Theories of how Napoleon would have been triumphant

[WarGod]

I read alot of 19th century warfare. I also read alot of napoleon and his victories. But I always had this question what if he never invaded Russia. lets say napoleon did these things: He used that huge force instead of invading russia but to crush Spainish rebels.
He did not send a huge force in Haiti to fight the black rebels.
How would europe be different? What would happen to Great Britain? Would they pressure Russia to open an eastern front? What you guys think?

 

[riksavage]

I read alot of 19th century warfare. I also read alot of napoleon and his victories. But I always had this question what if he never invaded Russia. lets say napoleon did these things: He used that huge force instead of invading russia but to crush Spainish rebels.
He did not send a huge force in Haiti to fight the black rebels.
How would europe be different? What would happen to Great Britain? Would they pressure Russia to open an eastern front? What you guys think?

The British Empire grew out of the ashes of Imperial France. With the demise of Napoleon The Royal Navy was free to dominate the worlds sea lanes ultimately leading to the expansion of the British Empire, with the noted exception of North America, where the Seven Years War (British defeat of the French) sowed the seeds of the American War of Independence.

Also a critical factor was the Industrial Revolution in England - Napoleon actually unknowingly contributed to the British War effort, his troops uniforms were made from cotton material woven in English mills.

 

[Twickiwi]

The British Empire grew out of the ashes of Imperial France. With the demise of Napoleon The Royal Navy was free to dominate the worlds sea lanes ultimately leading to the expansion of the British Empire, with the noted exception of North America, where the Seven Years War (British defeat of the French) sowed the seeds of the American War of Independence.

Also a critical factor was the Industrial Revolution in England - Napoleon actually unknowingly contributed to the British War effort, his troops uniforms were made from cotton material woven in English mills.

Napoleon was strategically focused on continental Europe, in the same way the Bourbons had been, only more so. His sanctioning of the Louisiana Purchase shows he wasn't interested in a French global empire that much and the concept of La France Outre Mer is a late 19th Century concept maybe fed by envy of the British. We tend to think of the British Empire as a huge success for the British, but we have the benefit of hindsight.

Most early 19th Century europeans considered the real action as taking place in Europe and the future inexorably being Eurocentric. Also after a golden age of Indian exploitation, the Empire proved more cost than it was worth hence the imperial going out of business sale 1945-1980 of management takeovers and share-splits: decolonialisation. Napoleon's cost-benefit analysis of French-America was sound if not ultimately correct.

Napoleon's defining characteristic (which he shared with Hitler) was that his ambitions expanded with success. If he hadn't been so successful at Austerlitz maybe he could have come to an arrangement with the Prussians and Austrians and eventually achieved detente with the British and split the difference in the Iberian Peninsular.

Alternatively he could have undergone a personality transplant and settled for politically dominating the Western Meditereanean and Rhineland, rather than setting up Spain, Italy and Western Germany as vassal states. It would have needed a personality transplant because Napoleon always favoured radical strategies (something else he shared with Hitler).

 

[chukahleong]

The history of Napoleon Bonaparte actually stated that Napoleon favored Tsar Alexander I in his campaigns and did not wish to invade Russia. The negotiations and meetings he held with Alexander I brought about the agreement that Napoleon would not attack Russia, as long as Russia ceased trade with Great Britain instantly. Alexander I agreed at first, but secretly traded with Britain as Russia's poor economy badly needed a boost. Napoleon soon found out and was really angry, thus leading to the invasion of Russia.

If Napoleon hadn't invaded Russia, and instead focused his Grande Armee powers on the invasion of Spain, things would've turned out quite differently. The Russians exploited the Grande Armee's weaknesses by burning the ground so as to prevent the French from obtaining food sources naturally, and also delaying the French advance so that they can suffer from the Russian winter. Moreover, Napoleon made a fatal flaw in his Russian campaigns by directly assaulting Moscow, without knowing that Russia's administration system was actually comprised of smaller governmental bodies that were stationed in various cities and districts scattered all over the nation. As a result, his conquer of Moscow did not harm the armies of Russia much, except to hamper its morale by a little.

The Haiti Revolution caused Napoleon to immediately detach large portions of his army to repel the Haitian rebellion. If the Haitians had not rebelled, Napoleon, of course could have focused his entire army bulk on the conquest of Europe.

 

[ambrose]

Most likely, the seeds of defeat were planted during his lightening rise.

Like many, he was both successful and lost because he couldn't stop. Were he a more measured person, we may never have heard of him.

yin/yang

 

[riksavage]

Most likely, the seeds of defeat were planted during his lightening rise.

Like many, he was both successful and lost because he couldn't stop. Were he a more measured person, we may never have heard of him.

yin/yang

Napoleon was always living on borrowed time, even if he had decided not to launch an attack against Russia when he did. Sooner or later he would have had to move east to neutralise that threat and subsequently suffer the same fate - extended supply lines and horrendous winters.

Britain was always playing devils advocate financing and supporting nations prepared to ally against Napoleon, they remained the constant thorn in his side and he never truly appreciated the importance of sea power and its impact on trade, even after the battle of the Nile and failed Egyptian adventure. The growing industrial revolution would have also played a critical factor, Britain was driving global trade to feed its own cotton mills, which would always lead to eventual confrontation with France over influence in Africa, Asia and North America.

