Decisive French Victory At Ligny

[Atarlost]

France was smashed back to its own borders but the TL assume its going to make substantial conquests and defeat every other power, at least their ready forces. Even the proposed greater French empire, if Napoleon suddenly decides his days as a conqueror are done will pose a continued threat to Britain as long as its perceived as hostile and while Napoleon is in charge there's good basis for those fears.

I didn't think this was a specific timeline, just a discussion of a divergence point. I don't see Napoleon being able to hold on to any substantial conquests even if he defeats every other power's ready forces and if he defeats the nearer enemies whose forces arrived most promptly those farther or more laggardly may choose to preserve their forces. If he tries to conquer any great distance from the loyal French core after the Spanish campaign demonstrated the power of guerilla warfare I expect he'll be up to his armpits in partisans and the other European powers will double down on destroying him. Only if he wins the battles and then stays in France can he have any chance at convincing any of his opponents that he's not worth fighting to the last right now.

The problem with this, other than how you check on what France is building or not is can Britain continue a hugely expensive blockade if France makes peace with other powers? That's going to mean clashes with the merchants of those powers as well as that Britain can't blockade overland trade, albeit that other than by waterway that is still limited.

England maintained the blockade for years when France occupied or subjugated those other powers so I think it plain that the expense is not unsustainable. England doesn't need to stop overland trade, it need only stop France from developing naval expertise. I am thinking of a situation where Napoleon is reluctantly tolerated because the European powers do not wish to pay the price of further war, but would be quite happy to have the Brits keeping France kept from any colonial resources even if it means deeming any of their merchants that make landfall in France to be smugglers. Possibly Napoleon can only get armistices from some nations until he has spent years respecting those armistices.

If France accepts naval limitations as the price of peace that implies inspectors, but I think France only has one inland river port suitable for shipbuilding that can't be observed from the sea. A man with a spyglass on a mast top can see farther than land based guns can dissuade a ship from approaching a port.

 

[stevep]

I didn't think this was a specific timeline, just a discussion of a divergence point. I don't see Napoleon being able to hold on to any substantial conquests even if he defeats every other power's ready forces and if he defeats the nearer enemies whose forces arrived most promptly those farther or more laggardly may choose to preserve their forces. If he tries to conquer any great distance from the loyal French core after the Spanish campaign demonstrated the power of guerilla warfare I expect he'll be up to his armpits in partisans and the other European powers will double down on destroying him. Only if he wins the battles and then stays in France can he have any chance at convincing any of his opponents that he's not worth fighting to the last right now.


England maintained the blockade for years when France occupied or subjugated those other powers so I think it plain that the expense is not unsustainable. England doesn't need to stop overland trade, it need only stop France from developing naval expertise. I am thinking of a situation where Napoleon is reluctantly tolerated because the European powers do not wish to pay the price of further war, but would be quite happy to have the Brits keeping France kept from any colonial resources even if it means deeming any of their merchants that make landfall in France to be smugglers. Possibly Napoleon can only get armistices from some nations until he has spent years respecting those armistices.

If France accepts naval limitations as the price of peace that implies inspectors, but I think France only has one inland river port suitable for shipbuilding that can't be observed from the sea. A man with a spyglass on a mast top can see farther than land based guns can dissuade a ship from approaching a port.

Atarlost

I was replying in response to HL's opening post. See the map he supplied which shows France including all of Belgium, a bit of the Netherlands - enough to allow Antwerp access to the sea - and all of Germany west of the Rhine. I agree that I can't see the other nations accepting this but it was the basic premise of the thread.

On the 2nd point Britain blockaded France for years while waging war with it. However the assumption was that Britain ultimately follows the other powers into making peace with Napoleon. In which case a continued blockade is impossible and Britain can only seek to build to stay ahead of France, which will have a hell of a lot more resources if of the size above and at peace. It would also allow the French fleet to get sea practice under its belt.

The other option is that Britain stays at war with Napoleonic France while the other powers have made peace. That's going to cause a lot of tension with them when it comes to a blockade affecting their shipping and trade with France while since France isn't at war with other powers it can import items via them, albeit that before the development of railways overland transportation without a water link [i.e. river or canal] was slow and expensive, especially for bulk items.

