I don't think you are particularly understanding the tactical situation in the 100 days. The cavalry force sent to fight Blucher was a screening force. Meant to hold back Blucher and nothing else. If that is kept, then the same scenario as otl will play out. If Napoleon wants to defeat Blucher and isolate him, and his army, then a much much stronger force will be needed, one which would deplete his main army, and make it capable of being broken by Wellington, which almost happened otl, even when Napoleon didn't send more than a small amount of troops with Grouchy. That would place Wellington in place to outflank the French forces in between the Anglo-Dutch and the Prussian armies, which would heap a even greater defeat than otl. Or finally Napoleon can also focus every thing he has on Wellington and pretty much make himself free to be flanked by Blucher's army and Below and Yorck's corps.
There is a reason why Davout told Napoleon his plan was suicidal and told him to maintain the strategic defense.
Me @Niegel made a somewhat more entertaining scenario
It's entertaining sure, but you need to change the entire troop placements before 1814 to make it happen. Because if the troop placements and disposition of otl 1814 remain in place, then the 100 days campaign is basically end up the same manner because fortunately for the allies, their positions were the best to outflank Napoleon. IOTL the Prussians were thinking about moving Blucher to Silesia with his army due to rising tensions over the Saxon Crisis. Make it go through and your scenario has a chance of happening. And even then Wellington will not fight on Napoleon's terms. Also, the fact about Napoleon overtaking Wellington otl is quite wrong. According to Wellington at Waterloo by Jac Weller, the Anglo-Allied army was starting to overcome French speed, and Ney reported to Napoleon on the 13th June that the Anglo-Allied army could escape if it wanted.
Of course I'm trying to force the scenario, it's alternate history for God's sake. Marche Consulaire is founded entirely on two wars unrealistic by Napoleon's standards and is already in the reign of Napoleon II. If the implausibility you perceive bothers you so much, it's your turn:
Marche Consulaire is a superb timeline, and slightly on the implausible side of things, but is executed perfectly, however it also changes the entire troop movements and positions, the diplomatic situation as well as the political situation to change things, which by the way almost happened otl, so it isn't at all farfetched. And the author has provided concrete reasons for how and why it happens. You haven't.
Also......some of the things you stated are blatantly false. I would recommend reading Russia Against Napoleon, Napoleon by Paul Johnson, The Hundred Days by Joseph Roth because my responses to you are going to come from information garnered from them
In 1814 (as I mentioned implicitly) Napoleon could not organize a guerrilla. In 1815 he did have the conditions to organize it, in fact, this was the alternative action plan to the Waterloo campaign that Napoleon decided to postpone until obtaining some victories.
He couldnt. Carnot, the Minister of Interior bluntly told Napoleon otl that he either could arm the populace or arm the army, and to choose one. If goes to get some victories as you postulate, then he has no arms to arm the populace with. And the populace is not going to fight with forks and spears against muskets and cannons. France also did not have the natural geographic advantage of the vastness of Russia or the vast mountain ranges of Spain to conduct a proper guerilla campaign. The (very very) small campaigns than happened otl were stamped out Allied militia, not even the frontline troops showing the worthlessness of the guerilla attempt in France
A crushing defeat against the Prussians (along with the death of Blucher) does not mean that Napoleon wins the war, but it does grant him powerful influence. Not only does it mean that his star has not faded but that now he will have the opportunity to operate in his own territory, with his own irregular armed followers. It would be like combining the Peninsular War with the German Campaign.
Why would the Coalition get stuck in this quagmire despite knowing well the talents of Napoleon, the Peninsular War and the Russian Campaign of 1812? They already won! The tsar has already proven himself the Liberator of Europe and Metternich is interested in a Napoleonic France. Only Prussia would be ready for such a relentless war, but... with the help of the Coalition.
England is not interested, but was defeated. Prussia is not interested, but is hesitating. Russia under the tsar is ambiguous. And Austria under Metternich wants a counterbalance to Russia (and does not want to put Austria in an unnecessary war), now it has a justification for successfully carrying out the Frankfurt Proposals by being able to threaten its resignation from the Coalition should they become intransigent. Russia will yield, therefore, Prussia as well and England will have to do so.
This is blatantly false. On June 16, the allied monarchs in Vienna all swore, before they knew about the results of Waterloo that they would continue the fight against Napoleon. Castlereagh the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the UK also reiterated this view with approval from the British Parliament. Frankly, everyone but Napoleon and some of the diehard Bonapartists saw that Napoleon was not going to win the moment he went on the offensive. Metternich, despite his earlier pro-Napoleonic stance agreed to the agreement about ending the restored Napoleonic France. Metternich only proposed that after Napoleon was dethroned a regency to be made so that Napoleon II could take up the throne when he matured. This was obviously a powerplay as Napoleon II would be raised by his austrian relatives, so was rejected. But even Metternich agreed in 1815 that Napoleon had to go.
This was mainly because of many things:-
Even if Napoleon wins at Waterloo, or an equivalent, and that is a very very big if and needs to change the entire personality of Wellington and the troop movements of 1814, but handwaving that away, Two Russian armies were marching across Germany to reach France. Similarly three Austrian Armies were on the move. An Spanish Army was being mobilized to invade France from the South. Sardinia-Piedmont was already making deep raids into Provence. The Dutch were amassing their army alongside the British. Prussia was mobilized an army in the Rhineland and another one in Pomerania. Sweden was mobilizing in Skane. Napoleon could only muster up 2 Armies when he had a minimum of 12 armies marching against him, all with senior commanders, many of whom knew Napoleon's strategies by the book.
Alternatehistory is alternatehistory, yes, but facts are hard facts, and even alternatehistory, the ones which are worthwhile and well researched anyway, all have basis in real history. For example
@Cymraeg 's many TL's many premises are at blank look at times, implausible, however to take example of Cato's Cavalry, stirrups were very well within technological range during that time. The earlier invention of it does not raise eyebrows when proper research into metallurgy is undertaken by readers. Stirrups during the early 400s would be a massive advantage for cavalry which is shown to be the turning point to stop the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain. For example, Marche Consulaire itself. OTL in 1807, Napoleon said that he would do anything to prevent war between himself and Russia again. Making him stick by that promise isn't all that hard to do when Napoleon's (most of the time) honorable and honest psychology is taken into account. For example, my own TL Osman Reborn, is based on the fact that the Ottomans win the Italo-Turkish War. OTL, the Turks thought about sending 6 divisions and a lot of supplies to Libya one month before war broke out but they didn't. In my TL i make them go through with it. Seeing a pattern here? Alternatehistory all have a basis in real history. Without real history alternatehistory would not be pertinent at all.
@GeneraalTommy created the discussion thread
Me @Niegel made a somewhat more entertaining scenario
You @Cymraeg what are you going to do? Go on saying that there is no way or idea a campaign more feasible to your standards?
Also........please keep the discussion civil. He does have a point, and you haven't exposited how Napoleon overcomes the fact that the British-Allied Army was moving faster, how he maintains his logistics, and how he keeps the Prussians and Dutch at bay without expending his forces dangerously enough to allow Wellington to attack.