If Bonaparte won the Battle of Waterloo…

[GarethWilliams]

I was promoting my new novel - Needing Napoleon on Radio Skye yesterday when a listener currently reading my book called in with a question. If Napoleon had won at Waterloo would the First World War have happened? Well, this was a live show so I didn’t have long to think about it! I wonder what you think?
I’m happy to admit to my answer if I get some responses… after all, there’s nothing to stop you going to the Radio Skye website and using their ‘listen again‘ facility. it was Carole Horton’s show on Sunday 9 January. I was on about 30 minutes into her first hour.
Anyway, it would be great to get some opinions.

 

[Gary Oswald]

When asked about a point 100 years after the pod, any answer is basically a guess.

A fun answer, which avoids that, is to argue that by the time Waterloo had happened, the First World War had already happened and in a world where in the French Revolution succeeded we would call it that, rather than the French Revolutionary War.

 

[Death's Companion]

The conventional wisdom is then he would just get stomped by the Russians and Austrians massive armies but tbh it depends on how big a victory and what happens after tbh.

If the coalition army gets routed and he gets a few weeks breathing room then he can probably pull together a significant force of his own and get a grip of some of the staff and coordination problems that plagued him.

But he needs luck like he has never needed it before and the best case is probably a prolonged slugging fest across central Europe and a peace of exhaustion until round 2.

 

[Ricardolindo]

If Napoleon had won at Waterloo, he would have been defeated a few months later. No one would allow him to return.

 

[Omund the Wooden-Leg]

I've been to Saint Helena, the second place he was exiled to. According to Rod Steiger's portrayal of him, wasn't he ill the day of the battle from stress?

 

[GarethWilliams]

I've been to Saint Helena, the second place he was exiled to. According to Rod Steiger's portrayal of him, wasn't he ill the day of the battle from stress?

Yes, one suggestion is he was plagued by piles! So, we can argue a healthier more energetic Napoleon might have won at Waterloo but mot a sustained campaign against a determined coalition who would not give him the breathing space to mount an effective defence of France.
would love to hear your impressions of St Helena. It plays a big part in my novel.

 

[Charles EP M.]

WW1 as we know it, sure, but to stop a WW1 (or WW2, as they might call it as Gary says) you need to not have hostile European countries that also have overseas empires & interests.

 

[GarethWilliams]

I completely agree. Franco-Prussian war, emergence of Germany and the Scramble for Africa.

 

[Meadow]

Maybe it's the Napoleonic equivalent of 'okay okay but if Sea Lion had worked...', but a related question that came to mind for me the other day was whether there's any good thought given to how a victorious (properly victorious, as in the nations of Europe just stop doing Coalitions to stop him - which I realise might be the ASB part) Napoleonic Europe would eventually break down? Nothing lasts forever, after all, and a succession crisis could be a heck of a thing. I'm wondering if there's any writing on this worth looking at - if a Napoleonic system is imposed on much of Europe and Bonaparte reigns supreme, history isn't just going to stop, so when would the cracks emerge? On his death? Sooner? Within thirty years? 100?

I accept it's 'throw a dart at a board' stuff. But the image of Napoleonic Europe having its own *1848 moment of some kind is fascinating to consider.

 

[SenatorChickpea]

Maybe it's the Napoleonic equivalent of 'okay okay but if Sea Lion had worked...', but a related question that came to mind for me the other day was whether there's any good thought given to how a victorious (properly victorious, as in the nations of Europe just stop doing Coalitions to stop him - which I realise might be the ASB part) Napoleonic Europe would eventually break down? Nothing lasts forever, after all, and a succession crisis could be a heck of a thing. I'm wondering if there's any writing on this worth looking at - if a Napoleonic system is imposed on much of Europe and Bonaparte reigns supreme, history isn't just going to stop, so when would the cracks emerge? On his death? Sooner? Within thirty years? 100?

I accept it's 'throw a dart at a board' stuff. But the image of Napoleonic Europe having its own *1848 moment of some kind is fascinating to consider.

