"Lop-sided battles" Topic

Hi there,

I've been reading a lot about the tactics of the Napoleonic period recently – how the balance between artillery, infantry and cavalry had to be 'just so' to guarantee victory, and how that balance often rested on a knnife edge. Can anyone tell me if there were any famous battles where a general got the balance wrong and lost as a direct result? Or if the general got it wrong and still managed to win? I was thinking that a battle with a 'lop-sided' OOB would make for an interesting scenario.

Thanks in advance :)

Waterloo?

Jena and Aurstadt?

At Jena, Napoleon got the balance right and beat the Prussians in a laugher.

At Aurstadt (sp), Davout won but was outnumbered and probably outclassed. I guess you could say the balance was wrong but the General won anyway.

Remember that the OOB was usually decided as the campaign began, and adjusted before the battle by what was on hand or in the area.

Some countries set the organization of Brigades, Divisions and Corps and kept them fairly stable (France, Britain, Prussia after 1812), some adjusted them daily if not more frequently (Austria). Those that maintained some stability tended to be the ones that were most effective.

Bailen, certainly.

Battle of the Pyramids

Eylau perhaps – not specifically lost, but Napoleon would have done better with a better balance. Less cavalry, more infantry

Quatre Bras – Again, not specifically lost, but what the French needed at Quatre Bras was more available infantry, less cavalry.

The 1813 campaign is a good example where Napoleon was often able to win a "tactical" victory but was unable to exploit it due to a lack of cavalry.

Some critics also say that from Wagram om Napoleon actually used too much artillery becoming what Wellington called " a mere pounder". He would seem to wait until the artillery weakened his foe before assaulting, instead of employing the grand tactical moves he formerly would have used at battles like Austerlitz

Napoleon had to rely more on artillery due to the losses in horses, veterans and leaders from 6+ years of solid campaigning.

The Grande Armee of 1812 may have been huge compared to the 1805 model, but due to the effects of attrition it had in general a lower level of experience & training and could probably not pull off some of the maneuvers that it did in previous campaigns. Also, the tactics and experience levels of the opposing armies were improved, and that played a part as well.

I think if you look at the actions in these battles you will find more examples of all you are after. EG at Waterloo Ney failed repeatedly to create a gap in the enemy positions due to not combining all arms at the exact right moment, especially the charge of the heavy cav near the end. That much cav in that small an area with the enemy simply standing around in squares should have won the day had enough artillery and infantry been there to support it.

David
wardepot.blogspot.com
6to20painting.blogspot.com

Haslach-Jungenen 1805, Graz 1809

Pretty much all of the ones I have commanded in have been lop-sided.