Either way is going to be hugely expensive for Britain, both economically and fiscally.

Steve

 

[ATP]

This is all really just a setup for a War of the Eighth Coalition, which might even start in the same year.

Indeed.England would finance all of it till Napoleon is gone.And since he would be in weaker position,unless prussian or austrian manage to quick lost again,it would end in 1816.

 

[Navarro]

Not only that, Napoleon's pride and desire for glory wouldn't allow him to settle for merely taking the west bank of the Rhine or such.

 

[Atarlost]

The other option is that Britain stays at war with Napoleonic France while the other powers have made peace. That's going to cause a lot of tension with them when it comes to a blockade affecting their shipping and trade with France while since France isn't at war with other powers it can import items via them, albeit that before the development of railways overland transportation without a water link [i.e. river or canal] was slow and expensive, especially for bulk items.

It's in everyone's interest but the Americans and uncolonized southeast Asian nations to keep France down and they aren't in a position to object with any weight. Denying France a merchant marine protects Sweden who are in the same strategic position as Britain apart from also having to concern themselves with the remote possibility Napoleon manages to conquer Finland. It advantages the Dutch, Spanish, and whichever Italian state was next to France since French imports go through their ports and pay their tariffs. Keeping France economically weakened by Dutch and Spanish and I think it might have been Sardinian control of their imports protects Bavaria and Prussia and Switzerland as a side effect.

 

[stevep]

It's in everyone's interest but the Americans and uncolonized southeast Asian nations to keep France down and they aren't in a position to object with any weight. Denying France a merchant marine protects Sweden who are in the same strategic position as Britain apart from also having to concern themselves with the remote possibility Napoleon manages to conquer Finland. It advantages the Dutch, Spanish, and whichever Italian state was next to France since French imports go through their ports and pay their tariffs. Keeping France economically weakened by Dutch and Spanish and I think it might have been Sardinian control of their imports protects Bavaria and Prussia and Switzerland as a side effect.

There are economic benefits for 3rd parties from French imports having to go through their ports and being taxed, as well as that it means employment for their merchant fleet. However there is the political cost of resentment at British ships stopping them to check for war contraband that might go to France. Which Britain would very likely feel it had to do in such a scenario. Especially if say such ships were sailing up the channel or through the bay of Biscay and might take a sudden swing to starboard if they noticed a French port that for some reason was not blockaded - say because bad weather or some other factor has forced the blockaders to withdraw a bit.

It was the Sardinian dynasty that ruled Savoy/Piedmont - which borders France in the SW so they would be the people involved there.

 

[Buba]

It was the Sardinian dynasty that ruled Savoy/Piedmont

Akshualy ... it was the other way around - Casa Savoia (House of Savoy - IIRC an offshot of the Guellfs, same family IIRC as that on the throne of the UK ATM) - ruled Sardinia.

such ships were sailing up the channel or through the bay of Biscay and might take a sudden swing to starboard

LOL!
Let us not go overboard (heh - nautical pun!) with such imagery - this is the age of sail and speeds of 8-10 knots, i.e. 14-18km, not exactly white water over the bows when making a turn stuff

 

[stevep]

Akshualy ... it was the other way around - Casa Savoia (House of Savoy - an offshot of the Guellfs, same family as that on the throne of the UK ATM) - ruled Sardinia.


LOL!
Let us not go overboard (heh - nautical pun!) with such imagery - this is the age of sail and speeds of 8-10 knots, i.e. 14-18km, not exactly white water over the bows when making a turn stuff

You mean they didn't have hydrofoils in the 1810's?

Although it doesn't need much of an opportunity if you have favourable wind and tide conditions for a ship to sneak past if the blockaders are drawn off position. Mind you getting out again could be an issue.

 

[History Learner]

Highly unlikely - but even if that occure,England would keep forming coalitions to destroy France as long as Napoleon and his line lived.They would eventually die.
Unless...Napoleon would built small fleet of steam ironclads,destroy RN and invade and occupy England.Only after that France would be save.

The UK can only form coalitions if it has the willing/capable partners to do such. If the Prussian and Russian Armies are destroyed, it will take years to rebuild them and that leaves only Austria alone on the continent which has already shown it would not fight in such a circumstance and also has strategic reasons not to do such; Napoleon II was half Austrian after all and France would be a useful counter to the Russo-Prussian Axis.

