What if Napoleon stayed in Egypt?

In 1798, the Directory offered to let Napoleon Bonaparte lead an invasion of England. Napoleon determined that France’s naval forces were not yet ready to go up against the superior British Royal Navy. He had a different idea: invade Egypt to wipe out British trade routes to India. The Directory gave the plan their approval.

At first, Napoleon scored a victory against the Mamaluks at the Battle of the Pyramids in July 1798, but his army was soon stranded in Egypt when his naval fleet was obliterated by the British at the Battle of the Nile in August of that year.

On 24th August, 1799, Napoleon heard word that the Directory was losing it's grip on power in France, due to their losses in the War of the Second Coalition, and thus, deserted his soldiers to return to France. In October, he returned to a hero's welcome. He soon overthrew the unpopular, weakened Directory and crowned himself Emperor.

But what if Napoleon stayed in Egypt, rather than returning to France?
 
Last edited:
Whilst I am not familiar with the finer details of this period, some random speculation (or more a query).

Could Napoleon become leader of Egypt in some fashion?
 
Could Napoleon become leader of Egypt in some fashion?

No. One of the reasons Bonaparte abandoned his army was because he could see the writing was on the wall for the campaign. He'd been forced to retreat from the siege of Acre despite giving the relieving army a thumping, his army was weakening through battle losses and disease, the Ottomans were converging on him, and Britain was preparing an expeditionary force that ultimately forced the surrender of the remnants he's left behind at Alexandria.
 
An interesting pod is if his fleet hadn't been destroyed, he might have been able to stay much longer!
 
Britain was preparing an expeditionary force that ultimately forced the surrender of the remnants he's left behind at Alexandria.

If Napoleon can win a three to one defensive campaign against the Ottomans, the British might cancel the expeditary froce. I mean, honestly who cares about some super-tactician genius out in Egypt? Might it be better to cut him a deal and focus on Europe if he wants to stay out of the picture? The Directory needs to be crushed and the liberal influences must be scrubbed from Europe to keep the Hannoverians. Oldenburgs, Hapsburgs, Oranges, and others on their thrones. Actually, Hannoverians and their successors the Windsors didn't actually need liberal influences scrubbed to be safe, but to be fair at that time with the guillotine it looks pretty urgent.

Napoleon's entire Egypt campaign would never amount to anything for France after the Nelson ensured British superiority of the Mediterranean. If Napoleon stays, his influence on the continent is curtailed. He would be answering to a soon to be defunct government in Paris whenever TTL equivalent of the War of the Third Coalition starts (of course it's not going to be called that with a different casuius belli and leaders... but Britain, Austria, Russia, and everyone dogpiling on France).

So his staying isn't going to ensure French dominance of Egypt. Directory France is cut off by the seas to him. Napoleonic France can't come to be if Napoleon is just a general. He might be a lose end the British might want to clean up. But if Napoleon butchers an Ottoman attack that outnumbers him three to one or more, he honestly becomes more trouble than he's worth as long as he behaves himself and doesn't contaminate Europe. If Britain was content to exile the Emperor to Elba on the condition he stays, surely this no-name general who is proving himself a good tactician isn't going to do much harm on the slightly-more-important-than-Elba (but still not Europe) Egypt.
 
Napoleon is more or less doomed if he stays in Egypt without doing something drastic (like adopting Islam). As others have pointed out, he would be cut off from Europe by the British Navy and he does not have the resources to march to Constantinople and beyond. Realistically, he would not be able to stay in Egypt and build his own state without a conversion to Islam, which wasn't too likely as in his own words, he was a bit afraid of circumcision...

I don't see the French troops in Egypt ever integrating well enough to become the new Mamluk ruling class however. Al-Jabarti's History of Egypt is replete with outraged stories of French offenses during the occupation of Egypt. The cultural gap was too large between the French and the Egyptians for the former to ever become integrated into the fabric of Egyptian society. And without that integration, they will be isolated and destroyed.

An (unlikely) scenario in which Napoleon and a number of the French army converts to Islam and decides to make some Franco-Mamluk state would certainly be an interesting timeline however. If a little unlikely.
 
