Napoleon fights on after Waterloo

Inspired by a mil hist article I read in the library the other day- WI, after his (temporary) defeat at Waterloo, Napoloen & his Marshals, continuing to retire in good order back to Paris & the surrounding fortresses with their surviving French troops, decided to still fight on instead of Nappy's abdication on 24 June 1815 ?
 
France was pretty much beaten at the time. Any further fighting would just delay the inevitable, and make the victors that much more pissed off at the peace conference.
 
Inspired by a mil hist article I read in the library the other day- WI, after his (temporary) defeat at Waterloo, Napoloen & his Marshals, continuing to retire in good order back to Paris & the surrounding fortresses with their surviving French troops, decided to still fight on instead of Nappy's abdication on 24 June 1815 ?

Who would still support him after a loss at Waterloo?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Who would still support him after a loss at Waterloo?

He still actually had a lot of support among the people, especially in Paris. Fighting on was far from impossible.

After Waterloo, the Allies advanced against Paris in a highly-overconfident manner, allowing themselves to become very spread out. If Napoleon had maintained control of even a portion of his army (and Grouchy's corps was largely untouched), he could have launched an effort similar to that against the Prussians in Feb. 1814, and smashed the Allied force.

This is unlikely, but not impossible.
 
He still actually had a lot of support among the people, especially in Paris. Fighting on was far from impossible.

After Waterloo, the Allies advanced against Paris in a highly-overconfident manner, allowing themselves to become very spread out. If Napoleon had maintained control of even a portion of his army (and Grouchy's corps was largely untouched), he could have launched an effort similar to that against the Prussians in Feb. 1814, and smashed the Allied force.

This is unlikely, but not impossible.

If Napoleon lost at Waterloo and still decided to fight on, he would lose again. At this point it was Napoleon against the rest of the world. The Kiat is right, in the end it would just mean losing even more of France. They would lose Corsica, Elzass, department Nord, maybe even more.
 
Interesting thought......but I agree with the fact Napoleon's position was practically untenable from the outset and any intention to continue the war after a defeat or even a victory would just delay the inevitable. Napoleon began the Waterloo Campaign with the hope and idea of a 'decisive blow' against the allies shaking their resolve to continue the war. However, even if Napoleon had won the Battle of Waterloo, the best he could have hoped for, in my opinion, would be a chance to sue for peace from a relative position of strength. A victory over the great hero of the Peninsula, Wellington, and Prince Blucher , may have, in theory, induced the Austrians and Russians, massing on France's eastern border to reassess the situation, and maybe come to the negotiating table along with the rest of the allies, as the allied campaign lost momentum after such a disastrous defeat. But this was a long shot to say the very least.

Could Napoleon have fought on after the defeat at Waterloo? In my opinion perhaps, but again it would have been delaying the inevitable. The French retreat was surprisingly quite orderly, considering the disarray on the battlefield and remained so for several days. As far as I understand, no French Eagle was lost during the retreat. Eye-witness accounts say that by the time the French Army reached Paris, they were in good battle order; and Grouchy’s 30,000 men were almost unscathed during the retreat. So, as a military unit they perhaps could have fought on. However, Napoleon's state of mind has to be called into account. Napoleon as a military commander was past his best by 1815. The indecisiveness evident at Waterloo that has been well documented in historical accounts would, perhaps continue and would affect the performance of his army during any subsequent campaign. A good book that illustrates the state of mind of Napoleon is David Markham's 'The Road to Saint Helena: Napoleon after Waterloo'.

Politically, equally it would be difficult for Napoleon to fight on. Napoleon took a massive gamble in seizing power in 1815; however he had a good measure of popular support across France. However, some areas, notably rural areas didn't offer much support, Normandy, Brittany and Provence were cool towards Napoleon and the Royalist Vendee were in insurrection, which tied down around 6,000 French troops. While many French people remained loyal to Napoleon Bonaparte by nature, to ask them to support a war on all fronts after a defeat, as France, additionally was threatened with invasion, so soon after 1814 would be asking a lot. In addition, there were some of influence who conspired against him during this period, most notably Joseph Fouche who 'feathered his own nest' at the expense of Napoleon. Talleyrand was in negotiation with the Allies before Napoleon's 1814 abdication. On the other hand, many remained loyal (the majority of his Marshals) and fought alongside him and this may have been crucial if the war continued.