 

[stevep]

The UK can only form coalitions if it has the willing/capable partners to do such. If the Prussian and Russian Armies are destroyed, it will take years to rebuild them and that leaves only Austria alone on the continent which has already shown it would not fight in such a circumstance and also has strategic reasons not to do such; Napoleon II was half Austrian after all and France would be a useful counter to the Russo-Prussian Axis.

Lets see
a) Napoleon is gravely restricted as reimposing conscription would cause much unrest.
b) Prussia might be running short of men after the warfare in 1813-14 but even if its army in Belgium is destroyed, which is unlikely as Napoleon has to turn to fight Wellington it has gained a lot of new territory in the Rhineland and it doesn't take long to recruit and train men in this time period.
c) Assuming that Napoleon manages to defeat the Russia army, which means marching his drained forces eastwards after a defeat of Wellington Russia has very large levels of manpower so can easily raise new armies.
d) Austria already has Napoleon II and his mother, back in Austrian control. What they don't need is Napoleon on the march again, especially since that would be a direct threat to their position in S Germany and N Italy.
e) A defeat of Wellington again doesn't mean the destruction of his army. Especially since not only does Napoleon again have no time to chase his foe but Wellington had picked his battleground very well. This includes woods to his rear so he can retire his forces without serious threat from French cavalry and retire towards the Antwerp area to await reinforcement. Since Britain committed in the peace treaty to maintain 150,000 men in France as did a number of other powers after Napoleon's final defeat there is definitely the capacity.
f) As well as the great powers there are a number of smaller ones who if nothing else can supply mercenaries and as know by now Britain has the funds. Not to mention how Spain might feel about Napoleon on the French throne. That's likely to be the one thing that could unite - at least for the moment - the reactionary Ferdinand and his [relatively] more liberal opponents.
g) Napoleon has already shown he's not the general he was and ditto with some of his marshals.

Have I missed anything?

 

[History Learner]

Lets see
a) Napoleon is gravely restricted as reimposing conscription would cause much unrest.

This would come as a shock to everyone involved, since conscription was being used and was how Napoleon had a nearly 150,000 field force by June in action.

b) Prussia might be running short of men after the warfare in 1813-14 but even if its army in Belgium is destroyed, which is unlikely as Napoleon has to turn to fight Wellington it has gained a lot of new territory in the Rhineland and it doesn't take long to recruit and train men in this time period.

Except he doesn't have to because if Blutcher is destroyed, Wellington made it clear he had no intention of fighting and would fall back on Antwerp. If he does make the decision to stand and fight, his army is destroyed in full because Napoleon will effective an encirclement of him that destroys him in full, which nearly happened IOTL anyway.

c) Assuming that Napoleon manages to defeat the Russia army, which means marching his drained forces eastwards after a defeat of Wellington Russia has very large levels of manpower so can easily raise new armies.

His force would have almost two months of rest and by August would've actually grown in size from roughly 130,000 to 200,000 or more. Russia itself may have lots of manpower, but the key problem there is that it is in Russia; it is thousands of miles away from the battlefield of the Rhineland and must get their by foot.

d) Austria already has Napoleon II and his mother, back in Austrian control. What they don't need is Napoleon on the march again, especially since that would be a direct threat to their position in S Germany and N Italy.

Except Napoleon II being in Austrian custody does nothing for Austrian interests, while Napoleon II taking his father's throne one day does do something for Austrian interests. As it were, Austria in 1813 showed it had no problems with France keeping its natural borders when the Frankfurt Proposals were made, so why not now in the context of the changed situation?

e) A defeat of Wellington again doesn't mean the destruction of his army. Especially since not only does Napoleon again have no time to chase his foe but Wellington had picked his battleground very well. This includes woods to his rear so he can retire his forces without serious threat from French cavalry and retire towards the Antwerp area to await reinforcement. Since Britain committed in the peace treaty to maintain 150,000 men in France as did a number of other powers after Napoleon's final defeat there is definitely the capacity.

