The Hundred Days 1815: Could Napoleon have won?

Half_Life_Expert#4276

The "second season" of my "What if/Could it?" threads began about a week ago with the one on Operation Sealion.
While a great discussion topic, I saw it as not lasting very long as most of us seemed to have had a general consensus of opinion: It had very small chances of success.

So, I returned to my ongoing list of topics in a secret location and decided to create one I had on my list from the beginning. It was originally labeled: "Battle of Waterloo: Could Napoleon Have Won?"

But I thought it would be more fun to look at the Hundred Days Campaign as a whole, also known as the War of the Seventh Coalition in 1815.

Here's the Wiki page (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hundred_Days) but ill give a short summary of what happened leading to this campaign:

Following France's defeat by the Allied Armies in 1814, Napoleon Bonaparte abdicated the throne of France and was Exiled with some of his loyal Guard Troops to the Mediterranean Island of Elba. He spent just under 10 months there, and then escaped with his Guards to France, where the new Monarch, Louis XVIII, sent army after army to stop him, only to have the vast majority flock to join the returning Emperor.

He marched into Paris practically unopposed and reclaimed the throne and all of France.

The rest of Europe however, was immediately outraged and declared Napoleon an International Outlaw. Practically all of Europe Declared war on not France, but Napoleon Himself.

He had basically little choice but to prepare for battle, and sought to preemptively engage the two most immediate threats to his throne:
The Prussian Army under Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher,

and the Anglo-Allied Army Under Arthur Wellesley, the 1st Duke of Wellington; Consisting of British Forces as well as Dutch forces and troops from Various German states (remember, Germany was not a unified nation yet)

In short, Napoleon first Engaged the Prussians at Ligny on June 16 1815 and drove them back. On the same day, Two of Napoleon's Corps Under Michel Ney, engaged elements of the Anglo Allied Army at the nearby Crossroads of Quatre Bras. The Anglo-Allied Forces withdrew.

Napoleon sent Emmanuel Grouchy's Corps to Pursue the retreating Prussians while he led the rest of his army against the Anglo-Allied Army now taking up positions on a ridge to the south of the Belgian town of Waterloo.

Two days after the battles of Ligny and Quatre Bras, June 18, occurred one of the most legendary battles in all of Human History: The Battle of Waterloo.

I could say so much right here, but I don't want to go on too much, so I just post the Wiki page: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo

In short, It was a hard fought battle, very close at some points, but Grouchy failed to effectively pin down the Prussian forces who escaped Ligny two days earlier. and they showed up on Napoleon's right flank and the battle was lost.

Napoleon soon abdicated again, and was exiled to the much farther away island of St Helena, in the mid-south Atlantic off the west coast of Africa. He spend the rest of his life there, dying in 1821

I now put forward this question:

Could Napoleon have defeated these two armies, and in turn achieved a critical defensive victory, allowing him to consolidate his claims and rebuild his empire over time?

I by no means think he could have totally defeated the Coalition at this stage, what I am saying is that if he could have crushed both the Prussian and Anglo Allied Armies, could he have bought enough time to get more forces and his country together to eventually regain total control of France, and possibly made a peace deal with the rest of Europe?

This thread requires discussion of two things:

The actual battles waged in mid June 1815.

and the larger Strategic and Political situation in 1815 Europe both during and after the Congress of Vienna.

I think this could be a really good one guys.

Go, discuss!

Simon Magi

On the tabletop when recreating the Battle of Waterloo, Napoleon has the advantage against Wellington, and it is difficult for the Brits/Allies to win. If Waterloo was refought 10 times in history I would imagine that Napoleon would win 6-7 times out of 10.

Long-term, could Napoleon have really continued on after winning at Waterloo and taken over Europe? I don't think so. I would be interested to hear what people think.. Personally, I think with nations like Britain and Russia fighting against the French, the supply lines and distances that would need to be covered would have been insurmountable.

The only way for Napoleon to win would have been to ally with the Brits or Russians, I think.

Hildor

I don't think France would have had the manpower or the will (after the disastrous Russian campaign) to go to war again for a protracted period. They would be hard put to even win a defensive war, as trying to muster new armies while eliminating royalist regions and fending off the combined forces of Britain, Prussia ,Austria and Russia, all of whom would be desperate to see the bourbons restored. The only peace agreement they would have come to would have the removal of Napoleon from the leadership of France

