Brace yourself for a ‘Napoleon complex’ of epic proportions as we march into history- a world where the Battle of Waterloo was just another step on Bonaparte’s rise to greatness! Napoleon and Waterloo, the most iconic duo that we’ve read about over and over again in CBSE in Class 10th. But what if he didn’t lose? What if he didn’t make the other numerous mistakes?
Napoleon’s downfall had started quite some time before Waterloo- he had lost the core fighting force of his army, the control over his defeated enemies and failed in invading Russia. Moreover, his own complexes contributed greatly. Oh, right, as I mentioned in the pun above,
“Napoleon complex” is also known as Napoleon syndrome and short-man syndrome, is a purported condition normally attributed to people of short stature, with overly aggressive or domineering social behaviour. It implies that such behaviour is to compensate for the subject’s physical or social shortcomings.
Even if Napoleon did win at Waterloo, say, he was more bold in his actions, sent the guard in earlier, his flanks defended him against the Prussians or went through a small tactical change, the state of Europe in that period was essentially the whole world against France. Even if they did win at Waterloo, they would’ve needed another battle to secure the Waterloo victory then another and another and and then some more. While a younger Napoleon could’ve done it, this version was old- the engine was getting rusted.
Waterloo was fought as an offensive invasion. France invaded to fight back the British and Prussians.
It’s like a game of Chess, when you really want to play but simply aren’t prepared for sometimes! Napoleon might have held on the power for longer if he’d known that sometimes the way to win is not to play at all.
If he’d fought a defensive war after his return, he would have lasted more than a hundred days. He could’ve recruited more men, stayed on his land and forced the Allies to come to him.
During all of this, the French people supported Napoleon. The only reason he was able to reclaim his throne with just a simple “raising of his hat” was because the French people were sick and tired of the Bourbon dynasty. They saw the Allies as foreign powers wishing to reinstall a monarch. If Napoleon would’ve survived, it wouldn’t be just because of the military but also the people rallying for him. This would’ve made a defensive war more tedious and hard to win for the coalition. As much as I am theorising, he did take the fight to the coalition and none of this actually happened.
By 1812, Napoleon had beaten virtually every nation on mainland Europe into submission or joined it in an alliance but his mastery over the continent was not absolute. All it would take was one humiliating defeat to shatter that illusion. Though France was undefeated on land, they would never been able to tackle the British’s Royal Navy at sea. He wanted all his countries to cut trading ties with the British so they would submit out of economic despair. This plan was foiled by Russia. If Russia had continued, it would’ve made the entire embargo useless. In 19th century fashion, Napoleon’s style was WAR. But he could’ve, like a 21st century historian or pseudo, research-fuelled one like me, decided that “it was just not worth it.” His army would’ve stayed in France; the status quo would have remained past 1812.
In an alternate 1812, Napoleon does not attack Russia and instead decides he should pay far more attention to the insurgency in Spain that has always been a hellscape for France even without invading Russia.
However, the nations he subdued would be plotting no matter what Napoleon did. The Continental System simply couldn’t have held up. Sweden had illegally sent supplies to Britain whom France soon punished. Prussia, understandably, didn’t want to fight french wars and while France did secure a temporary alliance with Austria, this was an alliance with a strict end date in mind even without a Russian war or a marriage because if Napoleon’s there, it would always be another war whether he wanted one or not, as result of rebellion from within his own alliance (by his fault or not) was always going to occur.
But this time, without France having its army decimated by Russia, a new war, whenever it may happen, certainly could have gone much differently for Napoleon. Even after losing almost 400,000 men on his march back to France he was still able to win five battles and upon returning rallied 400,000 new soldiers to fight a new coalition of Sweden + Russia + Britain and eventually Austria. While he did lose, most of Europe was against him and one could expect it to be a very simple one on many altercation but France still managed to put up a tough fight! An ultimate war is not a decisive victory for the Allies; instead this fight is once again drawn-out. Perhaps, Austria is less optimistic to betray Napoleon enjoying a war they know they might not win.
Dear readers, let’s not forget LIFE. Napoleon may not have ever fallen in my alternate timeline but that doesn’t mean he isn’t brought down by the biggest battle of all- cancer. Napoleon died in 1821 from what we now believe to be stomach cancer. He didn’t simply die from a broken heart or anything, it was an actual health problem that would have taken his life no matter what Napoleon did.
Assuming Napoleon still dies around the same time (in my alternate timeline), his son Napoleon II would be crowned as the Emperor of France. At 11. Left to defend an already fragile system- which, if it hadn’t collapsed by now, would be crumbling. Now, we don’t know what Napoleon could have changed with an extra decade on the throne, but talk about childhood trauma… Sheesh!