"What if Bonaparte had Waited?" Topic

A little "what if" to think about--and one for which we actually can find troops:
What happens if His Imperial Majesty had held tight in the spring of 1815, and returned to France in the fall of that year? Or the Spring of 1816? No KGL. The British army won't have large numbers in North America--but many battalions will have been disbanded. More French POWs will have returned home. Possibly the Allies will have fallen out among themselves, at least to a degree?
On the other hand, will the Bourbons have made themselves more acceptable? Or at least placed more reliable officers in charge? How large will the Royal (formerly Imperial) Guard be? What will be the status of the newly-raised Netherlands, Hanoverian and Brunswick armies? Will a year of training and organization help more than an additional year of peace have weakened?

Might be an interesting campaign game--or a chance to revisit 1814 and 1815 battlefields with somewhat different armies.

Interesting, but by later in 1815 or early 1816, he might have been in St Helena anyway. There was already a sense that Elba was too near.

If it is true that there was a retributive element in the choice of St Helena after the 100 Days, without so egregious and costly a transgression, would the powers have had sufficient justification for that ultimate and uncomfortable banishment from the world?

A nice counter-factual, to which I can add nothing useful. But I look forward to hearing from others about the po

And his Household Staff would have had that much longer to poison him?

And 1816 was "The Year Without A Summer" due to the eruption of a volcano in Indonesia. There was frost throughout the year in much of Europe with widespread crop failures and famine. Not a good environment to wage a military campaign. Not sure if that helps Bonaparte or not. If he just stands his ground and rebuilds his army in 1816, by 1817 the Allies might decide to leave him be.

Gentlemen, Bonaparte will surely escape, and a war will certainly follow. The whole point of a wargame campaign is that matters are not resolved peacefully. It is on the gaming table, not at the conference table, that the fate of a miniature nation is determined.

In real life? Yeah, it was actually over with Leipzig, if not the Berezina. Every Napoleonic success after that raised the body count without changing the overall outcome, and a longer more successful version of the 100 days wouldn't have broken that pattern. But that doesn't mean it wouldn't generate some fun games.

Remember that Napoleon was not subject to the rules that governed other men. Who knows what he could have accomplished with more time to prepare. Interesting to game indeed. There used to be a computer game that was out back in the 90's that depicted Waterloo and had multiple what-if scenarios. I played it a lot. If it had not rained the night before the battle and Napoleon could have launched his attack at dawn…then what? Every time that I played the scenario as the French and Napoleon could attack at 8 am I defeated the British and their allies every single time. Then I tried playing the Allies in the same scenario and I lost every time. I know that this was just a computer game, but I felt that it was very accurate.

Since you Robert have now also engaged in a "what if" I will give my 2 cents worth.
I have thought of this prospect for years.
I believe there could be some big advantages.

Many of which you have mentioned.

The French would have time to recover economically from 18 years of war
The French people would have perhaps become more dissatisfied with the bourbons and harken back to the "days of glory?"
Millions of young men (sadly) would come into soldiering age --hearing the stories of greatness from their father's and flood to the eagles again.
As mentioned --many more angry veteran POWs returned.
Most allied troops back on their own soil or engaged elsewhere.
Perhaps a new French Fleet???
Perhaps not such a bitterness in the memories of everyone in 3 years as in just one year??

Just a few of my thoughts,
no more because I do not like to type that much

Russ Dunaway

Perris0707

Napoleon could not attack anyway as he still had many of his troops out 'foraging' and his Guard had not come up. Also, the myth of the ground being too wet to launch an attack has come from where and when? The allies were fighting in the cloying mud and moving on thigh-high flooded roads late in the day. Be honest, what idiot would think that an absolutely soaked terrain would dry in a few hours? Was Napoleon that idiot?

Napoleon had attacked in as much/more filthier weather and terrain.

He was and is, known by his fans as 'the best general eva' But even he would have approached the battle with more caution than normal, especially as he was facing a General and an army that was not defeated on the battlefield.

And as with all 'whatifs' it seems that they pin one side to reality whilst giving the other the advantage of hindsight.