Didn’t Niall Ferguson or one of his mates do a very tiresome story about how Napoleon’s United Europe becomes a stagnant bureaucracy devoid of creativity or vision? All the young men with talent leave for America, and the satellite kingdom of Britain yearns to break free and return to its true Atlantic destiny.

Or something. I’m not reading the bloody thing a second time.

 

[GarethWilliams]

Very interesting but then again, it was 1848 that led to the Second Empire under Napoleon III.

 

[Alex Richards]

Maybe it's the Napoleonic equivalent of 'okay okay but if Sea Lion had worked...', but a related question that came to mind for me the other day was whether there's any good thought given to how a victorious (properly victorious, as in the nations of Europe just stop doing Coalitions to stop him - which I realise might be the ASB part) Napoleonic Europe would eventually break down? Nothing lasts forever, after all, and a succession crisis could be a heck of a thing. I'm wondering if there's any writing on this worth looking at - if a Napoleonic system is imposed on much of Europe and Bonaparte reigns supreme, history isn't just going to stop, so when would the cracks emerge? On his death? Sooner? Within thirty years? 100?

I accept it's 'throw a dart at a board' stuff. But the image of Napoleonic Europe having its own *1848 moment of some kind is fascinating to consider.

I know there's been a number of good maps essentially taking that concept, but I'm struggling to find any just at the moment- may try later when I'm at home.

 

[napoleon IV]

Maybe it's the Napoleonic equivalent of 'okay okay but if Sea Lion had worked...', but a related question that came to mind for me the other day was whether there's any good thought given to how a victorious (properly victorious, as in the nations of Europe just stop doing Coalitions to stop him - which I realise might be the ASB part) Napoleonic Europe would eventually break down? Nothing lasts forever, after all, and a succession crisis could be a heck of a thing. I'm wondering if there's any writing on this worth looking at - if a Napoleonic system is imposed on much of Europe and Bonaparte reigns supreme, history isn't just going to stop, so when would the cracks emerge? On his death? Sooner? Within thirty years? 100?

I accept it's 'throw a dart at a board' stuff. But the image of Napoleonic Europe having its own *1848 moment of some kind is fascinating to consider.

There's pretty good evidence that the French weren't particularly interested in a Bonaparte dynasty lasting past Napoleon, namely that when a general started a coup based on the false claim that Napoleon had died in Russia lots of people just went along with the coup rather than declaring Napoleon II emperor. Given that Napoleon I is likely to die in the early 1820s (his health in 1815 wasn't great, and he probably died of stomach cancer) Napoleon II would still be a child, so he won't have had the opportunity to demonstrate the sort of leadership or martial skill that would get people to think he's a worthy successor. I think there's a good chance then that you end up in an Alexander the Great situation wherein Napoleon's marshals end up fighting amongst themselves, with the added feature that a lot of Europe sees an opportunity to revolt and takes it.

 

[Alex Richards]

There's pretty good evidence that the French weren't particularly interested in a Bonaparte dynasty lasting past Napoleon, namely that when a general started a coup based on the false claim that Napoleon had died in Russia lots of people just went along with the coup rather than declaring Napoleon II emperor. Given that Napoleon I is likely to die in the early 1820s (his health in 1815 wasn't great, and he probably died of stomach cancer) Napoleon II would still be a child, so he won't have had the opportunity to demonstrate the sort of leadership or martial skill that would get people to think he's a worthy successor. I think there's a good chance then that you end up in an Alexander the Great situation wherein Napoleon's marshals end up fighting amongst themselves, with the added feature that a lot of Europe sees an opportunity to revolt and takes it.

I think it's the seemingly less important things that end up being the longest lasting and most important really. Murat's Kingdom of Naples and the Beauharnais Kingdom of Italy enduring for example.

 

[Death's Companion]

When Napoleon dies would France go Republic or just Crown his son? And what do the Austrians make of it? OTL they very firmly made sure their relation had no chance to build a power base but in a world where he is a very credible heir to the greatest power in Europe that calculation might change.


I don't think anyone would bother to fight to restore the Bourbons a second time ITTL.

