Personally I find the *if Napoleon won Waterloo he was bound to lose against the Austrians and Russians* to be painfully tedious. Mainly because there is so rarely a timeline about it, its just given as fact and then all complexity is abandoned.
I accept its very possible. It might even be likely. The truth is however that the coalitions argueably should have defeated France almost every single time and yet failed rather spectactually on numerous occasions. If they have to bring Napoleon to battle then in everything is in flux, little is as subject to chance as battle in the Napoleonic era. Have the right person killed by some stray fire and anything can happen. If Napoleons opponents are too cautious to risk a decisive battle without overwhelming superiority, as they were in 1814, then Napoleon has potentially several months to raise fresh French forces to continue the struggle.
Lets assume that Waterloo is not just a victory, but a crushing victory. How isn't a major concern, a sudden panic for one reason or another is perfectly possible. A rout turning into an out and out massacre certainly wouldn't be unprecedented. If both the British and Prussians are crushed they are out of it for atleast the medium term. This view that the British would just write it off as a loss and shell out yet more gold for the allies might be too simplistic, parliament could certainly have a major shock at the news with potentially demoralising consequences.
On the otherhand this view that it would somehow result in the Pax Britannica being still born seems false. The continental powers are still not going to launch a major challenge to RN or industrialise at any greater speed regardless of whether Napoleon survives or not. The situation where the industrialised British have a quasi informal empire over most of the globe shall remain.
What would victory at Waterloo do for Napoleon? Well nothing is good for a myth like success. If many people in France (and Belgium and throughout Europe) were half-hearted about Napoleon's return and felt he was certain to be finished a brilliant and total victory is likely to convince them otherwise. In many ways Napoleon has been in retreat and his 'myth' has been being stamped on since 1812. If this is a second Austerlitz or Jena then once again he is riding high.
While the coalition may have been convinced they had to crush Napoleon they hadn't yet moved to the stage where they could say 'no matter the cost'. They didn't want to secure some Pyrric victory which would allow their rivals to pocket all the worthwhile spoils. Wasn't there a serious risk of war breaking out between the powers before Napoleons return? Those thoughts won't vanish completely. In the face of this defeat they are more likely to come to the fore than suddenly recede in a display of European solidarity.
I accept its very possible. It might even be likely. The truth is however that the coalitions argueably should have defeated France almost every single time and yet failed rather spectactually on numerous occasions. If they have to bring Napoleon to battle then in everything is in flux, little is as subject to chance as battle in the Napoleonic era. Have the right person killed by some stray fire and anything can happen. If Napoleons opponents are too cautious to risk a decisive battle without overwhelming superiority, as they were in 1814, then Napoleon has potentially several months to raise fresh French forces to continue the struggle.
Lets assume that Waterloo is not just a victory, but a crushing victory. How isn't a major concern, a sudden panic for one reason or another is perfectly possible. A rout turning into an out and out massacre certainly wouldn't be unprecedented. If both the British and Prussians are crushed they are out of it for atleast the medium term. This view that the British would just write it off as a loss and shell out yet more gold for the allies might be too simplistic, parliament could certainly have a major shock at the news with potentially demoralising consequences.
On the otherhand this view that it would somehow result in the Pax Britannica being still born seems false. The continental powers are still not going to launch a major challenge to RN or industrialise at any greater speed regardless of whether Napoleon survives or not. The situation where the industrialised British have a quasi informal empire over most of the globe shall remain.
What would victory at Waterloo do for Napoleon? Well nothing is good for a myth like success. If many people in France (and Belgium and throughout Europe) were half-hearted about Napoleon's return and felt he was certain to be finished a brilliant and total victory is likely to convince them otherwise. In many ways Napoleon has been in retreat and his 'myth' has been being stamped on since 1812. If this is a second Austerlitz or Jena then once again he is riding high.
While the coalition may have been convinced they had to crush Napoleon they hadn't yet moved to the stage where they could say 'no matter the cost'. They didn't want to secure some Pyrric victory which would allow their rivals to pocket all the worthwhile spoils. Wasn't there a serious risk of war breaking out between the powers before Napoleons return? Those thoughts won't vanish completely. In the face of this defeat they are more likely to come to the fore than suddenly recede in a display of European solidarity.