If Napoleon had won his "Waterloo" ....

[decaro]

from Yahoo News:

"It is the evening of June 18, 1815 and an exultant Napoleon Bonaparte surveys the field after winning the Battle of Waterloo, planning his next conquest.

"Within years his empire will stretch as far as China, French will be spoken across the continent, and in the 20th century a global war between the great powers will be avoided because of the stability his rule created (emphasis mine).

"These are some of the alternate histories that writers and experts have envisaged had Napoleon really been victorious in the battle 200 years ago, which actually ended in his humiliating defeat and exile at the hands of British and Prussian forces...."

http://news.yahoo.com/french-speaking-e ... 56366.html

[Alchenar]

The article's just ridiculous and is puffing up what the historian himself calls 'pinch of salt' counter-history. If Napoleon wins at Waterloo then that gains him maybe a few weeks until the Russian and Austrian armies arrive in France and then he has nothing left to throw at him

As for the relationship with Germany - that has way more to do with the effects of the Industrial revolution and the War of 1870 than anything to do with Waterloo.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: Alchenar

The article's just ridiculous and is puffing up what the historian himself calls 'pinch of salt' counter-history. If Napoleon wins at Waterloo then that gains him maybe a few weeks until the Russian and Austrian armies arrive in France and then he has nothing left to throw at him....

Historian Philippe Raxhon admitted that even if Napoleon had won at Waterloo -- actually Mont-Saint-Jean -- it wouldn't have been a "total victory," so one has to "imagine" if Bonaparte can eventually defeat the rest of Europe to realize his larger ambitions.

Two too many "ifs'.

[wings7]

Interesting article, thanks Joe! [:)]

Patrick

[warspite1]

Alchenar, you have said this article is ridiculous. I think that in using the word ridiculous you are being incredibly kind to this piece of garbage.

In fairness the historian does say it should be taken with a pinch of salt, but then numerous other historians are quoted and as far as we know they are stating what they do with a straight face.

“Within years his empire will stretch as far as China”

So after years of defeats, with the French nation assailed from all sides, he wins one battle in the north, and suddenly what? The Austrians, British, Prussians and Russians simply evaporate?

“Within years…..French will be spoken across the continent”

Wow, that’s impressive…..

“and in the 20th century a global war between the great powers will be avoided because of the stability his rule created”.

Slight problem here… its total sloblocks. Even if we suspend disbelief for a moment and entertain the idea that France in 1815 is in any position to defeat the Empires ranged against it, why does the author think the conquered peoples of Europe would be delighted to be under French rule and not rebel – like every other time a country has taken another by force?

What so Napoleon’s rule is soooo enlightened that your average Prussian or Austrian will be gagging to dismiss their own culture, way of life, language and history and learn the wonders of the French language and embrace the impossibly perfect society that is Napoleonic Europe? Ooooohh I’m gagging with disappointment at missing out….

At least the Belgian historian does not appear to be living in cloud cuckoo land and recognises that the coalition ranged against Napoleon would actually do something about it.

"If Napoleon followed his original plans for 1810, he would have invaded Russia again and potentially extended his empire as far as China," Helmut Stubbe da Luz said

Yes, that is right. And if Army Detachment Steiner had beaten the Soviets during the Battle for Berlin, Hitler would have extended his empire to China too…… Funny that the historian who said this, didn’t wonder why Napoleon couldn’t beat the Russians in 1812?

Then the best bits…

“But what would an all-powerful Napoleon have been like to live under?”

"The dictatorship that Napoleon exported to the countries under his domination was a regression compared to the progress of the French Revolution, but it wasn't bad for his new subjects in Germany, Holland, Italy and Spain," he said.

He cited the "equality of rights for religious minorities and rural populations, the right to vote for men, a new judicial system and an expanded economic area".

Well we all like living under a dictatorship right?

