How far would Prussian reinforcements (the northern-German army, and the 3 Prussian corps) be, at this point? As in, could Blücher have opted for a forced march of those corps to reinforce him just as Napoleon is marching to reinforce Grouchy?
If Napoleon can deliver a crushing blow to the Prussians he might cause the break up of the coalition. There would be pressure on the Russians to withdraw from the War and even the Austrians might have second thoughts. The defeat of Wellington followed by a defeat of the Prussians would put pressure on the British government to end the war.
The imminent Battle of Tienen may well be critical to the future of this campaign for both sides and it might well be decided by whose reinforcements arrive first or indeed whether the Prussian reinforcements arrive in time. Should Napoleon pull off a decisive victory here and destroy Blucher's four corps it will be an important turning point
. If he fails o achieve this it will make a war of attrition that France cannot win all but inevitable.
Wellington's defeat at Waterloo has undone the British belief that Wellington could defeat anyone. If anything Britain is even more war weary than France. She is also just about out of money. Word of any victory by Napoleon might very well bring the government down.
I have little doubt that the Czar's brother and his advisers are calling for Russia to withdraw from the war. A defeat of Blucher could also trigger an uprising in the new Prussian territories in Western Germany. Prussian rule wasn't popular.
What of the follow-up battle if even a remnant of the coalition (which still outweigh the French in potential manpower, right) - say a vengeful Blucher or a remorseless Alexander I follows to France right away? Bar a massive Jena style victory does Bonaparte have the manpower (given that they were reduced to recruiting teenagers to defend the interior) to maintain superiority.
Even a small defeat is something Napoleon can't afford. Especially when he's promised the people of France "peace" as part of the price of becoming Emperor again. Outside of the coalition folding up its tent (which I don't see happening this go around) there's no way France has the numbers to hold out if the Allies just keep pouring it on. There is no Italy (Murat still gets defeated) in the East for reinforcements/money/food and France no longer holds Spain in the West. Napoleon also has ZERO allies (no Saxony, Bavaria, etc. this time)
It nearly did in TTL. There was a short lived political and financial panic when it was thought that Wellington's army had indeed been destroyed. Thanks to Blucher of course it was not. And of course, though Blucher's army was badly mauled at Waterloo and Plachenoit he escaped thanks to the non arrival f Grouchy, badly delayed dur to Thielmann's counter attack at Wavre on he morning of 19 June.
If Blucher suffers another defeat it could well deepen political divisions within the Coalition. There were however quirte a few such defeats in 1813 and 1814. That said the Coalition Powers had not then almost gone to war with each other over Saxony.
It nearly did in TTL. There was a short lived political and financial panic when it was thought that Wellington's army had indeed been destroyed. Thanks to Blucher of course it was not. And of course, though Blucher's army was badly mauled at Waterloo and Plachenoit he escaped thanks to the non arrival f Grouchy, badly delayed dur to Thielmann's counter attack at Wavre on he morning of 19 June.
If Blucher suffers another defeat it could well deepen political divisions within the Coalition. There were however quirte a few such defeats in 1813 and 1814. That said the Coalition Powers had not then almost gone to war with each other over Saxony.
When was the last time that Napoleon destroyed an army?
The only occasions that he managed to do this that I can recall are Austerlitz and Jena-Auerstadt. Possibly you can make the case in the Italian campaigns but the recent history has shown that the grand strategic envelopments that he achieved early in his career were just not possible once the Coalition had learnt to be cautious over their lines of communication
Trouble is that a Napoleon who is (or thinks he is) winning is hardly likely to accept he French borders of 1792. He'll want Belgium at least and probably a good deal more, which in turn means that Prussia at any rate will need to be compensated elsewhere, thus throwing all the agreements, arrived at with such difficulty, into the melting pot.
Will the Allies be ok with that, or will it just seem simpler to continue the war? .
Why would the allies acquiesce?
Spain and Portugal (to France's western frontiers) hated Napoleon, so did Prussia. Bonaparte annexed the Netherlands and invaded Russia. Now Bonaparte is proclaiming he wants to live in peace with these countries. Are we really supposed to think Alexander I in his newfound religious zeal will be so cool with letting Napoleon stay on the throne? Remember it was Alexander who had suggested Elba promising there would be no trouble when others wanted Bonaparte farther away. Bonaparte made the Tsar look like a fool. The virtual imprisonment of Marie Louise (not that she minded) and Nap II in Austria showed A-H would never let those two go back to France (and Bonaparte would have to invade to get them back which he was in no position to do). Britain having defeated Bonaparte once and sent him packing was not going to lose the power and prestige gained by letting France becoming hegemon over the Continent again. The Coalition still outnumbers the French by a huge number even if they lost Waterloo and smaller battles. It is Bonaparte who cannot take even a single defeat and survive.
