March Of the French 1815

indeed although that would be even more perfect for guerrilla warfare in my opinion especially spread sickness or just sabotage..... but jeez cement? poor horses indeed but what about the human beings XD
 
This has been discussed many, many times on this board.

I am of an opposite opinion from most people here.

I think Napoleon had a chance to pull it up. A very very small one, which depends on several factors all falling his way in a short time period, so not very plausible, but a chance nonetheless. This depends on all 3 below factors occuring (the first one being the most difficult to achieve):
a) A crushing enough victory that Prussia is no longer a factor (i.e. Blutcher and preferable Gneisenau die, along a lot of their troops and the rest is captured. The remainign Prussian troops were second line garrisons which would take long to be gathered and trained into a field army) AND UK government to fall and be replaced by one which favor a peace with Napoleon (favorable to UK, of course) and not subsidizing Bourbons exile and innefective european armies for another 20 years (was actually the position of the opposition in parliament before waterloo)
b) Austria to prefer a negociated peace to a fight to the knife. This is actually the easiest, if a) above occurs. The AUtrian army, like the French one, was the last one of the empire for this generation and if it is lost, then nationalist reform will tear the empire apart within a few years. Vienna was well aware of that and issued orders not to risk the army. If a) occurs, then the austrian army faces Napoleon alone until the Russians , which may take several month (see below). In such a case, and given that AUstria holds a trump cards in negociation in that Napoleon's son is in their hands, Vienna will likely negociate.
c) Alexander accepts to make peace with Napoleon. This is also difficult given Alexander personnal opition of Napoleon. However, the Russian army was already in Russia when the 100 days occured and had long to march. In addition, Kotuzov, the victor against Napoleon, had died and Barclay de Tolly, his replacement, was positively hated by most of the russian officer corp as a foreigner. This resulted in miscommunications and slow orders, which slowed the russian army even more (OTL, that only stopped when news of Waterloo reached the russian army). So it is possible that, by the time Russian troops reach austria, a) and b) above have already occured. At this point, Russia is in the war without ally (bar Prussia who does not yet have any meanigful army to put in the field) and cannot go through austria without declaring war on them. Alexander may well be willing to have peace then (though he will extract his pound of flesh).

As I said, not the most probable, but not ASB either, IMHO.
 
This has been discussed many, many times on this board.

SNIP.

So basically, everybody throwing West Germany and Belgium under the bus to not spend more money on this foolish adventure?

This doesn't seem entirely unrealistic from their PoV but would Napoleon accept?
 
First Napoleon has to win Waterloo. Given his total contempt for the British Army and Wellington (the 'Sepoy General' as he called him, ignoring the fact that Nosey had beaten most of his Marshals in Spain and Portugal and Southern France) why do you think that he would diverge from his tactics at Waterloo?
 
indeed although that would be even more perfect for guerrilla warfare in my opinion especially spread sickness or just sabotage..... but jeez cement? poor horses indeed but what about the human beings XD

What guerilla warfare?

There was a great deal in Spain some in Russia and iirc also some in the Kingdom of Naples - but that was about it. I don't str any guerrilla warfare anywhere else.

And if the French Army was living of the land (ie plundering the peasants) as per usual, then any guerrillas that do appear are pretty certain to be fighting against France, not for her. Indeed, can you recall any instance where guerrillas took the French side?

As for the human beings, these were, at least on the French side, mostly there from choice. It was they, after all, who had made the whole Hundred Days possible by going over to Napoleon. So their sufferings were essentially self-inflicted. That was not true for the horses.
 
I understand where your coming from but it is highly unlikely the trachenberg plan will be as effective twice ALSO in the what ifs I stated Napoleon flanks effectively he kill or captured ALL the Prussian and British t the last man and being the tactical man Napoleon is can have the entirety of forces of the upcoming battles in a sort of skirmish tactic for his other generals keeping the Russians and Austrians from interfering with Napoleon as his personally led army from waterloo take out armies one by one effectively making trachenberg worthless.....

however you are current that the numbers will bog him down and force him into a white peace instead of pushing for any land gains....

