Coalition armies crushed in Belgium. What next?

As I understand it, the Waterloo campaign was a damn near run thing; let's say d'Erlon's corps, instead of sitting out the battles of Quatre-Bras and Ligny, is committed to the latter, and Napoleon envelopes Blücher's army. The British withdraw to Mont St Jean, Napoleon attacks early in the day, and crushes the British with the Prussians competently masked by Grouchy. With a forest in their line of retreat, they disintegrate. The Allied-Prussian armies are effectively neutralized for the foreseeable future.

Now Napoleon is facing three effective field armies. Two Austrian, coming through Alsace-Lorraine and northern Italy, and one Russian, following the Austrian force in northern France. Besides Napoleon's Army of the North, what field armies do the French have, and how well fortified are the French borders? Does he have a chance of defeating the Seventh coalitions initial onslaught?
 
Does he have a chance of defeating the Seventh coalitions initial onslaught?

Short answer : no. By 1815, Napoleon was isolated geopolitical as he never was before, benefiting from an inner political dynamic in France that wouldn't last forever due to more than 20 years of war.

Even with a victory at Waterloo, all military options available aren't that thrilling (entering in Bruxelles just to leave it fleeing for incoming coalised armies in the East, with admittedly local recruitement being a given), and only a political alternative can be really efficient.

Giving that Austrian and especially Russian armies aren't that in perfect shape either, it's up to what happen in London, if he does defeat or prevent these to advance thanks to a French army victorious in Waterloo, plus Belgian reinforcement, plus freshly mobilized French army.

Basically, would the incoming political crisis in the Parliament be enough to at least consider a conciliation with Napoleon on the grounds of 1814's Treaty of Paris (possibly with some quite minor advantages on borders)?

If not, then that's more or less hopeless for a Napoleonic victory.
 
What's the likely point of failure in the French Empire? Will Napoleon fall victim to revolutionary overthrow, a coup, or will there be barricades in the streets of Paris after the Russians have breached the fortresses?
 
What's the likely point of failure in the French Empire?
You mean apart being surrounded by defiant neighbors at best?

Cent Jours were really reliant on inner political dynamism, but it was a thing because Napoleon himself relied a lot on the army (that had a strong republican base), and on popular support after a really mishandled Bourbon Restauration.

Would he fail to account that, and before the really mild liberal reaction (and royalist discontentment in several places), he would be without real allies.

The Charter of 1815 (particularily similar to Charte Constitutionelle or Senatorial Constitution of 1814) was a good start, that had to be adapted with times tough, lest the Empire suffer the same fate than Bourbons eventually.

Another problem would be economical : Paris' Bourse knew some crisis with Napoleonic restauration. If the situation isn't normalized quickly, you'd likely see a financial defiance towards the emperor, and Napoleon certainly can't afford that.

Basically any surviving Empire would have to deal with both post-revolutionary (if not republican) expectations from the army and 1815 popular support, and liberal expectations from bourgeoisie, financials and ruling elite that switched side twice at this point.

All of this, of course, assuming Napoleon defeats Austrians and Russians in Alsace, and that Britain agree to a new Vienna Congress with a Napoleonic France. If not, Napoleon is militarily toasted.
 
Would Napoleon dying after being victorious in Belgium help France? Napoleon the individual was a large part of the reason the other European powers kept fighting, if he dies but with France victorious in Belgium perhaps France would keep a bit more territory and have a somewhat more favourable peace, though perhaps Napoleon dying opens a power vacuum and creates chaos in France...
 

Redbeard

Banned
Giving that Austrian and especially Russian armies aren't that in perfect shape either, it's up to what happen in London, if he does defeat or prevent these to advance thanks to a French army victorious in Waterloo, plus Belgian reinforcement, plus freshly mobilized French army.

I'm no expert on the Russian army of 1815, but I would claim that the Austrian army closing on France in 1815 was in top shape and at least on par with anything the French could field in 1815.

