Wars and ConflictsΒ permalink
Could Napoleon win Waterloo?
This discussion has been closed.
-
Message 1.Β
Posted by faran1 (U2570961) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
I wanted to know if was a chance for Napoleon to win waterloo?
-
Message 2
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
No - he & his army were simply outclassed. He spent all day pounding the Allied army & them sent his best troops, the Imperial Guard, to attack Wellington's right, well out of the way of the approaching Prussians. If any French attack was going to succeed then this would've been it, but the Guard met British infantry & were stopped dead. The End. No special pleading about Prussians, piles, rain &c.
-
Message 3
Posted by Mr Pedant (U2464726) on Wednesday, 14th December 2005
Could have gone either way, the interesting question would be 'what then?'.
Few things in history, especially military history are inevitables and as Wellington said "it was a close run thing" -
Message 4
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Thursday, 15th December 2005
Wellington was just being modest & sporting.
-
Message 5
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Thursday, 15th December 2005
No - he & his army were simply outclassed. HΒ
I don't agree that the French were outclassed. Napoleon's army was excellent, much better than the one he had in 1813 wheras the Allied army was of very uneven quality and most of the best British troops were in America.
We can never know for sure of course but I believe that had Napoleon sent in the Guard earlier, right after the capture of La Haye Sainte, it could have made all the difference. Also he wasted too many troops on attacking Hougomont, and then there's the small matter of Grouchy's corps (one third of the French army) sent off on a wild goose chase.
NB don't understimate the importance of the Prussians - there is no doubt that their arrival was decisive. -
Message 6
Posted by DrkKtn6851746 (U2746042) on Thursday, 15th December 2005
Johnny Frog wasn't excellent enough to achieve his objective on the day.
If the Guard had attacked earlier they'd've faced redcoats who were fresher & had been subjected to less artillery fire & thus even less likely to break.
If the Prussians hadn't arrived we'd've been spared at least some of the handwringing Buonapartist bleating & excuse-making we've endured for nearly 200 years.
Grouchy's absence was entirely Boney's responsibility. Dear Arthur left a significant number of troops guarding the road to Brussells, just to be sporting. -
Message 7
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Thursday, 15th December 2005
Could have won, should have won, but Boney b****d it up, though.
-
Message 8
Posted by Mark (U1347077) on Thursday, 15th December 2005
Napoleon was ill in the morning and left much of the battle to Marhsall Ney. Had he been in control earlier, then he may have started the assault sooner in the day. Certainly he would have supported the massed cavalry attacks with infantry.
At the start of the battle, the French would have been favourites to win but Wellington husbanded his forces and the redcoats held their line. Battles are won by those who make the least mistakes and on the 18th of June 1815, Wellington was the better general.
There are 'what ifs' that cannot be answered - had Blucher not arrived, drawing off a French Corp and knocking their morale; had the French cannon been sited better; had Napoleon been healthier; had the French cavalry gone in with infantry support. Napoleon could easily have won but it is a credit to Wellington and the British infantry and their allies like the King's German Legion, that he did not.
Had the French won, it is unlikely they would have been able to resist the improved European armies of 1815 and the various monarchs were determined to see Napoleon permanently defeated. -
Message 9
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 16th December 2005
No - he & his army were simply outclassed. He spent all day pounding the Allied army & them sent his best troops, the Imperial Guard, to attack Wellington's right, well out of the way of the approaching Prussians. If any French attack was going to succeed then this would've been it, but the Guard met British infantry & were stopped dead. The End. No special pleading about Prussians, piles, rain &c.Β
actually about a third of the british forces were just as green as napoleons, the beligians wouldve rather fought for napoleon, and the orange forces (cant remember what the term is-dutch?)were sub-standard. He could quite easliy have won if he hadnt delegated the battle to Ney who was suffering from shellshock-which is explainable when he had a dozen horses shot from under him and was gettin shot at by God knows how many people when he led the I.G against the british. Ney may have been the bravest of the brave, but he wasnt the right man for the job by then. also a full division of the french army was dithering around that day. -
Message 10
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Friday, 16th December 2005
Wellington was just being modest & sporting.Β
no he wasnt-the allied troops were at breaking point- theyd suffered a "damn good thrashing" throughout the day and had the I.G's not broke, the british army would have. -
Message 11
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Saturday, 17th December 2005
Nap had lost before he even returned from Elba. Most of the potential conscripts ran for the hills, so he lacked the manpower for a lengthy campaign.