They actually didn't do that nor could they; a special provision had to be made for Britain in this aspect. As it were, again, Wellington had picked a good spot....on the condition of the Prussians being able to support him. If he does make the stand, contrary to everything he said and others likewise have pointed out about the man, it's suicidal because Napoleon has the far larger army and has the means of cutting him off from Antwerp.

f) As well as the great powers there are a number of smaller ones who if nothing else can supply mercenaries and as know by now Britain has the funds. Not to mention how Spain might feel about Napoleon on the French throne. That's likely to be the one thing that could unite - at least for the moment - the reactionary Ferdinand and his [relatively] more liberal opponents.

Which cannot even collectively match the French in numbers and definitely not in quality, nor do they have any interest in dying for British money. It's important to emphasize at this point the UK offering money alone was never enough to goad the various European states into war with Napoleon, but rather it had to be in tandem with the strategic interest of said nations themselves. In this regard the subsidies were an incentive, but not decisive.

g) Napoleon has already shown he's not the general he was and ditto with some of his marshals.

Would come as a shock to everyone involved, and especially Prince of Schwarzenberg (commander of the Austrian field force) who privately wrote/stated the Austrian Army would lose a confrontation. The now oft mentioned Duke of Wellington's own words on the closeness of Waterloo are well known enough to note bare repeating.

 

[Buba]

Wellington was good at maintaining a force in being. He'd fight defensive battles.
Napoleon would be chasing him.
How many times need I repeat - the Russian army wintered in the Rheinland and was a week's march away. The Austrians were also thereabouts.
Napoleon beats Prussians, loses 10-15% of army. Then beats the Dutch-Anglo force, pushing it away, losing another portion of army. And then he beats the Russians and is down to 50% of the army he began the campaign with.
It is the same situation as in later 1813 or in 1814 - there is too little Napoleon and French army and too many allies.
Unless the Allies come apart politically - which I do not expect, as they simply have had enough of the megalomaniac - 1815 ends as it did in OTL, but a few weeks later.

 

[stevep]

Wellington was good at maintaining a force in being. He'd fight defensive battles.
Napoleon would be chasing him.
How many times need I repeat - the Russian army wintered in the Rheinland and was a week's march away. The Austrians were also thereabouts.
Napoleon beats Prussians, loses 10-15% of army. Then beats the Dutch-Anglo force, pushing it away, losing another portion of army. And then he beats the Russians and is down to 50% of the army he began the campaign with.
It is the same situation as in later 1813 or in 1814 - there is too little Napoleon and French army and too many allies.
Unless the Allies come apart politically - which I do not expect, as they simply have had enough of the megalomaniac - 1815 ends as it did in OTL, but a few weeks later.

Unfortunately HL is insisting that Napoleon will continue rolling double 6's time after time and that his opponents will fail at everything they attempt then give up.

 

[ATP]

Unfortunately HL is insisting that Napoleon will continue rolling double 6's time after time and that his opponents will fail at everything they attempt then give up.

Indeed,Ligny was too late to change anything.
But,we could save Napoleon,if he listen to poles.In 1812 Poniatowski urged him to wait for next year in captured Smolensk.
Later he begged hin on knees to let him send polish corp to Wołyń and Podole/where many polish gentry lived and starting uprising was easy/.
Napolen answered that he would be schoot if he disobey.
From that direction come russian army from Turkey border lead by Cziczgow,which made organised retreat impossible.If Napoleon do not opposed ,his army would survive mostly unscathed and could spend winter in Poland.
And win in 1813.

Even without that,Napoleon,if only retreated from Moscov at once,not wait for answer from tsar 5 weeks/which never come/,could still retreat in order.

Main Napoleon mistake,which cost him his crown and ultimately live,was trying to made deal with Russia,instead of defeat it.
Common mistake among western rulers.

 

[ATP]

There is book " The Napoleon options,alternate decisions of napoleonic wars" by Jonathan North with 10 chapters/every made by other author/ how Napoleon could win.Well,one is about world where Napoleon could never shine,becouse wars ended in 1797.In others he would still lost.

North himself wrote chapter 6,and Napoleon win thanks to one of his generals keeping safe his supplies in Mińsk/in OTL he do not manage that/.

