You promised not to get involved but, anyway, it is rather too ambitious of you to predict what would be mine and others opinion regarding all possible scenarios. Each of us can speak only for him/herself and I’m commenting only on what was proposed so far without rejection of the possible future ideas before they are being formulated.
Everything About History 1#: What If Napoleon Won The Battle Of Waterloo
- Thread starter GeneraalTommy
- Start date
In this case Wellington was forced to fight while preparing to embark his troops.
No, sorry. He would have retreated towards Antwerp, summoning Hill's Corps to him for safety and waited for the Prussians to sort themselves out. Napoleon only had one real chance and he really didn't know that Wellington was only fighting at Waterloo because he was waiting for Blucher.
Wellington was well aware of Napoleon's strategy of the central position.
Ligny IOTL was probably as bad as it could have been for the Prussians. That said, killing off Blucher is an interesting what-if, as Gneisenau was a bit of an Anglophobe and wanted to retreat along the Prussians line of supply, exactly as Napoleon wanted. Kill off both of them and command might devolve to Zieten or Pirch and I don't know if they would have co-operated with Wellington as he might have wanted.
Wellington cannot risk such a retreat because Napoleon is hot on his heels, they would have ended up fighting in the middle of Antwerp. He is much safer than he decides to make a quick landing at Waterloo.
Blücher died and Gneisenau was captured. The Prussian army that fought at Ligny was completely disabled.
In which case you will have totally different dispositions by Wellington and a very different battle. He will also concentrate with Hill. Again, totally different battle in a location that he'd been eying for months. The Waterloo position (before the Lion Mound was created, changing the main feature of the position) was a formidable one.
Also, the Prussian army totally disabled? That means completely enveloped and destroyed. Granted Blucher was not a brilliant general but he was a fighter and not bad at that. He was mauled at Ligny, but was never at the point of total defeat, which is why Grouchy was detached to chase him off the right way. The Prussian army of 1815 is NOT the Prussian army of 1806, it's a lot better. You'd need to explain how they get smashed so comprehensively.
Napoleon attacks with all his might instead of dividing them. In the outnumbered OTL Napoleon inflicted a serious defeat on the Prussians and Blücher even fell off his horse. In TTL Napoleon's numerical parity gives him an overwhelming advantage capable of effectively annihilating his enemy.
In which case, if he attacks Blucher with all he has, we get a reverse Waterloo. Wellington hoped to detach at least one Corps, if not his whole army, to help Blucher at Ligny. He was unable to because a) Ney attacked him and b) Napoleon got very lucky, a key intelligence report arrived in Wellington's hands a day late.
If Napoleon concentrates entirely on Blucher then b) might not happen, a) is now impossible and he gets Wellington's army attacking his left flank, changing Ligny completely as the Allies outnumber his army.
Let me explain - Napoleon's strategy of the central position was a simple one. When faced with two opponents, each with a different line of supply, he always inserted himself in the join, blocked one opponent with just enough force whilst hammering on the other, making them retreat up their live of supply, before turning with as much strength as possible on the other, hopefully so that his two opponents retreated in different directions. Wellington knew this strategy and had made sure that he got on very well with Blucher, who was also aware of the the strategy, which is why Napoleon failed in 1815 - there was agreement and co-operation between Wellington & Blucher.
And it's very hard in Napoleonic times to annihilate your enemy.
Napoleon was hours ahead of Wellington. The only reason he fought only against Ney at Quatre-Bras is because Napoleon was delayed more than he expected with Blucher because of unexpected Prussian tenacity (for him) and errors of his subordinates.
In TTL as he attacks with full force he would finish something before Wellington reached Quatre-Bras.
I mean by waterloo no mader what happened napoleon was done for, but Napoleon Victorious! : An Alternative History of the Battle of Waterloo by
Tsouras, Peter G. Dose have a pod a bit before the battle that wail still not very likely dose attest gets to the point where the battle of waterloo actually can lead to Napoleon getting the peace he desires. But even then a earlier pod would be much easier in getting Napoleon victorious then waterloo.