His earlier victories were based on intelligence successes and by the high Imperial period, he was relying on a smash-through opened by artillery and exploited by infantry. It was all over by Wagram, when despite being victorious, his victory was not comprehensive and his casualty toll was significantly higher than his opponnet's. W really just had to stand his ground to win. -
Message 12
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Saturday, 17th December 2005
no he could not, he was betrayed
-
Message 13
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Sunday, 18th December 2005
You have been reading too much Hamilton-Williams (exposed as a liar with a criminal record several years ago) or Weider (honest, but just deluded).
-
Message 14
Posted by Nik (U1777139) on Sunday, 18th December 2005
I do not even know him. All I know is that certain circles were financing Napoleons veeeeerrrryyyy strategiiiicccc and crrrrrrrucialllll for Fraaaanncceeeesss interests campaigns such as that in Russia (of course I am being ironic), and then the financing stopped (time to get the money back), and Napoleon lost. He had a better army, in a direct approach he had more chances to win but the game was predesigned. He was betrayed by his own officials. Is that so strange? It happened in half battles in history. Or that steals some honour from the English. They largely missed the battle anyway having fewer troops than what were later mentioned - Prussians did the job.
-
Message 15
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Monday, 19th December 2005
It is true that Nap's finances were in tatters, but that had started in 1805 and in 1811, the French system was virtually bankrupt, prompting the invasion of Russia on N's own admission. However, 1815 was not conducted on that basis - much of the support he received came from soldiers, who were then unemployed.
-
Message 16
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Monday, 19th December 2005
I do not even know him. All I know is that certain circles were financing Napoleons veeeeerrrryyyy strategiiiicccc and crrrrrrrucialllll for Fraaaanncceeeesss interests campaigns such as that in Russia (of course I am being ironic), and then the financing stopped (time to get the money back), and Napoleon lost. He had a better army, in a direct approach he had more chances to win but the game was predesigned. He was betrayed by his own officials. Is that so strange? It happened in half battles in history. Or that steals some honour from the English. They largely missed the battle anyway having fewer troops than what were later mentioned - Prussians did the job.Β
the prussians didnt win the battle, neither did the british+allies, if one werent there the other wouldnt have fought -
Message 17
Posted by The Earl of Suffolk (U1888243) on Tuesday, 20th December 2005
Napolean could have won if he would have started the battle at first light.
Instead he opened his artillary barrage at about midday.
Also if Marshal Ney could have taken the crossroads at Quatre Bras 1 or 2 days earlier the battle wouldn't have been fought. -
Message 18
Posted by charliemo (U2795687) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
It wasn't either the British or the Prussians who won the Battle of Waterloo. Surely it wa the Russians who won it in 1812. If Napoleon had had the 1/2 million experienced troops he had in 1811 instead of the few tens of thousannds he came back with, he would surely have won easily.
-
Message 19
Posted by Plancenoit (U1237957) on Wednesday, 21st December 2005
Johnny Frog wasn't excellent enough to achieve his objective on the day.Β
Perhaps, but he went on to win an outright victory, and dominates the UK today with a simple parody of his countryman Jean-Michel Jarre.
How often do you hear an 'Art Wellsley' ringtone on the train?? -
Message 20
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
No, Nap had run out of cash by 1811 and simply could not sustain his army anyway. He told Mollien, his finance minister that he was invading Russia "because my finances look weak".
It is like the point made on Newsnight last night about the US invading everywhere with oil - in the end, it will bankrupt itself doing that.
Certainl;y losing all those troops in Russia was the death-knell, although don't run away with the idea that Nap's troops were all trained. Even by 1809, only Davout's 3e Corps was made up wholly of units made up largely of troops trained in Boulogne in 1803-5. By then, you did not need that well-trained troops due to the heavy formations, which then mad eup the main battlefields - N demonstrated that with his victories at Lutzen and Dresden in 1813, although the difference was having no cavalry to turn his victories into comprehensive routs.
I am a big fan of Msr Jarre - one of France's few worthwhile products! -
Message 21
Posted by Alan Mansel Llewellyn (U1849758) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
In my opinion old welly(as I have been called myself by the way), was fed a hopeless task, with a tiny British army on foriegn soil (accross on the continent) faced with a 15,000 army against a 200,000 spanish and french one you would have been right to claim he had no chance whats so ever.
His predecessor, general moore, died and lost his first battle in spain, can't remember the name of it. But old welly was made of different stuff.
Despite the deliberate attempt to destroy wellington with the spanish allies at one battle where the spanish side of the army just fled, wellington stood up to this strong force and won the day. He didn't lose a single battle, had he done so their wouldn't have been another chance for him.
He went on to become prime minister, and influenced the great wealth under victorian britain. -
Message 22
Posted by Alan Mansel Llewellyn (U1849758) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
What I meant by talking about spain is that he built up an awe of invincibility in british soldiers eyes because he won so many battles in spain before moving into southern france c1810 and moved towards paris.
In the final act of the napoleonic wars he was seen at the battle of quatre basse?spelling and then waterloo, I think personally someone must have liked him up there because to survive all those battles, only napoleon in the napoleonic period fought more, it was a real match between two giants of the political period (atleast if our history is to be believed). Both were politically orientated generals, which set them apart from other generals of the period, who blucher, and the french generals apart have been forgotten by most of the public. -
Message 23
Posted by Alan Mansel Llewellyn (U1849758) on Thursday, 22nd December 2005
Atleast I think I'm right saying wellington fought more battles apart from napoleon, there was ney of course, no sure of how many battles the other french generals fought.
Wasn't there an irish general on the french side something like murphy? not sure if thats right. -
Message 24
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Friday, 23rd December 2005
Modst of the European combattants fought far more battles than Wellington ever did. Prince Johannes Lichetnstein for example fought in over 100.
-
Message 25
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Monday, 26th December 2005
My money's on Kipling. He wrote in A St Helena Lullaby (a thumbnail sketch of Boney's career, with only Trafalgar and Austerliz out of order) about "gentlemen who never took advice" - Kipling was referencing Boney's insanely stupid invasion of Russia, but it applies to Waterloo as well. Boney refused to listen to those of his generals and marshals who'd fought Wellington in the Peninsular and who all warned him NOT to underestimate Wellington and warned him that Wellington had a nasty little habit of hiding most of his troops behind a protective reverse slope. Just as he did at Waterloo....
Wellington said of Napoleon after Waterloo that he was 'just a pounder after all' and that the French "came on in the same old way and we repulsed them in the same old way'
Napoleon couldn't attack earlier as the overnight rain had made it impossible to manouvre cannon. Should he have waited?
By the way, are there ANY advantages to attacking in column? Or is it only if you have an expendable conscript army?
Eliza. -
Message 26
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Tuesday, 27th December 2005
There is a lot of confusion about these "columns" - much of which is down to Oman's essay on the 1806 UK/Fr battle of Maida, an essay he later repudiated. In the 18th century, armies had been professional and formed up in line on the edge of the field before closing to volley range. The Prussians developed the idea of the attack column, the idea being that the troops would move across the field in column. Contrary to the mythology, the column is not that much faster as it still involves marching, but you do gain some time from not having to maintain ranks so much. The column would then deploy at effective volley range, having covered the outer killing zome more quickly. The Prussians abandoned this for two very good reasons - a) you need well trained troops to deploy into line under fire and b) the column is a good traget for artillery.
The French after the 7YW went for a more aggressive tactical approach under Guibert and he adopted the attack column, while Meusnil-Durand argued for a heavy column, whose purpsoe was actually to smash through the thin line and thenturn sideways and roll the lines up. The first battle of the wars, Jemappes (Nov 1792) showed the way ahead - the french tried the attack column, but could only deploy the columns made up of former Royal regular troops as the Rev volunteer units simply fell apart. They all fell back and formed the bataillon de Mons, a huge heavy column with two trained small columns in support. The French started the battle with a 3:1 advantage in a infantry and artillery. By this stage, having mounted flank attacks in 18th century style, they had ensured that there was very little left in the Austrian centre. The heavy column just marched through with little loss. It was a very significant battle politically and the Jacobins maintained that attack was the only way to go and these columns were the key. The next big battle, Neerwinden in MArch 1793 showed the truth - here numbers were level and the Austrian guns just tore the French apart.
Wellington was in Flanders in the 93-4 campaigns, so he saw or heard about it all. nap's army in 1805 could do the attack column deployment successfully and it worked well. However, it was simply a combination of bigger armies with more conscripts, which produced denser formatiosn anyway - hte fabled "columns of waiting", which then became easy targets for the gunners. By 1809, the light gun had almost disappeared and the mobile 6pdrs (the French copied the Austrian gun) just ripped these formations up. It became very difficult to advance with enough room to deploy into line and, where the reverse slope came in (it was used by the Prussians as early as 1806 and the Austrians at Wagram), deployment became even harder to judge.
NAp ahd always relied on good intelligence, which had increasingly failed from 1806, to gain local superiority and an opening heavy bombardment. It is no coincidence that Jemappes is only 15 miles from Waterloo. -
Message 27
Posted by Eliza6Beth (U2637732) on Tuesday, 27th December 2005
Did Wellington ever use column then, or did he stick to lines? And did the Napoleonic armies use squares? When did squares start, and does it depend on having a fast loading/reloading musket so you can fire/reload etc. What about squares that are three men deep? Any advantages?
When did squares stop? Have they? Kipling says the 'fuzzy wuzzies' "broke a British square" in the Sudan. Was this a first, or just a first by 'natives' (lacking Gatlings etc)?
Why did Napoleon use columns at Waterloo when (a) the ground was very muddy so advancing would have been slow and (b) he couldn't see what Wellington had got on his reverse slope.
If Napoleon had cut his losses when his feint to draw Wellington's centre by attacking his (W's) right at Hougemont, instead of getting sucked in more and more into that 'battle within a battle' would he have had a better chance of winning?
Sorry, too many questions.
Eliza. -
Message 28
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
Talk of "columns" at Waterloo is a little misleading - they were quite wide frontage formations, more like blocks than columns. Wellington did use columns - columns of march, particularly when conducting a "fighting withdrawal" along a single road (where the speed of march is much higher if you can stay on the prepared surface), and there are accounts of the "Light Bobs" doing just this - deploying into the appropriate formation when attacked, then reforming column and marching on - but it needs highly disciplined and well trained troops to be successful. Wellington's Peninsular army was one of the two best-trained armies Britain ever put into the field (matched perhaps by the BEF in WWI).
Square isn't really an attacking formation - it has the one advantage of not presenting a flank to cavalry or charging tribesmen. Hit a line from the flank and you can roll it up from end to end. Holding position in a square is hard - you might advance over ground the enemy can't really defend any more, but it's not adapted to movement at any significant pace. -
Message 29
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
That is true - the word column is much abused as it is one of those supposed "wonder weapons " used by the French to defeat the European powers. A battalion column (6 companies in a battalion, each co 3 ranks deep) could indeed have a frontage of 40-70 men and a depth of just 18 men, so it was like a block. D'Erlon's mass attack column was whole battalions lined up one behind another. Colums were always used on the march (3 or 4 men frontage) and all armies held their reserves in columns for more rapid movement to the critical point.
Squares began with the Prussians in the 1730s because you need cadenced step (everyone marching the same way) to form a square. At that time, all armies had been 4 ranks deep, but the increased effectiveness of musketry and light guns reduced that to 3 ranks by the mid-18th century. Nevertheless, when confronted with large numbers of cavalry prior to the 1730s, commanders like Eugen of Savoy used 6 deep solid block formations against the Turks - and the Austrians revived this to face superior numbers of French cavalry in 1809.
Columsn usually marched at full distance - ie: a company width between each company, so that they could turn left or right or form in front in line. However they could also use 1/2 distance to make square formation easier or even close up completely to form a solid formation (known as a Mass - used by all nations throughgout the period).
The armnies used 3 ranks because two ranks could fire and the third could either fill in or load muskets or sometimes add a third rank of fire, although this necesitated the front rank kneeling and was rarely used after the 7YW. As a formation, it was "stiff" enough to take a full on cavalry attack. This is why squares were usually 3-deep (although Napoleon was very silly in Egypt and used Eugen's 6-deep, forgetting that squares made that depth redundant!). However, all nations had provision for 2-deep lines from the 1760s - the 3rd rank was often used for skirmishers or extending the line. W used them simply because he had a small army.
Much of this goes back to the reaction to Frederick the Great. Austria was humiliated in the Succession War (1740-8) - her answer was to rough up the Prussian line with light infantry and mobile heavier artillery before the two lines closed. The French, who had been La Grande nation, were humiliated at Rossbach in 1757 during the 7YW and opted for a more aggressive approach to destroy their opponents by smashing their line. The French were doing was employing this mass formations like a battering ram to win total victory - it was an early form of Blitzkrieg. They would start any battle witha heavy artillery bombardment (a precursor to WW1) and then in the 18th century style, get hold of one or both enemy flanks to draw troops from the enemy centre before unleashing the central columns. This was a typical Napoleon battle - increasingly the casualties mounted, but he did not care as long as he won in the end. Thus, he was in trouble with the wet ground delaying the bombardment and there is a view now that he did not even know Hougemont was there (due to bad mapping), which is why part of his force became bogged down. However, ultimately this heavy attack had to go in for victory and by then, it was too late. -
Message 30
Posted by Idamante (U1894562) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
DaveMBA
Any idea why Napoleonic infantry used squares against cavalry but 18th century troops didn't? (eg the British infantry at Minden advancing in line against French cav)
Was it a matter of better training/discipline in the earlier period?