Thanks to that he could eventually win over Russia,even with all his mistakes he made.

Pity,that nobody tried alternative where Napoleon do not try made deal with Russia,but destroy it.Which was very easy then - just come, beat armies like he did,and gave land to the peasants.Entire state would fall.

 

[WolfBear]

Given a generation to consolidate their conquests, and the stability afforded by a Constitutional Monarchy under Napoleon II, I'd imagine France will surpass the UK quite handily as the power of the 19th Century and possibly beyond. Control of the iron ore and coal deposits of OTL Belgium and the Saar in of itself is a major power boost, while control over the lower and middle Rhine trade will afford it great influence in Central Europe. There's unlikely to be a unification of Germany here and I could see France drawing close to Austria in order to oppose the Russo-Prussian axis, as well as to manage events in Italy; probably no national unification there either. Would French demographics avoid their 19th Century collapse? If so, I'd imagine Algeria will become an integral part of France via settle colonialism and cultural assimilation of the natives.

This is not only a very different Concert of Europe, but a change that fundamentally alters the course of Human history.

Does France still conquer Algeria in this TL? Or might it be more interested in expansion elsewhere?

Agreed that a France that still controls Belgium and the Saarland would be much stronger due to having much more industry and natural resources in the long(er)-run.

In regards to the Bourbons, it's worth noting that if the Napoleonic dynasty survives, then it's possible that Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Berry might not be assassinated since the guy who assassinated him in 1820 in real life was apparently a disgruntled Napoleon supporter (aka Bonapartist). This opens up the possibility of Charles Ferdinand, Duke of Berry having more than one son in this TL and thus of having much higher odds of the male line of the senior branch of the House of Bourbon surviving much longer in this TL, possibly even up to the present-day.

As for the French fertility decline, it was already being commented on as early as 1778:

hbd chick в Twitter: "note that the fertility decline in france appea…

archived 24 Jan 2022 22:51:55 UTC

archive.md

 

[WolfBear]

Napoleon was actually pretty close to victory in the Hundred Days, with the decisive point probably being the "misfire" at Ligny. After having pinned the Prussians frontally, Napoleon had set the seeds of a devastating flanking attack upon the Blucher's exposed right flank with the I Corps of, which was 20,000 strong. Due to sudden communication from Marshal Ney, then engaged at Quatre Baas, requesting them, this engendered command confusion that resulted in said corps marching back and force ineffectually for most of the day and preventing serious French success at either battle. Had things progress as Napoleon intended, the Prussian field army would've been removed at Ligny. Now, in of itself, this does nothing to decisively win the campaign, but it does lay the pre-conditions for such. With the Prussians removed, Wellington has no reason to stand at Waterloo; his decision to do such was based on the expectation of Prussian support and the need to maintain communication between the two armies via Ostend.

With the Prussian Army effectively destroyed, Wellington has every reason to withdraw upon Antwerp. This would enable Napoleon to largely complete the conquest of Belgium, entering Brussels unopposed, and then turning his attention to the Austro-Russians marching for France through Germany. The strategic opening granted here also enables the French War Ministry to continue the mobilization of new French forces, with Napoleon plausibly expecting a field army of 200,000 men by August, backed up over another 200,000 men to be utilized as defensive garrisons for a total field force of roughly 440,000 total men. Now, it's worth noting that the 200,000 main field force is still smaller than the combined Russo-Austrian armies marching to France but Napoleon has the advantage in that they are not yet combined forces but rather separate field forces; the Russian crossing point is at the Saar while the Austrians would be separated from them by the Vosges Mountain range. This means that Napoleon could meet and defeat them in detail.

The Russians would be closer and number about 150,000 so Napoleon could bring about superior forces and his own skills to destroy them as he did at Austerlitz, and then rushing to engage the Austrians south of the Vosges. Even if he fails to achieve a decisive victory in the latter, removing the Russo-Prussian field armies effectively ends the Allied thread against him for another year, maybe more. Most likely then negotiations are resumed, as both sides had previously attempted during the War of the Seventh Coalition. Austria in particular has reasons for talks, given it wants France as a counter-weight to Russia and the fact that Napoleon's heir, the King of Rome Napoleon II, is half Austrian via his mother. Most likely then we see France leverage its victories with the tacit support of Austria to revive the Frankfurt Proposals as the basis of peace between France and the Coalition.

