WI: Napoleon fought Russia in 1807

Razgriz 2K9

Banned
Technically, Napoleon was already fighting Russia for the first half of 1807...but if Napoleon decided no peace with Russia, well France could force a harsher treaty upon Russia later on, sine Russia's army was growing increasingly weak and the treasury all but empty.
 
What happens if Napoleon fought Russia in 1807 instead of in 1812?

Will

Depends on circumstances. He has just about defeated the Russians in a couple of bloody battle but not sure what they had left, or what resources he has to drive deep into Russia at this point. [Historically he put a hell of a lot of effort into trying to sort out logistics in 1812, despite the ultimate failure]. Also it would depend on why he decided to continue the war, because he decided he could crush Russia totally or because the Czar rejected his OTL terms or what?

Also while Prussia has just been crushed badly it is still to his rear, as possibly more dangerously is Austria which waited until 1809 to challenge him again. Not sure what state its forces and political leadership were in then but if Nappy and the bulk of the French army are deep in Russia it leaves options open for unrest in Germany which would threaten his supply lines.

As such it might work but its very much a high risk strategy. Also Spain is starting to totter into disorder so if he's too far away you could again see unrest in there and possibly even a defection, which Britain would back of course, along with any other opponents they could find.

Steve
 
The major mistake not to make, in order to defeat Russia, is to go deep into Russia, because the logistics problem becomes unsolvable.

To defeat Russia, you need to roll it back and and to hold the space conquered. So the logistics problem becomes Russia's problem.
 
The major mistake not to make, in order to defeat Russia, is to go deep into Russia, because the logistics problem becomes unsolvable.

To defeat Russia, you need to roll it back and and to hold the space conquered. So the logistics problem becomes Russia's problem.

The problem is that, just like Britain with its channel defence, Russia has its winter defence. Nappy could not sit in Smolensk for 20 years, hoping that the Russians would come to him with more mellow terms. He needed a quick decision.

You need to ask yourself what your goal is in Russia. Trying to conquer and hold Russia is insanity. He could not stay too long in the Baltics. Reviving the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is something that the Russians will never agree to. Could he revive the old Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth in the face of the Russian and British resistance? It would be a very high risk venture, particularly when he had other conflicts to take care of.

Actually, what Nappy tried IOTL was smart. He tried to draw Russia into an alliance with him, instead of Britain. Alexander got everything he wanted out of the treaty, but it was not enough to save the Russian economy. Trade with Britain was vital for them. That is why the Alliance failed.

The one question is this - could Napoleon, after Friedland, have marched on St. Petersburg, occupied it and handed over the Baltics to his Polish allies, and perhaps St. Petersburg itself to Sweden? And would that be sufficient to bring Russia to the table with more liberal terms?

Another thought. Could Napoleon actually persuade the Russians to invade India from the northwest? Britain was really hated by 1810 in India. If the Russians marched in and decided to hang the Brits, the Indians would have happily donated the rope. Britain had less than 50K troops all over India. If the Russians invaded, could they actually take the British territories there?
 
Last edited:
Reply

I think the Russians were unlikely to ever march on India while Poland existed, Poland was a threat they could not ignore, for all they knew napoleon might
make demands on them while they were engaged in India. the existance of Poland was the greatest potential threat to the Russian heartland. And Sweden may intervene. Then there's the potential Turkish threat to Russia's Southern flank and Russia's desire to secure the Bosphorus. Napoleon, Poland and the Turks are potentially such a threat that the Russian's would have to be unrealistically stupid to be drawn towards a war with there only ally ( Britain ).
Also what could Napoleon offer Russia to balance the money britain could make available to Russia.
 
The one question is this - could Napoleon, after Friedland, have marched on St. Petersburg, occupied it and handed over the Baltics to his Polish allies, and perhaps St. Petersburg itself to Sweden?

No. If he tries this then his army dies in the swamps and forests of the Baltic coast, probably even before the first snowflake falls.

