Russia stops fighting Napoleon after 1812 campaign

What if after expelling Napoleon from Russian territory Alexander and Napoleon struck a deal?

Strange as it may sound, the idea was supported by the Russian "super-hero" of 1812, Kutuzov, who hold an opinion that the only beneficiary from a further fighting would be Britain (*). There were later speculations on the subject as well, for example one made by Harold Nicholson "Congress of Vienna".

Strictly speaking, Alexander had a legitimate loophole because he declared that there will be no talks until the last enemy is expelled from the Russian soil so after this condition was fulfilled he had a complete freedom of action. Objectively speaking, by the end of this campaign both Russian army and economy in general were in a bad shape and Alexander's adventures in OTL 1813 - 15 made things MUCH worse. Someone less narcissistic would probably consider these factors to be more important than personal obsession and a questionable glory of being "Liberator of Europe" (who was screwed by the Brits politically and humiliated personally as soon as his services were not needed anymore). For the internal consumption the glory of defeating and expelling Napoleon would be enough.

So, let's assume that (however low the probability is) they struck a deal. Russia is getting some financial compensation for the damage and perhaps negotiates somewhat relaxed conditions for Prussia (and amnesty for Yorck & Co). Nappy also agrees not to push the issue of the Continental System as far as Russia is involved.

Of course, there is an issue of how Nappy is going to save his face but he still has a lot of troops all over Germany and more being raised in France to deal with that problem. Probably, he is going to publish a bulletin describing how he outmaneuvered Russians at Berezina. Being PR genius, he would come with something.

How things in Europe would develop from this point on?

_____________________
(*) Taking into an account that the British liaison officer at the Russian headquarters was Sir Robert Thomas Wilson, Kutuzov's antipathy to the Brits is quite understandable. :winkytongue:
 
Last edited:
I think the problem with your WI is that Alexander did not want it.

And since in fact Russia had been preparing revenge since 1807 and that Alexander wanted to attack first in the years 1809-1811, it is extremely unlikely this czar would make such a decision.
Alexander wanted to bring Napoleon’s downfall.

What is more likely is that Alexander may décide Russia needs a halt in its counter-offensive once Napoleon’s army has been expelled from Russia because Alexander and his staff may assess that Russia may need time to heal its wounds (due to the devastation of the scorched earth policy) and gather its forces before attacking napoleonic positions in continental Europe.

It would give more time for Napoleon to gather his own forces, train his armies, and give him better odds to win the 1813 campaign.
 
I think the problem with your WI is that Alexander did not want it.

And since in fact Russia had been preparing revenge since 1807 and that Alexander wanted to attack first in the years 1809-1811, it is extremely unlikely this czar would make such a decision.
Alexander wanted to bring Napoleon’s downfall.

What is more likely is that Alexander may décide Russia needs a halt in its counter-offensive once Napoleon’s army has been expelled from Russia because Alexander and his staff may assess that Russia may need time to heal its wounds (due to the devastation of the scorched earth policy) and gather its forces before attacking napoleonic positions in continental Europe.

It would give more time for Napoleon to gather his own forces, train his armies, and give him better odds to win the 1813 campaign.
I know that Alexander did not want a peace. If he did there would be no need in WI. However, the option did exist: as I said, Kutuzov was for ending the war and, taking into an account specifics of his personality, it means that the idea had noticeable traction among Russian nobility (they were paying for the war). Alexander did not want to attack in 1809 - 11 because Russia was not in a condition to do so. While he was preparing to war, even the plans of 1812 were predominantly defensive.

BTW, Alexander did not have “his staff” - there was no General Staff, yet, and he did not have a military staff attached to his person, just personal aids. An idea of waiting and then attacking does not look plausible: it such a scenario Nappy has a better chance for recuperating because his conscription system is more effective than Russian recruitment and because he has time to reaffirm his control over Prussia.

OTOH, scenario under which Nappy is going to invade again in 1813 also unlikely: he is not an idiot and experience of 1812 showed that a successful war close to the border is not going to happen.

Anyway, WI is peace between Russia and France, not a continued war.
 
For purposes of this argument let's assume a wide-ranging butterfly genocide: The rest of the 1813-14 campaign goes more or less OTL and the Hundred Days also happens more or less OTL.

If Russia says "Thanks but no thanks, we're good on the sidelines" to the 7th Coalition in 1815 does Napoleon have a chance to stay on the French throne or is Britain/Prussia/Austria still too much to overcome?
 
