"What if Napoleon doesn't invade Russia?" Topic

Interesting topic…

"What if Napoleon doesn't launch his invasion of Russia in 1812 and instead directs his energies towards solidifying his hold on Europe and conquering North Africa (ie Algieria, Tunisia, and Libya) and the Ottoman Lands? Without overreaching, Napoleon wouldn't be Napoleon, but it was his Russian blunder that ended his attempts to become overlord of the world. However, what if he keeps control of Europe with some nearby colonies?…"

Main page

link

Armand

Spain and Portugal were ongoing drain on France and it was extremely hard to support an army in this area.

The only problem with invading North Africa was the British Navy. Any invasion would be stopped by the English Fleet with heavy losses. It would end up as another Egypt.

He needed peace to solidify his hold but he was surrounded by hostile nations that were learning how to fight against him. Also, he cut down his Field Marshalls so none of the were able to operate independent of him.

in case Napoleon is not invading Russia, Russia would invade Poland in 1813, then what?

If he had sent just Davouts corps 1812 to spain the British would have been gone, Davout was the man to remove the British, a war on two fronts is too hard. Equally the hottest asummer and the coldest winter for a century affected the 1812 invasion if Russia, like Nazi Germany starting Barbarrosa late Napoleoin did the same

The Napoleonic empire would have definitely lasted longer.

He probably would've focused on making Spain more secure.

Spain and Portugal were ongoing drain on France and it was extremely hard to support an army in this area.

he mightve sent more allies as canon fodder like Saxons, Bavarians, Prussians etc.

The only problem with invading North Africa was the British Navy. Any invasion would be stopped by the English Fleet with heavy losses. It would end up as another Egypt.

France still had a much bigger fleet and you cant assume a victory for Britain.

He needed peace to solidify his hold but he was surrounded by hostile nations that were learning how to fight against him. Also, he cut down his Field Marshalls so none of the were able to operate independent of him.

They weren't that hostile. Well Britain was hostile but really when arent they? Austria was downright friendly.

The allies never learned to fight him, unless you think that avoiding him and overwhelming him was a form of learning how to fight him, in which case, OK.

He invaded Russia because, hilariously, this was a lower- risk, lower-cost, better-chances-of-success strategy than trying to win in Spain. The prospects there were so poor that marching to Moscow with 600,000 men and probably losing them all still looked smarter than attempting to defeat Wellington and the forces of Britain, Portugal and Spain. That's how winnable Spain was. That was the corner he'd painted himself into.

If you read modern French historians of the era, this isn't remotely controversial. Not in the least. It's simply the way it is. He assaulted Spain and Russia to try to defeat Britain, because after Trafalgar he had no other way to do so. He knew if he personally went to Spain he'd lose. What was he going to do there that Massena hadn't tried? Nothing. So he sent others to Spain. It cost him 250,000 men. Britain ended the war with 120 000 French prisoners. They would have come in handy at Wagram, at Borodino, at Leipzig…

Invading North Africa again would have shortened the war and hastened his defeat, although it would have made it harder for the Prussians to rescue the cowardly English army on account of it's a long way overland.

Au pas de Charge + 1

Talking about "what if"… among Napoleon's multiple plans that were never carried out… being an Ally of Turkey… from there he could try to invade North Africa and even India…

When Napoleon took charge of his army in Spain… he practically destroyed his Spanish opponents and even Moore's army… if he had tried it again against Wellington… no one can be sure that he would lose as he did at Waterloo. …

At the time, Portugal was completely occupied and in Spain, except for the guerrillas and the Cadiz peninsula, it was almost completely surrendered…

Armand

As far as I know, the purpose of Napoleon's campaign against Russia was to force it to join the sanctions against Great Britain ;-)
Among the secondary goals is the conclusion of a military alliance with Russia for a campaign in India.
That is, the main goal was not Russia – the main goal was the defeat of Great Britain. But as a result of the Continental blockade, to which Russia was forced to join under the treaty of 1808, Russian trade was halved, and the country came to the brink of a huge financial crisis. And Russia violated this blockade agreement.
So, if Napoleon had not attacked Russia, his plans to defeat Great Britain as a result of a continental blockade would have been completely hopeless.

Wrong. Read Ponasenkov's monography. Russias financial crisis was caused not by Continental blocade, which Russia don't followed anyway, violating their agreements as usual, but by building up an enormous invading army – more than a million men.

Marmont1814

If he had sent just Davouts corps 1812 to spain the British would have been gone, Davout was the man to remove the British

They tried, they failed. Davout would have too. He could mess with the rest. But not the best.

Agree Napoleonic era would have lasted longer.

