Battle of Waterloo was the concluding and pivotal action of the Napoleonic Wars that successfully put an end to the French control of the European landmass and brought about extreme changes in the political frontiers and control of Europe. Taken place on June 18, 1814, near Waterloo, which is now known as Belgium, the battle levels as a huge turning point in present history.[footnoteRef:1] It is clear that the Battle of Waterloo is distinguished for the reason that it is in this battle, that one of the world's utmost war stars, Napoleon Bonarparte, suffered a humbling loss and the end of his livelihood at the hands of a comparatively unfamiliar British general. Assuming Napoleon won his war against the Russians and English and maintained his triumph, and was able to pass his regime on to latter administrations which could have held the wins, here are some likely ways the world would have possibly been different. [1: And if Napoleon had won the Battle of Waterloo? May 7, 2014. http://www.thelocal.fr/20150611/and-if-napoleon-had-won-at-waterloo (accessed September 19, 2015).] One way the world would have been different if he was able to win at Waterloo would be having complete control of France. If Bonaparte had decided forgiveness to the withdrawing British militaries of Wellington, history could have taken a totally dissimilar turn. The British militaries had decided something similar seven years before at Sintra, where French militaries had been allowed to leave from Portugal after numerous devastating battles. This type of an act of honor, although completely detached from Bonaparte's character, may well have been adequate to persuade the British that there might be a nonviolent purpose to the French concern.

If Napoleon Bonarparte had took legal action for some sort of harmony, before the coming of the Russian and Austrian armies, they would have more than likely discovered a new ally in possibly with Britain. With the two previous opponents working together to bring about a new era of peace, it is not beyond reason to suggest that the other part of Europe might have been of a mind to follow suit. The Congress system that was prevalent in Europe for the years following Bonaparte's collapse may well have still occurred but with a stronger leader speaking on behalf of France.

However, all of this would have been relying heavily on Bonaparte being able to not pay any attention all the earlier behaviors that had come to describe his rule. In order for this situation to work, Bonaparte would have had to cease behaving like some sort of power-hungry person and become a reasonable diplomatic attendance in Europe. One can even imagine that situation, had Bonaparte turn out to be the diplomat that Europe wanted him to be, the rise of Germany might have been meaningfully postponed.

Also, the revolutions of 1848 could have been a considerably smaller matter as there would have been no resentment concerning a French monarchy, which would have separated with Bonaparte's transformed rise to power, and as a result no revolt in France. With that being said, the French revolution, which was one of the greater and more volatile of the 1848 insurrections, would not have occurred to persuade the others across Europe. Short of the dissatisfaction all over Europe, we can effortlessly see a set-up in which a joint Germany never comes in to existence, successfully eliminating the threat of World War One in 1914 and, as a result, the subsequent World War twenty-five years later.

Another way the world would have been different if he had won the battle of waterloo was that the French Empire would have been massive. Domination would have for sure been on Bonaparte mind. He would have wanted to increase his territory way beyond the French borders. This could have been done because the French had a huge army. The French army was by far the most equipped of the three, consisting of approximately 74,000 soldiers; 48,000 infantries; 14,000 cavalries; 7,000 artilleries and 250 guns.[footnoteRef:2] It consisted primarily of veteran soldiers, a majority of whom had already taken part in one or more campaigns for Napoleon in the past. Differently from their counterparts, the French's cavalries were numerous and formidable, and included 14 regiments of armored and heavy cavalry and 7 highly versatile lancers. However, the Prussian army would have been no math in the perfect world because they did not have the manpower to defeat the French. For example, they consisted of 50,000 men from four groups. It consisted mostly of veterans, even though there also was a large amount of workforces. With that being said, Bonaparte had more...

The French would have constructed a larger worldwide empire than they did, so instead of just being concentrated in Africa there would also be more French speaking settlements in the Americas and Asia and French would be more extensively articulated than it is today. [2: Cornwell, Bernard. Waterloo: The History of Four Days, Three Armies, and Three Battles. New York: Harper, 2015.]
These are some of the different histories that writers and specialists have imagined had Napoleon actually been victorious in the battle 200 years ago, which actually finished in his humbling downfall and banishment at the hands of British and Prussian militaries. Historian Helmut Stubbe da Luz supposed that had Napoleon compressed generals Wellington and Bluecher on the valley of Waterloo, he would have carried on his march as much as northern Germany.

Luebeck Hamburg Bremen, and would have turn out to be French again. That scenario, on the other hand, should maybe be taken with a pinch of salt, da Luz added, as the European kingdoms of the time would not have let an overthrow at Waterloo go unavenged for long. As Belgian historian Philippe Raxhon, an expert in the Battle of Waterloo, makes the point: "Waterloo was a complete victory for the followers but it would not have been a full success for Napoleon."[footnoteRef:3] [3: Leggiere, Michael V. Napoleon and the Struggle for Germany: The Franco-Prussian War of 1813 (Cambridge Military Histories) (Volume 1. Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2015.]

If he won the battle of Waterloo, China and Russia would have been on his list for a conquest. Nonetheless if one envisions that Bonaparte had sooner or later overpowered his European opponents in the long-term, his determinations later would have been obviously greater, historians supposed. "If Napoleon shadowed his new plans for 1810, he would have attacked Russia again and possibly extended his empire as far as China,"

An even more fundamental situation was put onward in the 19th century by the French author Louis Geoffroy. In his book he described how Napoleon was able to defeat China, revolving it into a meager "Asian sphere." The 1836 substitute history book -- a literary genre that envisions similar realisms and consist of classics for example Philip K. Dick's "The Man in the High Castle" centering around United States lost to Germany and Japan -- Geoffroy takes everything back to three years before Waterloo. "I transcribed the history of Bonaparte from 1812 to 1832, from Moscow in blazes to the worldwide realm and his demise, 20 years of nonstop amassed splendor which raised him to an all-influential level above whom there is merely God," he engraved in the outline to the novel.

However, living up under an all-commanding Napoleon Bonaparte would have been a different story. Napoleon was a ruler but not a backward-looking ruler like the Tsar of Russia. The research shows that some experts believe that Napoleonic rule across continental Europe, well-adjusted by Britain's long-term nautical supremacy, would not essentially have been that bad for the world. They think that the dictatorship that Napoleon exported to the nations under his power was a recession compared to the movement of the French Revolution, but then again it was not bad for his new subjects in Spain, Germany, Hollande, and Italy. Experts cited the "equivalence of rights for religious minorities and rural inhabitants, the right to vote for men, a new judicial organization and an expanded financial area." "[footnoteRef:4] [4: Muir, Roy. Wellington: Waterloo and the Fortunes of Peace 1814-1852. Yale: Yale University Press, 2015.]

If Bonaparte had of won Waterloo, there would have been a less-powerful Germany. Carefully seeing more into the future, the historians visualizes a continental Europe conquered by France during the course of the 19th century. Had that occurred Germany would not have turn out to be so strong throughout that period. Experts believe Germany would therefore perhaps not have been in a situation to incite a First and Second World War. Nevertheless imagining equivalent histories is uncertain business for historians. Other experts supposed that the causes of events are countless. A lot of these experts limited themselves to scenarios straight linked to the destinies of the main characters. For instance, a beaten Duke of Wellington would no doubt have resumed by sea to England by means of Ostend, for the reason that Wellington himself had imagined not winning the battle.

Of course Novelists have unrestricted rein. In his 1992 best-seller "Fatherland,"…