Now let's look at things from the French side (particularly from a political point of view):
1) France is weary of war. In fact Napoleon during the Hundred Days promised peace. He lied and said Austria was on his side and that Marie Louise and his son and heir were on their way back to France (he even made a show of preparing their rooms at Fountainbleu). He knew this to be false (and soon all of France would know it too) and even a win at Waterloo would mean tens of thousands of French causalities. Full scale hostilities that will seem to continue without end is something no one in France wants. Demographics were no longer on France's side since they had wasted so many men in their wars.
2) He no longer had some of his marshals - some stayed loyal to Louis XVIII, some stayed neutral and some were dead. Even those who turned back to him, like Ney, would openly say later they personally loathed Bonaparte as a man. The longer the war lasts the more demands a victorious Coalition is going to demand on France - there will no more generous peace of 1814.
3) Spain was gone, Italy was gone, the Confederation of the Rhine was gone, Illyria was gone - all those French conquests whose lands, people and riches had been looted and used to fuel Napoleon's wars were gone and France was back to defending its 1792 borders. The Continental System he used to try to hold Britain in check could never be resurrected either.
4) He had no allies. Zero. Bavaria and Saxony, gone. Murat gone. The Italian peninsula was no longer in his hands and France no longer had the manpower to go on wars to retrieve them.
5) The Levee en masse was no more. During the 100 days Bonaparte was reduced to recruiting teenagers to defend the French homeland. And as pointed out even most of the French calvary horses were lost at Waterloo. And I don't think the people would have stood for another recruit drive of their sons and fathers just so Napoleon could keep a throne. Not to mention not all of France was with him - the Pyrenees, the Vendee, cities like Bourdeux, they were still Royalist strongholds. And there were probably more than that considering the how quickly many flew the Bourbon flag following the 100 Days and the wrath of the White Terror that followed.
6) He no longer had the support of the Church. Yes, some prelates still followed him during the 100 days but this was a man who held the pope (who was now back in Rome where Napoleon wasn't strong enough to have him kidnapped again) for YEARS in solitary confinement to bend him to his will. When Napoleon came back he largely proclaimed that he was no longer in the conquest business, that he accepted the borders as is but this was the same man who told the pope that he (Napoleon) was the new Charlemagne and master over Europe and the Church. Is anyone really likely to forget that?
7) Who was Napoleon's heir going to be? Joseph? So despised by the Spanish (he even stole many of the Spanish crown jewels when he left and lived off the proceeds for the rest of his life) and looked at with contempt by other European nations. It sure as heck wouldn't be Nap II, there was no way Austria was letting that boy out of their grasp and there was no way Bonaparte and all his claims to "peace" could get him without invasion.
I just don't see how Bonaparte survives even with a Waterloo victory. In retrospect he would have been better off staying at Elba. It was just hubris that convinced him (and so many generals) that there would be no problem with him coming back as if nothing had happened. Or that the French Army of 1815 was the same one as a decade earlier.
Why would the allies acquiesce?
Spain and Portugal (to France's western frontiers) hated Napoleon, so did Prussia. Bonaparte annexed the Netherlands and invaded Russia. Now Bonaparte is proclaiming he wants to live in peace with these countries. Are we really supposed to think Alexander I in his newfound religious zeal will be so cool with letting Napoleon stay on the throne? Remember it was Alexander who had suggested Elba promising there would be no trouble when others wanted Bonaparte farther away. Bonaparte made the Tsar look like a fool. The virtual imprisonment of Marie Louise (not that she minded) and Nap II in Austria showed A-H would never let those two go back to France (and Bonaparte would have to invade to get them back which he was in no position to do). Britain having defeated Bonaparte once and sent him packing was not going to lose the power and prestige gained by letting France becoming hegemon over the Continent again. The Coalition still outnumbers the French by a huge number even if they lost Waterloo and smaller battles. It is Bonaparte who cannot take even a single defeat and survive.
Now let's look at things from the French side (particularly from a political point of view):
1) France is weary of war. In fact Napoleon during the Hundred Days promised peace. He lied and said Austria was on his side and that Marie Louise and his son and heir were on their way back to France (he even made a show of preparing their rooms at Fountainbleu). He knew this to be false (and soon all of France would know it too) and even a win at Waterloo would mean tens of thousands of French causalities. Full scale hostilities that will seem to continue without end is something no one in France wants. Demographics were no longer on France's side since they had wasted so many men in their wars.
2) He no longer had some of his marshals - some stayed loyal to Louis XVIII, some stayed neutral and some were dead. Even those who turned back to him, like Ney, would openly say later they personally loathed Bonaparte as a man. The longer the war lasts the more demands a victorious Coalition is going to demand on France - there will no more generous peace of 1814.
