Napoleon wins Waterloo

[lucaswillen05]

But all of this depends on the Coalition breaking and them suddenly being OK with the man who they called an outlaw to the worlds and had treated almost all of them like vassals (breaking up their countries, taking away land to give to his siblings, invading them or blockading them) being in charge of France again (and giving him time to rebuild France's war machine - which he WOULD use again, Napoleon's ambition to be the dominant force in Europe never left him). I can't see that happening. Eventually if given time, he would try to expand France's frontiers - particularly in the areas he had previously annexed.

Also Austria will never return his son and wife even if the Coalition breaks and Bonaparte was no longer in a condition to invade Austria to get them back. So was supposed to be the heir to the reborn Empire - the weak Joseph or the Austrian-raised German-speaking King of Rome?

All this of course is moot unless the Coalition actually does fall apart. If Napoleon does somehow manage a victory in 1815 In terms of an heir Napoleon could I suppose marry Marie Walewska and make his son with her, Alexandre Joseph the heir. Eugene de Beauharnais might be a possibility though he had been excluded from the succession. Possibly a candidate for regent however. Maybe one of Napoleon's brothers but they were all rather ineffectual.

In any event a peace after 1815 with Napoleon remaining as Emperor of France would be unlikely to last, And when Napoleon dies there is the succession problem to resolve.

In all probability that Napoleon will be defeated and overthrown by the end of 1815 so these issues will never arise as the Borbons will return.

 

[chris N]

I think that Napoleon marrying his Polish Mistress is a strong possibility.
The Austrians are unlikely to return Napoleon's Austrian wife and son. This was a big mistake on the part of the Austrian Emperor as it would have tied France and Austria.
The defeat of the British Army at Waterloo would have destroyed the Aura that Wellington had built up with the British public. Britain would be depending upon the return of troops from North America to rebuild its shattered forces. While the war with America was over the final battles that had been fought against the Americans had inflicted serious loses upon Wellingotn's veterans both in the Maryland Campaign and at the Battle of New Orleans. From a political standpoint I think that it would not take as crushing a blow to the Prussians as you might think. A serious defeat of the Prussians combined with economic troubles and war weariness might topple the government.
The British Public was tired of fighting and paying for it with the lives of its sons and ever increasing taxes.
In the Post Napoleonic War period Britain was racked by serious labor strikes and unrest. It is probable that with the defeat at Waterloo it might happen sooner. There is also the possibility of trouble in Ireland.
I do not see the German states like Bavaria returning to being France's ally but I do see that any further defeat of the allies would cause them to withdraw from the War.

 

[jb3]

The Austrians are unlikely to return Napoleon's Austrian wife and son. This was a big mistake on the part of the Austrian Emperor as it would have tied France and Austria.

The Austrians never wanted to be tied to Napoleon. Marrying Marie Louise off to him was regarded as by Metternich a stalling point while they rebuilt the Austrian forces. Even M-L's father regarded basically selling her to Bonaparte as a "sacrifice" on her part. They never let her and her son even see Napoleon on Elba.

Napoleon never really treated Austria and its Emperor as an equal like he did Alexander I, and had contemplated breaking the Austrian Empire up (even offering Esterhazy the Hungarian crown) as if the Hapsburg domains were his playtoy. Seizing Illyria (Slovenia, Croatia) from A-H, making it an integral part of France (even though it didn't even share a border with the "Empire") and handing Austrian Tyrol to his Bavarian allies was all part and parcel of making Austria look like a vassalized state. And yet Austria would surrender Marie Louse and her son (who was being raised as an Austrian) to Bonaparte? Why? Austria, like every other member of the Coalition forces, has no reason to trust Bonaparte at all. Indeed he was already lying to his people saying Austria was on his side/acquiesced to his return when they didn't even know it about.