Napoleon is more or less doomed if he stays in Egypt without doing something drastic (like adopting Islam)

Not needed. Otherwise the Muslims would need to convert to Christianity in order to take Egypt in the FIRST PLACE... wait a minute

He just needs a few spectacular victories to quash any rebellious thoughts. That and the Ottomans weren't exactly the most friendly overlords in the world would help. Would it make the locals like a Christian rule? No. Of course, any married folks in his army might want to go home... then again the early Revolutionary French army was made of young recruits, who have as few ties to home as the European who moved to African colonies.

Anyways, even under this route he might be able to make his own state, but he's effectively irrelevant to the British as long as he doesn't make ships. The planned expeditionary force to dislodge him might be cancelled if he makes a big show against the Ottomans. As long as he can't help Revolutionary France, the British might consider Napoleonic Egypt to be a non-factor.
 
In 1798, the Directory offered to let Napoleon Bonaparte lead an invasion of England. Napoleon determined that France’s naval forces were not yet ready to go up against the superior British Royal Navy. He had a different idea: invade Egypt to wipe out British trade routes to India. The Directory gave the plan their approval.

At first, Napoleon scored a victory against the Mamaluks at the Battle of the Pyramids in July 1798, but his army was soon stranded in Egypt when his naval fleet was obliterated by the British at the Battle of the Nile in August of that year.

On 24th August, 1799, Napoleon heard word that the Directory was losing it's grip on power in France, due to their losses in the War of the Second Coalition, and thus, deserted his soldiers to return to France. In October, he returned to a hero's welcome. He soon overthrew the unpopular, weakened Directory and crowned himself Emperor.

But what if Napoleon stayed in Egypt, rather than returning to France?
Napoleon conquering Sudan ?
 
If he stays in Egypt and the fighting continues he can win every battle but without reinforcements he cannot win the war. So if he were to keep winning he would at some point just surrender without a fight.
 
Not needed. Otherwise the Muslims would need to convert to Christianity in order to take Egypt in the FIRST PLACE... wait a minute

The two situations aren't analogous. For one thing, the Muslims weren't cut off from their homeland and from any reinforcements by a hostile navy and thousands of miles of sea.
 
If Napoleon can win a three to one defensive campaign against the Ottomans, the British might cancel the expeditary froce. I mean, honestly who cares about some super-tactician genius out in Egypt? Might it be better to cut him a deal and focus on Europe if he wants to stay out of the picture? The Directory needs to be crushed and the liberal influences must be scrubbed from Europe to keep the Hannoverians. Oldenburgs, Hapsburgs, Oranges, and others on their thrones. Actually, Hannoverians and their successors the Windsors didn't actually need liberal influences scrubbed to be safe, but to be fair at that time with the guillotine it looks pretty urgent.

Napoleon's entire Egypt campaign would never amount to anything for France after the Nelson ensured British superiority of the Mediterranean. If Napoleon stays, his influence on the continent is curtailed. He would be answering to a soon to be defunct government in Paris whenever TTL equivalent of the War of the Third Coalition starts (of course it's not going to be called that with a different casuius belli and leaders... but Britain, Austria, Russia, and everyone dogpiling on France).

So his staying isn't going to ensure French dominance of Egypt. Directory France is cut off by the seas to him. Napoleonic France can't come to be if Napoleon is just a general. He might be a lose end the British might want to clean up. But if Napoleon butchers an Ottoman attack that outnumbers him three to one or more, he honestly becomes more trouble than he's worth as long as he behaves himself and doesn't contaminate Europe. If Britain was content to exile the Emperor to Elba on the condition he stays, surely this no-name general who is proving himself a good tactician isn't going to do much harm on the slightly-more-important-than-Elba (but still not Europe) Egypt.

Any threat to British India is unacceptable. The British will send the expedition force. If it isn't the British it will be the Egyptian landscape combined with no recourses to kill off Napoleon. For revolutionary France this is bad.
 
Not needed. Otherwise the Muslims would need to convert to Christianity in order to take Egypt in the FIRST PLACE... wait a minute

He just needs a few spectacular victories to quash any rebellious thoughts. That and the Ottomans weren't exactly the most friendly overlords in the world would help. Would it make the locals like a Christian rule? No. Of course, any married folks in his army might want to go home... then again the early Revolutionary French army was made of young recruits, who have as few ties to home as the European who moved to African colonies.