Oh yes, and I recall reading about how delighted the Spanish populace were in 1808 when “humanitarian of the year” Napoleon Bonaparte stabbed his ally in the back and sought to take over the country and install French rule on the Spanish people – how they laughed at this spiffing wheeze….

In fact I recall reading that people all over the continent were equally delighted to have members of Napoleon’s family and close friends ruling over them…. No nepotism there then - how enlightened...

Cautiously looking further into the future, the historian imagines a "continental Europe dominated by France" throughout the 19th century.
Had that happened Germany would not have become so strong during that period, he says.

"Germany would therefore probably not have been in a position to provoke a First and Second World War," he said.

So now we know, if we had let Germany dominate Europe in the 1940’s we would never have had the cold war, Korea, Vietnam blah blah blah.

What a load of old toss.

[decaro]

ORIGINAL: wings7

Interesting article, thanks Joe! [:)]

Patrick

Thanks for your appreciation, but the real entertainment is watching everyone take the article apart.

[Agathosdaimon]

i saw the article, and thought it fanciful pfaff at best -as the others say, napoleon had nothing after waterloo that would be any match for the many nations against him. waterloo was well past even being a swansong
a decade prior he had it all more or less, a grande armee, diplomatic capital in playing and twissting alliances, new modes of warfare, and was even well received by some of the german lands...for a little while at least, as some viewed him as a liberator in comparison to their own governments, but come 1815, what does he have beyond waterloo? how would he even be able to think about conquering russia - no one can conquer russia, and all Europe was savvy to Napoleon's strategies.

[wings7]

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: wings7

Interesting article, thanks Joe! [:)]

Patrick

Thanks for your appreciation, but the real entertainment is watching everyone take the article apart.

Freedom of speech, isn't is great! Robert (warspite1) is an eloquent writer, indeed! [&o]

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Agathosdaimon

i saw the article, and thought it fanciful pfaff at best -as the others say, napoleon had nothing after waterloo that would be any match for the many nations against him. waterloo was well past even being a swansong
a decade prior he had it all more or less, a grande armee, diplomatic capital in playing and twissting alliances, new modes of warfare, and was even well received by some of the german lands...for a little while at least, as some viewed him as a liberator in comparison to their own governments, but come 1815, what does he have beyond waterloo? how would he even be able to think about conquering russia - no one can conquer russia, and all Europe was savvy to Napoleon's strategies.

warspite1

Apologies its been a while since I read on the Napoleonic wars so I am going from memory here.

Even his strategies I believe have been over-hyped.

What was the strategy at Borodino? What was the strategy at Friedland? Full frontal slogs. It is generally recognised that the battle of Jena(?) was won by one of his Corps commanders.

Waterloo was a mess - and while blame may fall on the inability of others due to Napoleon's ill-health, it was Napoleon who was responsible for picking his staff for the battle. What the hell was Soult doing as CoS?? And was Ney really a sensible choice? Even if he was then he should have been sacked after his mis-handling of Quatre Bras.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: wings7

ORIGINAL: Joe D.

ORIGINAL: wings7

Interesting article, thanks Joe! [:)]

Patrick

Thanks for your appreciation, but the real entertainment is watching everyone take the article apart.

Freedom of speech, isn't is great! Robert (warspite1) is an eloquent writer, indeed! [&o]

warspite1

Don't give me that Freedom of Speech crap Patrick. I want to live in a French dominated Dictatorship....[:D]

[wings7]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

ORIGINAL: wings7

ORIGINAL: Joe D.







Thanks for your appreciation, but the real entertainment is watching everyone take the article apart.

Freedom of speech, isn't is great! Robert (warspite1) is an eloquent writer, indeed! [&o]

warspite1

Don't give me that Freedom of Speech crap Patrick. I want to live in a French dominated Dictatorship....[:D]

[:D]

[tcarusil]

What about the Saturday Night Live alternative history: "What if Napoleon had a B-52". Maybe then China[:)]

[Aurelian]

ORIGINAL: warspite1

Alchenar, you have said this article is ridiculous. I think that in using the word ridiculous you are being incredibly kind to this piece of garbage.

