Another big what if scenarios could be Denmark having its fleet...
What if Nelson did not manage to destroy Danish fleet in 1801?
What if Denmark is allied to France in 1805, is having in own war goals like getting Bremen, Hamburg, Mecklenburg?
What if danish fleet could be used in north sea or in baltic ? Maybe it could allow french invasion of Riga? Or Petersburg itself?
Maybe it could trigger Sweden to fight Denmark? And we could have yet another bloody struggle for baltic dominanion?
Or maybe, just maybe, Sweden would go hand in hand with Denmark? Creating strong
threat to Russian northern flank?
Swedish- danish alliance is not that impossible, these country were considering personal union at some points in XVIII century...
Lysimaque wrote:1-Keep Hre or no after Austerlitz?
2-Possibility to save Danish Fleet from English
3-Sweden Invasion of Denmark
4-Peace beetween Ottoman and France and coalition vs English
5- What if France manage to keep Egypt in 1805?
6-Annex or no Neetherland for France
7-Russia choose direct battle instead of retreat during russian campaign
Just some ways that could interesting what if. Most of all, i hope we could have the possibility to change alliance for some country like Ottoman, Sweden or Spain.
I told the same things in first page, read the other messages before reply.
I am totally up for a serious Baltic schemes, afterall Brits, French and Russians took Baltic politics very seriously in reality. So many alliances were created and wars fought between nations and Baltic was no exception.
Also, all that struggle to weaken or gain a strong naval force just to project naval force should really be implemented on some level. It played a big deal in Napoleonic wars decision making.
Brits had no problem to burn half of Copenhagen just to destroy their navy, Spain invaded Portugal just to get hands on their navy...
Also, all that struggle to weaken or gain a strong naval force just to project naval force should really be implemented on some level. It played a big deal in Napoleonic wars decision making.
Brits had no problem to burn half of Copenhagen just to destroy their navy, Spain invaded Portugal just to get hands on their navy...
"Best way to win a war is not to fight it"
Invasion against St. Petersberg is a bit too far fetched, even the British with their enormous Navy couldn't decide on that tactic during the Crimean War.
The Swedes tried (before Peter built the city) in the Great Northern War and failed badly.
The Germans failed in WW1 though they did capture a few small islands.
As "Smitzer52" said, the English would have burnt the whole of Copenhagen twice over for destroying the Navy, the Franco-Spanish did the same to the Portuguese.
France holding Egypt is again a bit too far fetched, defeating an English Fleet in the Mediterranean in open battle, that too led by Horatio Nelson was not so easy.
But Franco-Ottoman Alliance is very much possible. The Ottomans also did not like the English. As Revolutionary France had given up the "HARD CORE CATHOLICISM" of the "ANCIEN REGIME", this is one possibility which is promising. Another advantage is this may threaten the "|other flank|" of the Austrians. thus compounding the Hapsburg problems.
Dismantling the HRE was always a YES for the French, as with the HRE still in existence the 'Germanic States' will never side with the French. Also it reduces Hapsburg influence and increased French prestige. The Austrians should get a massive morale loss if the HRE gets dismantled. More or less forcing a peace treaty for at-least 18 months (6 months more or less depending on the situation of Nappy's armies).
Finally, Russia choosing direct battle, i do not think (my opinion) that - Barclay De Tolly, Prince Bagration, Count Benningson or any of the other senior commanders were any less apprehensive of their chances than Kutuzov in open battles with the Grand Armee. They knew they had to reduce the strength of the French Coalition before fighting pitched battles and also they knew that General January was a good friend of Mother Russia.
The Swedes tried (before Peter built the city) in the Great Northern War and failed badly.
The Germans failed in WW1 though they did capture a few small islands.
As "Smitzer52" said, the English would have burnt the whole of Copenhagen twice over for destroying the Navy, the Franco-Spanish did the same to the Portuguese.
France holding Egypt is again a bit too far fetched, defeating an English Fleet in the Mediterranean in open battle, that too led by Horatio Nelson was not so easy.
But Franco-Ottoman Alliance is very much possible. The Ottomans also did not like the English. As Revolutionary France had given up the "HARD CORE CATHOLICISM" of the "ANCIEN REGIME", this is one possibility which is promising. Another advantage is this may threaten the "|other flank|" of the Austrians. thus compounding the Hapsburg problems.
