What if Napoleon doesn't launch his invasion of Russia in 1812 and instead directs his energies towards solidifying his hold on Europe and conquering North Africa (ie Algieria, Tunisia, and Libya) and the Ottoman Lands? Without overreaching, Napoleon wouldn't be Napoleon, but it was his Russian blunder that ended his attempts to become overlord of the world. However, what if he keeps control of Europe with some nearby colonies?
What if Napoleon doesn't invade Russia?
- Thread starter strangeland
- Start date
strangeland
Two problems with your suggestion.
a) Without an invasion of Russia there would probably have been another war in the east. Both Russia and Prussia were resentful of French dominance and economic policies. Austria was neutralised to a degree by the marriage of Marie-Louise and still licking her wounds after 1809 but her neutrality was also subject to limits.
If Napoleon had allowed the allies to come to him and waged the war in Germany and Poland rather than Russia he would have stood a better chance in the following battle. However each alliance was getting more difficult to defeat as national identity and military expertise grew amongst his opponents and faded in France with the continued heavy losses. Also he would have been fighting with the Spanish ulcer draining French strength further. Might have defeated the next coalition but would have been very costly and the one after that would have probably taken the aging emperor down.
I think the basic problem was that Napoleon had already seriously over-extended France and there was too much resentment over his power. Coupled with continued British hostility to French domination and capacity to support such alliances with funds, weapons, equipment etc he probably needed to pull back somewhat, without that being seen as a sign of weakness but that would have been very much out of character.
b) An invasion of NW Africa would have been very difficult and expensive for France given its existing commitments and supplying very little return as the area lacked great wealth. [Might have got some political kudos for ending the Barbary slave raids on shipping and settlements and relief that the French are attacking someone else but that's about all]. Far more seriously it would be impossible in the face of British opposition to French domination of Europe and the RN supremacy at the time. Neither of those factors are likely to change.
Steve
Faeelin
Banned
Eh.... even in 1813, Metternich sat on the fence for a while, and was still a strong advocate of a "mild" peace for France; offering the natural borders, frex.
Okay, some points. First, nationalism as a force in this era has been pretty much discreditted, outside of France, Britain, and Spain. See, frex, Europe under Napoleon for a discussion of this.
Second, what would lead to ensuing coalitions? Austria won't ditch Napoleon. Prussia might try to join the next one, but gets squashed utterly. Then you have Russia and the Spanish quagmire.
I think you're also underestimating the hostility Europeans had towards the British, who, after all, started the blockade business.
As I said, Austria was unwilling to join a new coalition for a while. There were other factors more hostile to Napoleon that Metternich but he was dominant for the moment. However he didn't keep Austria out indefinitely. From what I have read Napoleon was offered the 'natural frontiers' by the allies as late as 1814.
Suspect that depends on how you define nationalism and national identity. Both Poland and Russia had strong senses of identity probably as clear as that of Spain. [The fact the former, because of its position was an ally of Napoleon doesn't change the basic point]. In Prussia and Austria also there was a strong desire for reform and increased independence while many, not just in Germany, objected to French occupation and the costs it incurred.
Austria did OTL, albeit somewhat later. Prussia would very likely side with Russia which would be the contiental focus of the next alliance as its interests diverged from that of France politically and economically.
They objected to Britain because the French tried to prevent them trading with Britain? The scale of the smuggling that undermined the French embargoes suggests otherwise. Not to mention the steps that Napoleon took to try and prevent trade. Most noticeably the annexation of the North Sea coast, which beggared the Dutch, angered the Germans and alienated the Czar.Steve
Aye, the Continental System needs to be given a long hard look for this POD. The System alienated and pissed off Nappy's defeated foes no end and was major influence on his invasion of Russia, not to mention the growing black markets effect on Europe's economy.
Personally I always though the invasion of Spain, the Emperor's greatest mistake for many reasons, so I'm not sure how can sort that out.
Personally I always though the invasion of Spain, the Emperor's greatest mistake for many reasons, so I'm not sure how can sort that out.
Faeelin
Banned
Metternich might not be dominant forever, but there was a reason he was OTL. What changes it without an invasion of Russia?
