Negotiations at Waterloo

What if Napoleon wons the Battle of Waterloo and manages reopen the negotiation table with Coalition? The reason why he would have to make peace with his enemys was because of:

His army in the previous six coalition wars had been exhausted and even now they where not ready to go back to holding multiple fronts.

The Population was already war-weary and there morale exhausted. A continued war would not be popular with the public.

Due to his victory at Waterloo, he could possibly be gave/ and give peace terms that could possibly not be too harsh. The Treaty of Rome would allow France to control OTL Belgium, Naples, Switzerland, and finally parts of Germany. Napoleon I would rule France until his death in 1827, in Which his son Napoleon II would take the throne. (More work to be done later)
 

archaeogeek

Banned
The Czar had an army underway and the congress was determined to get rid of him. Short of Talleyrand ditching Louis XVIII, I don't think that was going to happen.
 
even if Napoleon had won, civil unrest at home (of which there was plenty, despite what some Napoleonic historians will tell us :rolleyes:) plus the fact that Austria and Russia were moving against Napoleon would've meant that he would've been toppled swiftly. It was lucky for France that he was defeated at Waterloo as it was, I can't really see France getting the favourable outcome they did in OTL at the Congress of Vienna
 
Besides that IMHO the best Napoleon could hope for was his restoration in a France with pre-revolutionary borders.
Not only the Russian were heading west, but the Austrian army was also still in the field and even the defeated Great nations at Waterloo had more armies. This Seventh coalition had a total manpower somewhere in the range of 800,000 to 1000,000 in contrast Napoleon had a army of approximately 280,000 men.

Furthermore a peace treaty after a Russian and/or Austrian victory, might have been worse for France than the OTL peace deal.
 
Last edited:
The reason why he would have to make peace with his enemys was because of...


Those are also the reasons why his enemies won't make peace with him.

The Allies have far more men, have armies marching on France Napoleon hasn't even seen yet, have all of Europe on their side, and every other advantage you can imagine.

Napoleon terrorized Europe for over a decade and has yet another broken a treaty by returning to France. The Allies are not going to negotiate with him and they have the means to permanently defeat him.

(More work to be done later)

You can go ahead that but it will be a waste of your time.
 
Besides that IMHO the best Napoleon could hope for was his restoration in a France with pre-revolutionary borders.
And even if he managed to secure such a deal, it would almost certainly just be another short cease fire to give everyone time rearm, retrain, and rebuild before startng the war back up in a year or two.
 
Indeed, a Napoleonic victory at Waterloo wouldn't change a lot. He started to make himself lose by invading Russia and the real turning point was Leipzig.

Hell, his escape from Elba was a fluke.
 

Anaxagoras

Banned
"Napoleon-Winning-At-Waterloo-Wouldn't-Make-A-Difference" (NWAWWMAD, for short) has always been a bit overdone, in my opinion.

Yes, the Russians and Austrians each had an army on the way, but the latter were scrapping the bottom of their manpower bucket by 1814-15, and I have never understood why people assume that these two forces would somehow easily defeat Napoleon if he had emerged triumphant at Waterloo.

And yes, there was considerable unrest in France, but Napoleon would obviously not have been able to restore his control of the country had it not have considerable public support.

And the Allies were much more divided among themselves in 1815 than they had been a year before. The return of Napoleon had shocked them back into unity, but would this have lasted in the face of a French defeat of the Prussians and British in Belgium? Neither the Russians nor the Austrians were keen on the Bourbons in any event.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
And the Allies were much more divided among themselves in 1815 than they had been a year before. The return of Napoleon had shocked them back into unity, but would this have lasted in the face of a French defeat of the Prussians and British in Belgium? Neither the Russians nor the Austrians were keen on the Bourbons in any event.

The last one is a good point; I seem to remember Alexander I threatening to put Napoleon back on his throne more than a few times, and Metternich's only preoccupation throughout was some sort of peace that would make Austria a dominant player, no matter who was on the french throne.

Like I said, Talleyrand switching sides could potentially lead to the kind of outcome where Napoleon can get a diplomatic solution. With the reconciliation with his brother Lucien, the prince of Canino, he had the political mind who allowed his rise in the first place.

I still think Waterloo won without any changes is too little to have the desired effect. Fouché might reconsider his positions in the Senate, Talleyrand will likely still plot in Vienna and the problem is that the man was a massive wildcard, Lucien will still be busy turning the empire into a liberal constitutional monarchy. But ultimately, it's still a little POD...
 
"Napoleon-Winning-At-Waterloo-Wouldn't-Make-A-Difference" (NWAWWMAD, for short) has always been a bit overdone, in my opinion.

Yes, the Russians and Austrians each had an army on the way, but the latter were scrapping the bottom of their manpower bucket by 1814-15, and I have never understood why people assume that these two forces would somehow easily defeat Napoleon if he had emerged triumphant at Waterloo.
Russia and Austria might have been scrapping the bottom, but France had broken their barrel.
If Napoleon had won at Waterloo, he would have been facing the Austrians and Russians very soon thereafter. The Austrians and Russians were relatively rested and wouldn't have a lot of wounded to look after.
The French having fought a major battle and marched a long way would be much tireder, and have wounded comrades to slow them down.
And if the French had a enough time to rest and recuperate before the Austrians and Russians got there, the English and Prussians would be equally rested and looking for a rematch.
Unless the Allies somehow blew apart in the few weeks (if that) before the next battle, Napoleon was doomed to fight an army that was far larger than his, almost as good, and in better fighting condition. That is not a winning situation.
 
