|
|
Post by justiniano on May 13, 2022 14:58:58 GMT
Napoleon sells Saint-Domingue in 1799 (shortly after he becomes consul) to the U.S. (keep in mind this was before the slaves or ex-slaves had liberated most of Haiti so the US could put down their revolt) and uses the money for what he used the money from the Louisiana purchase for. Then after his loss at Trafalgar he makes the Louisiana purchase and uses the money to reform the navy so that it can stand up to the British RN. Then shortly before Britain tries to blockade Russia (which is what lead to Czar Alexey betraying napoleon) France uses it's bigger and better navy to relieve Russia of just enough pressure to keep Russia allied to it, and if that's not enough instead of having the duchy of Warsaw he has Poland divided between the parts of his Prussian empire and Russia, like what the Nazis and soviets did. And Napoleon doesn't promulgate the Bayonne statute at all, which will prevent MANY of the Spanish from rebelling . And last but not least instead of making places that would later betray him client states (like Sweden & Naples), he straight up annexes them. What happens next?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853 
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on May 14, 2022 15:18:26 GMT
Napoleon sells Saint-Domingue in 1799 (shortly after he becomes consul) to the U.S. (keep in mind this was before the slaves or ex-slaves had liberated most of Haiti so the US could put down their revolt) and uses the money for what he used the money from the Louisiana purchase for. Then after his loss at Trafalgar he makes the Louisiana purchase and uses the money to reform the navy so that it can stand up to the British RN. Then shortly before Britain tries to blockade Russia (which is what lead to Czar Alexey betraying napoleon) France uses it's bigger and better navy to relieve Russia of just enough pressure to keep Russia allied to it, and if that's not enough instead of having the duchy of Warsaw he has Poland divided between the parts of his Prussian empire and Russia, like what the Nazis and soviets did. And Napoleon doesn't promulgate the Bayonne statute at all, which will prevent MANY of the Spanish from rebelling . And last but not least instead of making places that would later betray him client states (like Sweden & Naples), he straight up annexes them. What happens next?
Its possible that he could sell Saint-Domingue, preferably before he loses most of the army sent there. However since he wanted to regain it both because it was a rich colony and because it was a loss of face for France that the rebels were able to resist him so long. I'm not sure that the US government as a whole would be that interested in the island rather than Louisiana. Plus if he keeps Louisiana until after he resumes the war with Britain its likely to be a target for Britain, especially New Orleans.
Also you need more than money to rebuild a fleet. It also needs decent ships and well trained men, both officers and sailors and time and ability to train them. Napoleon didn't have the patience for naval warfare nor an understanding of how it was less predictable than war on land, especially with the reliance on the weather. Furthermore with the tightness of the British blockade his ships were unable to see service, which meant the men couldn't be properly trained. This has sometimes been an issue in the 18thC for France but was far worse now.
Furthermore if your referring to the period shortly prior to the French invasion on 1812 what caused Russia to break with France wasn't the British blockade but the French one. Under the agreements signed at Tilsit Russia agree to join Napoleon's ban on British exports. However this was ruinous for Russia as with many other countries because Britain both had the most advanced industrial technology and also an increasing domination of imports from beyond Europe. Which was why smuggling was so prevalent across the Napoleonic controlled lands and a major reason for his expansion of France in 1810 to annex the Netherlands, much of coastal NW German and the Illyrcium region it had taken from Austria as he thought he could more strictly restrict smuggling if the territories were under direct French control. This didn't work and further alienated the local population. It didn't help his case that Napoleon himself was willing to issue exemptions when it suited him, such as one time he allowed the import of large numbers of boots from England for his army.
The partition of Poland between Prussia and Russia might have eased tension with those two nations but would have caused unrest in Poland which was one of the nations that stayed loyal to him at the end. It would probably have sent shock waves around Europe as he did when he annexed the Netherlands or overthrew the Bourbons in Spain. Furthermore the jinni of nationalism which had been spread by the French Revolution from a relatively small base was spreading and Napoleon's growing autocracy increasingly clashed with that.
He didn't actually ever control Sweden, due in part to the RN. What happened there was that Sweden needed a new king after the last dynasty ended - the monarch having by some accounts gone insane before he died IIRC. They had briefly had encounters with Bernadette who was a French field-Marshall and on the basis of that offered him the job. Napoleon might have banned him from taking it, which would definitely have alienated him but the Swedes would have simply looked for an alternative king and it wouldn't have been Napoleon.
