What if Napoleon went to St. Petersburg instead of Moscow?
Napoleon's main problem wasn't which city he captured,it was logistics. The Russians likely would have kept retreating, avoiding a decisive battle while stretching French supply lines. The route to St. Petersburg was also difficult, and the French army still would have faced shortages, disease, and winter.
>>18583749Still lost to coalition's hit&run harassment, faint retreat, depth defensive (Fabian strategies)
>>18583749He would have lost anyway.1. It's rarely mentioned, but Napoleon's enemies were also learning how to fight him, and his losses during the wars also mounted. For example, during earlier battles with the Austrians, the French had generally lower casualties, but in 1809, after the victorious Battle of Wagram, French losses were only slightly lower than those of the Austrians (35,000 French killed and wounded vs. 38,000 killed and wounded).And at the Battle of Borodino, the situation was similar – despite the victory, French losses were only slightly lower than those of the Russians.2. Before the 1812 campaign, Napoleon organized gigantic supply bases in Poland (primarily in East Prussia and the Duchy of Warsaw). There, he stored food and fodder reserves sufficient to feed over 400,000 soldiers and 50,000 horses for 50 days. He assumed that the war would feed itself—in other words, he even counted on his soldiers to "supply" themselves with food by taking it from civilians, which, as we can see, sparked the rise of anti-French partisans.3. Rasputitsa is a term used to describe the period of the year (spring and autumn) when dirt roads in Russia, Belarus, and Ukraine become impassable due to deep mud. This phenomenon is caused by heavy rainfall or spring thaw and has drastically hampered troop movement for centuries.And if anyone thinks Rasputitsa is no obstacle, consider this quote from Bonaparte:"In Poland, I encountered the fifth element: mud."For the forming Grande Armée, moving through Polish lands was a logistical nightmare. The lack of paved roads, the muddy ground, and spring thaw literally paralyzed the march of troops, artillery, and supply trains.And Russian roads and Russian weather were even worse
>>18583789>Battle of WagramWhat if Britain landed in Hanover (modern-day Germany) instead Netherlands?
What if Franz, Duke of Reichstadt, Napoleon's son, moved to the USA? He could've been a mercenary for the American military on the frontier. During the Anahuac disturbances, he initially backed the Federalists, but then joined the Texan revolutionaries to create a semi-constitutional monarchy, becoming the Grand Duke of Texas (like a King in Texas). He'd use the Louisiana Purchase as leverage and his leadership would prevent disasters like Goliad, with all Alamo defenders surviving.
>>18583749Convince Finnish uprising
Hon noise*
>>18583749>hand of freemasonry
>>18583749Unlike Moscow, which was largely built of wood and easily consumed by the fires set by Count Rostopchin, St. Petersburg was a grand, stone-built European city. It could not have been easily burned to the ground by its own citizens.However, capturing it would not have been a simple occupation. It likely would have turned into a brutal, protracted siege. If the Tsar fled across the Gulf of Finland or deep into the interior, Napoleon would find himself holding a magnificent, freezing stone city with an army still exposed to the brutal northern winter, bordered by a hostile sea on one side and an empty wilderness on the other. If Napoleon had redirected the Grande Armée toward St. Petersburg, the Baltic Sea would have transformed from a secondary theater into the absolute strategic pivot of the war.The British Royal Navy, which already maintained a powerful presence in the Baltic to protect trade and support their Swedish and Russian allies, would have deployed a multi-pronged counter-strategy. They wouldn't have just fought at sea; they would have actively shaped the war on land. If the Tsar maintained his historical resolve declaring he would "retreat to Kamchatka" and grow his beard rather than sign a peace treaty with Napoleon's capture of St. Petersburg would have been a hollow victory. Napoleon would still face a devastating winter retreat, though perhaps a slightly shorter and better-supplied one along the Baltic coast as well vengeful Prussian.If he redirected the Grande Armée toward St. Petersburg, the Baltic Sea would have transformed from a secondary theater into the absolute strategic pivot of the war. The British Royal Navy, which already maintained a powerful presence in the Baltic to protect trade and support their Swedish and Russian allies, would have deployed a multi-pronged counter-strategy. They wouldn't have just fought at sea; they would have actively shaped the war on land.
I mean Napoleon himself later regretted his choice, famously remarking that if he had captured St. Petersburg, he would have "taken Russia by the head" rather than by the heart. Good alternate opinion.
>>18583749France would be divide
>>18583773Well why not simply take St Petersburg and all of Russias baltic coast, permanently? Sooner or later they would try to get it back.
>>18584362I think Napoleon wanted to bring back Russia into the alliance, that's the main reason why he didn't abolish serfdom in the controlled territories or created new republics in russian territory, convince the finnish to revolt would only damage any future diplomatic approach. I think we all can agree that turning western russia into a collection of client republics was the better idea, it wasn't exactly the best idea for a Napoleon wanting to quickly close that eastern front to deal with Spain and Great Britain
>>18583774>Napoleon’s early offensive (incompete) success at Ligny was mitigated by prudent Prussian withdrawals with Fabian-like tactics, allowing them to reinforce Wellington at Waterloo, while French misjudgments and poor coordination limited their strategic exploitation, ultimately determining the campaign’s outcomeFrogsis...
