Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Speculative History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Speculative History Speculative History Forum - Alternate History, What If Questions, Pseudo History, and anything outside the boundaries of mainstream historical research


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 1st, 2013, 07:25 AM   #11
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,538

Yes, he could have. If he managed to destroy Wellington's army at Waterloo and let's asume Blucher was to late he could after have pinned down Blucher as well and destroy him completely this time. With such dissaster Britain would have no other option then what they did in 1940 at Dunkirk and evacuate their BEF. Prussia would either have to retreat and regroup to Prussia and reinforce their army or fight on with what little they had.

After that it would be the question how the rest of Europe would respond. Would Russia and Austria continue their advance towards France or come to a peace settlement. I think nor Napoleon nor they wanted to continue the 1814 scenario with Napoleon continuesly beating their armies in the field.

If they would decide to carry on, it would be a very hard job for Napoleon. He would probably have to recall more men from the Vendée and the south of France to reinforce his army in the east. Let's say he manages to ensemble an army of 200,000 men he might have a shot. Many notable Russia commanders had died, and Austria had also few military talent to offer.

The question is, would Napoleon be able to apply the same tactic the coalition used on him and corner their smaller armies and destroy them seperatly. Because if these armies stay united either a Leipzig scenario would follow or a Dresden scenerio. Both negative in the long term.

To succesfuly end the war he would have to occupy the Netherlands again and Berlin as well to kick both these nations out of the war. He then should march of Vienna and occupy that as well for the third time, which is unlikely both not impossible. With Prussia and Austria out of the war I think Russia would settle for status quo.
jeroenrottgering is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 1st, 2013, 08:18 AM   #12

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,092

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering View Post
Yes, he could have. If he managed to destroy Wellington's army at Waterloo and let's asume Blucher was to late he could after have pinned down Blucher as well and destroy him completely this time. With such dissaster Britain would have no other option then what they did in 1940 at Dunkirk and evacuate their BEF.................


..................
But they could simply re-enforce them and then land them back almost where they wanted.

Geography would have a say but not the French.

Napoleon was surrounded by enemies, it would be 1814 all over again with most likely the same result.
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old November 1st, 2013, 10:54 AM   #13
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,538

Quote:
Originally Posted by Kevinmeath View Post
But they could simply re-enforce them and then land them back almost where they wanted.

Geography would have a say but not the French.

Napoleon was surrounded by enemies, it would be 1814 all over again with most likely the same result.
I doubt if the people in Britain and the government as a whole were willing to go trough years of warfare again. Such a defeat of their best general would certainly lower the moral back home.
jeroenrottgering is offline  
Old November 1st, 2013, 11:41 AM   #14
Scholar
 
Joined: Dec 2012
Posts: 519

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering View Post
I doubt if the people in Britain and the government as a whole were willing to go trough years of warfare again. Such a defeat of their best general would certainly lower the moral back home.
britain had already been at war for a very long time, i think you underestimate how stubborn us brits are haha.
spiller is online now  
Old November 1st, 2013, 11:55 AM   #15
Historian
 
Joined: Jan 2013
From: Brigadoon
Posts: 4,435

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering View Post
I doubt if the people in Britain and the government as a whole were willing to go trough years of warfare again. Such a defeat of their best general would certainly lower the moral back home.
Quote:
Originally Posted by spiller View Post
britain had already been at war for a very long time, i think you underestimate how stubborn us brits are haha.
It's always the same with these continentals, always understimating the determination and resiliance of Britannia.

[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bIYP1ibYdZI"]Yes Minister--British Sausage - YouTube[/ame]
jackydee is offline  
Old November 1st, 2013, 12:06 PM   #16

EmperorTigerstar's Avatar
The Kaiser of Maps
 
Joined: Jun 2013
From: USA
Posts: 6,170
Blog Entries: 4

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mrbsct View Post
Is it possible that Napoleon could win the 100 days campaign(Waterloo campaign)?

