Soult and Murat at Waterloo

[67th Tigers]

A different Napoleon wins Waterloo WI.

OTL Soult was Napoleon's best Marshal, after (perhaps) Massena, often doing more to win battles than Napoleon did. This led Napoleon to be jealous of Soult, and he tried to keep Soult out of the way as he felt that Soult took some of his glory. Ever loyal, Soult rallied to Napoleon in 1815, and was OTL left at Paris. Even in such a desperate situation, Napoleon couldn't let Soult take any glory.

Murat, an outstanding cavalryman, was King of Naples, which he kept by betraying Napoleon at the last minute. OTL he also declared for Napoleon, tried to unite Italy behind him, and was defeated by the Austrians and British. He fled to France and tried to join Napoleon, but the Emperor would have none of it.

WI: Napoleon swallowed his pride and accepted them back. Murat is commanding Napoleon's Cavalry, Soult has his traditional position commanding the right wing vice Grouchy (who, IMHO did a good job, the Emperor had already failed to stop Prussian IV Corps movement west at Ligny).

Napoleon wins Waterloo, Soult smashes Gneisenau's Army (not Blucher's, who had little actual command of it), the British retreat back to England. Napoleon continues to smash the Russian and Austrian armies, but stays true to his word, and keeps to the borders of France, and a peace is concluded.

Napoleon will die on schedule in 1821, and his son I don't think will gain the throne, could Soult take the throne of an increasingly Parliamentary France? How would this effect the course of events?

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

I think Davout was Napoleon's best general. Put him in.

A different Napoleon wins Waterloo WI.

OTL Soult was Napoleon's best Marshal, after (perhaps) Massena, often doing more to win battles than Napoleon did. This led Napoleon to be jealous of Soult, and he tried to keep Soult out of the way as he felt that Soult took some of his glory. Ever loyal, Soult rallied to Napoleon in 1815, and was OTL left at Paris. Even in such a desperate situation, Napoleon couldn't let Soult take any glory.

Murat, an outstanding cavalryman, was King of Naples, which he kept by betraying Napoleon at the last minute. OTL he also declared for Napoleon, tried to unite Italy behind him, and was defeated by the Austrians and British. He fled to France and tried to join Napoleon, but the Emperor would have none of it.

WI: Napoleon swallowed his pride and accepted them back. Murat is commanding Napoleon's Cavalry, Soult has his traditional position commanding the right wing vice Grouchy (who, IMHO did a good job, the Emperor had already failed to stop Prussian IV Corps movement west at Ligny).

Napoleon wins Waterloo, Soult smashes Gneisenau's Army (not Blucher's, who had little actual command of it), the British retreat back to England. Napoleon continues to smash the Russian and Austrian armies, but stays true to his word, and keeps to the borders of France, and a peace is concluded.

Napoleon will die on schedule in 1821, and his son I don't think will gain the throne, could Soult take the throne of an increasingly Parliamentary France? How would this effect the course of events?

 

[RPW@Cy]

Is this a DBWI? Soult did go to Waterloo OTL, it was Davout who was left in Paris.

Not sure what difference having Murat around if Ney is still in post will make either, frankly - if nothing else, it is likely to increase the chaos in the French command, and I don't see Murat arguing with Ney's decision to send the cavalry in to win the battle single handed anyway.

As for the BoneyWank bits after the battle, haven't they been discussed to death on various other threads?

I have to say that I've always thought the simplest way to give a Napoleon wins at Waterloo scenario would be to swap Ney and Grouchy around somehow - Grouchy would be bound to do a far more competent job of organising a combined arms assault on the centre of the British line than Ney ever did, and Ney is far more likely to simply ignore the confusing orders stemming from Soult and march to the sound of the guns, getting to Waterloo hours earlier. This still doesn't save Napoleon in the aftermath though.

 

[67th Tigers]

Is this a DBWI? Soult did go to Waterloo OTL, it was Davout who was left in Paris.

