WI: Napoleon Invaded N-Italy Instead of Waterloo?

What If Napoleon Invaded N-Italy Instead of Waterloo Campaign?

I was trying to think if Napoleon had any other options in 1815 and this idea came to mind. Interested in your ideas on the topic, whether you think it is at all plausible and if it would lead to a better result than OTL Waterloo campaign.

Napoleon decides to take the bulk of his army into Northern Italy instead of trying to smash Wellington-Blucher. The goal of the offensive is to defeat the Austrian army in a repeat of his Marengo campaign. A chunk of the army would also be positioned to watch Belgium in case of an Allied advance during Napoleon's absence. After smashing the Austrians, Napoleon can then either move to threaten Vienna or withdraw back to defend France.

The timing for this campaign would preferably be in late April/early May. This would allow Napoleon to link up with the 50k Neapolitan Army of King Murat before its OTL destruction. However I'm unsure how many men he had available in late April-early May. It would obviously be less then the 280k soldiers and several hundred thousand national guardsman he had under arms by June. The Austrians had 85k in Northern Italy so I imagine Napoleon would want at least parity to achieve victory. If an advance in late April/early May proved impossible then the operation will take place in June as per OTL Waterloo.


800px-Strategic_Situation_of_Western_Europe_1815.jpg
 
Going to Italy leaves all of France open to invasion. I don't think he can afford the Allies to lodge themselves in Belgium and them swarm into France while he is off in Italy.
 
The purpose of the Waterloo campaign was to strike at the coalition before Russian and Austrian forces could arrive. I don't see what abandoning the defense of Northern France to focus on a sideshow theater would do for Napoleon. Nor do I think Napoleon will trust in his ability to stay in power if he leaves France on the eve of an invasion. Even if everything goes perfectly for him, there's no victory he can win in Italy that will prevent Paris from falling or turning on him.
 
The purpose of the Waterloo campaign was to strike at the coalition before Russian and Austrian forces could arrive. I don't see what abandoning the defense of Northern France to focus on a sideshow theater would do for Napoleon. Nor do I think Napoleon will trust in his ability to stay in power if he leaves France on the eve of an invasion. Even if everything goes perfectly for him, there's no victory he can win in Italy that will prevent Paris from falling or turning on him.

This, Waterloo was as much a military gamble as it was an unavoidable act of political necessity.
 
Last edited:
The purpose of the Waterloo campaign was to strike at the coalition before Russian and Austrian forces could arrive. I don't see what abandoning the defense of Northern France to focus on a sideshow theater would do for Napoleon. Nor do I think Napoleon will trust in his ability to stay in power if he leaves France on the eve of an invasion. Even if everything goes perfectly for him, there's no victory he can win in Italy that will prevent Paris from falling or turning on him.

Going to Italy leaves all of France open to invasion. I don't think he can afford the Allies to lodge themselves in Belgium and them swarm into France while he is off in Italy.

Good points I did think the plausibility of this was a bit sketchy I really just put it up as a thought experiment.

Continuing with it though, I think timing would be key. I don't believe the Allies would be ready to move into France even if Napoleon was in Italy for at least a little while. When Wellington arrived in April he found the armies in bad shape. They were largely dispersed, still gathering manpower and waiting for reinforcements to be shipped in. Prussia had a brief Saxon mutiny and was still assembling. I imagine they would be prodded into moving against Napoleon after they heard he was in Italy but I think he is safe for at least a few weeks and getting to Paris its self wasn't an easy task.

Holding Paris might be problematic but with Davout there it seems unlikely it would fold quickly. In OTL they hung on even after Napoleon's defeat abdication into early July.

I'm unsure if people would consider Italy a side show, I think many would view it as Napoleon simply employing his usual methods.
 
Last edited:
To expand on the overall objective points. I suppose Napoleon would spend about a month in Italy, similar to Marengo, destroying Austrian Army of Upper Italy and Austrian Army of Naples. The Austrians will then either be brought to peace or at least prevent Schwarzenberg from invading France and divert him. Napoleon can then, preferably by June, turn his full attention back to British-Netherlands-Prussia and fight a defensive campaign similar to 1814 to wear them down. Russia might come they might not, disagreements over Poland in OTL were fierce. Anyway Napoleon still probably loses even if this or Waterloo goes according to plan. Perhaps the odds were a little too great in 1815.