Methinks this'd require Napoleon to not be in power anymore after 1812 -- perhaps a scenario where the Malet Coup succeeds while Nap is in Russia, with him losing the subsequent civil war, or one where he gets himself killed while attempting to cross the Berezina?
I wonder what would be the effects of a more peaceful French withdrawal from its controlled regions in Europe rather than a military offensive into the heart of France as happened in OTL. Could Eugéne de Beauharnais become leader of an Italian Kingdom? Could there be a peaceful withdrawal of French forces from Spain or most of it? What happens to Germany and its little states, does it become a battleground of influence again?
 
Question; what did Russia gain out of confronting Napoleon? Was it really worth scorching Moscow and most of your productive countryside?
 
Russia was never going to accept a situation where France retained dominance over Europe and it was right to do so. Any short term damage Russia sustained is easily beaten out by the long term devastation of bowing to Napoleon and the Continental System. The fact is that in 1813 Alexander was faced with the best opportunity he'd ever have to defeat Napoleon permanently. It wasn't just about liberating Europe, it was about Russian security.
 
For purposes of this argument let's assume a wide-ranging butterfly genocide: The rest of the 1813-14 campaign goes more or less OTL and the Hundred Days also happens more or less OTL.

Campaign against whom? In OTL it took Russian military presence for Prussia officially changing the sides so in WI this is not going to happen. Austria joined coalition only after Russia and Prussia had been fighting Napoleon in Germany and it was demonstrated that while Nappy can win the battles he can't defeat the opponents. Nothing of the kind exists in this scenario so Austria keeps being loyal to Nappy and there is no coalition.
 
Question; what did Russia gain out of confronting Napoleon? Was it really worth scorching Moscow and most of your productive countryside?
The Continental System was doing major damage to the Russian economy, and they couldn't repudiate it without war. They also got to steal a nice slice of Poland, plus Alexander tried to get the Allies to accept Bernadotte on the French throne as a virtual client, though that didn't pan out as planned.
 
Question; what did Russia gain out of confronting Napoleon? Was it really worth scorching Moscow and most of your productive countryside?

There are actually 2 different questions:

1st, why was Russia confronting Napoleon? The most general answer is because its ruling class heavily depended upon selling products of their estates to Britain and Continental System was destroying the trade. Of course, the obvious question is why it joined anti-Napoleon coalition before the Continental System was introduced? Answer to this is more "personal": Alexander (a) hated Napoleon and (b) was slavishly following the British policy (as soon as he became an emperor he appointed the leading Russian Anglophile as ambassador to Britain with the instruction to agree to any British proposals while to France he sent a person known for his hate of all things "revolutionary").

2nd, what would Russia gain? Russia could not maintain the Continental System for a long time without serious problems (of course, the merchant/industrialist class was gaining from an absence of the British competition: volume of the local manufacturing production between Tilsit and 1812 increased few times; but the nobility was being hurt). So it can be argued that Russian military reform, increased army side and increased military budget could be justified as means to fight a defensive war. Except that Alexander sent Nappy an ultimatum demanding removal of his forces from a big part of Germany. As far as 1812 is involved, it was not as much a matter of "was it really worth" but rather a matter of defeating an invasion. BTW, the stories about Moscow being intentionally burned are quite dubious (one of the main sources was Rastopchin who could not been known for his honesty or moral integrity): what do you expect when a predominantly wooden city is abandoned by most of the population and occupied by the troops lacking a proper discipline? Even according to the French occupation was quite chaotic. As far as "most of your productive countryside" is involved is also not quite the case: French advance and retreat was happening mostly in a narrow territory along Smolensk Road and the area in general was not among the "most productive" in Russia: Southern governorships and those to the East of Moscow had been more productive.

Now, the relevant (for this WI) question is what Russia was going to gain by "liberating Europe" instead of making peace after campaign of 1812 was over?

Nothing. It is rather hard to argue that Alexander's obsession with an idea of the Polish state (in which he is going to be a king) had anything to do with the Russian national interests and, as the further history demonstrated, implementation of this idea created problems which continued all the way to the Russian Civil War (or 1939, whatever you prefer).

With the danger of invasion gone and trade with Britain "legitimized", why should anybody care about the fate of Germany or who is going to be a monarch of France? BTW, as a result of 1813 - 15 Russia got on the French throne Louis XVIII who was openly anti-Russian.

Austria was doing just fine as Napoleon's ally and why Russia should be interested in restoration of the Austrian territories lost to France/Kingdom of Italy? In OTL post-Napoleonic Austria was not even helpful against the Ottomans (and during the CW sided with the Russian enemies).

