. Still, Spanish America is a big place, and would be a huge job to secure against a hostile-to-indifferant populace.

By ~1810 we had pretty much cleared up the European colonies outside Latin America and either by attack, or if the commanders in charge have sense, co-operation they can quickly remove the Spanish control from much of them and make a rich additional source of revenue.

I think Spanish America can unfold in lots of ways. I don't really share your confidence in our capabilities (Spanish America is a much bigger affair than Ceylon), but we have resources and will certainly use them. As I say, I'm deliberately going for the thing worst for Britain in each case to illustrate the hypothetical. If Britain isn't forced to the table before Russia gets itchy, things again stay more in line with OTL.

(On this note, will America make an 1812* gambit? If we're shut out of Europe in the same timeframe and lucky, it could potentially end very badly for them.)

Also I can't see any deal in which Napoleon agrees not to rebuild his navy and stick to his word. Without that I can't see Britain making peace given that while the war was a burden it was one that could be borne and that peace would be far more dangerous. Similarly I'm not sure Napoleon could afford to lift the embargo on British goods. [A lot will get through via the extensive smuggling routes, given how unpopular the measure was in Europe] Even so removing it would give Britain a huge increase in economic power.

As I say, it'd be a peace of mutual exhaustion and not a workable settlement: as soon as Napoleon tries to build up a fleet, we'd be on his back like a ton of bricks, and probably in alliance with Russia. Letting British goods into the continent is a concession to Britain. We'd also keep the better part of what we'd captured outside Europe, perhaps even more than OTL (British Indonesia? Hum).

Not to mention there's the problem of what to do with the French army. If Napoleon disbands most of it he will be vulnerable to his rivals. If he doesn't he has to maintain it which he can not easily do by French taxes and continuing to foist it on neighbouring states will make them very angry.

Steve

That's an excellent point. The Grand Army was getting too big to keep up as it was. I certainly think any succesful Napoleonic empire will achieve a species of "success" involving a hostile Britain controlling the world outside Europe, and uncowed Russia busilly scrubbing the floor with the Ottomans, and an Austria playing its cards very close to its chest. And of course the Prussians screaming "Revenge!", but that's kind of a given. ;)
 
(On this note, will America make an 1812* gambit? If we're shut out of Europe in the same timeframe and lucky, it could potentially end very badly for them.)

Well if Britain and France do come to the table then unlikely. The clear trigger for the war, British trade restrictions on Europe and impressing sailors are no longer occuring. Some might fancy a clash with the former rulers, especially if they fancy parts of Canada. However without a clear reason and with Britain not bogged down with a major war of survival I think anyone suggesting that would be jumped on by their more rational brethren.

If Britain and France are still at war at this point, given some of the American believes about how easy it would be to conquer Canada a clash could well occur. However, even with a hot war with the French, without the Iberian campaign, Britain has a lot more forces available. [Correspondingly Napoleon could be persuaded by such a conflict that its worthwhile continuing and possibly picking a fight with someone while Britain is under additional pressure].

Steve
 
Top