Another thought. Could Napoleon actually persuade the Russians to invade India from the northwest? Britain was really hated by 1810 in India. If the Russians marched in and decided to hang the Brits, the Indians would have happily donated the rope. Britain had less than 50K troops all over India.

I *really* want to see a cite that Indians in 1810 were begging the Russians to invade to save them from the British.

If the Russians invaded, could they actually take the British territories there?

No, no, no. Ignore for the moment that the Russians don't have any bases closer than the Aral Sea (if not the Volga River) and consider what you're asking them to march through on their way to India - they couldn't pacify Afghanistan with 1980's technology, they're not going to do it with 1800's technology. If the Russians form up an army of 100,000 men on the Volga and send them marching to India then by the time the last few hundred survivors stagger over the Khyber Pass the only thing they'll be seeking to do with the British is surrender to them.

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Then roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your Gawd like a soldier!"
 
I *really* want to see a cite that Indians in 1810 were begging the Russians to invade to save them from the British.

The Indian rulers were begging the French to save them from the Brits. When Nappy got to Egypt and wrote of his desire to invade India, he got letters of support from many Indian kings. This was one reason why the Brits accelerated their conquest of India. If the Russians turn up, they will happily supply those soldiers.

No, no, no. Ignore for the moment that the Russians don't have any bases closer than the Aral Sea (if not the Volga River) and consider what you're asking them to march through on their way to India - they couldn't pacify Afghanistan with 1980's technology, they're not going to do it with 1800's technology. If the Russians form up an army of 100,000 men on the Volga and send them marching to India then by the time the last few hundred survivors stagger over the Khyber Pass the only thing they'll be seeking to do with the British is surrender to them.

"When you're wounded and left on Afghanistan's plains,
And the women come out to cut up what remains,
Then roll to your rifle and blow out your brains,
And go to your Gawd like a soldier!"

Afghanistan has been PACIFIED only twice in history - once by Genghis Khan, and the second time by Timur, and only because they killed so many that there was no organised opposition left. It has not prevented a myriad number of invaders from crossing it from Central Asia/Iran and invading India (sometimes successfully). In fact, at the point we are talking about, the British and the Afghan King were daggers drawn (The Brits persuaded the Persians to invade Afghanistan from the west to keep Afghan invasions of Punjab in check). If the Russians turn up, both Afghanistan and many Indian rulers will offer, at least initially, support for the Russians. Far from dying on the Afghan plains, they will be helped to cross the desert and mountains safely and will turn up, fairly safe and sound, in the Indus valley. Then, in fact, it is quite likely that the presence of a large Russian force will get the native rulers to revolt against the British. We could be seeing the `Sepoy Mutiny' situation fifty years earlier, with Brits running into rabbit holes to save their skins.
 
The Indian rulers were begging the French to save them from the Brits. When Nappy got to Egypt and wrote of his desire to invade India, he got letters of support from many Indian kings.

One actually, and Tipu Sultan was dead by 1799 anyway. If you know of others, please supply some names.

This was one reason why the Brits accelerated their conquest of India. If the Russians turn up, they will happily supply those soldiers.

Again, please provide a cite that the Indians were begging for Russian intervention.

In fact, at the point we are talking about, the British and the Afghan King were daggers drawn (The Brits persuaded the Persians to invade Afghanistan from the west to keep Afghan invasions of Punjab in check).

Or, to put it another way, at the point we are talking about the King of Afghanistan received the first ever British embassy to Afghanistan and signed a treaty of alliance with Britain in the face of rumours of a joint Franco-Russian invasion.

If the Russians turn up, both Afghanistan and many Indian rulers will offer, at least initially, support for the Russians.

Again, please name these Indian rulers who were agitating for Russian support. Probably the most powerful remaining independent ruler - Ranjit Singh in the Punjab - was on friendly terms with Britain at this time and for most of his reign.

