Holding it for long periods of time and controlling it for some time are'nt the same thing.
So for instance the United States could have annexed Japan and its part of Germany (assuming some batshit insane peope were in charge), but it would'nt hold them very long.
Well, I've been assuming to a greater or lesser extent that we're talking about "could control after the rearguard of the invading army has left the area."
That is, Napoleon's dominance of Europe is not a realistic measure of what France could have as its "maximum possible extent".
Not sure what this has to do with how well or badly the ERE's ability to control territory compares to the Ottomans, though.
Well in the Ottomans case (they're a dark Forest Green btw), they have the benefit the French did, that is they could control alot of territory that essentialy was'nt overly problematic, since you only need to control Al Jazair and a military out post in the South to control the vast mostly empty desert between.
Is that an Ottoman-specific thing, or something the ERE in the same region would be able to do just as much since the desert is just as empty?