"Napoleon wins Waterloo ???" Topic

Several weeks ago here on TMP there was a discussion about a book by a well known author on this subject? Can anyone give me the title and author of that book? Thanks in advance.

Regards
Russ Dunaway

Well there's this:

link

Maybe not a book, Russ, but maybe this article by Andrew Roberts?

link

Or perhaps the forthcoming, Napoleon Victorious by Peter Tsouras. Pub date per Amazon is Jan. 2018. Peter h as done many of these alternate histories.

We are curious to know what would have happened to the royalties across Europe had he managed to remain a political influence.

Are you thinking of Charles Esdaille's 'Napoleon, France and Waterloo; The Eagle Rejected' which starts with a plausible scenario by which Napoleon wins Waterloo. There is then an excellent discussion of what would probably have happened (a simple delay in the inevitable). I would recommend this as a sober counterpoint to the 'if Napoleon had won it would all be so different' school of thought.

We are curious to know what would have happened to the royalties across Europe had he managed to remain a political influence.

Well, I agree with Artilleryman that the writing was on the wall whether he won Waterloo or not.

But in the (doubtful) event that he had been able to hold on to his throne, and the major powers had decided they could live with it politically, his application for membership in the European Royalty Mutual Appreciation Club would, in time, have been accepted in full. The King of Rome was half-Habsburg, after all.

Certainly they were comfortable enough with the wily and humbly-born Gascon and his descendants keeping the Swedish throne.

Napoleon was no iconoclastic revolutionary as far as monarchy was concerned, having had set up a few of his own when he was at the top of his game. I think he was more of an "extension of privilege" kind of guy, that privilege extending to the House of Bonaparte.

And even if he had won, his days were numbered. Napoleon may have been an excellent general, but he was powerless against the stomach cancer that was to steadily debilitate and eventually kill him, as it did his father.

A much more interesting question to me is what then would have happened in France after he died in 1821, leaving a child to inherit his throne.

The book is the one by Tsouras. Looks like I'll just have to wait. Thanks much you all.

Regards
Russ Dunaway

- Insurrection in the Vendée
- Royalists and anti-Bonapartists in most of France
- Depending on the outcome of Waterloo, Napoleon has to make sure the Dutch/British and Prussians are dealt with while at the same time he needs to prepare against the following :

- The German states under command of Blucher, if he escapes he gets reinforcements.
- If Wellington gets away he can link up with the Dutch/Danish contingents
- Three Austrian armies in Germany and Italy.
- The Swiss

Next up

- British-Spanish forces ready to cross the Pyrenees and invade Southern France
- Several Russian armies cross the Rhine ten days after Waterloo.

You'd need the Napoleon of 1804, the Napoleon of Austerlitz with a fresh army to win that one, not the tired old man fighting with whatever he could scrape from the bottom of the barrel.

Even if somehow Waterloo causes the Seventh Coalition to turn tail and run away in fear, he's going to spend the rest of his reign trying to consolidate power only to have people like Metternich and Talleyrand conspire with the Bourbons to get them back on the throne.

Another eventual French civil war maybe? I don't know how much popular will was behind the Bourbon cause.

Of course, who can successfully succeed Napoleon when he kicks the bucket?
Not as in "who is next in line" but "who can hold it all together in the face of a Europe united to an unprecedented degree" ?

The French Revolution was still seen as an aberration, Napoleon was popular because he was seen as having brought an end to the instability caused by the various Revolutionary factions trying to get to power, the terror and the threat of foreign intervention to end the Republic.

He then brought military glory to France, but near the end his credit was running out. Many felt he was just as bad as Louis XIV, fighting one war after another leaving the country nearly bankrupt, decimating an entire generation, for no real gain.

There was not much love for Louis XVIII either, who returned to power as if nothing had happened. "He had forgotten nothing nor learned anything." While he was reluctant to openly punish those who had sided with Napoleon, the ultra-royalists and reactionaries purged many Bonapartists from power, many were murdered, imprisoned or removed from their function.

