That is a valid point--the though the British would not quite take over for a few years yet. A French conquest of North Africa, followed by a stronger implementation of the Parthenopean Republic and a Republic in Sicily (Magnagraecian? Syracusan? to follow the naming scheme), would seem to be a good step toward locking the British out of the Western Mediterranean--a Gibraltar campaign would, in this line of thought, be the end-point of the adventure (and secure Spanish friendship for the Republic).
Is napeoleon still eventually defeated in TTL? If he is, do Spain, france & Italy still end up conquering this more united north africa?
With a POD this early in his career, it's hard to say. The French historian Bainville characterizes the whole Napoleonic War as over Belgium, and so long as the Republic was unwilling to yield it, Britain would keep organizing coalitions against it. If you subscribe to that interpretation, Napoleon (or someone else) will fall eventually, simply because France can't keep up against the whole of Europe financed by Britain. Interestingly, Bainville also (and not only him--Zamoyski and other historians who wrote about Napoleon reach similar conclusions) characterize the Egyptian campaign as a personally quite traumatic experience for Bonaparte, that the failure of implementing Enlightenment ideals in Egypt convinced him of the necessity for dictatorship in a way he hadn't previously been convinced. Conceivably, he might be disinclined to become a Monarch ITTL (and thus no attempt at alliances with the Tsar or Austria--no Maria Louisa, no King of Rome)--or the Berbers will sodomize his soldiers just as the Mamelukes did and he reaches the same conclusions. And of course you have other questions, like "does this also help neutralize Talleyrand's career?"
Napoleon becomes interested in alternate history, and writes his first timeline on "what if Hannibal defeated Rome"?
Given his interests at the time, he'd probably find some way to turn that into a Corsica-wank.
Yes, that was a common thing the Arabs did with French soldiers they captured. Between that and torture of the prisoners and other culture shocks, Napoleon seemed to find Egypt rather disturbing compared to France and Italy.
Britain has the naval presence to enforce a presence in Algeria and will likely land there as an appendix to its support for Spain and Portugal during the Peninsular War (if that still happens).
I think, in that case, Napoleon could have have more lasting advantages by either conquering, or allying with, the Barbary states rather than invading Egypt. This assumption is based on Napoleon’s history and also on earlier, pre-Napoleonic French history.
And Napoleon also considered Algeria important enough that he created a contingency plan in 1808 to conquer it, according to a 1969 book, “Modern History of the Arab Countries” by Vladmir Borisovitch Lutsky.Wikipedia said:
A little before the 1805 Battle of Trafalgar, Napoleon had scored a victory over the Barbary state of Algiers by sending his brother Jérôme’s naval squadron to cow the Dey of Algiers into releasing European slaves. Glenn J. Lamar describes this event in his book, “Jérôme Bonaparte: The War Years, 1800 – 1815, pages 22 - 23:Lutsky said:
Once Napoleon had demonstrated who was the “Top Dog” over the Barbary states, he could perhapshave the option to ally with them, instead of a conquest. The Barbary fleets could have been added to Napoleon’s naval power and have been turned loose on British merchant ships while being given bases and shelter in all of French-occupied Europe.Lamar said:
By again making the Barbary pirates into French corsairs, Napoleon could unleash an additional weapon again the British.Wikipedia said:
So I believe that the Barbary states could have provided Napoleon with their near-by-to France wheat for his armies as well as naval reinforcements for his fleet against British merchant shipping. (The British men-of-war could not have protected all the merchant ships.).Wikipedia said:
If Napoleon is still defeated, would the Berbers or Arabs of the Barbary coast (like the Germans & Italians) realize they have far more in common with each other than their french over lords, then unite into some larger berber or Maghrebi-Arab ethno-state?
If the French are both not invading eygipt and as you prepose not invading but instead allying with the Barbery stats, while not guaranteed this opens up the possibility reaffirming the Franco ottoman alliance and haveing them join the war on the side of France in a official capacity (instead of the unofficial capacity later with thier wars with the British and the russians) since the french allying with the barbery states removes the last possible flash point with france no longer invading ottoman allies tributarys or allies in this timeline. since the ottomans already where fighting with the British and Russians otl this would not change to much but saves the army's that would otl be lost by France and the Ottomans in thier wars agenst each other from napolions otl eygiptian expedition. The ottomans while displaying a shakey preformance standing alone agenst the Russians they also showed they were able to hold thier own vs the British by blunting a attempted British invasion of eygipt and technically win thier war reaferming ottoman rights in the east. Since the ottomans had otl shown thier capacity to hold thier own agenst the British thier entry should not be a spain situation where there is a concern of britan using its navy to pick off ottoman assets and as a result you could then further add the ottomans naval power to the collective french Mediterranean alliance structure and alongside the barbery states naval power as you are suggesting.