In fairness the historian does say it should be taken with a pinch of salt, but then numerous other historians are quoted and as far as we know they are stating what they do with a straight face.

“Within years his empire will stretch as far as China”

So after years of defeats, with the French nation assailed from all sides, he wins one battle in the north, and suddenly what? The Austrians, British, Prussians and Russians simply evaporate?

“Within years…..French will be spoken across the continent”

Wow, that’s impressive…..

“and in the 20th century a global war between the great powers will be avoided because of the stability his rule created”.

Slight problem here… its total sloblocks. Even if we suspend disbelief for a moment and entertain the idea that France in 1815 is in any position to defeat the Empires ranged against it, why does the author think the conquered peoples of Europe would be delighted to be under French rule and not rebel – like every other time a country has taken another by force?

What so Napoleon’s rule is soooo enlightened that your average Prussian or Austrian will be gagging to dismiss their own culture, way of life, language and history and learn the wonders of the French language and embrace the impossibly perfect society that is Napoleonic Europe? Ooooohh I’m gagging with disappointment at missing out….

At least the Belgian historian does not appear to be living in cloud cuckoo land and recognises that the coalition ranged against Napoleon would actually do something about it.

"If Napoleon followed his original plans for 1810, he would have invaded Russia again and potentially extended his empire as far as China," Helmut Stubbe da Luz said

Yes, that is right. And if Army Detachment Steiner had beaten the Soviets during the Battle for Berlin, Hitler would have extended his empire to China too…… Funny that the historian who said this, didn’t wonder why Napoleon couldn’t beat the Russians in 1812?

Then the best bits…

“But what would an all-powerful Napoleon have been like to live under?”

"The dictatorship that Napoleon exported to the countries under his domination was a regression compared to the progress of the French Revolution, but it wasn't bad for his new subjects in Germany, Holland, Italy and Spain," he said.

He cited the "equality of rights for religious minorities and rural populations, the right to vote for men, a new judicial system and an expanded economic area".

Well we all like living under a dictatorship right?

Oh yes, and I recall reading about how delighted the Spanish populace were in 1808 when “humanitarian of the year” Napoleon Bonaparte stabbed his ally in the back and sought to take over the country and install French rule on the Spanish people – how they laughed at this spiffing wheeze….

In fact I recall reading that people all over the continent were equally delighted to have members of Napoleon’s family and close friends ruling over them…. No nepotism there then - how enlightened...

Cautiously looking further into the future, the historian imagines a "continental Europe dominated by France" throughout the 19th century.
Had that happened Germany would not have become so strong during that period, he says.

"Germany would therefore probably not have been in a position to provoke a First and Second World War," he said.

So now we know, if we had let Germany dominate Europe in the 1940’s we would never have had the cold war, Korea, Vietnam blah blah blah.

What a load of old toss.

Back in the day when Simulations Publications Inc was in business, this came up. The answer, more or less. "Now add 200 Austrian 4-4 pieces and have at it."

Winning Waterloo, or Mont St Jean if he had won. would of really been meaningless. Beating the Anglo-Prussian armies wouldn't be enough. He'd have to destroy the two armies. And that would not only of been costly, but moving on France we had the Army of the Upper Rhine (264,000) and the First Russian Army (164,000)

The Napoleon of 1815 was not the Napoleon of 1805 or even 1809.

[Jagdtiger14]

The best Napy could have hoped for was to hang on to France, take and hang on to Flanders (generally favorable population, which is why he went there in 1815), and Germany west of the Rhine River (even today Germans in that area are pro-Napy, anti-Prussian when discussing that era).

As for the campaign, why the heck was not his #1 Marshall involved (Davout)?...he keeps Davout in Paris to raise a reserve army. Imagine if it had been Davout instead of Ney. But again, even at the most optimistic, there is no getting east of the Rhine for him 1815+.

