If Napoleon had won at Wagram 1809

[lucaswillen05]

Wagram, the last Battle of the Napoleonic Wars and the scene of the final French defeat and Napoleon's death from drowning in the Danube is well known. John Gill describes the final battle in great detail in Volume 3 of his history of the campaign, Thunder on the Danube:Wagraam

The collapse of the Saxon Corps at Aderklaa and the Emeror's dismissal of Bernadotte on the field of battle combined with he thrust of IV Corps (Rosenburg) and VI Corps (Klenaau) int the French flank and rear was of course the decisive moment of the battle. The desperate final attack of the Imperial Gaurd at Pydorf and its' last sand around the village are immortalised in paintings and films, most notabally Cecil B de Mille's "The Batle of Wagram"

The monument to Napoleon on Lobau Island close to where the Emeror drowned trying to swim the Danube as he tried to flee the battlefield is well known. It was of course left to Marshal Davout to surrenderthe battered remnants of the Grande Armee when the Archduke John arrived about 5pm cutting off any hope of French escape.

After tht the collapse of the Napoleonic Emirre was swift. The Walcheran expedition liberated the Low Countries very swiftly pushing into Westphalia and capturing Jerome who was lucky to escape the Prussians who had risen in revolt on earing the news of Wagram. Sir Arthur Wellesley's victory over Joseph at Talavera is well knowen, chiefly because Joseph heard the news of his brother's defeat and deah at Wagram as he retreated the day after Talavera.

By that time of course Talleyrand's "July Coup" had overthrown the last vestiges of Napoleon's Imperial regieme and the Bourbons were back in Paris by the end of August.

Throughout Europe Austria's Archduk Charles was hailed as a hero ad as Europe's foremost general having defeated Napoleon himsel twice, first at Aspern Essling and then of course at Wagram.

But could things have turned out differently f Napoleon had somehow managed to wn at Wagram? Was the Napoleonic Empire always doomed to collapse due to Napoleon's over ambitinn or could he have ever established it as a permanent political power dominating Europe? What might the course of events have been after 1809 if Napoleon had won at Wagram?

 

[Petike]

Wagram was a rather cool battle.

 

[Ameise]

Is this a DBWI?

 

[lucaswillen05]

Wagram was a rather cool battle.

Probably my favourite Napoleonic battle. One which Napoleon did very nearly lose. Perhaps any other general would have lost.

 

[lucaswillen05]

Is this a DBWI?

If it looks like a DBWI then it probably is a DBWI!

 

[Redhand]

You might see Napoleon actually create a lasting continental empire. He'd have time to turn his full attention to Spain, which could have been subdued along with Portugal with more manpower and a general who could thrash Wellington on both sides of the Torres Vedras. Britain would eventually sue for peace as its main theater of war is crushed by Napoleon. This might lead to the Continental System actually working. The alliance with Russia may have been shaky but not enough for Napoleon to do something stupid and drastic.

 

[Saphroneth]

You might see Napoleon actually create a lasting continental empire. He'd have time to turn his full attention to Spain, which could have been subdued along with Portugal with more manpower and a general who could thrash Wellington on both sides of the Torres Vedras. Britain would eventually sue for peace as its main theater of war is crushed by Napoleon. This might lead to the Continental System actually working. The alliance with Russia may have been shaky but not enough for Napoleon to do something stupid and drastic.

How the hell do you even breach the Lines of Torres Vedras? They're still there today, and were used in the ICW! Can't say that much for other two-century-old fortifications. (I've been there. They're great places for geological exploration, because all the tunnels dug into them in the Iberian Civil War expose the strata. I think the other geo students didn't like me geeking out over the fortifications, though.)

 

[lucaswillen05]

You might see Napoleon actually create a lasting continental empire. He'd have time to turn his full attention to Spain, which could have been subdued along with Portugal with more manpower and a general who could thrash Wellington on both sides of the Torres Vedras. Britain would eventually sue for peace as its main theater of war is crushed by Napoleon. This might lead to the Continental System actually working. The alliance with Russia may have been shaky but not enough for Napoleon to do something stupid and drastic.

I think Napoleon would have had a lot of trouble with Spain. Even in 1809 the occupying French were starting to have trouble and the French armies were pretty glad to get out when they were ordered to withdraw after Wagram.