It's a tough counterfactual – Napoleon learned from visitors to Elba that Britain was considering moving him from Elba (https://www.history.com/news/elba-exile-napoleon-escape), so he was under the gun timewise. He first became ill in 1817 with the early stages of the stomach cancer that would later kill him. So his window of opportunity is narrow. It is possible that he'd have been better received in 1816 but he could have been worse received too – was there really a general yearning for his return? For every veteran relating what Springsteen later called "boring stories of glory days", there would be another on crutches and a pittance with limbs missing.

I dunno. 1815 really was the last hurrah. From Elba he should have gone to America. That really would have been a blast. He'd have been Emperor of America within the year.

I have already had a " what if" post based on Napoleon going to America based on a book I am reading.

Russ Dunaway

So you did, Russ. It got me to thinking of "what if's" for which there were miniatures.

But I've never taken the whole "Napoleon in America" thing seriously, even apart from the difficulty of putting it on the tabletop. He doesn't speak a word of the language. He's the wrong religion. He's past his prime militarily. And he's going to find nothing like the centralized state he took command of in Paris. There are no censors. There's no national conscription, no national police and no Vincennes to drop his enemies in. West Point graduates maybe 20 officers a year, and the army is a handful of frontier outposts and a few garrisons in ports. The overall population is about a sixth of France's, let alone the Empire's. New England wants to trade with France, not become France.

I see him in some country estate, probably around Philadelphia, deeply in debt and telling tall tales of former glories. Not the first or the last European exile to wind up like that. But a North American version of the First Empire? Not just unplayable, but a near miracle.

Messing around with the date of his return to France might not have worked--but it could have. And we have castings.

Several decades ago, documents were found in the Austrian National Archive that revealed that Austria had decided that in the event of Napoleon achieving military success in 1815, Austria would switch sides. The reason for this being that Austria considered that the greatest threat was now from Prussia. Aligning with France would establish a balance of power that would be to Austrian advantage.

I have always wondered why this revelation has never received any publicity. I assume that it is because some consider that it would be politically inconvenient.

A Franco-Austrian army taking the field would be a definite possibility.

Very interesting thegeneral --if it not an Urban legend ??

Russ Dunaway

Dibble
ALL "what ifs" do not pin one side to reality and give one side the benefit of hindsight. Many simply ask what if an historically possible event would have occurred, then what possibly different scenarios might have taken place. Take the example of the battle of Froeschwiller 6, August, 1870. Marshal MacMahon commanding the French 1st Corps had summoned the French 5th and 7th Corps to come to his aid. Neither did. Asking what if either, or both, had is not pinning one side to reality and awarding the other hindsight. The German 3rd Army could have done as many what if's in response to the French reinforcements arriving. It is all part of a "what if". As to the idiots and drying out. I have coached softball for 30 years and I have seen MANY sodden fields dried out in only a few hours. A good strong wind can dry ground very quickly for example. Granted I have not coached in Belgium (yet), but it is certainly possible to dry ground quickly given topography, terrain, time of year, and other factors. I was taught in my academic studies to avoid using absolute terms like "always" and "never" since that is rarely ever the case. I was also taught to not make general statements like "Napoleon had attacked in as much/more filthier weather and terrain." without citing specific examples to back up my claim. My source for the weather conditions was Thierry Lentz, a French Historian in an essay that he posted on the Fondation Napoleon site. I am not an expert on Napoleon or his campaigns, so I tend to rely on what I read. If it is a myth, then I am guilty of being uninformed until now. So out of curiosity where did Napoleon face wetter conditions than that June morning in Belgium?

thegeneral

They may well have changed sides. Before Napoleon's easy return and the Waterloo campaign the so called 'allies' were making all sorts of deals with each other to protect themselves from fellow 'allies'. A victorious Napoleon at Waterloo may well have tipped them over to the French side or at least persuaded them to remain neutral and see how things developed. Of course, even if Napoleon had won, the Brits may well have upped their mercenary payments to try and persuade them to stay on their side. Money talks, as they say and before the Waterloo campaign Britain had to agree to pay them because the allies refused to move until they did.