Okay that is not at all how early 19th century warfare works. Warfare is not butchery and bloody massacre it is a series of pitched battles which secure strategic positions and even countries that is conducted with great decorum.

Except Napoleon can not take out each of the armies one by one, after the Anglo-Prussian army he is up against a huge army of Russians and Austrians that is led by Schwarzenburg and Barclay, that is something Napoleon is not going be able to defeat.

And Napoleon is not getting a white peace the Coalition is determined to extinguish him. In Occitania the Spanish and Portuguese will defeat the French, because even though neither of their armies is top notch they are most probably going to defeat the two small armies guarding the Pyrennes. In Italy the Austrians will as they did in OTL smash Murat and Eugene, and after that they will invade Provence and overrun the small army there. And the Rhine front would collapse before Napoleon could blink an eye. So even with by some miracle Napoleon holds back Schwarzenburg and Barclay in the north, in the south the French will be defeated and the Coalition will close in on Paris. There is no White peace.

ummm im perfectly aware of the Russia Austria thing and manpower depletion but it was not to the point that most every man was dead there was plenty of men to conscription on top of that the Russian Austrian army was not exactly well led and was slightly disorganized during this time period due to conscription that they could not handle plus the Russian and Austrian army's primarily used conscription making a lack of professional army

also tired of war yes France was but France was also ready to none the less continue fighting

also Napoleon does not have to push into Belgium as a result of Waterloo Belgium starts its own revolution forcing what forces that where not involved in Waterloo to Belgium and possibly causing unrest in the conscripted men of the coalition forces causing mass desertion lowering there number advantage and disorganizing the army to lowering morale as France seemed as ever able to handle a endless stream of armies and in the average mans opinion would be marching to their certain death.

The Austrian army and Russian army were most definitely well led and well organized. The former nearly defeated Napoleon during the Fifth Coalition single handedly and the latter outwitted Napoleon throughout his Russian campaign and blunted his army at Borodino. And even though the Russian and Austrian armies are made of mainly conscripted forces those men are veterans of tens of battles due to the fact that most them recently fought in the War of the Sixth Coalition.

No France not ready to fight on there was clear resistance within France to the idea of further war even thoguh there wasn't much resistance against Napoleon himself.

Belgium starts a revolution, why? To support a French conqueror? I don't think so. And nationalism is still in its youth at this time, so don't play the Nationalism card. And how would a Belgian revolution cause massive desertion in an Austrian or Russian army. Especially in the latter case as the Russians have gone through complete shit several times during the Napoleonic wars (a winter campaign in Alps, the disastrous Third Coalition, torching their homes in the invasion of Russia) and not completely collapsed as a result of desertion. Lowered morale? Average man's opinion? I refer you to the examples I just listed. You completely misunderstand and overestimate the issues of low morale and the average's opinion. Historically those were not the main motivators of desertion i armies.

mmmmmmmm yes feed me more... anyhow firstly id like everyone to remember this is alternate history

AFTER the initial battle of Waterloo wellington is in retreat, in response not wanting to let wellington escape Napoleon divides the armies into small lines instead of the columns France has been using i order to surround the retreating forces. skirmishing them down till they outright surrender after wellingtons death the average man seeing from their perspective being utterly surrounded by hordes of french when their actually is not that many { a bluff on Napoleons part}

also in regards to trachenburg thats not exactly what i mean i mean the american revolution kind of skirmish quick shoot off and run IMMEDIATELY before any accurate shots can be taken essentially the many devastating tactics of guerrilla warfare not battle slugout small squads or whatever shooting from woods, sabotage, explosives, poison, fire etc.

