What was this absolute madman's endgame after escaping Elba? Did he even have a chance of returning to his former glory?

What was this absolute madman's endgame after escaping Elba? Did he even have a chance of returning to his former glory?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Napoleon#Hundred_Days
twitter.com/NSFWRedditImage

The people were already turning against him

One big huge victory and then signing a peace that will let him reign. The coalition was never going to agree to this though.

Not really, dude took back the whole country without firing a shot due to how popular he was

>"If you want to shoot the Emperor, do it faggot."
>Not one person takes the shot
>Napoleon smiles triumphantly, and then goes to his tent to furiously jerk off and cry to the memory of that one time Josephine actually smiled at him
How can a man be so alpha at certain times and such a whiny little bitch at others?

>corrupt politicians and diplomats
>the people
Nice try Talleyrand.

Yes, he tried to attack and destroy the coalition powers one by one before they could mobilise and swarm France
First he defeated the Prussians, then he met the Brits at Waterloo. He would've won, but the Prussian army escaped the contingent Napoleon sent to keep them away, and the Prussians cost him the battle of Waterloo.
If he had won at Waterloo, he probably would've attacked the Austrians, the Prussians again, and then fought the Russians. So essentially, even he had won the battle of Waterloo, there were two huge undefeated continental powers to fight. What an absolute madman.

Austrians and Russians were a joke though. Russians had bad equipment and training, Austrians had bad leadership.

If he had knocked out the Brits and Prussians he'd have won.

To conquer Europe once and for all. What a madman

I just can't believe this guy actually fucking existed

A serious case can be made for him being the greatest human being who ever lived

Napoleon was the dying gasp of antiquity.

Provided that Alexander was not human, then sure.

Alexander was like a mythological figure that somehow escaped into the real world

>The people were already turning against him
>Soldiers refuse to shoot or arrest him and join his army

hm

Alexander was Napoleon's idol but he seriously surpassed him.

He was just seeing how it would all turn out, he was making it up as he went along by this point, I doubt he expected to get this far.

How often do you return from exile after monumentally losing everything and get most of your power back in less than a year?

Patton

>losing major battles
>waging a disastrous campaign
>getting exiled

Alexander was King of the known world when he died. And he had fought personally in every battle throughout his campaign, at tremendous peril.

Napoleon is definitely more relevant today, but he's far more proximate as well. Alexander is almost too strange for us. We tend to boil him down into simple archetypes.

Alexander was probably the first person in history to dream of conquering the world. That idea had to be invented.

Austria's army was large and professional. The French army was better, but only by a limited margin. It was only Napoleon that allowed France to conquer it. And Russia had the largest army in the world, only exceeded by Napoleon's grand armee which they managed to survive against. Russia and Austria combined wasn't impossible, especially not for Napoleon, but it was still a force to be reckoned with.

>dying in your 20s so nobody can defeat you in battle.
That said, his conquest of Persia was astounding though

King of known world being crumbling Persian Empire and because he died after his major conquest. You are idolising him as a mythological figure yourself. Sure he was impressive don't get me wrong but "King of Known World" and "Never lost a battle" loses it's meaning when you put it into context. When he went westwards conquering Persian territories, stopped when he reached the other relevant part of world, India then died young at his absolute peak.

His empire also collapsed like the day after he died. He is not even top 3 in amount of land conquered either. He also inherited his army from his father by the way who united the Greek city-states, unlike Napoleon who worked his way from comparatively nothing

He is impressive because he was first of his kind in taking a loyal and disciplined army and taking it for a tour. So he influenced everyone after him and he is a figure in like a David versus Goliath type of situation against Persian Empire.

>Alexander was probably the first person in history to dream of conquering the world.
You're joking, right?

He died in his 30s and it wasn't by choice.

