"Could Napoleon have won the battle of Waterloo? " Topic

"Star Trek Dark Armada is a dutch / belgian series of currently 7 episodes (of various lenghts, going between 2 to 30 minutes). You can watch them all HERE on their website.

Plot

The crew of the Nova class vessel USS Batavia start to slowly uncover an alien menace planning on invading Federation space. This accumulates to a battle at the Starbase, after the Batavia had to overcome acts of sabotage…"

See more here
link

Amicalement
Armand

Can I ask everybody a question? In brief, supposing everything had remained exactly the same as was actually the case (i.e. the French not opening the battle till 1130; Grouchy heading for Wavre and then failing to let most of the Prussian army slip away, etc.), could Napoleon have won the battle of Waterloo, and, if so, how? I would genuinely be interested to hear people's thoughts.

What a bad day … !!

Looks like the topic bug has struck again.

Even if Napoleon HAD won the battle his days where numbered. The Russians and Austrians as well as a lot of other countries were mobilizing against him and unless he could kill Blucher, the Prussians weren't quitting no matter how many battles they lost. The best he could have hoped for at Waterloo was knocking England out of the war and that wouldn't have extended the 100 days by much.

Captain Kirk would have only needed one photon torpedo…..

Presuming this is the author, Charles Esdaile, may I extend a hearty welcome from TMP – and if it's not, then a hearty welcome to a new poster.

To respond to your question.
I believe the battle of Waterloo could have been won – but it needed to happen before 2 PM. Essentially, D'Erlon needed to rip apart the allied 5th Division, and open a route for Milhaud and the Guard Light Cavalry towards the woods.
Wellington's position was extremely thin to the east of the crossroads, and there were many Hanoverian Landwehr, and understrength units that had fought at QB days before. This position was ripe to be shattered – Wellington, in my opinion was a lucky man, in as much as the French somewhat botched the attack of I Corps.

Wellington, in my opinion was a lucky man, that the French somewhat botched the attack of I Corps.

Those failed command rolls at a critical time.

A big step in the right direction would have been selecting a correct Chain of Command:

Marshal Davout and Marshal Soult as wing commanders
Marshal Ney commander of the Guard Corps
Marshal Grouchey as commander of the Cavalry reserve

Agree with DontFearDareaper – Napoleon was always thinking about the battle after Waterloo. He could not commit his entire army to destroy Wellington because he had to still fight the Russians and Austrians.

He could have won most certainly. Coordinated attacks combined with better communication earlier in the day would have probably resulted in a victory for the French. An actual diversion vs. Hougoumont instead of a concerted attack. Grouchy successfully separating the Prussians from returning to the battle would be another key factor. Had Napoleon won, the coalition forces building against him would have been hard to handle at best. I don't think that he "could have" won, but rather that he "should have" won at Waterloo.

Those failed command rolls at a critical time.

Or successful command rolls on the part of Uxbridge…. that could have turned out very differently too.

Napoleon was always thinking about the battle after Waterloo

Not sure I agree – if that had been the case, he might not have hung in for so long, committing all the heavy cavalry, the Young Guard, and a majority of the remaining guard infantry. His attention and focus was on beating Wellington. The rest would take care of itself.
He'd concentrated a host of troops to the Armee du Nord, but there were still plenty of men in training at the depots or awaiting conscription. I'd say, if he'd been victorious at Waterloo, the situation would have been very different. Certainly less clear for the Austrians, and putting much more pressure on the Russians, and Prussians.

Depends on which side the "Dark Armada" was on. That side wins.

For a second I really thought Tango was asking if the French had a starship at Waterloo, could they have won?

But what if he had a B-52?

Waterloo was irrelevant. Napoleon had destroyed his army in Russia. He had broken too many agreements, had made too many enemies, his time was up. If not at Wateeloo then the next battle or the one after that.

Waterloo was irrelevant. Napoleon had destroyed his army in Russia. He had broken too many agreements, had made too many enemies, his time was up. If not at Wateeloo then the next battle or the one after that.

But that was not the question posed.

Your Irrelevancy.

Last year, HAHGS did a 13-table replay (with 20 players) of the Waterloo campaign, which turned out to be completely different than history. The French swept left towards the Channel while blocking the Prussians in the center.