He would likely have had to fight Russia sooner or later. They did deploy a "Corps of Observation in 1809. And, Schill's Uprising which started in late May served to really inspire the Prussian Revolt which really got going afte Wagram as did the yrolean Revolt. Today of course boh Schill and Hofer are regarded as the heroes of German Nationalism.

As for Napoleon he was really showing signs of megalomania by 1809 and his arrogance is widely considered a significant reason for his defeat at Wagram. Though the Danube Crossing was certainly better prepared than the May attempt which was defeated at Aspern Essling it was still a gamble and one that Napoleon lost when he walkewd into Archduke Charles' trap on the second day of the battle.

I think it is likely that Napoleon, given the risks he was prepared to run, was always going to gamblwe ad lose at some stage. Perhaps, had he won i 1809 he would have either become embroiled in the Peninsular War or he would have provoked Russia into war and met disaser there much as Charles XII of Swedan did at Poltava in 1809 or as Hitler did in 1941.

The Napoleonic Empire was always likely to be ephemeral but a bloody struggle was always likely to be required. At Wagram Austria lost 30000 men, The defeated Grande Armee lost 35000 dead and wounded excluding the thousands of prisoner the Austrians rounded up on the battlefield.

Fortunately Archduke Charles won the battle and this victory effectively ended the Napoleonic Wars and prevented years of bloodshed. After that of course Europe was for the most part peaceful except for some brief wrs in the late 1840s and 1850s and again in the 1870s. The "Long Peace" of course ended in 1914 with the outbreak of World War 1,.

 

[Mike]

Fortunately Archduke Charles won the battle and this victory effectively ended the Napoleonic Wars and prevented years of bloodshed. After that of course Europe was for the most part peaceful except for some brief wrs in the late 1840s and 1850s and again in the 1870s. The "Long Peace" of course ended in 1914 with the outbreak of World War 1,.

Peace? Europe did not have peace after the Napoleonic Wars. It had to fight the rest of the 19th century combatting republican and/or democratic ideals that Napoleon had brought to the rest of Europe. Napoleon did not start most of the wars; it was the Coalitions that started them because they didn't want republican ideals to spread to their countries. In the end, they may have physically defeated Napoleon and stamped out republican ideals but it was a short-lived victory because the republican genie was out of the bottle. In the end, it can be said that Napoleon won: the Napoleonic Code has spread to Europe and remains in force and Europe has embraced republican ideals and democracy. All this is for the better.

 

[lucaswillen05]

Peace? Europe did not have peace after the Napoleonic Wars. It had to fight the rest of the 19th century combatting republican and/or democratic ideals that Napoleon had brought to the rest of Europe. Napoleon did not start most of the wars; it was the Coalitions that started them because they didn't want republican ideals to spread to their countries. In the end, they may have physically defeated Napoleon and stamped out republican ideals but it was a short-lived victory because the republican genie was out of the bottle. In the end, it can be said that Napoleon won: the Napoleonic Code has spread to Europe and remains in force and Europe has embraced republican ideals and democracy. All this is for the better.

It was a relative peace in that there were few big wars. The Coalition Nations were, as yo say very reactiionary. imposing the Congress System to keep ideas such as this in check. There were a number of small wars in Italy and Germany but big wars were rare and usually short such as the 1859 Franco Austrian War, the 1866 Austro Prussian War and the 1870-1 Franco Prussian War.


These larger wars only began when the Congress System really started to break down. Though bloody there was nothing on the scale of the Napoleonc Wars until 1914. And of course some of theCongress powers, most notably Prussia actually harnessedand used some of the ideas Napoleon's armies had exported, in particular nationalism and democracy.

So Wagram delayed, rather than halted these long term historical trends.

 

[Saphroneth]

In the end, it can be said that Napoleon won: the Napoleonic Code has spread to Europe and remains in force and Europe has embraced republican ideals and democracy. All this is for the better.

Well, that does depend where you consider Europe to end... I'm fairly sure that Scandanavia is considered part of Europe. And while democracy, yeah, that's not by any measure a republic.

 

[Derek Pullem]

Is this a DBWI or have we returned to OTL???

