"What if Bonaparte had never invaded Spain?" Topic

What would've been the immediate (within 5 or 10 years) had he not got messed up in Spain?

And long term? 50 years in future?
"Today" just has too many variables.

I don't know why everyone jumpde onto the Russia thread but ignored this one. I think there are a couple of very obvious immediate consequences of the Spanish invasion.

Austria would not have invaded in 1809. Cooler heads would have prevailed.

Without the 1809 Danube campaign, France would have been stronger and Napoleon would still have had his reputation intact – even though he had won the war of 1809 he and the French army had lost their reputations as invincible.

I think this would have given Napoleon more time to consolidate, making Russia less likely to push their luck with Treaty violations, possibly meaning Napoleon would not have felt the need to invade Russia in 1812.

Possibly, that would have meant a period of comparative peace in Europe for the next few years. That would have left France stronger too because so many French men died in those wars, who would otherwise have been alive and available to him.

Regardless, the old monarchies of Europe would have been plotting to bring him down, but it may have taken much longer. Would the period of conservatism that Metternich ushered in in Europe after 1815 have been so significant? Maybe, given that Napoleon would have ruled for longer, the reaction when he finally went (he died young anyway) would have been even stronger.

All speculative of course, but those are my off the cuff thoughts.

These two threads sum up Napoleon's downfall. Napoleon's hatred of Great Britain (save Ireland) and GB's hatred of Napoleon proved his downfall or their mutual inability to live with each other would have destroyed him. The Continental System imposed by Napoleon and its enforcement put the nails in his coffin. GB's industrial revolution could not be defeated.
Wars are not always won on the battlefields.

Without European allies Britain had no chance of having any impact on the continent.Trying to take over Spain lost him an important (loyal though ineffectual) ally with a large navy and overseas territories which meant Britain had to spread its resources too thinly to have much impact. Spain gave Britain a foothold on the continent which encouraged Austria and then others to defy France and added to the drain on France which was central to Britain's attritional strategy.

He'd have done something else to extend his power. Eastern Europe, maybe? Looked for a steam-engine tech fix to invading England? And he and his marshals would have gotten older, conscription more hated, his enemies smarter and German nationalism would continue to grow under French occupation.

Nothing he did after 1807 would have changed the fifty year outcome. The things he might have done which would have, he was psychologically incapable of doing. The people who raise and inspire troops and conquer empires just don't morph into EU commissions.

France gets stronger and while the British continue to be antagonistic their attentions turn elsewhere – when the Americans declare war in 1812, without any diversions the Brits pound the Republic flat; at the peace treaty Vermont and New Hampshire secede and the Brits take Louisiana; over time as Napoleon gets older and fatter the Austrian Emperor recalls that he is Napoleon's father in law and Austria and France move closer together, with France supporting Austria's ambitions in the Balkans; the Prussians fret and the Russians stew – and the Russians may decide to move East and South faster

Armand

"NAVAL PALL-BEARERS"?

HOW DARE YOU, SIR!

That was the 92nd Highlanders

Or the 9th Norfolks…

Probably not the 42nd
Definitely not the Guards

Napoleon not invading Spain entails Napoleon tolerating comprehensive Spanish flouting of the Continental System. Britain's economy would have continued to function while France and that of her satellites suffered.

The only way for him not to have to invade Spain and Russia was not to initiate the Continental System at all. This would require him to be in a frame of mind in December 1806 to beware hubris, having just defeated Austria, Russia and Prussia.

That's a tough ask of Napoleon. Cocky was his middle name.

December 1806 was the inflection point. With Britain unassailable at sea (and hence at all), and France unassailable on land, neither could defeat the other. So Napoleon tried to defeat a sea power, from the land, without fighting any serious sea battles; and the strategy he hit on required him to invade, conquer and occupy Portugal and Russia at the same time.

Trafalgar is considered decisive for a reason…

Junot invaded Portugal in October 1807; Russia was invaded in June 1812-that's not 'at the same time.'

Napoleon found evidence in Berlin that Spain was prepared to attack France if Prussia had won. Alexander had decided on war as early as 1810 and was pressuring the Duchy of Warsaw to join with Russia, which the Poles were not going to do.

There is a valid reason that the French referred to 1812 as the Second Polish War.

And it should be remembered that a seapower with a small army could not defeat a self-sufficient land power on its own. That is the main reason that Britain continued to subsidize coalition after coalition against France. In 1813-1814 Russia, Prussia, and Austria could not put sufficient armies in the field without those British subsidies as they were bankrupt financially.