Napoleon Wins Decisively at Waterloo...then what?

So let's say Grouchy finishes off the Prussians and arrives with his forces and Napoleon decisively crushes Wellington at Waterloo. Then what? Yes, I know there's a huge chance Napoleon gets finished off sooner or later.

But, is there a chance that the coalition can crack? They were showing at least some signs of breaking apart at that point. Is there any chance that after Waterloo, the coalition fractures enough that Nappy has a chance?
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
Conventional wisdom on the board is that if Napoleon wins a decisive victory at Waterloo he will then be immediately crushed by an allied invasion even more swiftly than happened in 1814. I see no reason to think that this would necessarily have happened, though. He had a better army than he did in 1814 and public support for him would have been stronger, too. If he could find a way to diplomatically detach Austria from the coalition (difficult but not impossible), he could have survived.
 
Conventional wisdom on the board is that if Napoleon wins a decisive victory at Waterloo he will then be immediately crushed by an allied invasion even more swiftly than happened in 1814. I see no reason to think that this would necessarily have happened, though. He had a better army than he did in 1814 and public support for him would have been stronger, too. If he could find a way to diplomatically detach Austria from the coalition (difficult but not impossible), he could have survived.

So the idea here is to detach Austria from the coalition? Do you know how he could possibly do this?
 
There were no more opportunities for Napoleon to play divide and conquer. The Russians and Austrians were coming with a combined army that potentially outnumbered his 4:1. And that's not counting the potential intervention of Sweden. Then there's the Peninsular British Army that missed out at Waterloo. Spain, Portugal, and Denmark were exhausted, but at the very least they could have provided material support. Europe was wrung out, but two things they all agreed on was the following:

1) peace
2) Napoleon = war:mad:
 
WHat if Napoleon waited until the TTL Congress of Vienna? IIRC, there was a dispute there that almost lead to war between the coalition members...
 
There were no more opportunities for Napoleon to play divide and conquer. The Russians and Austrians were coming with a combined army that potentially outnumbered his 4:1. And that's not counting the potential intervention of Sweden. Then there's the Peninsular British Army that missed out at Waterloo. Spain, Portugal, and Denmark were exhausted, but at the very least they could have provided material support. Europe was wrung out, but two things they all agreed on was the following:

1) peace
2) Napoleon = war:mad:

Exactly. The rest of Europe was sick and tired of war and Napoleon. By this point, Napoleon has essentially thumbed is nose at the Allies generosity (sending him to Elba and allowing him to live there semi-autonomously) and has broken nearly every agreement he ever made with any of the Allies. No ally with side with him or declare neutrality.

@ Anaxagoras: Austria hatted Napoleon as much as the rest. Emperor Francis wanted his grandson on the throne with his daughter as Regent, not a continuation of Napoleon I.

@ slydessertfox, I doubt that the Polish-Saxon crisis would have really came to a war with Austria Britain and Bourbon France allied against them. But even if it did I bet you they would agree to a ceasefire to deal with Napoleon, because lets be honest, he would have been the bigger threat. After they take care of him then the Allies can go back to fighting among themselves.
 
WHat if Napoleon waited until the TTL Congress of Vienna? IIRC, there was a dispute there that almost lead to war between the coalition members...

Same issue. Napoleon needs to be dealt with immediately if not sooner, they can worry about dividing Saxony after avoiding continental scale war.
 
Agreed, Napoleon was by far the biggest threat to Europe as far as the Coalition was concerned (To put it into EUIII terms, he was waaaay past the Badboy Limit). I mean, partitioning middle powers stuck between vastly larger neighbors? That was practically the Concert of Europe's Bread and Butter. That was so nice they did it to Poland Thrice.

If he Wins at Waterloo you get Austria and Russia uniting in Baden or up near Mainz, marching on his armies and crushing them completely, as they outnumber him 3-4 to 1. By the point the Hundred Days started Napoleon had already lost.

What is more interesting is how this changes the Congress of Vienna's discussions. It puts Austria and Russia into a far more powerful position, especially over Prussia since, depending on how decisive the Defeat at Waterloo is for them, they may have lost pretty much their entire Army. Prussia probably wouldn't get any of Saxony or Poland. I'm not sure what would happen to the Rhineland Territories, as Austria is really the only one with an Army in the area that would let them serve as the wall against France that Prussia was given the territories for, but I don't think they would really want that territory since it is far from Austria.
 
Agreed, Napoleon was by far the biggest threat to Europe as far as the Coalition was concerned (To put it into EUIII terms, he was waaaay past the Badboy Limit). I mean, partitioning middle powers stuck between vastly larger neighbors? That was practically the Concert of Europe's Bread and Butter. That was so nice they did it to Poland Thrice.

