WI: Napoleon didn't invade Russia

How? He was no control of the Baltic sea or the borders of East Prussia and Galicia (the latter of which is like a smugglers dream in any case: long, in a sparesly populated area).

The Continent is a big land mass under Napoleon's control. Napoleon should have closed to ports to Russian as well as British ships. No need to control the seas for that.

Not to mention that embargoing Russia is a slightly offensive gesture.

Napoleon had the perfect excuse. Russia had offended Napoleon first by defying the embargo, so Napoleon was just receiprocating.

Ignoring Russia for a year to denude central Europe of men for Spain is no longer an option if Russia sees clear as day that france thinks of it as an enemy in british pay and will march right into the DoW.

That is their problem. Russia would not have attacked France alone. It was preparing for a French attack.

Is Coruna a major victory? Since it was a large battle that France won, I think your options are "Yes, so clearly I was wrong" and "No, as the british succesfully escaped destruction".

I am just saying that it would happen again if there was a major French victory in Spain. It would have been enough for a jittery Britain to get out, based on past examples that I have presented.

In which case, why can't we escape destruction (and return) again? Naval supremacy can come in heandy sometimes.

Because you were going broke in 1812 thanks to the embargo and because you had no more allies so it would have been difficult to start another front. I keep saying this and you keep ignoring this.

While I know perfectly well that you mean "invade a France not distracted by a vast war in eastern Europe", I think it's worth pointing out that we did invade France before anybody else, IIRC.

By the back door that nobody in France was minding because France's attention was elsewhere.

Regardless, what we were doing was providing a constant, irritating distraction.

See my post to Dav about how insignificant the British in Spain were compared to the guerillas and the Coalition armies in the east

Napo couldn't just leave Spain: the blow to his prestige of leaving two british allies unmolested after a battered retreat would be too much. But he couldn't win owing to Guerilla and naval inferiority. So he had to waste forces there.

I am saying that he should have left Spain and concentrated on consolidation his holdings on the Continent between Spain and Russia.

A token army that:

-Scored some of the cleanes-cut and most frequent victories against France.

None of Britain's victories in the Pennisular was impressive. In almost every battle against the British, the French inflicted almost as many casualties as the British, so I wouldn't call the British victories clean-cut. They were certainly insignificant and did not make a dent to the French armies that the guerillas and the coalition armies did. See my reply to Dav on why.

The British government, being, unlike the others, an oligarchic democracy, was not capable of introducing conscription.

Why not? It is called the draft and democracies have done it.

This is verging on Anglophobia. We were at war by absolutely any sane diplomat's definition. We were perfectly willing to send the men we had to the continent. And we were perfectly willing to commit troops from the word go in 1793, so your idea is provably false.

then where were your troops?

Not true. Britain was staying in the war anyway (for us, Napoleon's myth of invincibility ended at Vimiero). And while the Austrian effort was very important and probably sped up Russia's defiant gestures quite a bit, I rather doubt the idea that it forged the Sixth Coalition. Austria, after all, dithered plenty before signing said.

Austrian wanted to be patient and gather the forces and wait for further weakness from Napoleon which came with his disastrous invasion of Russia. There is no doubt that the Austrian victories in Aspern_essling and near-victory at Wagram encouraged it and the other Coalition armies to try one more time.

Apparently this year is time in which to send the ary to Spain and defeat Britain so that we, cowardly and unmanly nation of shopkeepers that we are, will instantly lose our will and make peace.

That is right. You have past experience of this. In 1812, you were going broke because of the embargo and had no more allies. I keep saying this, you keep ignoring this.

While much of his army is in Spain, Russia may be thinking "Hey, what a great time to invade the nation which is agressively embargoing us!" You yourself posited an agressive (and unenforceable) embargo.

Russia would not have invaded France alone.

Now, Russia's invasion will not be lightning. If not for your determination to send the French army off to Spain, it might not get anywhere in particular. But even if Britain and Russia come to the table, what conditiojns can Napoleon force on them?

Simple. To the British, Napoleon should offer to remove the embargo in return for Britain's acceptance of the status quo. If Britain agrees, Russia also agrees because the main issue Russia has with France was the embargo.

