What if Napoleon had won at Waterloo ?

[stupiddk]

If the manpower and production are even roughly equal, then anything is possible. But, there comes a tipping point at which attrition cannot be overcome. The South faced the same thing in the American Civil War. If the enemy forces can keep fielding larger armies, they can lose battle after battle and still grind you down to where your losses are not replaceable.

A lame strategy, unfortunately it has proven to work time and again. Whats more embarrassing is how the South in the ACW was able to beat those larger Northern armies over and over. Napoleon could of destroyed the allied armies with irreplaceable losses, but what would be the greatest loss would of been how history judged the Allies had they lost Waterloo with superior numbers. I wish Napoleon had won, it would of been interesting to see his decisions after the big win. Does he rally his allies for more troops, or does he begin his march to conquer the armies of Allies from the East? Either way, Napoleon had the tactical and strategic mind to conquer anyone.

Obviously, the bloodshed would of been greater, but hey, one can speculate.

[Didz]

My favourite answer to ths question is : Waterloo Station would be in Paris instead of London

[Pro-opera Jungian]

But after the campaigns of 1813-14, the Allies restored their confidence and didn't buckle despite several defeats such as Lutzen and Dresden in 1813 and the Six Days Campaign in 1814.
I doubt they will accept peace after several defeats. Napoleon was already past its best in 1815, and Ligny was practically a phyrric victory.

Let's remember, Six Days Campaign was far from an Austerlitz or Jena-the type of victory I was talking about. What made the Six Days stunning was what he did in spite of the hopeless odds that prevented victory, not where victory was a possibility. Additionally, Dresden, impressive as it was, was marred by the disaster at Kulm. But if Napoleon won a decisive enough victory, I would bet the Allies would sure for peace. This is not fact, merely speculation.

[wulfgar610]

If the manpower and production are even roughly equal, then anything is possible. But, there comes a tipping point at which attrition cannot be overcome. The South faced the same thing in the American Civil War. If the enemy forces can keep fielding larger armies, they can lose battle after battle and still grind you down to where your losses are not replacable.

The tipping point was the British controlled world trade by the end of the war. Imports may have not been as important as today, but important never the less. The European market had already been dependent on world trade for 3 centuries.

The Bristish would have really to give Napoleon a medal. The British did nothing but profit out of the war. Napoleon gave himself up to the British, he knew who he'd receive the best quarter from.

British state revenues increased 3.5x in nominal terms during the course of the war. British factory workers were getting a minimum of 15 shillings a week, which was good money back then for minimum labor.

[Invictus XII]

I think this is like the 5th time I'm seen this thread been made I even made it once. Trust me, it goes on for several pages

[Prince of Essling]

My favourite answer to ths question is : Waterloo Station would be in Paris instead of London

The honour of naming a battle lies with the Victor. I seem to recall Napoleon would have named the battle "Mont St Jean" had he won.

[Pro-opera Jungian]

The honour of naming a battle lies with the Victor. I seem to recall Napoleon would have named the battle "Mont St Jean" had he won.

That or naming it after Napoleon's Headquarters, The Battle of La Belle Alliance. That name has to be one of the biggest ironies in the geography of military history.

[Rotaugen2009]

The honour of naming a battle lies with the Victor. I seem to recall Napoleon would have named the battle "Mont St Jean" had he won.

Yeah, "The Battle of Nappypoo" just doesn't have the same panache.

I really think the French were up against too much to win in the long run. Every win would be a pyrrhic victory, as they lost men they couldn't replace. Look at most of the large empires. They succeeded at first, but once they got stretched too thin, they were too unstable to survive.

[YD23]

Moved to the Historical Research center.

[MajorStoffer]

History has proven time and time again that the impossible is never impossible.

While it certainly was improbable the French Empire could have survived the 1815 campaign, there's always the chance. I doubt it would have radically altered history, however. Virtually everyone involved in the previous 25 years of constant war was too tired and weary to keep fighting, and the stage had already been set for the future Prussian-Austrian conflicts over Germany. It might have accelerated the Revolutions of 1848 with a highly liberal society still strong in France acting as a magnet for social unrest, but that's about it.

However, I think the "what-if's" are better suited to earlier points in the Napoleonic Wars, where the Empire would have stood a much more reasonable chance of genuinely altering the flow of European and World history.

