WI: Napoleon captures Alexander at Leipzig

[Matteo]

Józef Poniatowski died at Leipzig, so with a POD before the battle there's a chance he could survive. Personally I like the idea of Józef marrying Princess Maria Augusta of Saxony, the only child of Frederick Augustus of Saxony & Warsaw and the so-called Infanta of Poland, and jointly ruling over a smaller Poland.



Matteo, I think your WAY overestimating the coalition's bargaining power. If the King and Tsar, along with their command staffs, are captured and the French win a decisive victory at Leipzig, then the Coalition will probably collapse.

If we're assuming the Coalition is routed and whats left of the armies retreat, either to Bohemia or breaks up along national lines, then Napoleon's in the position to regain the tactical advantage. Breaking down your ideas for the peace:

1. None of the three eastern powers would be in a position to dictate anything about the Confederation of the Rhine. Napoleon still controls most of Germany and I'd assume Bavaria, Saxony and the other states are still loyal. So on route there unless the Coalition recovers, beats Napoleon elsewhere and moves into Germany.

2. Tyrol and IIllyria MIGHT be returned to Austria, if the Austrians can quickly make peace, switch sides or if their army is relatively intact. If their army is crushed then Austria's out, as this was basically their last role of the dice: they were running out of manpower.

3. Poland's going to be the main sticking point. Remember, Prussia's King and Russia's Tsar are in Napoleon's custody: would either power be in a position to fight on here? OK maybe Prussia but Russia, the absolute monarchy deeply dependent on the Tsar to keep the government running? I doubt it.

3 and 4. WHY would Napoleon, who's just pulled a coup de grace, give up the Netherlands and Spain? The coalition, on the other side of Europe, would be in no position to dictate such terms, even with an ATL victory at Leipzig. Nappy would laugh in their faces.

5. Legally the Napoleonic Kingdom of Italy was still set to go to Eugène de Beauharnais, Napoleon's former step-son. While Napoleon had hinted at wanting to leave both France and Italy to the King of Rome, nothing had legally changed by 1813.

6. Finally, only Britain's in a position to give over colonies to France, which I can't see them doing at this point. Although if a permanent peace is established in Europe between Napoleon and the sixth coalition forces, then we could see London finally come to the barging table.

Britain would probably get an evacuation of Portugal (after all, Napoleon had been driven out of Portugal in 1811, so its realistic for Nappy to give on that), an end of the Continental system, recognition of British control over Malta, the independence of Sicily and Sardinia and maybe some kind of compensation over Hanover and to the House of Orange. On the flip side, Napoleon would get Britain to withdraw its army and support from Spain, no more financial support for French enemies and maybe some of the occupied French colonies returned.

While some of my ideas for a permanent Napoleonic peace might be wrong, I think they're more in touch with the situation on the ground and what Napoleon would actually accept.

I think you should not either overestimate the bargaining power of a country isolated against the coalition of most of Europe.

In october 1813, France no longer has the resources to fight for another 2 years. It is exhausted and needs peace.

And France needs to secure a real and lasting peace with Europe and especially with Britain. Not another truce waiting for the next coalition. In october 1813 Spain is lost for France. France needs to pay a high price for Britain agreeing to a lasting peace. A Dutch independant State is a very important opening on Europe and Germany for british trade. And free access to all of Europés markets (except France of course) is a part of the price Napoleon can't escape paying if he wanted real peace with Britain.

I think the global set peace settlement I devised still is very very favourable to France. Such a lastable settlement would be a real triumph of France's multi secular strategic ambitions in Europe. And it would give France the iron and coal resources it OTL lacked to turn it into (with Rhineland and Lombardia) an industrial superpower on parity with OTL Britain and wilhelmine Germany by the late 19th and early 20th century.

 

[avernite]

I think you should not either overestimate the bargaining power of a country isolated against the coalition of most of Europe.

In october 1813, France no longer has the resources to fight for another 2 years. It is exhausted and needs peace.

And France needs to secure a real and lasting peace with Europe and especially with Britain. Not another truce waiting for the next coalition. In october 1813 Spain is lost for France. France needs to pay a high price for Britain agreeing to a lasting peace. A Dutch independant State is a very important opening on Europe and Germany for british trade. And free access to all of Europés markets (except France of course) is a part of the price Napoleon can't escape paying if he wanted real peace with Britain.

I think the global set peace settlement I devised still is very very favourable to France. Such a lastable settlement would be a real triumph of France's multi secular strategic ambitions in Europe. And it would give France the iron and coal resources it OTL lacked to turn it into (with Rhineland and Lombardia) an industrial superpower on parity with OTL Britain and wilhelmine Germany by the late 19th and early 20th century.