>then he met the Brits at Waterloo

You mean the Germans and Dutch troops dressed in red coats and lead by the Irish general Wellington
Had those been real British soldiers, the French would have won before the Prussians could even arrive

No one had that goal before him. Where do you suppose his fame comes from? Plenty wanted power, sure; but few have ever been in a position to go as far as Alexander did. He was the first world conquerer and arguably the most successful. No one else could hold his empire together. Neither Napoleon nor Caesar could have done it.

French would have won if not for Ney's PSTD. If he wasn't seeking death so hard and spiked the cannons instead. That being said I don't think Napoleon could have "won" in the end. He would lose the war of attrition.

After the return to Babylon he was the de facto King of the world. Emissaries from as far afield as China and South Africa had sent him pledges.

You are aware Alexander just conquered Persian Empire, which Persians have conquered themselves some years back then it crumbled away almost instantly, right?

details details
There were a lot of Germans but Britain still had like 35,000 troops on the field. Not every country is blessed with being able to rally 200,000 men at a moments notice even just a couple of years after being invaded by Russia

>After the return to Babylon he was the de facto King of the world.

Was Darius the Great King of the World? They owned roughly similar territory and had same contacts.

>King of known world being crumbling Persian Empire
And the whole Eastern Mediterranean, which basically was the whole settled world known to them.

>south africa

>Did he even have a chance of returning to his former glory?
No, even if he won at Waterloo, he would've had to fight another massive battle against the coming armies of Austria and Russia.

Yes, the Eastern Mediterranean and Egypt that was part of Persian Empire prior.

Britain could have though, if it was not a land of faggots. 35K-> not even half of the """British army""", and counting Scots! LoL

>when you hear the cavalry horn

Darius was not established as the hegemon of Greece or the terror of India. He was also not beloved by the Egyptians nor feared by the Scythians.

>crumbled away almost instantly
His successors ruled the conquered territories until one after the other was conquered by the other great ancient power, Rome.

I would say so, if Darius had managed to conquer the Greeks. But he didn't, despite one less serious and one very serious attempt.

Southern Africa *

He was likely the only one to really think of it and get there

He was literally undefeated and no man before him had possessed more absolute power. If he could have lived another 30 years there's no telling what the world would be today. Alexander was the pivot of human history.

Whatever without the Brits all the other troops would have been useless because the Brits were the only ones who had a long enough cock-length to reload the rifles.

>Alexander was the pivot of human history.
Not really. The pivot of human history was the development of agriculture.

That was not one person's accomplishment, and no one can claim credit for it. You might just as well say the pivot of human history was bipedal locomotion.

Without all the other troops, the British effort would've been useless, too.

It's almost like they're just one part of a continent-wide coalition. Wow!

The pivot of human history was the invention of the fridge.

And anime.

Go to bed, Talleyrand.

>Russia and Austria combined wasn't impossible
At that point it very much was. You're forgetting the manpower shortages France had by that point. Most of their experienced personnel had died after years of war, and the French were seriously lacking in horses for logistics and cavalry. They were really scraping the bottom of the barrel for the Waterloo campaign, and the morale boost that Napoleon provided wasn't going to last forever. And that's not even getting into the fact that much of Napoleon's manpower was never even French to begin with. Napoleon was always reliant on forces from his allies. Take the Grand Armee when it invaded Russia, for example:
>300,000 Frenchmen
>108,000 Poles
>110,000 Germans
>27,000 Italians
>8,000 Swiss
>5,000 Spanish
>20,000 Prussians
>11,000 From Balkan Provinces
>34,000 Austrians

Meanwhile, the Austrians had long since reformed their army along the same lines as the French (even at Wagram the Austrian army's quality had notably improved), and the powers of Europe only had to follow the same strategy they had in 1812 should Napoleon somehow miraculously win Waterloo.

>British revisionist the post

Yes but the other allied powers were known for prevalent homosexuality in their countries, army, and government. At the council of Hamburg in 1815 it was internationally recognised that the British army was the only heterosexual force in the world, and thus was responsible for all allied victories in the napoleonic wars.
It was also discovered that the Dutch, Hannoverian, and Prussian troops at Waterloo were actually British irregulars who just happened to be in a dress-up party when war was declared.