Napoleon also suffered from an inescapable geographical weakness, he would always be surrounded by potential enemies on land and sea, Britain to the west, Spain and Portugal to the South, Prussia and Russia to the east. He could never hope to defeat all five in such a dramatic fashion as to render future resistance an improbability.

His brilliance was in decline even before Waterloo and there was no one in his entourage capable of filling his boots. Subsequent Napoleans where weak and poor leaders by comparison, leading to the ultimate disaster at the battle of Sedan and Paris commune uprising.

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

It was a logistical mistake.

Although Napolean could logistically field a superior force into Russia. Russia could not do the same opposite.

Napolean failed to realise that Russia had limited ability to move a significant force into Europe. The French combined armies could have defeated a Russian invasion into poland. Such an invasion could not have been supported by the British as the British fleet had to traverse past the narrow straits of Denmark.

Maintaining Poland and Austria-Hungary, could have forged a defensive bulwark against Russian aggression. Hence the Russian campaign was irrelevant and a mistake as there was no grand objective.

Britain was over-estimated. The British army could never field a large army. Even at Waterloo, the combined armies were only ~120k strong. If Britain had focussed on the Mediterranean, France could have moved larger forces through Italy faster with British having a far longer SLOC. Any British intervention could not match a French build-up and occupation would have been temporary. Britain was also diverted in the US.

The French invasion force of Russia was ~690k. With such a force, France could have maintained supremacy over/suppressed Prussia and Spain for far longer. Waterloo would have been entirely one-sided in French favour.

With hindsight, France could have continued ship-building to eventually overwhelm the British fleet. It would have been slower but inevitably successful. Getting whacked 22-0 at Trafalgar was a big blow but no more Nelson. Napolean was not a patient man.

 

[riksavage]

It was a logistical mistake.

Although Napolean could logistically field a superior force into Russia. Russia could not do the same opposite.

Napolean failed to realise that Russia had limited ability to move a significant force into Europe. The French combined armies could have defeated a Russian invasion into poland. Such an invasion could not have been supported by the British as the British fleet had to traverse past the narrow straits of Denmark.

Maintaining Poland and Austria-Hungary, could have forged a defensive bulwark against Russian aggression. Hence the Russian campaign was irrelevant and a mistake as there was no grand objective.

Britain was over-estimated. The British army could never field a large army. Even at Waterloo, the combined armies were only ~120k strong. If Britain had focussed on the Mediterranean, France could have moved larger forces through Italy faster with British having a far longer SLOC. Any British intervention could not match a French build-up and occupation would have been temporary. Britain was also diverted in the US.

The French invasion force of Russia was ~690k. With such a force, France could have maintained supremacy over/suppressed Prussia and Spain for far longer. Waterloo would have been entirely one-sided in French favour.

With hindsight, France could have continued ship-building to eventually overwhelm the British fleet. It would have been slower but inevitably successful. Getting whacked 22-0 at Trafalgar was a big blow but no more Nelson. Napolean was not a patient man.

Hindsight is a wonderful thing!

The issue of the French fleet was never one of numbers, it was one of training and time spent at sea. For every broadside a French ship could fire the British could fire two. The French also didn't press gang sailors, so their fleets were never fully manned. The English blockade was very good at keeping the enemy fleets pinned inshore. One blockading English captain spent a total of five years at sea without stepping ashore, he relied on supply ships to keep him and his crew on station, even when he went to port he refused to leave the ship! The British blockade stopped the French/Spanish ships from getting any sea time in, hence they where hammered at the Nile and Trafalgar even though their fleets were larger.

The sea battles Britain won led to her Empire, not mainland European land battles. As long as the Britain maintained a 'wooden wall' old Bony could do absolutely nothing. In a worst case scenario Britain would have kept agitating and funding resistance on the continent forcing Bonaparte to continue deploying resources to fight asymmetrical campaigns like the ones in Spain and Portugal. The Portuguese and Spanish guerillas were the Taliban of the day, captured French officers weren't beheaded but hung upside down from trees and then sawn in half starting at the groan moving downwards - ouch!

 

[weasel1962]

Re:

Hindsight is a wonderful thing!

Hindsight is 20/20 but...

Hitler made the same mistake with some hindsight. He assumed Russia would eventually attack Germany and chose to whack them first.

The likelihood of US, Britain and Russia forging an alliance in 1941 was small.

In 1941, if Hitler had focussed in using his armoured force in 1940/41 North Africa and then the middle east, he may have forced the Balkans and Turkey to join the axis. It would have secured vital oil supplies, take India out of the war, restricting Britain to a secondary role. At the same time, the added threat to the Russian soft under-belly would have complicated the possibility of Russian intervention whilst building a bigger coalition.

Stalin would have gained time building his forces but he would have tot thrice before launching a pre-emptive attack considering the lessons of the earlier finnish campaign.

Instead, Hitler tot that mechanization was the solution assuming that Napolean's strategy was correct ie Russia could be defeated. He did not benefit from history.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxx

Separately, even if the French couldn't gain sea mastery, it would have forced Britain to focus on the sea battle rather than the land.