Could Napoleon win in 1814? - TL planning

Which would allow Napoleon to be most successful?

  • Blucher is captured at Brienne

    Votes: 4 30.8%
  • Macdonald intercepts Yorck and Osten-Sacken after Chateau-Thierry

    Votes: 7 53.8%
  • Soissons doesn't fall and Blucher's army is defeated at the Aisne

    Votes: 2 15.4%

  • Total voters
    13
  • Poll closed .
I agree but a big victory is needed

Destroying whole armies of the coalition ala Austerlitz or Leipzig will definitely have the Austrians try convince others that peace is an option. As they would be both more reliant on Russia. Aside from that, Austria might even flip towards nappy. As it's like the two are headed of an alliance as the heir is The Austrian emperor's grandkid and what he only needs to do is his mom like teach the kid to be an austrophile
I'd like to point out that Napoleon wouldn't be able to fight a major, all-encompassing battle like Austerlitz, Wagram, Leipzig, etc. His strategy for the campaign was based on that of his Italian campaign in 1796: fast moving, and concentrating as many of your own forces against a weak point of a larger enemy [1]. He [Napoleon] very nearly succeeded in completely crushing Blucher in this way during the six days' campaign. The premise of this TL is that he is able to achieve that, and then force the cautious Schwarzenberg into a armistice, where he can simultaneously negotiate [2] and rebuild his army if negotiations fail; or even force Schwarzenberg to retreat to the Rhine.

[1] and the reason for that was that he was too few in numbers, with mostly inexperienced troops.

[2] The possibility of a drawn out campaign, that would stem from Napoleon rebuilding his army during an armistice, and the relative increase in Russian influence following Blucher's defeat might convince Metternich, who was obsessed for a balance between the great powers, to accept Napoleon's late approval of the Frankfurt proposals, and agree to continued French influence in northern Italy and the Netherlands. Obviously, for this to occur concessions have to be made by both sides.

@Tanaka did nothing wrong what's your take on this?
 
I'd like to point out that Napoleon wouldn't be able to fight a major, all-encompassing battle like Austerlitz, Wagram, Leipzig, etc. His strategy for the campaign was based on that of his Italian campaign in 1796: fast moving, and concentrating as many of your own forces against a weak point of a larger enemy [1]. He [Napoleon] very nearly succeeded in completely crushing Blucher in this way during the six days' campaign. The premise of this TL is that he is able to achieve that, and then force the cautious Schwarzenberg into a armistice, where he can simultaneously negotiate [2] and rebuild his army if negotiations fail; or even force Schwarzenberg to retreat to the Rhine.

[1] and the reason for that was that he was too few in numbers, with mostly inexperienced troops.

[2] The possibility of a drawn out campaign, that would stem from Napoleon rebuilding his army during an armistice, and the relative increase in Russian influence following Blucher's defeat might convince Metternich, who was obsessed for a balance between the great powers, to accept Napoleon's late approval of the Frankfurt proposals, and agree to continued French influence in northern Italy and the Netherlands. Obviously, for this to occur concessions have to be made by both sides.

@Tanaka did nothing wrong what's your take on this?
Cant Nappy like call on additional conscripts volunteers and other units, Lets say macdonald goes captured the bridge, nappyand Macdonald anhillates 2 corps,

1652532897813.png

Technically this happens credits to epic history tv for the map

1652533461771.png

Later Marmont retreats and combines with nappy's forces later facing blucher's attack. with them having success and victory, Later pursues the Austrian forces i forgor who the general is but also destroys that mainly defeats them in detail, then its likely Nappy can negociate his way out
 
Cant Nappy like call on additional conscripts volunteers and other units,
Napoleon did occasionally receive reinforcements from Paris during the campaign. Although most were raw conscripts, or soldiers of the national guard.
Lets say macdonald goes captured the bridge, nappyand Macdonald anhillates 2 corps,

View attachment 741558
Technically this happens credits to epic history tv for the map

View attachment 741562
Later Marmont retreats and combines with nappy's forces later facing blucher's attack. with them having success and victory, Later pursues the Austrian forces i forgor who the general is but also destroys that mainly defeats them in detail, then its likely Nappy can negociate his way out
That's the plan.
 
Napoleon did occasionally receive reinforcements from Paris during the campaign. Although most were raw conscripts, or soldiers of the national guard.