EDIT: I will add that I'm of the opinion that Napoleon, even if he won at Waterloo, would have been defeated by the Austrians. The three Austrian armies approaching were simply too large for Napoleon to defeat. Napoleon's chances may have actually been dashed at Tolentino as much as Waterloo. I know Napoleon was very disheartened by Murat's defeat knowing the amount of men it would free up for Austria.
 
Last edited:
I'm unsure if people would consider Italy a side show, I think many would view it as Napoleon simply employing his usual methods.
Napoleon of the Hundred Days is not politically secure. There is no guarantee his marshals stay loyal while he is in Italy when Paris becomes in danger.

And there is absolutely no reason for Austrian armies in Italy to give Napoleon a decisive engagement when time is on their side. Delaying Napoleon and keeping him tied up in Italy will be their main goal.
 
Napoleon of the Hundred Days is not politically secure. There is no guarantee his marshals stay loyal while he is in Italy when Paris becomes in danger.

And there is absolutely no reason for Austrian armies in Italy to give Napoleon a decisive engagement when time is on their side. Delaying Napoleon and keeping him tied up in Italy will be their main goal.

Good counterpoints, I know it is a bit of a long shot and I thank you for debating it further.

In regard to the Marshals unlike 1814 the remaining Marshals of Napoleon in 1815 are loyal. Anyone who wanted to join the King did so. The remaining men Davout, Suchet, Brune, Ney are loyal or at least expect to be killed should he lose as Ney and Brune were. Napoleon was much more worried by Paris politicians which is why Davout had to remain in Paris to secure the situation OTL and wasn't present at Waterloo. With Davout in Paris I doubt any funny business would occur.

To the Austrian Armies in Italy I imagine they will run into a similar situation to Marengo. Napoleon will descend from the Alps passes onto Milan. This will mean any Austrian forces west of Milan will soon be cut off and,unless they evacuated in advance, will have to fight Napoleon to escape. The Austrian forces east of Milan can then face Napoleon's army or pull back to Tyrol and not seek battle. I think Napoleon's objective at this point will have been achieved, Murat and Suchet can hold down N-Italy and try and continue the advance while he returns to France
 
To expand on the overall objective points. I suppose Napoleon would spend about a month in Italy, similar to Marengo, destroying Austrian Army of Upper Italy and Austrian Army of Naples. The Austrians will then either be brought to peace or at least prevent Schwarzenberg from invading France and divert him. Napoleon can then, preferably by June, turn his full attention back to British-Netherlands-Prussia and fight a defensive campaign similar to 1814 to wear them down. Russia might come they might not, disagreements over Poland in OTL were fierce. Anyway Napoleon still probably loses even if this or Waterloo goes according to plan. Perhaps the odds were a little too great in 1815.

EDIT: I will add that I'm of the opinion that Napoleon, even if he won at Waterloo, would have been defeated by the Austrians. The three Austrian armies approaching were simply too large for Napoleon to defeat. Napoleon's chances may have actually been dashed at Tolentino as much as Waterloo. I know Napoleon was very disheartened by Murat's defeat knowing the amount of men it would free up for Austria.
By Early August, Napoleon would likely have a field force under his eye of 200,000 men (out of 441,000 total), and the crossing points of the Austrians and the Russians over the frontiers of France are widely separated. The Russians would be crossing over the Middle Rhine and the Saar, while the Austrians would be separated from them by the Vosges and from their Italian armies by the Alps. During the 1814 invasion, Napoleon was able to inflict some stinging reverses on Blucher and Schwarzenberg when they took this same basic approach, only this time Napoleon's army is much stronger. Convincingly defeating the British and Prussian armies in the Low Countries would probably delay the rest of the Coalition in their progress into France, so it's not impossible for Napoleon to meet them on relatively favorable terms.
 
Napoleon was much more worried by Paris politicians which is why Davout had to remain in Paris to secure the situation OTL and wasn't present at Waterloo. With Davout in Paris I doubt any funny business would occur.

Indeed, but leaving the best soldier in France kicking his heels in Paris and putting some incompetent has-been in command of the Army of the North was probably the worst mistake Napoleon made in the entire campaign.
 
