AHC: US Troops fight at Waterloo

Maybe a more decisive victory in the War of 1812 which leads to US involvement in the Napoleonic Wars?
 
The Louisiania Purchase doesn't occur or falls through. A few years later (say 1810 or so) Congress declares war on France. Great Britain hints approval for American conquest of Louisiania.

Eventually the Americans send a token force to aid the British against Napoleon after said Emperor returns, though mostly skirmishers are sent rather than regulars.
 
The Louisiania Purchase doesn't occur or falls through. A few years later (say 1810 or so) Congress declares war on France. Great Britain hints approval for American conquest of Louisiania.

Eventually the Americans send a token force to aid the British against Napoleon after said Emperor returns, though mostly skirmishers are sent rather than regulars.

Americans will fight AGAINST Boney?

:(
 
Americans will fight AGAINST Boney?

:(

Why not? They aren't getting an army across the Atlantic through the Royal Navy, and even in the most advantageous outcome to the War of 1812 there won't be any motivation to try to help Napoleon, especially after he's already been defeated once.

The US came very close to declaring war on France OTL.

Also, I would note the OP doesn't say what side they should be on, so I went with what I viewed as the more plausible course.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Quasi-war goes hot; US mobilizes the Provisional Army

The Louisiania Purchase doesn't occur or falls through. A few years later (say 1810 or so) Congress declares war on France. Great Britain hints approval for American conquest of Louisiania.

Eventually the Americans send a token force to aid the British against Napoleon after said Emperor returns, though mostly skirmishers are sent rather than regulars.

Quasi-war goes hot; US mobilizes the Provisional Army to invade/threaten French/Spanish Louisiana (not that far-fetched; the USN raided Spanish Santo Domingo in 1800 as part of the Quasi-War); the US and UK allign in the first decade of the 1800s, and US entry into the war(s) against Napoleon, allied with the British, was a possibility for several years.

By 1805, a small US force (perhaps a "Legion" along the lines of Anthony Wayne's formation from the 1790s) is in the UK as a "allied" force, while the USN takes up duties on the West Indian station for the RN to free up additional British resources for Europe and the Med (the British put down the Barbary pirates, perhaps?); the US and UK are supportive or not of the various independence movements in the Spanish and Portuguese colonial empires in the Western Hemisphere depending upon events.

Despite the twists and turns of the European conflict, the US-UK alliance is extended from Adams' presidency into Jefferson's and then Madison; when Napoleon abidcates, the Legion, which has been sustained as roughly a brigade for the previous decade, departs for home, but one battalion of riflemen is still in the UK when the 100 Days begins - it moves to the continent and fights as part of Wellington's army.

There, Americans at Waterloo.

Best,
 
Last edited:
The only way Americans are fighting in Europe this early is if the British let them. So maybe the XYZ Affair turns into all-out war, the US and Britain sign a quick alliance, and towards the end of the whole thing, a couple hundred American soldiers volunteer to help the British put down the Corsican Ogre.

Obviously, it won't be the same battle as OTL Waterloo at all, but it technically fits the challenge.
 
Why not? They aren't getting an army across the Atlantic through the Royal Navy, and even in the most advantageous outcome to the War of 1812 there won't be any motivation to try to help Napoleon, especially after he's already been defeated once.

The US came very close to declaring war on France OTL.

Also, I would note the OP doesn't say what side they should be on, so I went with what I viewed as the more plausible course.

How's this, for a bit of outside the box thinking:

Napolean is sent to St Helena first, rather than Elba. The US, wanting to take advantage of his tactical genius in the continuing war of 1812, then secretly smuggles him from St Helena to North America.

Napolean's Americans suddenly have much more success, and the idea of invading Canada is revived. There is a major battle at Waterloo, Nova Scotia, where Napolean's Americans fight the British.

(No specification was given of which Waterloo!).
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yeah, that wasn't well said - baasically, given the

French and Spanish Louisiana? It was never split between the two just traded (in one piece) twice



Except it didn't exist yet

Yeah, that wasn't well said - basically, given the oddities of Treaty of San Ildefonso (signed in 1800, but the French didn't really exercise their control for months/years) it comes down to whether the Spanish are allied with the French if the Quasi-war goes hot.