Then there' what Austria's doing to consider.

Austria, alone, was too weak by that point would not have attacked France without allies.

And my "Amiens mark II" comment meant that Britain can always make a pragmatic breather peace and jump back in later on.

And do what? It takes a while to recover and start another coalition in which Napoleon could use this time to recover also and consolidate his holdings. Britain in 1812 was in worse shape than Britain in 1803.

You could at least tell me where you heard this.

I read it in a history book at high school that dealt with agriculture.

Clearly, Britain was not starved by the OTL embargo. You have not given any satisfactory reason for Napoleon to create a differant, tighter one. Therefore I don't get what you're trying to say here.

Because they were still importing Foodstuff from the Continent which Napoleon allowed. He should have been ruthless and banned everything. I keep saying this, you keep ignoring it.
 
By closing off the ports on the Continent to Russian ships.

The Danube.

In other words, they skeddaddled out of there.[/quotes]

In less precise and useful words that give a less complete and contextual account of the strategic situation, certainly. But why you use those, unless you had some kind of a bone to pick.

Or if the Spanish had received some help from Moore's army in fighting the French it would not have been a disaster. The Spanish rightly derided Moore and his army as cowards since they did nothing to help until it was too late.

They could perhaps have done more to help out any particular Spnaish commander, but you seem to be relying on the Spanish viewpoint rather than strategic sense. Manpower is a valuable resource for Britain and it cannot be wasted on operations which will not achieve anything in particular. The best thing for Britain to do was retreat and return, as we did, and if we were cowards then damn, we were a fine lot of cowards at Corunna, and the Duoro, and Talavera, and Salamanca, and Vitoria.

No, the Spanish were utterly crushed. It was at that point the guerilla acitivity began which was extremely successful.

You don't seem to understand how guerilla and campaign relate and work together. The guerillas played an enormous role in creating the strategic conditions favourable to the Anglo-Portuguese: restricting the French supply situation, worsening their morale, and slowly trickling down their numbers, and in general making the country unfirendly to France and friendly to the allies. But without a large Anglo-Portuguese force actually marching around, guerilla fighters could hardly have defeated the French in open battle, impeded an army, taken a garrison, or in general done anything to liberate Spain wholly and permenantly or to save Portugal. Such is guerilla. And if the countryside is beyond their control this doesn't really matter to the French. They can sit on the strategic points.

They didn't. They disembarked.

Oh? We didn't return to Spain? I guess Salamanca et al were just made up, then?

You inflate the British contribution. French casualties against the British was insignificant. The British inflicted 45,000 total casualties on the French during 5 YEARS of the Pennisular War. The French lost far more than that against the guerillas. And of course, we have the eastern front which was the real front. French casualties in many single battles in the Eastern front was greater that those against the British in the Pennisular.

All you're doing is throwing numbers at me because you don't seem to have a notion of strategy nor diplomacy. I have no intention of denigrating the Austrians and their big success, but the fact is that Aspern-Essling and the War of the Fifth Coalition in general happened because of the French distraction in Spain emboldening Austria for a strike.

If the eastern front was "the real front", was there just not a war in 1810-11?

Excuses. Introduce conscription and raise a large army to fight.

You consider the British constitution to be an excuse for cowardice? You're sounding more and more like you have some sort of Anglophobia complex, you know.

Don't make me laugh. As I have said, during 5 years, the British inflicted about 45,00 casualties on the French which includes killed wounded and captured. By comparision, the Austrian victory at Aspern-Essling AGAINST NAPOLEON HIMSELF cost the French 20,000. The follow-up battle, Wagram, a slight Austrian defeat, cost the French 34,000. So, the Austrians inflicted more casualties against the French in these two battles alone than the the British managed in 5 YEARS. The tally by the coalition armies was better than the British. The British tally was insignificant compared to those contributed by the others. Britain was a lightweight.

I think you mean differant things by "tally". You mean casualties inflicted on France. He means victories, measured by most for least regardless of the size of forces involved, and the British army in Spain had a very fine record of victories. Call its contribution insignificant if you must, but do acknowledge that it was a very fine army.

