Page 4 of 10 FirstFirst 12345678910 LastLast
Results 61 to 80 of 183

Thread: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

  1. #61

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    I'd like Wellington's detractors to find one battle he lost and even one sizeable engagement apart from sieges lost by the British in Spain/Portugal. Maya and Roncesvalles perhaps, although more tactical retreats and followed by victories.Fuengirola I don't know but I'll look it up.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Fuengirola

    Yes very interesting but hardly typical of the Peninsular battles.The British themselves did not form the majority of the force and which was formed of French deserters and Spanish. Hardly a solid reason to base criticism of Wellington and the British army in Spain.Quoting this little engagement with one British battalion involved as evidence of military inefficiency is the most laughable post I ever read on these forums.

    This topic has alreay been done to death in so many threads,probably a sneaking suspicion by the detractors a la Peter Hofschroer that Britain was the major power to topple Napoleon.
    http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=288675&page=8
    Last edited by Jihada; January 04, 2010 at 01:13 PM.

  2. #62

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by HMS Empire Broadsword View Post
    -Thus we can conclude that Gret Britain played the biggest part in defeating the French, and Napoleon could not have been beaten without the British.
    I think you have over compensated on one or two of your points, but I have to agree with your conclusion. If nothing else the Royal Navy, and the revenue from trade that it protected ensured that Napoleon was eventually defeated. It would be difficult to argue otherwise.

    As far as Wellington is concerned there is no doubt that he made a few mistakes, but generally as one French Marshall commented the British infantry were very bad soldiers and were just too stupid to realise that they were defeated and so on many occassions they compensated for the mistakes of their commanders simply by refused to accept that they were beaten.

    As far as the Hofschoer controversy is concerned my understanding, having read the books and the background behind the court cases that followed, is that Hofschoer makes no real accusation that Wellington was a poor general, in fact quite the opposite.

    The issue that upset the British historical establishment, and in particular the Wellington Society was focussed simply on his suggestion that Wellington had mislead Blucher into fighting at Ligny by misrepresenting the readiness of the Allied Army to come to his aid. Hofschoer makes a very good arguement to support this accusation, and for what its worth I think he may be correct.

    The difference perhaps between those who sought to discredit Hofschoer and myself is that even if he is right and Wellington did lie to Blucher, it doesn't in my opinion make Wellington any less of a General. In fact, given that Wellington was both a General and a diplomat, and a significant driving force behind the maintenance of the coalition I think it is to Wellington's credit that when things went pear shaped he was prepared to do what was necessary to keep the Prussian's in the game and buy himself the time necessary to pull the fat out of the fire.

    Who knows what might have happened if he had told the truth and given Gneisenau the perfect excuse to force Blucher to pull the Prussian Army out of theatre of operations in order to preserve it to protect the fatherland. As it was Blucher was able to counter Gneisenau's objections by quoting Wellington's promises, and by the time it became apparent that the British were not going to come to Prussia's aid the die had been cast and it was too late to withdraw.
    Last edited by Didz; January 04, 2010 at 12:55 PM.

  3. #63

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolyan View Post
    My source is http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/BATTLE_OF_WATERLOO.htm
    which mentions 75,000 (including staff and medical) has 9 references and as far I know Adkin, Mark (2001). The Waterloo Companion. Aurum which mentions 72,000 for the French. I have never come across 77,000 especially from Mark Adkin. Anyhow taking the average of (77+73 (excluding staff and medical+72)/3 =74,000 French versus 72,500 (or 73,200 as per your source) Wellington’s.

    After the detachment of around 15,000 (or more?) to Palnaceloit French would have 74-15= 59,000 french versus 72,500 for Wellington. So who is outnumbered?





    Didz put a detailed post about these events. There was simply not enough infantry because it was fighting Prussians at Planceloit.

    Hmm so let's see you claim a composite website is a better source than an intensively researched book? So I can use Wikipedia versus your scientific text book?

    Yes Didz put in a very detailed post. You claimed there were NO infantry in Ney's attacks, myself and Didz said you were wrong.

  4. #64
    Ebusitanus's Avatar Senator
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Location
    Insula Augusta
    Posts
    1,334

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    I´m sure there is a middle ground between having the British being demigods without whom Napoleon would be now in Argentina and those who find the British useless. The post of HMS Empire is like those of Kolyan but on reverse.
    Read a napoleonic first hand account of a Hessian serving under the french flag

    Athenians: For ourselves, we shall not trouble you with specious pretenses - either of how we have a right to our empire because we overthrew the Mede, or are now attacking you because of wrong that you have done us- and make a long speech which would not be believed;.......... since you know as well as we do that right, as the world goes, is only in question between equals in power, while the strong do what they can and the weak suffer what they must.

