Napoleon wins in Belgium, how long does he last?

So say Napoleon wins decisively at Quatre Bras and Lighy and then at some third battle where he finishes off whatever is left of Wellington and Blucher's forces. How long till the Russo-Austrian army arrives and defeats him?
 

TinyTartar

Banned
It could be only a month or so afterwards, as they had mobilized a lot of men and I doubt Napoleon could do much about it.

You do however have to take into account the possibility of Napoleon decisively beating Schwarzenberg before the Russians arrive in Eastern France. Napoleon showed himself to be very tactically proficient in that area in 1814, and he might have had one more masterpiece in him. The possibility of Napoleon beating the Austrians bad enough to force a treaty on the battlefield has to be taken into account. A Napoleon who has destroyed the British and Prussians in the field as well as the Austrians will find himself on much more solid ground, and the Vienna Reaction might completely collapse and bring the Rhine states back into the Napoleonic fold.

My guess is that if Napoleon won against the British as decisively as you said, the Russians and Austrians might be more methodical in their advance and simply overwhelm Napoleon with numbers before crushing him and his army outside of Paris, where he would have to actually fight them. This entire process might be finished by the end of August or September.
 

PsihoKekec

Banned
He didn't have enough troops to hold back Austrians, Russians and the second Prussian army. Victory in Belgium would only delay the inveitable.
 
Nappy tried to pull a Japan - a quick decisive victory - then peace where he remains emperor in France. too bad he did not konw it didn't work for the Japanese.

That is only possible if the Alliance is willing to allow this. But the Alliance was determined to fight.

If he wins in Belgium he will have sustained casualties. He will not be able to dictate where to fight and when as he was facing opposition within France. SO he could not simply go into teh Netherlands or into Germany, he must meeet Schwarzenbergs 200k+ army or be prepared to lose Paris.

There was no way he could militarily win.
 
Napoleon managed to hold off the combined Russian, Austrian and Prussian armies from January to April 1814. Some of the Allied commanders in both 1814 and 1815 were very cautious, in particular Schwarzenburg. It is likely that this would have been an issue in an extended war making it harder for the 7th Coalition to effectively use the superior numbers it had. As in 1814 Napoleo could have fought a very effective campaign and would have been capable of achieving battlefield success. In the long run however his army would have suffered from attrition due to batle losses, desertion and general wastage.

The only way Napoleon could avoid his scenario would be politically if the British collapsed or if the Coalition as a whole fell apart.
 

Redbeard

Banned
In 1805 and before Napoleon often could outmanoeuvre his opponents, but after that it really didn't happen big scale again. Not at least the allies actually learned fast. In 1805 they still moved around with cumbersome trains in 18th century style, but by 1809 and later they had adopted the army corps system and staff system and most of the French tactical innovations as well. By 1813 I will claim they were at least on par with the French and by 1815 probably better.

The Prussian General Staff system had been developed after the smashing defeats of 1806-07 and really still is the model of General Staffs - by 1815 it was second to none, but the other allies had improved drastically too. But at that time mostly utilising French inspiration to improve own systems (like the Austrian Generalquartiermeister system).

It is often overlooked, that in the autumn campaign of 1813 it was Schwarzenberg's staff (lead by Radetzky) that successfully concluded the campaign - not at least by having Schwarzenberg draw the attention of the ever present Monarchs (especially Alexander) while Radetzky lead the operations.

Anyway the army Schwarzenberg lead against France in 1815 was composed of trained troops lead by experienced officers and a competent staff. As an other example the Bavarian contingent was of 50.000 men, more than Bavaria had ever fielded, and better equipped, trained and led than ever before.
 
The answer is not military, it's politic: what would be better for all countries?

Would the UK ask for peace? They have a single army and this would would be destroyed. How would other countries react? Austria can see that Russia is trying to grab more lands here and there. For Russia a stronger France (meaning a weaker Austria) can be a good idea.
 
Alexander was fanatical against Napoleon, I don't think he'd think that logically.

