What If?

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Didn't he take Egypt ?

He did but he ultimately lost if after the Ottomans and Britains pushed him out.

He couldn't really support an invasion of Egypt through sea because the British held naval power. My idea is to conquer it by land, marching down the Mid East from Turkey.

 

[Verbose]

Couldn't Napoleon have knocked out the British if he had kept to one of his earlier plans, except going at it from a diffrent approach.

Instread of striking at Russia. Couldn't Napoleon just have attacked the Ottomans, secure the Bosporus. Cross over into Asia, march into India while seizing Egypt...

Im not a tactician but if I recall Egypt was largely depended on by the Britians so they could get riches from Asia. This would have cut them off from their riches and then they might have been able to take India itself...

Without Indian Riches such as silver the British would not have been able to support their navy and things would only fall apart from there.

Does this sound realistic or does it just sound like BS.

Probabaly no more BS than what Napoleon thought. The difference might be his bolder plan of exceution — take Egypt as a forward base, go for India, if necessary take on the Ottomans on the way. It's a much shorter route than going from the Illyrian provinces straigth through the Ottomans. And I believe he was expecting the conquered territories to mostly feed the army anyway, which is what was done after all. Communications and reinfrocements were shot to hell though.

In 1798 he could get an expeditionary force for Egypt — to keep him out of domestic politics — but there is no way general Bonaparte would have been able to marshall the resources of all of revolutionary France necessary for a war with the Ottomans.

Oh, and Britian wasn't involved in Egypt just yet. That came only later. Going around the Cape of Good Hope was still the way to do it.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

In 1798 he could get an expeditionary force for Egypt — to keep him out of domestic politics — but there is no way general Bonaparte would have been able to marshall the resources of all of revolutionary France necessary for a war with the Ottomans.

And yet he was bold enough to gather resources for war with Russia. Napoleon, in the end it seemed, was a dumbass. If he was gonna attack Russia he could have atleast gone after St. Petersburg, he was attacking the wrong capital city.

And from what I recall, Napoleon's logistics weren't as poorly planned as most would believe, but when your trying to supply an army of 600,000 men, you need a bit more then a couple of extra wagons, most of which would probably be lost once the snow began to fall.

 

[Verbose]

And yet he was bold enough to gather resources for war with Russia. Napoleon, in the end it seemed, was a dumbass. If he was gonna attack Russia he could have atleast gone after St. Petersburg, he was attacking the wrong capital city.

You can do things like that when you are Napoleon I, Emperor of France.

In 1798 it was still only general Bonaparte, even if he was the toast of the revolutionary armies. I mean, Bernadotte could still challenge him for glory and political influence all on his own.
Napoleon was also a bit of a hot potato for the people in charge. A nice, limited little war in some romantically distant place was just the thing to unburden themselves of the presence in Paris of this young general, they decided.

Makes for a bit of difference.

As for the Russian campaign, Napoleon was hoping for a quick war, where the Russians would march out of Russia, line up, and be defeated. After which him and Alexander would make a treaty, the important part of which would be to attempt the financial strangulation of Britain.

It's possible the massiveness of the Grande Armée worked against Napoleon on this. Instead of showing up like good lads, the Russian armies, their commanders unable to envisage how to successfully fight such a monster, started retreating. (They felt truly ashamed of this course of action.) So Napoleon decided he had to go in and find them, which turned out to be the big mistake.

The time between the declaration of war and the capture of Moscow was only some 50 days. For an army walking there, it's a pretty speedy war. Since the objective is to find and defeat the enemy forces, if they don't retreat towards St. Petersburg, you won't be going there.

Of course, it's daft to invade Russia with no real plan, but it seems that was pretty much what Napoleon did in the summer or 1812.

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

You can do things like that when you are Napoleon I, Emperor of France.

In 1798 it was still only general Bonaparte, even if he was the toast of the revolutionary armies. I mean, Bernadotte could still challenge him for glory and political influence all on his own.
Napoleon was also a bit of a hot potato for the people in charge. A nice, limited little war in some romantically distant place was just the thing to unburden themselves of the presence in Paris of this young general, they decided.

Makes for a bit of difference.

As for the Russian campaign, Napoleon was hoping for a quick war, where the Russians would march out of Russia, line up, and be defeated. After which him and Alexander would make a treaty, the important part of which would be to attempt the financial strangulation of Britain.

It's possible the massiveness of the Grande Armée worked against Napoleon on this. Instead of showing up like good lads, the Russian armies, their commanders unable to envisage how to successfully fight such a monster, started retreating. (They felt truly ashamed of this course of action.) So Napoleon decided he had to go in and find them, which turned out to be the big mistake.