Spoiler: French Borders in this Peace Agreement

HL, I have a question for you: What do you expect the borders in Central and Eastern Europe to look like in this TL? I'm wondering because in this TL Prussia won't get the Rhineland--so will Prussia get territorial compensation for this in the east? And, if so, where exactly in the east? I know that pre-1806 Prussia was much larger in the east than post-1815 Prussia was, and also much more Polish, even containing Warsaw.

Also, France will be the king of natural resources and industry in this TL, no, having both Alsace-Lorraine's iron ore AND the Saarland's coal as well as the Ruhr's natural resources and future industries?

 

[stevep]

HL, I have a question for you: What do you expect the borders in Central and Eastern Europe to look like in this TL? I'm wondering because in this TL Prussia won't get the Rhineland--so will Prussia get territorial compensation for this in the east? And, if so, where exactly in the east? I know that pre-1806 Prussia was much larger in the east than post-1815 Prussia was, and also much more Polish, even containing Warsaw.

Also, France will be the king of natural resources and industry in this TL, no, having both Alsace-Lorraine's iron ore AND the Saarland's coal as well as the Ruhr's natural resources and future industries?

In the 1st point possibly Prussia gets all of Saxony? IIRC it got the combined Rhineland - merging and expanding territories it had there prior to the revolution as compensation for only getting about a third of Saxony. I think it doubtful that it would get new compensation in the east now as Russia already had claims there and Prussia was the smallest and seen as the weakest of the great powers - other than possibly Spain. Furthermore it was the power that would be hit hardest if its army was destroyed so.

Prussia might have been rescued as a great power by the loss of its extensive Polish lands as that was a factor that allowed it to pose itself as the natural leader for a unified Germany rather than the Austrian Hapsburg's who had the bulk of their empire outside Germany.

Actually not in the case of the Ruhr. Even if Napoleon somehow gained those borders and didn't screw it up later on the Ruhr is east of the Rhine so its still going to be part of any German confederation. Yes other parts of western Germany and all of Belgium will be included, which would be big gains while France can hold them but not the Ruhr.

Probably a bigger problem even if Napoleon accepts a lasting peace is that for the duration of his rule France has a despotic militaristic as its pretty much all powerful leader. Not a good situation for economic development. It would depend on what happens after he departs the scene as to French economic development.

 

[WolfBear]

In the 1st point possibly Prussia gets all of Saxony? IIRC it got the combined Rhineland - merging and expanding territories it had there prior to the revolution as compensation for only getting about a third of Saxony. I think it doubtful that it would get new compensation in the east now as Russia already had claims there and Prussia was the smallest and seen as the weakest of the great powers - other than possibly Spain. Furthermore it was the power that would be hit hardest if its army was destroyed so.

Prussia might have been rescued as a great power by the loss of its extensive Polish lands as that was a factor that allowed it to pose itself as the natural leader for a unified Germany rather than the Austrian Hapsburg's who had the bulk of their empire outside Germany.

Actually not in the case of the Ruhr. Even if Napoleon somehow gained those borders and didn't screw it up later on the Ruhr is east of the Rhine so its still going to be part of any German confederation. Yes other parts of western Germany and all of Belgium will be included, which would be big gains while France can hold them but not the Ruhr.

Probably a bigger problem even if Napoleon accepts a lasting peace is that for the duration of his rule France has a despotic militaristic as its pretty much all powerful leader. Not a good situation for economic development. It would depend on what happens after he departs the scene as to French economic development.

You're right about the Ruhr, Steve:

Anyway, Napoleon's rule likely won't last very long since he'll likely still die of stomach cancer in 1821 in this TL. Then his son Napoleon II should succeed him, with a regency, of course. Who the regent will be, well, I'm not sure, to be honest.

 

[ATP]

Not possible,becouse at that point there were russian,austrian and part of prussian armies marching on them.
Napoleon would be crushed no matter what.

You want succesfull Napoleon? then made him take Petersburg in 1812,not Moscov.Or widraw from Moscov on Ukraine when polish gentry would welcome him,which Poniatowski proposed.