Tango01 | 22 Mar 2021 3:38 p.m. PST |
|
gamershs | 22 Mar 2021 5:48 p.m. PST |
What ifs sound great but should not be taken out of context. The French were still fighting in Spain and it was sucking up French troops and then was striped to send troops to invade Russia. The English (plus Portuguese and Spanish) pushed the France out of Spain so Spain would have been off this table by 1813. In order to fight the battle of Leipzig Napoleon had stripped France of all military age men and with the loses would be on the ropes to raise replacements. I suspect that Prussia and Austria would have demanded their territory back and Napoleon would have had to agree for peace. A much smaller French empire. |
Zephyr1 | 22 Mar 2021 8:39 p.m. PST |
Josephine would have eventually shot him… ;-) |
USAFpilot | 22 Mar 2021 10:38 p.m. PST |
He made too many enemies to the point where defeat was inevitable. |
Murvihill | 23 Mar 2021 7:47 a.m. PST |
If Napoleon had given Russia Poland after the disasterous 1812 campaign in exchange for peace I suspect the 1813 Alliance would have been much harder to put in place. Alexander ended up with Poland anyway, this way he saves a bunch of his army to do it. Prussia wouldn't take on Napoleon alone and Austria wouldn't join without a successful spring campaign. Napoleon would be free to reinforce Spain. |
ConnaughtRanger | 23 Mar 2021 12:09 p.m. PST |
What if Napoleon's cavalry was equipped with Leclerc Main Battle Tanks……? |
Max Carr | 23 Mar 2021 1:45 p.m. PST |
Even if Napoleon had won at Waterloo he would have been defeated eventually. The allies had figured out never to meet him one on one in battle, and France simply didn't have the manpower to face them all. So the question is moot. However, one cannot say Europe would have been the worse if he had won. Many of the laws he enacted where very liberal and certainly benefited the average man. |
Old Glory | 24 Mar 2021 3:03 p.m. PST |
Why don't we ever hear, "what if Napoleon had never ascended to power during the revolution?" Russ Dunaway |
gamershs | 24 Mar 2021 11:34 p.m. PST |
Spain was a death trap for Napoleon. Large armies starved and small armies were defeated. He split Spain up into separate commands which may or may not support each other. In the end Spain was a net loss to Napoleon that after the 1812 and 1813 stripping of troops was lost in 1813. Again for what ifs what if Napoleon didn't escape from Egypt and was captured or forced to surrender. Having lost his image of invincibility would France have followed him? |
4th Cuirassier | 25 Mar 2021 5:33 a.m. PST |
The French Revolution wasn't got up by the average man or the poor. It was a middle-class revolution of classic Orwellian type: the Low stay where they are, and the Middle swap places with the High. Jean-Paul Marat was a doctor and a physicist. Paul Barras was a viscount. Fouché was a schoolmaster. Carrier was a middle class tenant farmer. Robespierre was a lawyer. Benefits to the poor were largely incidental, and under Bonaparte they also experienced a completely new form of indenture called conscription. |
John the OFM | 25 Mar 2021 7:20 p.m. PST |
Russ at Old Glory, +2 If Himself won at Waterloo, what would that mean? Blucher and Wellington falling back. That's it. Then there were Austrian and Russian armies that overwhelmingly outnumbered Napoleon. Where would N get reinforcements for his sorely depleted army? And why does the same topic come back every 6 weeks? |
Brechtel198 | 26 Mar 2021 4:55 a.m. PST |
…under Bonaparte they also experienced a completely new form of indenture called conscription. Conscription is not indentured servitude. That idea is a great exaggeration and is incorrect. And Napoleon did not begin conscription in France. The law that Napoleon operated under was the 1798 Conscription Act which was developed by General, later Marshal, Jourdan. Prior to that, the Decree of the National Convention of August 1793 instituted the levee en masse: 'From this moment until our enemies shall have been driven from the territory of the Republic, all Frenchmen are permanently requisitioned for the service of the armies…' Daru put conscription in plain terms: [Conscrition] is an ineluctable consequence of political equality. If you deman equality, then accept the consequences.' From 1800-1815 a total of 2,646,957 men were 'levied' under the conscription law. Of those, approximately 1,350,000 were actually called to active duty. The remainder were either not needed or were put on reserve status. As for the civil population, Napoleon's reforms undoubtedly improved the lot of the average Frenchman. Law and order was restored, taxes were regularly being paid, social institutions were being rebuilt, reformed, or instituted. Napoleon's reforms brought 'full employment, stable prices, and an improved balance of trade.' By 1810, the franc was the most stable currency in Europe, including the pound sterling. Before Brumaire, one government official from the Seine Inferieure wrote that there was 'crime with impunity, desertion encouraged, republicanism debased, laws an empty letter, banditry protected. By 1805 the situation was greatly improved and stabilized: Prefect Beugnot wrote that 'People paid their taxes; the law was enforced, children attended school, highway robbery was unheard of, farmers were applying new methods, people had real money to spend.' 'In 1799 there had been 'disgust with the government.' 'Beugnot found 'an excellent public spirit' in 1805.' Napoleon may have been the first French head of state who actually cared if the people ate or starved. |