@ Cuprum

the purpose of Napoleon's campaign against Russia was to force it to join the sanctions against Great Britain ;-)

yep

Among the secondary goals is the conclusion of a military alliance with Russia for a campaign in India.

Also aimed at Britain. So both the main and secondary goals were aimed at Britain.

That is, the main goal was not Russia – the main goal was the defeat of Great Britain.

Careful there. You're not allowed to say that here.

@ Sho Boki

Russias financial crisis was caused not by Continental blocade, which Russia don't followed anyway, violating their agreements as usual, but by building up an enormous invading army

How Russia got into financial straits makes no difference to why Napoleon attacked Russia, however. As Cuprum (and every other proper historian) points out, he did so further to his war against Britain.

This desperation that this bespeaks is widely under-appreciated, and not just here. Think about it for a while. Post-Trafalgar, he had been so irretrievably defeated at sea that he could either

1/ rebuild his navy and try to win a naval campaign so as to cross a strip of sea 20 miles wide; or

2/ invade Spain, Portugal, and Russia, and fight in all those places simultaneously, even though Madrid is 2,500 miles from Moscow, while not personally attending to business in Spain himself.

On Planet Bonaparte, noting that by 1811 every last French possession overseas bar none had been taken, option 2 appeared cheaper, easier, and surer of success than 1. Utterly bizarre, yet true.

The Corsican parvenu was totally pwned before he ever set foot in Spain.

Davout was not at its best when being tasked with strategic goals, see the manoeuvre de Vilna et Vitebsk, as well as his failure in 1813 to connect with the Armée de Berlin.

Boney invades Spain, but with what, in case he takes Davout with him, Germany is bare of French units and the Russians will have an easy gain when invading Poland.

"How Russia got into financial straits makes no difference to why Napoleon attacked Russia, however. As Cuprum (and every other proper historian) points out, he did so further to his war against Britain."

It is need to be pointed out, that Russia deliberately violated the agreement of Continental Blockade. Not because of finanancial crisis.
And Napoleon in 1812 just answer to "Special military operation", declared by Russia in 1811. Just as Napoleon did it in 1805, 1806 etc.

At the time, Portugal was completely occupied and in Spain, except for the guerrillas and the Cadiz peninsula, it was almost completely surrendered…

No, the French did not conquer Galicia, Alicante, Cartagena. They did not control Murcia and regions such as Asturias, Cantabria, Alava. In fact, the Spanish Seventh Army was created in those regions.

Spain was a rural country, and a mountainous one. The French never controlled huge areas in Castille, Leon, Navarra, Aragon, Extremadura and Andalusia. It was impossible to have power over Spain.

And the Spanish army, as a whole, never surrendered.

"…Among the secondary goals is the conclusion of a military alliance with Russia for a campaign in India…"

What interesting "what if" for wargame…

Armand

"…Among the secondary goals is the conclusion of a military alliance with Russia for a campaign in India…"

Interesting diplomatic approach.

Elsewhere on this Forum, members are apoplectic about Sir Ridley Scott supposedly playing fast and loose with "history'. I rather prefer his layman's approach to the utter fantasy that so regularly gets trotted out on here.

42flanker, what surprises you?
Remember that a significant part of Napoleon's "Grand Army" were his yesterday's opponents.
Or remember that at the end of World War II, the Romanians, Bulgarians and other former allies of Germany – they fought against it.
Or that today communist Vietnam is actually an ally of the United States…
Realpolitik lives in the present moment – the past remains in the past. It's like a card game – you will play with the cards you receive.

Russia already wanted to invade the Duchy of Warsaw in 1811 – but backed down due to the fact that neither Prussia nor Austria would support it.

I don't see it as a one sided affair as Sho Boki is pointing out, Napoleon eventually invaded first, also he was hell bent for war and started preperations in early 1811.

But in case Napoleon would not invade Russia – he cannot turn to Spain and had to keep a large military force in Europe, his only chance would be change character and become a reasonable man striving for peache.

Shy CR? Wargaming is built around the idea of "what if".
Historical fiction OTOH is supposed to weave the story around actual characters and events.

Elsewhere on this Forum, members are apoplectic about Sir Ridley Scott supposedly playing fast and loose with "history'. I rather prefer his layman's approach to the utter fantasy that so regularly gets trotted out on here.

Perhaps you should start your own Napoleonic Forum and then to keep it accurate you could tell everyone what to say.

Still, it must be vexing that in contradistinction to the 300,00 books on the subject, it's only you and a dozen others who know the real truth about how Britain delivered us from Napoleon.

But he did so that's the end of it.

"Wargaming is built around the idea of "what if"."
Now there's a topic for a thread. Not the way I view it.