>Alexander was like a mythological figure that somehow escaped into the real world
That's honestly the most accurate description of the guy I've ever read.

Ah but you're forgetting Napoleon had a knack for brilliant decisive victories, considering his track record, it could be repeated.
And if Napoleon had won at Waterloo, he could've knocked out the Prussian and British land army for a short time. He was planning to attack the Russians and Austrians individually, if events transpired that actually allowed his plan to go ahead successfully, he had a real chance of actually defeating them.

>And that's not even getting into the fact that much of Napoleon's manpower was never even French to begin with

Bullshit, Napoleon's army was almost entirely French (with a few foreign units from satellite states) for the biggest part of the Napoleonic Wars
The only moment his army included a significant amount of foreigners was during the Invasion of Russia, and even then Frenchmen made up the biggest part (your numbers are wrong btw, pic related are the real ones)

>44%

>but you're forgetting Napoleon had a knack for brilliant decisive victories, considering his track record, it could be repeated.
No, they couldn't. Napoleon's brilliance didn't happen in a vacuum. Yes, battles like Austerlitz were brilliant, but decisive, shattering victories like that relied on the quality of his own army and numerous failures on the part of his enemies. Especially during the Third and Fourth coalitions, he was also able to seize upon apathetic opponents - the rest of Europe, not recognizing Napoleon as an existential threat like they did later, wasn't all that enthusiastic about fighting him. Thus, he was able to take on the powers one or two at a time. Even though Russia was involved in the Third and Fourth coalitions, they weren't willing to send the full weight of their army against Napoleon like they did in 1812.

The Army of 1814 was not the Army of 1803. France was devastated from two decades of war, and was at the end of its rope. Even in the 1812 campaign Napoleon was running into issues capitalizing on victories because of a lack of cavalry. And then there's the question of logistics. France and Germany both had been economically devastated by the Napoleonic Wars. With most of the fighting - both past and in this campaign you're proposing - taking place in Germany, the region was devastated and running out of resources with which to support large armies. While this may not be so much of an issue for the Coalition, who had the resources and economic backing to sustain campaigns abroad, France just didn't have the resources to do the same.

The Waterloo campaign was an impressive testament to the cult of Napoleon, but it had no realistic chances of succeeding.

I think you're understating the strength of the French Army. Waterloo had about just under a third of Napoleon's numbers present. Napoleon didn't have the strength like in earlier years, but he was still capable of beating Austria one-on-one.
But I'm not totally disagreeing with you, I said he had a chance, but not that it was inevitable. Napoleon's potential victory relied entirely on defeating the coalition powers (Mostly Prussia and Austria) in a short timespan.
Napoleon's victories were still helped by his own skill. At waterloo he had the same numbers as Wellington but he was in the process of defeating them and would have had if the Prussians had not reached them.
Also Armies like Russia and Prussia had not been totally successful in improving their armed forces. The method of combined arms was still not totally prevalent in France's opposing armies in 1814.
Personally I give Napoleon a 4/10 chance of winning if he had won at Waterloo.

The issue was that he never would have been taking on Austria one-on-one.

What beat him in the Leipzig campaign was that the Coalition powers pulled back and coordinated their actions. They went after his marshals instead of him, and only actually attacked Napoleon when he was backed into a corner and massively outnumbered.

Waterloo itself was a fairly light response compared to the 1812 campaign, but had Napoleon won that battle the Coalition powers would have definitely reverted to the tried and true strategy of 1812.

Yes but it was a little-known secret that napoleon's research had invented repeating-rifles and gatling guns. If he had won Waterloo, he would've had enough time to deploy them in his army. He would've then defeated the coalition powers.

Wellington detected

Great conquerors like Alexander, Napoleon, Cyrus and Akkad pretty much echo the same sort of awe. They simply did not give a single fuck.