"What If Napoleon Had Won at Waterloo?" Topic

"…If Napoleon had remained emperor of France for the six years remaining in his natural life, European civilization would have benefited inestimably. The reactionary Holy Alliance of Russia, Prussia and Austria would not have been able to crush liberal constitutionalist movements in Spain, Greece, Eastern Europe and elsewhere; pressure to join France in abolishing slavery in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean would have grown; the benefits of meritocracy over feudalism would have had time to become more widely appreciated; Jews would not have been forced back into their ghettos in the Papal States and made to wear the yellow star again; encouragement of the arts and sciences would have been better understood and copied; and the plans to rebuild Paris would have been implemented, making it the most gorgeous city in the world…"

link

Armand

oh for Pete's sake

It would definitely have an effect on the ABBA song.

Winning at Waterloo doesn't decide anything. The outcome is still the same, only the body count is drastically increased. And I'm an ardent Bonapartist.

What this counter-factual requires is for the rest of Europe to accept Napoleon's return and leave him in peace and for him to stay content within his borders, these seem too unlikely to be the basis for such daydreaming. Once the fighting starts defeat is almost inevitable. Winning Waterloo would just delay his demise.

"It would definitely have an effect on the ABBA song."

Only slightly, squeeze in an extra syllable ,like Bill Nighy managed to do in "Love Actually".

"At Waterloo Napoleon didn't surrender"

Musically challenged,
John

No difference, the allies were not going to quit, Russians and Austrians were coming as well as Prussian corp held back.

Assuming that at the "Times up!" point of the battle, let's suppose that the British had broken. Not the French.
How many casualties had they taken? What shape was their army in?
Oh, yes. I've heard stories about some Marshal back in Paris recruiting and conscripting, but let's look at that realistically. Would that really make any difference?
And the Russian and Austrian armies, as noted, were coming up too.

What's if stories are are daft but irresistible.

D'Erlon's Corps attack should have had better cavalry support. Good as Picton's infantry did to stand and fire away, those attackers should not have been scattered by the Union Brigade. Something went badly wrong there.

Blucher's march to Plancenoit, away from his supply lines, leaving a small corps in his rear, outnumbered at Wavre, across the face of Grouchy's advance, to support an army that did not (OK, could not) support him, at Ligny. That was an insane gamble. Thing about gambling is that you might throw two sixes occasionally.

Anything after an ignominious defeat for the coalition at Mt St Jean is a political question, not for wargamers

Thanks!

Armand

Those guys tried to game the possible march of Grouchy to Waterloo.

YouTube link

YouTube link

Armand

TangoO1,

"pressure to join France in abolishing slavery in Asia, Africa and the Caribbean would have grown; the benefits of meritocracy over feudalism would have had time to become more widely appreciated……"

Ha! Although I dislike holding my own countrymen in contempt, Andrew Roberts, who uses the socialist framing of history in words like "reactionary", says he is a "conservative", but has a "right on" political agenda. I've noticed his tendancy to twist the minutiae of personal narratives with irrelevant facts and a few quotes and call it the sweep of "history" before. Because of that, he gets things wrong and I will no longer buy a book by him.

1) Slavery: at the time of Waterloo, France had slavery: Bonaparte reinstated it in 1802. It was England banned the slave trade just sixteen years after the battle.

2) Meritocracy. No, Bonaparte appointed people on a purely functional basis: sometimes because they were lucky, sometimes because they were ruthless or were good at following his orders but often because they supported him – which is why he supported the aristocratic principle by ennobling members of his own family.

deadhead

"Blucher's march to Plancenoit, away from his supply lines, leaving a small corps in his rear, outnumbered at Wavre, across the face of Grouchy's advance, to support an army that did not (OK, could not) support him, at Ligny. That was an insane gamble. Thing about gambling is that you might throw two sixes occasionally."

The French were beaten before the Prussians arrived. Wellington beat the French (repelling whole corps and the last-ditch Guard) before the Prussians took Plancenoit. There's a question whether the British could have done much of a pursuit without the Prussians but at the very least Bonaparte would have been left with a decimated army the shadow of its former self; totally unable to face the Prussians the next day or the next week.

1) Slavery: at the time of Waterloo, France had slavery: Bonaparte reinstated it in 1802. It was England banned the slave trade just sixteen years after the battle.

at the time of Waterloo Napoleon had banned the slave trade and France had lost almost all the colonies less two in the West Indies, one in the Mascareignes, and others not yet retroceded still occupied by slaves states such as Great Britain and Portugal, Great Britain having previously largely supported slave-system and proslavery party in the conquered French colonies as in Saint Domingue and La Martinique against French abolitionists and French Army throughout the first wave of abolition of slavery in the french colonies
for other part part one thing is to refer to the current laws in Overseas colonies and another to countries and kingdoms
France banned the slavery in 1315 so 500 years before Waterloo, England only in 1772, until this last date this means there were black slaves and slavery in England (and Portugal) while there were not in France where it was regarded as unlawful nature, reaffirmed by several French courts of Justice from the 16th to 18th century and again in the Napoleonic Code Civil of 1804

Dont Acte

Lilian,

I have no idea where you're getting your information from but it's so distorted as to be unrecognisable as history.