Schwarz Napoleon would be changing tactics ENTIRELY in this alternate history also he would be more able to handle Schwarz after the guy that has been poisoning him
{ studying on napoleon have showed far too high amounts of arsonic to be natural, this being why he has not personally been taking charge on MANY of his battles instead being sick constantly through out history, British can sure be nasty in war and in oppressing non British XD sure you think its a whole Napoleon thing but many battles its been just a pre made plan its mostly other generals with the plan when he is in charge napoleon just curb stomps as a tactician able to adjust with the enemies movements}
is gone with the added point that he has changed his tactics completely lines instead of columns for example... effectively like the British the Austrians and Russians still being in columns would be outgunned WITH numbers advantage......}

Alternate history indeed. In this history we have seen the Prussians and British more severely damaged after Lighny and Quatre Bas due to a better organized pursuit. But there is a fine line between alternate history and ASB which you are crossing.

Lines do not advance faster than a reteating colum. And also the purpose of the French column was to advance faster and farther, by turning those columns into lines you are making the French slower. The thing is after a battle the victorious army is just exhausted as the defeated army and is not going to be able to overcome it and encircle it. Usually encirclements were accomplished as part of the initial battle plan or thanks to terrain. In the flat lands of Flanders the French will struggle to encircle the armies of Wellington and Blucher. At best the French cavalry pursues and deals more damage to the British and Prussian armies and the French army rests and then speeds on delivering another defeat to the British and Prussians potentially. But to encircle the British right after the battle is not a military reality.

No, just no. The French army is not capable of completely changing its tactics and fighting guerrilla warfare. And that is a very big leap from Napoleon's personality as a refined and disciplined soldier.

What in god's name was that. Napoleon personally leading his armies has nothign to due with his victories or defeats. And of course he used subordinates. Which brings up the point of him being quite lacking of capable subordinates after years of warfare and politics. Instead he has Grouchy. Also where is this column line idea your getting. Battles were not ambushes usually they tended towards pitched battles where both sides arrived on the predetermined field, rest till the next day, and then fought. Hence the term pitched battles. And that is how Napoleon fought as well. So there is not column versus line thing going on. Also Napoleon is the one that is going to outgunned and outnumbered. Anyways the French were the ones you used column more often anyways.

hmmmm very good point id have to at least have the guy in italy extracted somehow or holding off diverting coalition forces even more there as it slowly falls......

Murat tried to hold off the Austrians, he was defeated and executed.

indeed although that would be even more perfect for guerrilla warfare in my opinion especially spread sickness or just sabotage..... but jeez cement? poor horses indeed but what about the human beings XD

Muddy fields are not good for guerilla warfare, I've been to Waterloo it would be absolutely horrible place to use guerilla warfare is an open farmland where guerillas would have no coverage whatsoever. And much of Flanders is flat, farmland so good luck with guerrilla warfare there. Biological warfare and sabotage? What century are fighting this war in. Napoleon has no disease at his disposal that the Russians and Austrians haven't been exposed to. And any other disease will ruin his army just as much as their army. And sabotage is only useful if it benefits your army. And if Napoleon destroys some bridges guess what the Russians and Austrians march to a ford elsewhere. And of course all this goes completely against Napoleon's personality which was not at all in favor of guerrilla warfare.

This has been discussed many, many times on this board.

I am of an opposite opinion from most people here.

I think Napoleon had a chance to pull it up. A very very small one, which depends on several factors all falling his way in a short time period, so not very plausible, but a chance nonetheless. This depends on all 3 below factors occuring (the first one being the most difficult to achieve):
a) A crushing enough victory that Prussia is no longer a factor (i.e. Blutcher and preferable Gneisenau die, along a lot of their troops and the rest is captured. The remainign Prussian troops were second line garrisons which would take long to be gathered and trained into a field army) AND UK government to fall and be replaced by one which favor a peace with Napoleon (favorable to UK, of course) and not subsidizing Bourbons exile and innefective european armies for another 20 years (was actually the position of the opposition in parliament before waterloo)
b) Austria to prefer a negociated peace to a fight to the knife. This is actually the easiest, if a) above occurs. The AUtrian army, like the French one, was the last one of the empire for this generation and if it is lost, then nationalist reform will tear the empire apart within a few years. Vienna was well aware of that and issued orders not to risk the army. If a) occurs, then the austrian army faces Napoleon alone until the Russians , which may take several month (see below). In such a case, and given that AUstria holds a trump cards in negociation in that Napoleon's son is in their hands, Vienna will likely negociate.
c) Alexander accepts to make peace with Napoleon. This is also difficult given Alexander personnal opition of Napoleon. However, the Russian army was already in Russia when the 100 days occured and had long to march. In addition, Kotuzov, the victor against Napoleon, had died and Barclay de Tolly, his replacement, was positively hated by most of the russian officer corp as a foreigner. This resulted in miscommunications and slow orders, which slowed the russian army even more (OTL, that only stopped when news of Waterloo reached the russian army). So it is possible that, by the time Russian troops reach austria, a) and b) above have already occured. At this point, Russia is in the war without ally (bar Prussia who does not yet have any meanigful army to put in the field) and cannot go through austria without declaring war on them. Alexander may well be willing to have peace then (though he will extract his pound of flesh).