However, while he did have Ney, although rash with the use of the French cavalry at Waterloo, was still a very capable commander, Davout defending Paris, D'Erlon commanding the I Corps of the Armee du Nord and Suchet in Italy, to continue the war it would take massive organisational skills on behalf of Napoleon to organise the remaining troops in France (a sizeable amount it must be said) into a coherent fighting force ready to face the onslaught ahead of them. Napoleon, increasingly ill, indecisive and defeated in an epic battle where his tactics failed, may not have been up to the task. Also, the sound of 'La Garde Recule!' from Mont St Jean as they faced the British muskets would have been a massive psychological blow not just to him, but to the French army as a whole.

However, we must not forget the zeal in which some prosecuted the war against Napoleon. The Allies declared war against Napoleon, not against France.....thus making him effectively an outlaw. The Prussians were amongst the most zealous of Napoleon's enemies at this time. They were almost on a crusade of vengeance, a 'War of Liberation' in reply to the humiliation Napoleonic France had put Prussia through since 1806.A good insight into the determination of the Prussians to finally destroy the threat of Napoleon is in Michael Mann's book '...and they Rode On', although a diary of a British cavalry Regiment during the campaign, points to the desire for vengeance amongst the Prussians. During the campaign the Prussians were a determined foe as their recovery after Ligny illustrates and I could not see them allowing Napoleon to take the initiative if the campaign continued into July, or even making peace with a Napoleon definitely on the backfoot. Faced with such determination, the Napoleon of 1815 would have found it difficult to prosecute the war effectively. Furthermore, after Leipzig in 1813, Napoleon was definitely 'on the run' and with the Austrians and Russians massing on France's borders, any attempt to continue the war after a defeat, would have just resulted in an even bigger battle a few weeks down the line with the pursuing Anglo-Dutch and Prussians as well as the Austrians and the Russians. It'd be Leipzig all over again.
 
Last edited:

Deleted member 1487

What about the political consequences? What would happen to post-war Europe? Any chance to see France broken as a power, much more so than OTL?
 
What about the political consequences? What would happen to post-war Europe? Any chance to see France broken as a power, much more so than OTL?

I believe Napolon would ultimately be defeated if he fought on. The Congress of Vienna would resume, and the map of Europe would be redrawn as in was in 1815.

France, I don't think would ever be a broken power after the Napoleonic Wars because it wasn't in Europe's interests to have a weak France. The Congress of Vienna was in essence about re-establishing the Old Order, curtailing the forces of liberalism and redrawning the map with the interests of the Old Order in mind. Restoration France was very much part of this Old Order.Talleyrand was very much in negotiation with the Allies before the the abdication of Napoleon in 1814, and Talleyrand was very much part of the negotiations at the Congress. It was in the interests of the Allies after the '100 days' to support the Bourbon Regime, despite what they thought of them, and bring them in to this international system or 'concert of Europe'. The allies didn't need a weak France, they needed an ameanable France, which under Louis XVIII, it was. It wasn't in the interests of the Allies to punish France harshly because an ameanable France under the Bourbons was a lot better than an agressive France under Napoleon.
 
The operational situation inside France was actually quite good; The allied armies had separated after Waterloo, Blucher was marching on Paris with about 65,000 men with Wellington's 50,000 men two days behind. Davout had gathered just under 120,000 around Paris, they were eager to fight and he was confident of victory. On the other fronts, the French had more than held their own; Suchet had beaten the Austrians coming out Italy as an example and the main Allied offensive was still not due to start before the 27th of June & would probably been delayed (Russians were still marching across Germany).

Given the above I would suggest the following as possible:

21st June. Davout convinces Napoleon to dissolve the chambers, Politicians cave in and Napoleon is set to carry on as ruler of France(POD).

22nd June. Napoleon starts the massing of a new army (France having 170,000 men (mostly trained )in depots. He orders Davout to attack and destroy Blucher's army.