Brechtel198 | 26 Mar 2021 5:01 a.m. PST |
If Napoleon had won in 1813, Prussia might never have become the major power in Germany and then not absorbed the rest of the German states. That might have stopped Wars I and II, the Holocaust, and other international tragedies. Prussian dominance in Germany was not a benefit to anyone but Prussia. |
Brechtel198 | 26 Mar 2021 5:16 a.m. PST |
Blucher and Wellington falling back. How far? Would Blucher have withdrawn back over the Rhine and would Wellington have run for the Channel ports? Where would N get reinforcements for his sorely depleted army? Napoleon had planned for a long war which is why he had made Davout his Minister of War. The plan was to have 800,000 men under arms by October. With Wellington and Blucher defeated, would the Austrians and Russians still be willing to fight the French on their own? |
johannes55 | 26 Mar 2021 5:33 a.m. PST |
he would have died undefeated, so what |
Bill N | 26 Mar 2021 8:50 a.m. PST |
How many troops Napoleon planned to have under arms and how many troops he could actually have mobilized and had available when needed are two different things. Napoleon isn't just starting out losing the numbers game big time. He is also looking at things getting worse long before they start getting better. He is also facing opponents who are in 1815 terms much better than the French Revolution faced in 1792. 1815 isn't a campaign that Napoleon can win militarily. It is a campaign that he would have to have won politically. |
gamershs | 26 Mar 2021 10:44 p.m. PST |
The Prussians were forming another army when Waterloo was fought. If Blucher falls back on that army then another army bigger then what the Prussians had at Waterloo could have been formed.Now wait until the Russian army comes up and then advance on toward the French forces. Then again what will the Austrians be doing while all this is going on. Also many in the French officer corp are not exactly happy with Napoleons return. After many years of war many French officers were looking at finding commands with the king after Napoleon abdicated. Senior officers were going over to the allies and it is suspected some French officers were actually secretly supporting the allies. |
Widowson | 26 Mar 2021 11:59 p.m. PST |
All due respect. The Prussians had a single Guard Corps after what they sent into Belgium. If D'Erlon had fallen upon the Prussian right at Ligny, half the Prussian Army would have been destroyed. Following that, Prussia would not have been a factor again until Napoleon actually crossed their border. I'm not saying that Napoleon would have actually prevailed in the end, But if D'Erlon had ignored Ney's late order on the 16th, 1815 would have opened with the destruction of both the Prussian and Anglo Allied armies. |
Au pas de Charge | 27 Mar 2021 5:34 a.m. PST |
Then there were Austrian and Russian armies that overwhelmingly outnumbered Napoleon. Where would N get reinforcements for his sorely depleted army? It's true the odds were overwhelming which is why it would've been interesting to see it played out more; a sort of 1814 redux. And why does the same topic come back every 6 weeks? Because it is fascinating. he would have died undefeated, so what Well for one thing, they'd have written closer to 400,000 books on the man instead of a paltry 300,000 |
Bill N | 27 Mar 2021 7:56 a.m. PST |
I believe it was a bit more than just a single corps. There was Yorck's corps on the scene and others that were following up. link There were also the north German troops that were at better than a division strength. On a theoretical basis it would have been interesting to see is played out Au pas de Charge. When you consider though that it is real humans that were being killed or maimed and farms, villages and towns being devastated or looted, then once the likely result became clear it was better that it ended sooner rather than later. |
John the OFM | 27 Mar 2021 8:02 a.m. PST |
If, if, if, if, if….. But he didn't. They didn't. And Boney was beat. |
Au pas de Charge | 27 Mar 2021 8:17 a.m. PST |
On a theoretical basis it would have been interesting to see is played out Au pas de Charge. When you consider though that it is real humans that were being killed or maimed and farms, villages and towns being devastated or looted, then once the likely result became clear it was better that it ended sooner rather than later. Although I admit I don't much care about this and consider it a rather odd concern on a wargaming forum, Brechtel rightly pointed out that an ultimate Napoleonic victory might've halted German unification and two world wars which killed a lot more people…if that helps? If, if, if, if, if….. But he didn't. They didn't. And Boney was beat. Ah but the dream, the impossible dream. I guess some people like to watch reruns of old sports games and others like the potential of future wins. |
