WI: Could Napoleon conquer Ottoman Empire?

Could Napoleon conquer whole Ottoman Empire, should the POD is this:
*Making sure that Napoleon is more of a Catholic zealot and loyal to the French Kingdom. (Though he could still become a French King, probably by marrying with Bourbon princesses)
*Doesn't have any wanting to dominate whole Europe.
*Could convince himself that he is the savior of Europe and could able to make alliances more permanent and easy, which in IOTL he doesn't have anything with it.

The starting point of the invasion is in Algeria, then the whole Ottoman Empire (in the west, rebellions by all Christians, in the east invasions by the "Alliance").
 

Pellaeon

Banned
I'd say he could break the Ottoman Empire. Have him succeed in Syria and then March north smashing his way through Anatolia and seizing Istanbul. Give him decisive victories in the ottoman heartland then the Balkans might revolt and the dynasty would collapse.

Though I don't think he'd want to rule it or conquer all of it.
 
AFAIK the population of the Ottoman Empire was between 25 and 32 millions, about as much as France - albeit with weaker tech, and more widespread. Maybe it'd work if he was allied with Austria, or at least Russia?
 
Well a France that is attacking the Ottomans is likely to be allied with the Russians or at the very least the Russians are going to use it as an opportunity to invade the Black Sea area so it's not like the French will be acting all on their own.

I do agree with the above that Napoleon could break the Empire but wouldn't necessarily want to rule or conquer the whole thing.
 
An important question here is just which Napoleon we are talking about. Are we talking about General Napoleon Bonaparte, commander of the Army of Egypt, some 40,000 or so hard-scrabble Frenchmen and local allies cut off from resupply in a land far from home? Or is it the Emperor Napoleon I, master of France, Germany, and Italy, with somewhere between half- and three-quarters of a million men under arms and the ability to make common cause with the only other land-based Great Power who might stand in his way? Or is it somewhere in-between, like the First Consulate or the Hundred Days? The answer to that predicate question is required to answer what the OP asked.
 
I don't see why regular Napoleon after the War of the Third Coalition instead of humiliating the HRE decide to ask them to help smack the Ottomans. The OP's requirements gets rid of this possible sequence of events. However, if he does do that, his odds of success are much higher than OTL invasion of Russia and he can shame the British into stopping their support of his enemies... or at least this one. The British public might be OK with their government supporting Austria or the Bourbons, but the Ottomans, even against a filthy Papist, is going to be a tough sell as long as the invasion accorss the channel is still off the table.
 
he can shame the British into stopping their support of his enemies... or at least this one. The British public might be OK with their government supporting Austria or the Bourbons, but the Ottomans, even against a filthy Papist, is going to be a tough sell as long as the invasion accorss the channel is still off the table.
The Russian's would've long held Tsargrad if that the British actually thought like that. The British had already supported the Ottomans against Russian encroachment and they were deathly afraid of France becoming even more powerful.
 
The Russian's would've long held Tsargrad if that the British actually thought like that. The British had already supported the Ottomans against Russian encroachment and they were deathly afraid of France becoming even more powerful.

The Crimean War was a different time than the Napoleonic ones.
 
The Crimean War was a different time than the Napoleonic ones.
The Treaty of Çanak/the Dardanelles (1809) was a thing though. The British were trying to draw the Ottoman Empire to their side during Napoleonic times, trying to ban foreign warships from passing through the Turkish Straits while promising British aid in the event of French invasion.
 
No. What you propose is bordering on ASB. Can you come up with the reasons why all of the above should happen?
Again, this is why i am still a history novice, not a pro yet. This might well be a near-ASB if you are right.
An important question here is just which Napoleon we are talking about. Are we talking about General Napoleon Bonaparte, commander of the Army of Egypt, some 40,000 or so hard-scrabble Frenchmen and local allies cut off from resupply in a land far from home? Or is it the Emperor Napoleon I, master of France, Germany, and Italy, with somewhere between half- and three-quarters of a million men under arms and the ability to make common cause with the only other land-based Great Power who might stand in his way? Or is it somewhere in-between, like the First Consulate or the Hundred Days? The answer to that predicate question is required to answer what the OP asked.
Napoleon Bonaparte in which have an abilities of Emperor Napoleon I.

