WI Napoleon in the hundred days saved peace

It's plausible a scenery where Napoleon after the return from Elba convinced the anti-French coalition to keep him on the throne in exchange of the recognition of the Restauration in the rest of Europe outside France, without recurring to war (No Waterloo so)?
 
Last edited:
This would be the "anti-French coalition" that made the following declaration at Vienna:

By thus breaking the convention which had established him in the island of Elba, Bonaparte destroys the only legal title on which his existence depended, and by appearing again in France, with projects of confusion and disorder, he has deprived himself of the protection of the law, and has manifested to the universe that there can be neither peace nor truce with him.
The powers consequently declare, that Napoleon Bonaparte has placed himself without the pale of civil and social relations; and that, as an enemy and disturber of the tranquillity of the world, he has rendered himself liable to public vengeance.

I'm not sure how keeping Napoleon on the throne is recognizing the Restoration, but I'm pretty sure if he hadn't gone out to meet the Coalition in battle, they would have come to him.
 
Not very likely. The Ancien Regimes were determined to bring Napoleon down. Napoleon actually did sent out peace feelers in real life to the Brits, Russians, and Austrians, only wanting the throne and his son in exchange for no territorial additions to France. They didn't answer at all. Napoleon's only chance was winning at Waterloo and somehow forcing a peace afterwards, and that's incredibly unlikely.
 
Well, in my opinion (which is semi-biased, mind you), I believe Napoleon could actually keep his throne in the Hundred Days. If tensions had boiled over during the Congress of Vienna between Prussia/Russia and Austria/Britain over Saxony and some other issues, I believe the Coalition could be split and or hampered. I do not think it would fall apart, but there might be some rough feelings. (Imagine if Prussia decided to sit out the Waterloo Campaign.)

That being said, there could also be the problem of the other monarchs seeing Russia's ability to police Eastern and central Europe as threatening...

In the long-run though, I do not think Napoleon would consolidate and then wage a political and diplomatic campaign to keep his throne. Yes he was physically and mentally reduced and probably wearier of war than at any point in his career, but he was still the man who had defeated all of Europe. He would not sit idly by- I do not think he actually could stop himself from fighting. Maintaining his throne would be difficult without military victories even though he was a dictator from the left. I think after the Russian Campaign, his best shot would be to abdicate for his son, and allow regency for a diplomatically talented individual like Talleyrand to try and soothe Europe. Napoleon would always be a pariah among the crown heads of Europe: When the Coalition armed itself to bring Napoleon down for the final time they declared war on Napoleon, and not France; symbolically to show how they did not want to isolate the French people, and to show that Napoleon was their only goal. (I believe that is the only time countries have legitimately declared war on a single person?...)

Anyway, I think Napoleon may have had a tiny chance to retain his throne during the Hundred Days. Tiny. But hey, there’s always a shot…
 

HJ Tulp

Donor
Well, in my opinion (which is semi-biased, mind you), I believe Napoleon could actually keep his throne in the Hundred Days. If tensions had boiled over during the Congress of Vienna between Prussia/Russia and Austria/Britain over Saxony and some other issues, I believe the Coalition could be split and or hampered. I do not think it would fall apart, but there might be some rough feelings. (Imagine if Prussia decided to sit out the Waterloo Campaign.)



AFAICS all the tension was over by the time Napoleon had left Elba. Had he come sooner he would have been in a far better position, internationally that is. I don't know if a earlier Bonaparte-invasion of France would be succesful in taking the throne though?
 
Oh, haha, well never mind then.
I think Napoleon could easily seize power at any point in his exile on Elba- he did not popular support to regain his throne, just that of the military. He would need popular support to keep his crown, but the soldiers were enamored by their Little Corporal, even after the mauling their country went through.
 
It's plausible a scenery where Napoleon after the return from Elba convinced the anti-French coalition to keep him on the throne in exchange of the recognition of the Restauration in the rest of Europe outside France, without recurring to war (No Waterloo so)?

ASB. Once Napoleon went to war, he was psychologically incapable of stopping.
 
Not very likely. The Ancien Regimes were determined to bring Napoleon down. Napoleon actually did sent out peace feelers in real life to the Brits, Russians, and Austrians, only wanting the throne and his son in exchange for no territorial additions to France. They didn't answer at all. Napoleon's only chance was winning at Waterloo and somehow forcing a peace afterwards, and that's incredibly unlikely.
Winning at Waterloo Napoleon would have thrown Prussia out of the war and the coalition with accusations of treason between England and Prussia,Austria would have kept the 350000 strong army within its borders and Svartzenburg would have stopped his advance west awaiting events.everything after that was in the hands of Napoleon.
 
Winning at Waterloo Napoleon would have thrown Prussia out of the war and the coalition with accusations of treason between England and Prussia,Austria would have kept the 350000 strong army within its borders and Svartzenburg would have stopped his advance west awaiting events.everything after that was in the hands of Napoleon.


Hardly. The Austro-Russians had forces in Germany equal to both sides at Waterloo put together. Given that even a victorious French army is probably badly mauled, they have no reason at all to give it time to recover. Expect a Battle of Frankfurt, or wherever, two or three weeks after Waterloo, and expect Napoleon to be mashed flat.

As for "accusations of treason" why should any of the Allies pay the lightest attention to anything Napoleon said. His ulterior motive would be obvious, given that dividing the Allies was his only hope of survival.
 
Last edited:
Hardly. The Austro-Russians had forces in Germany equal to both sides at Waterloo put together. Given that even a victorious French army is probably badly mauled, the have no reason at all to give it time to recover. Expect a Battle of Frankfurt, or wherever, two or three weeks after Waterloo, and expect Napoleon to be mashed flat.

As for "accusations of treason" why should any of the Allies pay thje lightest attention to anything Napoleon said. His ulterior motive would be obvious, given that dividing the Allies was his only hope of survival.

Wasn't there another French army on the German frontier?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
 
Wasn't there another French army on the German frontier?

Best Regards
Grey Wolf
If there was, it would hardly be ample enough to stop any combined Austro-Russian forces. The Russians were already sending 300,000 men through Germany by the time Waterloo occurred. If Napoleon somehow defeats the Coalition at Waterloo, he'll have to march all the way to the Rhein, and defeat the Coalition there as well with at least 2:1 odds against him.

Now, if that were to occur, it just might be the greatest battle in history, even if Napoleon loses or wins. I haven't seen anyone do such a timeline, but I doubt Napoleon could permanently win there.
 
Napoleon did want peace. He retained enough sense to realize he would never be able to defeat the Grand Coalition or split them. He was the enemy of all Europe.

There is pretty much zero chance of achieving peace. Even if he wins at Waterloo Britain, Austria, Prussia, and Russia were all going to continue fighting. None of them were willing to accept Napoleon on the French throne.
 
Top