Nappy has no chance in 1815. The numbers are just too great.
 
The answer is not military, it's politic: what would be better for all countries?

Would the UK ask for peace? They have a single army and this would would be destroyed. How would other countries react? Austria can see that Russia is trying to grab more lands here and there. For Russia a stronger France (meaning a weaker Austria) can be a good idea.

If Napoleon wins at Quatre Bras, Wellington isn't going to stick around to be assaulted. He's going to take his army back to Britain and then strike at the first opportunity.
 
Alexander was fanatical against Napoleon, I don't think he'd think that logically.

Nappy has no chance in 1815. The numbers are just too great.

The numbers were too great in 1793 too.

What Napoleon should do:
- get rid of th liberal constitution of 1815
- dissolve parliament and return to a republican, revolutionary government
- proclaim that "La Patrie est en danger" and claim for a new levée en masse
(the peasants will most likely follow him, since they absolutely feared a restoration of feudal structures)
- beat the Prussians and Britons in Belgium
- then turn south and repulse the Austrians before they can merge with the Russians
- repeat 1794 - 1799
- die in peace and as the liberator of Europe in 1830
 
The numbers were too great in 1793 too.

What Napoleon should do:
- get rid of th liberal constitution of 1815
- dissolve parliament and return to a republican, revolutionary government
- proclaim that "La Patrie est en danger" and claim for a new levée en masse

How much masse was there to levee?

In 1814 he had been reduced to calling up 16yo boys. The return of peace that year gave him some seasoned troops with the return of French POWs, but it would only take two or three Waterloo-size battles to wipe them out and put him back to square one.

If levee en masse had been possible he'd have done it instead of surrendering. He didn't, because he knew it wouldn't work. 1815 was not 1793.
 
The numbers were too great in 1793 too.

What Napoleon should do:
- get rid of th liberal constitution of 1815
And how is he going to get support from the people getting rid of the constitution?You do realize that trying to curb the liberals is what caused the Bourbon restoration to collapse right?
- dissolve parliament and return to a republican, revolutionary government
WTF?There's very little point in returning from Elba if he was to do that.The people are also extremely weary of the revolution at this point.It's why the Thermidorean reaction and the subsequent takeover by Napoleon was even possible.

- proclaim that "La Patrie est en danger" and claim for a new levée en masse
The country's exhausted after decades at war.And he did conscript en mass,that's how he got around 200,000 soldiers.

(the peasants will most likely follow him, since they absolutely feared a restoration of feudal structures)
The peasants on the contrary,are actually royalist,it's in the country that most anti-Republican or anti-Bonapartist movements break out.
 
The peasants on the contrary,are actually royalist,it's in the country that most anti-Republican or anti-Bonapartist movements break out.

This depends strongly on the regions of France. While NW France was very Royalist, the NE region for example is a Republican stronghold.
 
The peasants on the contrary,are actually royalist,it's in the country that most anti-Republican or anti-Bonapartist movements break out.


I wouldn't say the peasants were particularly royalist, but they were certainly brassed off with endless conscription. After all, keeping the land (which Louis XVIII had in any case made no move to take away) is a somewhat bittersweet victory if the son who would have inherited it lies dead in a ditch somewhere near Bailen or Borodino.
 
They were not. France could send a mass army of conscripts against the small mercenary armies of the other european powers.
Please take a look at This Map
The entire French Army, as in all of their armies across their entire country, combined, number 231900 soldiers. The Single Austrian Army under Schwarzenberg, numbers 225000 soldiers. That is not a "small mercenary army".

Austria alone can field an army that can beat Napoleon even if he was able to combine all of the soldiers in France into a single Grand Army. Given that he won't be able to do that, even if Napoleon suffered literally 0 casualties in Belgium the Austrians would still outnumber them almost 2 to 1, in an army commanded by the man who orchestrated the defeat of Napoleon Last Time.

That's not even counting the Russian Army under Barclay which while smaller than the Austrian Army, still outnumbers Napoleon's army, or the Prussian Army under Mainz which would join up with Austria on their way to Belgium.

