The post-Napoleonic peace if Napoleon wins at Waterloo

CaliGuy

Banned
If Napoleon wins at Waterloo--for instance, if Grouchy doesn't betray him--what does the post-Napoleonic pace look like?

For instance, if Napoleon is still ultimately defeated in this TL, is the post-Napoleonic peace in this TL going to be even more favorable to Austria and Russia (who presumably will play an even larger role in Napoleon's defeat in this TL) than it was in our TL?

Any thoughts on this?
 
Last edited:
Waterloo will be one of Napoleon's greatest victories, and it will set his enemies back years. If Napoleon wins at Waterloo and loses another drawn out war, the ultimate coalition terms will be absolutely brutal to France. Think more territory lost to the benefit of German states, the Netherlands, Savoy, and maybe even Spain. Perhaps a Breton kingdom under another Bourbon line.

This might not be Britain's victory, but Austria's and Russia's, like you said. Much of Britain's hard-earned martial confidence will have died at Waterloo along with its leading role in the coalition. Along with the neutering of France, that has grave implications for the European balance of power down the line. Maybe war between Russia and the UK will come much sooner.

PC: A Grand Duchy of Normandy in personal union with the UK being carved out of France.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
Waterloo will be one of Napoleon's greatest victories, and it will set his enemies back years. If Napoleon wins at Waterloo and loses another drawn out war, the ultimate coalition terms will be absolutely brutal to France. Think more territory lost to the benefit of German states, the Netherlands, Savoy, and maybe even Spain. Perhaps a Breton kingdom under another Bourbon line.

This might not be Britain's victory, but Austria's and Russia's, like you said. Much of Britain's hard-earned martial confidence will have died at Waterloo along with its leading role in the coalition. Along with the neutering of France, that has grave implications for the European balance of power down the line. Maybe war between Russia and the UK will come much sooner.

PC: A Grand Duchy of Normandy in personal union with the UK being carved out of France.
Are you sure that the Austrians and Russians can't quickly defeat Napoleon even if he wins at Waterloo?
 
Why does everyone assume a continued war/wars in a Napoleonic Victory scenario? Wouldn't it be economically and manpower exhausting on Europe to continue the fight?
 
Waterloo will be one of Napoleon's greatest victories, and it will set his enemies back years. If Napoleon wins at Waterloo and loses another drawn out war, the ultimate coalition terms will be absolutely brutal to France. Think more territory lost to the benefit of German states, the Netherlands, Savoy, and maybe even Spain. Perhaps a Breton kingdom under another Bourbon line.

This might not be Britain's victory, but Austria's and Russia's, like you said. Much of Britain's hard-earned martial confidence will have died at Waterloo along with its leading role in the coalition. Along with the neutering of France, that has grave implications for the European balance of power down the line. Maybe war between Russia and the UK will come much sooner.

PC: A Grand Duchy of Normandy in personal union with the UK being carved out of France.

Then the Coalition is punishing its pal Louis XVIII.

Statesmen of that era didn’t think in terms of nations, they thought in terms of monarchs. That’s why France wasn’t punished all that harshly, because they didn’t want to undermine Louis’s legitimacy. They wanted a stable France under the Bourbons.

I don’t think it would have gotten much harsher than the 1815 settlement was IOTL.
 
Then the Coalition is punishing its pal Louis XVIII.

Statesmen of that era didn’t think in terms of nations, they thought in terms of monarchs. That’s why France wasn’t punished all that harshly, because they didn’t want to undermine Louis’s legitimacy. They wanted a stable France under the Bourbons.

I don’t think it would have gotten much harsher than the 1815 settlement was IOTL.
Beside, Austrians and Russian armies were already coming into France, so a Waterloo victory would not set back vitcory by years inly by some months. The big change is that it's the Austrian and Russian are the one getting all the prestige for it. I'm not quite sure what it would have meant for Europe though.
 
There's a good case to be made that Wellington losing at Waterloo actually doesn't even change that much -- most of the agreements have already been reached at Vienna, and it's far from guaranteed that Russia and/or Austria will want to revisit any of the settled issues following Napoleon's later defeat here. (I've come around to this line of thinking recently.)
 
