What if Napoleon didn´t over-extend himself?

[Barnabas]

Could he have ruled over Germany, northern Italy, France and the Netherlands all his life (like a XIX century Charlemagne) if he did not invade Russia and Spain?

[Heraclitus]

wasn't that all of Italy? Also what of Austria?

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by Heraclitus
wasn't that all of Italy? Also what of Austria?

He didn't control Austria. He whooped 'em bad, but there was always an Austrian on the Throne of Austria (pka Holy Roman Empire) and Nappy married an Austrian.

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
IMHO, Nappy's problem's didn't arise so much from him being over extended but rather from turning his back on republicanism by making himself an Emperor. This betrayal sapped the motivation of those fighting for the ideals of the Revolution.

[Andemagne]

What If?-Forum.

[Will9]

Re: What if Napoleon didn´t over-extend himself?

Originally posted by Barnabas
Could he have ruled over Germany, northern Italy, France and the Netherlands all his life (like a XIX century Charlemagne) if he did not invade Russia and Spain?

There are 2 things he could have done,

1. He shouldn't have invaded his greatest ally. Spain was so loyal to him, it was more like a vassal. The invasion of Spain (really the British invasion that followed when the British decided to save Portugal and then saw that Napoleon was weak in Spain) just created a drain on his army. It made it even worse that Napoleon wasn't expirenced in the type of terrain that makes up most Spain and he was forced to let other generals command.

2. He shouldn't have been so aggresive in Russia. Better supply planning and invading Southern Russia in the winter and waiting tell summer to invade the North would have been 2 good changes.

[BeBMan]

No way he wins in Russia the way this was moving away from being only regular, open battle-centered warfare (which he could have won maybe with better preps, but not the irregular part).

[Zkribbler]

Originally posted by BeBro
No way he wins in Russia the way this was moving away from being only regular, open battle-centered warfare (which he could have won maybe with better preps, but not the irregular part).

He coulda won if he'd have gone in to establish a Repubic of Spain and a Republic of Russia. Then the locals would have been on his side. But invading to extend the borders of the French Empire led to guerilla wars against him.

[Eli]

Napoleon had to overextend himself, otherwise he wouldn't have been Napoleon. It's like asking what would've happened if Alexander hadn't continued into India.

[VetLegion]

He only needed ~90 000 more Croats and he would have pulled it off.

"Croatians, there are best soldiers in the world. If I had only 100000 Croatians, I would conquer the entire world!". - Bonaparte

[BeBMan]

Originally posted by Zkribbler


He coulda won if he'd have gone in to establish a Repubic of Spain and a Republic of Russia. Then the locals would have been on his side.

Against father czar? That would be very difficult to achieve. The Russian elites were loyal even when Moscow was lost. Even trying to gain support by freeing serfs would be difficult IMO.

I can't really imagine a republican Russia in the 19th century, certainly not in the first half of it. Enlightened thought which Nappy stood for (to some extent) was indeed popular in certain Russian circles but many of them were aristocrats themselves (prime example Cath the Great herself) and tried to couple enlightened principles with autocratic rule of the czar, who would reform the country "from above", since the vast majority of people, esp. peasants and serfs were seen as unfit to lead any modernization out of themselves (like the French did).

For a more modern, even republican Russia you need a real civic society which gives input for changes in law, education, administration, a beginning industrialization etc. which did not exist in the mainly agrarian Russia in the same way it did in western Europe. And freeing serfs only would not automatically have created these conditions, as Russia itself learned when serfdom was finally abolished in the 1860ies among other reforms then under the impression of the lost Crimean War which increased pressure to modernize drastically.

[Barnabas]

Originally posted by Eli
Napoleon had to overextend himself, otherwise he wouldn't have been Napoleon. It's like asking what would've happened if Alexander hadn't continued into India.

I don´t see that.
He still would have been a super major historical figure without invading Russia or Spain.

An empire of France, Netherlands, Germany and Italy seems pretty impresive to me. Almost proto EU.

Spain would have remain a puppet state of France (like it had been since Bourbons became rulers of Spain)

[McLaine]

For one thing, I guess a couple of things would not exist that do exist today. A selection:

• Belgium. If he hadn't overextended himself, what is nowadays Belgium would have been France and stayed France.
• The Dutch language. It would have been as good as rooted out (both Flanders and The Netherlands gone).
• The Lion at Waterloo. As Napoleon was never defeated, it wouldn't have been erected.

Food for further thought:

• Would Germany have formed from its small states, the way it did? And would there have been a Great War and indeed, a second World War?
• Would communism have risen or would the French Republic have been able to push its values onto Russia over time?

...

[Imran Siddiqui]

Originally posted by Barnabas
I don´t see that.
He still would have been a super major historical figure without invading Russia or Spain.

An empire of France, Netherlands, Germany and Italy seems pretty impresive to me. Almost proto EU.

Spain would have remain a puppet state of France (like it had been since Bourbons became rulers of Spain)

I think Eli is saying the same thing that motivated him to invade Russia and Spain is the thing that made him a great commander in the first place. His intense ambition and aggressiveness... it is hard to imagine Napoleon just deciding to fade into the sunset and become a fat, old king.

[McLaine]

Napoleon had to overextend himself, otherwise he wouldn't have been Napoleon. It's like asking what would've happened if Alexander hadn't continued into India.

Yes, but you could turn this thing around. Let's say - what if he would have died before he could overextend himself?

[Dr Strangelove]

Napoleon needed some means to strike back at Britain. He chose to enact the "Continental System", a Europe-wide boycott of British goods. What if instead of declaring the Continental System Napoleon had used the methods that England used against Spain in the 16th century - piracy? In the 18th century French warships had enjoyed an advantage in speed over the English. What if Napoleon had used that edge to his advantage, by commissioning fast privateers to harass British shipping?