Any Napoleonic Victory in Belgium is just delaying the inevitable and shifting around who is best regarded after the war.
 
In 1805 and before Napoleon often could outmanoeuvre his opponents, but after that it really didn't happen big scale again. Not at least the allies actually learned fast. In 1805 they still moved around with cumbersome trains in 18th century style, but by 1809 and later they had adopted the army corps system and staff system and most of the French tactical innovations as well. By 1813 I will claim they were at least on par with the French and by 1815 probably better.

The Prussian General Staff system had been developed after the smashing defeats of 1806-07 and really still is the model of General Staffs - by 1815 it was second to none, but the other allies had improved drastically too. But at that time mostly utilising French inspiration to improve own systems (like the Austrian Generalquartiermeister system).

It is often overlooked, that in the autumn campaign of 1813 it was Schwarzenberg's staff (lead by Radetzky) that successfully concluded the campaign - not at least by having Schwarzenberg draw the attention of the ever present Monarchs (especially Alexander) while Radetzky lead the operations.

Anyway the army Schwarzenberg lead against France in 1815 was composed of trained troops lead by experienced officers and a competent staff. As an other example the Bavarian contingent was of 50.000 men, more than Bavaria had ever fielded, and better equipped, trained and led than ever before.

The trouble with this argument is that Schwarzeburg's performance in 1813 and 1814 was very lacklustre. Yes, the Austrian army was reasonably well trained but it was the only one the Habsburgs had and they did not want it too badly damged as it was the gauruntor of their position. The Austrian economy was pretty much a wreck and armies are expensive.

Even in 1814 and 1815 Napoleon was still a much feared opponent.The assumption here is that he has just won a convincing miliary success in Belgium that, at the least, has severely damaged Welligton and Bluchr's armies forcing them to retreat, quite possibly evacuating Bellgium, The morale of the Armee du Nord will be high and many pf the early problems such as staff work will be at leas partally overcome.

Blucher might not have had his four corps destroyed but they may well have been severely damaged. If Welligton's army was badly damged, destroyed and forced to evacuate we may well be looking at severe political repurcussions, Lord Liverpool's government in London in serious danger of collapse and replacement with a peace party, probably led by the Whigs. If Britain now drops out of the war the coalition prrtners have just lost their paymaster which means no more subsidies. Added to which their are serious political divisions due to the Saxon crisis a few months earlier over which the 7th Coalition powers had almst gone to war with each other. It would be very difficult for the 7th Coalition to hold together given these circumstances. As well as Britain one of he other partners might well withdraw from the war, perhaps thepolitically shaky Austria or the badly battered Prussia whose King, Frederick William, was always somewhat weak.
 
Britain is not going to sign a peace for the same reason they haven't for the past decade or so.

Not neccessarily the case. We are talking about a radical change in the situation here, namely the possibility of Lord Liverpool's government collapsing and potentially a financial crisis caused by a run 0n the banks.

Unlike the Tories who had held power during the Napoleonic Wars the Whig Party had a more favourable view of Napoleonic France and were therefore more likely to consider peace. Bearing in mind a situation where the Duke of Wellingto has suffered a severe military defeat with the loss of Brussels, a retreat to Antwerp and probably an evacuation of the remains of the army, the destruction or mauling of Blucher's armyand it;s withdrawl from Belgium there would have been serious quesions about the survival of Liverpool's Tory government - an administration that was none too popular(for instance Luddite riots, severe economic downturn)

http://johntyrrell.blogspot.co.uk/2012/06/whigs-and-napoleon.html

http://www.historyhome.co.uk/c-eight/distress/luddites.htm

I am not saying Liverpool's administration would definately have fallen had here been a serious defeat in Belgium, only that there was a good chance of thatand, if this happened and a Whig Administration formed the next government then British withdrawl from the war was a plausible outcome that would have had severe consequences for the 7th Coalition.
 
Top