Russia and Austria might have been scrapping the bottom, but France had broken their barrel.


True. While France was scraping the ground where the barrel used to be, the Allies hadn't even yet brought all their forces to bear.

Wellington, for example, had as many troops guarding his lines of communications as he did at Waterloo and, in the event of being defeated at Waterloo, Wellington would have been withdrawing towards those additional troops while the French were receiving no reinforcements at all.
 
Anaxagoras;3993789And the Allies were much more divided among themselves in 1815 than they had been a year before. The return of Napoleon had shocked them back into unity said:
Well, after Waterloo it lasted nearly half a century. The Holy Alliance didn't finally break down until the Crimean War.

True, Britain dropped out early, but only when we were sure the French wouldn't get Belgium back. Any challenge on that point and Waterloo would have been refought.

You need a Napoleon who is prepared to write off Belgium and the Rhineland, and rest content with the borders of the old kingdom. Somehow, I can't see the real life Napoleon doing that.
 
I thin even if Napoleon beats all allied armies in the Waterloo campaign he has little chances.

Alexander was pretty unpredictable. But he is the only one that I can see make peace with France.

-England would be just plain stupid if lets the reward for a decade of fighting slip out of his hand like this.
-The Kingdom of the Netherlands had its very existence at stake.
-Public opinion in Germany was most heaviliy anti-french and anti-napoleon. I can't see Prussia or Austria concluding a seperate peace with France as this would mean public support and possibly dominance in Germany shifting to the other power.

And most of all Napoleons rule in paris was highly unstable. The goverment consisted of people that had betrayed him in the past and old republicans.
 

archaeogeek

Banned
At the same time, if Napoleon instead agrees to write off, say, control of Italy (Beauharnais may or may not remain there, although I'm going to likely not), Illyria (sine qua non, rumors are he was planning to restore them to Austria anyway), Spain and the Rheinbund, maybe restoring the dutch and westphalian and bergoclevian departments... And Austria and Russia somehow are pleased and convinced that Napoleon, or maybe a foreign influenced Napoleon-Francis can do that and remain Emperor of the French. Austria has rarely been opposed to horse-trading where it could benefit (see Lorraine vs Tuscany) and promising Italy against the Netherlands could very well be the kind of horse-trade France enjoys ;)

What can Britain do against such a Dreikaiserbund so long as it doesn't find a way to break it ;)

(That said I agree 1815 is likely too late)
 
At the same time, if Napoleon instead agrees to write off, say, control of Italy (Beauharnais may or may not remain there, although I'm going to likely not), Illyria (sine qua non, rumors are he was planning to restore them to Austria anyway), Spain and the Rheinbund, maybe restoring the dutch and westphalian and bergoclevian departments... And Austria and Russia somehow are pleased and convinced that Napoleon, or maybe a foreign influenced Napoleon-Francis can do that and remain Emperor of the French. Austria has rarely been opposed to horse-trading where it could benefit (see Lorraine vs Tuscany) and promising Italy against the Netherlands could very well be the kind of horse-trade France enjoys ;)

What can Britain do against such a Dreikaiserbund so long as it doesn't find a way to break it ;)

(That said I agree 1815 is likely too late)


Don't really follow.

France had already lost Italy in the campaigns of 1814, so he'd be trying to bribe her with something she already held. Why should Austria jump at that?
 

archaeogeek

Banned
Don't really follow.

France had already lost Italy in the campaigns of 1814, so he'd be trying to bribe her with something she already held. Why should Austria jump at that?

a) The 100-days situation of Italy was about as complex as the political situation in France, which was ridiculously complex
b) discussions in 1814 still considered it a possibility that Beauharnais might remain king of Italy until the 100 days happened. Not that likely but yeah
c) I said writing off. And I already said before a lot of it actually hinges not so much on Waterloo as it hinges on what the political class does: if Fouché and Talleyrand swing back in the imperial camp, Napoleon just gained a massive trump card. However them sticking to the restauration is about as likely. Ignoring what happened in Vienna for concentrating solely on the battlefield is just as bad as doing the reverse: IOTL Talleyrand causing a wedge between the four allied powers was part of why France came out of it with a slap on the wrist, if Britain and Prussia are beaten you can bet he'll be ditching Clancarty and Castlereagh and make sure Hardenberg's nose is rubbed hard in it.


Of course it could backfire. Talleyrand was not god. ;)
The reverse is more apt: God was not Talleyrand (or Metternich)

EDIT: Also if I may add, the abdication of Napoleon IOTL was secured by a senate controlled by Talleyrand and Fouché
 
Why negoiate? Napoleon was going to lose anyway and none of the armies converging on him wanted to have the glory of one final battle taken from them. For a negoiated end to the Napoleonic Wars, you need to go back as far as 1813 for your PoD, before the Battle of the Nations.
 
Top