In terms of hindsight, I can imagine that Wellington would have been heavily criticized had he lost at Waterloo and the Prussians not turned up to save his skin. But history is what it is. A bit like the recent cup final in which had the Chelsea manager not changed his goalkeeper, they may have won. They may not, of course. But the fact that he did change him and they lost doesn't make him a bad manager or the team a bad team. And there will still be Chelsea fans who admire him.

Perris0707

I'm afraid they do!

Someone broached the scenario of Wellington suffering a debilitating stroke two weeks before the Waterloo campaign. I forwarded that Napoleon suffers an almost coincidental, similar stroke one week before the campaign.

Oh! The Duke could have held. Even if the Prussians had not turned up in time.

The Duke had a large reserve in which to retire on too, Napoleon didn't. And Napoleon may well have suffered the same casualties as the Duke anyway. So his advance would have not been the all-glory rush forward. The allies were exhausted at the end of the battle and so would the French have been.

And the Nappy fawners who believe that the Duke would have ran (and sailed) all the way back to Britain had he lost, are also silly.

Just to add:

In order for you to find out, I suggest a read of the campaigns and battles that Napoleon commanded. (You yourself say you know little) The only way to find out more is to do said 'finding out' because I'm not going to spend all my time doing it for you.

Monsieur Perris' question seemed reasonable. I should be interested to know the examples you had in mind, if you cared to share them

Not sure why some people get upset if anyone mentions Welly retreating. He did it on several occasions during the Peninsular War, so retreating wouldn't be new to him. He had to protect his army. And I doubt he would have held had the Prussians not turned up to save him and retreat would have been the logical solution to Welly preserving his army. Sadly, Brit lovers and Welly fawners just don't want to admit how much they relied on the Prussians to save them and win the day. It might also depend on the level of defeat as to if he would stay or sail back to Britain.

Yes, both sides fighting at Waterloo would have been tired out but Grouchy would have arrived (at last!) and could have taken over the pursuit of the defeated allies, that's if he could find them, of course. LOL

And Wellington would have had to consider how long he could hold out after a defeat, especially since the Austrians and Russians were still some distance away. And who knows if they would have continued marching towards France had they known the Prussians and the 'unbeatable' Wellington had been defeated?

Several decades ago, documents were found in the Austrian National Archive that revealed that Austria had decided that in the event of Napoleon achieving military success in 1815, Austria would switch sides. The reason for this being that Austria considered that the greatest threat was now from Prussia. Aligning with France would establish a balance of power that would be to Austrian advantage.

Is there any source of it, that would be sensational and contradicting all history writing.

An Austrian / French Army would be impossible in my view, the Prussian threat at this time was nothing compared to a thread of Boney himself at the head of a victorious army.

1816, so the Burbons are well established, the Brits have back their best troops, Prussia consolidated their new provinces and had finished their overhaul of 1815, I cannot see that the French Army in 1816 would be in a better shape than 1815, if not more Royalist.
Boney would have been even more obese and his health condition even worse.

And as with all 'whatifs' it seems that they pin one side to reality whilst giving the other the advantage of hindsight.

Indeed

"Pinning one side to reality while giving the other side the advantage of hindsight."

No such thing!! It is the use of an active imagination changing one or two situations to see if it would alter the historical results.
Or, you could just keep lining up toy army men from flank to flank and move them straight forward into the same repeated results.
In fact, without "whats ifs" most of the point of Wargaming itself is an exercise in futility.

NOW, what if Stuart had ridden right through Custer and onto the Gettysburg battlefield at the most critical moment?

Russ Dunaway

@Old Glory

Yes, the source is legitimate – a respected European history journal. Unfortunately after this period of time I cannot recall which one.

I can see that it would have been regarded as politically awkward – the EU was going full blast at the time. People don't appreciate just how sensitive the Establishment really is.

okay so you cannot recall such an important source – a pity – it wouldn't be regarded as poltically awkward either. So far an interesting theory but based on nothing traceable.

@ robert piepenbrink

He doesn't speak a word of the language. He's the wrong religion. He's past his prime militarily. And he's going to find nothing like the centralized state he took command of in Paris. There are no censors. There's no national conscription, no national police and no Vincennes to drop his enemies in.

Didn't stop him wanting to invade and conquer Britain….

Old Glory

"Pinning one side to reality while giving the other side the advantage of hindsight."