The general population wanted a return to normalcy though fond feelings and nostalgia for Napoleon's feats of arms would linger for decades to come. This and the reluctance of Louis and Charles X to modernize the monarchy and unpopular attempts to return to absolutism lead to a crisis in 1830 and a three day revolution that swept Charles X from power opening the way for a constitutional monarchy.

Louis Philippe unsuccessfully attempted to bridge the Ancien Régime and the Revolution, by 1847 the economic crisis and the lack of any real developments after the July Revolution prompted another revolution in 1848 which opened the way for the Second Republic and the presidency of Louis Napoleon Bonaparte who then became emperor a few years later.

France spent much of the 19th century trying to find an answer to royalty, revolution and Napoleon's legacy. Bonapartists and Royalists continued to be a force in politics well into the 20th century. Bonapartism evolved into the idea that a "strong man" preferably one of the house of Bonaparte should take the reins of power, De Gaulle could be considered an exponent of this movement.

If Napoleon holds on to the throne anything that follows will be an attempt to retain the peace and balance of power in Europe, even if it means a brief foreign intervention to restore the monarchy. If Napoleon fails in the last few years to redress France's failing economy, popular support would swing towards the Bourbons.

There's this book, Waterloo Campaign: An Alternate History: Vol 1 by Steven Marthinsen

link

Patrick,

Excellent posting-very well done.

Sincerely,
Kevin

CaptainDarling I have the book and it's a great read and very plausible how he sees things.

He also signed the book for me one of the first handful of original printings that he did early.

Michael

Artilleryman

I don't believe any what-if book is worth the paper it is written on, other than a form of amusement or if you have nothing else to read, such as books on real events that did happen. The author, other than assuming the turn of events that may happen, will obviously be basing them on his own personal bias towards historical characters. They cannot possibly say that this or that would or would not happen. It can only be pure guesswork.

And anyone can say the historical character should have done this or that, when they have the luxury of hindsight, something the historical characters of the period did not have. Look at wargaming, for example, anyone playing the Battle of Waterloo, knows the real result but even so, it often makes no difference to the game result. And, should we not all be able to predict the outcome, or, as author's of what-ifs tend to do, assume what will happen?

I think the conjecture is fun. Like -- "what would have happened if I had not made a reasonably innocent inquiry concerning the simple name and author of a book ????" 🤔

Regards
Russ Dunaway

Gazzola does dismiss counterfactual history, as do many professional historians, but, to be fair, he did qualify his comments with "other than a form of amusement " even if followed with the put down "or if you have nothing else to read"

They are conjecture. We can all wonder what might have happened if the legendary request to try a shot had ended up blowing Napoleon's head off just before "The Battle". Or an artillery round (whatever the effective or maximum range….but that is a different current thread!) had got the DoW early in the day. It is harmless fun

Or, what if lee had taken the high ground at Gettysburg?
Harmless and amusing discussion?
What if the U.S had poured it on in Nam instead of leaving -- high ranking NVA have since revealed they were ready to throw the towel in so its not all just silly speculation and possibly things may be gleaned from these thoughts?

Regards
Russ Dunaway

deadhead

To be honest, I really did not mean it as an actual put down. In a sense, it is a form of historical fiction and it can't really be considered as anything else because it did not happen. But there is nothing wrong with historical fiction except when the author assumes that events will definitely pan out as they think it would and consider is as fact rather than fiction or just their opinion.

And the same goes when I mentioned reading it when there is nothing else to read. If there was nothing else available that attracted the reader, I can see why some people might buy it, but when you consider how many new titles have been published, are being published and are going to be published, I can't see that being the case.

And I'd rather read and appreciate the time and research the author had spent, no matter if I agreed or disagreed with their findings, which would hopefully improve our knowledge and understanding of what happened and why, rather than buy a title containing nothing more than the personal viewpoint of an author on something that did not happen, which basically, if you think about it, anyone could do with a bit of effort.