    Part of the Melian Dialogue in The History of the Pelopenessian War by Thucydides.

  5. #65

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Ebusitanus View Post
    I´m sure there is a middle ground between having the British being demigods without whom Napoleon would be now in Argentina and those who find the British useless. The post of HMS Empire is like those of Kolyan but on reverse.
    I think HMS Empire was exaggerating for effect.

    But I agree with you Ebusitanus, there is a middle ground. Wellington was clearly not a "mediocre" general, but many British generals were.
    Britain clearly did not commit as many soldiers as Austria(often overlooked as France's most frequent and steadfast enemy), Russia or Prussia, but those committed played a decisive role in Iberia and Waterloo.
    We know Britain did not win alone but without British soldiers the Spanish and Portuguese may never have defeated Napoleon. Without British money the likes of Austria, Russia and Prussia could not have armed and funded forces. Without the Royal Navy Napoleon would have had more resources and more freedom of movement.

  6. #66

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    -British troops were the best trained and equipped, and they could fire and reload their muskets faster than anyone else. British soldiers were the only ones that could defeat and break French column attacks, and they were the only ones that beat the old Guard.

    Woooooooooow.


    Wasnt it a Neatherlander Regiment that threw back the Guard?

  7. #67

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Redalvilgeshki View Post
    Woooooooooow.


    Wasnt it a Neatherlander Regiment that threw back the Guard?
    Neanderthals?

    Errr NO. It was the British Guards under Maitland, and the British Brigades of Adam and Halkett. Most credit belongs to the 52nd Light Infantry. The Dutch fought Donzelot's force on the flank of the Guard.

    You just don't want to give Britain any credit do you?

  8. #68

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    The Attack of the Old Guard:

    Never happened. The final attack at Waterloo was made by the 3rd and 4th Regiments of Grenadiers and Chasseurs of the Imperial Guard. Both official and unofficial correspondence refer to these units as the 'Middle Guard.' This was because their ranks were filled with soldiers who, although exemplary, were not considered good enough for entry into the true Old Guard (1st and 2nd Regiments of Chasseurs and Grenadiers). In some cases entire line units had been admitted into their ranks because they had defected from the Bourbon army to accompany the Emperor on his triumphal return to Paris. The 39th and 59th Ligne Regiments are two examples.
    The Middle Guard was very poorly equipped: musket slings were often made out of string. Very few of the soldiers wore the famous bearskins. Instead, a vast mixture of shako and forage caps were to be seen, one observer swearing that not more than 20 of the troops could be found dressed alike!
    It would seem that the crack British guardsmen were hit by the Guard Chasseurs, whose repulse was actually caused by the devastating flanking fire of the British 52nd Light Infantry Regiment. The fire was even more deadly because of the formation the French guardsmen were in. Eyewitnesses indicated that they marched upon the enemy in a modified hollow square! Evidently the French Guard feared attack by nearby Allied cavalry.

    https://www.hexwar.com/secure/games/...mon/myths.html

    I'm sure many myths exist concerning most historical events but I do wonder why so many people concentrate on the Waterloo battle.Whatever the truth of the various events it represents a decisive battle and led to 99years of relative peace,at least in Europe.However,it is certain that Wellington was not being too immodest when he said...


    It has been a damned serious business - Blücher and I have lost 30,000 men. It has been a damned nice thing - the nearest run thing you ever saw in your life...By God! I don't think it would have done if I had not been there
    Last edited by Jihada; January 04, 2010 at 10:55 PM.

  9. #69

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by HMS Empire Broadsword View Post
    -BRITISH MONEY was the only reason Austria, Russia, Portugal, Spain, Prussia and all the other countries stayed in the war afetr their numerous humiliating defeats.
    Agree. British payed for Napoleonic Wars and let others to bleed for them. It does not add to British military glory though.

    When Alexander I asked British government to send an army into the main theatre in Central Europe they refused (I think it was 1813). Why? Fighting Grande Army with Napoleon in charge is a different affair to fighting an isolated, undersupplied, lacking intelligence, demoralised and exhausted by Spanish guerrillas French corps.

    Quote Originally Posted by HMS Empire Broadsword View Post
    -Napoleon was turned back in Russia due to the Russian Winter, and his stretched and attacked supply lines failing, not so much the Russian army.
    Many invaders often found it as an excuse for their failures in Russia. Applying the same logic I can say that Britain would not last long during Napoleonic Wars if the water ditch between British Islands and Europe would not be there.