That's the plan.
I apparently mixed up 1813 and 1814, Though I believe nappy should like call up more conscripts and more troops. He's gonna need more than that. I really think he should strike some kind of huge pitched battle ala Austerlitz giving the allies a huge defeat and a giant victory for him more of a political victory. It would be hard as there is one moment like one of the soldiers even got lectured by Marmont on how to load a musket during the 1813 or 14 leipzig or what on just how to use a musket.

He really needs alot I mean alot more troops for that giant battle in my mind

After that giant battle he can like negociate from a position of strenght

1652536713681.png


also he needs more than that to win against that horde of coalition army. Thats his main problem for me. I think he had like 800,00 last year down to 80,000
 
Last edited:
I apparently mixed up 1813 and 1814, Though I believe nappy should like call up more conscripts and more troops. He's gonna need more than that. I really think he should strike some kind of huge pitched battle ala Austerlitz giving the allies a huge defeat and a giant victory for him more of a political victory. It would be hard as there is one moment like one of the soldiers even got lectured by Marmont on how to load a musket during the 1813 or 14 leipzig or what on just how to use a musket.

He really needs alot I mean alot more troops for that giant battle in my mind

After that giant battle he can like negociate from a position of strenght

View attachment 741578

also he needs more than that to win against that horde of coalition army. Thats his main problem for me. I think he had like 800,00 last year
I understand why your proposing a "huge pitch battle ala Austerlitz", but it's impossible. France is exhausted, and there is increasingly stiff resistance to conscription. Napoleon can no longer call upon 200,000 new conscripts such as when he did in 1813. At most, he can call on 10,000 at a time. And it is precisely why he needs to defeat the enemy in detail, as frequently as possible. He is essentially fighting a war of attrition against the coalition, forcing them to fight a prolonged war that will be unpopular and tiresome. Blucher's recklessness and aggressive instinct meant that his first advance on Paris was strung-out and vulnerable to attack, which was exactly the only way, and likely the only time in the campaign, that Napoleon could ever have won in 1814.
 
I understand why your proposing a "huge pitch battle ala Austerlitz", but it's impossible. France is exhausted, and there is increasingly stiff resistance to conscription. Napoleon can no longer call upon 200,000 new conscripts such as when he did in 1813. At most, he can call on 10,000 at a time. And it is precisely why he needs to defeat the enemy in detail, as frequently as possible. He is essentially fighting a war of attrition against the coalition, forcing them to fight a prolonged war that will be unpopular and tiresome. Blucher's recklessness and aggressive instinct meant that his first advance on Paris was strung-out and vulnerable to attack, which was exactly the only way, and likely the only time in the campaign, that Napoleon could ever have won in 1814.
I think at best he can summon like 100,000 troops mainly volunteers and conscripts to battle in addtion to his troops
 
I think at best he can summon like 100,000 troops mainly volunteers and conscripts to battle in addtion to his troops
I don't want to be rude, but you're ignorant. I'd rather you not reply further with these unrealistic suggestions. Please make it sensible, and not fantasy.
 
Last edited:
I don't want to be rude, but you're ignorant. I'd rather you not reply further with these unrealistic suggestions. Please make it sensible, and not fantasy.
But i mean like during the Waterloo or hundred days less than a year or at least a year after he got defeated he like summoned alot if I remember correctly. Nearing that nunbers. From like 40,000 -50,000 to 190,000 nearing 200k. That's like alot if we are to look at things from France which is like you know
 
Last edited:
But i mean like during the Waterloo or hundred days he like summoned alot if I remember correctly. Nearing that nunbers
This isn't Waterloo in 1815.

This is France in 1814.

Following the Bourbon restoration, Napoleon became popular again as the people realised how out of touch the Bourbons were still. This led to some volunteers in 1815, but in 1814, the people are discontented and want peace.

Furthermore, Many of the 1815 soldiers had previously been besieged in garrisons across Germany and Poland in 1813, or PoWs who following Napoleon's abdication and the end of the war, returned to France.
 
Last edited:
It was actually only up to 130,000 (counting only active troops ready for combat).
This isn't Waterloo in 1815.

This is France in 1814.

Following the Bourbon restoration, Napoleon became popular again as the people realised how out of touch the Bourbons were still. This led to some volunteers in 1815, but in 1814, the people are discontented and want peace.

