Didn't they IOTL?
If you meant a decisive victory, well you would have ended with a earlier Friedland and Tilsit Treaty : maybe less convenient clauses for Russia but I don't see how Napoleon could prevent, by exemple, Alexander to take Finland.
Most historians agree that it was a bloody stalemate.
It's sort of what I understood too. Eylau is a battle that is mostly remembered because of how bloody it was and how romanticised it's been. And I think because of that, Eylau tends to overshadow the Battle of Friedland, which was actually a decisive victory for Napoleon and the battle that ended the war.LSCatilina said:The consensus seems to be it was a strategical stalemate, while a tactical victory for Napoleon. That it was bloody was important, but the battle didn't had a great significance on the course of events itself.
Most historians agree that it was a bloody stalemate.
Even though the Russians retreated, the French suffered significant casualties and achieved only a little.
I wanted to know what would happen if some of the earlier reverses (some of which came from Augereau & Saint-Hillaire's disastrous attack) were averted or minimized, and the battle would end differently.