Lecourbe

I agree, that if Napoleon had actually won at Waterloo, taken Brussels, & run the Prussians out of Belgium, it would only have been a short term victory. The British component at Waterloo was only around 30-40,000 men at most, & after the allied victory in 1814, a lot of the Peninsular veteran troops had been posted abroad to the various colonies. They would have been instantly recalled & a new more experienced army put together.
There was also another Prussian corps under Gen.Kleist of 20-25,000 men in the Rhine/Moselle region. On the actual upper Rhine itself from Mainz to Strasbourg there was a very large army of Austrians, Russians, Bavarians, Hessians & various other minor German states asssembling to invade France. We are talking several hundreds of thousands against Gen. Rapp's 5th Corps of about 20,000 at Strasbourg, & Gen.Lecourbe's 10,000 near Belfort near the Swiss border. There was an Austrian army of over 70,000 in Savoy & Liguria under Gen.Frimont, opposed by Marshal Suchet with about 20,000 & Marshal Brune with about 6,000. On the Spanish border there were about 50,000 Spanish troops opposed by Gens. Decaen & Clausel with about 14,000 men. And to top it all there was a revolt by Royalist sympathisers in the Vendee region in the West around Nantes, being quelled by Gen.Lamarque with 11,000 men. Many of the troops in the smaller armies were made up of National guard (Home guard).
The French people had just had 25 years of warfare since the start of the Revolution, & although they were not at all kean on the Bourbon monarchy, they really needed a break to allow the country to recover.
No, he really couldn't have won & stayed on in power.

SmokeScreen

Awesome post Lecourbe! I know my Waterloo history, but mostly just the battle itself. What I didn't know much about though, was the overall situation. So thanks for a more expansive and comprehensive "SITREP".

...So in other words, Napoleon was in deep sh*t even if he'd won Waterloo.

Istvan

Napoleon stood no chance. Why had he been successful in the first place? I don't know much about warfare, or numbers of soldiers, but here is a mix of personality characteristics, socio-political and economic concepts I am familiar with:


1) Tactics. He had a brilliant and sharp mind that could spot and exploit the critical point in a battle to turn it in his favour; furthermore, he revolutionised battles with his tactics and strategies. This naturally caught his opponents off guard, but they eventually began to adapt, and his advantage was therefore lessened as the years proceeded.

2) Nationalism. His men were full of nationalistic fervor, with the centralised French state espousing a fabricated notion that all of its citizens are brothers who need to stand together to defend their homeland, culture and language (that was imposed upon the majority of France's population, seeing as how 200 years ago half of France did not even speak French). Much of Europe at the time, however, still consisted of natural, organic heterogeneous populations which had not yet been brainwashed by a centralized governments to believe that they are a single nation. Essentially, nationalist sentiment did not exist prior to the Napoleonic wars amongst France's enemies, and if was proto-nationalist sentiment then it was still rather weak and undeveloped. For that reason French soldiers were far more committed and devoted, feeling that they were serving a higher purpose, whereas the soldiers of France's enemies did not have these sentiments. They did not have a conception of fighting for a higher purpose, and so their morale was weaker and they exerted less effort in their duties. Furthermore, on a number of occasions the citizens and soldiers of France's enemies actually sympathised with France, believing that the French soldiers were bringing forth a new era of rationality, liberty, equality and brotherhood that would spread across the continent and unite Europe, implying that occasionally they felt more in common with the French than with their own elites.

This would change over the course of the war, as the conquered local populations realised the truth behind France's conquests. They were less about spreading the ideals of the enlightenment than about spreading the empire of one man: Napoleon Bonaparte, whose conquests benefited mainly the French and used the local populations to further his conquests. The result was that anti-French sentiment began to foster across the continent and that gave birth to nationalism amongst the conquered populations, who turned inwards to find liberation from the French occupation. Therefore, in the later stages of the Napoleonic Wars, the enemies of France began to greatly benefit from anti-French sentiment and nationalism, meaning another contributor to Napoleon's earlier successes was long undermined by the time of Waterloo.

3) Finances. Napoleon's Wars had in part been funded by the Louisiana Purchase and looting. This was not a constant, stable flow of income, and therefore as the war dragged on, funding it became increasingly difficult. This was not necessarily so for the enemies of France, who received constant financial contributions from the British, whose government was capable of repeatedly raising the necessary funds due to its good credit with investors and banks (since the British governments actually repaid their debts, unlike the absolutist monarchs of the continent that wrote off debts and then wondered why lenders were reluctant to continue financing the wars, seeing as the lenders became aware that they won't be repaid).

SmokeScreen

Istvan wrote: »

Napoleon stood no chance. Why had he been successful in the first place? I don't know much about warfare, or numbers of soldiers, but here are the socio-political and economic concepts I am familiar with:


1) Tactics. He had a brilliant and sharp mind that could spot and exploit the critical point in a battle to turn it in his favour; furthermore, he revolutionised battles with his tactics and strategies. This naturally caught his opponents off guard, but they eventually began to adapt, and his advantage was therefore lessened as the years proceeded.