23rd - 25th of June. Davout attacks and destroys Blucher's army stung out on the march (the old hussar again force marching his men ). Wellington on hearing this starts to retreat towards Brussels.

26th - 27th of June. Davout pursues Wellington, forcing the British General to leave behind many Guns and supply wagons. On other fronts, Suchet had concluded an armistice with Austrians after hearing of Waterloo, now both sides in Italy wait for instructions. Schwarzenberg has delayed the offensive until mid July, Russians are still not ready and the news of Waterloo makes him wonder if the attack on France is still needed.

30th of June. Davout forces Wellington to stand and fight, Wellington's army fights well but Davout's army is too big and the allied army is destroyed. Wellington is captured trying to get a rearguard formed.

1 - 7th of July. News of the destruction of the Allied armys in France curculates around Europe. The Austrians now consider their position, it might well suit the empire to change sides now Prussia had lost a good part of the army. Wellington is brought to Paris and is subjected to a charm offensive by Napoleon who realises that without English Gold there is no allied coalition against him.
 
Something that should be rememberd of course is that the British blockade of France was resumed, this would have obvious economic effects during any long term campaign.

Also with the War of 1812, just finished expect Wellington to get heavily reinforced with alot of veteran troops, including those who had fought in both the peninsular and America.

The odds were so stacked against the French that all this POD would do is increase the death toll of the wars without changing the result.
 
While I did not realize France has as many troops available as they did (over 100K) I have to agree that things would only be worse for France if the war continued. I find it very hard to believe that Blucher or Wellington are going to put their armies in any real possible situation in which they can be singled out and defeated. And the Russians are coming, lots of them! Prior to Waterloo the allies had basically taken on the strategy of avoiding Nap. in battle when they could so it seems they would most likely try to slowly eliminate Bonapartist forces in and around France thus sapping his remaining support while building up an overwhelming force to crush Nap. on their terms.

As for any lingering butterflies to play with, perhaps the French countryside or nation is razed in this end game fighting. Creating a deep impression and resentment within France that lingers and becomes a real undercurrent of society for years. Boiling over when they toss out the Bourbons again in a few decades and have a much more aggressive stance in Europe than seen OTL after 1848? Worth considering? The French are capable of holding onto things that 'stain the honor of France' ala the Alsace-Lor. grudge.
 
While I did not realize France has as many troops available as they did (over 100K) I have to agree that things would only be worse for France if the war continued. I find it very hard to believe that Blucher or Wellington are going to put their armies in any real possible situation in which they can be singled out and defeated. And the Russians are coming, lots of them! Prior to Waterloo the allies had basically taken on the strategy of avoiding Nap. in battle when they could so it seems they would most likely try to slowly eliminate Bonapartist forces in and around France thus sapping his remaining support while building up an overwhelming force to crush Nap. on their terms.

With regard to Wellington & Blucher, they were that far apart, Blucher was champing at the bit to get to Paris while Wellington's army was still half wrecked from Waterloo. Having done a bit more digging into the numbers it looks better for the French, before Waterloo, the allies had massed about 700k to invade, Napoleon had created an army of over 500k. Take out the allied armies in Belgium and the odds do not look quite so one-sided.

On the diplomatic front, Before the 100 days, a confrontation was building between Austria and Russia/Prussia with England shifting behind Austria. Now look at it from an Austrian point of view. Prussia with Russian support is trying to grab land in your back yard, a Prussian field army has been destroyed and you know that the grandson of Francis I is the heir to the french throne. Changing sides looks quite enticing now. If Austria changes sides then the balance of forces really does change ( In 1813/1814 the Austrians put as many men in the field as the Prussians and Russians combined. ). If Austria does change sides then the only real problem France has is the position of the English.
 
If Napoleon is doomed, then let's tilt things a little in his favor.
Wellington, Blucher, and the other senior commanders are suddenly taken ill. Seriously ill. Perhaps some are severely injured in accidents, and one is accidentally shot by his own men. The Allied armies halt for, let us say a week to ten days, while command is re-established.

Does this change anything?
 
Top