WI: Napoleon Wins at Waterloo
- Thread starter ThatOneGuy
- Start date
So, assume both Wellington and Blücher suffer shattering casualties, on the scale like Napoleon OTL suffered at Waterloo.
What next? Where is Schwarzenberg on 18th of June, and what would Napoleon do?
What next? Where is Schwarzenberg on 18th of June, and what would Napoleon do?
Ligny is a better occasion than Waterloo.
Napoleon had a good chance at virtually destroying the Prussian army and even capturing Blücher.
All he would need is Ney not recalling d'Erlon Corps, allowing it to arrive in time on the battlefield of Ligny; that wouldn't have affected the issue of the battle of Quatre-Bras.
If the Prussians are routed, Wellington would withdraw as he couldn't count on Prussian support.
That victory would compell Schwarzenberg to wait for the Russians before undertaking any offensive action.
You can have Ney killed as a POD. After all, he did say at a moment: ''Do you see theses balls? I would want that all enter in my stomach''.
Napoleon had a good chance at virtually destroying the Prussian army and even capturing Blücher.
All he would need is Ney not recalling d'Erlon Corps, allowing it to arrive in time on the battlefield of Ligny; that wouldn't have affected the issue of the battle of Quatre-Bras.
If the Prussians are routed, Wellington would withdraw as he couldn't count on Prussian support.
That victory would compell Schwarzenberg to wait for the Russians before undertaking any offensive action.
You can have Ney killed as a POD. After all, he did say at a moment: ''Do you see theses balls? I would want that all enter in my stomach''.
Not really
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Minor_campaigns_of_1815#Army_of_the_Upper_Rhine_.28Austo-German_Army.29
On 19th June the Austrians were just commencing crossing the Rhine with 270,000 men, with another 37k Swiss and 50k in Northern Italy. The French had about 30k in total. So more than 10 to 1. They are not stopping until made to, which will require the Army du Nord to march down from Belgium, and even then the French are going to be outnumbered at least 2 to 1 without the Russians. Schwarzenburg was cautious and methodical, but that also means he tended to not make mistakes, and with numbers on his side it will be a repeat of 1814.
With Prussians routed and Wellington retreating, Napoleon would head to meet Schwarzenberg advancing army. On the other side, it's not unplausible to think that the local French forces under Rapp would evade Schwarzenberg to join Napoleon army. Schwarzenberg, someone prudent I think, would want to wait for Russians instead of confronting Napoleon alone; he has a 2 to 1 ratio in his favour, but a 4 to 1 is better.
Still, I think that it would only delay the unavoidable end; Ligny would be Napoleon's swan song.
Still, I think that it would only delay the unavoidable end; Ligny would be Napoleon's swan song.
Napoleon was like the world's first real supervillain. He was "The Monster." He was considered far too dangerous to be left in charge of France. Napoleon had spent 20 years winning, and rather than let the world live in peace he kept invading everyone.
Nobody could take the risk Napoleon wouldn't begin the cycle again in 5, 10, or 20 years later even if truly wanted to be left alone in 1815.
Having finally defeated the man once, the Allies weren't going to let him leave in peace.
Nobody could take the risk Napoleon wouldn't begin the cycle again in 5, 10, or 20 years later even if truly wanted to be left alone in 1815.
Having finally defeated the man once, the Allies weren't going to let him leave in peace.
Umm, yes he did. Egypt and Syria were both under direct rule by Istanbul. Guess just where Napoleon attacked?
He went as far as Acre. Syria (Greater Syria actually)in the parlance of the time encompassing what is now Israel, Lebanon and Syria.
Not that he wasn't a warmonger, but Napoleon had plenty of excuses to go to war - the ruling heads of the rest of Europe regarded him as a usurper of Louis XVIII's rightful throne and would have wanted him gone even if he hadn't been a scary threat.
usertron2020
Donor
Oops. I forgot about that one. In that period of history I tend to think of Ottoman-occupied Europe. That was so early and so foolish of him. What was he thinking?