Then the Austrians probably are most responsible for beating him, and they could pull off a France firmly aligned towards them with Napoleon II as Emperor and Marie-Louise as regent. Definitely more Hapsburg power, and perhaps even a Hapsburg Germany. Napoleon, though, can't win in the long run.
 
The set back might only have been days depending on how much it cost Napoleon to break Wellington's line. As it was he was likely to have a humbled but still essentially intact Anglo-Netherlands army to his front and Blucher's reformed forces on his flanks. The main difference might be as little as someone other than Wellington getting to sleep with Bonaparte's mistresses.
 

CaliGuy

Banned
There's a good case to be made that Wellington losing at Waterloo actually doesn't even change that much -- most of the agreements have already been reached at Vienna, and it's far from guaranteed that Russia and/or Austria will want to revisit any of the settled issues following Napoleon's later defeat here. (I've come around to this line of thinking recently.)
Couldn't Russia and Austria demand a larger share of the spoils if they are even more responsible for defeating Napoleon, though?
 
Couldn't Russia and Austria demand a larger share of the spoils if they are even more responsible for defeating Napoleon, though?
The Congress of Vienna wasn't really about distributing spoils so much as creating a new balance of power in Europe; the main issues had been resolved by the time of Nappy's return, and trying to revisit any of them would only destabilize Europe further.
 
You're thinking of the Polish-Saxon Crisis, and no it would not.

To be perfectly simple, regardless of whether Napoleon wins or loses at Waterloo, France was going to inevitably lose the war. The only difference is that the post war balance of power on the continent would be confirmed to be in the court of Russia and Austria (who in a brink of war scenario as you said, would be at war with each other, Prussia was Russia's ally in that affair.) The Congress of Vienna was already pretty much set in stone, with only the few territorial changes wrought as a result of the Hundred Days.

Really the only thing Austria and/or Russia could do with the increase of prestige from taking down Nappy I is to force one of their candidates to the French throne. You see, Louis XVIII was the candidate favored by the British, and was the one who ultimately took the throne. But there was also Austria's candidate, Napoleon II (who did actually reign during the last days of the Hundred Days), as well as Russia's two candidates, (Louis-Philippe, then duke of Orleans, and the future Louis-Philippe I, and Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, the future Karl XIV Johann of Sweden). The question would probably be, would the prestige of knocking off Napoleon increase any of those three's chances of becoming King (or in Nappy II's case, Emperor) of France?
 
You're thinking of the Polish-Saxon Crisis, and no it would not.

To be perfectly simple, regardless of whether Napoleon wins or loses at Waterloo, France was going to inevitably lose the war. The only difference is that the post war balance of power on the continent would be confirmed to be in the court of Russia and Austria (who in a brink of war scenario as you said, would be at war with each other, Prussia was Russia's ally in that affair.) The Congress of Vienna was already pretty much set in stone, with only the few territorial changes wrought as a result of the Hundred Days.

Really the only thing Austria and/or Russia could do with the increase of prestige from taking down Nappy I is to force one of their candidates to the French throne. You see, Louis XVIII was the candidate favored by the British, and was the one who ultimately took the throne. But there was also Austria's candidate, Napoleon II (who did actually reign during the last days of the Hundred Days), as well as Russia's two candidates, (Louis-Philippe, then duke of Orleans, and the future Louis-Philippe I, and Jean-Baptiste Bernadotte, the future Karl XIV Johann of Sweden). The question would probably be, would the prestige of knocking off Napoleon increase any of those three's chances of becoming King (or in Nappy II's case, Emperor) of France?
And what if the Habsburgs ally themselves with Napoleon? Wouldn't it be possible?
 
Actually no. Napoleon gave pretty much all of Europe a lot of grief. By the time of the Hundred Days, practically all of Europe wanted him gone, even former allies. Case in point, Napoleon's only ally was Naples, and they were crushed by Austria (who at the time wanted to effectively establish puppet states over all of Austria.
 
Top