Far from dying on the Afghan plains, they will be helped to cross the desert and mountains safely and will turn up, fairly safe and sound, in the Indus valley. Then, in fact, it is quite likely that the presence of a large Russian force will get the native rulers to revolt against the British. We could be seeing the `Sepoy Mutiny' situation fifty years earlier, with Brits running into rabbit holes to save their skins.

Okay, now we're just heading into fantasy land. Setting aside what looks like some wierd anti-British prejudice for a moment (the word is "British", not "Brits" - and rabbit holes? seriously?) the idea that any Afghan ruler would welcome the Russians passing through to establish themselves in India is simply absurd - as absurd as welcoming the British to pass through to establish themselves in central Asia, for that matter. Afghanistan's indepedence was guaranteed by being a no-man's land between two evenly balanced rival imperiums, not by allying with one to enable it to become dominant.
 
The problem is that, just like Britain with its channel defence, Russia has its winter defence. Nappy could not sit in Smolensk for 20 years, hoping that the Russians would come to him with more mellow terms. He needed a quick decision.

You need to ask yourself what your goal is in Russia. Trying to conquer and hold Russia is insanity. He could not stay too long in the Baltics. Reviving the Polish-Lithuanian Commonwealth is something that the Russians will never agree to. Could he revive the old Polish Lithuanian Commonwealth in the face of the Russian and British resistance? It would be a very high risk venture, particularly when he had other conflicts to take care of.

Actually, what Nappy tried IOTL was smart. He tried to draw Russia into an alliance with him, instead of Britain. Alexander got everything he wanted out of the treaty, but it was not enough to save the Russian economy. Trade with Britain was vital for them. That is why the Alliance failed.

The one question is this - could Napoleon, after Friedland, have marched on St. Petersburg, occupied it and handed over the Baltics to his Polish allies, and perhaps St. Petersburg itself to Sweden? And would that be sufficient to bring Russia to the table with more liberal terms?

Another thought. Could Napoleon actually persuade the Russians to invade India from the northwest? Britain was really hated by 1810 in India. If the Russians marched in and decided to hang the Brits, the Indians would have happily donated the rope. Britain had less than 50K troops all over India. If the Russians invaded, could they actually take the British territories there?

Nappy could not wait for 20 years, but Russia could not fight for 20 years either, because the war effort drained in proportion much more on russian ressources than on napoleonic ressources.

The original war plan of Napoleon in 1812 was not to go to Moscow. It was just to reestablish a great Poland and to sceal it by a big victory in battle to force on Russia a peace treaty with conditions more favourable to Napoleon's interests.

But Napoleon did not stick to his original plan and that was the cause of his failure. Almost nobody had imagined (contrary to what quyite many people later wrote when the final outcome was known) that Napoleon would be defeated.

Russia had no other solution than retreating and retreating. Had Napoleon not gone deep into Russia contrary to his plan, the russian retreat would not have been decisive.

Napoleon's plan of 1807 was not so smart since it was founded on a very serious misunderstanding of Russia's vital interests.

Sure, there was a strong rivalry and even hostility between Russia and the UK because Russia was very unhappy to see how the UK had gained worldwide and sea domination and exerted some kind of tyranny on the seas and on the trade of neutral countries.

But, Russia's vital interest was to sell its raw materials to the rest of the world, and especially to the UK who was her number one client.
And while Russia's geostrategic ambitions were to push westward in Europe, the enormous power of Napoleon's continental system blocked any possible advance of Russian power and influence in Europe
And at last, the unforeseen course of events had led Napoleon to create a beginning of polish political entity in 1807, which was in itself an absolute casus belly for the russian nobility : a big part of Russia's power and of the russian nobility's possession was based in the part of Poland-Lithuania it had annexed.

So Russia had 3 reasons for not remaining faithful to an alliance which it considered had been forced on it and was contrary to Russia's interests. Napoleon should have known that but, although the russians did cheat on him almost from the beginning, it took Napoleon more than 3 years to fully admit than he had been deceived.