As I said, not the most probable, but not ASB either, IMHO.

But even that is implausible.
Crushing the Prussians is the most plausible on that list and even that's not that plausible.
The British are not about to abandon everything they set to do in the Congress and abandon two decades of policy to allow the rise of a dangerous, former hegemon of Europe.
The Austrians are not accepting peace for the same reasons as the British and the fact that Napoleonic France is a direct threat to Austria. Also nationalist reform has no place in the 1815 Austrian Empire. And it unlikely to "tear apart" the Austrian empire.
Alexander at this time considered Napoleon the Antichrist.

You guys think Davout can take on Wellington?

Yes Davout can take on Wellington, but the debate is whether that really matters with Schwarzenburg and the Russians incoming.
 
But even that is implausible.

Improbable I'll give you, but why implausible?

Crushing the Prussians is the most plausible on that list and even that's not that plausible.
Why?
Let's say Grouchy - or just part of his troops (like Gerard) - manages to intercept Blutcher, so he cannot hep Wellington. SO Wellington has to retreat from Waterloo and while his british troops manage to do so in good orders, the majority are belgian and dutch ones and they panic. This panic disorganise the british troops and spread to Bruxelles, where the british civilians flee to the coast to find a ship, any ship to UK.
The next day, Blutcher has to fight Napoleon's whole army. As per his habits, Marshall Vorwarts orders attacks after attacks - which costs his army a huge number of casualties against Napoleons artillery - and is killed leading one of the last charges. Gneisenau leads the retreat but Napoleon orders a hard pursuits and manages to trap the remains of the Prussian army against a river (that's not something exactly lacking in the area). Gneisenau has no choice but to surrender what is left of his troops to avoid a slaughter.

What is not plausible there?

The British are not about to abandon everything they set to do in the Congress and abandon two decades of policy to allow the rise of a dangerous, former hegemon of Europe.

That was actually the stated position of UK parliamentary opposition when the Truth about Napolaon coming back into France in 1815 was revealed. Of course, the government was firmly for war to the knife. That's why the only chance of Napoleon is if - and that's something he has no influence on - the UK government falls and if the opposition comes into power.

The Austrians are not accepting peace for the same reasons as the British and the fact that Napoleonic France is a direct threat to Austria. Also nationalist reform has no place in the 1815 Austrian Empire. And it unlikely to "tear apart" the Austrian empire.

The austrians proposed peace in 1813, which would have left Napoleon more powerful thatn he would be in 1815. And nationalist currents in Hungary and in the balkans had no place in the 1815 Austrian EMpire only because the Habsburg had the upper hand, militarily speaking. If they lose that, they lose their empire. If Napoleon takes Vienna, they lose their Empire. They will have to face Napoleon alone during 4 to 5 month, the time for the Russians to arrive. Let's say Napoleon takes one month to reorganise and half a month to move his armies. That still leaves 3 month when the war is just Napoleon against Austria. Given past performances, being sure to hold for these 3 month is a huge gamble. What makes you so sure the Austrians would take that gamble, when they have a very good negociating position?