Tsouras, Peter G. Dose have a pod a bit before the battle that wail still not very likely dose attest gets to the point where the battle of waterloo actually can lead to Napoleon getting the peace he desires. But even then a earlier pod would be much easier in getting Napoleon victorious then waterloo.
No, it doesn't work like that. Quatre Bras was the vital crossroads that linked Wellington with Ligny. As I said, Napoleon only stole a march on Wellington because the latter was missing a key piece of intelligence - a report from one of his best scouting officers. If it had not been delayed by an idiot subordinate it would have been Wellington's hands a day earlier, his army would have already been at Quatre Bras formed up and ready to support Blucher, as they had planned. If your lunge by Napoleon with his entire army against Blucher happens then that changes everything - there's a high chance that the intelligence will get into the hands of Wellington, he will have concentrated everything he has and he will intervene in time against Napoleon.
I don't see why it would happen. The inefficient subordinate would carry on with his inefficient work. And Napoleon is more in a hurry to achieve victory that will not delay the battle until late in the afternoon as well as having more strength to finish it much earlier. Wellington won't be there in time.
Why? The message would be different, probably sent a different way due to the French cavalry patrols, there's no guarantee that it would be delayed the same way. That's the thing about alternate history, if you change one set of events then things do not automatically mean that things will happen the same way as a result. Grant's message might be one of several, giving Wellington the chance to intervene at Ligny if Ney is not at Quatre Bras.
You're trying to force this scenario and there's just little chance of it happening. Wellington and Blucher always planned a joint campaign, they always planned to support each other. If Napoleon abandoned his tried and tested central position strategy (why by the way, it had worked for years) and descended on Blucher with everything he would have left himself open to being flanked by Wellington. Waterloo in reverse, as I said. It could have been Blucher fighting the delaying action as Hill's Corps appears on the left rear of the French as dusk falls!
I reiterate, I do not see why the message cannot continue to delay Wellingto, as you say, a more efficient message could have been sent in both TL and OTL, but I decided to keep that delay because I am not speculating a reverse Waterloo but a successful Waterloo.
Yes, but again (sorry) you are trying to force the scenario. Wellington only fought at Waterloo because he knew that the Prussians were coming. You can't remove the Prussians from the board completely. If Napoleon concentrates all his forces against them then Wellington will support Blucher and, as I said, reverse Waterloo ensues.
Yes, the Prussians can get mauled worse than they were (with the implication being that the French also take losses). Yes, you can have Blucher killed - after all he almost died in real life. Yes, you can have whoever succeeds Blucher disobeying his orders are retreating NE, along his lines of supply. But that does not mean that Wellington would fight at Waterloo! A delaying action perhaps, but he'd be more likely to fall back to defensive positions at Antwerp and then thumb his nose at Napoleon as the Austrians, Prussians and Russians hammer into Eastern France and smash him to pieces again.
Others have written this, so I shall repeat: by the time Waterloo happens it's too late for Napoleon. The Hundred Days was always doomed to end in his defeat because the forces arrayed against him were so large and because no-one trusted him to negotiate a "What will it take to persuade you that I'm a reformed chap" peace.
Wellington is forced to fight Waterloo to embark his troops and retreat as if he tries to retreat to Antwerp he will be hit by Napoleon's army and crushed before reaching there.
Of course I'm trying to force the scenario, it's alternate history for God's sake. Marche Consulaire is founded entirely on two wars unrealistic by Napoleon's standards and is already in the reign of Napoleon II. If the implausibility you perceive bothers you so much, it's your turn:
@GeneraalTommy created the discussion thread
Me @Niegel made a somewhat more entertaining scenario
You @Cymraeg what are you going to do? Go on saying that there is no way or idea a campaign more feasible to your standards?
I'm going to point out that you need a credible point of departure. I'm also going to add that we seem to be the only people keeping this thread going at the moment and then depart quietly.