After all, Austria went to war in 1809 out of fear that they were about to suffer the same fate as Spain; then they allied with France, providing troops for the invasion of Russia.
True, but yuo referred to growing nationalism. I don't think we cann refer to "Austrian nationalism", and while some in Prussia might have thought of themselves as Germans first, they were clearly in the minority; certainly Napoleon had many supporters in the rest of Germany. While there was opposition, it was, IMO, more particularist than nationalist.
Prussia has been occupied and has lost vast numbers of territory, with Napoleon capable of demanding changes in Prussia's internal government.
There was the small matter of the British blockade. This led in America to the war of 1812 (among other things) and was none too popular in Europe.
What smuggling tells you is that people still wanted sugar, tea, and other goods, not that they sympathized with Britain's bid to dominate the seas.
Last edited:
The reason Napoleon invaded Russia was to enforce the continental blocus.
If he doesn't invade, then he let the continental blocus lapse. That means this won't continue to annoy Napoleons ally and that Napoleon needs to find another way to fight UK. ( or to make a peace offer Uk will accept )
If he doesn't invade, then he let the continental blocus lapse. That means this won't continue to annoy Napoleons ally and that Napoleon needs to find another way to fight UK. ( or to make a peace offer Uk will accept )
A serious check to French power, as happened OTL.
Both Austria and Prussia supplied forces to the attack on Russia but not willingly. I think the defection of the Prussians especially was seen as significant in the way the wind was blowing.
Why not? As I said, it depends on how you define nationalism. If you say that Austria can't display nationalism because its a multi-national state or Prussia because it only contains some Germans I can think of plenty of examples occurring in both cases. Napoleon had many supporters in Germany but ultimately far less than his opponents.
Which was a major reason my both the Prussian state and, even more importantly, many of its population, were both hostile to Napoleon and willing to undergo substantial change.
This was a counter to the French attacks on British trade. It was far less disruptive of international trade, since it imposed controls rather than seeking to totally block. Don't know if it was significant in the triggering of the 1812 conflict. The pressing of sailors, some of whom were or claimed to be US citizens was a factor, although stopped just before the war start. British restrictions on trade were far less disruptive and unpopular than French attempts to control.
No they wanted the goods and hence opposed the far more draconian French attempts to dominate Europe and their lives.
Steve
Faeelin
Banned
I think you're underestimating how disastrous the invasion of Russia was. We're talking about hundreds of thousands men (and horses) lost in the steppes, with Napoleon fleeing back. This simply won't happen without an invasion of Russia.
Yes, once Napoleon had been defeated on a scale not seen in centuries, the tide turned. What happens elsewhere? Prussia joins a Russian offensive into Poland.
And splat.
Yes, I'd like examples of Austrian nationalists, as opposed to foes of Napoleon.
Are you saying that were it not for France, Britain would never have imposed a blockade?
Not at all. Losses there were huge and a more conventional defeat would be more difficult to achieve. As I said earlier it might have needed another coalition. However France was losing the overwhelming advantage it had held in previous years as its opponents learnt and it's own forces declined in quality. It had nearly been defeated by Austria in 1809 despite early successes and Austria having to detach forces to watch Russia. Also the ulcer was not only causing continued drains of men and money it was tying up a sizeable proportion of the French army. I don't think they ever had less than 150,000 men in the peninsula and at times ~350,000. That on top of having to hold down much of the rest of Europe.
I wouldn't say not seen in centuries. Also the Russian/Prussian attack on Poland might have failed but they regrouped and kept on fighting. A few months later the war had moved much further west.
The classic example is probably the resistance in the Tyrol. There were also reformers in Austria, the Archduke and Stein are the two I've heard about before.
A naval blockage was a valid element of warfare. Napoleon's attempts to control the trade of the rest of Europe by threat of attack for trading with Britain was a major reason for his fall because of the hostility it generated in the nations affected.
I'm not saying the fall of Napoleon's empire was inevitable. However given the factors at work it was very likely. It might have taken a few years longed but if was on the card most definitely.
Steve