If Napoleon had won Waterloo could he have defeated the coalition and finally ended the Napoleonic Wars?
Extremely unlikely
>>1132928
no...
>pic related.
The importance of Waterloo has always seemed overstated to me. Napoleon was pretty fucked either way.
Now Leipzig, there was a battle.
>>1132965
Waterloo was the only decisive defeat Napoleon ever suffered,and ended the Napoleonic era.
>>1132928
double nope....
>>1132965
>implying the battle that marked Napoleon's end wasn't Toulon
He was doomed from the start. It was only a matter of how long he could survive destiny.
>>1132978
Are you literally retarded? Seriously, look up Leipzig. The Grande Armee was mauled, Napoleon went flying back over the Rhine, the Germans switched sides because of it, and the writing was on the damn wall.
In what possible way is it not a "decisive defeat"?
>>1133288
>In what possible way is it not a "decisive defeat"?
He was able to fight on throughout 1813 and into 1814?
>>1133295
With absolutely no hope of success, and only being allowed to remain as long as he was because the Allies (most especially Britain) wanted to keep someone around who was likely to be able to balance out Russia as the rising power on the European Continent.
The sixth coalition war was a foregone conclusion after Lepizig, it took a while to grind it down because Napoleon literally waited to be dragged out from the streets of Paris. You may as well say that battles like Kursk or Bagration weren't decisive defeats for Germany because the war kept going afterwards.
And if you do define a "Decisive defeat" as "one that ends the war forever" well duh, there's only going to be one, so I don't know why you'd make so much of Napoleon only having a single decisive defeat.
>>1133305
>was a foregone conclusion after Lepizig
I never consider anything in history as inevitable; it's more contingencies based of the decisions of groups of people.
>>1133305
Facts are that at Leipzig the coalition lost twice as much as Napoleon did if it comes to killed and wounded.
What I find extraordinary is that Napoleon still managed to defeat every guy the coalition sent towards him in France in 1814. The frequency in how many times Blucher was defeated is amazing
>>1133366
And when it comes to captured it's what? 10:1 the other way? Funny how you leave that out.
As for 1814 battles, you might want to remember La Rotheire, Laon, and Arcis-sur-Aube. Victorious forces don't constantly retreat back to their capital and have to deal with threatened mutinies.
Yes.
Since we're dealing with counterfactuals, why not?
Napoleon crushes Allies and Prussians.
Habsburg and Romanov forces can be defeated in detail.
8th coalition funded by England??
>>1133422
>8th coalition funded by England??
Fucking Britain is the cancer that slowly killed Nappy
His real doom was neither Russoa nor Leipzig or Waterloo, it was when he cancelled his planned half-aerial half-underground invasion of the UK
>>1133439
I was positing that an 8th brit-funded coalition would be possible after 3 or 4 Napoleonic victories.
Would the other powers take another swing after being beaten again?
>>1133454
>Would the other powers take another swing after being beaten again?
Unless Napoleon annex them, sure
Napoleon did beat Prussia, Russia and Austria shitload of times between 1795 and 1812
The reason why they always came back at him is because he never deprived them from their sovereignty
>>1132928
No. There would be another battle month later and if he won that one too, there would come another one.
He lost in the moment his Great Army froze in Russia.
>>1133305
Kursk and Bagration were decisive defeats for Germany because they were at war with whole world and couldn't afford a single serious misstep. Napoleon may appear to have been in a similar situation at first glance, but he wasn't motivated by the insane ideology of the nazis. If he could hand out a few massive victories in the defense of France it's at least plausible that the coalition would have given up and accepted his control of France.
>>1133674
And because the eternal anglo still had money.
>>1132928
>what is Russia
>>1133380
>Funny how you leave that out.
Well the amount captured can be blamed on a corporal blowing a bridge and isolating 1/3rd of Napoleons army on the wrong side of the river,to be captured.
Otherwise Napoleon could have withdrawn with a strategic victoy