"at the time of Waterloo Napoleon has banned the slave trade".

Let's have a look at the facts, shall we?

1794: Revolutionary Directorate abolishes slavery.

1802: The Ogre reinstates slavery

1815: Under pressure from England (which had banned the slave trade in 1807) and the Congress of Vienna, the Ogre bans not slavery, but the slave trade. Crucially he does not enforce the ban.

1848: Slavery abolished in French colonies by a decree during the Second Republic, largely due to the efforts of Victor Schoelcher.

Meanwhile, "England only" banned slavery "in 1772" according to you. Wrong. The judgement you unaccountably misinterpret is the 1772 court case of Somerset vs. Stewart. Chief Justice Lord Mansfield ruled that slavery was incompatible with common law and that there was no statute on the subject… therefore it had NEVER been lawful in England.

And therefore, because the judgement was a RETROSPECTIVE ASSERTION and the English common law rights-based constitutions of the colonies that protected the individual held their legitimacy upon those same retrospective rights, slavery was probably unconstitutional in America too.

The Somerset case was bought under a writ of Habeas Corpus – a protection against false imprisonment. This is interesting as most of the founding fathers, especially those who signed the Declaration of Independence and delegates to the Constitutional Convention were slaveowners.

And indeed, because the 1772 English judgement was a re-statement of common law, and Habeas Corpus was a (constitutional) common law right, there is an argument to be made that one of the reasons for the clearly orchestrated agitations that culminated in the 1776 American Declaration was the fear certain powerful landowners had, that they would lose their slaves and that the Red Indians might be able to use the courts to claim land rights and resist involuntarily removal.

So, it is very instructive that one of the first things Washington and especially Hamilton and Madison did during the haggling of the Continental Convention was to destroy ancient common law as a living process and remove Habeas Corpus forever as a right. A fact born out by the immediate tearing up of many of the Red Indian treaties.

Therefore, Roberts' contention that the political survival of the Ogre would have led to pressure to ban slavery in Europe is crazy. He resisted it.

theminiaturespage.com‌

‌"TMP link

Consular decree of 16 July 1802, signed by Bonaparte, reinstating slavery.

the only thing "so distorted" (sic) is your vision in laws about slavery in France and England by an anglocentric prismus to promote Great Britain as pioneer in abolition mixed with usual simplistic anti-ogreboneymania, I have the feeling to see "Amistad" where the good and generous Great Britain thanks to the Royal Navy is presented in anti-slavery crusade against nasty Spaniards and Isabel II

if slavery didn't exist in England, so that is a great mystery that 15 000 slaves on english soil became free after 1772…

contrary to France where according to the laws of the Kingdom the slavery was illicit for centuries, since 1315, something reaffirmed by the Parliament of Bordeaux already in 1575 when something like an Amistad affair touched the French soil and black people, confirmed by the Tribunal de l'Amirauté de Paris throughout the 18th century on the same basis

it was not the French Directoire (1795-1799) but the Convention in 1793-1794 in Overseas colonies who led the abolition, while Great Britain precisely launched massively its army and navy, losing 100 000 men, not in the European theater but against French colonies to seize them where they would like to expel French (abolitionist) authorities – Hard Fact – in all the French colonies occupied by Britain, the slavery was maintained – and while the same Napoleon Bonaparte Ogre Boney & Co. released the last slaves in the territories he conquered in Europe, so I wonder where these hard historical facts are "so distorted"…

We read above;

"The French were beaten before the Prussians arrived", which was certainly the DoW's view if we are to believed the stories about Siborne's model and the insistence on its revision.

I will admit the French had not won, but would argue that the Prussian contribution did not start with the capture of Plancenoit. For some time the threat of a coming flank attack, the progressive arrival and commitment of all-arms Prussians drew substantial French forces away from the assault on the ridge.

I will admit that the whole question is still controversial to this day. But I do think that Blucher took a huge risk, one that I suspect DoW would not have, were positions reversed.

Deadhead + 1

Armand

"..one that I suspect DoW would not have, were positions reversed."
Amongst the many ludicrous "What if"s that appear on this forum, that's one of the more ludicrous ones.

his soldiers would have to throw stones, they would have been out of ammunition, at least for the infantry

Without wishing to hijack this topic (it is probably on it last legs anyway).

@ConnaughtRanger, genuinely, with no antagonism here, wondering why the Q of DoW marching to rescue of Blucher, had positions been reversed, is that ludicrous.

Even if he could have restored the supply train from Brussels, would he have moved across to Wavre, had the main French force headed that way, and left a holding fraction of his army at Mt St Jean to oppose a smaller Ney-led unit? Abandoning his supply lines. Across the face of an attacker on waterlogged roads.