Napoleon could avoid the displacement of the Bourbons in Spain, which was a major error on his part. However what could he do instead? Spain was increasingly opposed to supporting his continuous wars, especially with the heavy losses at sea and the monarchy was incompetent and increasingly unpopular. The heir was more popular I think simply because Spaniard's simply knew less about him and his character flaws. Neither would have been able to sustain an effective Spanish war effort but I agree that his assumption he could just seize the throne for his brother - in part a sign of his increasing detachment from reality - was a very bad error.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on May 14, 2022 16:39:13 GMT
you need more than money to rebuild a fleet. It also needs decent ships and well trained men, both officers and sailors and time and ability to train them. Napoleon didn't have the patience for naval warfare nor an understanding of how it was less predictable than war on land, especially with the reliance on the weather. Furthermore with the tightness of the British blockade his ships were unable to see service, which meant the men couldn't be properly trained. He can train them in lakes or use the money to build ships and hire mercenaries, perhaps pirates. Also the 2 years in-between the battle of trafalgar and second battle of copenhagen is enough to relieve enough pressure to keep Russia as an ally (In combination with warsaw) for a longer time. What happened there was that Sweden needed a new king after the last dynasty ended - the monarch having by some accounts gone insane before he died IIRC. They had briefly had encounters with Bernadette who was a French field-Marshall and on the basis of that offered him the job. Napoleon could offer him money to surrender Sweden's independence to him(to napoleon) |
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on May 14, 2022 16:40:36 GMT
if he keeps Louisiana until after he resumes the war with Britain its likely to be a target for Britain, especially New Orleans. America would use the monroe doctrine to protect it. Especially since they'd have a larger navy after purchasing saint-domingue. |
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on May 15, 2022 16:57:30 GMT
if he keeps Louisiana until after he resumes the war with Britain its likely to be a target for Britain, especially New Orleans. America would use the monroe doctrine to protect it. Especially since they'd have a larger navy after purchasing saint-domingue.
The Monroe doctrine, which was simply a bombastic statement by a politician who had decided he would gain prestige for something he knew that Britain would do - i.e. prevent the reactionary powers intervene to try and restore Spanish rule in their colonies - didn't even exist at this time. It didn't mean s**t until after the USCW. .
Plus if the US does purchase and try and occupy saint-domingue they need to control it which is likely to take a lot of men, lives especially to disease and money so they could end up with an even smaller fleet than OTL.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Posts: 24,853
Likes: 13,235
|
Post by stevep on May 15, 2022 17:02:42 GMT
you need more than money to rebuild a fleet. It also needs decent ships and well trained men, both officers and sailors and time and ability to train them. Napoleon didn't have the patience for naval warfare nor an understanding of how it was less predictable than war on land, especially with the reliance on the weather. Furthermore with the tightness of the British blockade his ships were unable to see service, which meant the men couldn't be properly trained. He can train them in lakes or use the money to build ships and hire mercenaries, perhaps pirates. Also the 2 years in-between the battle of trafalgar and second battle of copenhagen is enough to relieve enough pressure to keep Russia as an ally (In combination with warsaw) for a longer time. What happened there was that Sweden needed a new king after the last dynasty ended - the monarch having by some accounts gone insane before he died IIRC. They had briefly had encounters with Bernadette who was a French field-Marshall and on the basis of that offered him the job. Napoleon could offer him money to surrender Sweden's independence to him(to napoleon)
Are there any lakes in France - even under its 1812 borders - large enough to allow ships of the line to actually sail, let alone they would have no real experience of rough weather in such a lake? Plus then how does he move those ships from the said lakes to the ocean? Plus Napoleon never really understood navies or even any operation on the water nor really had the patience for such a long term and expensive project.
The years immediately after Trafalgar are when Napoleon's naval strength - in numerical terms rather than quality - is when France was at its weakest.
If Bearnadette was tempted by an attempt to sell Sweden to Napoleon, even if the latter was willing to make such an offer - the Swedes would be looking for a new king again.  |
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on May 15, 2022 20:59:07 GMT
Are there any lakes in France - even under its 1812 borders - large enough to allow ships of the line to actually sail, let alone they would have no real experience of rough weather in such a lake? Plus then how does he move those ships from the said lakes to the ocean? Since Russia is his Ally he can use the Caspian Sea. And they move them to the ocean like this Plus Napoleon never really understood navies or even any operation on the water nor really had the patience for such a long term and expensive project. He would have an admiral to take care of that for him |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 5,841
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 15, 2022 22:22:20 GMT
You are trying to cram too many WIs into one thread in the supposition that they naturally lead to the next.
They do not.
Up until you mention Trafalgar, you are on a good wicket, but then, as Steve says, lose it with the most sweeping of statements.
You make reference to the Monroe Doctrine…before it was promulgated.
Your very last post says it all: He would have an admiral to take care of that for him.
