When Was Napoleon's Last Chance To Survive

When Was Napoleon's Last Chance To Survive On the Throne?


  • Total voters
    78
He had two chances in my opinion, the first was if he stopped after invading Prussia the second is if he had never gone after Waterloo and instead been defensive during the 100 days.
 
He was in with a chance until he invaded Russia. After that it would take a miracle.

Small nitpick. The Battle of the Nations (Leipzig) was in 1813 not 1814.
 
He had two chances in my opinion, the first was if he stopped after invading Prussia the second is if he had never gone after Waterloo and instead been defensive during the 100 days.

Best defense is a good offense, those British and Prussian troops were not there for a picnic.

I believe his last shot was after Leipzig. He could have held the throne then, perhaps abdicate and put his son to the throne or something like that. After then, well France didn't want him.
 
Since he was still going at Waterloo then IMHO its his last chance to survive. It won't do it on its own - he or Davout is going to have to deal with the Russians and Austrians, but if he has thrown the British and Prussians back then he has a chance

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
1813 before Leipzig. He needed to get a treaty before Austria committed herself to the war.

He could actually have had a negotiated settlmeent pretty much until the Coalition could see Paris, but for simplicity I'm naming the last time he could have got a treaty that his temperament would let him accept.
 

amphibulous

Banned
He had two chances in my opinion, the first was if he stopped after invading Prussia the second is if he had never gone after Waterloo and instead been defensive during the 100 days.

Yes, letting the British and Prussians join up against him - and possibly waiting for the Russians to arrive - would have been so much better! Fighting your enemies all at once while vastly out-numbered has huge tactical advantages!
 

amphibulous

Banned
1813 before Leipzig. He needed to get a treaty before Austria committed herself to the war.

He could actually have had a negotiated settlmeent pretty much until the Coalition could see Paris, but for simplicity I'm naming the last time he could have got a treaty that his temperament would let him accept.

This seems to be correct. As evidence:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_of_Chaumont

The Treaty of Chaumont was a rejected cease-fire offered by the Allies of the Sixth Coalition to Napoleon Bonaparte in 1814.

Following discussions in late February 1814, representatives of Austria, Prussia, Russia, and Great Britain reconvened a meeting at Chaumont, Haute-Marne on 1 March 1814. The resulting Treaty of Chaumont was signed on 9 or 19 March 1814, (although dated 1 March), by Tsar Alexander I (with Metternich), Emperor Francis II, King Frederick William III, and British Foreign Secretary Viscount Castlereagh. The Treaty called for Napoleon to give up all conquests, thus reverting France back to her 1791 (Pre-French Revolutionary Wars) borders, in exchange for a cease-fire. If Napoleon rejected the treaty, the Allies pledged to continue the war. The following day Napoleon rejected the treaty, ending his last chance of a negotiated settlement.
 
Yes, letting the British and Prussians join up against him - and possibly waiting for the Russians to arrive - would have been so much better! Fighting your enemies all at once while vastly out-numbered has huge tactical advantages!

His strategy at Waterloo was worse, atleast here he has the chance to fight the British and Prussians at different battles.
 

amphibulous

Banned
His strategy at Waterloo was worse, atleast here he has the chance to fight the British and Prussians at different battles.

Ok: you're completely mis-understanding the point of Waterloo. Napoleon was trying to stop the British and Prussians from combining - he'd already hit the Prussians and thought they were withdrawing. This *might* have worked, even though it didn't in our OTL.

If he'd gone on the defensive then, no, he would have inevitably faced both together. The that they would have obligingly disadvantaged themselves by not combining is just bizarre.
 

amphibulous

Banned
The problem is that this treaty was unacceptable and would have signified a total crush of Napoleon when he could have saved more than that.

"Could have" is meaningless. Hitler "could have" still won in 1944 - say if giant asteroids hit the earth everywhere except Germany. But was he ***likely*** to?

He (Napoleon, not Hitler) was facing overwhelming British financial and industrial power and overwhelming Russian manpower. 1812 showed that he had no way of knocking the Russians out, even if he had such favourable circumstances ever again - which only a lunatic would expect. And he had already been forced back inside of France and was losing battles there. Realistically, he was being offered an excellent deal - he'd get to keep France, which otherwise he was certain to lose.
 
Last edited:
A successful Russian Campaign would possibly have neutralized all Eastern threats for Napoleon: if the Russians had been defeated, the Austrians and Prussians wouldn't have moved an inch in my opinion and without them, the German minors would have stayed loyal to France. Napoleon could thus have focused his efforts on Spain afterwards: there is, of course, the problem that Napoleon didn't knew Guerrilla warfare, but I'm not sure if Guerilla would have been enough to vainquish l'Empereur. That would me by best bet among the suggestions.

The very last chance to survive past this one is not mentionned: the campaign of Napoleon was successful before Leipzig happened and he was even offered peace BEFORE that battle. Napoleon had been crippled by the Russian Campaign then, but he still had chances by that point. After his defeat at Leipzig, everything was over: the Allies would have stopped at nothing to get rid of Napoleon. Even the strings of victory he achieved in the Six Days Campaign/Campagne de France were not enough to stop the Allies from taking Paris. As for Waterloo, unless the Allies had went to war during the Saxony Crisis, I don't see how Napoleon would have stand a chance against a united Europe against him.
 
Top