Britain was also not a lightweight in terms of ships, nor of money. Always an important one, that. Money!

I am forced to question what "slight" means to you, since Wagram effectively ended the war.

Even in the Pennisular War, the Spanish army (never mind the guerillas) did more than the British. At Bailén alone, the French casualties was 24,000 which includes the sureendered army, which is half of the British contribution against the French for 5 YEARS.

Size of forces differ, but that doesn't change strategic significance. And of course while Bailen was a fine show, the Spanish spent most of the rest of the war trying to repeat it and not suceeding. I hope you're not going to claim that they could have won without Britain and Portugal. After the camapign of later 1808, the Spanish didn't have an army that was capable of saving Portugal or expelling the French by itself. Therefore Britain's (and Portugal's) post-Bailen contribution to the war was the war. Without the regular amy, the guerillas could only have fought a resitant operation. French casualties to the guerillas would have been a lot smaller if the French werne't obliged to march around the country fighting battles and supplying the armies that were fighting the battles.

That is always better and easier to swallow for the British public than wasting British lives. It is more preferable that someone else fight and die. If the British sent in a large army composed of citizens of British instead of a small volunteer army composed of criminals, I am willing to bet that the British would lose the appetite for war.

You seem to turn every mention of Britain's decisive economic contribution into an opportunity to engage in attacks on the British national fibre which verge closer to prejudice every time. "Always", eh? This is a general statement, throughout history? We would loose our appetite for war if we sent a great national army anywhere? have you ever heard of World War One? How about the sequel, World War Two? Good lord.

Also, your criminals comment isn't particularaly well-founded. The "mere scum of the Earth" may have been set loose after Vitroia, but then Moscow was hardly pretty. The conscirpt armies all turned up a lot of unsavoury fellows. the Russians had an endemic problem with the twentieth man who each landlord was to send to the army being the one who was poor and malnourished, because he couldn't buy the landlord off.

Britain knew, deep down that they would do well in the Pennisular as long as the French were occupied elsewhere. Spain was an inconsequental theater for the French, something that the British don't like to dwell on.

In 1810-11, they were occupied where else? Also, "the War of the Fifth Coalition" is a pretty big consequence for a war that you call inconsequential. Would Napoleon have gone to an inconsequential theatre? And yes, I know perfectly well that he went because of Bailen. Calling Spain "insignificant" is just as much of an insult to Spain as it is to Briain (and Portugal).

What came after Austerlitz was Bailén, and so on.

Do I detect in the words "and so on" a desperation not to say "the Duoro" or whatever and admit that Britain actually won any battles? That, indeed, throughout 1810 and 1811 the only war was the Spanish war?

Spain was insignificant to the French. And the numbers show it.

You like numbers. I like maps. They tell an altogether differant tale. A tale of distraction and overstretch, of the inability to concentrate force, of foreign policies emboldened and statesmen inspired to acts of audacity. I'll be impressed when you give me an argument which is neither an insult, nor a lie, nor a number.

Big deal. As I have said, Russia was not a good market for Britain because it was too poor. Britain needed to trade with the Continent.

It was a big enough deal for Napoleon to annex the Hanse towns and cause a big diplomatic fuss over.

Nope. As long as Napoleon did not attack and consequently fail, the European nations would not have tried to to oppose him again.

That's... sweeping. He will have damaged his prestige: if a big and strong state defies his sytem and trades with Britain, it can go and join the embryonic coalition. One rather feels that Austria, who were hardly prospering under the embargo, will think "hey, he let Russia trade with Britain, so he'll let us trade with Russia", and the dominoes start a-falling. Napoleon's capacity to strangulate Britain is lessening and he's still got a war in Spain on his hands. A war which you believe he should gallavant off to with a large part of his army to try and end. What a way to invite the unpunished and confident Russia, with Prussia on the wagon and Austria not exactly objecting, to march on Warsaw...
 
Last edited:
The Continent is a big land mass under Napoleon's control. Napoleon should have closed to ports to Russian as well as British ships. No need to control the seas for that.

Oh beautiful blue Danube...

Napoleon had the perfect excuse. Russia had offended Napoleon first by defying the embargo, so Napoleon was just receiprocating.

