|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Nov 30, 2023 11:41:00 GMT
What's the best possible scenario for Napoleon Bonaparte?
Say he never invades Russia and Spain and therefore never loses the huge amount of men he did in OTL. What else needs to go right for him so that he not only keeps his possessions but expands them?
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Dec 5, 2023 21:04:43 GMT
If Russia and Spain are excluded, this doesn't leave him too many directions, since Britain seems as impossible as with Sea Lion, and America is also quite far.
Should he rather try small conquests (Sicily, Sardinia, Bernadotte's Sweden?) No idea how he'd like that.
|
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Dec 5, 2023 21:30:38 GMT
Hard to find a scenario where Spain remains allied to Napoleon, given the Spanish Bourbons and their antipathy towards him. Even more difficult to keep Russia as a French ally, given their reliance on trade with Britain unless France starts to adopt import substitution policies that develops manufacturing.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Dec 5, 2023 22:07:21 GMT
Do you think a longer-lasting alliance with tsar Alexander is impossible?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 23,420 
Likes: 12,035
|
Post by stevep on Dec 6, 2023 20:38:49 GMT
Do you think a longer-lasting alliance with tsar Alexander is impossible?
I think the two questions were: a) Would Napoleon accept Alexander as a real equal?
b) The other issue is that complying with Napoleon's ban on trade with Britain was a significant burden to other nations because Britain, in the early stages of the industrial revolution was able to out-class just about everybody in terms of price and quality. Furthermore British naval domination after Trafalgar meant it had pretty much a monopoly on control of products from outside Europe. As such a lot of stuff was smuggled despite Napoleon's embargo but even so it was an economic and political issue.
|
|
|
|
Post by Max Sinister on Dec 9, 2023 13:55:29 GMT
Do you think a longer-lasting alliance with tsar Alexander is impossible?
I think the two questions were: a) Would Napoleon accept Alexander as a real equal?
b) The other issue is that complying with Napoleon's ban on trade with Britain was a significant burden to other nations because Britain, in the early stages of the industrial revolution was able to out-class just about everybody in terms of price and quality. Furthermore British naval domination after Trafalgar meant it had pretty much a monopoly on control of products from outside Europe. As such a lot of stuff was smuggled despite Napoleon's embargo but even so it was an economic and political issue.
b) is a big problem indeed. About a): Wouldn't the bigger question whether Alexander would accept the "upstart" as his equal?
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 23,420
Likes: 12,035
|
Post by stevep on Dec 10, 2023 0:30:08 GMT
I think the two questions were: a) Would Napoleon accept Alexander as a real equal?
b) The other issue is that complying with Napoleon's ban on trade with Britain was a significant burden to other nations because Britain, in the early stages of the industrial revolution was able to out-class just about everybody in terms of price and quality. Furthermore British naval domination after Trafalgar meant it had pretty much a monopoly on control of products from outside Europe. As such a lot of stuff was smuggled despite Napoleon's embargo but even so it was an economic and political issue.
b) is a big problem indeed. About a): Wouldn't the bigger question whether Alexander would accept the "upstart" as his equal?
Initially I think Napoleon was seen as an upstart by all the major European powers but relations did seem quite good between the two emperors after the 1807 treaty until the Russians got frustrated with being locked out of world trade by the French Continental System. IIRC there was a women, forget if it was the Czars wife or mother who was bitterly opposed to Napoleon but she was more influential after the 1812 invasion. |
|
|
|
Post by TheRomanSlayer on Dec 10, 2023 7:04:19 GMT
I wonder if cutting themselves off from British trade would have prompted Napoleon to adopt import substitution policies that essentially kickstarts a quasi-industrialization where the French would develop manufacturing practices, similar to the scenario that eventually led to the industrialization of the Kingdom of Prussia and the German Empire's inheritance of that industrial capability. It could also encourage more nations within the Continental System to adopt import substitution policies that practically kickstarts their own manufacturing capabilities too. I think that could have been one of Napoleon's untapped legacies that may have been realized, but Napoleon knows nothing of economics and how the British had the largest economy during his time.
|
|
|
|
Post by Otto Kretschmer on Dec 10, 2023 9:29:37 GMT
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 23,420
Likes: 12,035
|
Post by stevep on Dec 10, 2023 12:19:41 GMT
I wonder if cutting themselves off from British trade would have prompted Napoleon to adopt import substitution policies that essentially kickstarts a quasi-industrialization where the French would develop manufacturing practices, similar to the scenario that eventually led to the industrialization of the Kingdom of Prussia and the German Empire's inheritance of that industrial capability. It could also encourage more nations within the Continental System to adopt import substitution policies that practically kickstarts their own manufacturing capabilities too. I think that could have been one of Napoleon's untapped legacies that may have been realized, but Napoleon knows nothing of economics and how the British had the largest economy during his time.
To a degree this did happen, although less in terms of industry and more agricultural items. Sugar beet especially gained a lot more importance and probably saw a lot of investment because the previous source, the sugar cane of the Caribbean was cut off by Napoleon's embargo as it or access to it was under British control.
In terms of industry I think it would be more difficult. Napoleon's system was basically autocratic, like that of the preceding Bourbons. As such if it decided a project was of value it might direct resources towards it but how well those funds would be invested because of a lack of technical knowledge among those in charge. The social culture in Britain with a much stronger merchant class and also more knowledgeable general population at the time, along with infrastructure advantages. As an island with a fairly well developed canal system bulk materials could be moves a lot easier than overland. This was compounded by the British naval blockade as it pretty much paralyzed French coastal shipping. .
|
|
|
|
Post by American hist on Feb 28, 2024 0:10:21 GMT
Napoleon should have tried to ally against the British or a coalition against the British. what the little corporal didnt know was when to place limits. The French should have instead offered a joint operation to lay siege to Gibraltar instead of backstabbing Spain.
|
|
stevep
Fleet admiral
Member is Online
Posts: 23,420
Likes: 12,035
|
Post by stevep on Feb 28, 2024 16:07:00 GMT
Napoleon should have tried to ally against the British or a coalition against the British. what the little corporal didnt know was when to place limits. The French should have instead offered a joint operation to lay siege to Gibraltar instead of backstabbing Spain.
With the technology of the day a decently defended Gib is pretty much untakeable as long as Britain can ship in supplies and reinforcements. Unless possibly you do what Alexander did at Tyre and basically build a causeway say to give better firing arcs for artillery/cut off reinforcement by being able to close the port?
|
|