Dismantling the HRE was always a YES for the French, as with the HRE still in existence the 'Germanic States' will never side with the French. Also it reduces Hapsburg influence and increased French prestige. The Austrians should get a massive morale loss if the HRE gets dismantled. More or less forcing a peace treaty for at-least 18 months (6 months more or less depending on the situation of Nappy's armies).
Finally, Russia choosing direct battle, i do not think (my opinion) that - Barclay De Tolly, Prince Bagration, Count Benningson or any of the other senior commanders were any less apprehensive of their chances than Kutuzov in open battles with the Grand Armee. They knew they had to reduce the strength of the French Coalition before fighting pitched battles and also they knew that General January was a good friend of Mother Russia.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
In 1808, Napoleon marries Ekaterina Pavlovna Romanova, a Russian princess (such a proposal was made indeed), so Russia and France stay neutral.
A lot more can be done about the Russo-Turkish war of 1806-12: what if it still lasted in summer 1812, if France joined it on either side, if Greeks revolted etc. etc.
A lot more can be done about the Russo-Turkish war of 1806-12: what if it still lasted in summer 1812, if France joined it on either side, if Greeks revolted etc. etc.
The Russo-Turkish or Austro-Turkish Wars both seem more possible, if France align with the Ottomans and gives them substantial GOLD and WSU to build their armies. Similar to England paying the Allies.
I hope the DEVS make some way for this to be done, Alliance Leaders (I presume them to be France and England) giving their members Gold and WSU from time to time to improve morale and recruit more soldiers etc.
On marriages, not so much, Franz II had his daughter wed Nappy yet went to War, during WW1 except the French all the other countries were Kingdoms and barring the Serbs all of them had anywhere between 50-100% German/Germanic Bloodlines that didn't stop them from slitting each other's throats.
Long story short- Royalty didn't mind personal relations so much as their own thrones.
Marriage may cause a temporary truce not permanent peace.
I hope the DEVS make some way for this to be done, Alliance Leaders (I presume them to be France and England) giving their members Gold and WSU from time to time to improve morale and recruit more soldiers etc.
On marriages, not so much, Franz II had his daughter wed Nappy yet went to War, during WW1 except the French all the other countries were Kingdoms and barring the Serbs all of them had anywhere between 50-100% German/Germanic Bloodlines that didn't stop them from slitting each other's throats.
Long story short- Royalty didn't mind personal relations so much as their own thrones.
Marriage may cause a temporary truce not permanent peace.
Rascals, would you live forever? - Frederick the Great.
1) Economic Hardship in Britain limits subsidies and opens possibility of war weariness peace negotiations:
Beginning in 1808 they suffered ever worsening harvests which became severe through 1810 -12. In addition to food shortages, there was also the attendant increasing joblessness, bankrupticies, strikes, riots, etc. England also initially balked at providing subsidies to Austria in 1809 due to these worries.
Napoleon offers to sell England grain. (Indeed it was during these years that Napoleon broke his own Continental System decrees by giving out licenses and allowing some trade with Britain and lifting some restrictions). And this allows the possiblity of negotiations.
2) Napoleon has the option to create a Greater Poland aligned or confederated with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania
In May of 1812, while in Dresden with other rulers including Frederick of Prussia and Francis of Austria, Napoleon hinted of this idea. Knowing that a Greater Poland would make them both unhappy he hinted at giving them some of the Polish territories/cities they had lost as compensation. In July of 1812, after capturing Vilna, Napoleon received delagations from both Poland and Lithuania who both urged him to implement the idea.
It would likely piss the Austrians and Prussians off but it would lead to different strategies that would be interesting, possibly making the Russians attack him. Decrease supply problems and less soldiers required to implement the strategy might also lessen the partisan problems that sprang up later due to lack of supply and therefore depradations on the local populace.
3) Establishing independent/dependent states for Catalonia, Basque and Galicia.
4) Giving Prussia the ability to form a North German Confedration, including Hanover, either on their own or via Napoleon agreeing to it.
5) Sweden invading Denmark either on their own or with Napoleon's consent and thus allying Sweden and France.
Beginning in 1808 they suffered ever worsening harvests which became severe through 1810 -12. In addition to food shortages, there was also the attendant increasing joblessness, bankrupticies, strikes, riots, etc. England also initially balked at providing subsidies to Austria in 1809 due to these worries.
Napoleon offers to sell England grain. (Indeed it was during these years that Napoleon broke his own Continental System decrees by giving out licenses and allowing some trade with Britain and lifting some restrictions). And this allows the possiblity of negotiations.
