Napoleon's tactics at Waterloo - the post mortem

[dellzeqq]

I recall reading in Les Miserables and elsewhere that Napoleon put a lot of faith in artillery. His early military training was as a gunner and he was an acknowledged master of battlefield gunnery.

Hugo and others were of the view that Boney delayed too long before joining battle at Waterloo because he was waiting for the sodden and muddy ground to dry out enough for his cannon to be moved.

Although I am ancient, I was not alive in 1815, so I cannot comment further.

There is also a school of thought that the then recently established USA was unaware that there was a global conflict underway in Europe and so had not responded. Plans were afoot in Washington to start a lend-lease scheme in the coming months and consider joining the fray at some unspecified time in the future, once it was clear who was going to win. Many consider this latter view uncharitable.

I can quite see that. Marlborough's masterstroke was the infantry advance over land that was unfit for cavalry.

 

[edindave]

Does this thread not belong in Campaigning?

 

[ufkacbln]

Because Waterloo was a battle, and not a Campaign?

 

[172traindriver]

Lets ask ABBA to tell us about it

 

[Boris Bajic]

Lets ask ABBA to tell us about it

This is unashamed trolling and has no place in a serious discussion.

ABBA were a troupe of Swedish pop artistes from the 1970s, not military historians.

Also, I believe the ABBA song on the topic in discussion was no more or less than a shallow love ditty and made no direct reference to events on the field, tactics employed or the strategies of the wider conflict.

References to surrender in the aria are made not in relation to a pragmatic but negative response to a reverse on the field of battle, but to an emotionally driven decision within a romantic situation.

This is a serious topic, one I have studied for many years.

Please keep your trolling and your wild associations to yourself.

Thank you.

 

[Chuffy]

Mr Boot has a quote for every eventuality. I shall demonstrate:

"I don't know what effect these mad buggers in Race will have upon the enemy, but, by God, they frighten me."

 

[laurence]

This is unashamed trolling and has no place in a serious discussion.

ABBA were a troupe of Swedish pop artistes from the 1970s, not military historians.

Also, I believe the ABBA song on the topic in discussion was no more or less than a shallow love ditty and made no direct reference to events on the field, tactics employed or the strategies of the wider conflict.

References to surrender in the aria are made not in relation to a pragmatic but negative response to a reverse on the field of battle, but to an emotionally driven decision within a romantic situation.

This is a serious topic, one I have studied for many years.

Please keep your trolling and your wild associations to yourself.

Thank you.

i believe you have fallen for the propaganda. the song is actually a tribute to the Corsican... "the history books on the shelves are always repeating themselves" is praise of Napoleon's daring and originality in that others will only copy his achievements.

"promise to love you forever more" - again, a glowing reference to the enduring quality of Napoleon's legacy

"i feel like i win when i lose" - how obvious is that it is a paen to the great man.

also, if you play it backwards you can hear a french voice cursing Blucher

 

[alans]

Bonny lost 'cause he was not concentrating on the battle,he was dicking around with his left hand thinking about Josephine

 

[Flying_Monkey]

also, if you play it backwards you can hear a french voice cursing Blucher

Also, it sounds better backwards.

 

[Chuffy]

I love this thread.

 

[Licramite]

should mounted his entire army on bicycles.
I've walked the route from Charlroi,Quatra Bra,waterloo - much quicker on a bike,

Napoleon did say if he could have mounted his entire army he would have , but I think thats a lot of horse shoot
ho ho.

 

[Chuffy]

Napoleon did say if he could have mounted his entire army he would have , but I think thats a lot of horse s***
ho ho.

Surely that would have taken him ages and been a serious distraction from the battle, the filthy bugger.

 

[Licramite]

Napoleon had not fought wellington or a british army , so he failed to realise wellingtons tactic of hiding behind a ridge.
Other armies he fought deployed so the enemy could see its might - wellington commented on bluchers deployment at Ligny - blucher claimed his troops liked to see the enemy , wellington said he was going to get a pounding.
Grouchey failed napoleon in not putting himself between the british and the prussians, but his orders were to pursue the prussians not cover the flank of napeoleon, even so he acted in a very dim way.
Napoleon basic plan , faint left punch centre was not bold enough, he should have ignored hougemont and gone further left to strike at the ridge beyond, but again his local commanders got fixated on clearing hougemont.
His reliance on heavy artillery against other armies had worked but it failed against wellington - though it did enough damage that a concerted cavalry / infantry attack at 5-6oclock could have broken through

to be fair command control during that period was always very loose, especially for the attacker.
In simulations napoleon normally wins ," it was a close run thing."

 

[Boris Bajic]

I've studied this battle for many years and I believe Napoleon made some very serious errors:

1. No air support.
2. No tanks.
3. No light armoured reconnaissance vehicles.
4. No mechanised infantry.
5. No machine-gun regments of the type trained between the wars (1 Middx. Regt. etc).
6. A lack of modern battlefield comms (radio etc.).

Call me a fool, but with the above and with the ability to deny Wellington ground through the laying of AP mines, I think he'd have won.

Also, it's unlikely his field commanders understod him as he was a foreign gentleman and spoke only French.

Now that I've posted the definitive thinking on this topic, I think the thread can be closed.