The time between the declaration of war and the capture of Moscow was only some 50 days. For an army walking there, it's a pretty speedy war. Since the objective is to find and defeat the enemy forces, if they don't retreat towards St. Petersburg, you won't be going there.

Of course, it's daft to invade Russia with no real plan, but it seems that was pretty much what Napoleon did in the summer or 1812.

True. But it was foolish of Napoleon to strike at Moscow. I can understand how he could see it as a major symbol to the Russian people, but it was sheer maddnes to think he would get peace if he took Moscow.

Napoleon should have also realized he was making the mistake made by Charles of Sweden, he expected the Russians to fight, not retreat. and in the end, Napoleon should have realized that even if he took Russia, he would still have to supply his troops. Even if Moscow wasn't burnt, he should know the Russians probably wouldn't leave much, if any supplies behind.

And there, it all comes out in the end, he is stuck in the belly of the beast, in the center of Russia with General Winter closing in.

Napoleon made the speedy war, but like I said, he hit the wrong capital. Surely striking along the Baltic coast would have been an easier choice.

 

[Verbose]

Napoleon made the speedy war, but like I said, he hit the wrong capital. Surely striking along the Baltic coast would have been an easier choice.

Dunno'. Maybe not if the bulk of the Russian army is retreating east. If you got north, what's to prevent it from hitting you line of supply?

It's not as if he would have been able to supply his army by sea in the winter of 1812. And even if St Petersburg had been captured, what's to say the Russian emperor would make peace anyome than over Moscow?

 

[BEHIND_THE_MASK]

Dunno'. Maybe not if the bulk of the Russian army is retreating east. If you got north, what's to prevent it from hitting you line of supply?

It's not as if he would have been able to supply his army by sea in the winter of 1812. And even if St Petersburg had been captured, what's to say the Russian emperor would make peace anyome than over Moscow?

The diffrnece is that taking St. Petersburg also opens you up to another faction. The Swedes. If you can threaten the Swede's you might be able to get them to withdraw naval support to Britian and if you can make them allies you might get their naval support.

I dont know. I've been up all night and I've nearly reached my limit in Vodka.

 

[Vietcong]

i wonder how difrent the modren world whould be if the persians conqured greece.

 

[BCLG100]

There was actually that story in the book i was reading, though for the life of me i can't recall the answe off the top of my head.

 

[Vietcong]

the reality of it is, very few if any hisoric evens impat us today, unless thay hapend recently. the events of ww2 can be felt now, but how are the events of 3 thousand years ago felt now?? the fact of the matter is, the persians whould have been stoped some whear eals down the line if not in greece, and i imagin not far from it. the muslim invasion of france if not defented in the 750s whould have been defented probly in the 760s, its not realy like if thay won the battle all of europe whould have been overrun.
im starting to think the events of 1000 years ago matter litle now.

 

[ParkCungHee]

Here's one I was pondering the other day. Suppose Genoa never sold Corsica to France, and Napoleon was born Italian?

 

[Vietcong]

recent enofe history to matter in the modren world and inpact it.. im not sure, he might have died in obscurity, or he might have become emperor of the newly reistablished roman empire lol

i can see him doing that.

 

[aronnax]

Is it me or do or the wacky tryants trying to take over Europe end up losing in the midst of Russian winter?


And if Napoleon was Italian, He may unified Italy......along with Austria, Germany and france. If he ever touched a sword that is.

 

[Steph]

And if Napoleon was Italian, He may unified Italy......along with Austria, Germany and france. If he ever touched a sword that is.

Well, he did not did what he did by touching a sword very often, did he?

 

[BCLG100]

the reality of it is, very few if any hisoric evens impat us today, unless thay hapend recently. the events of ww2 can be felt now, but how are the events of 3 thousand years ago felt now?? the fact of the matter is, the persians whould have been stoped some whear eals down the line if not in greece, and i imagin not far from it. the muslim invasion of france if not defented in the 750s whould have been defented probly in the 760s, its not realy like if thay won the battle all of europe whould have been overrun.
im starting to think the events of 1000 years ago matter litle now.

I disagree completly, you say these things would have happened if the initial thing had not of happened, for what reason?

what if genghis khans grandson(?) had not of died just as the troops were approaching vienna, the whole of Europe would have been ravaged, all the kings and princes were to busy arguing with each other to stop the Mongol advance.

I would urge you to read the book, as it also says what happens if that was the case with muslim invasion and i don't know enough about the subject without being able to plagarise the whole thing.