1812 was a return to reality. Russia was about to attack. Alexander had ordered his staff to prepare an attack in the grand duchy of Warsaw, and was hoping for the polish population to ... acclaim him as king of Poland. Only when Napoleon realized what was happening (thanks to Davout's intelligence service) did Alexander give-up his offensive plans and was forced into a defensive strategy given the superiority of the napoleonic ressources.
 
Sorry about the delay. I was away from home and did not have the exact details with which to refute your statements.
Let us take your points one by one

One actually, and Tipu Sultan was dead by 1799 anyway. If you know of others, please supply some names.
.

Between 1788 and 1798, there were no direct French residents in India, due to the French revolution, and a bunch of policy changes in France. Most of the French-Indian communications were handled by French officers in the employ of the Indian rulers.
I would divide appeals to France into two categories. Before and after the Ripaud affair. After the Ripaud affair, no Indian ruler would commit himself in writing to the French seeking an alliance against the English, since the charade Ripaud played and its role in the death of Tipu precluded any written letters, and also damaged French credibility.

a) Raymond, a French officer who had raised a corps of 14000 troops in Hyderabad wrote to Comte de Malartic (the French governor of Mauritius, and a very active character), saying that the Nizam had raised his corps officered by the French as a counterweight to the British, whose influence he resented, and had informed him that he (the Nizam) would be prepared to act even more forcefully, if the French were to strike against British power in India.
b) Montigny, the ex-French resident with the Marathas, writing based on the communications he had received from the French officers in Maratha employ, wrote to the Directory in 1795-96 saying that both Shinde (Scindia) and Holkar were prepared to assist the French if the French would strike against the hub of British power in the west (Bombay). He also emphasised that the liberation of Broach from the British constituted a primary objective for the Maratha chiefs and that any French enterprise which included this objective would receive full support from the Maratha Peshwa as well.
The Marathas (here Montigny, in his memoir, is not specific who, among the Marathas, exactly made the proposal) made a proposal to Montigny that if the French could supply them ten thousand guns (for the infantry) and neutralise Bombay, the Marathas would invade the northern provinces and replace the English with other rulers. The Marathas would be compensated for this enterprise with the payment of Chauth (a tax which gave them 25% of the revenues of the state) in the states liberated from the English.

After the Ripaud affair, no one would write to any external power.
However, the anti British intrigues and appeals to the French did not end, or even diminish any.
a) Dubuc, the naval commander sent to help Tipu Sultan, returned to France in 1799. Apart from the messages of Tipu, he relayed to the emperor, urgent solicitations from Shinde, Holkar, and the Peshwa for French officers and equipment, along with bringing a verbal promise to act against the British, if the French would attack Bombay (but this promise by the Marathas was made in 1798, when it was believed that Napoleon would invade India). This is also corroborated by the messages sent by the Peshwa in 1800-1801 to the French through Dumoulin
b) In 1799, the British governor of Bombay, wrote to Henry Dundas that if Napoleon invaded there would be at least two powerful princes willing to support him.
c) The treaty of Bassein signed by the Peshwa Baji Rao caused a lot of heartburn among the Maratha chiefs. In 1801, Scindia, Holkar and Bhonsle sent word through several French officers (the whole thing has been summed up by Morenat in a series of memoranda to the emperor) pleading for French intervention. Howeveri, in 1801-1802, there was no one to listen to their pleas in France, and they were answered only in 1806 by letters from the French government (not sure who signed these, but they were forwarded by the French Ambassador of Persia, General Gardane) to Scindia, Holkar, and Bhonsle.
d) Morenat, a French officer who visited India between 1805-1807, returned home to report to the emperor that `Shinde and Holkar remain anxious to throw off the British yoke, and wish to enter into an alliance with France if we can land ten to fifteen thousand troops' He also relayed a request for `French officers of unimpeachable character' (Morena charged Perron, the French commander of Scindia, who fled the battlefield with treachery) to train their troops so that may face the English with confidence.

