WI Napoleon was punitive with the 4th and 5th Coalitions?

I tend to look at the settlements therein as Napoleon's greatest mistake, bigger than invading Russia, and certainly more than the Spanish quagmire. The key to French influence in E Europe was a strong Poland and decapitated Prussia. Napoleon should have gutted Prussia until it had nothing but Branderburg; Silesia and East Elbian Prussia should have gone to the grand duchy of Poland. Creation of a strong Poland was a key, a neccessary bulwark against both Both Russian and German hordes. As for Austria, Napoleon should have gone for the kill in the 5th Coalition-- break up the kingdom into Hungary and Bohemia, with Hungardy to play Poland's role in the Balkans. Napoleon's other political mistake was to trust that dynastic liaison with Austria would mean anything; he forgot that he was the Corsican Ogre, a parvenu par excellence, a Court Jew amongst the real monarchies. With his based strengthened and his enemies' weakened beyond repair, even that debacle in Russia would not have led to the Doom at Leipzig. If Prussia was crippled, Stein's reforms didn't matter, not when the population base in the new butt-f**ked Prussia was too small. And so was to be with Austria, with the Chechs and the Hungarians boxing in the rump Austria. (I should note that, by the time of the 5th Coalition, Napoleon did have sufficient ratio of men to force to occupy entire Austria (which he didn't have in the aftermath of Austerlitz), if the Hungarians revolted-- and why not? They still remembered all the Austrian astrocities from 48.) In short, Napoleon's mistake, aside from the basic one of not retreating from Russia when he still had an army, was that he let his enemies live. Napoleon was said to have loved Plutarch. Well, he should have learned the lessens those heroic Romans and Greeks were so eager to teach: You let your enemies live, you end up ruined like Marius or Caesar; you kill until you have no more enemies, you die in sleep in peace, like Sulla. Napoleon should've never gone into Russia with two strong Powers ready to stab in the back.
 
The other part of Napoleon's defeat had to do with the fact that he didn't realize that he could have had everything he want through clever diplomacy.
 
I actually concur with you, anti. But I'm not sure how viable it would have been to create a Hungarian republic, say.
 
The other part of Napoleon's defeat had to do with the fact that he didn't realize that he could have had everything he want through clever diplomacy.

Yes. It's a pity he didn't listen to Talleyrand.

A true triumvirate with Talleyrand in it, instead of OTL consulate, ( even without Napoleon, as long as it includes a reasonnable good general, of which dozens were available ) would have made a much more stable first republic.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Huh? Napoleons best choice was to create a Poland with German majority and likely dominated by the former Prussian Junkers?
 
Huh? Napoleons best choice was to create a Poland with German majority and likely dominated by the former Prussian Junkers?

Eh. You could've created a Duchy of Silesia again, or give to to Saxony or Austria for fun. Give Brandenburg to a general, and stikck the Hohenzerellens in Prussia itself.
 
I think that a good case could be made for the opposite position. Napoleon's terms after the defeat of the fourth and fifth coalition were harsh enough to practically guarentee that sooner or later he would have to face them in war again. Increasing the severity will most likely just leave his enemies more bitter, and napoleon would need some astounding luck or to really stack the deck with a strong Poland et al to survive a constant cycle of war against AH, Prussia, Russia, and assorted allies. Honestly, a better policy would be slightly harsher terms against some mixed with peace offerings for others. Declaw Prussia, and take some concessions from Austria, but otherwise leave Austria relativly untouched, and by no means humiliate Russia at Tilst. The alliance of russia, prussia, and austria against france was a rather forced creation, and deft diplomacy (read: talleyrand) could break it apart. As long as Napoleon makes sure that he lets his new allies save face and that his remaining opponents are broken roughly as you envision, then he has a far more advantageous position.

Not that your idea is unworkable; in fact, it does present a rather interesting possible scenario. But to get the results that you are looking for would require a major swing in the balance of power. After 1807, Napoleon lacked the strength (russia was still in a position to fight, and did so with some success), and Wagram was by no means decisive enough to lead to force these changes.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
Eh. You could've created a Duchy of Silesia again, or give to to Saxony or Austria for fun. Give Brandenburg to a general, and stikck the Hohenzerellens in Prussia itself.

As I read the first post, Antisocrates wanted to give Congress Poland Prussia east of the Elb, while the Hohenzorellens kept the territories west of the Elb.

Of course to split Prussia up would be a good idea, to give silesia to Austria or Saxony and reduce the Hohenzorellens to Prussia proper, giving a general Brandenburg and giving Poland the coridor, would remove a impotant pierce from the Anti French coalition puzzle.
 
Originally posted by Valdemar II
Huh? Napoleons best choice was to create a Poland with German majority and likely dominated by the former Prussian Junkers?