Furthermore, Many of the 1815 soldiers had previously been besieged in garrisons across Germany and Poland in 1813, or PoWs who following Napoleon's abdication and the end of the war, returned to France.
I'm just confused on how in1815 he like raised troops so fast like quadrupled the army in just 2 months. And can't do it last year in 1814
 
The best Napoleon can hope for is a return to Amiens borders with possible adjustments and the possibility of client/vassal states in Italy. Keep in mind too what forces are left from the Spanish ulcer.
 
The best Napoleon can hope for is a return to Amiens borders with possible adjustments and the possibility of client/vassal states in Italy.
That is the likely outcome. Although, I was reading the end of empire: Napoleon's 1814 campaign by George Nafziger (and I'm about to buy a few other books for the planning of this TL) and I was thinking about Augereau's campaign in the defence of Lyon: Had he been more successful, he could have advanced north with some ~15,000 men to the Vosges and there gathered a further ~10,000. This was Napoleon's plan in late March, where he hoped to gather reinforcements and cut the communication and supply lines of the coalition. Except, in this possible scenario, it's a successful Augereau with the Amry of the Rhône.

Schwarzenberg, who by late February would face a threat from both Napoleon (as Blucher has been defeated) and his rear, might be forced to retreat across the Rhine, assuming the negotiations fail.

Is this too ambitious of a goal?
Keep in mind too what forces are left from the Spanish ulcer.
True, but they are needed against Wellington; unless a peace treaty is signed.
 
Last edited:
Would recalli8ng Davout help at all? posting him in Germany during the 1813/1814 campaigns was a bit of a regret for Napoleon, IIRC.
Davout was sadly besieged (in Hamburg) as one of the many garrisons across Germany and Poland. His garrison alone was a force of ~40,000 men if I'm not mistaken. Since the PoD is February 1814, Davout will likely remain besieged.
 
Last edited:
That is the likely outcome. Although, I was reading the end of empire: Napoleon's 1814 campaign by George Nafziger (and I'm about to buy a few other books for the planning of this TL) and I was thinking about Augereau's campaign in the defence of Lyon: Had he been more successful, he could have advanced north with some ~15,000 men to the Vosges and there gathered a further ~10,000. This was Napoleon's plan in late March, where he hoped to gather reinforcements and cut the communication and supply lines of the coalition. Except, in this possible scenario, it's a successful Augereau with the Amry of the Rhône.

Schwarzenberg, who by late February would face a threat from both Napoleon (as Blucher has been defeated) and his rear, might be forced to retreat across the Rhine, assuming the negotiations fail.

Is this too ambitious of a goal?

True, but they are needed against Wellington; unless a peace treaty is signed.
Was a peace with Spain even attempted?
 
I think it's worth noting in this scenario that Britain was never going to accept any Frankfurt'esq proposal which saw the retention of Antwerp with France. Though my suggestion isn't so much a "Napoleon victory" but a "Bonaparte victory".

That being said, the Allied forces that were reaching Paris were rashly over-extended. The key was Auguste de Marmont, who had defected to the provisional government after the Battle of Paris. The Sixth Corps at Essonnes was in a dangerous position of Paris. Napoleon's planned attack of Paris with 60,000 troops could potentially have been disastrous--for either the Allies or Napoleon. Marmont's surrender had secured the legitimacy of the provisional government and had removed any need for a quick peace with Napoleon; it had also put Napoleon's army in a very precarious position at Fontainebleau.

Tsar Alexander's meetings with Caulaincourt showed favorability to an abdication of Napoleon for his son, the King of Rome under the regent of Marie-Louise. Alexander was not fond at all of a Bourbon restoration. Not surprisingly, the British were committed to the Bourbon restoration. But considering Napoleon's exile to Elba was Alexander's doing, I could imagine his way comes out on top regardless.

Had Marmont not defected and Napoleon pincers Paris--and won, the Allies might accept Napoleon's conditional abdication.
 

CalBear

Moderator
Donor
Monthly Donor
I'm just confused on how in1815 he like raised troops so fast like quadrupled the army in just 2 months. And can't do it last year in 1814
Why is it so difficult to understand?

At the end of 1940 the U.S. military stood at 458,000, At the end of 1842 that number was 3,859,000. Why? things changed rather dramatically.

Same goes for 1814 France vs. 1815 France.
 
Top