3) Spain was gone, Italy was gone, the Confederation of the Rhine was gone, Illyria was gone - all those French conquests whose lands, people and riches had been looted and used to fuel Napoleon's wars were gone and France was back to defending its 1792 borders. The Continental System he used to try to hold Britain in check could never be resurrected either.
4) He had no allies. Zero. Bavaria and Saxony, gone. Murat gone. The Italian peninsula was no longer in his hands and France no longer had the manpower to go on wars to retrieve them.
5) The Levee en masse was no more. During the 100 days Bonaparte was reduced to recruiting teenagers to defend the French homeland. And as pointed out even most of the French calvary horses were lost at Waterloo. And I don't think the people would have stood for another recruit drive of their sons and fathers just so Napoleon could keep a throne. Not to mention not all of France was with him - the Pyrenees, the Vendee, cities like Bourdeux, they were still Royalist strongholds. And there were probably more than that considering the how quickly many flew the Bourbon flag following the 100 Days and the wrath of the White Terror that followed.
6) He no longer had the support of the Church. Yes, some prelates still followed him during the 100 days but this was a man who held the pope (who was now back in Rome where Napoleon wasn't strong enough to have him kidnapped again) for YEARS in solitary confinement to bend him to his will. When Napoleon came back he largely proclaimed that he was no longer in the conquest business, that he accepted the borders as is but this was the same man who told the pope that he (Napoleon) was the new Charlemagne and master over Europe and the Church. Is anyone really likely to forget that?
7) Who was Napoleon's heir going to be? Joseph? So despised by the Spanish (he even stole many of the Spanish crown jewels when he left and lived off the proceeds for the rest of his life) and looked at with contempt by other European nations. It sure as heck wouldn't be Nap II, there was no way Austria was letting that boy out of their grasp and there was no way Bonaparte and all his claims to "peace" could get him without invasion.
I just don't see how Bonaparte survives even with a Waterloo victory. In retrospect he would have been better off staying at Elba. It was just hubris that convinced him (and so many generals) that there would be no problem with him coming back as if nothing had happened. Or that the French Army of 1815 was the same one as a decade earlier.
I agree with all this, and I consider myself to be a bit of a Nappy fanboy. France in 1815 is not the France of 1811, let alone 1805. The power disparity is too great. The only thing that the French can do is prolong their defeat.
Oh, and it isn't just Napoleon who would have been better off in Elba. France also would have been better off as they actually got off rather lightly in 1814, all things considered. It would have a bit more territory today without the 100 Days.
I agree with all this, and I consider myself to be a bit of a Nappy fanboy. France in 1815 is not the France of 1811, let alone 1805. The power disparity is too great. The only thing that the French can do is prolong their defeat.
Oh, and it isn't just Napoleon who would have been better off in Elba. France also would have been better off as they actually got off rather lightly in 1814, all things considered. It would have a bit more territory today without the 100 Days.
I would agree that France was war weary but what is often overlooked is the fact that Great Britain was too. The war was very unpopular as was the high amount of taxes that were being paid. To be honest Britain was just about broke having funded all of the wars against Napoleon. The Defeat of Wellington would have hit the country like a sledge hammer. The so called invincible Wellington defeated.. Should Blucher be crushed it would probably be all that was needed to topple the government and allow the opposition to come to power. This would mean Britain would wash its hands of the conflict.
It also needs to be pointed out that the Bourbons actions after 1814 is what gave Napoleon the chance to come back. The King's brother was an idot in his actions.
As for Alexander I being made to look like a fool regarding Elba remember the allied powers broke most of the promises that they made to Napoleon and were even then planning on removing him from Elba.
While the Spanish and Portuguese governments had little love for Napoleon both had bigger problems to face. In the America's Spain was facing a serious threat to its power as revolts broke out. Even in Spain the Bourbon King was not exactly strong. While both countries might maintain the fiction of being at war with France I doubt if there was a real threat.
I would agree that it is unlikely that any of the German states would switch sides it is possible that another major defeat would see them move to being inactive.
Denmark would move to be inactive. It had little love for the British and the Swedes. Sweden had grabbed Finland and the British had attacked Denmark many years before.
The Czar's brother and other key advisers urged him to pull back as there was the real risk of a revolt in the Polish territories as well as possible problems with the Ottomans.
Should Blucher suffer a defeat there was the real prospect that Prussians western territories might revolt. The Catholic western Germans had little love for the protestant Prussians.
As for the Austrian Empire they may have recovered a lot of lost territory but how secure was their control of Italy. The Empire must look at both Russia and Prussia and see a potential threat. The Saxon problem had shown them to be weary of so called allies.