No such thing!! It is the use of an active imagination changing one or two situations to see if it would alter the historical results.

Or, you could just keep lining up toy army men from flank to flank and move them straight forward into the same repeated results.
In fact, without "whats ifs" most of the point of Wargaming itself is an exercise in futility.

NOW, what if Stuart had ridden right through Custer and onto the Gettysburg battlefield at the most critical moment?

Russ Dunaway

Be honest Russ, some wargamers just want the warm feeling of the French trouncing the Allies. I say good for them and said feeling. There are millions of similar minded but in the end, even a scenario where the Allies end up trouncing the French, it's just a table-top teasing, personal fantasy.
But then, Playing with model soldiers, on iffy mockups of table-top terrain, with no accurate representation of the conditions and weather, is just that. It's as accurate as giving the French a few Leclerc's 'ready-to-go' from Bell Alliance and in the end, playing with soldiers. As accurate as an 8 year-old playing with Airfix, HO/OO plastic figures on the Wilton.

Wargaming includes enactments on the tabletop with painstakingly researched and painted units, a 're-run' of famous battles. Those games try to pit as accurate as possible, the lineup of both sides. Surely, different results can occur without having to give an 'added' advantage to one or the other side?

I repeat: "And as with all 'whatifs' it seems that they pin one side to reality whilst giving the other the advantage of hindsight." is correct. As is 'whatifs' being fantasy.

I remember Tommy Steele getting 'smithereened' in Quincy's Quest. You will be happy to know that it's an 'accurate' depiction of his battalion getting wiped out by French (toy) artillery.

Here's the link. Please scroll down to the appropriate section.

link

I'll get my tin hat and head for the dug-out…

Paul

Surely, different results can occur without having to give an 'added' advantage to one or the other side?

I repeat: "And as with all 'whatifs' it seems that they pin one side to reality whilst giving the other the advantage of hindsight." is correct. As is 'whatifs' being fantasy.

I would argue Paul that wargames are in and of themselves exercises in "what if". The difference between a "historical" wargame and a "What if" wargame is the point at which events depart from the historical script.

Yes Bill. But (with no wargames tables and in sight) changing history so suit one side whilst pinning the other to 'reality' to get the 'good and righteous result' is nevertheless, fantasy and unfair fantasy too, if there's such a thing.

Wargamers 'reenact' their battles which has b****r-all to do with anything other than the game they are playing. Unfortunately, some take such results that occurred on the table so seriously that they see it as to justify what would happen in an alternate history and go on to lead a history of 'yes, buts'

Robert piepenbrink, outlines his 'whatif'. Can anyone add to it if the opposition isn't pinned? For instance, 'Whatif' Napoleon is struck down by a severe stroke? He's assassinated by a Vendee, suicide assassin. The inconstant is intercepted and Napoleon recaptured? Or aren't those scenarios allowed to be "pinned"?

Let's run with this dibble. On June 18, 1815 Wellington had knowledge that Blucher would be moving forces to join him. Wellington had no knowledge though of where, when or in what number those troops would show up. If we stick to the historical script then the person playing Wellington knows when and where different Prussian units will show up. You have now introduced a "what if" into the game, because the player playing Wellington can plan accordingly. So can the player playing Napoleon. If we make where and when the Prussians show up a variable factor then we have introduced a different "what if" into the mix.

But why limit ourselves to just those two "what ifs"? I can think of a number of different equally historically plausible alternative scenarios that could have influenced the action on June 18 at La Belle Alliance. The answer is that factoring in all those "what ifs" could swamp the game. So we typically limit ourselves to just a few.

Now let's run with your "what ifs". Suppose Napoleon is struck down by a stroke or assassinated before Waterloo. From the alternative history standpoint it is an interesting idea. Would the allies have insisted on a Bourbon restoration if Napoleon wasn't in the picture? As a wargame scenario though I would think a June 18 Battle of Waterloo without Napoleon in the picture would lose something.

I care not a jot what people do on the Wargames table. They can eat their Sunday lunch on it as far as I'm concerned. But to discuss a change of history to suit a personal fantasy? Nah! It goes nowhere historically.