 

[Ricardolindo]

When Napoleon dies would France go Republic or just Crown his son? And what do the Austrians make of it? OTL they very firmly made sure their relation had no chance to build a power base but in a world where he is a very credible heir to the greatest power in Europe that calculation might change.


I don't think anyone would bother to fight to restore the Bourbons a second time ITTL.

Consisdering thar during the Malet coup, no one was interested in crowning his son, they would certainly go for a republic.

 

[Death's Companion]

Consisdering thar during the Malet coup, no one was interested in crowning his son, they would certainly go for a republic.

I don't really think the very half assed coup that lasted a day ending when its leader was arrested because he gave a date after Napoleon's most recent dispatches to the capital to the garrison commander really tells us anything at all.


It ended within hours and one of the first actions by the responders was the escort the Imperial Family including the heir to safety.

 

[ChrisNuttall]

(I’m going by memory here, so sorry about any mistakes)



In the short term, it is reasonable to suggest that – assuming a near-complete victory over the British and Prussians – Napoleon would be defeated by the Russians and Austrians. The French were in no state for a prolonged war and the victory at Waterloo would have to be very one-sided for them to face their next set of enemies without being significantly weaker and the enemies being (probably) stronger. It’s unlikely Napoleon can just keep on winning battles – realistically, he still loses power in 1815/6 regardless.

However, if he is defeated in late 1815 by the Russians and Austrians, the post-war scene will be very different. It will be the Russians who will hold the strong hand, rather than the British. It will be the Russians who will take Napoleon into custody (assuming he doesn’t flee or gets killed in battle) and it is they who will set the early course of events. The temptation to meddle, to appoint Louis’s cousin as king of France (and effective puppet) or even to do the same to Louis himself will be irresistible. The occupation will be a great deal worse in this timeline, as the Russians avenge themselves on the French and generally establish themselves as top dogs in Europe. The British will not be happy, obviously, but it will take time to replace the losses at Waterloo or for economic pressure to take its toll on Russia. This will give the Russians a short-term chance to order Europe to suit themselves, with the various kingdoms and suchlike brought into a loose alliance. Depending on how they play it, this could work fairly well in the short term.

(Ironic off-shoot – Napoleon flees to Britain, which eventually finds itself using him as a tool to undermine Russian-dominated France).

It will probably also start to fall apart fairly quickly. The French will not take kindly to being kept under a Russian-supported government. There were a lot of tensions between 1814 and 1815 that will reappear, if steps aren’t taken. Prussia, too, will not be happy taking orders from the Russians. Given time, the alliance will start to crack at the seams – perhaps, in this timeline, there will be a resurgence of antimonarchical feeling right across Europe, backed by Britain. I think there would be another major war, as soon as the horrors of the last one are forgotten. Would this count as a ‘first’ world war?

Chris

 

[Ricardolindo]

I don't really think the very half assed coup that lasted a day ending when its leader was arrested because he gave a date after Napoleon's most recent dispatches to the capital to the garrison commander really tells us anything at all.


It ended within hours and one of the first actions by the responders was the escort the Imperial Family including the heir to safety.

It's still the case, though, that everyone who opposed Malet did so because they did not believe him, not because they supported the heir.

 

[Death's Companion]

It's still the case, though, that everyone who opposed Malet did so because they did not believe him, not because they supported the heir.

I don't see how that is relevent, he found some sympathetic individuals, wore a senior officer's uniform grabbed a handful of soldiers and marched around and arrested a handful of people and then tried to convince the garrison to join the coup who tricked and arrested him and then sent some men to secure the heir's safety.

Maybe there would be some effort to put Nappy II on the throne, maybe not. But the coup was measured in hours and was immediately thwarted by literally the first obstacle it encountered. Beyond a tiny number of conspirators the first few people he met he either lied to about what he was doing, arrested with duped soldiers, or got arrested by. You can't judge a political situation of an entire country and system based on a lunatic's few hours on the lamb dragging a bunch of confused people around before someone notices what is going on and immediately stomps it out.