WI Napoleon had made Ajaccio France's Capital?

OTL Phillip II of Spain moved Spain's capital from the port of Seville to the landlocked fort post of Madrid not without pragmatic issues and protests and Peter the Great moved the de facto capital of Russia to a brand new outpost in a swamp called St. Petersburg.
Each of the above monarchs successfully did these things to augment their authority and their acts would have permanent impact on the above settlements.
In spite of many times professing to be proud to have been Corsican, I always thought it odd that Napoleon never attempted to make Corsica an autonomous region in France nor do much to try to raise its standing amongst the French and Europe in general.
Napoleon had no shortage of ego so what would it have taken for him to have moved the capital from Paris to Ajaccio and making Corsica the new 'Ile de France'? In addition to stoking his ego, it might have even made him better able to wrest control of the Meditterean from the British Navy by being able to have the capital city on a port and using Corsica for spiralling naval bases. OTOH, it might have also made Corsica more vulnerable to British invasion.
Any ideas on how it could have been accomplished and whether it could have been maintained after Napoleon's death?
 
Despite being small villages or even not existing beforehand, places like Madrid or Saint Petersburg could still have roads built to them, and thus be plugged into the trade and communications networks of their respective countries.

Ajaccio, on the other hand, is on an island. No amount of money, investment, prestige, etc. is ever going to make Corsica anything other than a peripheral part of France, or of Europe. Remember, all communication between Corsica and France would have had to take place by ship, which probably would have taken several days at least. Moving the capital their would be a Very Bad Idea, because it would isolate Napoleon from his subjects, (both in France and in his wider empire) and thus make it more vulnerable to surprise attacks, rebellions, etc. on the mainland.
 
Philip II never moved the capital from Seville, he moved it from Toledo to Madrid. But your point still stands: Toledo was an established city while Madrid was just a village at the time.

Anyways, I doubt Napoleon would move the capital, and especially not to Corsica. Why would he? Corsica is small, poor, and backwater, and separated from the rest of France. Ajaccio just doesn't make as good a capital as Paris. Not to mention the resources of the island would probably be stretched to the limit trying to sustain a capital, and would be vulnerable to British attack. The British even held Corsica for a time during the Revolutionary wars, so I don't see Napoleon even considering it... although he was Corsican, he considered himself a Frenchman too. And that was what was most important.
 
Philip II never moved the capital from Seville, he moved it from Toledo to Madrid. But your point still stands: Toledo was an established city while Madrid was just a village at the time.

Actually, no he didn't do that either. He moved it from Valladolid, Toledo was the most important city in Spain but England though similarly to much of Europe, that didn't equate to it being the capital. Before the capital was Valladolid, it was Burgos, another quite obscure location relatively. The Spain (Castillian) capital was all down to where the Kings centred their courts, where they logistically based themselves. Since the Spanish Kings, as in France, Austria, Poland etc etc etc tended to spend a large majority of their time travelling from city to city the idea of a centralised capital was itself quite a late medieval concept - if you asked someone in about the year 1400 where the capital was he would reply by telling you the present location of the King, and then warn you that the King would be gone soon and the capital would move to somewhere else. In this respect, Madrid wasn't an exception by being a total nowhere town when it was selected for the capital. Yes, Burgos and Valladolid were officially cities, but they had long since seen their influence disappear - before they were even capital, in fact - and they probably only played host to 2-3,000 people to Toledo's probable 15-20,000. On top of this, Madrid was chosen because it is the virtual centre of Spain, east-west and north-south. Philip was looking for a better location to base himself in anticipation of travelling a lot, but he also wanted to revel in the splendour of the renaissance age King (hence building the Escorial Palace, the Versailles of its time). In a way the move to Madrid was something special in that it was the first time a King of Spain (Castile) had ever tried to really develop a city, and it quickly came to surpass what Valladolid ever had in size and glamour, but at the same time people wouldn't have been amazed by the revelation for the simple reason that it was only ever supposed to be a logistical centre and sometime retreat.