'Whatifs' can be poured into any historical scenario and made to fit an outcome and give a warm feeling. But it seems, pouring in a 'whatif' opposing fantasy, is frowned upon because it shuts down the 'whatif' by unpinning the opposition.

So, most people approach 'whatifs' to sate the disappointment of their side losing, their 'hero' failing and their preferred Country beaten to surrender/negotiating table. It advances the actual historical episode/episodes, not a jot.

As far as Waterloo 'what ifs' are concerned, I would suggest that the best would simply be no rain. Everything is as it was, but the ground is hard.

"Didn't stop him wanting to invade and conquer Britain"

That had a specific, limited purpose: to neutralise the grand enemy, perfidious and profligate with his gold- and there was a degree of political instability to fuel fantasies of 'regime change.'

Of course, there was also the Royal Navy.

Or for invention of trains

I get a 'warm feeling' playing wargames. Mind you, that could be to do with the heating being too high at times? LOL

Although the 100 days campaign is brilliant and refighting the battles can be exciting, it's counterfactual situations that arise out of refighting the campaign that, for the imaginative, are the most thrilling. I dont know why counterfactual wargames both irritate and threaten some people but it's as disturbing as it is amusing.

Waterloo is almost always a wargaming walkover for the French. Historically, Napoleon had a very bad day.

Au pas de Charge

I dont know why counterfactual wargames both irritate and threaten some people but it's as disturbing as it is amusing.

And like I Posted above: "I care not a jot what people do on the Wargames table. They can eat their Sunday lunch on it as far as I'm concerned."

Waterloo is almost always a wargaming walkover for the French"

You tell me why that is? I'll tell you! its because it's a game with the title 'Waterloo tacked onto it. The game is as credible as players of Subbuteo replaying the England Vs Germany, 1966 World Cup Final and about as meaningful. But at least Subbuteo has more of the human input to it!

thegeneral

As far as Waterloo 'what ifs' are concerned, I would suggest that the best would simply be no rain. Everything is as it was, but the ground is hard.

Any evidence that it was the rain? It's just another excuse bandied about by the Nappy fawners. Perhaps you have the answer to that old nugget?

Remember all those paintings and quotes of how the allies were chased closely (almost at touching distance) by the French all the way to Mont St Jean? Well! The next morning, all of Napoleons army still hadn't come up, especially his Guard. There were also many, many out foraging. The real reason was probably that The French army was too slow in getting to their positions.

Gazzola

I get a 'warm feeling' playing wargames. Mind you, that could be to do with the heating being too high at times? LOL

To all those thinking of being Greta Thunberg disciples, that isn't very good practice. Eat yer' Ready Brek instead

YouTube link

And like I Posted above: "I care not a jot what people do on the Wargames table. They can eat their Sunday lunch on it as far as I'm concerned."

Yeah, well youre the very picture of detachment… However, for the control freaks in the wargaming world who think unless youre refighting the battle of Austerblitz with the same result that you might as well use fairies and orcas, they should know its the balance of all arms that makes the period's games fun, not engaging in pedantic anxiety and inflexibility.

You tell me why that is? I'll tell you! its because it's a game with the title 'Waterloo tacked onto it. The game is as credible as players of Subbuteo replaying the England Vs Germany, 1966 World Cup Final and about as meaningful. But at least Subbuteo has more of the human input to it!

One of the reasons we study Waterloo is that it is a miracle Napoleon lost. If it's personally important that this cant be the case because it wasnt the case, consider this.

You get into a car with no brakes because it's an emergency and miraculously you dont get hurt. That hardly means that it was always fated to be so and that every time you get in a car without brakes, nothing will happen to you because it didnt happen the one time you did chance getting into a brakeless car.

The idea that luck doesnt exist is the comfort of minds that dont want to analyze or consider alternatives. And that's fine but dont interfere with those that do because that is where innovation springs from.

Frankly, it is curious they would even want to wargame at all. At least "fantasy" Napoleonic games are enjoyable partly because the outcome is not predetermined. Whereas, going to a lot of effort to recreate over and over again exactly what's already happened in a battle seems like living death.

Waterloo was a very closely fought battle over 9 or 10 hours. If there are Wargames where it is a Walk-over for the French then either the Rules or the Scenario are completely inadequate.