I actually agree with you that your peace proposal is the peace France needs.

But if Nappy just captured the kings of Prussia and Russia, he's not going to surrender outright, which your peace proposal almost amounts to. Just not very likely.

 

[Matteo]

This is not at all a kind of surrender. It would indeed be a great peace for'France and Nappy would have been very aware of it.

Nappy's failing to strike a peace deal OTL in 1813 was due not to the refusal of giving-up any conquest. It was due to a lack of confidence in the word of the members of the coalition. He thought that if he gave-up something, then they would take it and ask for something more and more. Negotiations with Austria failed because their proposals were not binding for Britain and that Nappy needed to know once and for all all he would have to give-up in order to secure peace with all members of the coalition and especially Britain who had been the most resolute enemy of France for the last 20 years.

My estimate is that having the sovereigns and heads of staff of Russia and Prussia prisoners could bring all the members, Britain included, to agree to a real and lasting peace and to negotiate in a way that could make Nappy feel secure enough to agree to hand over all that is considered as overextension of France's domination.

France would still be dominant in western Europe. The members of the coalition can agree to it if this domination is no longer overwhelming.

 

[Mikestone8]

My estimate is that having the sovereigns and heads of staff of Russia and Prussia prisoners could bring all the members, Britain included, to agree to a real and lasting peace and to negotiate in a way that could make Nappy feel secure enough to agree to hand over all that is considered as overextension of France's domination.

Where do you get the "lasting" part from?

Once peace is signed, the captured sovereigns etc are presumably released. So what stops the war resuming in a few months?

And, after all, if a lasting peace is what you want, it would be hard to improve on OTL. The actual peace held for decades.

 

[Matteo]

From the fact that Austria's and Russia's war goals was to have Germany not dominated by France, to have France not rule the whole of Europe and that all are tired of war. They can't keep on waging war forever. And if they suffer à heavy strategic defeat at Leipzig and obtain satisfying concessions from France, they can have an agreement.

Britain too does not want to stay forever at war.

 

[Captain Seafort]

And if they suffer à heavy strategic defeat at Leipzig and obtain satisfying concessions from France, they can have an agreement.

If Boney wins a major victory at Leipzig, the chances of him accepting a treaty tolerable to the rest of Europe are non-existent. Even after the kicking he got in OTL he was still offered a treaty that was extraordinarily favourable to him, and turned it down as not good enough.

Britain too does not want to stay forever at war.

Of course not - only until the threat was ended, which meant at bare minimum depriving the French of Antwerp. Since Boney wasn't likely to accept such a peace, that effectively meant that removing him was a prerequisite.

 

[Matteo]

That's what Britain ideally wanted. Could it get it in the what-if situation we're discussing ? I don't think so. It needed France defeated on its Homeland to reach such a goal.

 

[Mikestone8]

From the fact that Austria's and Russia's war goals was to have Germany not dominated by France, to have France not rule the whole of Europe and that all are tired of war. They can't keep on waging war forever. And if they suffer à heavy strategic defeat at Leipzig and obtain satisfying concessions from France, they can have an agreement.

Britain too does not want to stay forever at war.

She can keep it up at least as long as France can.

If France not dominating Germany is a precondition of peace, that requires Napoleon, having just won the battle of Leipzig, to voluntarily give Germany up. Dream on.

They can't wage war forever, but neither can France, and the Allies' manpower (and British money) will last longer.

 

[Emperor Constantine]

She can keep it up at least as long as France can.

If France not dominating Germany is a precondition of peace, that requires Napoleon, having just won the battle of Leipzig, to voluntarily give Germany up. Dream on.

They can't wage war forever, but neither can France, and the Allies' manpower (and British money) will last longer.

I wouldn't be so sure about the Allies. Yes British money would continue to last, but 1813 was in many was the last role of the dice for Austria. They'd had suffered the loss of three armies at this point. They lose another one and chances are the Emperor and Metternich will bow out to try and recover from their losses. I can't see them fielding another army in the next coalition.

Prussia and Russia could keep going in theory, but if Napoleon pulls a repeat of 1806 and occupies Berlin after Leipzig, then they're out again, probably permanently, as chances are France would dismember the Prussian state once and for all or at the least slice of some major territories (ie Silesia and the Prussian polish territories).

At this point Russia would be the only one in the game, after getting the Tsar back at least. Sure the Russians have proved that its impossible to Napoleon to beat them on their own turf, but without allies are they going to start another war a year or two down the line? That's the question.