I still support my scenario of a piece after Leipzig. It requires very little changing of the historical timeline, perhaps a little less public support during the Russian campaigne, or Napoleon looking at his situation a little more realistically.
-
We have updated our Community Code of Conduct. Please read through the new rules for the forum that are an integral part of Paradox Interactive’s User Agreement.
I think you're idea is good too, but a leipzig victorious Napoleon won't be stable enough from my point of view to give Bonaparte line the peace it need to stabilize itself.
France will be almost "exsangue" than it historicaly was; If you think about a real Leipzig victor (like a 1813 Austerliz) may be the Napoleon state should get a few peace time but it would hav e to fight again when the russian/british had recovered and won't be a so "victorious" idea without a lot what if.
I'll repospond to the 1813 idea:
"It would be hard to justify any peace in Europe as early as 1806. Napoleon is still at his strongest and feels he can gain any settlement through conquest, Britain is still able to convince the Continental powers to join her coalitions."
Britain actually did offer peace; but it couldn't mobilize nations after austerlitz and jena.
Dinsdale, why do you not feel that avoiding the invasion of spain would lead to peace?
1812: ". However, this major French victory will still leave many nations ready for revenge a few years down the road. As the game starts in 1835 you need a settlement as dramatic as Vienna."
Who, exactly? Prussia and Austria were vassals and provided troops.
Incidentally, can napoleon get enough cavalry to change 1813/1814 if he wins there? Russia might take som time to cross over the border. (Although I'd argue that in 1812, he needs to win before borodino).
It seems to me we have three main threads.
1) Peace of 1806. I'm not sure about this; remember, nappy promised hanover to prussia, so he'll go to war with prussia shortly. Whoever succeeds the current PM of Britain's going to realize they just wrote off the continent.
i suspect the peace won't be lasting.
2) Peace in 1809, after no invasion of Spain. Britain lacks markets in europe. This let's us play with the "cold war" between russia, france
3) Leipzig: Good. Problems? Britain won't let hte low countries remain french, and the cavalry of st. george can still woo many nations to its side.
Confederation of the Rhine: Not sure. Maybe not a french puppet, something else, perhaps...
A nice neutral buffer. A centralized germany as the peacekeeper in europe?
I also don't think napoleon's up to it diplomatically; even after leipzig, rather than make peace, he tried to split up the allies.
"It would be hard to justify any peace in Europe as early as 1806. Napoleon is still at his strongest and feels he can gain any settlement through conquest, Britain is still able to convince the Continental powers to join her coalitions."
Britain actually did offer peace; but it couldn't mobilize nations after austerlitz and jena.
Dinsdale, why do you not feel that avoiding the invasion of spain would lead to peace?
1812: ". However, this major French victory will still leave many nations ready for revenge a few years down the road. As the game starts in 1835 you need a settlement as dramatic as Vienna."
Who, exactly? Prussia and Austria were vassals and provided troops.
Incidentally, can napoleon get enough cavalry to change 1813/1814 if he wins there? Russia might take som time to cross over the border. (Although I'd argue that in 1812, he needs to win before borodino).
It seems to me we have three main threads.
1) Peace of 1806. I'm not sure about this; remember, nappy promised hanover to prussia, so he'll go to war with prussia shortly. Whoever succeeds the current PM of Britain's going to realize they just wrote off the continent.
i suspect the peace won't be lasting.
2) Peace in 1809, after no invasion of Spain. Britain lacks markets in europe. This let's us play with the "cold war" between russia, france
3) Leipzig: Good. Problems? Britain won't let hte low countries remain french, and the cavalry of st. george can still woo many nations to its side.
Confederation of the Rhine: Not sure. Maybe not a french puppet, something else, perhaps...
A nice neutral buffer. A centralized germany as the peacekeeper in europe?
I also don't think napoleon's up to it diplomatically; even after leipzig, rather than make peace, he tried to split up the allies.
What do you mean by mobilize enough nations? After Prussia was knocked out at Jena any peace is going to be temporary. The rest of Europe is not going to sit back and watch France dominate Europe. Without some balance of power the war will erupt all over again.
In 1806 Napoleon is not ready for peace and neither is Europe. Austria broke 3 treaties to fight France, Prussia 2 and Russia 1. Britain broke Amiens. On what basis would any 1806 settlement be able to keep peace until 1835?