Very true, and to my knowledge prior to the French Revolution Napoleon was a Lieutenant in an artillery regiment, and as such was specialized in the use of artillery. Much of Napoleons early success was because of very effective artillery.

Some quite famous quotes by Napoleon:
"God is on the side with the best artillery"

"Great battles are won with artillery"

"The worse the troops the greater the need of artillery" <- I think he is referring to the conscripts of the early years during the Napoleonic Wars.

"Artillery is more essential to cavalry than to infantry, because cavalry has no fire for its defense, but depends on the sabre"

Lecourbe

SmokeScreen wrote: »

Awesome post Lecourbe! I know my Waterloo history, but mostly just the battle itself. What I didn't know much about though, was the overall situation. So thanks for a more expansive and comprehensive "SITREP".

...So in other words, Napoleon was in deep sh*t even if he'd won Waterloo.

Thanks Smokey, I have made the Napoleonic Wars a hobby to study over the last 40 years, so I have tended to accumulate alot of facts & info on the subject. All of the replies above have great relevence to our favourite period, & I salute all our members who take the time to make a contribution to these threads. We can never stop learning, so let's share the knowledge with our friends.
My favourite part of this period at the moment is the French Revolutionary Wars, which were obviously the precursor to Napoleon's Empire. This episode from 1792 to 1800, is quite facinating because it shows how the famous characters we know from the Empire gained their laurels & rose to the fore as Napoleon's Marshals & Generals. This applies to the opponents as well as the French.
There are dozens of interesting battles of various scales/sizes during this time where these generals showed how they could win or even loose a battle. You mainly hear about Napoleon's adventures in North Italy, establishing his great reputation, but there were other great generals in that period too, on both sides. The French army at that time was going through a big transition from an 'Ancien regime' force, similar to the other great powers, to a new model army, if you like, with new tactics, & new young commanders.
You may be familiar with a lot of the names from the Napoleonic wars, & them appearing as General units in NTW. For the French, people like; Bernadotte, Massena, Lannes, Murat, Davout, Soult, Grouchy, Kleber, Desaix, Jourdan, Marmont, Delaborde, Serrurier, Junot ....etc.
For the Austrians; Archduke Charles, Archduke Ferdinand, Archduke John, Schwarzenberg, Hiller, Wurmser, Argenteau, Beaulieu, Wukassovich, Bellegarde, Rosenberg , Colloredo, Gyulai ....etc.
For the Russians; Kutusov, Buxhowden, Barclay de Tolly, Bagration, Kamenskoi, Raevski, Wittgenstein, Platov, Woronsov, Sievers,Tuchkov, Tolstoi, Sacken .... etc.
All these men made their way up from various lower ranks during the Revolutionary wars, maybe apart from some of the nobility, who were already privileged to be generals from the start ...... the Archdukes etc.

Half_Life_Expert#4276

My stance is that Napoleon very much could have defeated the Prussian and Anglo Allied Armies if some things had gone differently, such as Grouchy preventing the Prussians from regrouping after Ligny. Or Napoleon trying to flank wellington on the Anglo Allied Army's right flank at Waterloo

but in the long run Napoleon was doomed from the moment he stepped onto that boat that snuck if from Elba.

Europe had had enough of the little corpral and was not about to let him take control of france again.

Napoleon's only real hope was to somehow rally the entire population that was fit for combat (not to mention supplying and training them) and use his brilliance as well as the brilliance of many of his marshals to win a ton of defensive victories and hope that the Seventh Coalition (which was basically ALL of Europe) would get sick of fighting and let him be. I think even Napoleon himself could see no situation in which he could pull that scenario off.

Also, as a side note, my list of topics is running low, I thought of a couple more today, but I personally am running low on ideas. I am trying to think of ones that are not as obvious as some of the past ones.

as many of you are familiar with many more parts of military history than myself, I ask you all to ether suggest ideas to me via PM, or make your own thread on the "What if/Could it?" type of military history question, just like what Rath Darkblade did with the Battle of Marathon and Tyer032392 with the Battle of Cannae

finally, as there have been a number of these threads so far, mine as well as the two spin offs, im trying to think of a way to gather links to all of them together in one place for easy access. any ideas?

Imperial Guard

Lecourbe wrote: »

All these men made their way up from various lower ranks during the Revolutionary wars, maybe apart from some of the nobility, who were already privileged to be generals from the start ...... the Archdukes etc.

Don't forget the Russians. I think they had more generals because of their nobility background instead of military achievements than any other country at this period. Not only the top ranking generals but also even the low ranking officers would have easier approach to their position then someone without noble ancestry. Not only that but the russian generals often weren't with russian origin but rather were born abroad and came in service at the russian court.