Indeed, but leaving the best soldier in France kicking his heels in Paris and putting some incompetent has-been in command of the Army of the North was probably the worst mistake Napoleon made in the entire campaign.

The only other option I see is Marshal Soult who was Davout predecessor as Minister of War but Napoleon pegged him as Chief of Staff.

By Early August, Napoleon would likely have a field force under his eye of 200,000 men (out of 441,000 total), and the crossing points of the Austrians and the Russians over the frontiers of France are widely separated. The Russians would be crossing over the Middle Rhine and the Saar, while the Austrians would be separated from them by the Vosges and from their Italian armies by the Alps. During the 1814 invasion, Napoleon was able to inflict some stinging reverses on Blucher and Schwarzenberg when they took this same basic approach, only this time Napoleon's army is much stronger. Convincingly defeating the British and Prussian armies in the Low Countries would probably delay the rest of the Coalition in their progress into France, so it's not impossible for Napoleon to meet them on relatively favorable terms.

Good points you make a strong case. Napoleon does seem to have a large reserve pool and I've read that Carnot believed he could get the National Guard up to 2.5 men under arms if given time.
 
Last edited:
Indeed, but leaving the best soldier in France kicking his heels in Paris and putting some incompetent has-been in command of the Army of the North was probably the worst mistake Napoleon made in the entire campaign.
I think making Soult his chief of staff was worse; the high command for the Armee du Nord was questionable across the board. A chief of staff who's not good at chief of staffing, Ney being Ney, and giving a largely infantry force to a cavalry commander. Napoleon needed Davout as Minister of War so he would be ready to fight the Austrians and Russians when the time came, but I think you could give Soult the army of the Alps -he's no mean battle captain- and put Suchet in as chief of staff. If d'Erlon's corps joined either Quatre Bras or Ligny, or even got their orders on time, they might have had decisive results for the campaign; wandering back and forth between the two battles accomplished nothing, thanks to poor staffwork.
 
...I am thinking of a sudden possibility which is probably ASB but I want to say: Nappy sacrificing France to win in Italy and push towards Wien, and renounce over the Empire to be just King of Italy, forcing Austria to stick on this and consequently the rest of the Coalition. While France would collapse in the North, he could negotiate with his enemies "I will renounce over France if you will let me rein in Italy." And he can even unify the peninsula making pressures on an exhausted and guilt tripped Murat... Well just wanting to dream over Napoleonic Italy.
 
Wasn't there one of his more competent generals (Berthier or Brune or something with a B I think) who killed himself during the First Restauration. Maybe the POD can be early enough to avoid that suicide if we're looking for competence.
 
Wasn't there one of his more competent generals (Berthier or Brune or something with a B I think) who killed himself during the First Restauration. Maybe the POD can be early enough to avoid that suicide if we're looking for competence.

Yes you are correct. Berthier who was Napoleon's Chief of Staff since the beginning of his campaigns. It's cloudy how he died murder, suicide, fall from a window many rumors. Whatever the case the event was odd and it would be a simple POD to fix.
 
...I am thinking of a sudden possibility which is probably ASB but I want to say: Nappy sacrificing France to win in Italy and push towards Wien, and renounce over the Empire to be just King of Italy, forcing Austria to stick on this and consequently the rest of the Coalition. While France would collapse in the North, he could negotiate with his enemies "I will renounce over France if you will let me rein in Italy." And he can even unify the peninsula making pressures on an exhausted and guilt tripped Murat... Well just wanting to dream over Napoleonic Italy.
I really like the idea of Napoleon renouncing to France (with maybe the exception of Corsica) while opting for Italy. Even without Southern Italy, Sardinia, Rome ecc. the presence of a unified imperial northern Italy would have really interesting butterflies in the peninsula and Europe, but I don't know if the European powers would accept this situation
 
Yes you are correct. Berthier who was Napoleon's Chief of Staff since the beginning of his campaigns. It's cloudy how he died murder, suicide, fall from a window many rumors. Whatever the case the event was odd and it would be a simple POD to fix.

That he died falling from a window is certain - the headscratcher is over whether he jumped, was pushed, or slipped. However, simply removing Berthier's death wouldn't help Boney - his response to the onset of the hundred days was to leg it to Bavaria to avoid getting dragged into the war on anyone's side.
 
Top