They both stabbed Napoleon in the back first chance they got. Why would they not do the same again?
That's the sticking point to any French victory in the 1813 campaign. However, the allies did eventually attack Napoleon. All I could suggest is an allied concentration similar to Leipzip which results in a crushing defeat.
All have their strengths and weaknesses. My suggestion is that whichever is taken, Europe cannot be left with one nation in hegemony, it just won't last until 1835. Some delicacy is required to get through 20 years without a major war
I am not sure, but could the low countries be divided between France and England, France getting complete control of the land south of the Rhine with England in dynastic alliance with that kingdom north of the Rhine. This would not only limit France's access to the low countries, but also give England a staging point to invade, should they need to.
I think by 1814, Napoleon was tiring of war (to some degree at least) and he just wanted to secure his position. Look at his offer to the allies during the 100 days in which he just wanted control of France and peace. Plus he was not willing to take many gambles in the final years of his reign, showing a more grounded foundation.
Last edited:
Actually, Austria might've. It continually made noises aobout an alliance with napoleon, in exchange for a free hand in the balkans.
Napoleonic hegemony of the continent. But who says it need's to be peace? The people making the scenario probably can and should toss in another war at some point.
Austria broke one in 1809 because of Spain. As Stadion, the Austrian minister said, "We now know what he wants! Everything!" Without Spain, Austria might've waited a bit longer to rearm.
Prussia did, but Austria's rather debatable. Metternich tried to get peace with napoleon on the throne, if only because his son would be a hapsburg. Without Spain and RUssia, prussia's in no position to challenge the emperor.
Hmm. How about this. Austrian reforms are finished in 1810, and they attack napoleon. They di a bit better than historically, but along with russia, get beaten. Napoleon, furious at austria, fulfills his threat and abolishes austria into hungarian and an austrian rump state, which is incorporated into the confederation of the rhine. Bohemia can go to a marshal. Russia sits on the borders.
Originally posted by Dinsdale
All have their strengths and weaknesses. My suggestion is that whichever is taken, Europe cannot be left with one nation in hegemony, it just won't last until 1835. Some delicacy is required to get through 20 years without a major war
ahh yes, I see an even larger Germany than in history if austria becomes part of the federation.
Maybe we get another war between expanded Germany and expanded France. And who would Britain join in such a war?
So many questions, so little details on the game. Oh well, just talking about it is fun too
Maybe we get another war between expanded Germany and expanded France. And who would Britain join in such a war?
So many questions, so little details on the game. Oh well, just talking about it is fun too
Supposing that Austria was forced into the confederation, and supposing that Prussia gained dominance, or even addmittance into the confederation (I assume you mean a Prussia dominated Germany), I severly doubt that Austria would have allowed Prussia become the dominant German state. If by some long chance, France let the confederation deal with this explosive situation without restoring peace, there probably would have been a civil war between a pro-nationalist Prussian alliance and a pro-french Austrian alliance both consisting to german states. But, as I said, this is all but impossible, if austria becomes part of the confederation, the only contest between Berlin and Vienne would be one for symbolic power as the real power would be in Paris and the confederation would still be a French puppet and Prussia would never be granted addmittance to it without great consessions that they would be unwilling to grant.
I though than in the 20 years time between 1815 and 1835, Prussia should have join the confederacy without too much trouble. It depend which option you took, but Prussia was not strong enought to oppose Austria or France alone. It would have to choose between a "almost vassalization" to Russia or made a low profil to gather some influence on the confederacy, playing the 2° rank power inside the coinfederation to slowly contest a Bavaria or Saxony leading role in the confederation. France cought in some other problem (support Austria in Balkan against Russia for gaining Venetia to Italy) should have alloy Prussia to enter peacefully the confederacy, in exchange for the Prussia neutrality.
In my idea, England would mostly accept a France "not too strong hegemony" if his trade is allow to access europe freely (part of the 1806 alliance). I don't think England would support Russia too much for the Balkan. Maybe a financial support first but it won't allow the Tsar to gain access on Mediterannee.
So in 1835 the confederacy should have some freehand and it prepare a confrontation to gain his total union. Maybe just waiting for a France/Austria clash or a France+Austria/England+Russia. Thsi clash should appen on a colonial problem or a poland question...