If it did not rain and he was not sick do you think his plan would work out? He had to defeat Britan first, then Prussia, then Russia and Austria. That is 200,000 troops vs 1 million troops. Do you think its possible?
He could. But then he would have lost a battle some time later.
EmperorTigerstar is offline  
Old November 1st, 2013, 12:33 PM   #17

Toltec's Avatar
Fiddling as Rome Burns
 
Joined: Apr 2008
From: Hyperborea
Posts: 7,923

Quote:
Originally Posted by jeroenrottgering View Post
I doubt if the people in Britain and the government as a whole were willing to go trough years of warfare again. Such a defeat of their best general would certainly lower the moral back home.
The defeat of France's best field general at Apsern Essling, Krasnoi, and Leipzig didn't stop the French government wanting to fight on and he was commanding the main French army, whereas Wellington was commanding an advanced allied force and the main army still to set sail. I think this argument is little more than wishful thinking.
Toltec is offline  
Old November 1st, 2013, 12:37 PM   #18

Kevinmeath's Avatar
Acting Corporal
 
Joined: May 2011
From: Navan, Ireland
Posts: 12,092

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toltec View Post
The defeat of France's best field general at Apsern Essling, Krasnoi, and Leipzig didn't stop the French government wanting to fight on and he was commanding the main French army, whereas Wellington was commanding an advanced allied force and the main army still to set sail. I think this argument is little more than wishful thinking.
The British army also did not consist of conscripts but volunteers and long service regulars.
Kevinmeath is online now  
Old November 1st, 2013, 12:55 PM   #19
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,538

Quote:
Originally Posted by spiller View Post
britain had already been at war for a very long time, i think you underestimate how stubborn us brits are haha.
Haha I do not underestimate the stubborness of the British, but their are other factors involved.

1. Britain was fighting an unpopular war. It was a war in favor of absolute restoration in France, while the French were fighting for liberté and egalité, the British were fighting to gat good old fat Louis back on the throne. I can see that in a class structured society as Britain this reflect very poorly on the British. The Peterloo massacre although not especially connected to these events is an example of the unhappiness of the British populous. So no I do not doubt the res

2. Britain was in massive debt, not on the brink of bankrupcy but still. Their colonial posessions compensated a lot, but no nation can be at war for decades and don't feel the consequences eventually. To invest in another coalition and another BEF, may be to high of a cost for Britain to cross the channel ones again.

3. If Wellington, Britain's most renowned and loved general would have been crushed by Napoleon I wonder which other general would be up for the task. Next to that, the moral blow it would inflict upon Britain. A crisis such as that could very well topple the Tory government and bring the whigs back in power, who were far more willing to come to a compromise.
jeroenrottgering is offline  
Old November 1st, 2013, 01:02 PM   #20
Suspended indefinitely
 
Joined: Sep 2010
From: Somewhere in the former First French Empire
Posts: 3,538

Quote:
Originally Posted by Toltec View Post
The defeat of France's best field general at Apsern Essling, Krasnoi, and Leipzig didn't stop the French government wanting to fight on and he was commanding the main French army, whereas Wellington was commanding an advanced allied force and the main army still to set sail. I think this argument is little more than wishful thinking.
Napoleon was France and France was Napoleon, he wasn't a general sent out by the government to deal with the enemy like Wellington. If Napoleon wanted to continue then France wanted to continue, that's the benefit of being the ruler .

I think the British would think twice when their best field commander was defeated, the army with it, Prussia on the run and the Dutch back under the French wings. Without the possibility of linking up anywhere with allied troops and with Napoleon being able to muster more troops to the front I think what you call wishful thinking I call a possible reality.

But let's go a step further and Napoleon actually managed to pin down Wellington and even capture him, what then?
jeroenrottgering is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Speculative History

Tags
campaign, napoleon, waterloo, won



Search tags for this page
Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
What was Napoleon's fatal mistake at Waterloo? jeroenrottgering War and Military History 406 May 23rd, 2017 04:22 AM
What will Happen if Napoleon won the battle of Waterloo Young Guard Speculative History 10 October 9th, 2015 05:57 PM
Napoleon at waterloo Apachewarlord War and Military History 45 March 3rd, 2013 07:47 PM
What do you think of what Napoleon's motives were not to continue after Waterloo? jeroenrottgering European History 62 January 8th, 2013 12:53 PM
What would happen if Napoleon had won at Waterloo? jeroenrottgering Speculative History 105 June 22nd, 2011 03:22 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.