What if Napoleon had won at Waterloo ?

[Swerg]

After they beat Napoleon, nobody questioned Russia's military ability until the Crimean War (look for yourself, Prussia and the Nordic states all adopted Russian style uniforms,) after which France and the UK were more or less tied. The Germans weren't even a contender for first place until the 1870's.

[exNowy]

After they beat Napoleon, nobody questioned Russia's military ability until the Crimean War (look for yourself, Prussia and the Nordic states all adopted Russian style uniforms,) after which France and the UK were more or less tied. The Germans weren't even a contender for first place until the 1870's.

This could be somehowe disputaple remark.
I do not think that any fasion or style uniforms proved any military abilities.
In other case Hungarian would be the best at last almost all Europe uniformed many own regiments in Hungarian hussars style.

Some Europeans simply set their hope on Russia, because Russian had vast army, however their military abilities could be questionable.

Russian can fought hard, but they mainly luckily won Russia campaign 1812.
Later they still performed not so impresive. Look at Lutzen, Bautzen, Dresden and even at Leipzig battles in 1813. Russian won only this last battle mainly because they fought together with many coalitiants and all they heavily outnumbered Napoleon's forces. When on battlefields were similar strenght forces then Russian together with Prussian and Austrian can not won these battles.

Then Russian and other coalitiants power was in numbers and these were more important than their real military abilities.

[Keyser]

Fashion means nothing in itself, but it's usually a good indicator of wich power of the time is considered to be the reference in military matters, the best to imitate. Between 1850 and 1870 most country (russia included) imitated french military fashion, after 1870, unsurpisingly, Prussian military fashion became imitated left and right. So it's a point that isn't as weak as it may appear.
The fact hussars imitated hungarian fashion indeed show that the rest of europe believed the hungarian (largely, including balkan and polish ones) light horse to be excellent.

The russian did very well during the napoleonic war, not only in 1812 and while it was difficult for them in this famed campaign, they still had to fight the largest army ever seen in europe at that time.
Only the british can come with a better overall performance, and with most of their battles fought on a secondary and hostile theater for the french.

The russian didn't give difficulties to the french only in 1812 by the way, in each campaign in each they fought, they gave the most difficulties to the french of the allies being present (Look also at Suvorov campaign in Italy).

[Swerg]

@Keyser
It's also worth noting that actual 'Hungarian' hussar dress went out of fashion by the Napoleonic period. Russian hussars, for example, started wearing shakos similar to the infantry. A trend which, I think, coincided with the waning of Austrian power in the perception of the rest of Europe after the 18th century.

The best argument for how Europe viewed Russia can be summed up in one simple image:


I'm sure we all know who the fellow on the white horse is. I'd also point out that he was the one who prevented the other allies from burning the city to the ground.

I would also, personally, say that the Spanish gave the French more pain in the Peninsular Campaign than the British, considering the simple fact that there were more of them

I recall a quote from Napoleon, I'm paraphrasing here mind, along the lines of "if the Russian officers had the initiative of our own, theirs would be the greatest army in Europe." He often spoke admiringly of the Russian soldier, even if he (along with the rest of Europe) quite reasonably did not have a high view of their officer corps.

[exNowy]

Fashion means nothing in itself, but it's usually a good indicator of wich power of the time is considered to be the reference in military matters,

Yes, but fashion itself did not prove real military abilities.
Many other uniforms also were taken as models at that time e.g. Polish uhlans uniforms were adopted in Russia, Austria, Prussia and France as standard uniform for their lancers. Polish Uhlans were considered as skilled cavalrymen and they really were very good. However there were examples when they lost battles at Mir 1812. Nevertheless Polish fought there heavily outnumbered.

Only the british can come with a better overall performance, and with most of their battles fought on a secondary and hostile theater for the french.

Then why British uniforms were not imitated in any other European power except some details in Portugal and Spain?

[Steph]

Then why British uniforms were not imitated in any other European power except some details in Portugal and Spain?

You are forgetting Belgium!

[Keyser]

Well exepted the USA, most country who imitated british military fashion only did it because the brits supplied them.
I guess if they weren't imitated it's because they weren't, despite many victories (but as said on a secondary theater, with allies), thought (by the rest of europe who didn't really saw them in action) to the be the mightiest or most efficient/best organised army in Europe, or the most inovatives.

[exNowy]

You are forgetting Belgium!

I said any other European powers and I doubt that Belgium was a mighty power, she even did not exist as independent state until 1830.

Nevertheless Netherlands could be taken into account as well as Prussia wich also were partly supplied by British. But these cases did not stick to British military abilities I suppose.