Last edited:
Hmm, I see your point. I still am not enthusiastic about Prussia in the confederation, but I suspect that it could happen, if they let the French look down their backs at the whole times. But I still dont think that the French would allow the confederation to grow powerful enough to challenge them, especially if Prussia was in it. They would probably happily support Saxony in any power struggle which would mean Prussia has no chance.
As for the Balkans, perhaps that Austria should be given Yugoslavia, Romania should go to Russia and a Greek state under France, or perhaps even just allied to France, should be given Greece, Macedonia, Constantinople, and Smyrna. This would give a nominal balance of power in the Balkans, keep the Russians from the Méditerannée and give the French a foothold in the East (granting that they dont control Egypt, which I think we all agree on, or Istria-Dalmatian)
As for the Balkans, perhaps that Austria should be given Yugoslavia, Romania should go to Russia and a Greek state under France, or perhaps even just allied to France, should be given Greece, Macedonia, Constantinople, and Smyrna. This would give a nominal balance of power in the Balkans, keep the Russians from the Méditerannée and give the French a foothold in the East (granting that they dont control Egypt, which I think we all agree on, or Istria-Dalmatian)
The problem is that prussia in the confederation doesn't suit France.
Hmm... how about this:
In 1826 a revolt broke out in Kassel against Emperor Jerome, who was forced to flee. General Dorenberg declared the birth of the “new German nation”, and the troops of several other German states rose with them. The Wittelsbachs, who refuse to join their troops, soon find themselves strung up/exiled/imprisoned.
Prussia declares itself in support of the revolutionaries, and Prussian troops join Westphalian in the siege of Hamburg, liberating the city from French occupation. German states send delegates to Frankfurt, and the formation of the Deutscher Bund is declared, as an intermediate wartime step. The king of Prussia is the nominal president. Important notables are Vom Stein, whose goal is to create a unified Germany.
Thus, a coup against Jerome’s spendthrift ways in Westphalia proves to be the catalyst that ends the French rule east of the Rhine.
But Napoleon passed away on the 26th of October, the day after word reached Paris of the Westphalian insurrection. Napoleon’s family soon tried to act as regents, which in turn ended with the King of Rome involved in a counter coup by Murat. Carlo Bonaparte, the King of Italy, is protected by Eugene, who acts as his regent there, and occupies the Tuscan and Ligurian departments.
Murat’s Reign is known as the 100 Days, and is generally unpopular. When Eugene leads the army of Italy into France, he defeats Murat at the battle of Orleans. Marie Louise and the King of Rome manage to escape intact, and Francis I becomes the new Emperor.
There. We have a nice civil war keeping france occupied briefly, while the german confederation gets time to consolidate and break out of french occupation.
Didn't the French support hte Ottomans, though?
The scenario I'd like to see most in the vein would just move the start date of Victoria back to the begining of the Napoleonic wars, add a bunch of scripted events and let things go. Then you could get all sorts of interesting results without having to come up with an `offical' alternate history.
That is, assuming Victoria models Napoleonic warfare better than EU2.
That is, assuming Victoria models Napoleonic warfare better than EU2.
Nice scenario Faeelin, very clever. Perhaps a Prussian move against Saxony at the beginning of Victoria would be the catalyst for a war between France and Germany?
France did support the Turks in the mid-late 19th century because, with Franco-British support they could hold the Russians out of the Balkans. But Napoleon was very enthusiastic about dismantling the Ottoman Empire. In fact, on of the great napoleonic songs is "Partant pour La Syrie", which was Napoleon's plan after he took Egypt.
Lol, and with one strike, Fintilgin brings reality back to a thread that had almost forgotten the word.
France did support the Turks in the mid-late 19th century because, with Franco-British support they could hold the Russians out of the Balkans. But Napoleon was very enthusiastic about dismantling the Ottoman Empire. In fact, on of the great napoleonic songs is "Partant pour La Syrie", which was Napoleon's plan after he took Egypt.
Lol, and with one strike, Fintilgin brings reality back to a thread that had almost forgotten the word.
Lol, im allready thinking of a Napoleon made it Mod
Well, wouldn't it be kinda fun to have a Imperialistic Giant France?
Well, wouldn't it be kinda fun to have a Imperialistic Giant France?
He would have had to conquer the whole world, as he was pathologically incapable of stopping anywhere else. So it'd probably be rather boring (just one country and satellites)
More likely that he defeated Russia after that there would only Britain left to challenge him.Originally posted by R.F.A
Well, didn't get his ass kicked at waterloo
