What if Napoleon goes to war with the Ottoman Empire in 1810

Liberation from what? The relatively light touch of the still not-centeralized Ottoman state? How well did that work out in Egypt and Spain, exactly? Any goodwill an intial call to liberation (whatever that would mean) would dissipate the second the French Army has to start mass requisitioning in order to keep itself fed in the marginal/not particularly fertile Balkans region and will result in insurgency and resistance.

The Serbs did rebelled in 1807, took Belgrade and declared themselves Russian protectorate but in 1809 they had been defeated by the Ottomans. As you said, they may greet the French as the liberators but only for as long as these liberators did not start looting them.



I think you're all underestimating the Turks. Sure, they're not perfect, but by 1810 the quality of French arms have also decayed somewhat and they'll be conducting into an offensive into a region that's strategically not very suitable to their method of warfare and France's diplomatic position is decaying.

You are probably forgetting that at that time the Ottomans had been slowly but steadily loosing to the Russians on both theaters (Balkans and Caucasus). Adding the French to this equation would be too much. The Brits had been helping Ottomans with the subsidies but it did not help too much, just prolonged a war.
 

raharris1973

Gone Fishin'
Donor
Monthly Donor
They might intervene to not let their ambition to fall in French hands. But at the end, the French will not stay in Constantinople nor anywhere close to the Coast.

So no French crossing of the straits into Anatolia?

I could see this resulting in a lot of wear and tear on French forces for little gain, but the Turks by no means to a pursuit of the French back to and beyond the frontier. The Balkans are shattered into statelets, and if Napoleon ultimately loses, as is probable the Balkan pieces are independent or satellitized by the Russians and Austrians, with no chance for Ottoman restoration except for maybe modern European Turkey.
 

ar-pharazon

Banned
If Napoleon liberates the Balkans earlier and then is still defeated in the end what would happen to the various Balkan states?

Would they remain independent or what?
 
If Napoleon liberates the Balkans earlier and then is still defeated in the end what would happen to the various Balkan states?

Would they remain independent or what?

As far as I know the Congress of Vienna was to return to the borders of 1789 as much as possible. I see the Ottomans gain back most of their land maybe except the Danubian principalities (especially Moldova is gone)

At most he can 'liberate areas not close from the Royal Navy. Think about Serbia, Bulgaria (Sofia, Macedonia), Bosnia.
 
So no French crossing of the straits into Anatolia?

I could see this resulting in a lot of wear and tear on French forces for little gain, but the Turks by no means to a pursuit of the French back to and beyond the frontier. The Balkans are shattered into statelets, and if Napoleon ultimately loses, as is probable the Balkan pieces are independent or satellitized by the Russians and Austrians, with no chance for Ottoman restoration except for maybe modern European Turkey.

Nappy can cross the Bosphorus if the RN does not prevent it. It is even ideal. Nappy caught in Anatolia with his large Army not able to cross back to Europe while Prussia, Russia and Austria take the advantage. But Nappy won't cross. That is too much of a risk and the RN will still prevent it. Besides. If the RN is near Constantinople Napoleon can never secure Constantinople

They don't have to pursuit the French. The French retreat and the Ottomans restore order in Bulgaria first. Ali Pasha Tependeli has most of Greece and Albania, Karađorde has Belgrad Pashaluk, Nis, Sandzak and maybe even Skopje. And Bosnia has several landlords fighting Karađorde. Both Alexander I and Francis II fear Napoleon more than they desire Bulgaria or Serbia.

Conclusion: Romania above the Danube is lost. Ali Pasha has more lands and is as autonomous as Mehmed Ali of Egypt. Serbia might even have the same result but smaller (Belgrad Pashaluk). Bosnia is likely to return in Ottoman hands.
 
As far as I know the Congress of Vienna was to return to the borders of 1789 as much as possible. I see the Ottomans gain back most of their land maybe except the Danubian principalities (especially Moldova is gone)

The Congress did recognize some changes that happened in the Napoleonic wars, such as the merger of lots of small German states (they went from about 300 to 40) and the abolition of the Holy Roman Empire.

