"Waterloo without Wellington?" Topic

I was just reading how after the British lost the Battle of Lake Champlain in September of 1814 and General Prevost retreated his army back to Canada, Wellington was offered the position of General in Chief in North America. He turned it down, but suppose he had not? Perhaps he gets involved in wrapping things up there after the peace treaty and isn't in Europe when Napoleon escapes from Elba. So who commands the army in Belgium and how well does he do against Napoleon?

Oh that's a good one!

Of the top of my head I'd have to say Hill, or Graham but the latter suffered with an eye complaint, so maybe not.

Then there's seniority to consider and I have no idea who ranked who!

I guess I would have to go with Hill until some one offers a real alternative. Whoever it was I doubt the Allies would have won the Campaign.

Wellington wasn't God but the alternatives are nowhere near the same class and the often maligned co-operation with the Prussians would have been under real pressure.

The key would be, how he got along with Blucher. If he doesn't trust him, then after Ligny he made have moved back towards Prussia to keep his line of communications open, instead of moving to assist the British.

Lt Gen "Daddy" Hill; one of the few general officers that Wellington would trust an independent command to in the Peninsular Wars. Hard to predict, however I think Hill was certainly competent enough to successfully command the polyglot allied army. I think he possessed the diplomatic skills to win Prussian loyalty based on his interaction and command of Portuguese troops in the Peninsula. If the Prussians remained aggressive and trustworthy as they were with Wellington, I think he would have been successful against napoleon.

If my memory serves me well, Wellington was offered the command of forces in North America around April or May of 1814 well before the Prevost debacle at Plattsburg.

It was during this period (after winning the battle of Toulouse and receiving information on Napoleon's abdication) that units in Peninsula and elsewhere were being shipped out for North America. He declined IMHO because he wanted to be part of victory celebrations (rightly basking in the glory) and more importantly the diplomatic machinations that would settle the boundaries of Europe…at Vienna. He understood the political imperative after the military objective was achieved. IMHO he did not want to be involved in a N.A. side show. However, he did offer advice; secure the lakes etc.

The strategic plan also involved securing control of the Mississippi river from New Orleans from the south and from the Michigan territory in the north; to prevent American westward expansion. The occupation of the New England states (largely successful). A thrust down the Champlain valley to New York city, which was achievable but not by Prevost.

The command of all North American based British troops was also offered to Hill who also declined it. It eventually fell to Major General Ross and then Pakenham after Ross was killed at North Point.

Why would you assume it would go to a British general?

Wellington was offered because he had fought successfully aginst the French in Spain and southern France and he was in Vienna when the news of Napoloen's escape reached the city. There were no other generals of equivalent status in Vienna at the time.

The job could just as easily have gone to Blucher with the Dutch Belgians as an allied contingent.

All assuming that British focus was on NA.

or the Prince of Orange? That would have been disastrous.

Wasn't Wellington against fighting a war with the Americans because it was unwinnable.

Wasn't Wellington against fighting a war against the Americans because it was unwinnable.

I would like to play a campaign where the British Army went through Southern France in 1815. Leaving the Prussians and some Belgian Allies.

"Wasn't Wellington against fighting a war with the Americans because it was unwinnable." No, what he said was that they could not win the war without controlling the great lakes.

Never mind. Great question…I am sure it occurred to me many times….but I cannot record a single one time that it did.

Without Wellington, who commands? Would there have been an Allied Army at all? Would the Prussians have encamped further south on the French borders? Why would Boney have marched into a Belgium garrisoned solely by an irrelevant Anglo/Hanoverian/Netherland mob, when a far more threatening Coalition could outflank him and march on Paris?

Rod Steiger asked it, "Wellington, why is it always Wellington?". Because method act all you want (and he did) it was…..in the end anyway

One thing we can be sure of is that the inevitable Prussian defeat would have because of Britain, in the same way that the victory wasn't.

Think yourselves lucky it didn't happen that way. If Wellington was a good enough general to defeat Napoleon, he would have had no problem putting a fledgling nation of uppity colonials in their place.

"Wasn't Wellington against fighting a war with the Americans because it was unwinnable." No, what he said was that they could not win the war without controlling the great lakes.

Commodore Perry had already blocked British ambitions in the North West by destroying the British Lake Erie flotilla and from that point on, British operations in Ontario were "damage control" and there was no chance of further adventures in Ohio and Michigan.

The great "What if" of the War of 1812 is what would have happened if the RN had shipped 1,000 experienced seamen to the St Lawrence and the Great Lakes and built an over powering naval force in Canada. Instead, Britain messed around uselessly in the Chesapeake with endless nuisance raiding with a grossly over-adequate force for the questionable purpose.

Prevost could not have continued south after the RN got wiped out on Lake Champlain. Wellington could have done no better.

I guess the question is how decisive Wellington's presence was in the Waterloo campaign. The battle at Mont St Jean was essentially holding on grimly and moving reserves around as best one could. Would Hill – the obvious choice – have had the nerve to do this?

Did Wellington order the devastating cavalry attack on D'Erlon? Or was that purely Uxbridge? And who had the initial idea to keep 2 heavy cavalry bdes just behind the ridge?

Hill had never commanded a major engagement before. It's harder than it looks…. Just ask Beresford how he enjoyed Albuera. But that doesn't mean Hill could not have pulled it off. We'll never know.

Would Hill have even noticed the Waterloo position?

Interesting thought. Wellington had enough clout that he probably could have asked for a few thousand experienced tars to control the Great Lakes, and would have been a huge problem for the young Republic

On the other side of the pond Blucher trusted Wellington very much and while Hill might have been able to get on Blucher's very small good side, in the absence of Wellington the Prussians may not have been quite so willing as they were with Wellington in command

The battle at Mont St Jean was essentially holding on grimly and moving reserves around as best one could. Would Hill – the obvious choice – have had the nerve to do this?

Hill held off more than twice his own numbers against Soult at St Pierre for four hours, after his force was cut off by a broken bridge. Accounts of this action alone show he had plenty of nerve as did Wellington's praise, on more than one occasion.

History is full of examples of generals who could command a division well, but not a corps, and who could command a corps well but not an army.

How true, and a good number of both appeared in the Civil War!😊

Less of a problem in the Napoleonic British Army. Most of the period, no real Corps and after 1809, not much opportunity to command the Army!

Which is kind of where we came in!

Depending on the prevailing winds in spring, Wellington might have boarded an appropriately speedy ship and legged it (well, you know) back across the Atlantic and arrived post haste to take command.

Now that would have been the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life.

I maintain that the British should have sent Christopher Plummer to North America.