2) Napoleon has the option to create a Greater Poland aligned or confederated with the Grand Duchy of Lithuania
In May of 1812, while in Dresden with other rulers including Frederick of Prussia and Francis of Austria, Napoleon hinted of this idea. Knowing that a Greater Poland would make them both unhappy he hinted at giving them some of the Polish territories/cities they had lost as compensation. In July of 1812, after capturing Vilna, Napoleon received delagations from both Poland and Lithuania who both urged him to implement the idea.
It would likely piss the Austrians and Prussians off but it would lead to different strategies that would be interesting, possibly making the Russians attack him. Decrease supply problems and less soldiers required to implement the strategy might also lessen the partisan problems that sprang up later due to lack of supply and therefore depradations on the local populace.
3) Establishing independent/dependent states for Catalonia, Basque and Galicia.
4) Giving Prussia the ability to form a North German Confedration, including Hanover, either on their own or via Napoleon agreeing to it.
5) Sweden invading Denmark either on their own or with Napoleon's consent and thus allying Sweden and France.
-
Field Marshal Hotzendorf
- Captain
- Posts: 167
- Joined: Sun Feb 22, 2015 8:24 pm
Most important is the option to create an independent Poland, that either Austria, Prussia, Russia (or even Turkey or France) can exercise if they control Warsaw and 3+ Polish provinces. Whichever major power backed an independent Poland would win the undying loyalty of the Poles and get some excellent Polish units. Of course, once you create an independent Poland, you can't go back on it and reabsorb Poland.
Would an option to create an independent Poland make sense for anyone but France when looking at history, would the Polish troops really be the a puppet of Prussia, Russia or Austria and fight for them? I doubt that.
"Spread word to every slave, that even the mighty republic bleeds when struck!"
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club
Join the Napoleonic Wargame Club
Join the American Civil War Game Club
Join the The Blitz Wargaming Club
Good point, BigDuke66. It is true that there was a lot of hatred in Poland for the major powers who had partitioned Poland out of existence in the 1790s. Hatred of Russia was especially intense, so it's hard to imagine Poland as a loyal Russian puppet. But I think that the Poles would have fought for whichever major power was truly willing to back their independence, even Russia. The problem was that no one (not even Napoleon) was really interested in recreating an independent Poland.
BigDuke66 wrote:Would an option to create an independent Poland make sense for anyone but France when looking at history, would the Polish troops really be the a puppet of Prussia, Russia or Austria and fight for them? I doubt that.
From a somewhat historically defensible perspective (ahem....) it would only could be arguable for Austria. Re Prussia it is impossible, the two countries want the same pieces of land, any form of independent Poland would make it an ennemy of Prussia and a threat of "2 fronts war". Re Russia, Poland had been an ennemy for 200 years, it seems impossible. Only could Austria arguably do it : Polish are catholic, the Polish kind saved Vienna in 1683, etc.. The main issue would be that doing so puts Austria in a constant collision course with Prussia AND Russia, marking it as clearly hostile to both. Why on earth would she want that ? Only is staunchly aligned with France would that be thinkable : Basically one would have to imagine Napoleon marrying Marie Louise or some austrian Princess as soon as the 1805 campaign finishes IRL really.. Hard to imagine, but I suppose all in all it should remain a possibility for Austria as well.
Yeah, other than France, Austria would be the next best candidate. In the late 1790's, after carving up Poland in 92 and 95 and not going after France, the 3 Powers signed an agreement to never let Poland be independent. They all had Polish nationals in their territories proper and were worried about an independent Poland inciting them. At the "Congress" of Vienna, Poland (and Saxony to some extent) occupied the majority of the stress and time by the diplomats. Sensitive situation.
Austira may have been able to pull it off though, especially if allied to France. An alliance with France is not beyond the pale when Metternich took over. At the congress, Britain, France and Austria realized they were natural allies. An option for a Napoleon player would be to offer Poland to Austria for an alliance and/or French control of central germany. Napoleon wanted to push Austrian control and interest eastward so as to put them into tension with Russia.
Austira may have been able to pull it off though, especially if allied to France. An alliance with France is not beyond the pale when Metternich took over. At the congress, Britain, France and Austria realized they were natural allies. An option for a Napoleon player would be to offer Poland to Austria for an alliance and/or French control of central germany. Napoleon wanted to push Austrian control and interest eastward so as to put them into tension with Russia.
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests