Waterloo was lost at Quatre Bras (1 Viewer)

[panda1gen]

Surely the key other question was where were the 30 000 French that were supposed to be screening the Prussians? Napoleon must take some responsibility for that decision surely?

 

[OzDigger]

Je Ne Parle Pas Francais Capitolron,

Which complicated things when I was left stranded on the battlefield of Waterloo, I can tell you.

The question I suggest an answer to (in original post above), is why was Napoleon's Army unable to defeat Wellington's Army at Waterloo. I am not looking at why Napoleon was unable to beat the Prussians, or any 'ifs'. The 'why's' are already spectulative enough!

I don't think there was one particluar reason, but more a combination of errors etc including:

* Sending De Grouchy on a wild goose chase after the Prussians when his forces would have been of far more use against Wellington.

* Napoleon allowing his subordinates to much latitude which resulted in them making a number of foolish descisions.

* Napoleon postponing his attack(s) to allow the field to dry out enough for artillery manoeuvering. This allowed time for the arrival of the Prussians.

* Wellington keeping most of his forces behind the ridge which minimised the effects of the French artlillery.

 

[Rob]

I don't think there was one particluar reason, but more a combination of errors etc including:

* Sending De Grouchy on a wild goose chase after the Prussians when his forces would have been of far more use against Wellington.

* Napoleon allowing his subordinates to much latitude which resulted in them making a number of foolish descisions.

* Napoleon postponing his attack(s) to allow the field to dry out enough for artillery manoeuvering. This allowed time for the arrival of the Prussians.

* Wellington keeping most of his forces behind the ridge which minimised the effects of the French artlillery.

Can i add Ney's hasty attack on the British squares?.I'm no expert on this but was this a factor?.

Have just re read Oz's post,this could be covered in his second point.

Rob

 

[Capitolron]

One of the most popular French phrases from the Battle of Waterloo is "La Garde recule".

Jeff

Jeff

Vos mots sont si vrais - il blesse mon coeur !!

Ron

 

[aujj65]

Jeff

Vos mots sont si vrais - il blesse mon coeur !!

Ron

Your words are so true - it injures my heart!! Ron, have you been at the brandy again?

Jeff

 

[maloyalo]

I can try to summerize Napoleon's failure to beat Wellingtons Army as being due to unsuccessfull tactics and lack of confidence by the officers & troops.

In the early hours before the battle, some of his most senior commanders stated as much to Napoleon. They considered the British infantry, placed by Wellington to be impregnable. Napoleon mocked this lack of confidence. But Napoleon had almost no experience fighting the british.

The first assaults of the several French attacks, were carried out with good spirit, but as each bogged down, and retrograded, their subsequent efforts were less and less bold, and often broke down into large scale, sometimes very large scale skirmishing.

 

[Capitolron]

Your words are so true - it injures my heart!! Ron, have you been at the brandy again?

Jeff

Oui

 

[kilted vampire]

Ahhh But Maloyalo .... Mes Canons Parlent la Mort pour l'Anglais !!

Let the conversation begin !!

La mort du Garde at Waterloo! More like.



Vive L'Sharpe!!

 

[maloyalo]

Concerning the Prussians effect on the outcome of the battle.

Wellingtons decision to give battle at Waterloo at all, was predicated on the assurance that at least one Prussian Corp would arrive and participate in the battle. That is what he felt he needed to successfully defend his position. Once he accomplished that, then the two allied armies would concentrate and go over to the offensive. That was his plan.

I am not considering 'if's'. As I mentioned there is no telling what Wellington would have done if he was not assured a Prussian Corps assistance. And as it turn's out they did arrive. Bulow's corps actually began fighting later then Wellington had reason to hope, but the Prussian advance guard were at least visable early enough in the day to have the desired effect. Some btw say it was a mistake for Blucher to have lead the movement with the corp furthest away (Bulow). But this was normal procedure, for general's will always engage the enemy with their freshest troops, with full ammo loads, if at all possible.

Bulow's corps was the strongest Prussian corps with about 25-30,000 thousand men. Napoleon had no choice but to face it, and did so with Lobau's small corp (about 7ooo if I remember right) and a few thousand Young Guardsman.

With ever shrinking chance for success Napoleon threw everything (or let others throw) he had at the British/Allied Army. They failed. And I suggest that it was a very predictable outcome. Some certainly in the French army, higher officers especially, knew before the campaign began, that their offensive tactics did not succeed against British defensive ones. The only new elements, were Napoleon was with the army (unlike in Spain, for most of that campaign) and the 'British' army had not many actual British in it. Some within the British forces were even thought capable of defecting, or disbanding (and some did!). But Ney's failure to defeat the British at Quatre Bras proved nothing had materially changed, and when Napoleon/Ney repeated the same tactics nearly identically at Waterloo it didn't either, and for the same reasons.

I have stated I am an admirer of Napoleon and of the Grande Army. I admire the organization of it most. The French Corps was a amazing machine, and Napoleon a master, until meglomaina set in. But I do not admire his (and Ney's) willingness to cause the death and maiming of 10's of thousands of men, just to keep themselves in power, or to go down fighting. But even cloated under the umbrella of 'politics' there is something particulary wrong with doing so, uselessly, with no real chance of success, and doing so even when all is lost.

P.S. As it turned out parts of two other Prussian corps reached the battlefield and did some fighting, Pirch's mainly I believe. If anyone seriously believes that Napoleon would have won Waterloo had not these arrived, then I will address that too.

 

[Capitolron]

La mort du Garde at Waterloo! More like.



Vive L'Sharpe!!

KV

Vous le vampire bête - sur lequel le côté est vous ? Emperuer Napoleon n'est pas s'il vous plaît avec votre manque de loyality!!

Vive la République française!



Loyal Marshal Ron

 

[maloyalo]

It is surprizingly quiet on the French front. Is anyone (besides the spirited Fishhead) even in the french camp ?

But it may be, just old hat, which is an odd saying now that I think about it.

Napoleon's hat was said to be worth 50,000 men on the battlefield. But by Waterloo it was old and seems to have shrunk to be worth about 1.

 

[damian]

I thought it was won on the Playing Fields of Eton

 

[Louis Badolato]

I thought it was won on the Playing Fields of Eton

It was won in the slums of London, Glascow, Edinburgh, and the poor farms all over Great Britain, Scotland and Ireland. In that type of warfare, it is the courage of the men as well as the discipline instilled by the non-coms that win wars, not the amatuerish officer corps from the public schools. Wellington owed his fame and success to men he described as "the scum of the earth" and about whom he once said "I hope the French are afraid of them, they certainly scare me."

 

[maloyalo]

Wasn't that Keegan (Face of Battle) that said the playing fields of Eaton ?

Wow, that is a favorite book of mine & had a big impact on how I look at history and accounts of it. I think it got a lot of people thinking. But I have heard folks disagree with the conclusion (a' La Eaton) before and agree it was not a decisive factor on the battlefield.

Louis, I think, is more on track with 'that most perfect of all instruments, British Infantry'. I think Wellington said that too, or something like that anyway. He hated and loved the infantry, just as he loved and hated himself. Now where did I hear that ?

For a little while, they (The British Infantry) just could not be beat (except rarely) by continental troops and tactics. That changed of course, in time, for the losers normally adopt the winners tactics.

If I could be one place at one time at the battle (in a bullet-proof time machine bubble) I think it would be where and when the French Guards attacked. Does anyone really know who and what happened there exactly ? The last place I would want to be, would be in the square of the 27th British Infantry Regiment, near the crossroads of Mont St. Jean.

 

[damian]

The only requirement to be a good officer in the British army was and probably still is to be a gentleman. As one of my gastroenterology colleagues in town said to me ( He is British you know, Harley street and all that). Damian the rot all started when the medical schools lowered their entarnce requirements and you no longer needed to be a gentleman to apply. ( Pompous ***).
Regards
Damian
A lowly colonial

 

[fishead19690]

It is surprizingly quiet on the French front. Is anyone (besides the spirited Fishhead) even in the french camp ?

But it may be, just old hat, which is an odd saying now that I think about it.

Napoleon's hat was said to be worth 50,000 men on the battlefield. But by Waterloo it was old and seems to have shrunk to be worth about 1.

Maloyalo I droped out of the arguement when you stated that you didn,t want to hear the what ifs but just the facts.

Fact is fact Napoleon lost the battle but you must realize that an attacking force must have superiour number of troops to asure a good chance of victory. And even before the arival of the prussians napoleon only just met these numbers of troops needed for a chance of victory against a defending army in a very strong tactical postion which Wellington had choosen very well with his hidden troops on the large reverse slope and the farm house strong points of hougomont, La Haie sainte,Papelotte and La Haie to his front to funnel all the french attacks. His left flank was mostly all sunken roads and foal terain wich would break up any large formations and leave them vulnerable to attack. His right flank was judged to be the most vulnerable and wellington knew this also and is why he sent the extra troops to Hal.

So givin that napoleon had only JUST! meet the superiourity of numbers needed for a good chance at sucsess before the arival of the prussians, these numbers were thrown way off with the estimated 48,000 prussians that fought on the field that day!!!!! And to make matters even worse they arrived in his rear also. And he was still able to fight a two front battle and was able to fight off much lager prussian forces for a good part of the battle.

If Napoleon had been willing to commited his guard after the fall of La Hai Sainte and put the final crushing blow on the smashed wavering british center at its most critical point It is believed he could have rolled up wellingtons lines and won the battle but he hesited and allowed Wellington time to reinforce his shattered center.

Napoleon for sure was not on his game at waterloo. It is said that the Braine L,Alleud Valley to the right of Hougomont would have allowed Napoleon a simillar unseen cover like Wellingtons reverse slope and a good chance of out flanking Wellingtons right flank without being seen.

Napoleon in some of his latter battles had a head on smash the center/slug it out mentality rather then out flank and manuever take to he battles. He was also criticized for this approach at Borodino where it is said he would have done better to have maneuvered around and would have had a chance at completing that victory, instead he let the russians escape still a complete force.

I wish Napoleon Had taken on Wellington in Spain. Napoleon had beaten the british in all his battles against them the short time he was there, but this was against Moore and not Wellington.

Wellington had a major advantage against the french in the penisular though.
He was fighting with his allies the spanish and portugesse in very mountainous country in which they had home field advantage and had a much better feed and supplied army then the french. They also left nothing to the french as they had a scroarched earth battle plan leaving nothing behind for the french to forage. This was very hard on an army that lived of the land and was very large and had a lot of mouths to feed. At least the british could hope for help from the civillians that they encountered. The poor french had to have a full units just to forage because guerillas would find and kill them otherwise and then go hide in the mountians or mix with other civillians.

The lines of comunications for the french had to be extra garrisoned to avoid guerilla attacks and most messages and messengers never made it.

The french were thrown off at first by Wellingtons tactics. Wellington was a great leader there is no doubt about that but it was impacted even more by the fact that they had been fighting the spainish there first and were having great sucess against them and winning very easy victories and were in a false sence of security very simillar to what the U.S. had in korea just before the chinese came in and gave them the wake up call.
Wellinton gave the french that same kind of wake up call.

We can argue what ifs and who was better all day but we,ll never know the answers to these what ifs.
Its clear you would like the Wellinton and the british to be the better of the two in your mind and its clear I would like Napoleon and the french to be the better of the two but the bottom line is they were both great armies and leaders and I,m sure given equal troops and terain on an even playing field they would have gone tit for tat agaist each other like a couple bloody sport teams, but the French/Napoleon team would have the leg up!!!

So lets agree to disagree on this issue as I,m sure you agree Napoleon was a Great commander as was Wellington.

 

[maloyalo]

So lets agree to disagree on this issue as I,m sure you agree Napoleon was a Great commander as was Wellington.

Yes, to both! I know there are always new things to learn, and I can easily be quite wrong. I mainly enjoy the chance to try out an idea, and hear opposing concepts, in fun with like minds. I do think Napoleon a great Commander, and actually would rate him higher then Wellington in an overall consideration. Napoleon, had something approaching genius, and not only on the battlefield, but in law, finance, etc. But just on the battlefield, Napoleon had few equals when he was as you said 'on his game'. Napoleon however eventually thought too much of himself and departed from reason. Wellington was more solid in a way, thru-out his career.

I actually agree with most everything you said, and had been just considering myself, how amazing the french performed against the Prussians on that flank. They held the line against close to 3-1 (or more) odds from around 4pm till....well I am not sure of that time (yet). But it was at least up to the time of the Imperial Guards attack, and around Placenoit later.

 

[fishead19690]

Its no surprise the french guard both young and latter old guard performed so well against the prussains as they were only line troops and landwier(militia). The guard were the best of the best of the french. The prussians had no guard units at waterloo.

As for Napoleon and Wellington! For being of the same age It is said that Napoleon showed his years much more then Wellington health wise!

Wellington was said to be in great health and Napoleon years of stress and long never ending campaigns and political nightmares had taken its toll on him physically. I think he may have been diabetic myself??? I,m Diabetic myself and know how clouded my judgement can get when my blood sugar is off and this is something that gets worse with age. And pour diet on campaign would throw him into a sad mental state as you can,t think clearly when you have a bad blood sugar reaction. I believe this could posibly have been his problem at waterloo??? But this is only a thought on my behalf as I have never heard anything about Napoleon being Diabetic but he was on the heavy side later in his life and if he was diabetic and was eating to many carbs???? Could this have been the result of Marie ann twanette having them eat cake instead of bread????

 

[Capitolron]

Tim

I agree with everything you have said in this thread. I avoided the discussion because you were doing a great job hold the FRENCH LINE and these discussion do go nowhere fast when people get tied up in the if's and facts only type postings.

But, the discussion has been a pleasure to read and my position on the Le' Emperuer is well know.

VIVE Le Discussion !

Ron

 

[maloyalo]

I avoided the discussion because you were doing a great job hold the FRENCH LINE and these discussion do go nowhere fast when people get tied up in the if's and facts only type postings.
Ron

Capitolron, I do have to ask what you mean by a discussion that is not 'if's and facts only type' ? At least I do not know what is better then trying to gravitate around the facts. I regret you did not join!