That isn’t how seapower, navies, admirals or national strategy work. You seem to have a fairly simplistic computer game style understanding of these matters. How old are you? If it is a matter of youth, that understanding will develop in time with the right books.
|
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 5,841
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 15, 2022 22:26:36 GMT
Further: It is great that you have an interest in history, but to make the most of it, you need to develop that into an understanding. This comes with knowledge of facts, issues, themes and trends, which would help you understand, for example, the lack of a role of mercenaries and pirates in the naval war of the Napoleonic period.
- Ask as many questions as you can, as there is a good knowledge base here.
- Go for fewer WIs until you have a better grasp of eras and issues in preference to outright discussion questions and AHCs.
Edit: As an example, why on Earth would you think that a modern crane launch of the like in the video would be of any utility to the construction of wooden ships of the line in pre-industrial France? The mention of the Caspian Sea suggests that you are either joking or seriously ill-informed.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on May 17, 2022 17:33:41 GMT
You are trying to cram too many WIs into one thread in the supposition that they naturally lead to the next. They do not. I never said they do. I crammed them all into this thread because I think they would lead to Napoleon successfully aligning himself with and subjugating more of Europe. Your very last post says it all: He would have an admiral to take care of that for him. That isn’t how seapower, navies, admirals or national strategy work. Ok, then since I'm wrong you tell me how it works and why Napoleon would have to be Emperor and his own admiral. why on Earth would you think that a modern crane launch of the like in the video would be of any utility to the construction of wooden ships of the line in pre-industrial France? I never said anything about the construction of ships in that post, just the transportation of them. You can do very similar things to move the ship on and off land |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 5,841
|
Post by simon darkshade on May 17, 2022 18:38:14 GMT
1.) That amounts to you introducing multiple PoDs which do not follow from an original action or change. They are better separated and examined in their own right. If your end game requires 5 completely separate PoDs to roll on in concert, then you need to rethink the entire scenario. It isn’t alternate history at that point.
2.) Zounds! You’re not asking for much.
Here comes the quick version as it is getting on in the wee hours:
- Boney had admirals, many of them. They were not responsible for France’s grand strategy of how to be able to challenge the RN over 25 years, as the sheer scale of the task hadn’t been contemplated or even understood. Their role was to lead fleets and squadrons, not to craft the real grand strategy required of the French Empire; Bonaparte wasn’t the flashiest bloke when it came to the very big picture on land either, by the by. One of the greatest captains of all time, a master of the battlefield and an adept touch at strategy, but his big canvas moves featured some rather significant stuff ups.
Seapower is the art of how fleets are used in war and peace. Boney was a self confessed land animal and it showed.
Saying that a leader would ‘have a general or admiral take care of it for him’ isn’t technically incorrect, but it is a big oversimplification of a complex issue. FDR sort of had generalS and admiralS take care of the challenges of winning WW2 for him, but that is a very simplified way of rendering a much larger picture.
The simple version of the 1803-1815 French situation is that Britain is well in front navally, can build more and better ships, has more advanced industry which is just starting to play a part, has a more successful naval tradition and esprit de corps and can outspend France despite having fewer people due to considerable advantages in finance. They can blockade by virtue of position with more success than France can have in closing the Continent to British trade. They have a degree of strategic mobility and choice that is difficult to counter until landed. Finally, even after the death of Nelson, the RN was very well supplied with an array of captains and admirals who were superior to the French.
3.) You were the one that included that video in a quite bizarre point about the Caspian Sea (!). How are ships built in Lorient, Brest, Antwerp and Toulouse supposed to make it to the Caspian Sea when the first sort of link was the Volga-Don Canal of 1952?
French wooden ships of the line and frigates were built on slips and launched conventionally, as were British and all other ones at this time. They weren’t moved over land, with the exception of much smaller vessels that don’t come under the classification of major warships. Can we have some examples of 1st, 2nd or 3rd rates being moved overland for significant distances? I can’t think of any.
I would suggest that it might be more conducive towards success to just shift your approach slightly. I do think that any single one of the five original PoDs that you have provide interesting WIs in and of themselves. Later, once they are answered, you might be on a better wicket to start trying to put together a scenario, timeline or story that incorporates the lot.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Jun 5, 2022 15:25:47 GMT
That amounts to you introducing multiple PoDs which do not follow from an original action or change. They are better separated and examined in their own right. If your end game requires 5 completely separate PoDs to roll on in concert, then you need to rethink the entire scenario. It isn’t alternate history at that point. It could be the result of Napoleon just being a more tactful guy Boney had admirals, many of them. They were not responsible for France’s grand strategy of how to be able to challenge the RN over 25 years, as the sheer scale of the task hadn’t been contemplated or even understood. Nappy can just relinquish the responsibility to them You were the one that included that video in a quite bizarre point about the Caspian Sea (!). How are ships built in Lorient, Brest, Antwerp and Toulouse supposed to make it to the Caspian Sea The citizens of Napoleon's various states travel near to the caspian to build them French wooden ships of the line and frigates were built on slips and launched conventionally, as were British and all other ones at this time. They weren’t moved over land, with the exception of much smaller vessels that don’t come under the classification of major warships. Can we have some examples of 1st, 2nd or 3rd rates being moved overland for significant distances? I can’t think of any. Maybe they train the naval soldiers that will work on smaller ships in the caspian and the ones who will fight in major warships in the gulf of Trieste. I have a hard time imagining the brits finding out about this and then moving enough ships their to interrupt this. |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 5,841
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 5, 2022 16:34:23 GMT
If you are being serious, I would strongly advise a great deal more reading on naval history, the naval history of the Napoleonic Wars, the Wars in general and geography.
