WI: Napoleon successfully alligned himself with and subjugated more of Europe

You are shifting around like an electric eel hooked up to a nuclear reactor.

1.) Bonaparte did not have allies in that sense. No one does. That isn’t an Allied relationship, but rather complete suzerainty. Secondly, he didn’t have the bloody money, as that is one of the big reasons he lost the whole series of wars. Thirdly, he doesn’t have the advice, with or without a magic Admiral.
2.) It would behove you to stick to one standard time rather than flopping around like the aforementioned electric eel. In your first post, you talk of actions in 1799, then vault ahead to 1805. At no point you mention 1807. Even in 1807, Mohammad Ali was not an Ottoman enemy, but a loyal subject. You don’t get to make up your own facts.
3a.) At this point, you are simply making things up as you go along. There is no significant difference between the value or nature of the Louisiana Purchase territory in 1805 from 1803.
3b.) Let us imagine for a moment that he magically can conjure additional funds. You then go on to propose giving all of this to a single country, PLUS the entire French naval budget (for how many years?!), PLUS some additional proportion of the French budget?!

This is literally impossible and written in complete ignorance of the nature of how funding, spending and revenue worked in the period of the Napoleonic Wars.

What is more, it can be easily be refuted through even a modicum of research:

Google: Napoleonic France naval budget

www.cairn.info/revue-napoleonica-la-revue-2008-3-page-2.htm
That is your first result

Result 6: digitalcommons.wou.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1040&context=his
“ Tricolor and the Union Jack at Sea: How the French Revolution Decapitated Napoleon's Navy and Thereby Ruined His Ambitions”

8: www.historytoday.com/archive/napoleons-land-grab
Details of his earlier spending/economic issue

Further on:

www.researchgate.net/figure/Figure-Ratio-of-British-to-French-per-capita-military-spending-to-The_fig4_255581658
Ratio of British to French military spending

core.ac.uk/reader/33106070
MILITARY EXPENDITURE, SPENDING CAPACITY AND BUDGET CONSTRAINT IN EIGHTEENTH-CENTURY SPAIN AND BRITAIN

As I said at the beginning, you need to read up on the period, naval warfare and how things were funded.

4.) It absolutely does not back up your first point, even if we extremely charitably characterise that as not referring to somehow using the LP to fund DN, Sweden and Russia.

All of these ships were built in the 1820s and beyond, well after the fall of Boney, when Egypt was in a completely different situation. It completely contradicts your attempted point, as this was a completely different Egypt and one with Britain opposed to it…unlike post 1815.

In summary, you’ve tried the following ideas:

- Egypt changing alignment overnight and jumping into bed as a French puppet
- Denmark, Sweden and Russia all willingly becoming naval extensions of France
- Secret training bases in the Gulf of Trieste
- Training flotillas on the Caspian Sea
- Earlier, building ships on nonexistent yards on the Caspian and transporting them overland
- The ‘citizens of Napoleon’s various states travel to near the caspian to build them’
- Napoleon becoming a complete overlord of other countries including the Russian Empire simply by being ‘a more tactful guy’
- Building a new fleet that Britain is unaware of in lakes and crewing them with mercenaries or pirates
- Napoleon offering Bernadotte (not yet King of Sweden) money to effectively buy the country

All of these are beyond silly.

Stop this whole business now.
Do some research and reading.

1.) You made no mention of the Battle of Copenhagen in your first post of this thread of May 14th, nor of any other dates above and beyond 1799. You further mention Trafalgar occuring, which in the absence of any difference would be reasonably interpreted as meaning its historical date of 1805.

2.) I stated that Bonaparte did not have any advice to give, which you mention here: "If they're already his allies and don't want to be blockaded by britain they're likely to take boney's advice and money." Even if he magically comes into funds and does not spend it on the far more pressing concerns of land war, he still has bugger all advice he can give to them.

'Oh, mon ami Tsar Alexander, fear not the economic consequences of the British blockade, for I have advice for you!'

At what point has this been delivered? It only has a bearing post 1807, but at this time, the French have already lost Trafalgar and are buttoned up in port. They cannot give any magical advice to change the naval balance of power nor to fundamentally change Russia's interests.

I would point out that Tsar Alexander was never an eager participant in war against Britain, nor did he persist in participation in the Continental System past 1810, nor did he participate in the blockade strictly, allowing for secret trade with Britain. All of that doesn't change because Bonaparte is a little bit more polite.

Denmark didn't matter, as they were small enough to be Copenhagened.

3.) Your suggestion consisted of Bonaparte supplying funds to 'reform the navies of Russia, sweden, & denmark-norway'. This goes beyond a mere supplying of money in its implication that they would then be somehow reformed through 'boney's advice and money' and the implication that they would then be better able to engage in naval operations against Britain. This is also influence by your earlier words and inferences.

4.) You are suggesting that Egypt declare war on Britain and the Ottoman Empire for some strange reason, well before it had any semblance of a fleet, and build up to sail out against France's enemy. Egypt had no skin in the game and nothing to gain by committing suicide, which entails the actions of a puppet, not an ally.

I would further remind you that Bonaparte had taken off from Egypt with his tail between his legs, having brutalised the people and lost a war. His ability to provide as an ally was approximately three fifths of bugger all when we consider that his Mediterranean Fleet was bottled up and the British had control of the middle seas.

5.) You spoke of Bonaparte's subjects travelling overland to use the Caspian Sea as a training ground and have generally implied that he use Russia as a tool against Britain. Those aren't the deeds of a friendly state, but an overlord.

Just let this go. Your ideas here cannot work and you do not know what you are talking about here. This is the second time I would suggest this as a poster.

Think this thread has run its course, also you are now bringing current events into this thread, this gives me no other choice to lock it.