Let's say he overcame being a narcissist megalomaniac at Elba, and realized that it would be better to live happily on this nice island before taking up gambling with destiny again?

Waterloo was a very closely fought battle over 9 or 10 hours. If there are Wargames where it is a Walk-over for the French then either the Rules or the Scenario are completely inadequate.

Poor analysis of Napoleonic battles; many were closely fought until one side buckled (See Ligny, Battle of.) You're also positioning a single term for a false conclusion. In refights, nine times out of ten the French win Waterloo.

However, but for a lot of French mismanagement of the battle, it would've been a shorter and easier battle for the French to win. In addition, the battle is an example of a weak plan well managed by the allies with a lot of good luck. To approach the results of the battle as proof of allied superior "everything" is 2nd rate, one dimensional thinking. That's fine but it is hardly in a position to be pushing deeper thoughts around.

The wonder of the allied victory is why books are written about Waterloo. It wouldn't be such a controversial and exciting battle if it was a forgone conclusion for the Allies. Which Waterloo books/authors begin with the premise that Wellington did everything right and was predestined to win? The analysis is almost always around those things that Napoleon and the French did wrong to snatch defeat from the jaws of victory.

Let's say he overcame being a narcissist megalomaniac at Elba, and realized that it would be better to live happily on this nice island before taking up gambling with destiny again?

Not entirely sure what this scramble is intended to mean but it seems like a "What if Napoleon had won Waterloo?" kind of screed?

It wouldve prevented the rise of the British Empire, perhaps the worst cancer the world has ever known; responsible for more misery and lasting racial and economic problems than the Nazis and Communists could ever have dreamed of and far worse than an Emperor Napoleon times a trillion.

I recently listened to a podcast on The Napoleonicist website by Professor Charles Esdaile, who is studying wargame representations of Waterloo. He made the important point that if one is creating a game of the battle, especially for commercial sale, such as the SPI game, then both sides need to have a reasonably equal chance of winning for it to be enjoyable and commercially successful.

He suggested this was why the player taking the role of Napoleon is often able to win; the situation on the morning of 18th June 1815 actually favoured the Allies, not Napoleon, but that has been 'corrected' in many games to make them playable and 'fair'.

Personally, I think Don Featherstone was right when he said that table top wargames only bear a coincidental resemblance to the battles they portray, and I'm quite happy with that.

Why is gaming an 'alternative' or 'counterfactual' version of Waterloo for entertainment apparently thought by some here to worse than just making up a completely fictitious scenario? The important thing is not to imagine that fighting a toy soldier wargame 'proves' anything about the real events or what might have happened had things been different.

@ Lapsang
If there are Wargames where it is a Walk-over for the French then either the Rules or the Scenario are completely inadequate.

Exactly.

@ arthur1815
if one is creating a game of the battle, especially for commercial sale, such as the SPI game, then both sides need to have a reasonably equal chance of winning for it to be enjoyable and commercially successful…he player taking the role of Napoleon is often able to win; the situation on the morning of 18th June 1815 actually favoured the Allies, not Napoleon, but that has been 'corrected' in many games to make them playable and 'fair'.

Yes, plus of course the French player knows what he has to do differently to win. The allied players have to do exactly what they actually did do and make it work against a different French plan.

Another problem I think is that very few figures rules are explicitly and only about Waterloo. The only one I can think of that is the Airfix Waterloo Wargame, which is only a figures game inasmuch as the counters are hard-plastic versions of the Airfix Waterloo figures. All other restagings of Waterloo use generic period rules in a Waterloo scenario. As a result, units may have generalised capabilities an attributes that are about right for 1812-1815 generally, but that don't particularly reflect how they performed on that day. You don't see that many rules that allow the 3/95th to bolt for it, or the Guard Chasseurs to do the same for that matter, nor do you see many games where the rules allow cavalry to charge six or seven times or allow the Inniskillings to take 65% losses without breaking.

Au Pas de Charge

You get into a car with no brakes because it's an emergency and miraculously you dont get hurt. That hardly means that it was always fated to be so and that every time you get in a car without brakes, nothing will happen to you because it didnt happen the one time you did chance getting into a brakeless car.