That's true from one point of view (one can argue that Russia was ending an agreement it had with Napoleon which nowhere said "and if you leave you get embargoed"), but that's besides the point. The point is that Russia now considers France the enemy. and this drastically limits Napoleon's freedom of action in Europe.

That is their problem. Russia would not have attacked France alone. It was preparing for a French attack.

Barclay de Tolly was, certainly. BdT, I remind you, lived in a timeline in which the French had neither embargoed Russia and thus demostrated their antagonism, nor left central Europe a sitting duck. He may revise his assement, or just be kicked out to let Bagration or someone take charge. And, well, that's Bagration!

I am just saying that it would happen again if there was a major French victory in Spain. It would have been enough for a jittery Britain to get out, based on past examples that I have presented.

Those examples including? Corunna? Corunna? Corunna?

I've disproved your only argument and now you're repeating it.

Because you were going broke in 1812 thanks to the embargo and because you had no more allies so it would have been difficult to start another front. I keep saying this and you keep ignoring this.

Actually, you keep ignoring my points, I keep adressing yours, and you ignore the adressals. But I shall repeat myself again...

-We had Russia, which if it is embargoed by Napoleon clearly becomes a British ally.

-We didn't go broke in 1813 despite spending a great deal of money on the war. Sure, we were scrabbling by then, but we didn't. Why would we ITTL, when our expediture ought to be less?

By the back door that nobody in France was minding because France's attention was elsewhere.

The French army in Spain was minding it until we defeated them, and there was a campaign on the Pyrenees.

See my post to Dav about how insignificant the British in Spain were compared to the guerillas and the Coalition armies in the east

See my respnse about the symbioses between armies and guerillas, the dangers of relying excessively on casulaty accounts, and the absence of an eastern front in 1810-11.

I am saying that he should have left Spain and concentrated on consolidation his holdings on the Continent between Spain and Russia.

And I just said why he couldn't leave Spain. This argument seems to be occuring backwards.

None of Britain's victories in the Pennisular was impressive. In almost every battle against the British, the French inflicted almost as many casualties as the British, so I wouldn't call the British victories clean-cut. They were certainly insignificant and did not make a dent to the French armies that the guerillas and the coalition armies did. See my reply to Dav on why.

Numbers, numbers, numbers. Duoro was still a piece of tactical excellence. Vitoria was still decisive. And you seem to have a glass half empty and a glass half full: Austria's defeats are "near victories", Britain's victories are "unimpressive".

Why not? It is called the draft and democracies have done it.

True. We've done it twice, after we became an actual proper demcoracy and not an oligarchic one. But the British political classes and nation more generally were at the time extremely averse to the idea of conscription which was seen as a tool of European despotism. Conscription would not have passed parliament. Is this so hard to get? You can fulminate about how all Britons are cowards and how their weak tradition of democracy (pshaw!) defeats unity of purpose while they engage in insidious economic warfare rather that the manful pursuit of honour on the field of victory, but at least read a book.

then where were your troops?

Spain.

Wow, that was an extremely stupid question.

Alternatively, if paying for something makes it yours, which seems a fair definition, our troops were a signfificant portion of all Coalition armies.

Austrian wanted to be patient and gather the forces and wait for further weakness from Napoleon which came with his disastrous invasion of Russia. There is no doubt that the Austrian victories in Aspern_essling and near-victory at Wagram encouraged it and the other Coalition armies to try one more time.

True up to a point (although Austria was a lot more hesitant in 1813 than you seem to think: pragmatism always), but why this double standard? An Austrian "near victory" in 1809 inspired everybody more than a British "victroy victory" in 1812 (before the campaign in Russia began in earnest)? There's also no doubt that British economic help had at least as important a role.

That is right. You have past experience of this. In 1812, you were going broke because of the embargo and had no more allies. I keep saying this, you keep ignoring this.

Actually, I keep saying "Russia would have been a proper ally if it had been embargoed and you have produced no firm facts to support our supposed bankruptcy". Anyway, did you just agree unironically with my sarcastic caricature of you? My finger hovers ominously above "report post"...

Russia would not have invaded France alone.

