What historical event would you change so that France/Napoleon win the wars?

Jan 2014
1,773
Portugal
So as we all know, Napoleon was a figure of twists and turnings.
The wars that the emperor engaged all over Europe were submited to a lot of controversial decisions, actions, twists and turns.
It's own life, as seen by him and most of the people who lived after him, a great deal of luck and badluck.

As I read somewhere in Historum, one fellow member wanted to change Battle of Leipzig, so that Napoleon remained win power. My guess was that was not enough.
I was thinking in Trafalgar being won by France, but I guess Britain would sooner or later rebuild its fleet and destroy France's fleet.

My bets are still quite divided, because for Napoleon to win it would be necessary a huge deal of events.

I leave here some possible topics:
- Change to change continental strategy to maritime strategy
- Different way to deal with eastern war theaters/diplomatic ties (Germany,Sweden, Poland, Russia etc)
- Different involvment in the Peninsula
- (...)
After:
- Tilsit
- Trafalgar
- Leipzig
- Italy being conquered
- Austerlitz
- Should he had lead diferently "conquered" countries?

Feel free to point the event(s), decision(s), fact(s) that could changed it all, in a perspective of wining the wars in the continent and perahps beating Britain.
 

paranoid marvin

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
Napoleon was a war monger; he was fighting battles for most of his life. The thing is that you can't keep on winning, you're bound to lose eventually. The problem for Napoleon was that he had gone to war with pretty much every European power, so that when the chips were down he had no ally to turn to for support.

So the thing I would change would be for him to have at least one (militarily significant)constant ally. But that would never happen as it would be totally out of character for Napoleon to be willing to share power; he wanted to be the dominant force throughout the whole of Europe (and beyond).
 
Jan 2014
1,773
Portugal
So the thing I would change would be for him to have at least one (militarily significant)constant ally. But that would never happen as it would be totally out of character for Napoleon to be willing to share power; he wanted to be the dominant force throughout the whole of Europe (and beyond).
Nice post.

As you kind of state (and I agree) that Napoleon wants always everything I should delimit the status of "win the wars". So in this scenario is:
- Maintaining it's power all over Europe; defeat Britain and becoming the great power of the world for the next decades.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,759
Totally destroy Prussia. Replace with a stronger Bavaria, Saxony and Poland, as satellite states. These states will be totally dependent for there long term survival on France.

Build up Austria. To make a real Ally,

Did not get involved in Spain or Portugal

Never even try for a continental system.

make Peace with Britain. And be willingly to give up quite a bit to get it,.

Fully Independent, Italy, Holland, Switzerland.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,759
Maybe Losing early would have made him more realistic. Maybe if he lost a couple more in the first Italian campaign and marengo (like he deserved to) he would not have ben so falloff himself.
 
Aug 2015
392
beijing
I would make Napoleon be not so gracious in victory to his defeated enemies. time and time again they broke the peace after he gave them lenient terms. A Napoleon with a little more bite and who acted more like his enemies and certain historians have depicted him might have been more successful.
 

pugsville

Ad Honorem
Oct 2010
9,759
I would make Napoleon be not so gracious in victory to his defeated enemies. time and time again they broke the peace after he gave them lenient terms. A Napoleon with a little more bite and who acted more like his enemies and certain historians have depicted him might have been more successful.
gracious Napoleon? On what basis. he was never gracious.

Leniency is in the eye of the beholder. i Would say by the standards of the time Napoleon engaged in much more punitive terms than his contemporaries.

Generally it was Napoleon who time and time again broke his own treaties.
 

paranoid marvin

Ad Honorem
Aug 2015
2,359
uk
gracious Napoleon? On what basis. he was never gracious.

Leniency is in the eye of the beholder. i Would say by the standards of the time Napoleon engaged in much more punitive terms than his contemporaries.

Generally it was Napoleon who time and time again broke his own treaties.
I agree. Napoleon came along, killed your people, occupied your country and looted anything shiny. He might also decide to replace your ruler with one of his own (incompetent) relations.

What's not to like about the guy?:D