Well, yeah, giving restored Poland East Prussia would have been too much. I think that garrisoning some important fortresses would have been enough. But Danzig/Gdańsk, east ern Pomerania/West Prussia and at least part of Silesia... Why not? That takes care of German majority. The fact, that those territories had belonged to German Prussia didn't mean majority there was Germans. Also, being a German didn't mean you liked Prussians. During the partition of Poland mostly German citizens of Danzig/Gdańsk strongly opposed against Prussian occupation and at least for some time refused to let Prussian garrison enter.
And since antisocrates wants to gut Austria, Poland gets also back Little Poland and Galicia (Cracow, Lublin, Lwów/Lvov). Now, with all that Poland is back in business. Sorry, Lithuania...
Bigger Poland would have had rather strong army. IOTL Polish Army after barely 2 years of existence successfully opposed much more experienced Austrian forces in 1809. Such an army would have been French shield against Russia and a hammer over Austria and Prussia. I'm not sure there would have been a war in 1809.
With eastern flank secured Napoleon can concentrate on Spain. Would there be war with Spain? Not if Joseph would have become king of Poland. Somebody had to, and Polish crown seems much safer than Spanish one. First of all, your subjects might actually be loyal. So sorry, Frederick August of Saxony, we might have given you a Duchy, but kingdoms are for Napoleon's family and buddies only.
 

Valdemar II

Banned
The problem is that this destroy some of the point behind recreating Poland, Congress Poland in OTL was big enough to be a useful ally, but small enough to need France against the Prussians, Russian and Austrians, by making a big Poland you create a state which will follow its own interests, rather than being forced out of necessary to follow Frances interests.
 
Eh. You could've created a Duchy of Silesia again, or give to to Saxony or Austria for fun. Give Brandenburg to a general, and stikck the Hohenzerellens in Prussia itself.
thats generally the route \i would have favoured...could have endgendered some cautious good will with the Austrians as well.

enlarge D of Poland to a kingdom by adding back the Austrian portions immediately and compensate the Austrians with Silesia
 
Last edited:

The Sandman

Banned
The problem is that this destroy some of the point behind recreating Poland, Congress Poland in OTL was big enough to be a useful ally, but small enough to need France against the Prussians, Russian and Austrians, by making a big Poland you create a state which will follow its own interests, rather than being forced out of necessary to follow Frances interests.

If you've creating anything remotely resembling a liberal Poland, the presence of Czarist Russia on the eastern border ensures that the Poles are at least going to think real hard before backstabbing the French. Because even with Poland enlarged as you propose, it still probably can't stand alone against the Russians.

Destroying Prussia is of course a good idea. Turn it back into the Margravate of Brandenburg and then hand it over to somebody you want out of their current throne. Add Silesia to Bohemia and Moravia after severing the latter from Austria. Give Tirol and maybe Salzburg to Bavaria. Give the Hungarians their independence.

In general, what you want in Germany is to reform the entire setup. Create just a few medium-sized countries that can't oppose France individually, and you have a decent chance of getting something useful out of Germany.

And find some better way of crushing the British. In other words, use the opportunity of a decade or so of peace to rebuild the French Navy, and then give it another go. Concentrate enough resources on Portugal to crush it, regardless of how well Lisbon is fortified, then end the Continental System. Create the EEC to replace it. Instead of a stick of "don't sell to Britain or else", use a carrot of "we'll eliminate these unfortunate tariffs on any trade that doesn't involve the Brits".
 
And find some better way of crushing the British. In other words, use the opportunity of a decade or so of peace to rebuild the French Navy, and then give it another go. Concentrate enough resources on Portugal to crush it, regardless of how well Lisbon is fortified, then end the Continental System. Create the EEC to replace it. Instead of a stick of "don't sell to Britain or else", use a carrot of "we'll eliminate these unfortunate tariffs on any trade that doesn't involve the Brits".

That's not the point. The reason that the British were vital to Europe's economies was not that they offered goods for a bit less money than everyone else. If that were the case, the Continental System would have worked in the first place. The reason was that the British could: A - supply goods that no-one else could; B - supply much higher quality goods than anyone else could in a lot of markets; C - supply them considerably cheaper than anyone else; D - supply far more than anyone else. Eliminating tarriffs won't do the trick, not at all. Europe at this stage is not in a position where it can isolate Britain economically, and where the whole 'no-tarriffs EEC thing' makes sense at the moment, I'm not sure you understand 18th century government. The idea of a free trade zone made no sense in this era. In fact, some governments based their economies around how much tarriffs they collected. Governments hadn't perfected the art of sponging their citizens for all they were worth in this era, and tarriffs seemed logically to be the most important part of money-making. Also, government subsidies were not properly established in many areas, so the governments didn't (before a crisis over lack of some product or other was underway) consider themselves to be financially at risk by losing a bit of trade in one business sector or the other. That's why so many countries, Napoleon's France in particular, stumbled blindly into the Continental System and then didn't see the cliff of economic hardship until they'd already fallen over the edge and broken their backs upon landing. To add another dimension to this, the British products will still be cheaper, and that means countries will still be flooded with British smugglers, which denies countries the ability to collect tarriffs anyway. Simply put, while the EEC from a modern perspective is a wise idea, it is neither a suggestion that would seem appropriate or indeed at all acceptable in that era, nor was it one that would actually help the countries if they were to abide by it.

I am rather of the opinion myself that once Napoleon had made it obvious that he would war anyone to create his own perfect Europe (probably by around 1805-6) then his own downfall was inevitable. It was merely a question of when.
 
Top