Of course, what you said about reasoning is quite correct. Napoleon would never move the capital from Paris. Aside from anything, Paris was a contender for most influential and most important city in the world, and a move to Ajaccio would not only essentially cripple his administration and military organisation, but it would make him something of a laughing stock. Ajaccio is just too out of the way and insignificant, and communications with the rest of France would be bitterly slow, making France a paper tiger. Really the era of moving capitals is long gone by this point - the only times it happened after this was when an egotistical national leader of some degree gained an unchangeable hatred of the capital at the time and decided the country needed an about-turn in direction. By contrast, Napoleon had a gem of a city which was perfect for his needs. There's just no motive.
 

Wolfpaw

Banned
OTL Phillip II of Spain moved Spain's capital from the port of Seville to the landlocked fort post of Madrid not without pragmatic issues.

Actually, Phillip moved the capital from Valladolid to Madrid. Seville was never the capital.

In addition to stoking his ego, it might have even made him better able to wrest control of the Meditterean from the British Navy by being able to have the capital city on a port and using Corsica for spiralling naval bases.

I don't see how making Ajaccio the capital would make gaining control of the Mediterranean any easier. In fact, moving the French capital from its ancient seat (something Phillip didn't do due to a lack of a constant Spanish capital and Peter only accomplished with great difficulty) would not only be a logistical nightmare, but it would probably cause Britain to redouble its efforts in the Mediterranean.

There's also the fact that you'll alienate the vast of majority of French by moving the capital from timeless, splendid Paris to some isular backwater that's more Italian than French, not to mention the fact that a capital in Corsica will make running Europe that much more difficult for Nappy.

The best you could hope for along these lines is after Napoleon emerges triumphant (Britain, Austria, Prussia, etc. all defeated, though maybe not Russia), he decides, for some reason or another, to make Ajaccio or somewhere around it a sort of Napoleonic Versailles, but even that's a stretch. Him establishing a nice royal retreat like Peterhof or El Escorial or Sandringham House, though, is conceivable.
 
- As others have pointed out, Corsica is an island, and not an especially well-endowed one. This means inherent problems of vulnerability, a lag in communications, and a lack of available resources.

- Simply planting a pin in the map doesn;t give Napoleon any more resources to context the Med. He has to build ships, which means diverting resources from the land.

- While this discussion of Madrid is very interesting, St.Petersburg is more in my area of expertise, and it was a very differant case. For one thing, its not on an island. For another, its location is of supreme strategic importance to Russia, especially for a nutty hydrophil like Peter the Great, whereas Corsica is a periphery. And for another, the move to Petersburg was hardly uncontrversial. The senior nobles bitterly resented having to build new houses there, and Alexis told people he was going to burn the place down if he came to the throne. Peter the Great was a legitimate monarch with a frightening security apparatus. Napoleon was always painful aware that his throne was built on the wing of a butterfly, and he couldn't deatch himself from the real centre of power, Paris, and its intrigues.

-And of course, Napoleon was proud to be "adoptively" French. I don't think he disliked Corsica (his feelings for home manifested more in a sentimental affection for Italy, the identities not having really diverged), but he was French and Paris was his city.
 
Moving the capital to Corsica is impossible, but with Napolean's Italian and Illyrian ambitions, a move of the capital to the south of France is just about plausible.
 
Perhaps not exactly what the OP was suggesting, but could Napoleon make Corsica a private domain of the Emperor of France (directly ruled by him) and have the space to hold a substantial court there (say in the winter when Paris can be a bit cold and drafty). Corsica is very much a part of the French Empire, but not so much of France, and thus Ajaccio is in efect a French Capital.
 
The thing is, Paris moreso then any other city in the world except maybe London is the heart of its country. When Paris is gone aka WW2 many French lost desire to fight. This is a huge factor.
 
Top