Waterloo

[PeterEzgo]

I know that this POD is extremely cliched but...
What would have happened if Napoleon had won at Waterloo?

Don't have to know how but it would probably be beneficial to the argument (IE if Nap. wins a total victory or if he just barely beats Wellington)

I personally don't think he would have lasted a week without winning a total victory against both the British (with some Dutch) and the Prussians.

 

[Trotsky]

I know that this POD is extremely cliched but...
What would have happened if Napoleon had won at Waterloo?

Don't have to know how but it would probably be beneficial to the argument (IE if Nap. wins a total victory or if he just barely beats Wellington)

I personally don't think he would have lasted a week without winning a total victory against both the British (with some Dutch) and the Prussians.

Bonaparte could defeat both armies, they would just have to be separated so he could defeat the one and then the other in detail. Then move south and deal with the Austrians and Russians. The big question is can he reduce the Allies' will to impose their idea of a peace before he runs out of men?

 

[ljofa]

Conventional thinking about this outcome goes more or less along the lines of:

If Napoleon defeats the British and the Prussians the Russian/Austrian army are the force to defeat him and they will be instrumental in redrawing the maps of Europe to their advantage rather than preserving the balance of power. Surprisingly, many of the wi's on this subject ignore the marching of the Russians and Austrians and deal with a victorious Napoleon.

Most of Napoleon's talented generals were dead so he can't really push his advantage, scant as it is. Also the political landscape of France has changed and the overwhelming sentiment is for peace. France to be somewhat dominant but Britain isn't humiliated in some sort of peace treaty. Having drawn with the Americans in 1812-1814 and only losing to the French at Waterloo might coerce the British into reorganising their armies along more Prussian lines to ensure that the next time Napoleon or one of his successors decides to go invading, or the US gets designs on Canada, they'd be more than ready.

I'm not convinced German unification would go ahead or at least there'd be no Imperial Germany as we know it. With Austria ascendant, the Bavarians would be kept in line so you'd get a North German confederation at best. It's doubtful Poland would have independence but a French colony of "New Poland" might be set up somewhere in Africa.

 

[Anaxagoras]

It's true that the overwhelming sentiment among the French people was for peace, but it's equally obvious that they welcomed Napoleon back with open arms (otherwise he could never have pulled off his amazing return to Paris).

The key factor is the potential divisions among the Allies. If Napoleon can beat the Allies in Belgium (which is entirely possible) and can find a way to exploit the divisions between Russia, Austria, Prussia and Britain (not easy without Talleyrand, but not impossible), he might be able to stay on the throne.

 

[Thande]

My instinct is that, as said above, Napoleon would still have been defeated, just by the Austrians and Russians rather than by the British, Dutch, assorted Germans and Prussians.

However, significant knock-on effects of this -

May change outcome of eventual Treaty of Vienna, being more generous to Austria and Russia at the expense of Prussia.

If Britain's army was broken, she's lost a vast number of young officers who in OTL went on to become Victorian-era generals. This also means the unusually favourable reputation of the British army on the continent is all too brief.

Prussia will probably bounce back, they always do, but Bismarck or his alternative may be hampered by the lack of, for example, Rhine provinces if the Treaty of Vienna reflects an Austro-Russian defeat of Napoleon as I said above.

Also the peace against France is likely to be harsher than OTL.

 

[Thucydides]

He mostly lost due to several tactical blunders that he made during battle. He did not press the attack when he should have and other mistakes. It is possible that the British would have sued for peace but I doubt it. Most likely the British would have kept fighting until the French got so war weary Napoleon had to sue for peace or risk getting deposed by his own people.

 

[Zyzzyva]

He mostly lost due to several tactical blunders that he made during battle. He did not press the attack when he should have and other mistakes. It is possible that the British would have sued for peace but I doubt it. Most likely the British would have kept fighting until the French got so war weary Napoleon had to sue for peace or risk getting deposed by his own people.

I doubt it would have gotten that far. By 1815 it was France V everyone, and the situation was far outside of Napoleon's ability to hold together, even if he played a "perfect game". Look at the 1813-4 campaigns: they were a pretty good showing by Napoleon but he still lost, just due to the number of enemies arrayed against him and the fact that he couldn't put out all the fires by himself. The 1815 campaign would have been the same but worse.