Not sure what difference having Murat around if Ney is still in post will make either, frankly - if nothing else, it is likely to increase the chaos in the French command, and I don't see Murat arguing with Ney's decision to send the cavalry in to win the battle single handed anyway.

As for the BoneyWank bits after the battle, haven't they been discussed to death on various other threads?

I have to say that I've always thought the simplest way to give a Napoleon wins at Waterloo scenario would be to swap Ney and Grouchy around somehow - Grouchy would be bound to do a far more competent job of organising a combined arms assault on the centre of the British line than Ney ever did, and Ney is far more likely to simply ignore the confusing orders stemming from Soult and march to the sound of the guns, getting to Waterloo hours earlier. This still doesn't save Napoleon in the aftermath though.

Confusion between Davout and Soult on my part, how about:

Davout (Left Wing)
Ney (Centre)
Soult (Right Wing)

 

[Redbeard]

A different Napoleon wins Waterloo WI.

OTL Soult was Napoleon's best Marshal, after (perhaps) Massena, often doing more to win battles than Napoleon did. This led Napoleon to be jealous of Soult, and he tried to keep Soult out of the way as he felt that Soult took some of his glory. Ever loyal, Soult rallied to Napoleon in 1815, and was OTL left at Paris. Even in such a desperate situation, Napoleon couldn't let Soult take any glory.

Murat, an outstanding cavalryman, was King of Naples, which he kept by betraying Napoleon at the last minute. OTL he also declared for Napoleon, tried to unite Italy behind him, and was defeated by the Austrians and British. He fled to France and tried to join Napoleon, but the Emperor would have none of it.

WI: Napoleon swallowed his pride and accepted them back. Murat is commanding Napoleon's Cavalry, Soult has his traditional position commanding the right wing vice Grouchy (who, IMHO did a good job, the Emperor had already failed to stop Prussian IV Corps movement west at Ligny).

Napoleon wins Waterloo, Soult smashes Gneisenau's Army (not Blucher's, who had little actual command of it), the British retreat back to England. Napoleon continues to smash the Russian and Austrian armies, but stays true to his word, and keeps to the borders of France, and a peace is concluded.

Napoleon will die on schedule in 1821, and his son I don't think will gain the throne, could Soult take the throne of an increasingly Parliamentary France? How would this effect the course of events?

I could add a candidate or two more as best French Marshalls, but as that isn't the subject of this thread I'll stick to this:

The leading Marshall present - Ney - indeed had a bad hair day - and replacing or supplementing him with an experienced guy like Soult could give positive results for the French. Ney IMHO first of all was a fighter but not a co-ordinator, and the French efforts under Ney's leadership at Waterloo appear quite un-coordinated. I could imagine Soult doing much better, at least not wasting the Cavalry in a charge against unbroken infantry. I doubt Murat would be better than Ney, they were of the same ilk, but Ney being more loyal.

But even with a decisive victory over Wellington and Blücher I doubt if Napoleon could have avoided defeat eventually. The Austrian, Russian and Geram forces approaching simply were too numerous and too skilled to be smashed inside any realistic hope. Next, the news of a French victory aty Waterloo probably will have remaining allied armies take a more cautious approach (as in 1813) - i.e. only accepting battle with Napoleon if you know you can have overwhelming superiority inside a battle's time. Earlier superior manoeuvreability of the French army had made such an approach meaningless, but by this time the allied staff's had learned much.

But anyway, also this is not the subject of the thread - somehow the French prevail in 1915, and by 1821 Soult is on the throne.

IMHO it would be very difficult for anybody to succeed Napleon, certainly if he also will have to put aside the King of Rome. I guess Soult, or any other guy without an extraordinary legitemacy for the throne will have to do a lot og killing and fighting to get to the throne and to stay on it.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[CrazyhurtZ]

I don't know too much about the generals of the time but from history class i remember that if Ney's cavalry had attacked with infantry in support and spiked the cannons when they over run them then the battle would have been won. So what you need is a commander who doesn't believe that cavalry can win it on its own and orders a company of men too spike the cannons when they are over run.