In the case of the Ottoman Empire, I don't know how sympathetic the Congress would be to their restoration given that it was a non-Christian state. If Russia and Austria play major roles in Napoléon's defeat as in OTL, I could see the ex-Ottoman territory in European being partitioned among them, perhaps as semiautonomous states. Perhaps Britain also gains a protectorate in Greece.

But this war could butterfly away Napoléon's downfall altogether.
 
Nappy can cross the Bosphorus if the RN does not prevent it. It is even ideal. Nappy caught in Anatolia with his large Army not able to cross back to Europe while Prussia, Russia and Austria take the advantage. But Nappy won't cross. That is too much of a risk and the RN will still prevent it. Besides. If the RN is near Constantinople Napoleon can never secure Constantinople

Of course, an idea of Nappy going into Anatolia is unrealistic, he was anything but an idiot, but you are seemingly forgetting that at this time Russia is his ally AND at war with the Ottomans (occupied Wallachia and operating in Bulgaria) so, in the scenario of Nappy's joining the entertaining, it is a French-Russian race to Istanbul with the Ottomans simply not being strong enough to fight on 3 fronts (Western Balkans, Bulgaria and Caucasus).

As for the RN. The Russian fleet (2nd Mediterranean Expedition) is operating in the Aegean Sea (defeated Ottoman fleet in the Battle of Athos in 1807) and is well positioned to reach the Straits earlier than the Brits. As soon as the allies hold the European coast and Russian squadron is in the Straits (and can be easily strengthened by the Russian Black Sea fleet), it is highly unlikely that the RN is going to try to get in or to do much more than just organize blockade of the entry. Technicalities of the situation had been demonstrated at the Battle of Dardanelles (10–11 May 1807): when Russian squadron had been pursuing the retreating Turks to the Dardanelles the heavy fire of the shore batteries and darkness compelled him to give up the pursuit. However, the problem with "holding Istanbul" was not a physical possession of the city but a plain fact that it heavily depended on maritime supply. Prior to the Battle of Dardanelles Russian fleet maintained its blockade for 2 months causing food riots, deposition of Sultan Selim III and attempt of the Ottoman fleet to break the blockade (which led to the battle). So the victorious allies, after they got where they wanted, may have a serious problem on their hands: how to fed all these Turks. ;)



Strictly speaking "Napoleon going to war" does not necessarily imply that he is going to the Balkans personally (see Merime's comment to his own "Napoleon and Montenegrians" :cool:): the theater is not big enough (both geographically and geopolitically) and he can just send there an army lead by one his marshals as a show of his friendship with Alexander (IIRC, Nappy was making some noises about "sharing the world", etc.).

The most obvious and practical goal for Nappy would be to extend Illyrian Provinces further inland along the Southern Austrian border (thus creating a potential danger for them to be attacked from this direction if they don't behave). He could be sympathetic to an idea of the Serbian independence providing Serbia becomes his (and not Russian) client. No need to send a lot of troops there (causing understandable problems with the looted "liberated" population), just a token force: the Ottomans, would have to evacuate area anyway if they don't want to be cut off by the advancing Russians.

Of course, all this brings up an obvious question: why would Nappy do anything of the kind if he considered the Ottomans as a valuable distraction for Alexander who by 1810 was visibly getting back to his traditional anti-Napoleonic stance? In OTL he was vocally unhappy with the news about the Ottoman defeat in 1812 ("These Turks have a talent to be beaten!") because it meant that Russian Army of the Danube can be deployed against him.
 
"Bulgaria", the Danubian Principalities, and Thrace go to Russia. "Greece" and the Western Balkans go to Napoleon and hiss allies/vassals. The humiliation of the Ottomans in Europe cause a power vacuum allowing its Arab possessions to fall to Muhammad Ali Pasha. Britain seizes Cyprus eventually.
 