The greatest problems Bonaparte faced (aside from his internal problems - there is no doubt the Church would be a third column inside France if he married his Polish mistress) was that French Army was in no position anymore to crush its enemies and he had no more vassal states to loot or allies to get re-inforcements from. How much longer would France's marshals (who had turned on him in 1814 when the Allies were closing in) continue to stay with him in 1815?

 

[lucaswillen05]

I think that Napoleon marrying his Polish Mistress is a strong possibility.
The Austrians are unlikely to return Napoleon's Austrian wife and son. This was a big mistake on the part of the Austrian Emperor as it would have tied France and Austria.
The defeat of the British Army at Waterloo would have destroyed the Aura that Wellington had built up with the British public. Britain would be depending upon the return of troops from North America to rebuild its shattered forces. While the war with America was over the final battles that had been fought against the Americans had inflicted serious loses upon Wellingotn's veterans both in the Maryland Campaign and at the Battle of New Orleans. From a political standpoint I think that it would not take as crushing a blow to the Prussians as you might think. A serious defeat of the Prussians combined with economic troubles and war weariness might topple the government.
The British Public was tired of fighting and paying for it with the lives of its sons and ever increasing taxes.
In the Post Napoleonic War period Britain was racked by serious labor strikes and unrest. It is probable that with the defeat at Waterloo it might happen sooner. There is also the possibility of trouble in Ireland.
I do not see the German states like Bavaria returning to being France's ally but I do see that any further defeat of the allies would cause them to withdraw from the War.

There was a political and financial panic in Britain just after Waterloo in OTL before news of Wellington's victory arrived.

In TTL I have had a similar panic ended, for now, by the news hat Wellington, though defeated, was not desroyed as first thought and that the British contingent is now safe at Antwerp.

However, if bad news continues to come in such as a further defeat of the Prussians at Tiernan then this will result in a renewed political and financial crisis that could bring down Lord Liverpool's Government and bring a Whig governmwent to power amenable to peace with France. That would mean an end to subsidies to Austria, Russia and Prussia. hey might be able t continue the war but it would be very difficult particularly for Austria.

Then, as you say there are the smaller German staes such as Bavaria and Wurrtemburg. We could see a situatuion where Prussia has been kocked outt militarily, the British government has fallen and negotiates a peace with Napoleon. Austria no longer has the finances to continue and perhaps has suffered a couple of battlefield defeats on op of this. Austria now decides to withdraw from the Coalition as well leaving ony Russia.

So, while Napoleon cannot win this militarily he can win politically wih a few more big battlefield victories and some luck.

 

[lucaswillen05]

The greatest problems Bonaparte faced (aside from his internal problems - there is no doubt the Church would be a third column inside France if he married his Polish mistress) was that French Army was in no position anymore to crush its enemies and he had no more vassal states to loot or allies to get re-inforcements from. How much longer would France's marshals (who had turned on him in 1814 when the Allies were closing in) continue to stay with him in 1815?

If we have a situation where he Allies are closng in militarily the Marshas may very well act as they did in 1814 although of course Ney, having berayed the Bourbons as he did would be in a very difficult posiion to say the least.

If on the other hand Napoleon has won a political victory and he 7h Coalition falls apart he can rule France as he chooses. If Austria do not return Marie louise and his son Napoleon can choose to divorce her ad marry the Polish girl if he wishs. He will still have to resolve the succession issue of course.

And whether the peace will prove durable or whether it will be like the Peace of Amiens is another question. That however is beyond the scope TTL for now at least. Wait until you see the outcome of the Battle of Tiernan first

 

[chris N]

In Napoleon can crush the Prussians then I think that there will be more pressure from the opposition in Great Britain to withdraw from the war. There was already pressure on the Czar to wash his hands of Napoleon and return to Russia. The withdrawal of the British would make it certain as the Austrians could not continue to fight without the Gold.

 

[Mikestone8]

In Napoleon can crush the Prussians then I think that there will be more pressure from the opposition in Great Britain to withdraw from the war. There was already pressure on the Czar to wash his hands of Napoleon and return to Russia. The withdrawal of the British would make it certain as the Austrians could not continue to fight without the Gold.