Recaps at the Blunders on the Danube blog:

link

This is one of many postings, including OBs, maps, etc.

Perhaps a better plan would have been to contain Wellington with II Corps, perhaps a division of I Corps, and Kellerman's heavy cavalry, and use the rest of the army to crush Blucher between Ney and Grouchy (who was already in Blucher's strategic rear). Wellington's army was a fine defensive machine but it had little offensive capability and probably couldn't have stopped such a move. Napoleon needed to end June 18th with a major victory, but it didn't have to be over the Anglo-Allies.

Of course this presupposes a knowledge of Prussian dispositions and movements that Napoleon did not actually possess. Between his inactivity on the morning of the 17th and his near-total lack of reconnaissance in the zone between the Prussians and the Anglo-Allies, Napoleon had pretty much lost the battle before it even began.

Rick Wynn

Yes, of course. Simply mask Hougoumont and keep hitting Welly east of the crossroads. The first time, Welly wins because of Uxbridge and his cavalry reserve. The second and / or third time, what left for Welly to counter with??…… It becomes a walkover for Nap.

He might have eked out a victory for the day--possibly by rolling up the Anglo-allied left before the Prussians could intervene in strength?--but it was too late to score a major win and change the outcome of the campaign. For that, Napoleon would have had to do things differently on the 17th or earlier, I think--certainly earlier on the 18th.

USAFPilot has a point. Surely Waterloo could have been won in some fashion--if not by changing decisions after 1130, then by changing decisions the previous day. But for a different outcome for the Napoleonic Wars, Napoleon would have had to be content with less than everything, and that wasn't the nature of the man. Which is why Bismarck and Frederick the Great have relatively peaceful old ages and Hitler and Napoleon do not.

Since the question is only about Waterloo I think of course the French could have won but would have to have done it early to roll up the British/ allies.

Not an expert on the battle, but to me that Hougoumont took up more troops than needed who could have been used more effectively elsewhere. Also can't see where the great cavalry charge accomplished anything except to throw away the cavalry.

Terry

If he'd had some of those starships on his side!

Not only could have, but should have.

Bad day for Nappy, lucky breaks for Wellington, and just too much Blucher.

But as noted, the strategic situation for France in June 1815 was fairly dire. A repeat of the 1814 campaign was probably unavoidable, barring some diplomatic coup that broke up the anti-Bonaparte coalition.

But yes. He could have. He was winning up until Ney destroyed his cavalry maybe or if he hadn't wasted so many men attacking Hougemont. A lot of his defenders try and blame Grouchy. However he could have beaten the allies with out him and had the edge on Wellington. He screwed it up though. Underestimated the allied soldiers? Underestimated Wellington? Underestimated the Prussians?

Some Anglo-Germano-Dutch stubbornness stopped him. It wasn't a clever or finesse battle. It was a hammer against a rock. The rock was starting to crack but the hammer was starting to splinter itself when the Prussians arrived.

Yes he could have.

But so what?

He would have been crushed by the sheet weight of the coalition against him and I have no doubt that Paris and his own people would have betrayed him. No one wanted another 15 years of fruitless, pointless, hopeless war.

Reille screens Hougoumount with a single brigade and then pins the Allied Right and Reserves with the rest of his Corps.

I Corps attack is done right, better formations and spacing and with more cavalry support to roll over and round the Allied Left. Guard hits the hinge of the line, now rolled back in an L shape along the Brussels road.

Easy, done it several times with various wargaming rules sets over the years. Hindsight is a wonderful tool.

Of course a Starship or two would help :)

The Duke of Wellington seems to have thought so. He called it, ‘A damn near run thing.'

Of course, it is possible he was exaggerating a little to build his own legend, but his legend really did not need any building, and that would not explain, ‘Give me night or give me Blucher.' I tend to believe the Duke's judgement on winning battles.

Of course, playing hindsight, the real opportunity to win was at Quatre Bras. And yes, if Devout had been there he may have won it then. Like everyone else, I am a great General in hindsight.

You know, in a way, the fact of the argument makes the point. When you look at Austerlitz, Jena or Friedland, the question is "did his enemies have any sort of chance left by the opening gun?" and the answer is usually "no." Ulm isn't even a battle. Yes, the 30 or 35 year old "foremost realist of Europe" who was always thinking three moves ahead could probably have pulled off Waterloo as late as lunchtime on the day. But if HE had been there, the French army wouldn't have been in such a situation to begin with.