Alexander at this time considered Napoleon the Antichrist.

That's a bit of an exageration. He was willing to treat at Tilsit and he was willing to have Napoleon's son on the throne. He definitely was willing to treat with Talleyrand.
 
That was actually the stated position of UK parliamentary opposition when the Truth about Napolaon coming back into France in 1815 was revealed. Of course, the government was firmly for war to the knife. That's why the only chance of Napoleon is if - and that's something he has no influence on - the UK government falls and if the opposition comes into power.

What exactly do you mean by "the opposition"?

The "parties" of that era were loose associations of men with (on some subjects) similar views, not organised political parties in the modern sense. So there were Whigs like Grey who opposed the war but others like Grenville who supported it. When Grey and his friends introduced resolutions opposing war in 1815, these were defeated by about three to one - far too big a margin to be overturned by any conceivable event on the Continent. So there's no way that an anti-war administration could possibly be formed. The votes for it just aren't there. At worst, Liverpool could have been replaced by a "Whig" who supported the war, but even that is unlikely. .
 
Improbable I'll give you, but why implausible?


Why?
Let's say Grouchy - or just part of his troops (like Gerard) - manages to intercept Blutcher, so he cannot hep Wellington. SO Wellington has to retreat from Waterloo and while his british troops manage to do so in good orders, the majority are belgian and dutch ones and they panic. This panic disorganise the british troops and spread to Bruxelles, where the british civilians flee to the coast to find a ship, any ship to UK.
The next day, Blutcher has to fight Napoleon's whole army. As per his habits, Marshall Vorwarts orders attacks after attacks - which costs his army a huge number of casualties against Napoleons artillery - and is killed leading one of the last charges. Gneisenau leads the retreat but Napoleon orders a hard pursuits and manages to trap the remains of the Prussian army against a river (that's not something exactly lacking in the area). Gneisenau has no choice but to surrender what is left of his troops to avoid a slaughter.

What is not plausible there?



That was actually the stated position of UK parliamentary opposition when the Truth about Napolaon coming back into France in 1815 was revealed. Of course, the government was firmly for war to the knife. That's why the only chance of Napoleon is if - and that's something he has no influence on - the UK government falls and if the opposition comes into power.



The austrians proposed peace in 1813, which would have left Napoleon more powerful thatn he would be in 1815. And nationalist currents in Hungary and in the balkans had no place in the 1815 Austrian EMpire only because the Habsburg had the upper hand, militarily speaking. If they lose that, they lose their empire. If Napoleon takes Vienna, they lose their Empire. They will have to face Napoleon alone during 4 to 5 month, the time for the Russians to arrive. Let's say Napoleon takes one month to reorganise and half a month to move his armies. That still leaves 3 month when the war is just Napoleon against Austria. Given past performances, being sure to hold for these 3 month is a huge gamble. What makes you so sure the Austrians would take that gamble, when they have a very good negociating position?



That's a bit of an exageration. He was willing to treat at Tilsit and he was willing to have Napoleon's son on the throne. He definitely was willing to treat with Talleyrand.

Sorry I misunderstood you as meaning Napoleon making Prussia completely irrelevant not as him crushing their army. On crushing the Prussian Army I argue would be plausible.

I'm not sure the opposition was against the war. I mean a powerful Napoleon is just as dangerous to them as to the government.

It actually isn't. In the later part of the Napoleonic Wars Alexander literally came to believe that Napoleon was the Antichrist and he was chosen by God to destroy Napoleon. Alexander was slightly insane.
 
Sorry I misunderstood you as meaning Napoleon making Prussia completely irrelevant not as him crushing their army. On crushing the Prussian Army I argue would be plausible.

I'm not sure the opposition was against the war. I mean a powerful Napoleon is just as dangerous to them as to the government.

It actually isn't. In the later part of the Napoleonic Wars Alexander literally came to believe that Napoleon was the Antichrist and he was chosen by God to destroy Napoleon. Alexander was slightly insane.
humankind is insane so soooooooo insane XD
 
Top