You are labouring under a fundamental misunderstanding of how navies operate. It isn’t just a matter of delegating to some random survivor and everything falling into place. George III, the Prince Regent and Pitt had the whole Admiralty working on aspects of formulating national/imperial strategy of the war at sea, building the forces to do so and getting the right commanders in the right places.
The Caspian Sea is completely land locked, so that no ships can leave it. Construction would be limited to Astrakhan as of the early 1800s. Bottleneck.
Trieste is at the top of the Adriatic, which is covered by British bases in Malta, the Ionian Islands and Sicily. How are multiple French ships of the line supposed to break out of Toulon without the British blockade fleet noticing?
In any event, the chief problem here is that you are trying to get 5+ big changes happen in succession, which isn’t alternate history. I would advise you very strongly to take that on board, as it gets back to basics, parses down the scenarios to a good solid beginning and doesn’t lead to increasingly convoluted attempts at arguing individual points when your original thesis is up a gum tree.
|
|
|
|
Post by justiniano on Jun 28, 2022 20:16:01 GMT
The Caspian Sea is completely land locked, so that no ships can leave it. Construction would be limited to Astrakhan as of the early 1800s. Bottleneck. Hence why I said small ships that can be transported over land Trieste is at the top of the Adriatic, which is covered by British bases in Malta, the Ionian Islands and Sicily. How are multiple French ships of the line supposed to break out of Toulon without the British blockade fleet noticing? They'd be trained there first. Also how will the british know that they're being trained there from malta or sicily? |
|
simon darkshade
Inspector-General
Member is Online
Posts: 4,978
Likes: 5,841
|
Post by simon darkshade on Jun 29, 2022 2:41:26 GMT
You should have left this a month ago, as simply repeating yourself doesn’t change a darn thing. Firstly, it doesn’t matter as to the size of the ships, as there is no transport. What could be built in situ is going to be hardly worth it. The Russian Caspian Flotilla of 1800-1810 was two brig sized ‘frigates’ of the Kavkaz class, the rowing frigate Tsaritsyn and two cramped corvettes of the Ariadna class. The kicker? None were built on the Caspian/Astrakhan, but at Kazan. Now, these ships were small and Caspian-locked, as it were. The dimensions of the Kavkaz class were 100ft x 26 x 8, with 14 x 6pdrs and 6 falconets; Tsaritsyn was 89 ft 3 in × 30 ft 10 in × 7 ft 6 in, with 12 x 6pdrs; and the corvettes were 110 x 30 x 12.5 with a mixture of 6pdrs and 24pdr carronades. (Source: "Russian Warships in the Age of Sail 1696–1860: Design, Construction, Careers and Fates" by Eduard Sozaev) What we can notice about those dimensions is even these ‘dwarf ships’ were far too large to transport over land. We already know that these Caspian ships were also cramped and of dubious utility for training purposes even for the Russians. They carried none of the guns shipped on larger frigates and ships of the line, nor the same rigging. A.) They cannot be transported to or from the Caspian Sea B.) What is there is useless for training, like trying to train for your driver’s licence in a dodgem car C.) This now requires the full engagement with and utter dependence on Russia D.) As an investment, this idea is terrible I would remind you that your original words, before you tried to shift the goalposts, were “Since Russia is his Ally he can use the Caspian Sea. And they move them to the ocean like this”, followed by a completely pointless modern video with no relation to how ships were launched in that period. We then shifted from building and training on lakes and the Caspian to Trieste. On the second point: British ships didn’t just sit in their bases and play whist. They operated forward in close blockade of French ports and monitoring of the same. The first thing we notice about Trieste is that it is in a freaking gulf. A gulf, mind you, with a narrow opening that can be covered by a small blockade fleet/fleet of observation. Further back, we have the Straits of Otranto, which have been more than a little important over time. en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adriatic_campaign_of_1807–1814This is what the British did when there wasn’t a profound threat or massive shift of resources to the area. Please let this go; your lack of knowledge and understanding about naval matters is leading you progressively up the garden path. |
|