I don't think you are particularly understanding the tactical situation in the 100 days. The cavalry force sent to fight Blucher was a screening force. Meant to hold back Blucher and nothing else. If that is kept, then the same scenario as otl will play out. If Napoleon wants to defeat Blucher and isolate him, and his army, then a much much stronger force will be needed, one which would deplete his main army, and make it capable of being broken by Wellington, which almost happened otl, even when Napoleon didn't send more than a small amount of troops with Grouchy. That would place Wellington in place to outflank the French forces in between the Anglo-Dutch and the Prussian armies, which would heap a even greater defeat than otl. Or finally Napoleon can also focus every thing he has on Wellington and pretty much make himself free to be flanked by Blucher's army and Below and Yorck's corps.
There is a reason why Davout told Napoleon his plan was suicidal and told him to maintain the strategic defense.
Also......some of the things you stated are blatantly false. I would recommend reading Russia Against Napoleon, Napoleon by Paul Johnson, The Hundred Days by Joseph Roth because my responses to you are going to come from information garnered from them
This was mainly because of many things:-
Even if Napoleon wins at Waterloo, or an equivalent, and that is a very very big if and needs to change the entire personality of Wellington and the troop movements of 1814, but handwaving that away, Two Russian armies were marching across Germany to reach France. Similarly three Austrian Armies were on the move. An Spanish Army was being mobilized to invade France from the South. Sardinia-Piedmont was already making deep raids into Provence. The Dutch were amassing their army alongside the British. Prussia was mobilized an army in the Rhineland and another one in Pomerania. Sweden was mobilizing in Skane. Napoleon could only muster up 2 Armies when he had a minimum of 12 armies marching against him, all with senior commanders, many of whom knew Napoleon's strategies by the book.
Alternatehistory is alternatehistory, yes, but facts are hard facts, and even alternatehistory, the ones which are worthwhile and well researched anyway, all have basis in real history. For example @Cymraeg 's many TL's many premises are at blank look at times, implausible, however to take example of Cato's Cavalry, stirrups were very well within technological range during that time. The earlier invention of it does not raise eyebrows when proper research into metallurgy is undertaken by readers. Stirrups during the early 400s would be a massive advantage for cavalry which is shown to be the turning point to stop the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain. For example, Marche Consulaire itself. OTL in 1807, Napoleon said that he would do anything to prevent war between himself and Russia again. Making him stick by that promise isn't all that hard to do when Napoleon's (most of the time) honorable and honest psychology is taken into account. For example, my own TL Osman Reborn, is based on the fact that the Ottomans win the Italo-Turkish War. OTL, the Turks thought about sending 6 divisions and a lot of supplies to Libya one month before war broke out but they didn't. In my TL i make them go through with it. Seeing a pattern here? Alternatehistory all have a basis in real history. Without real history alternatehistory would not be pertinent at all.
There is a reason why Davout told Napoleon his plan was suicidal and told him to maintain the strategic defense.
It's entertaining sure, but you need to change the entire troop placements before 1814 to make it happen. Because if the troop placements and disposition of otl 1814 remain in place, then the 100 days campaign is basically end up the same manner because fortunately for the allies, their positions were the best to outflank Napoleon. IOTL the Prussians were thinking about moving Blucher to Silesia with his army due to rising tensions over the Saxon Crisis. Make it go through and your scenario has a chance of happening. And even then Wellington will not fight on Napoleon's terms. Also, the fact about Napoleon overtaking Wellington otl is quite wrong. According to Wellington at Waterloo by Jac Weller, the Anglo-Allied army was starting to overcome French speed, and Ney reported to Napoleon on the 13th June that the Anglo-Allied army could escape if it wanted.
Marche Consulaire is a superb timeline, and slightly on the implausible side of things, but is executed perfectly, however it also changes the entire troop movements and positions, the diplomatic situation as well as the political situation to change things, which by the way almost happened otl, so it isn't at all farfetched. And the author has provided concrete reasons for how and why it happens. You haven't.