Well exepted the USA, most country who imitated british military fashion only did it because the brits supplied them.
I guess if they weren't imitated it's because they weren't, despite many victories (but as said on a secondary theater, with allies), thought (by the rest of europe who didn't really saw them in action) to the be the mightiest or most efficient/best organised army in Europe, or the most inovatives.

I doubt that USA was European power at that period.

British fielded relatively small armies and they won these battles fighting together with their allies.

When they did some actions "alone" they many times failured e.g. Buenos Aires, Alexandria, Walcheren, New Orlean etc. Therefore other European powers did not consider them as the mighties or most efficient/best organized army.

[Swerg]

Well exepted the USA, most country who imitated british military fashion only did it because the brits supplied them.
I guess if they weren't imitated it's because they weren't, despite many victories (but as said on a secondary theater, with allies), thought (by the rest of europe who didn't really saw them in action) to the be the mightiest or most efficient/best organised army in Europe, or the most inovatives.

The British were a naval power. Nobody would imitate the army of a naval power. That would be silly.

Certainly there's no denying that at its height, the British Empire was a great power which dominated world politics, but that domination was achieved via ships, not men on the ground. The British army, over the course of history, has been average at the best of times (among the European great powers.)

Interestingly, there was one fashion from the Russians that even the British imitated. And, funnily enough, it was a naval one:

[exNowy]

The British were a naval power. Nobody would imitate the army of a naval power. That would be silly.

Certainly there's no denying that at its height, the British Empire was a great power which dominated world politics, but that domination was achieved via ships, not men on the ground. The British army, over the course of history, has been average at the best of times (among the European great powers.)

Interestingly, there was one fashion from the Russians that even the British imitated. And, funnily enough, it was a naval one:

This also could shows that fashion not always stick with real military abilities.

[weetam]

Nosey would have fought him and beat him some place else i would think.

In fairness, it was unlikely, nosey was beginning to realise the value of light infantry and riflemen more and more, especially their value in taking out officers etc and thinning ranks in smaller skirmishes. Boney had yet to utilise either to the degree nosey did (if at all).

[Scamander]

The rhetorical force of Napoleon landing from Elba and re-securing France so quickly and easily should not be underestimated. This rocked England. If any of the following had happened the stage would have been set for a potential surviving Bonaparte France.

1) Had the French broken the back of the Prussians at Ligny, Wellington would have withdrawn to England. This would have quite possibly brought down the government. It is quite possible the new government would have sought peace. If the new government had remained committed to war, relations with their Allies would have been seriously strained.

2) Had Ligny played out as it did historically except that Blucher been killed/captured at Ligny (both of which were very real possibilities given the details of the battle), his Chief of Staff Gneisenau would have commanded the Prussian forces and retreated toward Berlin. Again Wellington would have retreated to England and a similar crises in Parliament would have occurred.

3) Had Waterloo been won by France, the remnant of the British coalition force would have retreated to England and the Prussian force would have been vulnerable to attack as it moved toward Berlin. Flanders would have been under French control providing more men for French rosters. Two quick victories would have played to French moral across the country: further securing Napoleon's political situation and diplomatic clout.

a) What is interesting to note is the Allied armies of Austria and Russia had taken little to no action since Napoleon had returned to power. A successful French Flanders Campaign would have put a further question on their taking aggressive action.

b) The most interesting figure in this is Austria. Austria at the Council of Vienna was beginning to see what a post-Napoleon Europe would look like. It was a world where Austria was facing an aggrandized Russia which had occupied Poland (taken from former Prussian holdings) and had actually told Austria if she didn't like it, she was free to try and push the Russian army out. A Prussia that had annexed Saxony and thereby acquired a substantial position vis-a-vis Austria's traditional claims/desire to be the power of German principalities. Austrian gains had increased its population but had done nothing to improve it's strategic situation. Rather, it was in a more dependent position contra Russia on its flank and a Prussian backed Prussia to its immediate North. England was not seen as a reliable counter or partner.

A Bonaparte France offered the following: a real threat and counter check facing Prussia. A France married to the Hapsburg court with a son and heir to the French Imperial throne of Hapsburg blood (as opposed to a returned Bourbon ruling France). A France desirous of allies and wanting peace: meaning any claims Austria may make regarding the Italian Peninsula France would likely not oppose. Italy would likely be seen as under the Austrian sphere. Murat, the King of Naples, had already been rebuffed by Napoleon for his abandoning Napoleon in the later stages of the 1813/14 Campaigns. A chastened Bonaparte France had much to offer Austria. Metternich may very well have worked for a negotiated peace with France.


If either a new government in England had made peace or Austria had made peace with France, any remaining anti-French Coalition would not have had the strength to unseat Napoleon. With a successful Flanders Campaign, there was a very real possibility of a surviving Bonaparte France.