WATERLOO who was to blame

[Moliere]

To conclude, the 1815 campain in belgium even with a french victory would have been stopped few months after with the 200 000 austrians & 150 000 russians  army.

Europe was tired of Napoleon, peace was not possible even with a victory over the prussians and englishs.

So losing Waterloo saved many europeans lifes.

M

[AJ]

That Moliere, is a very sound observation.

[Wellesley]

My answer is more in response to the reported French discussion where the role of Wellington and the English in
Napoleon's defeat was neglected. There were a lot of what-if's been put forward: Davout actually has a battlefield
commission, D'Erlon did not uselessly march back and forth, Grouchy more vigorous in the pursuit, Ney not
blew the Reserved Calvary, Napoleon more energetic etc. But what if Wellington were not in command at Waterloo.
Given the quality of the Allied Army, I would say Napoleon could well have prevailed against a lesser commander.

As Moliere, many lives were spared because of the historical outcome of Waterloo and Wellington should receive
his due credit.

Welly

[Belliard]

Hé hé, Waterloo is a Prussian victory, Wellington is not for great things. Just a Columbia defense ....

[Doyley]

Wellington did not only fight and win defensive battles, what about Assaye, Oporto, Salamanca, Vittoria to name a few off the top of my head,

[Belliard]

True, but it was Joseph Bonaparte was in front and not Napoleon, this probably explains this

[AJ]

Somehow the topic became split, it's also running in the Grenadiers forum.  This is what I posted there.

Gentlemen, if you please.  My unnoficial duty as the topic starter, is to summarize now and again.

From all that I have read in this Zone and everything in the French Zone, It seems that the number one reason so far is:

THE OMMISION OF DAVOUT, because most other tactical errors follow because of his ommision.

Wellington did superbly, however in my opinion he would never have had his day if Davout had been there, but if he did, he would have been soundly beaten before Blucher arrived.
Would anybody care to post,  as to why this conclusion is wrong?

[Montecuccoli]

Well, in my opinion, i think Wellington did the day thanks to Blucher, the battle between France and British alone was not so at a good point for United Kingdom Army.

Maybe if Davout was the one to press on Blucher maybe the result could be different, but i do not know how France could resist another Campaign in 1815 against another coalition.

[Jean Lafitte]

No question that Wellington was one of the finest Battlefield Generals of the Age of Napoleon.

[antiochus]

 I'm not sure if this has been mentioned.

The French army at Waterloo was the army with the shakiest if not the worst morale that Napoleon ever led. There were even a few deserters to the allies ( including a general ) on it's way into Belgium.

How would Alexander's army have been after almost 20 years of constant war? One theory is that Alexander's generals were so tired of war they poisoned him.

So looking at it from a morale point of view, Napoleon didn't do that bad with the army. He defeated the Prussians and almost beat the English. If not for Blucher saving Wellington against advice, it's Napoleon 2 allies 0.

What would have happened once Russia and Austrians showed up who knows but they were war weary also. If ( a mighty big if )Napoleon consented to the 1792 boundaries He may well have kept his throne.

As far as Davout if he was used as a field general and was allowed to actually be a general it's possible. For me after 1809 Napoleon is either jealous or something has happened to Davout because he never reaches the heights of his early years as a corps commander.

[Duke of Earl]

Bonjour Messieurs,

Messieurs, I am very proud of you all  .... a very even-tempered, logical discussion with some productive insights .... 

Cordialement, DoE

[Uxbridge]

@Antiochus
The state of the British army was poor as well. Wellington was disgusted by the way that it had decayed since 1814.  Corelli Barnet in Britain and her Army 1509-1970 (a book I read a long time ago so my memory of it may be faulty) argued that this was typical of the British lack of interest in land forces, with undue weight always given to the Navy. If Napoleon had waited on Elba another year then there might not have been a British army waiting for him at Waterloo, or anywhere on the continent.

[EylauHurricane]

The state of the British army was poor as well.    

But not so poor , I think   . The overall quality of British infantry was the best in the world in those last Napoleonic years; the French Imperial Guard only (the Old and Middle Guard) could have been better; but the overall quality of French infantry at Waterloo wasn't so good as the British;  certainly French infantry wasn't the same infantry who fought at Austerlitz!! About the Cavalry, I think the French one was better, but the British Cavalry was not so bad, after years of practice: in 1815 British horsemen were experienced (and they had very high quality horses). About Artillery, yes, the French one was incomparable, mighty,  the British one good but without "excellence", I think.
The low morale of the Army and the Nation was an important cause in the defeat of Napoleon; but my opinion is the French made lot of mistakes in the Campaign and in the three main battles (the Allied too, but less). One mistake above all: the behaviour of Grouchy! If Grouchy have  had fever   and could not have been in command the 18th of June, I could say that EVERY general (not necessarily the great Davout) had marched towards the "sound" of the firing guns, so the French had won the battle!  

[Jean Lafitte]

The quality of the training of D'Erlon's First Corps was so bad that his Soldiers could not be formed into Battalion Column by Divisions or Colonne de Attaque.  The infantry of the First Corps approached  the Allied line in dense unwieldy columns that had no maneuverability.

I assume that these unwieldy formations of column were used because the infantry lacked the training required to maneuver in battalion colonne de attaque.

Is this correct?

[Wellesley]

Remember that the British is actually in the minority in the Allied Army. Majority are Dutch-Belgian (low-low quality)
and some German contingents (OK).

Welly