For how long?

After all, they've all been there before in 1802. Any reason for this second peace of Amiens to last any longer than the first?

 

[fhaessig]

For how long?

After all, they've all been there before in 1802. Any reason for this second peace of Amiens to last any longer than the first?

Because both side would want it to, this time, rather than looking for an excuse to start again after rearming?

 

[Mikestone8]

Because both side would want it to, this time, rather than looking for an excuse to start again after rearming?

Why? It had never worked that way before.

 

[jb3]

Because both side would want it to, this time, rather than looking for an excuse to start again after rearming?

Britain would never want to - they will not tolerate Bonaparte in France forever or France's attempts at hegemony on the Continent.

And as for Bonaparte, promises to the world community during the 100 days aside, I can't see him being content with the 1792 borders with no dominance in Europe. For a few years maybe while he rebuilds the French army but forever? No. This was a man who called himself the new Charlemagne, who planted his relatives on the throne of Spain and Naples and Tuscany and (the made-up) Kingdom of Westphalia, the man who annexed the Netherlands and Catalonia to France proper by force of conquest, the man who dissolved the millenia old Republic of Venice and basically forced the Holy Roman Empire to finally declare itself dead, who made most of Germany vassals in the Confederation of the Rhine and crowned himself "King of Italy" with the Lombard Iron Crown saying no one would ever take it away from him. And he would be content to live out the rest of his life, while he is still Emperor of France and has the French army, without any of that?

More importantly if you were any other state in Europe and you had been under his boot and humiliated by him for an entire generation would you be willing to take that chance? I say there's no real chance the Coalition breaks this time and if it does, it doesn't last.

And with no more demographic superiority, no allied states to France, with the rise of nationalism (thanks in no small part to Bonaparte himself) and no levee en masse (the French would not stand for it again), there's no way Napoleon ultimately wins. The Hundred Days was mostly playacting with thousands of causalities. Outside of the army itself there was no real great desire for Bonaparte himself even within France.

 

[chris N]

I think that what you are failing to realize that the British Public was tired of the war. While the government in power was willing to fight their hold on power would collapse with any more defeats in Europe. If you look at the History of the post Napoleonic War history of Britain you will see labor unrest, strikes etc. Would they overthrow the Monarchy that I don't believe would happen but more than 20years of war and the spilling of both blood and treasure had pushed the public to the breaking point.
I tend to believe that if Napoleon won then that would be it for him. He knew that he simply did not have enough energy or time to try to Conquer Europe.
Judging from how the Emperor was greeted by the public upon his return I think that you are wrong. The Bourbons had made no friend with the French public as they tried to turn the co\lock back.

 

[Saphroneth]

I think that what you are failing to realize that the British Public was tired of the war. While the government in power was willing to fight their hold on power would collapse with any more defeats in Europe. If you look at the History of the post Napoleonic War history of Britain you will see labor unrest, strikes etc. Would they overthrow the Monarchy that I don't believe would happen but more than 20years of war and the spilling of both blood and treasure had pushed the public to the breaking point.
I tend to believe that if Napoleon won then that would be it for him. He knew that he simply did not have enough energy or time to try to Conquer Europe.
Judging from how the Emperor was greeted by the public upon his return I think that you are wrong. The Bourbons had made no friend with the French public as they tried to turn the co\lock back.

Pretty much the state of things for Britain was (much as 130 years later), that they would basically beat Napoleon (/Hitler) and then handle the aftermath.

 

[fhaessig]

Pretty much the state of things for Britain was (much as 130 years later), that they would basically beat Napoleon (/Hitler) and then handle the aftermath.

The war against Hitler lasted 6 years, the one against Revolutionary/Napoleonic France 23. That makes a big difference.