OT
As it was already said, even if the French won at Waterloo (it's a surprise that they even lost) that wouldn't be long lasting because the other empires wouldn't want to go through the previous years again and would most certainly commenced an immediate all out attack on France. In that case Napoleon simply lacked the proper training end experience on both his soldiers and officers and I'm not sure that France was in logistic context able to carry out such a feat.

Hildor

Half Life Expert wrote: »

Also, as a side note, my list of topics is running low, I thought of a couple more today, but I personally am running low on ideas. I am trying to think of ones that are not as obvious as some of the past ones.

What if Japan surrendered to the soviets before the Americans, forestalling any use of the nuclear bomb (and ensuring no-one knew it's full potential)

Lecourbe

Imperial Guard wrote: »

Don't forget the Russians. I think they had more generals because of their nobility background instead of military achievements than any other country at this period. Not only the top ranking generals but also even the low ranking officers would have easier approach to their position then someone without noble ancestry. Not only that but the russian generals often weren't with russian origin but rather were born abroad and came in service at the russian court.

Yes, many Russian senior generals were ethnically foreign to Russia. From Prussian origins came, Bennigsen, Wittgenstein & possibly Buxhowden, Sacken, Diebitsch, & Winzingerode. There was also Prinz Eugen von Wurtemburg & Prinz Karl of Mecklenburg. And, from French noble exile, Langeron & St.Priest. There was even a Russian cavalry corps commander, active with Winzingerode's corps in 1813-14, of Irish origins, called O'Rourke.

JeanLannes

It's pretty clear that Napoleon would have been able to beat the British and their Allies at Waterloo, if Blucher had not arrived. Even as it was, it was a close run thing. But, to have gone on to win another European war Napoleon himself would have known it was impossible. His Marshals had had enough of fighting. He was in ill health and the brilliance he had shown during the 1814 campaign which matched his early years in Italy was not available to him any more. He was just too old. As Wellington had said, Napoleon's hat on the field of battle was worth 40,000 men. At Waterloo, he was outnumbered 70,000 to 110,000 including the Prussians, thus Wellington's quantitative assessment was correct. In a wider war, however, he would be consistently outnumbered much more than that.

tat501

Bruno wrote: »

It's pretty clear that Napoleon would have been able to beat the British and their Allies at Waterloo, if Blucher had not arrived. Even as it was, it was a close run thing. But, to have gone on to win another European war Napoleon himself would have known it was impossible. His Marshals had had enough of fighting. He was in ill health and the brilliance he had shown during the 1814 campaign which matched his early years in Italy was not available to him any more. He was just too old. As Wellington had said, Napoleon's hat on the field of battle was worth 40,000 men. At Waterloo, he was outnumbered 70,000 to 110,000 including the Prussians, thus Wellington's quantitative assessment was correct. In a wider war, however, he would be consistently outnumbered much more than that.

Necrod because its 200 years today.

I will say this - its not "pretty clear" that Napoleon would have won if Blucher's corps hadn't arrived when they did. It was about 9pm. The young guard were holding (one battalion beat a Prussian division back). However, Napoleon knew at that point time was off the essence which was why he committed the Old Guard forwards at that point. They were beaten back by the British guards and the rest of Halkett's Brigade. Would the French have been able to regroup after this morale shock at 9pm in the evening? I doubt it.

Waterloo was lost at about this time - 5pm in the afternoon. Just after La Haye Sainte fell and the French were once again overly reliant on their artillery bombardment of the British ridge. They should have really pressed the attack with infantry and cavalry in a combined arms attack at that point. For some reason, they didn't. No one to this day knows why. Napoleon was ill apparently but again, there is no explanation for this or why he left the field at this point - or for how long. Its become myth. The fact was that without him Ney was in charge, and whilst he was an incredibly brave man, heroic and dashing, and an honourable solider, he was not Napoleon. When he saw Wellington remove his men from the ridge (which he could do because for some reason the French weren't attacking) to protect them from the cannonade on the reverse slope, Ney made a mistake of thinking it was a full retreat and so sacrificed the armies entire cavalry in the greatest but most futile charge in history. If he'd realised his mistake at some point in the next half hour he could have withdrawn and no harm would have been done - but he didn't. They attacked over and over and over again. Magnificently brave, but utterly foolish - a bit like poor Ney himself (who had 6 horses shot from under him!). That cost the French cavalry - but more importantly cost about 2 or 3 hours of daylight.

Happy Waterloo day anyway gentlemen and God Save the Queen.

Sulieman the Magnficent

If Davout had been in Waterloo, this would have been a different story.

Lets not forget, if Napoleon wins Waterloo, he still has to face the Austrian and Russian Armies( which no doubt he will send Davout into),

The situation seems impossible - but then wasn't Marengo about to lose? He will lose in the end, but it will be a repeat of the 1813-14 campaign where he kept on winning battles despite losing his empire.