But it was 'fated' and it will always be 'fated' The same way that it was fated I'd lose my licence due to being diagnosed with Focal Epilepsy last November.

And winning 9 times out of 10 is your opinion, not reality.

The idea that luck doesnt exist is the comfort of minds that dont want to analyze or consider alternatives. And that's fine but dont interfere with those that do because that is where innovation springs from.

So! Why have you brought 'luck' into the argument? I haven't mentioned 'luck' though fortune (ill or good) smiles on all great commanders and Napoleon had his fair share.

Frankly, it is curious they would even want to wargame at all. At least "fantasy" Napoleonic games are enjoyable partly because the outcome is not predetermined. Whereas, going to a lot of effort to recreate over and over again exactly what's already happened in a battle seems like living death.

Because I have opinions regarding Wargaming, it does not mean that I think it's a useless pastime. In fact, it gives pleasure to the individual and may well keep/have kept, some out of trouble. The good thing about it is in my opinion, the related hobby and the serious study of the wider aspects of research that goes with it, which again in my opinion, is the better pastime.

My son (and my oldest brother)is an avid, passionate Carp angler. I can't see the point in it at all, because I see it as a waste of time and money. But I understand his passion for his hobby but it doesn't stop me from questioning said passion…And of course, taking the mick out of it at times.

@thegeneral

Several decades ago, documents were found in the Austrian National Archive that revealed that Austria had decided that in the event of Napoleon achieving military success in 1815, Austria would switch sides. The reason for this being that Austria considered that the greatest threat was now from Prussia. Aligning with France would establish a balance of power that would be to Austrian advantage.

Did you ever remember which documents these were or in what source you read them?

I have played in Waterloo games and I have seen several at conventions and peoples home including mine and almost always the French win. I can remember a couple the Allies won. Usually because the the Allied players were that much better.

IMO why the French win so often is because they can actually see the British over the ridge and make counter moves that Napoleon had to guess at. The players knows what happen historically.

In a game in which the French players know when the Prussians would arrive. Make it die roll for the Allies to see what turn they show. But the French players still knows that they are coming. This is still something that Napoleon did not know. It's a difficult battle to recreate on the game table.

I have played in Waterloo games and I have seen several at conventions and peoples home including mine and almost always the French win. I can remember a couple the Allies won. Usually because the the Allied players were that much better.

That's been my experience and the experience of other gamers I discussed it with. Part of the reason the battle is so fascinating is how the french managed to lose. That's why possibilities are especially interesting for an 1815 win at Waterloo.

IMO why the French win so often is because they can actually see the British over the ridge and make counter moves that Napoleon had to guess at. The players knows what happen historically.

Could be. You could have rules for hidden Allied movement. There was also a command breakdown at Waterloo with attacks not going in with good coordination. Still part of what makes the battle interesting is the "Any given Sunday" result.

Had Napoleon waited and returned at a later date, things may well have panned out differently.

Had Napoleon waited before starting the battle or not divided his army, things may well have panned out differently.

Had Grouchy found the Prussians and prevented them from getting to Waterloo, things might have panned out differently.

But before the Brit lovers start shrieking that the result of the battle would still have been the same, I'll leave the last word on Waterloo to Welly himself.

'My dear William, You'll see the account of our Desperate Battle and victory over Boney!! It was the most desperate business I ever was in. I never took so much trouble about any battle; & never was so near being beat.' (Waterloo, the Campaign of 1815 by John Hussey, (2017) page 270)

So here we have Welly himself admitting that he was near to losing the battle. And this is based on what actually happened and the events that lead up to them. It supports the viewpoint that had events or timing of events been different, then Napoleon may well have won the battle of Waterloo.

@Gazzola

Which is part of why the campaign and battle are so studied.There's a lot of texture in that 100 days.

Also, Wellington was a talented commander in his own right and he was severely tested by a general fighting a battle with two armies on two fronts. He seems to have known that the smart money was to find a defensive position and wait it out.

If he waited another year he would not have been able to afford to rent the ships that took him to France. He was going broke at Elba and the payments were in arrears.
I wonder if he could have succeeded if put ashore alone by a fishing boat?