AHC: Hundred Days, keep Napoleon on the French throne

All the points I brought up in my own thread NAPOLEON WINS WATERLOO, WHAT NEXT?

France is bankrupt and bled white. The only way for Napoleon to stay in power is politically, not militarily. And NO one is willing to make any sort of deal with the Ogre of Europe. So it's just not going to happen, he is either killed or exiled a second time...

It seems that you did not notice: the proposed "victorious" scenarios are based upon changed political situation (probability of such a change is a completely different issue).
 
Is there any way that the Year Without Summer can force a round of revolutions a la 1848 everywhere, resulting in the Allies being too busy to put down Napoleon?
 
Is there any way that the Year Without Summer can force a round of revolutions a la 1848 everywhere, resulting in the Allies being too busy to put down Napoleon?

Not likely, because everybody in centeral Europe is already exhausted and at least adjusted to privation/high prices from decades of forage and war economies. There's not alot of energy left to revolt, nor as far to fall, as would be needed to make mass revolt likely
 
It seems that you did not notice: the proposed "victorious" scenarios are based upon changed political situation (probability of such a change is a completely different issue).

I did notice, but I don't see ANY change in the political situation would make enough difference for anyone to be willing make any sort of deal. Militarily Napoleon is doomed, why bother to make a deal when you can crush your opponent and end the threat forever...
 
I did notice, but I don't see ANY change in the political situation would make enough difference for anyone to be willing make any sort of deal. Militarily Napoleon is doomed, why bother to make a deal when you can crush your opponent and end the threat forever...

Yes, but the proposed schemes have, as a premise, a war between Britain, Austria and Bourbon France on one side and Russia & Prussia on another. While chances of such an event had been quite low, they were not zero at a height of the conflict regarding fates of Poland and Saxony.
 
I can't find it anywhere, but there was an old Saturday Night Live skit: "What if Napoleon had a B-52 bomber at the Battle of Waterloo?"

A dozen tanks would be much more useful. IIRC, during WWII the attempts of using strategic bombers at the front line were quite unimpressive, to put it mildly. :)
 
Napoléon basically needs a « Miracle of the House of Bonaparte » to stay on the throne. All the rest of Europe wants him gone at this point and he doesn’t have the resources he had.

I think it’s possible (hard but possible) for some kind of settlement in 1814 where he keeps his throne. But once he’s back from Elba, the rest of Europe considers him an outlaw. I’m not sure how they change their mind. Maybe with an Austerlitz- like victory at Waterloo? Even then...
 
Yes, but the proposed schemes have, as a premise, a war between Britain, Austria and Bourbon France on one side and Russia & Prussia on another. While chances of such an event had been quite low, they were not zero at a height of the conflict regarding fates of Poland and Saxony.

I'd counter with the point that Britain cares far more about keeping Nappy out of France and putting France in a politically-militarily innert state than the fate of Poland, and has the position to bow out for the sake of not making an enemy of Prussia and rendering the Low Counteries untenable to a Franco-Prussian orbit rather than fall on the sword for Austria.
 
Top