Now here is the premise. Napoleon commits the Imperial Guard earlier in the battle of Waterloo before Blücher arrives and the British are routed to the sea. But even with the British gone Napoleon does not win, a combined force of Austrian, Prussian and Russian troops defeats him some other time down the road. This new world would be vastly different than OTL. The victory would not be allied, but Continental. THe new way of things would be dominated by the East, the centers of power would move away from London, Madrid and Paris. The new world players would be the men in Vienna, Berlin and St. Petersburg.
The main difference to OTL would be that Britain would have less of a say in the restructuring of Europe.
I have to respectfully disagree here. The notion that the treaty would be written by the parties who won Napoleon's last battle is nonsense. I'll point out here that the Austrians and Russians were miles away from Waterloo and still got involved in 1815, and also that the British refused to sign the Treaty of Fontainebleau for idealist reasons (signing it would tacitly recognise Napoleon's legitimacy as Emperor from 1804 to 1814) and their army was still about 300 miles from Paris when Napoleon first surrendered, and they were still a hefty partner in the Congress of Vienna. Heck, even France got a massive say via Talleyrand, even though they had been the aggressor in the whole war. Also, if you want to say that Britain is routed to the sea, it's perfectly feasible but only if you accept that Prussia will be routed too. Blucher without the support of Wellington is doomed to defeat, the same as the other way around. There are no two ways about it. If the British are routed, the Prussians will be routed the following day, or they will retreat back into Germany and not be of any use until such a time as the British can return to Europe. On top of this, remember that Austria only participated in the wars post 1804
because Britain paid for their entire military commitment. On top of this, most of Europe could be said to have been saved from the Continental Plan which they were forced into and Britain explicitly wasn't because the prospective collapse of their economies when cut off from England shook them out of their unwilling vassalisation to Napoleon. Continental Europe has no leg to stand on denying Britain a say in the peace because they got routed once - heck, Wellington would probably have to lose about 20 battles in a row to match up with any other major European power's military record. There's just no way that Europe could reject the British involvement in the peace because they lost *once*. I mean, it'd be like the Allies in WW2 treating France as a territory to be dished out in 1945 because they got conquered and were basically reorganising and filling holes between the British and American contingents for the last few months of the war. Diplomacy just doesn't work that way.
In conclusion, the peace treaty would be 99% the same as IRL. The major difference in the 1% would be that the final resolution of peace would come a few months later. This doesn't mean that history would stay the same however (see my follow-up below).
So what would this world look like eighty-five years later in 1900?
Virtually impossible to say without actually writing a TL. And even then it will be one of many "possibles". In the following 85 years lots of things could happen. The Butterfly Effect (which I despise for making alt history boring, but must acknowledge the existence of) says that a change like this will alter peoples' paths, and if one diplomat turns up late to a conference in 2 years' time because he did a minutely different set of things since the POD it can change history beyond recognition within that guy's lifetime. 85 years is just too long to predict with no other guidance after the POD.
