WI: Napoleon Wins at Waterloo

What if Napoleon wins against the Brits in Waterloo and ends up killing or seriously wounding Duke Wellington? How long would the Hundred Days go on?
 
What if Napoleon wins against the Brits in Waterloo and ends up killing or seriously wounding Duke Wellington? How long would the Hundred Days go on?

a year possibly, if he beats the Prussians right afterwards? France wasn't exactly fresh and ready for war, and the Coalitions aren't going to stop until he's dead. Also, 1815 Napoleon is not the one known as the God of War. Unless he's suddenly his younger self he won't be able to continue consistently winning against the armies put against him.
 
Considering that an Austrian and a Russian army was on their way to intercept Napoleon and that France was exhausted for war, I don't think Napoleon would last terribly long. At best probably a couple of months.
 

Cook

Banned
Strategic_Situation_of_Western_Europe_1815.jpg


Napoleon had the only French army of any size, and after Waterloo, even if he did win it that army would have been cleverly depleted; there would be nothing to stop the Austrian, Prussian and Russian armies.
 
A defeat of Wellington which would leave the British general seriously wounded would probably result in the withdrawal of the British forces from the Lowlands. If this is followed by a defeat of the Prussians then there is a major problem for the allies.. The Austrian Commander would probably fall back or at the very least slow to a crawl. There would be internal pressure on the Czar to withdraw from the war and it is likely that in London the government would fall.
It might be possible for Napoleon to achieve a peace settlement with the British and the shutting of of the flow of Gold to Austria and the others would in effect mean the end of the war.
It is highly likely that the French army in Belgium would have its ranks replenished by Belgian defectors from the allied Army as well as Belgians who dislike the Dutch. The Unification of Holland with the Belgian territories had been a bad idea and the war had just helped to create even more friction between the Dutch crown and their new subjects.
Also the Danes were not happy to be involved in the fighting at all. They had lost their territory ( Norway ) to the Swedes and had been a French ally. Nor were all of the German states happy. The uprising in Saxon had nearly lead to a war between the allies and the Prussians were not exactly popular in the western part of their new German lands.
It should also be pointed out that Spain was suffering both internal problems as a result of missteps by its King an a revolt in the American Colonies.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Why wouldn't the Austrian and Russian forces speed up? They disliked Napoleon as much as anyone, and he who finally stops the bugger is going to get a heck of a lot of prestige.
 
A defeat of Wellington which would leave the British general seriously wounded would probably result in the withdrawal of the British forces from the Lowlands. If this is followed by a defeat of the Prussians then there is a major problem for the allies.. The Austrian Commander would probably fall back or at the very least slow to a crawl. There would be internal pressure on the Czar to withdraw from the war and it is likely that in London the government would fall.
It might be possible for Napoleon to achieve a peace settlement with the British and the shutting of of the flow of Gold to Austria and the others would in effect mean the end of the war.
It is highly likely that the French army in Belgium would have its ranks replenished by Belgian defectors from the allied Army as well as Belgians who dislike the Dutch. The Unification of Holland with the Belgian territories had been a bad idea and the war had just helped to create even more friction between the Dutch crown and their new subjects.
Also the Danes were not happy to be involved in the fighting at all. They had lost their territory ( Norway ) to the Swedes and had been a French ally. Nor were all of the German states happy. The uprising in Saxon had nearly lead to a war between the allies and the Prussians were not exactly popular in the western part of their new German lands.
It should also be pointed out that Spain was suffering both internal problems as a result of missteps by its King an a revolt in the American Colonies.

So after 11 years shedding hundreds of thousands of lives to stop Napoleon, Europe collectively gives up if Napoleon wins one more campaign?

I don't think so. :confused: All that happened to Great Britain was the same that happened to Austria (twice), Prussia and Russia before. They came back why wouldn't Great Britain.

It's not even as if Great Britian doesn't have the manpower to replace the losses - it's best troops were still making their way back from the 1812 conflict with the USA
 
It is highly likely that the French army in Belgium would have its ranks replenished by Belgian defectors from the allied Army as well as Belgians who dislike the Dutch.
But where & how do they re-stock on enough suitable replacement horses for their cavalry & artillery?
 

John Farson

Banned
Didn't we have this exact same discussion a while ago?

Anyway, the only result is that Napoleon prolongs the inevitable. That is all.

EDIT: Also good point on the horses, Simreeve. Losing so many in Russia was the real killer for Napoleon - in addition to losing the Grande Armée, of course.
 