What's is important is that I'm sure you are well aware that This is just caricatural propagande, the same level as the corsican ogre stuff. We know History is always written by the winners.
But if Napoleon had been seen as a supervillain, there would not be so many Napoleon's fans in so many countries. You don't find many people refering the memory of Tamerlan, Hitler or Stalin.
The facts are that, up to 1799, Napoleon was nothing more than a briliant general of the french republic. The conquest of Egypt was not his plan. It was a plan of the french Directorate, and more precisely a plan of Talleyrand who, strategically, wanted France to lead the policy of Choisel whom he revered.
Up to 1807 included, Napoleon did nothing else in Europe than fighting back foreign agressions. The initiative of wars always came from the coalitions, not from France, until 1807. The UK, Russian, Austria, Prussia, started the wars. But they lost these wars which caused napoleonic France to extend its control in Europe in order to weaken its enemies and deter them to start new wars.
The UK, Austria, Russia, did not fight napoleonic for a noble cause such as pacific relations or balance of powers. They did it because they were imperialist powers no less than any great power.
Prussia, Russian and Austria broke-up Poland before Napoleon had any power in France.
Austria wanted to dominate northern Italy and southern Germany.
Russia wanted to conquer the Balkans and took Finland.
Britain took every foreign colony It could snatch from other countries. And it just could not stand a too powerful France on the other side of the Channel and actes as a monopolist in trading goods.
It was another hundred years war between Britain and France. Napoleon was France's last bid to try to reverse a course of évents that had been a gigantic strategic victory for Britain at the end of the 7 years war. France almost won and would in fact have won if Napoleon had not ruined it with his Russian campaign.
But there is a good reason why, a century later, Wilson's US (and not The UK) proclaimed the principle of freedom of the seas. The concept was a joke for the UK which always acted as some kind of rogue State, never respecting what was universally considered as People's rights (starting wars before declaring them and talking foreign sailors as prisoners before déclaration of war and bombing neutral countries). The UK behave de as such a rogue State that it even caused the foundation of a league of neutrals to resist its sea State piracy.
It's only when he invaded Spain that Napoleon became the agressor.
And not all the allied were opposed to Napoleon remaining on the french throne. It was Napoleon's refusal to negotiate and to deal when It was still time that prevented him to stop the war before his military position became too weak that finally made his exile unavoidable.
He lost. And that was his fault. Vae victis ! But no need for wrong caricatures.
A second 'Alexander the Great'?Oops. I forgot about that one. In that period of history I tend to think of Ottoman-occupied Europe. That was so early and so foolish of him. What was he thinking?
Then we can march east and drive the British out of India?
Saphroneth
Banned
Actually, that's almost exactly how he was thought of in the time in Britain.
Perhaps a bit less so in other countries, but the nobility and the gentry and the establishment in general certainly thought of him as a supervillain. And they're the ones who sends the armies.
Yes. The british press did a wonderful propagande job especially in 1803 when the ruling elite decided it wanted war again.
But the fact is just they decided there had to be a fight to the death because they did not accept a too powerful and dynamic competitor on the other side of the Channel.
But the fact is just they decided there had to be a fight to the death because they did not accept a too powerful and dynamic competitor on the other side of the Channel.
Saphroneth
Banned
Not just because of that. All the invading probably helped. (Yes, Revolutionary France shot first.) And the pogroms helped. And the bombastic way Napoleon started handing out huge chunks of Europe to his friends and relatives didn't hurt, either.
Not just the nobs either.
The followers of Andreas Hofer and of the various Spanish guerilleros were not particularly blue-blooded.
When did it occur and who took the initiative of war ?
The question is for the form since I have already reminded how events took place.
I am not giving excuses to Napoleon. But real responsibilities can not be ignored.
Vae victis for sure. But we needn't make him the scapegoat since responsibilities are shared and since France in fact was on the defensive until 1807 included.
Except the Dutch East Indies, Guadalupe, Martinique, Reunion and Mauritius, all of which it handed back at the Congress of Vienna.
Quite.