Again with this backwards argument. "Russia would not have invaded France alone." "Actually, most of the junior officers who formed "the opinion of the Russian army" given the voicelessness of the peasant soldiers were very aggressive, and they were represented at HQ by people like Bagration, who managed to get BdT relieved for his sensible and competantl-managed withdrawal. And of course you've stripped central Europe of troops and made firm enemies of Russia and France..." is an ordinary point-rebuttal exercise. The same thing reversed is just plain silly.

Simple. To the British, Napoleon should offer to remove the embargo in return for Britain's acceptance of the status quo. If Britain agrees, Russia also agrees because the main issue Russia has with France was the embargo.

If the embargo crippled us so much as to be willing to accept a peace based solely on its being lifted, why didn't we ever, you know, do that?

Austria, alone, was too weak by that point would not have attacked France without allies.

Of course. What I asked you to consider is what Austria will be doing. The answer, it seems to me, will be "Not jumping in for France, instead shadowing the war and writing a lot of non-commital letters", which hardly benefits Napoleon. He has fewer forces and less freedom of action, and if he suffers one major diaster then he may suddenly be attacked in Italy and find another amy appear before him in Germany.

And do what? It takes a while to recover and start another coalition in which Napoleon could use this time to recover also and consolidate his holdings. Britain in 1812 was in worse shape than Britain in 1803.

You have Britain "recovering" from one defeat in the Peninsula and with Russia as a ready-made ally.

I read it in a history book at high school that dealt with agriculture.

While I'm certainly willing to believe you here, I'd advise you to have some better sources to hand. Adam Zamoyski's books about the Patriotic War and Vienna are excellent overviews and have formidable bibliographies.

Because they were still importing Foodstuff from the Continent which Napoleon allowed. He should have been ruthless and banned everything. I keep saying this, you keep ignoring it.

This is actually the first time you've said this. Did you read the bit where Faeelin, the guy who is kinda-sorta arguing your side, said that this would have been ruinous to France?
 
Last edited:
By closing off the ports on the Continent to Russian ships.

And that wouldn't really work as Napoleon really doesn't have the ability to blockade other ports half as well as Britain does. As well as enact smuggling.

In other words, they skeddaddled out of there.

Actually, not even then did they 'skedaddle' as such, a large amount of forces still remained uner Beresford in Portugal, training Portuguese troops there. And they wouldn't have been in the situation to run if the Spanish had shown the slightest bit of common sense and told the British what was actually going on.

Even in the Pennisular War, the Spanish army (never mind the guerillas) did more than the British. At Bailén alone, the French casualties was 24,000 which includes the sureendered army, which is half of the British contribution against the French for 5 YEARS.

Bailen was the result of French incompetence, not Spanish might. It isn't just down to numbers here, British troops tied down a lot of French troops, constantly showed that the French could be beaten and if not for the supplies from the British, the Spanish resistance would have been much weaker. The Spanish Army was defeated time and time again and with the guerrillas weakening it, the situation got worse. And let's not forget who gave a good chunk of supplies for the Spaish Armies.

The Spanish rightly derided Moore and his army as cowards since they did nothing to help until it was too late.

The chip on your shoulder's really showing. Moore was no coward and neither was the British Army. He went in with bad intelligence, was pressured by the Spanish to stay even as Madrid collapsed amid disgrace and kept his Army together in a difficult retreat. The fact that you would call Moore a coward just shows how little you know.

No, the Spanish were utterly crushed. It was at that point the guerilla acitivity began which was extremely successful.

Actually, the renemants of the regular Spanish forces were given a vital breathing space in the assault northwards. The guerrilla fighting had begun before then but as I've said, it's effect was not as great as the Spanish Liberals later painted it.

French casualties in many single battles in the Eastern front was greater that those against the British in the Pennisular.

As those battles were grossly overlarge for the time. Napoleon's calling up of 650,000 men was extraordinary in its scope and not seen before. The British Army was much smaller, but much more competent under Wellington than the bulking monstrosities in the east. Look at Napoleon's campaign in Russia to give an impression of just how bad it really was. The system couldn't cope with that amount of men. Although smaller, Britain's Army did consistently better.