Make it the 150 days instead of the 100 ;)

The allied armies in Italy, Swarzenbergs troops and the russians approaching outnumber Napoleon be a factor of 4 (?) (at least)

There is no way that they allow Napoleon to reestablish himself.

Wellington was lucky because he scored with the first matchball out of several, be he being defeated would not change Nappys fate.

I doubt that Napoleon would take on Blücher if Schwarzenberg threatens Paris (and Schwarzenberg was not THAT far from Paris.
 
Didn't we have this exact same discussion a while ago?

Anyway, the only result is that Napoleon prolongs the inevitable. That is all.

EDIT: Also good point on the horses, Simreeve. Losing so many in Russia was the real killer for Napoleon - in addition to losing the Grande Armée, of course.

Yes, there was a big thread on it and the the majority opinion seemed to be there was no way for Nap to survive. I think the map provided by Cook shows that.

The whole 100 Days was a giant excuse in hubris by Bonaparte and the Marshals/soldiers who joined him in thinking that France was the great military power it once was and it could dominate and defeat handily the other countries the way it once did. Demographics alone doomed France. They had lost too many able-bodied men to replace (and were reduced to recruiting boys in school to defend the Homeland during the 100 days) and had by their behavior particularly in Spain and Russia and Prussia and Austria and in the UK (which may have been war-weary but hated Nap more than any other) that there was no way they would be "ok" with seeing him remain in power in France to rebuild the French military (which I think we all know is exactly what he would have done given time). Even a victory (which wouldn't be overwhelming considered the Allied number) would have been pyrrhic and just given Bonaparte a few more months at most.
 
It's not even as if Great Britian doesn't have the manpower to replace the losses - it's best troops were still making their way back from the 1812 conflict with the USA

One must remember one's priorities, in this case being dealing with upstart Colonials:rolleyes: At least according to one or two of our spacier members.:D

Yes, there was a big thread on it and the the majority opinion seemed to be there was no way for Nap to survive. I think the map provided by Cook shows that.

The whole 100 Days was a giant excuse in hubris by Bonaparte and the Marshals/soldiers who joined him in thinking that France was the great military power it once was and it could dominate and defeat handily the other countries the way it once did. Demographics alone doomed France. They had lost too many able-bodied men to replace (and were reduced to recruiting boys in school to defend the Homeland during the 100 days) and had by their behavior particularly in Spain and Russia and Prussia and Austria and in the UK (which may have been war-weary but hated Nap more than any other) that there was no way they would be "ok" with seeing him remain in power in France to rebuild the French military (which I think we all know is exactly what he would have done given time). Even a victory (which wouldn't be overwhelming considered the Allied number) would have been pyrrhic and just given Bonaparte a few more months at most.

Agreed with all. Did not the Allied Powers DoW Napoleon, rather than France?:p
 

Saphroneth

Banned
One must remember one's priorities, in this case being dealing with upstart Colonials:rolleyes: At least according to one or two of our spacier members.:D



Agreed with all. Did not the Allied Powers DoW Napoleon, rather than France?:p
Depends which is more important. Napoleon down, the uppity Yanks kept inside the US itself rather than adding all those beavers. ;)
 
Depends which is more important. Napoleon down, the uppity Yanks kept inside the US itself rather than adding all those beavers. ;)

Using a Royal Navy proudly deploying for battle using more Impressed Americans than existed in the US Navy. I always wondered what would have happened (the political consequences, if any) had there been a case of an Impressed American seaman doing a suicide attack [1] and setting off the powder magazines of a British ship-of-the-line? Technically impossible? Most likely. But stranger things have happened in history.

1] If I were a British sea captain I'd keep any enslaved seamen far away from any weapons period, never mind the magazines. I think they'd be left to rat catching, bilge-work, and overall ship maintenance.
 
Using a Royal Navy proudly deploying for battle using more Impressed Americans than existed in the US Navy. I always wondered what would have happened (the political consequences, if any) had there been a case of an Impressed American seaman doing a suicide attack [1] and setting off the powder magazines of a British ship-of-the-line? Technically impossible? Most likely. But stranger things have happened in history.

1] If I were a British sea captain I'd keep any enslaved seamen far away from any weapons period, never mind the magazines. I think they'd be left to rat catching, bilge-work, and overall ship maintenance.


Both armies and navies of that era had plenty of practice at handling unwilling recruits. I suspect they'd manage.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
Using a Royal Navy proudly deploying for battle using more Impressed Americans than existed in the US Navy. I always wondered what would have happened (the political consequences, if any) had there been a case of an Impressed American seaman doing a suicide attack [1] and setting off the powder magazines of a British ship-of-the-line? Technically impossible? Most likely. But stranger things have happened in history.