If he Wins at Waterloo you get Austria and Russia uniting in Baden or up near Mainz, marching on his armies and crushing them completely, as they outnumber him 3-4 to 1. By the point the Hundred Days started Napoleon had already lost.

What is more interesting is how this changes the Congress of Vienna's discussions. It puts Austria and Russia into a far more powerful position, especially over Prussia since, depending on how decisive the Defeat at Waterloo is for them, they may have lost pretty much their entire Army. Prussia probably wouldn't get any of Saxony or Poland. I'm not sure what would happen to the Rhineland Territories, as Austria is really the only one with an Army in the area that would let them serve as the wall against France that Prussia was given the territories for, but I don't think they would really want that territory since it is far from Austria.

I wonder how this would effect the Polish-Saxon crisis? I mean Austria was on one side and Russia on the other. So would the two sides positions be the same since both Prussia and the UK would be weakened or would Austria be stronger since the UK still has the Peninsula army? And Prussia's army would be severely damaged. If Russia were to threaten war could this lead to a possible revival of a Ramp independent Poland? Possibly ruled by a Habsburg?
 
I wonder if the loss means that Wellington doesn't become as important in the Tory party. He probably gets the C-in-C spot as he's the best British general available but does he still get the PM spot in 1828?
 
I wonder if the loss means that Wellington doesn't become as important in the Tory party. He probably gets the C-in-C spot as he's the best British general available but does he still get the PM spot in 1828?

Good question. I mean how much of his prestige came from winning in the Peninsula war versus being the general to beat Napoleon the final time.
 
There were no more opportunities for Napoleon to play divide and conquer. The Russians and Austrians were coming with a combined army that potentially outnumbered his 4:1. And that's not counting the potential intervention of Sweden. Then there's the Peninsular British Army that missed out at Waterloo. Spain, Portugal, and Denmark were exhausted, but at the very least they could have provided material support. Europe was wrung out, but two things they all agreed on was the following:

1) peace
2) Napoleon = war:mad:


And even without Napoleon around the coalition proved surprisingly durable. Its continental members hung together as the "Holy Alliance" for more than a generation, with none of the big powers fighting another until 1854. It had taken them a long time to learn unity, but once learned it took even longer to unlearn.
 
The Russians and Austrians were coming with a combined army that potentially outnumbered his 4:1.

Why would they have so great advantage? In those times, France was close to Russia in population and larger than Austria. So population ratio was probably at most 2:1 plus the French were fighting on their turf now.

Also, AFAIK, Waterloo would be first such significant land defeat for the British. With their army destroyed, and their hero of Peninsular War dead or French prisoner, wouldn't it weaken their morale somewhat?
 
Why would they have so great advantage? In those times, France was close to Russia in population and larger than Austria. So population ratio was probably at most 2:1 plus the French were fighting on their turf now.

Also, AFAIK, Waterloo would be first such significant land defeat for the British. With their army destroyed, and their hero of Peninsular War dead or French prisoner, wouldn't it weaken their morale somewhat?

And possibly make the Austrians think twice about sticking with the coalition maybe?
 
And possibly make the Austrians think twice about sticking with the coalition maybe?

This is Austria we're talking about. The only foe of Napoleon's that was more tenacious was Britain.

It's going to stick to the coalition harder, not less firmly, with the British army at Waterloo broken.


Rudi: France has suffered heavily (by what Kennedy refers to, 1.5 million Frenchmen out of a population somewhere shy of 25-30 million in 1789) - and especially in horses, which are going to bite Napoleon on the butt (again).

Russia by Kennedy is 37 million, the Habsburg Empire is 28 million (in 1800).

France of 1800 is 28 million by the same source, but that's not the France of 1815.

So for them to have superior forces to Napoleon's army at Waterloo by that margin makes sense, even if counting all men bearing muskets maybe not so much.
 
The Polish Saxon crisis was ended even before Napoleon returned from Elba - Russia was largely satisfied with Kogresspolen and Prussia stood alone with the damands on Saxony. If Nappy beats Welly he will have to march on Blücher and try to beat him - that would leave Prussia even weaker.

I believe Austria and Russia would set aside any differences as sson Nappy is on the road to victory again.

wellingtons and Blüchers forces combined were not much stronger as the main Austrian or Russian Armies - Russia Austria and Prussia also had smaller forces in reserver or advancing on different routes. Spain and Portugal were only in the process of mobilisation.

even if Napoleon "wins" Waterloo it only is a battle the calition loses, but Napoleon lost the war as he had no significant forces in reserve.
 
Wasn't another French army similar to the size Napoleon had at Waterloo being mobilized at Paris while he was marching against the British and Prussians? Of course Napoleon would have to execute everything just about flawlessly to have a chance, but if he moves quickly, can he knock out the Austrians, Prussians, and Russians separately?
 
Top