Excuses. Introduce conscription and raise a large army to fight.

Ah, showing your ignorance of British social history too.

It is more preferable that someone else fight and die. If the British sent in a large army composed of citizens of British instead of a small volunteer army composed of criminals, I am willing to bet that the British would lose the appetite for war.

As a small Army did so well, consription wasn't really needed. And Britain losing the appetite for War? You need to brush up on British Military history. In fact, British history in general going by your earlier statements.

Britain knew, deep down that they would do well in the Pennisular as long as the French were occupied elsewhere.

Like they were in 1810-1811. Oh, wait, never mind...

What came after Austerlitz was Bailén, and so on.

Actually what came after Austerlitz was a crushing campaign in Spain where a one off victory so inflated Spanish opinion of its Army that it over estimated it abilities and was subsequently defeated multiple times.

Spain was insignificant to the French. And the numbers show it.

300,000 is insignificant now? And if it was insignificant, why did Napoleon waste so many lives and resources on it? Aside from ego of course.

Big deal. As I have said, Russia was not a good market for Britain because it was too poor. Britain needed to trade with the Continent.

Actually, Russia was a huge market for British timber and tar, not including luxuries. Without it, their economy suffered badly. Russia got a lot from Britain, and with good money too.

Nope. As long as Napoleon did not attack and consequently fail, the European nations would not have tried to to oppose him again.

So... As long as Napoleon does nothing about the great power to the East that defies him on a daily basis, has potential Allies right on its border and can be easily financed and supplied by Britain, nothing can go wrong? Zhuge Liang you ain't.

Napoleon should have closed to ports to Russian as well as British ships. No need to control the seas for that.

Apart from ports being blockaded and bombarded and so forth as well as large amounts of smuggling.

Russia would not have attacked France alone. It was preparing for a French attack.

It wouldn't be alone. There was Britain, Spain, Portugal, Prussia and with enough coaxing, Austria.

It would have been enough for a jittery Britain to get out, based on past examples that I have presented.

Keeping in mind that your examples have Britain coming back of course.

Because you were going broke in 1812 thanks to the embargo

So broke that Britain wasn't able to fight a War on two fronts, give huge subsidies to other nations and maintain the World's largest Navy? I don't think so.

See my post to Dav about how insignificant the British in Spain were compared to the guerillas and the Coalition armies in the east

And see Charles Esdaile on just how harmful the guerrillas were to the Allies at times.

I am saying that he should have left Spain and concentrated on consolidation his holdings on the Continent between Spain and Russia.

Should have, but real life got in the way.

the French inflicted almost as many casualties as the British, so I wouldn't call the British victories clean-cut.

Salamanca, Vitoria, Oporto, the defence of the lines of Torres Vedras etc. I'd have added in Talever but in OTL, Cuesta ballsed up the advantage the Allies had and made it much more close than it should have been.

Why not? It is called the draft and democracies have done it.

Once again, British social history. Study it.

then where were your troops?

At which point in time? They were mostly in the Low Countries, defending Britain and Ireland from invasion, fighting in Ireland, fighting in the Americas or fighting in India against French Allies before Spain was invaded.

To the British, Napoleon should offer to remove the embargo in return for Britain's acceptance of the status quo.

What about colonies? The Spanish situation? Malta? The status of the Low Countries? And the many other issues that made up the War? It wasn't just the Continental System.

Austria, alone, was too weak by that point would not have attacked France without allies.

Look at the above list, it wouldn't have been alone.

Britain in 1812 was in worse shape than Britain in 1803.

As was France. One reason for the downfall, drained troops from France forced Napoleon to look elsewhere, depleting the quality of troops for quantity and taking away his cohesion of forces. As well as its own economic difficulties from trying to keep up the failed Continental System.

He should have been ruthless and banned everything. I keep saying this, you keep ignoring it.

Because it would have been economic suicide. Banning trade from Britain entirely was stupid and cut off huge supply of revenue. Britain can look elsewhere for grain, America, smuggling and other markets. France only had Europe and the economic policies it acted out there were damaging enough. You know where a good portion of the French Army got its boots from? British manufacturers.
 
Top