1] If I were a British sea captain I'd keep any enslaved seamen far away from any weapons period, never mind the magazines. I think they'd be left to rat catching, bilge-work, and overall ship maintenance.
Well, there was at least one case of an Impressed Briton in the US Navy, so there's not a complete case of one-side-is-blameless.
(Also, the stated reason for the declaration of war wasn't Impressment in the first place, it was the Orders in Council - the British hope was that the revokation of such, which had actually already taken place by the time he US declaration of war arrived, would calm things down... then the casus belli was changed.)
I also quote from the Smithsonian:
Other New England leaders, especially those with ties to the shipping industry, also doubted the severity of the problem. Timothy Pickering, the Bay State’s other senator, commissioned a study that counted the total number of impressed seamen from Massachusetts at slightly more than 100 and the total number of Americans at just a few hundred.
 
Last edited:

Saphroneth

Banned
http://www.city-data.com/forum/history/1452839-just-what-happened-all-american-impressed.html

This thread seems to look into the subject in terms of what people did and so on. It mentions the naturalization issue (i.e. the British didn't think naturalization was a good enough excuse to allow deserters to get away), mistaken identity ("Yep, you must be the John Smith who deserted in Halifax two years ago") and the reliance on personal recognition ("'ere, I know you, you're Wat Turner from the Bellerophon four years ago when we put ashore at...")
Also what the Americans did - that is, they were so outnumbered they didn't get much chance to mutiny - and that it was in one sense a boon for the USN, as it means they had a lot of totally American honest sailors with extensive naval experience.
 
If a victory at Waterloo means that the english and prussian army are destroyed they a peace is probable...

The main question is "does Prussia, Austria and Russia have anything to get from attacking Napoleon again while UK is out of the conflict and is not going to provide any significant help"

Peace is possible not because they like Napoleon but because after 1814 Austria, Prussia and Russia had a look at Poland and some other places and they know that they are goint to fight each other soon. For Russia a weak Napoleon is better than nothing (as Prussia won't be able to focuss east) and so on. In England a huge defeat can turn the table too.

Militiraly speaking Napoleon can't win against all of them at the same time but this alliance is far from strong and some clever moves from Taleyrand can help.
 

Saphroneth

Banned
If a victory at Waterloo means that the english and prussian army are destroyed they a peace is probable...

The main question is "does Prussia, Austria and Russia have anything to get from attacking Napoleon again while UK is out of the conflict and is not going to provide any significant help"

Peace is possible not because they like Napoleon but because after 1814 Austria, Prussia and Russia had a look at Poland and some other places and they know that they are goint to fight each other soon. For Russia a weak Napoleon is better than nothing (as Prussia won't be able to focuss east) and so on. In England a huge defeat can turn the table too.

Militiraly speaking Napoleon can't win against all of them at the same time but this alliance is far from strong and some clever moves from Taleyrand can help.
How does Waterloo destroy BOTH the Allied armies at Waterloo? I could buy making them both retreat, even holding off Prussia and smashing the Anglo-Dutch into flinders, but to turn around and do it to Blucher straight off?
Nevertheless, assuming he does, Prussia's got good reason to keep it up to restore their honour. Austria wants to prove they've got the military prowess. Spain and Russia are out for revenge.
 
The assumption of the creator or this said that Napoleon wins at Waterloo. Now If that Happen earlier in the day and was a shattering defeat Napoleon Might just have been in better shape. Also lets suppose that Grouchy was more aggressive in his pursuit of Blucher. There is a possibility that Blucher move toward Wellington might have resulted in him being caught between two French armies.
If Wellington was injured or Killed then it is likely that the British withdrawal might just have become a rout
Assuming that both Wellington and Blucher's forces were smashed it is likely that 1) the government in London would fall and be replaced by one that is more likely to be willing to reach a peace settlement 20 Based upon the 1814 campaign when word of the defeat of Wellington reaches the Austrians they would probably pull back. The Austrian Commander was not a very daring fellow and would be worried that Napoleon would attack him in the flank,3) Further if Blucher is destroyed then it is likely that the allies would pull back rather than advance. Many Russians would be advising the Czar to withdraw from the war as Russia had done enough and need to conserve its strength. Without British Money the Allies could not afford to keep the war going. They were bankrupt. In fact they were almost certain to be at one another throat.
I do not believe that a Whig government in London would be willing to continue the war. As Long as Napoleon stayed out of Holland that would be enough. France would be no threat to Britain as it had no Navy and it would take a lot of time to rebuild any kind of military Machine capable of being a threat.
 
Top