Beside which, WWII was never in doubt after 43. Waterloo victory would be the morale equivalent of the Ardenne offensive sending the western allies back across the channel and if Alexander agrees to peace, that would be the equivalent of Stalin doing the same. This did not happen in OTL WWII, but would again make a big difference.

Because of both, the situation is not equivalent.

 

[Saphroneth]

The war against Hitler lasted 6 years, the one against Revolutionary/Napoleonic France 23. That makes a big difference.

Beside which, WWII was never in doubt after 43. Waterloo victory would be the morale equivalent of the Ardenne offensive sending the western allies back across the channel and if Alexander agrees to peace, that would be the equivalent of Stalin doing the same. This did not happen in OTL WWII, but would again make a big difference.

Because of both, the situation is not equivalent.

Except that in both cases Britain is still unassailable. And - Waterloo victory isn't the equivalent of throwing the Allies off the continent, it would take actually being thrown off the continent for that.

Anyway, I mentioned Hitler as a comparison point only to make clear it's not the only time it happened. It pretty much was "defeat Old Boney, then worry".

 

[Mikestone8]

I think that what you are failing to realize that the British Public was tired of the war. While the government in power was willing to fight their hold on power would collapse with any more defeats in Europe. If you look at the History of the post Napoleonic War history of Britain you will see labor unrest, strikes etc. Would they overthrow the Monarchy that I don't believe would happen but more than 20years of war and the spilling of both blood and treasure had pushed the public to the breaking point.

Yet Napoleon had beaten the Allies at Dresden in 1813 and at Montmirail in 1814 without producing such a response. Both times the Allies just got up, dusted themselves down and soldiered on.

And the Allies knew they could win if they stuck it out just a little longer. Napoleon's only asset was the prisoners of war released in 1814, whom he had recalled to his army. But they were a wasting asset - probably only two or three more Waterloo-size battles would suffice to kill most of them off. Then he's back to calling up 16yos, and that's the end of the trail.

 

[lucaswillen05]

Dresden was followed by the anihilation of Vandamme's corps at Kulm as well as a number of other victories such as Dennewitz.

As for the, as yet, hypothetical French victory, if it does happen AND Britain withdraws fro the war resulting in the collapse of the 7th Coalition it is unlikely the pece would last very long. France will probably settle for annexing Belgium, leaving Holland independfent under British protectio. However, something will reignite hostilities again.

As for Napoleon maybe he still dies in 1821 if it really was stomach cancer. Or he might live another twenty or thirty years with costant war or hreat of war well into the 1840s. In dynastic terms he could remarry, beget an heir and raise him to maturity as a trained statesman and soldier. In this event Europe would haver to learn to live wih the Bonapartes. Or of course Napoleon could be overthown by an 8th or 9th Coalition in the late 1810s or the 1820s.

 

[chris N]

I think that if Napoleon could keep the British out of any war the chances of there being a renewal of the Napoleonic Wars would be slim.
Indeed Prussian, Austrian and Russian interest were not the same and the bickering between them would set things off.
Austria would soon find out that one could not set the clock back. Nationalism in Italy would soon require the Austrians to make critical decisions.
Russia would find that the Poles had little desire to be Russian subjects and Russia attention might be drawn to the Balkans and the Ottomans. It would be easy to sew distrust between the former allied powers.

As for Spain that nation would soon see its colonies in the Americas in revolt and eventually chaos would move to Spain when the King died and the parties fought over who should take power next.

 

[jb3]

Austria would soon find out that one could not set the clock back. Nationalism in Italy would soon require the Austrians to make critical decisions.
Russia would find that the Poles had little desire to be Russian subjects and Russia attention might be drawn to the Balkans and the Ottomans. It would be easy to sew distrust between the former allied powers.

As for Spain that nation would soon see its colonies in the Americas in revolt and eventually chaos would move to Spain when the King died and the parties fought over who should take power next.

