"Could Napoleon have won the Battle of Waterloo with" Topic

… a Different Leadership Style/ Use of Power Modes? / For what reason did he fail?

PDF link

Armand

He needed a B-52.

Of course he could have won.

"He needed a B-52."

One wouldn't be enough, he'd need the whole band (though ABBA would be a better choice, having a more relevant song … ;-)

He shouldnt have left the Gatlings behind.

He need a better strategic approach, there are a myriad number of reasons for the failure

As Wellington said – it was a close run thing

Without Blucher's pledge of at least one corps in support, DoW would not have even fought the battle at Waterloo. Worst case would have been that pledge, but the Prussians failing or unwilling to follow it through. No threat from the right flank and the forces then freed up for the French, I think that a second Allied retreat might have been more tricky than that from Quatre Bras. Would the Alliance have survived a British and Prussian strategic defeat? Fun to speculate

Winning at Waterloo was problematic, but he might have won the campaign if d'Erlon had taken the right road on the 16th and not been diverted by Ney and fallen on the Prussian flank at Ligney like Napoleon had intended. And if Blucher had not escaped from under that horse. A much worse Prussian defeat with no Blucher and an angry (at the British) Gneisenau left in charge might have meant a hasty Prussian retreat back to Germany. Then, as noted, Wellington would not have accepted battle at Waterloo. But then what? He retreats, shedding his Dutch-Belgian allies with every step, until he's bottled up in one of the channel ports and forced to evacuate, his reputation in tatters.

but then the austrian and russian armies give it a go, with the French still outnumbered..

but then the austrian and russian armies give it a go, with the French still outnumbered.. Napoleons best chance was no rain.

Not to mention if Napoleon had embraced Berthier and perhaps put Davout into the field rather than at an office – and maybe leaving Ney behind in Paris

Berthier was dead before waterloo, he dithered in Bavaria like a lot of officers, I think the big mistake before waterl;oo was mde on the field of Ligny
1 he should have sent Pajols cavalry to keep contact withj the prussians traight after the battle
2 he should have mde Gerard a Marshal on the field, to boost moral and to give him the command to pursue the prussians with Pajols div and soults cav his own corps and teste div
3 this would have kept 25,000 more men at waterloo and grouchy in charge of the cavalry( his skill)

I think with these changes Waterloo would have ended pre prussian arrival and led to major defeats of both

"Use of Power Modes"
I can't even be bothered to look.

Thanks

Armand

At both Borodino and Waterloo he was suffering with a UTI and piles. He had a high fever from the former and was not in the saddle as much as usual with the latter. As a result he put in poor performances. Six years later (?) he died of Stomach cancer which may be related to one or both. Well that's my sic penny's worth

Is some of the pamphlet missing? There doesn't seem to be any debate about changes in leadership or 'Power modes' (whatever they may be). Just a whistle-stop narrative of the campaign.

Although Napoleon could have won at Waterloo his main army would have been shattered resulting in him losing the war as the allies were bringing overwhelming force (Russians, Austrians, Sardinians, Swiss, Spanish, Portuguese, minor German powers etc etc….).

This discussion of "Power Modes", a new term, does it have to do with the piles? Asking for a friend.

Thanks also.

Armand

Something I had never considered before, but which was mentioned on here in another (similar) thread, was that 1816 saw a massive volcanic eruption in Indonesia that led to it being called "the year with no summer" and saw people in greatcoats huddled around fires during daytime in August in the south of France. It is all well and good saying the Austrians and Russians would have dealt with Napoleon the year after Waterloo, but the weather might have kept him on the throne for another 18 months or so (equally, of course, it may have given the UK and Prussia time to raise new armies…..).

This is an old chestnut .

Napoleon it is claimed said, ‘that he beat the Austrians because they did not know the value of five minutes'.

As Mr D states, the Prussian commitment allowed the Duke to join battle.

The delays in forming up the French forces as they struggled to get to the field meant that every minute was vital. Without an early knockout blow the a French predicament on their right flank was only going to get worse despite the heroism of the troops who struggle to contain this threat.

In my opinion, for what it is worth, the campaign was ‘lost' on the 16th by the disobedience of the Dutch Belgians at Quatre Bras of Wellingtons orders ( and hence allowing Wellington to fight Ney there) and the disorder surrounding D'Erlons disobedience of his Majesty's order to fall on the Prussians at Ligny.

Chris