[Curtis Lemay]

If you go back to when Napoleon was General Bonaparte and not Emperor Napoleon, he was viewed as a liberator. Remember that Beethoven had dedicated his 3rd symphony to him (later retracted, of course). The rest of Europe was not a bunch of democracies. They were almost entirely hereditary monarchies. At least one of them had only recently suffered a disastrous revolt in one of its overseas colonies triggered by that colony's desire to be free from hereditary monarchy.

Certainly, by Waterloo the jig was up, of course. It was probably over the minute he declared himself Emperor. But prior to that, the idea of Europe going French in a big way might have been doable - if only Napoleon had stuck to the script.

[warspite1]

Interesting idea but I just don't see it. History tells us that people just fundamentally don't like being told what to do by any foreign invader.

"Hey our king may be a 24-carat twat, but do you know what? He's our twat - and at least he's not [French, German, Spanish, Russian, Italian, Swedish, British, American etc - insert to taste or as befits the scenario]".

And that assumes of course that Napoleon was soooo great. Was he? Really? The way some people talk about him its like he was this great super-being, this great humanitarian, this all-knowing colossus....

As you say, whatever people thought he might be, crowning himself Emperor? King and Queen jobs for family and friends? Noooooooooooo...... Epic fail.

[Jagdtiger14]

The reason Germans west of the Rhine liked Napy is because he exported to them ideals of the French revolution that they for the first time enjoyed (private property, etc...)...the loss of these "liberties" remained a sore at least in the Palatinate until the failed revolution in 1848.

[warspite1]

ORIGINAL: Jagdtiger14

The reason Germans west of the Rhine liked Napy is because he exported to them ideals of the French revolution that they for the first time enjoyed (private property, etc...)...the loss of these "liberties" remained a sore at least in the Palatinate until the failed revolution in 1848.

warspite1

I'm certainly not disputing that many liked and admired him - and I am equally sure that he was not all bad.

However, the fundamental point is that people do not like others telling them what to do. Particularly when that includes something like:

"Right geezers listen up. I've had this great idea, I'm going to invade Russia. Only thing is, I don't have enough Frenchman for the job. So I'm going to ask all you nice Italians, Germans, Poles etc etc to "volunteer" to help me. I'm sure you won't mind dying for the greater glory of France in general and for me in particular [:)]. Anyway, hurry along now I can't wait around all day, I've got to get to China......"

That sort of thing really tends to wee on a man's cherrios.....

[histgamer]

Napoleon's real hope would have been a crushing blow at Ligny, a blow that annihilates the Prussians. Such a blow could have happened perhaps had those 40,000 men come in on the Prussian flank. The lack of experience in the Prussian Army could have caused a panic and effectively destroyed the Prussian field army. In that case Wellington withdraws and the Austrian's and Russian's may have waited for Wellington to redeploy to their armies (which would have taken weeks if not a month or two) or gone at it alone. With the Prussian's likely busy reforming Austria and Russia combined would be a far less formidable obstacle for Napoleon and the other troops he had training and forming elsewhere in France. Still a tough ask but it's feasible Austria and Russia put off a summer offensive all together if the British and Prussian's are removed from the equation.

Keep in mind this is all highly hypothetical and unlikely but I think Ligny was the better chance. I just don't see Napoleon having the strength to defeat the British in anything more than a minor victory and still having the energy and power to turn on the Prussian's and defeat them in detail as they came up. If Napoleon was unable to remove both the Prussian's and British from the equation the Russian's and Austrian's would be in conjunction with Prussia or Britain to strong.

[jday305]

Alternate history is nothing but fiction with some tidbits of fact. No one can really know what would really happen if Napoleon actually won the battle of Waterloo except that history would have change for France. This change would have probably be short-lived but who knows for sure. I love alternate history stories for only the enjoyment of a good story. Harry Turtledove has done a great job of what if the south won the civil war. It lasted about 12 books but was a great read if only not the most realistic in fact.