Not only were the French far from their top shape in 1805, but the Austrians had learned a lot about operations and tactics in their many encounters over the last decades. The many recruits of spring 1813 were already regulars by autumn 1813, but in 1815 seasoned veterans and not at least did English money make life a lot easier.

The same could be said about the Bavarian Army of 1815, more than 50.000 men marched against France - the biggest field army Bavaria had ever fielded - and in top shape.

Even Denmark had a small corps marching on France. It was clad in rags as the state had gone broke in 1813, but the men were well trained and experienced.

But all in all the chances of Napoleon defeating all these allied armies are practically nil. So, even if Wellington is defeated decisively at waterloo there is no reason for the British to quit. They have lost some men, a lot of prestige, but is in no serious danger. Can just sit on the fence and watch their continental allies do what they are paid for.
 
I've heard some speculate that the Seventh Coalition might fall apart; Austria, Russia, and Prussia all had contending designs for Poland, after all, and in 1813, Metternich at least expressed interest in having Napoleonic France (with its Revolutionary conquests, mind!) as a counterweight to Russia.
 
But all in all the chances of Napoleon defeating all these allied armies are practically nil. So, even if Wellington is defeated decisively at waterloo there is no reason for the British to quit. They have lost some men, a lot of prestige, but is in no serious danger. Can just sit on the fence and watch their continental allies do what they are paid for.

Not really. They've lost they single army and they don't have any prospect of building a new one. The problem is that they all want to remove Naponeon but they want somebody else to do the job.

They all noticed that after 1814 England took the best part and was able to earn a LOT of money from trade. They don't really like that. They also know that as soon as the fight is over they are going to try to eat each other. Prussia against Austria against Russia against Poland against Turkey against Sweeden and so on.

Once the English and Prussian armies are out of the equation, Austria will look heavily to Prussia. Poland will revolt again (and they might be successful). Baviaria and all minor states will keep in mind how Prussia behaved with them just a few months before...

Napoleon may get a negociated peace as they hate each otehr and a weakened France is a good answer to many of their problems.
 
Even IF Napoleon crushes the allies in Belgium he has a problem. France do not have enough cavalleryhorses. After France surrendered the year before the victors gave France horses so that they could have cavallry.
 
A failure to destroy Napoleon quickly with available forces near the theatre of war just means the Coalition now takes the time to do it right - raise the armies and send them in en masse like they did in 1814.

Napoleon may hold out until 1816, but his defeat is assured. Napoleon's only hope is that he can split the coalition through diplomacy, and defeating them in detail. That is not realistic at this point. The Coalition leaders know Napoleon cannot be trusted to keep the peace and are determined to destroy him in order to have peace in Europe.
 
Even IF Napoleon crushes the allies in Belgium he has a problem. France do not have enough cavalleryhorses. After France surrendered the year before the victors gave France horses so that they could have cavallry.

Also, France no longer has the demographic advantage it once had. Too many dead men in Revolutionary/Napoleonic wars. Napoleon had teenage recruits doing Homeland defense during Waterloo. And there was still a sizeable royalist minority within France itself (as the White Terror that followed Waterloo showed). Napoleon's "return" was not exactly met with rejoicing throughout France except by the army and Napoleon's entire strategy depended on the Coalition forces falling apart - which is a very weak plan, since if they didn't France would be isolated and eventually crushed. The whole 100 days was a giant enterprise in hubris IMO and the generals like Ney and the ilk who switched to Bonaparte should have known better.
 

Anderman

Donor
In other threads about this topic several poster argue that Wellington had as many soldiers covering his lines of communication to Brussels as he had at Waterloo and that we will fight with the until the Russians and Austrians arrive.
 
In other threads about this topic several poster argue that Wellington had as many soldiers covering his lines of communication to Brussels as he had at Waterloo and that we will fight with the until the Russians and Austrians arrive.

Doubtful. If Wellington thought the Prussians wouldn't aid him at Waterloo, he would have gone to the nearest major port and preserved his army by retreating off Europe. Would have been a blow, but he knew that it was better to keep a standing army to strike at Napoleon later.
 
Top