 

[Saphroneth]

Is this a DBWI or have we returned to OTL???

OOC: Not at all. If Scandanavia is what "I" consider the best example of a place without Republican ideals, what does that mean for Blighty?

 

[lucaswillen05]

Is this a DBWI or have we returned to OTL???

Lots of thimngs are the same. Many of the 19tth Century European Wars still happen as do WW1 and WW2.

Not sure where the Lines of Torres Vedras thing came from as work did not start until November 1809 and completion in September 1810. With Napoleon suffering a decisve defeat a Wagram and dying there and the Borbomns returning to power and a French withdrawl at the end of 1809 there seems to be no reason for the Lines to exist or for work to even start. I don't see Borbon France trying to hold Spain which would be the only reason for the British to stay in TTL.

And it is difficult to see Bernadotte being offered the Swedish Throne after his diasgrace aty Wagram and without Napoleon's backing. New ideas such as demoocracy will likely still filter into Scandanavia.

The reforms drawing on the Napoleonic Code may very well still happen despite the mperor's earlier fall in TTL.

 

[Saphroneth]

Lots of thimngs are the same. Many of the 19tth Century European Wars still happen as do WW1 and WW2.

Not sure where the Lines of Torres Vedras thing came from as work did not start until November 1809 and completion in September 1810. With Napoleon suffering a decisve defeat a Wagram and dying there and the Borbomns returning to power and a French withdrawl at the end of 1809 there seems to be no reason for the Lines to exist or for work to even start. I don't see Borbon France trying to hold Spain which would be the only reason for the British to stay in TTL.

And it is difficult to see Bernadotte being offered the Swedish Throne after his diasgrace aty Wagram and without Napoleon's backing. New ideas such as demoocracy will likely still filter into Scandanavia.

The reforms drawing on the Napoleonic Code may very well still happen despite the mperor's earlier fall in TTL.

I have to agree with Derek on one thing, though, the mid-century wars on the same years as OTL was frankly ridiculous.

 

[lucaswillen05]

I have to agree with Derek on one thing, though, the mid-century wars on the same years as OTL was frankly ridiculous.

Not neccessarily. The only change we have made is for Napoleon to fall six yearearlier butterflying away the wars of 1812 - 14, Waterloo and most of the Peninsular War.

We can still have the 1848 Revolution in reaction to the Congress System (the 1st Schleswig Holstein War can still happen as can the 1848 - 9 war between Austria and Piedmont, the Crimean War, a Napoleonic revival under Napoleon III (he was Louis Napoleon Bonaparte's son)

http://badpets.net/CatHumor/CatsVsDogs.html

So we can also have the 1859 Italian War) It is quite likely Prussia will challenge Austria so the War of 1866 remains probable as does the Franco-Prussian War and German Unification. Italian Unification also cannot be butterfflied away.

Maybe the details and the years could change but my point is that it might not be changed very muchh at all, hence the wars could still happen in the years they actually happened IOTL. Of curse, it is plausible that these details could differ slightly. However, given that the processes around German/Italia nationalism would not have been stopped and probably not even delayed thwese conflicts would likelly still have happened even if Napoleon fell a few years earlier than he did IOTL.

 

[Saphroneth]

Not neccessarily. The only change we have made is for Napoleon to fall six yearearlier butterflying away the wars of 1812 - 14, Waterloo and most of the Peninsular War.

And the peace treaties will be different (hell, the Hundred Days alone hugely influenced the history of Europe)
There certainly won't be a recognizable Napoleon III.

 

[lucaswillen05]

And the peace treaties will be different (hell, the Hundred Days alone hugely influenced the history of Europe)
There certainly won't be a recognizable Napoleon III.

Some of the details in the peace treaties might differ but I don' believe they would be that different

1. Confederation of the Rhine will still be dissolved
2. Something like the Congress System is still likely. Metternich was still very influential at the Austrian Court even if Stadion was in office
3. Prussia still gets it's territory lost i 1806-7 returned

Austria, having been the great power that defeated Napoleon will be far more influential in Europe than Russia and Prussia. It may well be that the three empires carve up the Duchy of Warsaw between them. However Austria will likely have a dominent role in the German States.

