No. Odds are too highly stacked. Any win, even a smashing one, would only be temporary. It had all ended at Leipzig.could napoleon win after escaping Elba?
Only with crushing victories at Ligny and Waterloo, and he would need to persuade the rest of the coalition that he wouldn't go invading across Europe again. And I really doubt they would believe him.could napoleon win after escaping Elba?
Only with crushing victories at Ligny and Waterloo, and he would need to persuade the rest of the coalition that he wouldn't go invading across Europe again. And I really doubt they would believe him.
Well in 1815 the committment wasn't quite the same as it had been in 1813, when there were non-French territories actually occupied by the French. The Russians could plausibly decide that he is far enough away to not be a threat, and leave the fighting to the other coalition members, and the Austrians might make a separate peace.Agreed.
The Coalition had the men, arms, and committment to outlast him by pure attrition if they had too.
He had no chance after Leipzig
Well in 1815 the committment wasn't quite the same as it had been in 1813, when there were non-French territories actually occupied by the French. The Russians could plausibly decide that he is far enough away to not be a threat, and leave the fighting to the other coalition members, and the Austrians might make a separate peace.
Not going to happen because a Napoleon-less scenario had prevailed and it was mutually acceptable to all parties. They will want to go back to the situation again. That is what they did in the aftermath.Well in 1815 the committment wasn't quite the same as it had been in 1813, when there were non-French territories actually occupied by the French. The Russians could plausibly decide that he is far enough away to not be a threat, and leave the fighting to the other coalition members, and the Austrians might make a separate peace.
The British are obviously the never ending opponents of Napoleon, and will probably keep whittling away at his power in whatever way they can until he dies, but if they get crushed at Waterloo (unlikely but possible), they won't want to keep throwing money at the rest of Europe if they don't see results. And there was more of a grudging respect for Napoleon in Britain too, as they didn't have the humiliation of occupation that Prussia did, so the desire for revenge was weaker. I can't really say about the Austrians, they're my weakest bit of the Napoleonic Wars, so I'll take your word for it that they were as motivated as the Prussians.Your probably right about the Russians, but IIRC the Austrians and Prussians wanted blood. With British blank checks financing even a long war effort, i dont see yet another negotiated peace with Nappy as possible, not one that leaves him on the throne at least.
Britain had what it wanted in 1814. It would do whatever needed to go back into this situation. The allied army in Belgium (made primarily not of British soldiers), if it gets hammered implies victory in the hands of the Austrians and Russians. A weaker place on the table for Britain but as long as nothing great changes on the continent it would not be all that importantThe British are obviously the never ending opponents of Napoleon, and will probably keep whittling away at his power in whatever way they can until he dies, but if they get crushed at Waterloo (unlikely but possible), they won't want to keep throwing money at the rest of Europe if they don't see results. And there was more of a grudging respect for Napoleon in Britain too, as they didn't have the humiliation of occupation that Prussia did, so the desire for revenge was weaker. I can't really say about the Austrians, they're my weakest bit of the Napoleonic Wars, so I'll take your word for it that they were as motivated as the Prussians.
Napoleon didn't take any British territory in the 1815 campaign, so in theory there's no change in the situation (only in theory of course). I'm not saying that they would have let Napoleon back without a fight, but the question is how long the British will sustain that fight if they believe Napoleon is not a severe threat, and in 1815 he was not. To keep the Coalition out of France would have been at the limit of his abilities, never mind taking the war to Britain or its colonies.Britain had what it wanted in 1814. It would do whatever needed to go back into this situation. The allied army in Belgium (made primarily not of British soldiers), if it gets hammered implies victory in the hands of the Austrians and Russians. A weaker place on the table for Britain but as long as nothing great changes on the continent it would not be all that important
to Britian's interests.
Oh, and if you have kept everything as it was till Quatre Bras, Ligny and Napoleon somehow crushed Wellington, then it would have likely happened after he had destroyed the Prussians.
Very difficult to do, but it also means that the French army would have had losses and be in bad shape, thus would need some time to get troops from other frontier armies, or more men (Davout would know).
is there any way napoleon could stay in power after returning to France?More detail please.
Maybe step down and his son in power taking an ecclesiastical career and become Pope nah not possible.is there any way napoleon could stay in power after returning to France?
He's also going to have to fight pretty economically. He'd have another wave of manpower on the way relatively soon, but until then he 's going to be fighting with pretty limited resources. And somewhere he'll have to find horses...maybe the Americas. It'd be a monumental task, but we are talking Napoleon here...he'd beat tougher odds before. Which brings me to my last point; he's going to have to be much healthier. None of the rest matters if he's forced to sit out major phases of crucial battles like at Waterloo: he cannot afford the kinds of blunders his subbirdinates made. Davout and a few others he can trust to take the reins, but he's going to have to be physically up to the demands of a campaign.