Also......some of the things you stated are blatantly false. I would recommend reading Russia Against Napoleon, Napoleon by Paul Johnson, The Hundred Days by Joseph Roth because my responses to you are going to come from information garnered from them
He couldnt. Carnot, the Minister of Interior bluntly told Napoleon otl that he either could arm the populace or arm the army, and to choose one. If goes to get some victories as you postulate, then he has no arms to arm the populace with. And the populace is not going to fight with forks and spears against muskets and cannons. France also did not have the natural geographic advantage of the vastness of Russia or the vast mountain ranges of Spain to conduct a proper guerilla campaign. The (very very) small campaigns than happened otl were stamped out Allied militia, not even the frontline troops showing the worthlessness of the guerilla attempt in France
This is blatantly false. On June 16, the allied monarchs in Vienna all swore, before they knew about the results of Waterloo that they would continue the fight against Napoleon. Castlereagh the Secretary of Foreign Affairs of the UK also reiterated this view with approval from the British Parliament. Frankly, everyone but Napoleon and some of the diehard Bonapartists saw that Napoleon was not going to win the moment he went on the offensive. Metternich, despite his earlier pro-Napoleonic stance agreed to the agreement about ending the restored Napoleonic France. Metternich only proposed that after Napoleon was dethroned a regency to be made so that Napoleon II could take up the throne when he matured. This was obviously a powerplay as Napoleon II would be raised by his austrian relatives, so was rejected. But even Metternich agreed in 1815 that Napoleon had to go.
This was mainly because of many things:-
Even if Napoleon wins at Waterloo, or an equivalent, and that is a very very big if and needs to change the entire personality of Wellington and the troop movements of 1814, but handwaving that away, Two Russian armies were marching across Germany to reach France. Similarly three Austrian Armies were on the move. An Spanish Army was being mobilized to invade France from the South. Sardinia-Piedmont was already making deep raids into Provence. The Dutch were amassing their army alongside the British. Prussia was mobilized an army in the Rhineland and another one in Pomerania. Sweden was mobilizing in Skane. Napoleon could only muster up 2 Armies when he had a minimum of 12 armies marching against him, all with senior commanders, many of whom knew Napoleon's strategies by the book.
Alternatehistory is alternatehistory, yes, but facts are hard facts, and even alternatehistory, the ones which are worthwhile and well researched anyway, all have basis in real history. For example @Cymraeg 's many TL's many premises are at blank look at times, implausible, however to take example of Cato's Cavalry, stirrups were very well within technological range during that time. The earlier invention of it does not raise eyebrows when proper research into metallurgy is undertaken by readers. Stirrups during the early 400s would be a massive advantage for cavalry which is shown to be the turning point to stop the Anglo-Saxon conquest of Britain. For example, Marche Consulaire itself. OTL in 1807, Napoleon said that he would do anything to prevent war between himself and Russia again. Making him stick by that promise isn't all that hard to do when Napoleon's (most of the time) honorable and honest psychology is taken into account. For example, my own TL Osman Reborn, is based on the fact that the Ottomans win the Italo-Turkish War. OTL, the Turks thought about sending 6 divisions and a lot of supplies to Libya one month before war broke out but they didn't. In my TL i make them go through with it. Seeing a pattern here? Alternatehistory all have a basis in real history. Without real history alternatehistory would not be pertinent at all.
Also........please keep the discussion civil. He does have a point, and you haven't exposited how Napoleon overcomes the fact that the British-Allied Army was moving faster, how he maintains his logistics, and how he keeps the Prussians and Dutch at bay without expending his forces dangerously enough to allow Wellington to attack.
Last edited:
S
Sorry, my English is not so good and I know more about the second world war and acient egypt than about the Napoleonic wars. I still wanted to show this scenario about Waterloo tough. And I am busy to make a timeline out of this. But first I want to study some more about the subject. That is why I made this thread, to hear the opinions of others and gain some more information.
That's fine. I would recommend reading Wellington at Waterloo by Jac Weller, The Longest Afternoon: The 400 Men Who Decided the Battle of Waterloo, Waterloo: The Aftermath, 1815, the Waterloo Campaign : the German Victory: From Waterloo to the Fall of Napoleon Peter Hofschröer, and Grouchy's Waterloo: The Battles of Ligny and Wavre if you want a more clear idea of the situation. The moment Napoleon sets out for the 100 days the odds are against him by not a mile, a whole continent by all rights. However with a suitable PoD(s) right after Napoleon retaking power you could change things around to make things go how you want them to in a logical manner.