MovieChat Forums > Waterloo (1970) Discussion > What do you think

What do you think

posted 19 years ago by chrismahon2005
10 replies | jump to latest

I have always wondered a few things about this campaign and battle.I personly think that napoleon was never going to win no matter what the outcome of this battle.
The rest of europe had no time for him after his history of attacking and invading every country he could think of.And already huge allied forces where moving from russia and austria to support the british/dutch forces.
To my mind he may have pushed wellingtons men of the field of battle,but what then? His army would have been pretty beat up,and holding a number of citys would do him no good,with vast forces moving towards him.
Maybe he planned to take them one at a time,but that had failed in 1814,so i can not think for the life of me what he could hope for.Maybe a break up of the alliance of countrys against him,they had a bad track record before i guess,and where moving slowly towards him.
Im not a huge napoleonic war fan,so can any one tell me what they reckong he could have done to win,or was it more of a case of hoping for the best like i seem to think he was.
Also what the hell happened to grouchy at waterloo,how did the prussians give him the slip,and why did he then not return to help?
What happened to him after this campaign,surley he should have been in massive trouble for completly screwing up his orders,and then not trying to at least help.

[–] CliffBuffham 19 years ago

Well Napoleon was attempting the strategy of the central position - defeat each opponent in detail and in turn before they can unite and destroy you.

In fact he attempted it at Waterloo as well as in the wider context

His aim was to destroy Wellington before the Prussians could come to his aid. But Grouchy did not do the business for him and Blucher was stalwart, getting to the field of Waterloo despite his own difficulties.

A win at Waterloo against Wellington would have isolated the Prussians against superior numbers and meant inevitable defeat. Then he could turn against the Austrians and Russians in a simlar way, always with the advantages of interior lines of communication and unified command and language. All the time he was mobilising more troops and also had the possibility that one of the allies would have cracked - it had happened before.

Grouchy's failure was not too important for him in the context of a disintegrating French government. A telling off from a deposed Napoleon would not be too worrisome, would it?

[–] chrismahon2005 19 years ago

Cool thanx for that.

[–] teacher_tom516 19 years ago

Napoleon would definitely be negotiating 'from a position of strength' so to speak. If he had won there was a chance that the Netherlands and Belgium would have gone over to him which would have helped matters a bit. It certainly would have secured the northern flank.

Also don't forget that there were many many problems during the Congress of Vienna. Plenty of squabbling over countries like Poland etc. The thing is Prussia was on one side of the argument and Britain, via Castlereigh, helped broker a deal that was definitely not in Prussia's favor. Hence Gneisenau's distrust of Wellington. Let's say either Grouchy does his job or Wellington is defeated and retreats to Ostend and the Channel ports. Prussia either way would be out of the war and Britain (if the battle went as it did except for a French win) would need time to bring back her forces from the colonies and the Americas. A few months at least. This would give Napoleon time to move against Austria.

Actually this is one of the most interesting 'what ifs' that to my knowledge has not yet ever been wargamed...

Tom516

[–] chrismahon2005 19 years ago

Thats very interesting to read.I then wonder would the whole of europe be so fed up with war,that they may just all try to get peace with him,and let him stay in charge.As i think he said himself,if he had won a huge victory at waterloo,i doubt the french people would have dared gone against him.
Im sure though that most of europe was fed up with the wars,they had gone on for what some 15-20 years without much break,and could not of surley gone on for ever.
I think no matter who he beat,another enemy would keep appearing till he and france would once again be overwhelmed with sheer weight of numbers,though im not sure how long this would take,or if the other powers had the courage to keep fighting him,if he kept winning.

[–] teacher_tom516 19 years ago

I don't know. I think that they'd have been more wary if Napoleon wore a clear victory in the Netherlands. Nosey would have probably tried to 'pull a Dunkirk' while the Prussians may have given up in utter disgust - particularly if Blucher died or was incapacitated. The withdrawal of Prussia might have thrown a large spanner into the Allied plans and as the nations didn't really trust each other to begin with it may have become a game of divide and conquer. The French people certainly would be in no position to argue if he'd won in Belgium 1815.

