So if Napoleon wins Waterloo, does it merely prolong the inevitable?

Speed Queens would be the only washers & dryers you could buy.

Napoleon was an outstanding artillery officer and leader. However, his tactics once mastered by his enemies greatly neutered his once formidable army. By the time of Waterloo, his army was a shell of its former self. It was inevitable much like the Germans in WW1

quote:

---

Great Britain and the allies were never going to make peace with a man who's effective talents were purely military

---

Yep

He wasnt a fart sniffing noble. Could never give him a seat at the table

quote:

---

He had to attack them in pieces. Was he simply running out of men or had everyone else adapted to his tactics.

---

Your hunch is correct. Napoleon was a great general. However, one of the reasons he had such incredible victories is because he was fighting buffoons. Eventually, the European aristocracies, found generals who were competent. At that point, the weight of the arms against him were just too much.

quote:

---

Would the British have signed a peace treaty after Waterloo or would they have doubled down?

---

No, the UK seemed willing to drive themselves into fiscal insolvency, peak debt to GDP ratio of somewhere between 200%-250%, to ensure a strong Continental power did not exist.

I would submit the Grand Army that invaded Russia was not that good an army. It was French but a lot of troops came from other countries.

His best troops were in Spain, which Wellington chewed up. I would say Spain cost him more than Russia did in terms of fighting ability.

quote:

---

No, the UK seemed willing to drive themselves into fiscal insolvency, peak debt to GDP ratio of somewhere between 200%-250%, to ensure a strong Continental power did not exist.

---

On the contrary, the UK had undergone the industrial revolution. No other country could compete with Britain on price. It was Napoleon who desperately tried to exclude British products, via his "Continental System", from Europe.

Britain had their reasons for wanting to stop the French democratic revolution - namely its contagion - but by the time Napoleon declared himself emperor that was no longer an issue.

Horse losses in Russia campaign were also a huge problem.

quote:

---

The estimates vary, but a commonly cited figure is that Napoleon lost around 200,000 horses during the campaign

---

quote:

---

A scholarly study by historian Dominic Lieven makes the particularly important point that, for Napoleon, the loss of horses in 1812 was arguably even more consequential than the loss of men. The shortage seriously undermined his ability to fight effectively in 1813.

---

quote:

---

France could conscript hundreds of thousands of young men.
But you can't manufacture a good cavalry horse in six months.
A cavalry horse needs to be:
bred
raised
trained
conditioned
accustomed to gunfire
accustomed to formations
physically strong enough to carry a heavily equipped cavalryman
And Napoleon had just lost a huge portion of the trained horse population upon which his cavalry and artillery depended.

---

Napoleon would run around defeating army after army in Europe trying to keep them from linking up. But he could never completely destroy and army because he longer had the calvary to run them down in panic retreat, which is where the major casualties were accomplished in this age of warfare.

This video shows how it affected him in later battles....

but he lost

quote:

---

So if Napoleon wins Waterloo, does it merely prolong the inevitable?

---

Yes.

And if he had somehow snatched victory from the jaws of defeat at Waterloo, his army was pretty beat up and all of Europe would have been mobilizing against him. They were tired of him and wanted him off the chessboard. Not only that, France was still very weary and beat-up from almost 20 years of constant warfare. There is no way they would have been able to last.