On the question of when the square died out I guess this was connected with improved firepower, eg the Prussians at Sedan were able to see off a massive French cavalry charge without forming square. -
Message 31
Posted by Turnwrest (U2188092) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
Increasing firepower dictated a more diffuse formation - look at the British casualties in 2nd Boer War if you doubt that. It's a feature of battlefields almost throughout the ages - as you get more powerful weapons, you tend to spread out more. Consider - as late as the Crimea, most British units were armed with muzzle-loaders, firing perhaps 4 rounds/minute. Weren't the Prussians at Sedan using the Dreyse-type needle gun? 6-8 rpm is the best estimate I've seen for that (although the French Chassepot outranged it by a factor of 2, and should have given the French a massive advantage.)
-
Message 32
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
Perhaps the 18th century infantry stayed in line for two reasons:
The infantry line overlapped the cavalry front with their flanks covered by freindly cavalry or that they used pikes to absorb the impact of the charge.
At Blenheim allied infantry advanced over the marshes in line towards french cavalry and split for their cavalry to come through.
So perhaps they could have used square but at times was alot easier when accompanied by freindly cavalry. -
Message 33
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Wednesday, 28th December 2005
Wellington did use columns at leasst once at the battle of Vittoria 1813
-
Message 34
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
wellington used columns quite often, but not as battle formations (as far as i know)
-
Message 35
Posted by DaveMBA (U1360771) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
Squares are at their most vulnerable when they form, because of the complexity of the movement, which is why there was an increased move to solid block closed columns/Masses as you just have to close the column up. Less well-trained troops such as the Austrian 6th battalions at Austerlitz used such formations for that reason.
I don't know much about Minden, so it would be necessary to look at the detail of the formation -maybe as suggested above, the flanks were covered by cavalry? There are certainly accounts from Aspern (1809) of infantry being caught in line, but taking a chance and managing to hold theior fire to the last moment to blast the cavalry away. Certainly any formation 6 deep does not have anything to fear from cavalry.
The real danger was artillery firing into these dense targets - and at Dresden, where it was raining hard, two Austrian squares surrendered when cavalry approached with light guns as they could not get their muskets to work.
Incidentally, it is often said that the last Napoleonic column attack was Pickett's charge at Gettysburg. It was mown down by steady infantry and artilelry - a lesson that should have ben learned from Aspern nearly 60 years earlier. -
Message 36
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
squares where used when an army or part of it was vulnerable to cavalry, which was a more pressing threat than artillery could be until the early 20century
-
Message 37
Posted by SlackBabbath (U2776023) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
Having trawled through all the replies to the original post, this most fascinating of topics has left me pondering the usual "What if" scenario. Would we all still be speaking French now & would the Fuhrer have made the same grossen error in turning East ??
-
Message 38
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
no we wouldnt and yes he probably would
-
Message 39
Posted by marduk-slayer of tiamat (U2258525) on Thursday, 29th December 2005
^_^
-
Message 40
Posted by stuart (U3340781) on Tuesday, 28th February 2006
If Davout or Soult were giving Ney's job of taking the crossroads then Wellington would have been on the backfoot and thus Napoleon would have beaten him the next day.
-
Message 41
Posted by Mark (U2073932) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
At Garcia Hernandez - following the Battle of salamanca where the King's German Legion cavalry were pursuing the fleeing french army. The cavalry broke two formed up french squares. The first was broken into by a dying horse that slid into the ranks. And the second was opened by horsemen following in refugees from the first square.
For a novelist point of view read Sharpe's Sword. -
Message 42
Posted by HoustonTexan (U1804541) on Wednesday, 1st March 2006
I agree emphatically with Stuart. If Davout was the Chief of Staff or the battlefield commander the entire outcome would have been different. Ney was out of his league. Great Corps commander and inspirational leader but failed as an independent commander. Also, Suchet's talent was wasted far away in the south. Francophiles will always have the "what-ifs" at Waterloo, and we southerners from across the ocean will always have the what if of Gettysburg.
About this Board
The History message boards are now closed. They remain visible as a matter of record but the opportunity to add new comments or open new threads is no longer available. Thank you all for your valued contributions over many years.
or Β to take part in a discussion.
The message board is currently closed for posting.
The message board is closed for posting.
This messageboard is .
Find out more about this board's
Search this Board
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ iD
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ navigation
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ links
Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ Β© 2014 The Βι¶ΉΤΌΕΔ is not responsible for the content of external sites. Read more.
This page is best viewed in an up-to-date web browser with style sheets (CSS) enabled. While you will be able to view the content of this page in your current browser, you will not be able to get the full visual experience. Please consider upgrading your browser software or enabling style sheets (CSS) if you are able to do so.