Napoleon in his prime could have won. But he was very sick that day. David Howarth reckons the old Napoleon would not have waited until 11:30 for the ground to dry, for one thing.

Best thread EVER!

Remember this. If you play at 'whatif's', you can't nail one side to what actually happened whilst giving the other the benefit of hindsight. All actions have a reaction. If those actions were different, then so would the reaction.

Paul :)

Winston Smith

But what if he had a B-52?

Depends on who's flying it.

Ligniere

Wellington, in my opinion was a lucky man, in as much as the French somewhat botched the attack of I Corps.

Surely you mean Botcher Napoleon? He commanded, his responsibility.

Paul :)

Whatisitgood4atwork

Of course, it is possible he was exaggerating a little to build his own legend, but his legend really did not need any building, and that would not explain, ‘Give me night or give me Blucher.' I tend to believe the Duke's judgement on winning battles.

There is no evidence that the duke said 'give me the night or give me Blucher' but there is of course evidence that Christopher Plumber did!

Paul :)

Ah, my mistake then. Thank you for the correction.

Well, Napoleon reckoned he still had a 60% chance of winning ever after the Prussians appeared.

He obviously rolled a 2.

My experience is refights is that the French win more often than not.

But imagine if Blucher had been captured/killed when unhorsed? Remember the question posed is merely could Boney have won the battle of Waterloo, not even asking re the Campaign in Belgium, let alone the War against yet another coalition.

The Battle on 18th June….surely. The Campaign follows as surely. What is so good about the analysis above is the discussions around "what if"…….

To win the war against the collation requires a loss of will, especially from Austria, which had quite an incentive to maintain the status quo, with an Austrian princess back on the Imperial throne. It requires a defeat of Prussia on a scale to prevent recovery….Ligny must go really badly for them. Would the Russians have kept coming? Could Britain's economy have financed a prolonged war?

Finally of course, as said above a victorious Boney needs the people and not just the Army behind him. A resounding campaign victory might have helped, but I think the population was sick to death of war and its cost.

But what if he had a B-52?

I guess that would depend on which one – Kate, Fred, Keith or Cindy?

But what if he had a B-52?

That's easy. The B-52 strike takes out about two or three divisions of French infantry and smashes the grand battery. It completely misses Wellington's forces. As the Germans used to say "when the American Air Force flies overhead, even the Allies duck."

(I can say that. I wore a blue suit for 11 years. But high speed high-altitude aircraft will not win a tactical engagement for you.)

Napoleon was always thinking about the battle after Waterloo. He could not commit his entire army to destroy Wellington because he had to still fight the Russians and Austrians.

The Russians were still dragging their feet all the way to France by the time of Waterloo. If Napoleon wins, he likely turns south and uses the Austrian army as his own personal heavy bag. I don't even think it would be close. As it was, Suchet was giving the Austrians fits with a force of about 1/5th their size.

Marshal Davout and Marshal Soult as wing commanders
Marshal Ney commander of the Guard Corps
Marshal Grouchey as commander of the Cavalry reserve

I do agree that this would be the winning line.

Napoleon had the wrong Marshals with him and the one he needed was left in Paris. Bad personnel management all the way around.

I agree the younger Napoleon would have attacked first thing while the Allies were trying to get into position. In the movie he said something like "Never interrupt your opponent when he is making a mistake" he probably should have.

the younger Napoleon would have attacked first thing while the Allies were trying to get into position

The allies had already concentrated on the field of Waterloo during the course of the 17th – effectively they were already in position.
The French were the ones marching to the field of battle during the course of the evening of the 17th and the morning of the 18th. Much of the Guard and part of D'Erlon's corps [Durutte] were only in position late in the morning, close to midday.

Surely you mean Botcher Napoleon? He commanded, his responsibility.

