WI: Russo-Prussian victory at Friedland (1807)

So, suppose that the Prussians and Russians somehow manage to beat back the French at the Battle of Friedland in June 1807, southwest of Königsberg. What happens after that?
Would Prussia acquire more lenient peace terms with Napoleon? They had already been defeated disastrously at Jena-Auerstedt a few months before, after all, and their will to continue in the Fourth Coalition war was almost depleted by then.
What happens to the Polish rebels?
 
So, suppose that the Prussians and Russians somehow manage to beat back the French at the Battle of Friedland in June 1807, southwest of Königsberg. What happens after that?
Would Prussia acquire more lenient peace terms with Napoleon? They had already been defeated disastrously at Jena-Auerstedt a few months before, after all, and their will to continue in the Fourth Coalition war was almost depleted by then.
What happens to the Polish rebels?

For what I know if Napoleon fails to crush Russian-Prussians at Friedland he would be in trouble. I recall that Archduke Charles and the Austrians had been watching the conflict very closely. The war party in Austria was pushing for intervention in the conflict while Charles wanted to stay on the sidelines to continue reforming the army. Charles barley managed to hold them back in OTL. If Napoleon is blunted at Friedland, then my guess is Austria would enter the conflict. This could then reinvigorate the Prussia-Russia to continue the war. I don't know the results of this but it would make a good timeline...
 
Last edited:
For what I know if Napoleon fails to crush Russian-Prussians at Friedland he would be in trouble. I recall that Archduke Charles and the Austrians had been watching the conflict very closely. The war party in Austria was pushing for intervention in the conflict while Charles wanted to stay on the sidelines to continue reforming the army. Charles barley managed to hold them back in OTL. If Napoleon is blunted at Friedland, then my guess is Austria would enter the conflict. This could then reinvigorate the Prussia-Russia to continue the war. I don't know the results of this but it would make a good timeline...

I'm not sure I'm convinced about that. It wouldn't be the first tactical reverse for the French in this campaign, but that doesn't change the larger reality that Bennigsen had already lost the initiative. His opportunity to batter the French while they were dispersed was gone, and his army was outnumbered, so his chances of winning any subsequent engagements seem pretty low. Even if the Austrians were to take another stab at it, it's unlikely they could accomplish much before the Russians are beaten. And the Prussians were already pretty much finished, so Napoleon would simply have to beat down the lone Austrians again. The French Empire at this point hasn't been stymied by the Spanish ulcer or the disaster in Russia, so they not only had superior leadership and mobility relative to their enemies, but often superior numbers, as well. Certainly the best hope for Prussia specifically would be for something to happen before they lost their armies and their capital.
 
For what I know if Napoleon fails to crush Russian-Prussians at Friedland he would be in trouble. I recall that Archduke Charles and the Austrians had been watching the conflict very closely. The war party in Austria was pushing for intervention in the conflict while Charles wanted to stay on the sidelines to continue reforming the army. Charles barley managed to hold them back in OTL. If Napoleon is blunted at Friedland, then my guess is Austria would enter the conflict. This could then reinvigorate the Prussia-Russia to continue the war. I don't know the results of this but it would make a good timeline...

Sounds very plausible to me. The only problem is that, even with a victory at Friedland, Russian military resources are pretty much exhausted. Funny as it may sound, Russian army at that time was relatively small and, with a need to keep garrisons on a huge territory, number of the troops available for a war was quite limited. On the top of all of the above, it lacked an organizational structure needed for administration of a much bigger force.

Only during the years between Tilsit and 1812 the necessary steps had been taken both in the theoretical (Barclay's document regarding structure of a big army) and practical areas (sharp increase of the numbers). Needless to say that this required increase of the military budget by 400 - 500%.
 
I'm not sure I'm convinced about that. It wouldn't be the first tactical reverse for the French in this campaign, but that doesn't change the larger reality that Bennigsen had already lost the initiative. His opportunity to batter the French while they were dispersed was gone, and his army was outnumbered, so his chances of winning any subsequent engagements seem pretty low.

However, Nappy also could not keep his troops together for a long time due to the severe shortages of the food and forage. If Bennigsen managed to play a delaying action, he could, potentially, get an opening for some kind of a successful action. Of course, this would require a slightly different Bennigsen.
 
However, Nappy also could not keep his troops together for a long time due to the severe shortages of the food and forage. If Bennigsen managed to play a delaying action, he could, potentially, get an opening for some kind of a successful action. Of course, this would require a slightly different Bennigsen.

Which reinforces my larger point, that being that Friedland isn't a great POD. The thing about Nappy is that his greatest gifts weren't tactical, but operational. "Decisive" battles like Friedland were often the culmination of lots of maneuvering that put the French at a major advantage before they got to the main fighting. If our aim here is to have Napoleon lose, then if nothing else, it makes a lot more sense to go back to before the destruction of the Prussian army. And if it's just to get Prussia a lighter peace deal...honestly, we should still probably go back to before their army sank like a lead balloon.
 
Which reinforces my larger point, that being that Friedland isn't a great POD. The thing about Nappy is that his greatest gifts weren't tactical, but operational. "Decisive" battles like Friedland were often the culmination of lots of maneuvering that put the French at a major advantage before they got to the main fighting. If our aim here is to have Napoleon lose, then if nothing else, it makes a lot more sense to go back to before the destruction of the Prussian army. And if it's just to get Prussia a lighter peace deal...honestly, we should still probably go back to before their army sank like a lead balloon.

In practical terms this means that all OTL post-Tilsit reforms had been implemented few years prior to Jena which immediately brings a question about the reason for such a dramatic change of perception among Prussian military and statesmen. IMO, the whole thing is too unlikely to be considered without an active participation of the friendly ASBs.
 