Because that is just what Blucher did. He could have ended up with a suspended sentence for his gamble….with a rope.

DoW was a much more cautious (and sensible?) type and I think that it would not have taken much for him to think withdraw and preserve the remnants of my army. There is one heck of a Coalition coming and let a beaten Prussian army pull back behind Brussels as well. But no way am I heading East to save their bacon, at huge risk.

His phrase was always "a false move", oft repeated.

Well said my good friend…

Armand

Given the size, composition and quality of his "infamous" army, where is there the remotest evidence that Wellington would have ever considered taking the offensive with only a part of it to hand?

Then we agree after all. I think I misunderstood your original response, so apologies. DoW would not have moved from Mt St Jean ridge to Wavre had positions been reversed, with very good reason. That very suggestion is what is ludicrous? Again that shows the huge gamble and risk Blucher took, with terrific success.

Lilian
"the only thing "so distorted" (sic) is your vision in laws" (sic) "about slavery in France and England by an anglocentric Primus" (sic*) "to promote Great Britain as pioneer in abolition"

I believe the tendancy to imagine the opinions of someone who challenges one's prejudices as an Aunt Sally, rather than engaging with the substance, is usually reserved for teenagers. As one grows older, one realises the innate superiority of facts over accusations.

So Great Britain was indeed a pioneer in abolishing the slave trade, because unlike France (and indeed the U.S.A.), our laws were enforced, even to the extent of us losing hundreds if not thousands of our lives.

Read it again. The Ogre agreed to the abolition of the slave trade at the Congress of Vienna, but as is the way with tyrants, FAILED to enforce it.

"mixed with usual simplistic anti-ogreboneymania"

Interesting. If you don't believe re-introducing slavery was pretty Ogre-ish, you're welcome to your opinion.

"if slavery didn't exist in England, so that is a great mystery that 15 000 slaves on english soil became free after 1772"

Really? Which aspect of the way rights work would you like me to explain?🙄

*Not sure what a Scottish Episcopal Church bishop has to do with anything. Is he your friend?

deadhead

"The French were beaten before the Prussians arrived"….
"I will admit the French had not won, but would argue that the Prussian contribution did not start with the capture of Plancenoit. For some time the threat of a coming flank attack, the progressive arrival and commitment of all-arms Prussians drew substantial French forces away from the assault on the ridge"

Thank you for the measured response. I used "beaten" meaning Wellington's forces had repulsed every French corps which could attack them – all five to seven of them, depending how you count them – which I submit is a fair enough measure of success as it's the same measure of "beating" generally accepted against Massena at Busaco and Fuentes de Onoro; ie the French still had an army at the end, but failed to take the battlefield.

theminiaturespage.com‌

‌"TMP link

As for the implicit "what if" here, one would have to posit that Duhesme's eight battalions of the Young Guard could have tipped the balance in breaking Wellington's line if they'd not been deployed back on Bonaparte's right flank. But how realistic is that? First, look at their initial deployment: they seem never to have been intended as a forward flanking unit but as a central back-up. There was no room for them in the Guard attack: the field was constricted by Papelotte. And when the French took it late in the day and advanced from there they were repulsed anyway. The Allies appear to still have had intact Dutch cavalry to prevent them widening their attack line.

So Great Britain was indeed a pioneer in abolishing the slave trade, because unlike France (and indeed the U.S.A.), our laws were enforced, even to the extent of us losing hundreds if not thousands of our lives.
(…)
. If you don't believe re-introducing slavery was pretty Ogre-ish, you're welcome to your opinion.

I assume that is probably the british sense of humor or usual double standard cynism and hypocrisy who consists to occult that Great Britain previously lost 100 000 soldiers and sailors to restablish slavery in the French West Indies and despite that, come to teach lessons to Napoleon…
as we are in a military history forum it can be add that Great Britain the so-called pioneer in abolition was also the colonial power most reluctant to admit units of black and colored people among its ranks, except as bandsmen, quite far from the extended range of black, mulattos and pardos units raised in whole Spanish America since the 16th century as well as in French America already since the 17th century, even mixed there, accompanying the emancipation by the arms and social advancement of a colored bourgeoisie, the British Crown realized very lately, except few and limited short lived examples, that it was a good strategy against their American cousins in 1776-1783 then against the French who had previously a long tradition of colored units among their ranks like the Spaniards but not at all their British counterparts

Tricky this as we are running two (interesting) discussions in parallel, the influence of the Prussian flank attack and the history of slavery.

I thought Cacadoress' comment interesting, regarding the narrow restricted field available to the French. I had always imagined freeing up Lobau's Corps, the Young Guard and the numbers-limited Old Guard role in Plancenoit, would have greatly reinforced any assault on DoW.

If we accept that most of those units would have contributed between LHS and Smohain (with difficulty down in that dip) then there simply may not have been enough room to play a significant role.