I have quoted a few easily available ones from books I have with me at home. Let me know if you want more. I can easily find another couple of dozen letters and communications from the French officers who served under the Marathas and the Nizam. The Marathas were intriguing against the British until the final destruction of the Marathas and their Pindari minions in 1817-1818. After that, with Tipu and the Marathas gone, the Nizam accepted final domination of the British. If the French/Russians turned up in force, the Marathas would side against the British. By 1808, simply put, the British were loathed by them.

Again, please provide a cite that the Indians were begging for Russian intervention.
No one was begging for Russian intervention, because the Russians (beyond one half hearted attempt under the Cossack hetman, Dmitri Orlov, in 1801) never showed interest in India. But we are talking of a Franco Russian alliance and its prospects here. Let us not change the terms of engagement.

Or, to put it another way, at the point we are talking about the King of Afghanistan received the first ever British embassy to Afghanistan and signed a treaty of alliance with Britain in the face of rumours of a joint Franco-Russian invasion.
The honest way to put it would be that Shah Shuja, who signed the treaty with the English and accepted the English embassy, was deposed seven weeks after the treaty and (later) exiled from his country for signing the `deplorable treaty' (those are Meredith Runion's words) with the English. The Afghans welcomed his opponent, Mahmud Shah, under whom the Afghans went back to hating the British. (See History of Afghanistan, Meredith L Runion). So - no, there was no love lost at all between the British and the Afghans.

But this hides a deeper problem with your theory. If, as you claim, the only thing that the Russians would be doing would be `to surrender to the British' on the Indian plains, why were the British so keen on signing an alliance with the Afghans? Surely, the terrain would be sufficient to deter any invasion?

Probably the most powerful remaining independent ruler - Ranjit Singh in the Punjab - was on friendly terms with Britain at this time and for most of his reign.
Ranjit Singh had a mixed relationship with the British, but that is irrelevant to this topic. At the point we are talking about (1808-1810), the Sikh empire did not constitute anything beyond the Chenab, and nothing south of Multan (including Multan). The Afghans had not even recognised him as anything but an upstart usurper, and were actively trying to recover (inbetween their internecine wars) Punjab from the Sikhs. They held all the territories west of the Jhelum, and Kashmir as well. At this point, Ranjit Singh was a growing, but still a minor power, and not the man who ruled from the borders of Tibet to Sindh thirty years later. The only power of real significance in the difficult territories between the Franco-Russians and India were the Afghans.

Okay, now we're just heading into fantasy land. Setting aside what looks like some wierd anti-British prejudice for a moment (the word is "British", not "Brits" - and rabbit holes? seriously?)
That is precisely what happened to the indigo planters during the sepoy mutiny (those that were not outright killed anyway), but that is a secondary matter. I was being colloquial, and referred to `Nappy' and `Brits'. But it is interesting that you take offence at the word `Brits' when you, the champion of evenhandedness, speak of the death of the French soldiers, who had just beaten Russia, even before the snows fall. It is illuminating. Kinda-sorta a bit rich, what?

the idea that any Afghan ruler would welcome the Russians passing through to establish themselves in India is simply absurd
Now it is you who is making assumptions. The Afghans saw themselves as the protectors of Islam in India. That is why Ahmed Shah Abdali attacked the Marathas, why Zaman Shah had tried to invade in 1798 - to restore northern India to a pliant Mughal emperor, from the wannabe usurpers - Hindu, Sikh and British. The Russians cannot expect to hold India, because they don't even hold (current) Kazakhstan properly at this point of time. But helping the Franco-Russians ruin British power in India is beneficial to them. By default, they will be the largest standing power left, and can expect to profit from fall of the British. The desire to restore India to Islam was still very strong, and up until Ranjit Singh conquered Peshawar, that remained the goal of the Afghan rulers.
 
Last edited:
Top