Could he have won at Waterloo? How would history be different had he succeeded in all his ambitions and reigned as emperor until his death?
Even if he won at Waterloo he would have been destroyed somewhere else, France was never going to restabilize under him much less win yet another war against the entire rest of the western world and even if by some miracle it did, they'd regain their strength and attack again and again and again. The rest of the western powers were never going to accept Napoleon's existence.
>>18286295Short answer, no.Long answer; Napoleon could have won the Battle of Waterloo, it was possible on the multiple times of the day to win that battle, but the war in the long run was not possible to win. Even if Napoleon won at that battle, surely Austrian, Swiss or Prussia armies would be waiting to be new masters of France. It would only serve as a defeat of Britain and not the defeat of the entire Anti-Napoleon coalition.
>>18286295>Could he have won at Waterloo?Yes, but the writing was on the wall. Only a matter of time before a different Waterloo would have happened. >How would history be different had he succeeded in all his ambitions and reigned as emperor until his death?Couldn’t have happened unless the continent submitted to his will which it never would have. But if it did? He’d have marched on the world and we’d probably be looking for space faggots to envelop and destroy.
>>18286298So you're saying even if he would've achieved his goals of a European Empire totally united under French rule he would've faced endless revolts and insurgencies in the nations of Europe that would've destroyed it?
>>18286301Napoleon being able to invade the Americas seems a little far fetched even if he had totallt conquered Europe.
>>18286304In the context of continuing the 100 days all the way to total victory? Yes, that's what would have happened. Most of the continent had already been galvanized against him by years of both propaganda and actual personal suffering as a direct results of the decades of wars he was pretty much solely responsible for.
>>18286305Why? He could’ve easily built a navy/requisitioned the British fleet. America was weak at that point and the Grand Armee would’ve run riot against the colonial army.
>>18286311Yeah I guess you're right there. I didn't consider how shit Americas military was at the time.
>>18286311Do you think he would've been a good and benevolent emperor to the world had he conquered it?
>>18286295Even if he had won he would have lost somewhere else or had he accomplished uniting all of Europe he'd've been overthrown by revolution. He was the epitome of a gloryhoundFrankfurt proposals were his last hope.
>>18286307>as a direct results of the decades of wars he was pretty much solely responsible forBruh…he was absolutely not solely responsible for the Napoleonic Wars. He was simply up to the task which was unfortunate for the European monarchs and their realms who provoked the “Corsican Ogre” and the might of an ascendant France. Sorry to burst your bubble but it was hardly as black and white as you put it.
>>18286317He was a cur and a scumbag who absolutely brought all that misery to Europe.
>>18286313>Do you think he would've been a good and benevolent emperor to the world had he conquered it?Good? Yes. Benevolent? Not really considering his penchant for conquest. But his tenure as First Consul more than accounts for his ability to rule with a silver hand instead of iron.
>>18286318You must be British the way you spout that childish propaganda against old Bony. Your own William Pitt and peers were equally responsible for those wars.
>>18286322They most certainly were not. How?
>>18286317>Bruh…he was absolutely not solely responsible for the Napoleonic WarsHalf the wars he ended up fighting were because he tore up treaties as soon as he felt it was convenient.
>>18286323By conniving with the other European powers to not accept very basic concessions of previously French territory and instigating them to keep throwing bodies at the Grande Armee until he was deposed and someone more amenable to British (((trade))) was installed in his place.
>>18286325Name three.
>>18286326He was right to do that. Why make these concessions? Why submit to Frog shenanigans?
>>18286329Because it’s not worth the death of tens of thousands of young men. Also because they are entirely reasonable concessions. Like giving back Toulon which is a fucking French city to begin with.
>>18286335>Because it’s not worth the death of tens of thousands of young menGiven the losses Napoleon experienced it's hard to think he actually cared much about the lives of the men he wasted in his wars of conquest
>>18286335Toulon was rightfully theirs, they had nk obligation to give it back to Nappy the Nonce gigamanlet. The deaths of young men is something that happens in war, war due to FRENCH aggression.
>>18286337I don't think he really did. They were pawns to move around the chess board, nothing more.
>>18286339There's an anecdote about him being advised one of his young officers was raped in captivity under the Mamluks in Egypt and he just laughs it off as "boys will be boys"
>>18286335Oh please, after Jena & Auerstedt and humiliating peace that followed the Prussians were deadset on obtaining rache or revenge. It might be that the British were among the hardliners, but they weren't alone. The Austrians were more ambiguous but in the end chose for the allies when it became clear the Grand Armee was a shadow of its former self after the Russian Adventure.
>>18286338Salty Anglo I see. Toulon was French.
>>18286295>WaterlooOverrated in terms of it's impact, even if he had won there he would need to deal with other armies still marching elsewhere. Possibly recreating the 1814 campaign, but not much else.As for him winning it would be complicated, the French Navy had been crippled by the revolution, with a good chunk of the aristocratic officer class fleeing or being given a trip to the guillotine. And the British made sure it was kept that way. Via battles like the battle of the Nile and the so-called Glorious First of June. So Napoleon turned toward supplementing his own navies with those of his allies, but the British had already crippled the Dutch fleet at Camperdown, the Spanish fleet became irrelevant after Trafalgar & the beginning of the Peninsular War, and finally, the Bongs made sure to steal most of the Danish capital ships as well.