Good catch.:eek:

Best,
 
Yeah, that wasn't well said - basically, given the oddities of Treaty of San Ildefonso (signed in 1800, but the French didn't really exercise their control for months/years) it comes down to whether the Spanish are allied with the French if the Quasi-war goes hot.

Good catch.:eek:

Best,


It would be really interesting to see the Spanish drop Nappy as an ally so as to save their colonies. Maybe Ferdinand overthrows his father years earlier? Maybe.
 

TFSmith121

Banned
That certainly opens up some ripples

It would be really interesting to see the Spanish drop Nappy as an ally so as to save their colonies. Maybe Ferdinand overthrows his father years earlier? Maybe.

That certainly opens up some ripples.

Best,
 
Even assuming US forces arrive at Waterloo somehow, so what? The largest force we assembled during the war was the roughly 7,000 opposing the British attack at Bladensburg, and that was mostly local militia. Our contribution would be laughably small in comparison to the 250,000 French, British, Belgian, Dutch, Prussian, and allied German troops who actually fought there. Our presence is unlikely to affect the outcome in the slightest, regardless of whose side we are on.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
Even assuming US forces arrive at Waterloo somehow, so what? The largest force we assembled during the war was the roughly 7,000 opposing the British attack at Bladensburg, and that was mostly local militia. Our contribution would be laughably small in comparison to the 250,000 French, British, Belgian, Dutch, Prussian, and allied German troops who actually fought there. Our presence is unlikely to affect the outcome in the slightest, regardless of whose side we are on.

But...

Andy Jackson!

Tennessee Rifles!

Buckskins!
 

TFSmith121

Banned
Yeah, but the OP didn't say it had to be decisive

But...

Andy Jackson!

Tennessee Rifles!

Buckskins!

Yeah, but the OP didn't say it had to be decisive ... just that they had to be there.;)

It's actually a pretty huge point of departure for the US to be engaged militarily on the European continent in the Nineteenth Century, even more so as early as 1815 (or whenever) - basically a century earlier than historically (more or less).

It is also worth pointing out the US had been engaged (twice) in the Med by this time (First Barbary, 1801-05, and the Second, 1815), as well as the Quasi-War (1798-1800) which was largely confined to the Western Hemisphere but included some actions in the North and Central Atlantic.

So it's not outside the realm of possibility, and the influences of three (counting the two Barbary conflicts) successful US military expeditions to Europe and European waters, much less in de facto alliance with the UK, before 1820, could actually be very significant.

Hard to see the US intervening again, absent the "villains of all nations" type status of the pirates and (arguably) Napoleon as outlaw, however; maybe on the part of the Greeks against the Turks in the 1820s, along with the British, French, and Russians - sort of a "fellow revolutionaries" type of effort.

After that, it's more of a challenge, but certainly if the US had the above track record, it is possible to see the US being more engaged than historically in Europe in the remainder of the century. I doubt there would ever be anything more than alliances of convenience - the "blood is thicker than water" operations against the Chinese and Japanese, in the 1850s come to mind - but I could see a US "European" squadron to rival the Mediterranean Squadron; presumably that could lead to some interesting events in the middle of the century.

There's also the question of how such experience, along with that of the Civil War, would have an impact on the USN in the 1870s and 1880s - the "Steel and Steam Navy" might come along that much sooner.

Best,
 
Or if we interpret the title differently, this could work. Say, Trent affair leads to US-UK war, leads to the Battle of Waterloo, Ontario. Or something like that.
 
Even assuming US forces arrive at Waterloo somehow, so what?
And that's a big assumption: this is the Hundred Days campaign, remember. Wellington couldn't get his veteran Peninsular troops back from America in time; he couldn't even get the Portuguese contingent he was requesting. Neither of those had to deal with the Royal Navy, who are probably going to notice an American troop convoy making its way to France.

Your best bet for having American troops at Waterloo is to have the British government call out the militia, so that they can send Wellington the 5th Battalion, 60th (Royal American) Regiment from Ireland. Right Waterloo, wrong Americans.
 
Top