Britain? Yes, the main trade partner BUT as soon as the dust settled it introduced the corn laws cutting the imports of Russian grain and at Vienna it was consistently taking anti-Russian position (well, perhaps NOT having Kingdom of Poland united to Russia would be actually a big favor). More than that, when "the idiot's dream came true" and Alexander was allowed to visit Britain, soon after the initial excitement there was a never-ending criticism in the British press ("why was he cheered more than Prince Regent?", "how dare he to say hello to the members of opposition?", etc.). Probably the brightest moment of his love affair with Britain was when after parade in Paris Wellington told him that he never saw the troops drilled to such a perfection (a questionable complement because parade ground drill has nothing to do with the fighting qualities but Alexander inherited his father's obsession with the issue).

By the 1815 Russia was settled with a huge budget deficit (British subsidies covered only fraction of the expenses) and a big loss of a productive part of a population: besides those killed in 1813 - 15, it needs to be remembered that a soldier was serving for 20 (or 25) years and those recruited during that period would not become the productive workers.
 
Russia was never going to accept a situation where France retained dominance over Europe and it was right to do so. Any short term damage Russia sustained is easily beaten out by the long term devastation of bowing to Napoleon and the Continental System. The fact is that in 1813 Alexander was faced with the best opportunity he'd ever have to defeat Napoleon permanently. It wasn't just about liberating Europe, it was about Russian security.

"Russian security" is a bogus notion: all the way to 1812 Russia was on aggressive side vs. France and there is no objective reason for the Russian objection to anybody's "dominance" in Europe as long as trade with Britain was secure: Russia was not having noticeable exports to the continental Europe. Negotiation of exemption from the CS is a premise of this WIF so it is not on the table.

"Short term damage" to the Russian economy lasted all the way to the CW.
 
"Russian security" is a bogus notion: all the way to 1812 Russia was on aggressive side vs. France and there is no objective reason for the Russian objection to anybody's "dominance" in Europe as long as trade with Britain was secure: Russia was not having noticeable exports to the continental Europe. Negotiation of exemption from the CS is a premise of this WIF so it is not on the table.

"Short term damage" to the Russian economy lasted all the way to the CW.
...trade with Britain wasn't secure, though, because Napoleon was imposing the Continental System. I wouldn't call Russia on the "aggressive side vs France" in any of the wars; the question of who started the Napoleonic Wars is quite nuanced and I wouldn't call either side fully aggressive.
 
...trade with Britain wasn't secure, though, because Napoleon was imposing the Continental System. I wouldn't call Russia on the "aggressive side vs France" in any of the wars; the question of who started the Napoleonic Wars is quite nuanced and I wouldn't call either side fully aggressive.

Didn't help that Napoleon openly flouted the Continental System so the French could benefit from it as well, while still insisting that other nations keep to it no matter what the cost. He also dethroned a member of Alexander's family in Germany, if I recall correctly, further souring relations.
 
Look, Napoleon in 1814, after he crushed Blucher and thought he was going to regain his Empire, talked openly about how he would never accept a situation where Western Europe was not made up of French puppet states. Alexander was totally right in wanting him removed from the throne. I mean, seriously, when another country invades you for trading in the manner of an independent power, and you kick their asses, you don't just let them regain their strength and invade again in a few years having learned from their mistakes! You kick their asses all the way back to Paris here and now. It's for this exact reason that Stalin would never have accepted a limited peace with Hitler.
 
...trade with Britain wasn't secure, though, because Napoleon was imposing the Continental System. I wouldn't call Russia on the "aggressive side vs France" in any of the wars; the question of who started the Napoleonic Wars is quite nuanced and I wouldn't call either side fully aggressive.

You did not read the premise: part of the peace negotiated after campaign of 1812 is that Nappy does not insist on the CS for Russia: pure pragmatism because his attempt to enforce it ended with a disaster. Anyway, Napoleon could not prevent Russia from trading with Britain unless he occupied its ports on the Baltic and White Seas.

As for your opinion about Russian aggressiveness toward France, it contradicts the facts. 2nd Coalition - Russia attacks in Italy, on the Med, in Switzerland and in the Netherlands (none of which is even close to the Russian borders). 3rd Coalition - initiated by Alexander and fighting is far away from Russia. 4th Coalition - closer to Russia but still outside it.
 
Look, Napoleon in 1814, after he crushed Blucher and thought he was going to regain his Empire, talked openly about how he would never accept a situation where Western Europe was not made up of French puppet states. Alexander was totally right in wanting him removed from the throne. I mean, seriously, when another country invades you for trading in the manner of an independent power, and you kick their asses, you don't just let them regain their strength and invade again in a few years having learned from their mistakes! You kick their asses all the way back to Paris here and now. It's for this exact reason that Stalin would never have accepted a limited peace with Hitler.