And Bonaparte, the "man of peace" (as he called himself) would not advantage of any of that? Ever? The man who crowned himself King of Italy and his son "King of Rome" would be content to sit in France with the 1792 borders as the Savoys (or someone else) start unifying the peninsula? The man who invaded Spain, annexed Catalonia to France, dethroned the Bourbons (his allies!) and appointed his mediocre brother the Spanish king would sit back while Spain disintegrated on his western border? He would be OK with Russia being the dominant power in Europe (which it would be if the British pull out)? All this speculation really doesn't take into account the kind of man Nap 1 had always been. He had to dominate. Just read his letters post-Elba - or even his memoirs from Helena. He was a little less arrogant but they are all filled with some of the same hubris as ever.

And as much as the British were tired of war - so were the French. How long would the French people continue to tolerate Napoleon if the Coalition holds together. After Waterloo - one defeat - he pretty much was isolated and told by the Assembly to go away. France was not the war machine it once was and no longer could replenish its manpower on mass conscription or levees from puppet states. The Peace of 1814 was lenient towards France, they (and by they I mean the Marshals, most of whom -minus Ney - got off easy in OTL) had to know the longer the war went on the next treaty would not be.

I just don't see it happening for Napoleon past-1814 (or basically past the Invasion of Russia). He was not the man he once was, surrounded by countries that he had treated like garbage and everything depends on the Coalition basically letting bygones be bygones and Prussia, Spain, Austria, Russia, Britain, Portugal, Naples, etc. all forgetting he treated them like his chewtoy. I don't see it happening in 1815.

 

[lucaswillen05]

And Bonaparte, the "man of peace" (as he called himself) would not advantage of any of that? Ever? The man who crowned himself King of Italy and his son "King of Rome" would be content to sit in France with the 1792 borders as the Savoys (or someone else) start unifying the peninsula? The man who invaded Spain, annexed Catalonia to France, dethroned the Bourbons (his allies!) and appointed his mediocre brother the Spanish king would sit back while Spain disintegrated on his western border? He would be OK with Russia being the dominant power in Europe (which it would be if the British pull out)? All this speculation really doesn't take into account the kind of man Nap 1 had always been. He had to dominate. Just read his letters post-Elba - or even his memoirs from Helena. He was a little less arrogant but they are all filled with some of the same hubris as ever.

And as much as the British were tired of war - so were the French. How long would the French people continue to tolerate Napoleon if the Coalition holds together. After Waterloo - one defeat - he pretty much was isolated and told by the Assembly to go away. France was not the war machine it once was and no longer could replenish its manpower on mass conscription or levees from puppet states. The Peace of 1814 was lenient towards France, they (and by they I mean the Marshals, most of whom -minus Ney - got off easy in OTL) had to know the longer the war went on the next treaty would not be.

I just don't see it happening for Napoleon past-1814 (or basically past the Invasion of Russia). He was not the man he once was, surrounded by countries that he had treated like garbage and everything depends on the Coalition basically letting bygones be bygones and Prussia, Spain, Austria, Russia, Britain, Portugal, Naples, etc. all forgetting he treated them like his chewtoy. I don't see it happening in 1815.

We are discussing what happens if Napoleon were to win though. Could Bitain accept French control of Belgium. Problems in the German and Italian States might well lead to new wars

Napoleon might well win the Battle of Tiernan which may or may not knock Prussia out and cause the British government to fall. Even if Prussia loses hey can cotinue the war with the Prussian Guard and another two corps of Prussians Plus Wellington's army, thwe Austrians, Russians and assorted Germans. The crucial factor is going to be political. Can Lord Liverpool's Goveernment survive another big defeat in Belgium. If not then can one of his Ministers form a new Government that will continue the war or wuill the Whigs take power and seek a negotiated peace. In the latter case subsidies will stop.

 

[Mikestone8]

r wuill the Whigs take power and seek a negotiated peace. In the latter case subsidies will stop.

Only if they actually get the negotiated peace. Merely seeking one won't do it, unless they and Napoleon can actually agree.