Bumping for interest.

The Battle of Copenhagen occured some months after Friedland, IIRC. In case Napoleon is defeated by Bennigsen, would the Danes eventually cave in to British demands for an alliance?
 
Another bump.
Looking now at the plan of the battle and the preliminary movements of both arms, could Bennigsen have managed to defeat the French if he had fought them at Konigsberg instead?
He could have retreated back across the Alle river and gone to Konigsberg as he saw the numerically superior French army. The French would have to besiege the city, which could be a hard task for them, as they were mostly exhausted from two years of marching all across Germany.
 
Another bump.
Looking now at the plan of the battle and the preliminary movements of both arms, could Bennigsen have managed to defeat the French if he had fought them at Konigsberg instead?
He could have retreated back across the Alle river and gone to Konigsberg as he saw the numerically superior French army. The French would have to besiege the city, which could be a hard task for them, as they were mostly exhausted from two years of marching all across Germany.

Looking at what books I have on the topic, Benningsen couldn't have fought them at Konigsberg. Part of his motivation for attacking at Friedland had been to crush Lannes Corps and push to Konigsberg. Lannes at this point was interdicting between Benningsen and the fortress. I think Benningsen had the right idea in OTL, a good POD would be Benningsen overruns Lannes before Napoleon is able to march to his aid. The Russians then link up with Konigsberg and dig in. Though a siege might have been a better outcome for Napoleon, as it might take a while but he can let allied troops handle it as he did with Danzig.
 
Looking at what books I have on the topic, Benningsen couldn't have fought them at Konigsberg. Part of his motivation for attacking at Friedland had been to crush Lannes Corps and push to Konigsberg. Lannes at this point was interdicting between Benningsen and the fortress. I think Benningsen had the right idea in OTL, a good POD would be Benningsen overruns Lannes before Napoleon is able to march to his aid. The Russians then link up with Konigsberg and dig in. Though a siege might have been a better outcome for Napoleon, as it might take a while but he can let allied troops handle it as he did with Danzig.

For something like that you need a different Bennigsen. The real one was a capable general but he was too cautious and too slow. However, I'm not sure that locking the whole army in Konigsberg would be a good strategic move (we are seemingly agree on that). The plausible course of action would be, after defeating Lannes, to keep maneuvering ("to no obvious purpose" as the Duke put it :cool:) playing for time and relying on a general exhaustion. With a series of the reported victories (Pultusk, Euilau, Friedland) there would be a good chance for him to make it into fieldmarshal (which he never did in OTL) and this makes a considerable difference in 1812 (if everything else is going "on schedule").
 
I'll bump this thread because it came back into my mind.
Assuming that the Russo-Prussian forces manage to reoccupy Berlin after chasing Napoleon all the way back to the Elbe (if it's possible), what happens next?
I'd wager that the Russo-Prussians will utlimately decide to punish Saxony in some way for their betrayal after Jena-Auerstedt. If an invasion is possible, then i'm afraid it will be the next course of action the Prussians will take after recomposing themselves. Since a Prussian annexation of Saxony would probably alarm Austria as it'd threaten her territories in Bohemia, could we see Austria making peace with France in order to contain this new threat?
But even if the armies of the Prussians and Russians are unable to reoccupy Berlin, i think there are still a few butterflies to consider from a "reverse Friedland outcome" scenario. Mainly, in regards to Denmark-Norway, and the Second Battle of Copenhagen (which i mentioned in a previous post, but wasn't replied to); could the Danish prince end up not wavering in his allegiance between France and Britain, and decide to side with Britain and the Coalition?
 
I'll bump this thread because it came back into my mind.
Assuming that the Russo-Prussian forces manage to reoccupy Berlin after chasing Napoleon all the way back to the Elbe (if it's possible), what happens next?

Not possible (short of an unrealistic crushing French defeat on a scale of Austerlitz). Bennigsen was not what you call an aggressive general so he would send a triumphal report to St-Petersburg (expecting to be promoted into Fieldmarshal) and keep maneuvering in the area. Chances for him advancing beyond Wistula would be close to zero. Do not forget that his troops had been exhausted and seriously suffered from the bad supply situation.
 
Not possible (short of an unrealistic crushing French defeat on a scale of Austerlitz). Bennigsen was not what you call an aggressive general so he would send a triumphal report to St-Petersburg (expecting to be promoted into Fieldmarshal) and keep maneuvering in the area. Chances for him advancing beyond Wistula would be close to zero. Do not forget that his troops had been exhausted and seriously suffered from the bad supply situation.
True, but, at one moment in the aftermath, Russo-Prussian forces are going to eventually recompose, and Napoleon will find himself stuck balls deep in territory far from his supply lines, which might precipitate another major battle.
Or was the armistice of Tilsit inevitable by this point, do you think?
 
True, but, at one moment in the immediate aftermath, Russo-Prussian forces are going to eventually recompose.
Or was the armistice of Tilsit inevitable by this point, do you think?

There was not too much to "recompose" with: at Friendland Russians-Prussians had between 46 and 62K against 80K French and not too much in the terms of strategic reserves. Just "holding" against the French would probably mean another battle in which they would be overwhelmed and spectacular Russian success at Friedland would mean that Nappy is most probably going to keep fighting until he scores at least something he could declare as a victory.

Of course, we can also imagine scenario under which both sides are too exhausted to continue (and Nappy is being able to declare a "strategic victory" for the domestic use) and this would mean that alt-Tilsit is considered less humiliating by the Russians.
 
Top