With Russia getting Romania/Bulgaria, and france getting Otl Yugoslavia, what are the odds that as a compromise, the too give an independent Greece/restored Byzantines the rest, including Constantinople?

Stick Konstantin on the throne, have him marry a Bonaparte. Make sure Russia gets basing and France gets support of the Contenental system. A Franco-Russian peace that lasts.
 
"Bulgaria", the Danubian Principalities, and Thrace go to Russia. "Greece" and the Western Balkans go to Napoleon and hiss allies/vassals. The humiliation of the Ottomans in Europe cause a power vacuum allowing its Arab possessions to fall to Muhammad Ali Pasha. Britain seizes Cyprus eventually.

I'm not sure that Alexander's idea was to incorporate Bulgaria and "Principalities" into the Russian empire. Making them Russian vassal states was more practical.
 
Unless the Royal Navy does nothing but scratching their ass the French won't stay in Constantinople nor have the the chance to stay.
The Dardanelles and the Bosporus are very narrow straits, at their narrowest they look 1.4 and .8 kilometers respectively to me. Historically the French placed shore batteries on the Italian side of the Straits of Messina which is a little bit over three kilometers across and were able to impede British shipping and destroy a number of gunboats and a British frigate. The much narrower straits would enable them to have more effective fire, and if they capture the Ottoman gun batteries on one side they could probably under their cover land on the other: a risky operation but not necessarily an impossible one, it was deliberated at Messina and might even have happened once, although that didn't succeed. If they controlled both sides of the coast, then asides from the danger of Ottoman troops operating from Anatolia, they could quite effectively close them against British warships threatening Constantinople.

But as mentioned elsewhere maritime food supplies are the impossibility. I presume they came from Egypt. Unless if alternate means could be sourced, such as maybe from Ukraine, Constantinople would be a poisoned chalice.

The most obvious and practical goal for Nappy would be to extend Illyrian Provinces further inland along the Southern Austrian border (thus creating a potential danger for them to be attacked from this direction if they don't behave). He could be sympathetic to an idea of the Serbian independence providing Serbia becomes his (and not Russian) client. No need to send a lot of troops there (causing understandable problems with the looted "liberated" population), just a token force: the Ottomans, would have to evacuate area anyway if they don't want to be cut off by the advancing Russians.
One thing to note is that the French had reinforced Corfu, that they controlled, with a substantial amount of supplies, which according to The War in the Mediterranean 1803-1810 was principally in the view of giving French forces additional preparation against the Ottoman Empire, something they had chosen over invading Sicily. Light naval traffic between there and the shores had never been practically cut (they're barely a few kilometers away, out of cannon short range but within easy sailing range overnight), so some degree of sea-borne supply is possible for a campaign in the Western Ottoman Empire although limited to one entrepot.
 
As far as I know the Congress of Vienna was to return to the borders of 1789 as much as possible. I see the Ottomans gain back most of their land maybe except the Danubian principalities (especially Moldova is gone)

At most he can 'liberate areas not close from the Royal Navy. Think about Serbia, Bulgaria (Sofia, Macedonia), Bosnia.
The Congress of Vienna restored practically none of Europe's borders to 1789 except for France's. And the Ottomans were not even represented at the Congress. There isn't much reason to believe that they will respect pre-war Ottoman borders, especially when the hegemonic party at the table was Russia who has every reason not to want to do so. Russia will get its pound of flesh with some accommodations to Austrian and British interests. As with what happened during the Polish-Saxon crisis, Austria and war weary Britain will bluster, but ultimately give Russia a favorable compromise. Austria isn't going to risk a war against a Russo-Prussian alliance. The Ottomans themselves will certainly not be treated as an equal of the Christian European powers.
 
Last edited:
It's not like Alexander hung around historically.

He fought a rather prolonged war with the Ottomans in parallel with his anti-Napoleonic war but it does not look like he was excessively interested in the region. Honestly, it seems to me that he was mostly interested in (a) being an object of everybody's (especially British) adoration, (b) destruction of Napoleon and (c) parade ground perfection of his army. :winkytongue:
 
Top