To little bit clarify, i had to note that Napoleon Bonaparte would show his wants to dominate Europe, as long as he is victorious in the war against Ottomans (though might well be hold back). I just noting this though. He might declare war on these countries, should Britain back off on the war, or doesn't help Napoleon too much:
*United Kingdom
*All Nordic kingdoms
*Dutch and Northern HRE states
Note that these countries are Protestant countries and generally they are together when they are threatened. I know that this should be in different question, but i prefer this to be answered in here as this is an aftereffects of successful Ottoman "crusade"/invasion.
 
Last edited:
I'd say he could break the Ottoman Empire. Have him succeed in Syria and then March north smashing his way through Anatolia and seizing Istanbul. Give him decisive victories in the ottoman heartland then the Balkans might revolt and the dynasty would collapse.

Though I don't think he'd want to rule it or conquer all of it.
Why?
Why would he do that?...
 

Deleted member 97083

If he becomes a Catholic zealiot who thinks he's the savior of Europe, it's ASB.

If it's OTL Napoleon who was simply a pragmatic megalomaniac, then it's possible but rather unlikely. It would require multiple PODs.
 
An important question here is just which Napoleon we are talking about. Are we talking about General Napoleon Bonaparte, commander of the Army of Egypt, some 40,000 or so hard-scrabble Frenchmen and local allies cut off from resupply in a land far from home? Or is it the Emperor Napoleon I, master of France, Germany, and Italy, with somewhere between half- and three-quarters of a million men under arms and the ability to make common cause with the only other land-based Great Power who might stand in his way? Or is it somewhere in-between, like the First Consulate or the Hundred Days? The answer to that predicate question is required to answer what the OP asked.
Still don’t see why he would do it?
 

Deleted member 97083

Still don’t see why he would do it?
IOTL in 1805, Napoleon said that if he had:

"been able to take Acre [in 1799], I would have put on a turban, I would have made my soldiers wear big Turkish trousers, and I would have exposed them to battle only in case of extreme necessity. I would have made them into a Sacred Battalion--my Immortals. I would have finished the war against the Turks with Arabic, Greek, and Armenian troops. Instead of a battle in Moravia, I would have won a Battle of Issus, I would have made myself emperor of the East, and I would have returned to Paris by way of Constantinople."
 
IOTL in 1805, Napoleon said that if he had:

"been able to take Acre [in 1799], I would have put on a turban, I would have made my soldiers wear big Turkish trousers, and I would have exposed them to battle only in case of extreme necessity. I would have made them into a Sacred Battalion--my Immortals. I would have finished the war against the Turks with Arabic, Greek, and Armenian troops. Instead of a battle in Moravia, I would have won a Battle of Issus, I would have made myself emperor of the East, and I would have returned to Paris by way of Constantinople."

But after winning the War of the Third Coalition, he could have played the Catholic zealot role and use Austria as an ally. That doesn't fit the OP's requirements, but it does make him a good position to conquer the Ottomans. If he thought he could win it, he would do it. In fact, if ASB forced him to let Austria off easy to keep on good terms with them (instead of the humiliating OTL terms) and then ASB left him alone, he might do it as it's his best way to land gain at that point if he's graced a few years of good harvests. There are actually three historians including Allistar Home who think Napoleon might be able to turn Austrian into an ally without ASB or altering his megalomaniac personality.
 
The Turks didn't even control the whole of the empire. I doubt Napoleon would stand much of a chance. Why would he want to anyways? The aturks had historically been French allies against the Habsburgs that were running thighs in Austria, Spain, and southern Italy.
 
Top