His responsibility, sure, as it was his army, but he only infrequently interfered with his subordinates tactical/grand-tactical decisions. I think this was the case at Waterloo. He'd done his operational job of getting the lads to the field of battle. He'd concentrated a bunch of Peninsular veteran Marshals and generals, and I'd say he then left the tactical nuances to them – they'd fought the British and Napoleon before, he hadn't.
Everyone craps all over the deep divisional columns used by Ney and D'Erlon, but they worked to a point, and were in the act of pushing Picton back from the Ohain road position at the point that Uxbridge threw high on his command die roll. The error, in my opinion, was the meagre mounted support the infantry divisions got. There were six regiments of Cuirassier, the Guard Light cavalry and three regiments of light cavalry doing nothing to provide close support – that in my opinion was the biggest grand-tactical omission during D'Erlon's assault. Effectively there was one small brigade of Cuirassier, and a combined unit of Cuirassier [Crabbe's command, I believe] roaming to the west of LHS during the advance of the infantry. There should have been more.

Hello.

In my opinion Mr Adkin covers this subject with authority on page 410 of his wonderful Waterloo Companion.

He concludes that even with better tactical handling of the French army it would have still come to nothing unless the Prussians failed to arrive.

Chris

Ligniere

His responsibility, sure, as it was his army, but he only infrequently interfered with his subordinates tactical/grand-tactical decisions. I think this was the case at Waterloo. He'd done his operational job of getting the lads to the field of battle. He'd concentrated a bunch of Peninsular veteran Marshals and generals, and I'd say he then left the tactical nuances to them – they'd fought the British and Napoleon before, he hadn't.

Had Wellington or any of his British Generals faced Napoleon?

So had D'Erlon swept away Wellington's left with his much superior number of 18-odd thousand and had a large hand in rolling up Wellington's right, who would have claimed the Victory, D'Erlon or Napoleon? And who the defeat, Picton or Wellington?

Thus, The victory laurels go to Wellington and Blucher, the defeat and total destruction of the French army is not D'Erlon or Ney's fault as people who try to shift blame like to accuse, it belongs squarely with Napoleon.

Paul :)

Doesn't the question really mean, "Could Napoleon have beaten Wellington before the Prussians reached the field." In one sense, the battle on the 18th June was the battle of Hainault, with the key to the fight being Wellington's stand at Mont St Jean, with the decisive factor being the Prussians arriving on the French right.

As someone has said he made his roll of the dice, once he left his subordinates to develop the attack and direct the battle at Corps level.

Was there really a choice re letting the ground dry out?

Plummer

B52 strikes are very accurate. All bombs hit the ground

Can I ask everybody a question? In brief, supposing everything had remained exactly the same as was actually the case (i.e. the French not opening the battle till 1130; Grouchy heading for Wavre and then failing to let most of the Prussian army slip away, etc.), could Napoleon have won the battle of Waterloo, and, if so, how?

Maybe by fighting a more attritional battle earlier on and throwing in a bigger shock attack later; not throwing in the main hammer blows until La Haye Sainte had fallen (although would La Haye Saine have ever fallen if there had been enough ammunition there?!). But IMHO the French at the tactical level fought the battle pretty well really. I tend to agree with Correlli Barnett: the French Army did possess a great degree of pure pugilistic skill. There seemed to be slighly more tactical pratfalls on the Allied side.

Well, Napoleon reckoned he still had a 60% chance of winning ever after the Prussians appeared.

He obviously rolled a 2.

My experience is refights is that the French win more often than not.

Do you think that Napoleon's estimate is something that we should take seriously in hindsight?

And do you think that the nature of wargames – the increased situational awareness and hindsight – tend to benefit the Frenhc here more than the Allies? Perhaps such things generally favour "losing attackers"?

…the defeat and total destruction of the French army is not D'Erlon or Ney's fault as people who try to shift blame like to accuse, it belongs squarely with Napoleon.

The Armee du Nord was not destroyed at Waterloo. Soult rallied 55,000 troops from Nord after the battle and subsequent retreat, including the 25,000 from Grouchy's command who were undefeated.

The Armee du Nord formed the nucleus of Davout's command in and around Paris of 117,000 after Waterloo.

The destruction of the French army after Napoleon's departure was done by the Bourbons, not the allies.

Napoleon later stated that no one, including himself, did their duty at Waterloo.

I tend to agree with Correlli Barnett: the French Army did possess a great degree of pure pugilistic skill.

That comment by Barnett, like too many in that inaccurate and greatly biased volume, is meant in a pejorative manner, not as a compliment. All of the good armies in military history fight well. I would submit that it isn't 'pugilism.'