An idea that Stalin was fighting Hitler over the trade issues is rather novel to me.

As for the rest, who appointed Alexander liberator of the Western Europe? Nobody.

What exactly were the Russian interests in the Western Europe? Too close to zero to talk about.
Why did Russia few decades later greeted unification of Germany? Because existence of a powerful Germany was not considered a threat even it was right on the Russian border. So why existence of the French puppet states would be such a big deal?

BTW, your explanation of the reason for 1812 attack is incorrect: Russia agreed to maintain the CS so the talk about trading as ‘independent power’ is irrelevant. Strictly speaking nobody forced Alexander to agreed to Tilsit Treaty or even sue for peace after Friesland. Yes, his field army was crushed (does not mean that he completely run out of troops) but Napoleon also was not in a position for a further major war, not to mention war of conquest against Russia. The low level conflict could keep going but Alexander simply freaked out and agreed to pretty much everything Nappy wanted just to decide later that some of the items he signed are too inconvenient to implement.
 
Last edited:
You did not read the premise: part of the peace negotiated after campaign of 1812 is that Nappy does not insist on the CS for Russia: pure pragmatism because his attempt to enforce it ended with a disaster. Anyway, Napoleon could not prevent Russia from trading with Britain unless he occupied its ports on the Baltic and White Seas.

As for your opinion about Russian aggressiveness toward France, it contradicts the facts. 2nd Coalition - Russia attacks in Italy, on the Med, in Switzerland and in the Netherlands (none of which is even close to the Russian borders). 3rd Coalition - initiated by Alexander and fighting is far away from Russia. 4th Coalition - closer to Russia but still outside it.
Of course Napoleon would have agreed to that peace in 1813! What happens five years later, when he's rebuilt his army, when he knows what fails against Russia, when he comes back?

It's not useful to view any of the Coaltion Wars in a vacuum. They were all results of the First Coalition which was unequivocally started by France. Russia was doing all this in its capacity as Austria's ally and I believe Austria was justified in attempting to roll back French expansionism.

The existence of Germany was not considered a threat because Bismarck did not show the same level of open contempt for other country's sovereignty that Napoleon did. Additionally, Germany never had any near the level of hegemony that Napoleonic France boasted. Treating Napoleon like he sadly had war forced on him is a mistake. Nothing of what he did suggests that he was interested in a peace that didn't involve French hegemony.

And then, when Alexander decided to stop trading with Britain, Napoleon invaded. What's the point?
 
Of course Napoleon would have agreed to that peace in 1813! What happens five years later, when he's rebuilt his army, when he knows what fails against Russia, when he comes back?

It's not useful to view any of the Coaltion Wars in a vacuum. They were all results of the First Coalition which was unequivocally started by France. Russia was doing all this in its capacity as Austria's ally and I believe Austria was justified in attempting to roll back French expansionism.


And then, when Alexander decided to stop trading with Britain, Napoleon invaded. What's the point?

The only problem with this argument is that it does not fit the known facts.

Paul got into the 2nd Coalition willingly as a matter of principle and not because he was forced to do so by the conditions of alliance with Austria (Russia did not participate in the 1st Coalition and the following fighting). Just as easily as he got in he got out, again as a matter of principle: “now, when France got a king by anything but name ...”. Napoleon went to an extra length to be nice to Russia (his treatment of the Russian POWs was unprecedented courtesy).

He was trying to maintain the same relations with Alexander but, unlike his father, Alexander was personally hostile to Napoleon, immediately sided with the Brits and looked for any excuse ro break relations with France. He was a driving force behind the 3rd Coalition, not an innocent victim of the circumstances. After defeat of the 3rd Coalition he could make peace, as Austria did but instead he incited Prussia to start a war (there was no binding treaty, just Alexander’s initiative).

And the last statement that Napoleon attacked him when he decided to stop trading with Britain is what? A joke?

Between Tilsit and 1812 Russian military budget increased 4 - 5 times and size of its army at least doubled. Trade with Britain was officially interrupted after Tilsit (1807, not 1812) but continued to exist even if on a smaller scale and through thr neutral countries. Napoleon’s official beef was about ongoing trade (Caulaincourt was trying to convince him that this is not a big deal because France was using the same loopholes) but besides this Alexander demanded removal of the French troops from a big part of Germany. Not that Napoleon was a pacifist but Alexander did everything he could to provoke him.
 
Top