Russia strikes first against Napoleon, what happens next?

Deleted member 97083

Among others in the Russian Empire's high command, Peter Bagration suggested an aggressive stance against the French and their allies. In March 1812, Bagration asked the Tsar to intentionally issue an ultimatum that Napoleon would never accept--the withdrawal of French influence to the Oder River--so that Russian forces in Bialystok could occupy Warsaw and create a Prussian and Austrian rebellion to overthrow French rule. This proposal was declined, and Napoleon invaded Russia from July to December 1812.

But what if the Tsar had accepted Bagration's plan? How would the Russian invasion of Poland have proceeded, and the rebellion of Prussia and Austria against France?

I expect that it would probably end well for Napoleon. Fighting on "home turf" rather than a dangerous expedition, he would win once again. Giving him another excuse to weaken Prussia and Austria, perhaps even dismantling almost the entirety of both. Napoleon could probably carve out Lithuania, which may or may not be attached to Poland.

What do you think?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I expect that it would probably end well for Napoleon. Fighting on "home turf" rather than a dangerous expedition, he would win once again. Giving him another excuse to weaken Prussia and Austria, perhaps even dismantling almost the entirety of both. Napoleon could probably carve out Lithuania, which may or may not be attached to Poland.
The Tsar thought this too, which is why he didn't do it. He did learn from Austerlitz, after all. I recommend the book Russia Against Napoleon, it presented what seemed like a fairly plausible argument that Alexander's grand strategy after Austerlitz was more or less entirely centered around fighting precisely the war he did, in fact, fight in 1812-1814. He's not likely to deviate from a strategy he's been building up for seven years at the last minute because of one general's advice. Probably particularly not with someone like Bagration known to be a bit...aggressive.

The way I can see this happening is if Russia isn't involved in the earlier coalitions, and instead waits to move against Napoleon until he's already defeated Austria and Prussia, for whatever reasons. In that case, Alexander wouldn't have the tempering of his experience completely mucking things up at Austerlitz, so he's much more likely to pursue an superficially plausible aggressive strategy than a Fabian approach. This would probably have the results you outline, more or less, although Russia would remain a very dangerous foe.
 

Deleted member 97083

The Tsar thought this too, which is why he didn't do it. He did learn from Austerlitz, after all. I recommend the book Russia Against Napoleon, it presented what seemed like a fairly plausible argument that Alexander's grand strategy after Austerlitz was more or less entirely centered around fighting precisely the war he did, in fact, fight in 1812-1814. He's not likely to deviate from a strategy he's been building up for seven years at the last minute because of one general's advice. Probably particularly not with someone like Bagration known to be a bit...aggressive.

The way I can see this happening is if Russia isn't involved in the earlier coalitions, and instead waits to move against Napoleon until he's already defeated Austria and Prussia, for whatever reasons. In that case, Alexander wouldn't have the tempering of his experience completely mucking things up at Austerlitz, so he's much more likely to pursue an superficially plausible aggressive strategy than a Fabian approach. This would probably have the results you outline, more or less, although Russia would remain a very dangerous foe.
Thanks for the book recommendation, I'll check it out.

What if Peter Bagration had started trying to convince the Tsar of this idea starting as early as 1808 concurrent with Russian victory in the Finnish War? Could the Tsar be convinced with convergent developments until 1812?
 
What if Peter Bagration had started trying to convince the Tsar of this idea starting as early as 1808 concurrent with Russian victory in the Finnish War? Could the Tsar be convinced with convergent developments until 1812?
Hmmm, I'm not sure. My read was that Bagration was kept around because he was good at winning battles and carrying out maneuvers, but his strategic thoughts were generally more or less politely dismissed as not being particularly workable. Perhaps this could change if he became a favorite of Alexander around or even before his ascension, but then he might be discredited by Austerlitz (or, rather, *Austerlitz, given the inevitable changes from having Bagration be dictating policy; I suspect that the French would still win any analogous battle, though perhaps not so brilliantly)
 
Top