I can't speak for the situation of every soldier after the Napoleonic wars, but I can for the 95th Rifles. The 95th Rifles (or Rifle Brigade) were a British rifle regiment who gained legendary status for their bravery and skill even within their standing period.

They began at the turn of the 18th and 19th centuries and their use had caused many an argument among military theorists at the time. This was because the more 'conservative' view was that a soldier was an animal and could only be controlled with strict discipline. The Rifle Brigade gave the soldier a more accurate weapon and were allowed to fire when they could hit their chosen target, not as a volley as was used among musket regiments.

But as to your question, they were viewed a very different way than to veterans today. Many of those who were successful after active service were so because they wrote books or memoirs about their time in the Brigade and the war, which was sold and brought them popularity and an income at a time where they would often only get a soldiers pension and any other work they could find.

This interest was less due to respect for what then had been through as it is today, but respect for what they had done, their courage and skill in battle. However, some turned to drink to continue life, and for these people there was little respect and often relied upon their 'brothers in arms', with whom they had been through so much for support, and of course the soldiers pension.

So yes, some were respected and venerated, but not for being a veteran of the war, but for having a strong and influential part in the act. Why these men? Probably because the public can often praises the small group who can stand against many, as the Rifles often did.

Source: Rifles by Mark Urban

For the 1812 Russia campaign anniversary, there was an exhibition in Switzerland mostly based on a study about the socio-economic situation of the Swiss soldiers who were sent on the Russia campaign.

The most important fact is that these soldiers were already at the bottom of society, often petty thieves and also quite a few who had impregnated an unmarried girl (the hiring bonus was given to the girl to care for the child). Typical scum of the earth recruiting.

The Russia campaign was devastating and the few hundred survivors out of about 4000 who set out returned broken and shattered. Many were unable to find work and had to live from public assistance. They were not respected by society (somewhat like many US PTSD Vietnam vets).

On the other hand, officers, coming mostly from the upper level of society, were respected during and after the war. Many received good education in French colleges (engineering, surveying, etc.) and could apply their valuable skills in civilian professions after the war.

It's not the Napoleonic War, but Kipling's poem about the old veterans of the Crimean War shows they were still respected, but weren't given enough money to survive.

It's chilling and well worth a read: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Last_of_the_Light_Brigade

There is a lot of recent research showing how veterans of the Napoleonic Wars were treated not just immediately following the conflict, but many years after, as well.

Many historians have pointed out that the Napoleonic Wars were one of the first series of conflicts to be commemorated and written about by large numbers of common soldiers. Philip Dwyer, for example, has demonstrated how many veterans published memoirs of their experience on campaign in the mid-19th century, among which several titles sold extremely well. Part of the reason for the influx of Napoleonic Memoirs was due to the re-emergence of the French Empire; post-1851 when another Bonaparte claimed the throne, many things "imperial" were back in vogue, and the new regime looked to the past for ways to legitimize itself given the morally ambiguous circumstances by which Napoleon III rose to power.

To that effect, Napoleon III decreed the striking of a new medal in 1857 intended to honor the surviving soldiers of the Napoleonic Wars called the "Medaille de Saint-Hélène," named for the island where Bonaparte père lived out his final days following his defeat at Waterloo. All living veterans who served in the Grande Armée between 1792 and 1815 qualified for the award. And this wasn't a small number of men, either; historians estimate that around 400,000 of these medals were issued in the following years. There are enough still floating around that you can buy them on e-Bay. The commissioning of the medals was part of a larger policy that Napoleon III pursued to commemorate state accomplishments during the First Empire and foster national pride while simultaneously downplaying the international tensions of the era.

Here's what they look like, and here is a photo of the medal in its case. The inscription reads, "Campaigns from 1792 to 1815. His [Bonaparte's] last thoughts were of his companions in glory, St. Helena 5 May 1821." The designer of the medal was the chief engraver of the Paris mint, Albert-Désiré Barre (you can see his insignia below the bust of Bonaparte's head: a small anchor).

A really fantastic resource for learning about this process of commemoration is Sudhir Hazareesingh The Saint-Napoleon: Celebrations of Sovereignty in Nineteenth-Century France. There's an entire section in chapter 4 of that book on the way that Napoleonic veterans were venerated by the regime. The Brown University Library's Anne S. K. Brown Military Collection also has an excellent series of photographs of Napoleonic veterans in their old military regalia in the 1850s.

I wish I could remember the source for this, so maybe someone can help me.

My impression is that in Britain veterans often did not get a very good treatment after the war. I think the reformer, and consistent supporter of the wars, William Cobbett may have campaigned for better treatment of veterans. (In which case my source would be Richard Ingrams' biography.)

World War 1&2 helped break down class barriers in Britain. The First World War shook the status and confidence of the ruling class - and simply killed off a lot of them - while ennobling the common soldier. The Second encouraged the famous 'all in this together' feeling. Both wars resulted to a turn to the left in British politics and a greater role for the state in supporting people (even in the face of tough economic conditions). This helped soften the impact of demobilisation and maintain the dignity of those injured in the wars.

The Napoleonic Wars did not have this effect. If anything they may have had the opposite effect. (As you might imagine if you've seen the documentary series Sharpe.) After 1815 Britain had a very reactionary government for a decade and a half, highly concerned about protecting the status of the ruling class and preventing disorder from below. I don't recall ever seeing it mentioned, but I would suggest that the large number of demobbed soldiers in the population - a potential core for violence and organisation - encouraged the governments' fears.

I have just checked Asa Briggs, one of the standard works for English social history, and he doesn't appear to mention anything about the impact of the Napoleonic Wars. So in terms of British society they may not have had much of an impact.