 

[Abdul Hadi Pasha]

The odds were stacked against him, but a decisive victory at Waterloo would have helped them.

Anyway, I'm not sure why Napoleon would have to die on schedule since he was living on an unhealthy island, but even if he did, his son was old enough to succeed him. And Napoleon II would have way more legitimacy due to who his mother was.

I could add a candidate or two more as best French Marshalls, but as that isn't the subject of this thread I'll stick to this:

The leading Marshall present - Ney - indeed had a bad hair day - and replacing or supplementing him with an experienced guy like Soult could give positive results for the French. Ney IMHO first of all was a fighter but not a co-ordinator, and the French efforts under Ney's leadership at Waterloo appear quite un-coordinated. I could imagine Soult doing much better, at least not wasting the Cavalry in a charge against unbroken infantry. I doubt Murat would be better than Ney, they were of the same ilk, but Ney being more loyal.

But even with a decisive victory over Wellington and Blücher I doubt if Napoleon could have avoided defeat eventually. The Austrian, Russian and Geram forces approaching simply were too numerous and too skilled to be smashed inside any realistic hope. Next, the news of a French victory aty Waterloo probably will have remaining allied armies take a more cautious approach (as in 1813) - i.e. only accepting battle with Napoleon if you know you can have overwhelming superiority inside a battle's time. Earlier superior manoeuvreability of the French army had made such an approach meaningless, but by this time the allied staff's had learned much.

But anyway, also this is not the subject of the thread - somehow the French prevail in 1915, and by 1821 Soult is on the throne.

IMHO it would be very difficult for anybody to succeed Napleon, certainly if he also will have to put aside the King of Rome. I guess Soult, or any other guy without an extraordinary legitemacy for the throne will have to do a lot og killing and fighting to get to the throne and to stay on it.

Regards

Steffen Redbeard

 

[Earling]

But even with a decisive victory over Wellington and Blücher I doubt if Napoleon could have avoided defeat eventually. The Austrian, Russian and Geram forces approaching simply were too numerous and too skilled to be smashed inside any realistic hope. Next, the news of a French victory aty Waterloo probably will have remaining allied armies take a more cautious approach (as in 1813) - i.e. only accepting battle with Napoleon if you know you can have overwhelming superiority inside a battle's time. Earlier superior manoeuvreability of the French army had made such an approach meaningless, but by this time the allied staff's had learned much.

Oh I don't know. I read that during the 1814 campaign Napoleon came very close to catching one of the allied armies (Blücher if I remember correctly) several times. A few hours delay with a subsequent decisive battle and the allied strategy may well have been in tatters.

Theres also the question of whether or not a crushing defeat at Waterloo would cause all the problems of the Seventh coalition to bubble to the surface. The European great powers had been falling out amongst themselves before Napoleons return. In averse times people tend to blame their allies, especially if they are only allies of convenience. A crushing defeat at Waterloo would offer more than enough opportunity for discord. Who is responsible Wellington or Blücher?

 

[67th Tigers]

Theres also the question of whether or not a crushing defeat at Waterloo would cause all the problems of the Seventh coalition to bubble to the surface. The European great powers had been falling out amongst themselves before Napoleons return. In averse times people tend to blame their allies, especially if they are only allies of convenience. A crushing defeat at Waterloo would offer more than enough opportunity for discord. Who is responsible Wellington or Blücher?

Prussia and Russia were pretty resentful towards Britain, and they backed a Bonapartist successor to Napoleon, while Britain and Austria backed Louis.

It's easy to imagine a TL where Prussia and Russia sued for a peace, and Britain and Austria backed down.

BTW: Steffan, your opinion of the Marshals, I'd love to hear it?