However the established powers will still have to confrot Italian and German nationalisn in TTL and it is not likely they will do any better at holding it back than ibn our hisorical reality. Which is why I see many of the same things happenin in TTL.

And, if this is the case then the 1848 Revolutions will still break out, hence the Second French Republic can still be esrtablished. And if tha\t happens Louis Napoleon Bonaparte can still be elected as President and become Emperor Napoleon III as he did in OTL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Second_Republic

If that were the case then, in fact Napoleon I's early fall at Wagram really does very little to alter the development of Europe.

It does however mean

1. No 1812 Invasion of Russia
2. An earlier and far less bloody Befreirungskriege. The War of 1809 and the Prussian Uprising against the remaining French Forces in the German States is essentially it.
3. The Army of the Kingdom of Italy fighting under Eugene's command at Wagram will have been destroyed there along with the rest of Napoleon's Grande Armee.. Thre is nothing other than the abysmal Neopolton Army to prevent Austria from marching right back into Italy
4. The army of the Duchy of Warsaw will be overwhelmed by Ausria alone even if Russia and Prussia stay out

The Napoleonic Wars will end in a very simlar way to OTL except the Coalition probably won' need to occupy France whih will still return to the pre 1792 borders.

So, why do you believe the peace treaties after the 1809 war will be significantly different in terms of the log term effects than the treaties after 1815?

 

[Saphroneth]

Some of the details in the peace treaties might differ but I don' believe they would be that different

1. Confederation of the Rhine will still be dissolved
2. Something like the Congress System is still likely. Metternich was still very influential at the Austrian Court even if Stadion was in office
3. Prussia still gets it's territory lost i 1806-7 returned

Austria, having been the great power that defeated Napoleon will be far more influential in Europe than Russia and Prussia. It may well be that the three empires carve up the Duchy of Warsaw between them. However Austria will likely have a dominent role in the German States.

However the established powers will still have to confrot Italian and German nationalisn in TTL and it is not likely they will do any better at holding it back than ibn our hisorical reality. Which is why I see many of the same things happenin in TTL.

And, if this is the case then the 1848 Revolutions will still break out, hence the Second French Republic can still be esrtablished. And if tha\t happens Louis Napoleon Bonaparte can still be elected as President and become Emperor Napoleon III as he did in OTL.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/French_Second_Republic

If that were the case then, in fact Napoleon I's early fall at Wagram really does very little to alter the development of Europe.

It does however mean

1. No 1812 Invasion of Russia
2. An earlier and far less bloody Befreirungskriege. The War of 1809 and the Prussian Uprising against the remaining French Forces in the German States is essentially it.
3. The Army of the Kingdom of Italy fighting under Eugene's command at Wagram will have been destroyed there along with the rest of Napoleon's Grande Armee.. Thre is nothing other than the abysmal Neopolton Army to prevent Austria from marching right back into Italy
4. The army of the Duchy of Warsaw will be overwhelmed by Ausria alone even if Russia and Prussia stay out

The Napoleonic Wars will end in a very simlar way to OTL except the Coalition probably won' need to occupy France whih will still return to the pre 1792 borders.

So, why do you believe the peace treaties after the 1809 war will be significantly different in terms of the log term effects than the treaties after 1815?

To summarize:
I would not be all that surprised if the German and Italian issues still ended up boiling over.
For the Franco-Prussian War to happen on the same YEAR, on the other hand, IS surprising. For one thing, here's just one way things could be affected:

1) No War of 1812, with Britain not distracted and vulnerable
2) America has less of a push into the interior, due to no War of 1812.
3) The situation in Mexico is massively different.
4) Napoleon III (if he even takes power, what with the PoD being when he was one year old) has a different experience in Mexico. Either he's more deeply entangled and can't make his threat to Mainz on time, or he's beaten more easily and isn't confident enough to make his threat on time. Either way, no inciting incident on time.
It breaks SoD for the wars to happen on the same year with the PoD over five decades in the past. (The further results of this - Austria has more of Germany, is less focused east, and so on.)

 

[Derek Pullem]

Also Austria just beat the greatest army in Europe by itself and imposed the peace.

Has huge implications for German unification (in the sense that there won't be any in the same period as OTL) and Italian unification (ditto)

Spain probably gets to keep most of its colonies too.