[Geronimo2006]

I think a defensive war allowing him to remain on the throne might have been feasible but he didn't yet have the resources available to him in 1799-1815 so wars of conquest were no longer realistic for the forseeable future. His best bet would have been to increase war-weariness in Allied countries with a war of attrition which would cause them to eventually make peace with him.

[spanish_emperor]

You don't go to war with risk on your side. Napoleon knew this but he still went ahead when he should have simply retired to America. Who knows, Napoleon could have had a big influence in American history and possibly united America with Canada?

[Captain Grimes]

Do you remember to words of Napoleon Bonaparte? "I give them only one victory more & France follow me everywhere! "

That was his arrogant opinion, I'm sure the people would quickly grow tired when they realised the futility of the campagin - he should have kept the peace of 1803 - or never invaded Russia and tried to make peace with the UK as they were the ones pushing for a war

[Swerg]

The Hundred Days was a police action, not a war. Its outcome was practically determined before it began.

Napoleon's army was mostly green as grass, much like the force raised by the British, Dutch and Germans to counter him. If Wellington could hold his own against Napoleon with roughly equal numbers of equally green troops, what do you think de Tolly would have done with 170,000 veteran Russians, including the guard corps?

[underworld965]

Even if wellington had been beaten and withdrew, the British wouldn't have dropped out of the war; no previous defeats caused a british dropout, why would they leave right at the end, despite a single defeat?

EDIT:...whoops responded to a question on the other page heh didn't realize there was a page two

[EmperorBatman999]

Even if wellington had been beaten and withdrew, the British wouldn't have dropped out of the war; no previous defeats caused a british dropout, why would they leave right at the end, despite a single defeat?

EDIT:...whoops responded to a question on the other page heh didn't realize there was a page two

Wellington would need to be thrashed utterly, as that really was the only army the British could field at that time against France.

I don't think the British were ever fully beaten in the Peninsula, and so were not scared out of the war. Britain spent years building first Moore's, and then Wellington's army. Losing that army would be incredibly detrimental to the British, not to mention the political instability in Britain at the time would make it difficult to build another army. Britain would need to return to the blockading of France or just up and quit.

But would Britain pull completely out of the war if Schwarzenberg's, Blucher's and the Russian armies were beaten after their own were destroyed?

[underworld965]

Wellington would need to be thrashed utterly, as that really was the only army the British could field at that time against France.

I don't think the British were ever fully beaten in the Peninsula, and so were not scared out of the war. Britain spent years building first Moore's, and then Wellington's army. Losing that army would be incredibly detrimental to the British, not to mention the political instability in Britain at the time would make it difficult to build another army. Britain would need to return to the blockading of France or just up and quit.

But would Britain pull completely out of the war if Schwarzenberg's, Blucher's and the Russian armies were beaten after their own were destroyed?

Like I said, they hadn't pulled out before, why would they suddenly pull out now? Even if he managed to destroy the russian, Austrian, and Spanish forces (practically impossible given what he was working with) france didn't have the wherewithal to continue fighting like in previous years; napoleon wasn't going to be raising massive armies again, so with every battle he fought his army would get smaller and smaller, while as the other European powers would regroup and continue the fight.

[Aymer de Valence]

By this time, Europe had REALLY had enough of Napoleon, his army at Waterloo was a shadow of the Grande Armee 10 years before. The French people were sick of war. Even if he had won Waterloo, it would have merely prolonged his defeat - the Austrians and Russians were advancing on France from the east. There are some people who say that with Napoleon defeating the British/Prussians, the Austrians/Russians would have been scared and sued for peace, but this just isn't logical, they knew he was as vulnerable as ever.

[Swerg]

The Russians were also the acknowledged military superpower of Europe, and would remain so until the 1850's, at least in the minds of the rest of Europe. I doubt they would be overly concerned about the British and Germans losing a battle.

[underworld965]

The Russians were also the acknowledged military superpower of Europe, and would remain so until the 1850's, at least in the minds of the rest of Europe. I doubt they would be overly concerned about the British and Germans losing a battle.

eh idk about the ackoledged military superpower of Europe, I would argue that was france and it transitioned to prussia.