Had the chad ROBESPIERRE lived the absolute cringe lord manlet Napoleon would never have come to power.
>>18286295>WaterlooNope, he was done and cooked at that point, even if he had managed to beat the Brits and Prussians. All the European leaders hated him and wouldn’t allow his presence. There were two major points where Napoleon could have preserved his power, but his arrogance and refusal to accept defeat betrayed him.>Russian invasionNapoleon invaded Russia because they wouldn't abide by the Continental System, and we all know how that ended. Had Napoleon been more humble and acknowledged that not every problem can be solved by force, he would have realized that the Continental System was an utter failure. Not only did it fail to hurt the Brits, but it was also fucking up his allies and alienating them against him. He should have canceled it and tried to make peace with the Brits, even if that meant making some concessions. This way, he could have stayed in power as the master of continental Europe.>Austrian peace offerAfter the whole Russian disaster, Austria offered him peace with the rest of the European powers in exchange for going back to the 1817 borders, leaving Germany and betraying Poland (basically renouncing his "master of Europe" status). Had he accepted, and assuming peace lasted, not only would today’s France be bigger, but he and his dynasty could have ruled France.
>>18286295Yes but by the Rule of the 100 Days he was too far gone to salvage anything. In late 1813/1814 Napoleon rejected the Frankfurt Proposal, which would have recognised him as the rightful ruler of France and confirmed the french borders as they were in 1801; the "natural" borders of France (pic rel). But Napoleon stalled the negotiations, sought out new allies with the Papacy and Spain (unsuccesfully) and the Coalition Forces underwent their offenses until the opportunity for those proposals had passed. After that a new proposal was offered with the french borders of 1791 but this one was outright rejected by Napoleon.And even if Napoleon was able to stabalise his rule, the spectre of nationalism of the French Revolution was truly out of the bottle. Spanish, german and russian resistence to Napoleon and his deputies was high and acceptence of his rule was only possible due to the bayonet.
>>18286295there cannot be a emperor of the world. Alexander tried, but this world and everything in it belongs to God
>>18286348>It might be that the British were among the hardliners, but they weren't aloneSo you admit that actors other than Napoleon Bonaparte were at least somewhat responsible for the continental conflicts of the early 19th century?
>>18287089My only claim is that Britian did the lifting on sea, Iberia was a sideshow, the actual heavy lifting was done by the Russians and Austrians.
>>18286295>WaterlooHis empire as a continental egemonic power was finished with Lipsia. His 1815 Campaign had the sole goal of somehow exaust the cohalition enough to made a deal that would keep him as Emperor of a France kept on its pre-revolutionary borders. The Eternal Anglo tho would had tried again and again to overtrow him again.
>>18286327>>18286317Napoleon has been associated with Hitler so if they “allow” Napoleon a path to victory they feel like Hitler will have his foot in the door so to speak and Normies will begin talking about building a Fourth Reich.This is just what they think.People hated The Soviets and the Americans, both ruled for decades, the Romans more hated than both combined and they ruled for centuries.If Napoleon, or Hitler for that matter, won, they’d have governed a prosperous and unified Europe, like the Romans who came before and the Liberals who came after.Just an uncomfortable fact. You punch England in the nose and step on a jewish neck, you are nearly guaranteed a bountiful peacetime.
>>18286300Exactly, this is why Alexander’s endeavor was silly. even if he won at Gaugamela, a stretch, another huge Persian army would be waiting for him. The Persians can retreat into their vast interior and wage guerrilla war against him, Alexander already had Greek rebels at home, no way he could sustain fighting Greek, Egyptian, and Persian revolts. It’s just not logistically possible for an army that small to exert influence over millions of conquered people who hate them over a 4,000 mile span.Just not possible.
>>18286301>the continent wouldn’t have submittedExcept they did.Not just to him but to others.
>>18286319What is not benevolent about conquest?
>>18287089Half of the european conflicts in the nineteenth century aren't as much about what Napoleon did, but more the dissatisfaction about the settlement the allies agreed upon at Vienna.
>>18287140This. >>18287152It was never more than buying time until they could start another war in another attempt to check the Napoleonic Empire. Why were there SIX coalitions if they submitted?
>>18286595There soon will be one, the Katechon.
Napoleon would have "won"if he never invaded Russia.France would probably be a bigger power if he didn't fuck up so hugely.>Invading Russia because they won't stop trading with Britain>Trying to sanction the brits at this time is retarded. Safest island with the best Navy.Anyways. As others have said. He lost when he invaded Russia. Even if he won Waterloo or in a different timeline used different marshals doing XYZ instead. He's still fucked. Europe would turn and try to ruin him regardless. The other countries are always waiting.