Anyways, even under this route he might be able to make his own state, but he's effectively irrelevant to the British as long as he doesn't make ships. The planned expeditionary force to dislodge him might be cancelled if he makes a big show against the Ottomans. As long as he can't help Revolutionary France, the British might consider Napoleonic Egypt to be a non-factor.

The Muslims conquering Egypt and Napoleon creating his own Egyptian state are two different things.

Napoleon making his own state in Egypt is out of question, not even for religious reasons. The British are not stupid enough to leave a French Army in Egypt just because they'll cut ties with mainland France. It doesn't work like that.
 
Any threat to British India is unacceptable. The British will send the expedition force. If it isn't the British it will be the Egyptian landscape combined with no recourses to kill off Napoleon. For revolutionary France this is bad.
Except the French were never actually in any position to threaten India from Egypt,even if the French never lost the Battle of the Nile.How the heck are they even supposed to get ships into Red Sea is a massive question.

The Muslims conquering Egypt and Napoleon creating his own Egyptian state are two different things.

Napoleon making his own state in Egypt is out of question, not even for religious reasons. The British are not stupid enough to leave a French Army in Egypt just because they'll cut ties with mainland France. It doesn't work like that.
And how is such a state gonna be a threat to the British?

From the very beginning,the French goals of reaching India never had a one percent chance of succeeding.
 
Except the French were never actually in any position to threaten India from Egypt,even if the French never lost the Battle of the Nile.How the heck are they even supposed to get ships into Red Sea is a massive question.


And how is such a state gonna be a threat to the British?

From the very beginning,the French goals of reaching India never had a one percent chance of succeeding.

Nappy had some interesting ideas to march to India. Allowing an army to recover and consodilate power in Egypt is not something Nelson or the British will allow.
 
The two situations aren't analogous. For one thing, the Muslims weren't cut off from their homeland and from any reinforcements by a hostile navy and thousands of miles of sea.

At that time, the Sinai was basically a limiter on resupply due to... I don't remember. Maybe roads or something. Almost any invasion force coming from that direction until the crusade era had to fend for itself with only small numbers going back and forth. Unless you count messengers, it might as well be thousands of miles of sea.

Napoleon making his own state in Egypt is out of question, not even for religious reasons. The British are not stupid enough to leave a French Army in Egypt just because they'll cut ties with mainland France. It doesn't work like that.

What do you mean stupid? I just said, if they think they can crush it, they will, but if Napoleon makes a big show of military might, they might decide he's more trouble than he's worth as long as he cuts them a deal.

I already said, at this time in history, Napoleon is just a general to a regime that needs to be crushed as far as the Hannovers are concerned.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
It's worth pointing out that the French army in Egypt managed to hold on until 1801, two years after Napoleon had departed.
 
for Copts, he's is the greatest man that sat foot on Egypt in the last 500 years

his conquest was the beginning of the end for the barbarian turks in our land

as we became few years later the first country to be clean of any turkic existence

edward william lane in his book about Egypt 1825 mentioned how we kept over two millennia, the traditions and the rituals of our ancestors. i would relate that to the rebellious soul that resisted any sort of change.

Napoleon the Great brought one thing with him, the Printer.

3 years of the French in Egypt were more influential than the 70 years the British stayed.. we do have a very positive idea about their rule also, except some islamist idiots who pretended to be republican, any info about French or English exploitation of Egypt is just fake, very few incidents the British committed atrocities against the locals and ZERO the french had done.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
for Copts, he's is the greatest man that sat foot on Egypt in the last 500 years

his conquest was the beginning of the end for the barbarian turks in our land

as we became few years later the first country to be clean of any turkic existence

edward william lane in his book about Egypt 1825 mentioned how we kept over two millennia, the traditions and the rituals of our ancestors. i would relate that to the rebellious soul that resisted any sort of change.

Napoleon the Great brought one thing with him, the Printer.

3 years of the French in Egypt were more influential than the 70 years the British stayed.. we do have a very positive idea about their rule also, except some islamist idiots who pretended to be republican, any info about French or English exploitation of Egypt is just fake, very few incidents the British committed atrocities against the locals and ZERO the french had done.
Welcome to the Board. I hope you enjoy your time here.

As a word of advice, nationalist insults tend to be frowned upon hereabouts.
 
Top