Napoleonic Wars discussion.

[Flying Pig]

This is the problem with looking at history and finding parallels. You end up finding some details - often quite important details - that look similar. Then you look harder, and find things that don't match up. You then spend your time either arguing into the wind that they do in fact match, or trying to change the details of one or both case studies, or trying to argue that those details weren't particularly important in either the past or the present. However it actually goes, by the end you've rarely got anything that's of any use, particularly for the sort of 'learning from history' that people who try to push those comparisons are usually looking for.

 

[jackelgull]

Equating the Muslim Brotherhood to the Great Terror, the CPS, and Robespierre seems intellectually suspect.
Also doesn't work because Sisi is cut from the same cloth as Mubarak. Napoleon, despite being the Corsican Anti-Christ, was emphatically not in continuity with the Ancien Regime. Napoleon simply couldn't comprehend of an existence where he wasn't at war with someone. The Prussian, Russian, and Austrian Monarchies kept struggling with that aspect of Napoleon. After Austerlitz and Jenna, Napoleon and whoever the Tsar was basically ruled continental Europe with the British largely sidelined. The Tsar thought everything was good, he had a friendship with Napoleon, and things in Europe would go back to normal-ish. Nope, Nappy decided to invade Russia for reasons that were unclear at best.

Knowing Napolean it was only really a matter of playing a game of diplomatic darts that resulted in the invasion of Russia. In some alternate timeline, Napolean invaded Egypt again with 20,000 men, killed the then working on his power base Muhammed Ali Pasha (And thus staving off Ottoman decline, although no war with Russia leaves 1812 Ottomans in a bad spot) before promptly dying of malaria and leading to some more capable diplomat turning the cards France held into virtual dominance of the continent for the next couple of decades.

(Although I'm curious whether the Bonaparte dynasty would've continued or not)

 

[Gen.Mannerheim]

(Although I'm curious whether the Bonaparte dynasty would've continued or not)

I'd give at a better than 50/50 shot in such a timeline. While it is tempting to imagine an Alexander style successor states situation, by the 19th century I find that less likely. If the Allies hadn't militarily defeated the French, then it would not be in a position to demand the removal of the Monarch. Further, this isn't 1918 where the Allies would be keen on removing the monarch anyway, however there would be interest in a Bourbon Restoration. Now do the French stick with a baby Napoleon II or do Joseph & Jerome make a play for the thrones either militarily or politically?

 

[innonimatu]

Knowing Napolean it was only really a matter of playing a game of diplomatic darts that resulted in the invasion of Russia. In some alternate timeline, Napolean invaded Egypt again with 20,000 men, killed the then working on his power base Muhammed Ali Pasha (And thus staving off Ottoman decline, although no war with Russia leaves 1812 Ottomans in a bad spot) before promptly dying of malaria and leading to some more capable diplomat turning the cards France held into virtual dominance of the continent for the next couple of decades.

I don't think France held any good cards even by 1812. It was the invasion of Russia that caused the final destruction of the French Empire under Napoleon, but the rot had already set. Despite his continuous pillaging of western Europe and recruitment of soldeirs, the french were unable to keep the usurper Joseph in the spanish throne and sufferent one defeat after another in a territory right next to France. Traitorous supporters of the french throughout the conquered lands were reviled (except among the poles).
Without an invasion of Russia the french would face continuous rebellions within their empire. Collapse would happen anyway, at most some three or four years later. France simply lacked the logistics to keep armies of occupation in all those territories. This was in reality the reason why the allies did not partition France among them (as was done after the defeat of the 20th century imitator of Napoleon in Germany), instead choosing to "pardon" and co-opt it, must have been the same: they lacked the ability to keep armies of occupation in France for long.

 

[Tahuti]

I don't think France held any good cards even by 1812. It was the invasion of Russia that caused the final destruction of the French Empire under Napoleon, but the rot had already set. Despite his continuous pillaging of western Europe and recruitment of soldeirs, the french were unable to keep the usurper Joseph in the spanish throne and sufferent one defeat after another in a territory right next to France. Traitorous supporters of the french throughout the conquered lands were reviled (except among the poles).
Without an invasion of Russia the french would face continuous rebellions within their empire. Collapse would happen anyway, at most some three or four years later. France simply lacked the logistics to keep armies of occupation in all those territories. This was in reality the reason why the allies did not partition France among them (as was done after the defeat of the 20th century imitator of Napoleon in Germany), instead choosing to "pardon" and co-opt it, must have been the same: they lacked the ability to keep armies of occupation in France for long.

You don't think a French-led Vienna conference would have been possible if Napoleon did not decide to invade Russia? The Napoleonic puppet dynasties seemed to be pretty well able to function autonomously of France. Consider Louis Napoleon's rule over Holland, who did not blindly follow France to earn the respect of the Dutch. I believe a similar situation was true for Naples regarding Joachim Murat.

 

[innonimatu]

I can tell you that it could not happen in Spain, which was already one of Napoleon's big mistakes, one he could not resolve in any way. Leave and he'd have a(nother) big enemy right next to his Franch Empire. Remain and the fighting there would bleed France's finances and manpower just a little slower than the russian campaign did, ultimately undermining public approval of the self-styled emperor and his court. The allies fighting against Napoleon (certainly the british) knew this and would jump in again as soon as he was sufficiently weakened, even if a temporary settlement had been reached.

He was doomed from the moment he turned Spain from a reluctant ally into determined enemies. Stupidly overturning a century of french foreign policy in the process.

 

[Hrothbern]

Perhaps it played a role that Napoleon was not French, but a Corsican from Italian roots.
Already in 1755 Corsica became a Republic with a constitution based on the Enlightenment before the USA and France.
He got his military training in France, he fulfilled every military task with great success (Italian campaign etc)
He became popular !

The first country Napoleon "conquered" was France.

I doubt that Napoleon was really going for the best interests of France.

I think that the two main drivers of Napoleon were the spreading of the Enlightenment based constitutional Republic and his own glory.
That created a man that saw no borders in any other respect.

 

[Tahuti]

I can tell you that it could not happen in Spain, which was already one of Napoleon's big mistakes, one he could not resolve in any way. Leave and he'd have a(nother) big enemy right next to his Franch Empire. Remain and the fighting there would bleed France's finances and manpower just a little slower than the russian campaign did, ultimately undermining public approval of the self-styled emperor and his court. The allies fighting against Napoleon (certainly the british) knew this and would jump in again as soon as he was sufficiently weakened, even if a temporary settlement had been reached.

He was doomed from the moment he turned Spain from a reluctant ally into determined enemies. Stupidly overturning a century of french foreign policy in the process.

To be fair to Nappy, Spain was becoming increasingly impotent anyway. It's South American colonies were already breaking away, so that would make a less interesting ally to recruit for the Allies, though more interesting for Napoleon.