While Europe was 'tired of war' I think there would have been enough leftover 'emotion' to continue the fight for a while. Ultimately Napoleon needed to win quick and decisive victories of the kind he was winning some 10-15 years earlier. But the fact is he WASN'T La Petit Tondeau of 10-15 years previous. He was still brilliant but his body was in horrible shape and I don't know if the strain of campaigning at the pace that was needed would have helped.

I'm thinking that perhaps Prussia would have returned to a strict defensive stance and maybe with some prodding a negotiated peace or even an alliance with Austria might have been possible.

Interesting what if!
Tom516

[–] Friederich 19 years ago

The Campaign you guys are refering to is the "Hundred day Campaign".When Napoleon Retuned to France in 1815 he was declared an outlaw by rest Europe on march 16th(I
think). Napoleon hoped he could cut Wellington(British forces) off from Blucher(Prussian forces) and fight each army separately, Leading him to such battles as Ligny on june 16, where he beat the Prussians. Napoleon had Ordered one of his marshals(Emanual Grouchy) to split up to the right with 30,000 men, to deal with the Prussians on the right flank. With Blucher's Forces Distracted Napoleon could corner Wellington and that's where they met at Waterloo! The two reasons Napoleon lost Waterloo is because he didn't commit the Guarde earlier and that the extra 30,000 reinforcements with Grouchy didn't come to Napoleon's Aid!

Don't Mess With Germany

[–] teacher_tom516 19 years ago

We're actually discussing what ifs, specifically what if Napoleon had won at Waterloo.

Napoleon made way too many mistakes for the 'gods of war' to be pleased with him any longer, not the least of which was his staff. Soult was just not the right man to be CoStaff but without Marshal Berthier (suicide or assassinated, take your pick) he should have chosen someone who could at least read his writing. Soult would have been better suited to lead Ney's wing as he had faced Nosey before and was one of the very few marshals to actually give him a hard time. Grouchy should have been retained in cavalry command - his dogged one-track-mind pursuit of Blucher would have been perfect for it, while Ney should have not been given semi-independent command of anything lest he 'compromise us again as he did at Jena'. Maybe him and Grouchy together in the right wing which should have been under 'The Iron Marshal' Davout who was one chap the Prussians FEARED.

Another good choice for the Left wing would have been Louis Gabriel Suchet, who IIRC was the 'undefeated' marshal and the one French marshal to gain the respect of the SPANISH for his justice and humanity (I'm reeling all these off from memory so be gentle). In any case he should have made better choices for staff in 1815 and I think while it may not have caused his outright defeat, certainly narrowed his less than stellar chances.

Tom516

[–] CliffBuffham 19 years ago

The TWO reasons he lost at Waterloo?

I think there were more than that.

Just to reel off a few:

The delayed start of the battle;
Letting his subordinates have their head;
Wasting the cavalry in unsupported attacks against unbroken infantry squares;
Allowing the Prussians to link up with Wellington;
Complacency - underestimating Wellington as a commander and his army as soldiers;
The skill of Wellington's dispositions and his unit handling;
Failing to understand the importance of taking Hougoumont early with overwhelming force.

Napoleon was well below par that day.

[–] Friederich 19 years ago

I highly agree, I should have mentioned more! I think Napoleon was defeated at waterloo because of lack of comms with Gouchy, the wet terrain, the waste of fine cavalry men on; like you said unbroken infantry squares and failing the realise the importance of Hougoumont chetau.Napoleon was also just more careless later on.

Don't Mess With Germany

[–] ragusa11 16 years ago

Someone on this thread mentioned the Congress of Vienna. It almost broke out in a war with Prussia and Russia versus Britain and Austria. Napoleon's return prevented that.

My opinion is if he destroys Wellington's army and even killed Wellington on the field and then went looking for peace terms I think he would have got it.

I don't think the Russians wanted to march their army across the full continent of Europe without being compensated. Austria was tired of getting it's butt kicked and why fight your son-in-law when you don't have the odds. The Prussians would have been interesting.

If Napoleon was serious about his aim in peace time it would have been interesting. I always wondered what would have happened to him if he escaped to America or the British allowed him to go to Britain after the 2nd abication.