Garth in the Park | 27 Mar 2021 12:15 p.m. PST |
I suppose that if he somehow manages never to lose in Spain or Russia, and if he somehow manages to keep extracting enough wealth from the conquered and vassals to keep paying for those massive armies and putting down the revolts over taxes and conscription, then he dies of cancer in 1821, leaving a regency government with a ten-year-old boy at its nominal head, which would almost certainly collapse in short order, probably into some sort of succession war(s). |
John the OFM | 27 Mar 2021 12:23 p.m. PST |
If Napoleon had won in 1813, Prussia might never have become the major power in Germany and then not absorbed the rest of the German states.That might have stopped Wars I and II, the Holocaust, and other international tragedies. Prussian dominance in Germany was not a benefit to anyone but Prussia. I prefer to think of World Wars I and II as the "Second Thirty Years War", like Churchill. But, whatever. Neither were inevitable, given the unification of Germany under Prussian dominance. The problem was that Kaiser Bill had Napoleon's ambition but none of his talent. Being a whiney little twerp didn't help matters any. It would have been nice had a real statesman, like Bismarck, been on hand and vigorous for another 50 years. He got what he wanted in the FPW, and thought that Germany should have sat back and relaxed. "We're good now." None of his successors could hold his beer mug. My source? Massey, of course. |
Garth in the Park | 27 Mar 2021 1:00 p.m. PST |
Seems a bit unfair to blame early-19th century Prussians for an assassination by a group of early 20th-century Serbian anarchists, thus bringing on a war encouraged by Austria, France, and especially Russia. Seems even more unfair to blame them for the rematch set up by an Austrian postcard-painter and his mostly Bavarian accomplices, who'd discovered apocalyptic populism and used it to overthrow a Prussian republic. (Prussia being one of the last parts of the Weimar Republic to give up on democracy, and only because they were overthrown by a coup organized by the Nazis and Papen's government.) "It's all Berlin's fault" is so very 1947. Hitler = Austrian Goering = Bavarian Himmler = Bavarian Hess = Bavarian Heydrich = Saxon Goebbels = Rhineland Prussian Party HQ: Munich, Bavaria National rallies held in: Nuremberg, Bavaria Yep. Definitely the Prussians to blame for this. |
ConnaughtRanger | 27 Mar 2021 2:22 p.m. PST |
Don't bring reality into this. |
evilgong | 27 Mar 2021 2:31 p.m. PST |
Never defeated … then the invasion of Japan would have been spectacular. |
Gazzola | 28 Mar 2021 8:09 a.m. PST |
In a what if Napoleon had won at Waterloo, I think what may (or may not) have happened after the battle, might have depended on how badly (or not) the allies suffered at the battle. Also, one wonders what may have happened had the Prussians suffered more heavily at their defeat at Ligny? If the allies had been badly beaten at Waterloo, then who knows what pay have happened. How would the psychological effect of the 'unbeatable' Duke losing go down, especially had the Duke actually be killed during the fighting? And would Britain really be willing to fund any further fighting. After all, the allies threatened not to move in 1815 unless Britain paid them to. And there were secret treaties and deals made between various allies against their fellow allies. But again, had he won at Waterloo and the victory followed by a period of peace, who knows what would have happened, once Napoleon died. Would the various empire desiring nations remain at peace? I doubt it. History shows we never learn. Look at World War One, the war to end all wars! LOL And during the Napoleonic Wars, I can't imagine the British and Spanish believing the fact if they were told that in a few years after the Napoleonic Wars, Spain will call in the French to help them put down rebellions, while Britain will fight alongside the French against the Russians. And imagine telling them that the peace loving Prussians will later fight and lose two world wars against their once allies. History is strange thing and unbelievable at times but the fact remains, it can't be changed. What ifs are fun and can be interesting, but they won't change anything in the end. And there is no harm in people having fun. |
Gazzola | 28 Mar 2021 8:19 a.m. PST |
I forgot to mention who, during the Napoleonic period, would have believed that the Prussians and some German states, would end up fighting their fellow Napoleonic allies the Austrians and some German states in 1866. Allies are only allies until they become enemies. |
Tango01 | 29 Mar 2021 12:46 p.m. PST |
|
Bill N | 29 Mar 2021 2:18 p.m. PST |
Allies are only allies until they become enemies Also the other way around. Who would have thought when the Treaty of Utrecht was being signed that before the decade was out France would be aligning with its former enemies Britain, the Netherlands and Austria to take on Philipp V of Spain, who the French had fought so hard to put on the throne. |