    A few points regarding 1812 war in Russia though:

    At the begging of the War two Russian armies were outnumbered 3 to 1 and by a number of rearguard actions and skilled and fast manoeuvring managed to evade a destruction with Bagration outplaying Junot. Also Barclays and Bagration decide to conduct a scorched earth policy. As a result they joined at Smolensk and there was nothing Napoleon could do with that - Jena-Auerstedt never happened to Russian army in 1812.
    What does that have to do with weather?

    Had the Russian army the qualities of the British …oops… unfortunately they cannot move that fast so they would be defeated before Smolensk.

    Moving further – Kutuzov takes command. He is forced by the Tsar and nobles to stand and fight at Borodino. Now the situation is not that bad they are only outnumbered 6 to 7 but French have more experienced troops. The result is the bloodiest battle of the Napoleonic wars. Napoleon failed to achieve Austerlitz in 1812. And for Russian army it was a moral victory – they held the ground retreating only 1-2 km and slaughtering third of the Napoleonic Army and 47 of his generals taking unprecedented losses but maintaining order, cohesion and discipline. BTW At the end of the day Napoleon ordered to retreat to his initial position while Kutuzov order to prepare for another battle. Had the Russian army be destroyed there Austerlitz style Tsar would be devastated and maybe he would forced to sign peace. What does that have to do with weather?

    Put Wellington’s army in the same shoes… well look above in this topic - I already compared Waterloo-Borodino battles and my point is no way they could do the same as Russians did at Borodino. This would end in a devastating British defeat for a few reasons mentioned above and there would not be any Prussians around to help.

    With half of the army lost but not defeated Kutuzov decided to surrender Moscow while making this a trap for Napoleon. A trap he failed to see. Russians burn Moscow and deny napoleon from winter quarters. Also Kutuzov dispatched Cossacks and hussars to harass supply lines. Also Russian peasants start to fight the invader. Also he plays a personal tricks on Murat and Napoleon like he delays his answer on peace negotiations and so on. Also he conducts a brilliant (below is why) manoeuvre to the South-East and sets up a Tarutino camp denying Napoleon moving south into untouched provinces.
    What does that have to do with weather? You say failing supply lines? They did not fail by themselves – it was Kutuzov’s leadership, Russian army and Russian nation effort.


    After 3 weeks Napoleon realizes what’s happening and starts retreating South-West into untouched Russian provinces. Not for long. Kutuzov anticipated this and blocks (thanks to Tarutino camp) Napoleon’s way at the minor battle of Maloyaroslavets. Again casualty ratio is enormous on both sides and judging by Russian resistance Napoleon refuses to fight another Borodino and is forced to retreat by using the old destroyed road to Smolensk he used two month ago forcing his army to starve. He is retreating harassed by partisans and light cavalry and his marshals defeated at the battles of Krasni and Vyazmya. At that time it was a lovely sunny autumn with no below 0 temperatures almost up until Smolensk.
    What does that have to do with weather?

    From that point Kutuzov refused to engage the remains of the French army as he was convinced they will die out anyway. Hence he did not want to spill any blood of his soldiers in pointless engagements. The overwhelming majority of the Grande army was killed / demoralised / lost combat value before retreat from Smolensk.
    What does that have to do with weather?

    Quote Originally Posted by HMS Empire Broadsword View Post
    -Wellesly was by all means not a mediocre commander, in fact only Boney himself could be suprerior. He beat all that was sent agianst him in India and in the Penninsula, was the only one who actually beat Napoleon, and he himself was NEVER DEFEATED..
    Refer to my points above fighting Grnad army in Europe with Napoleon in charge and fighting French in Peninsular campaign. – two different wars. “beat Napoleon” if you are referring to Waterloo – I think it’s a well established fact even on this English speaking forum that it was Blucher who beat Napoleon at Waterloo with skilled manoeuvring and initiative. Wellington failed to concentrate at the start of the campaign and all he could do is to hold for 5 hours for Blucher to arrive. Very passive and mediocre performance. However overall he was a very cautious and good general. But “only Boney himself could be suprerior” – c’comon don’t be a victim of British propaganda. Try to look at the broader perspective.


    Quote Originally Posted by HMS Empire Broadsword View Post
    -British troops played the largest part in the Penninsula. Spanish troops were usually cowardly, ill-led, and turned up late, disorganised or not at all for battles. Nor were they grateful to the liberating British. There actually were Spanish atempts to make Britain pay tolls for the supplies and weapons they were shipping into spain. Britain supplied the Spanish troops with their much pay, supplies, powder and weapons. The Spanish guerillas achieved far more than the Spanish soldiers ever did, and they were given weapons and supplies by the British as well.

    Although the Portugeese troops were quite good after being trained by the British, they to were supplied by Britain, and British officers sometimes commanded them. So the British played a bigger part in the Penninsula then anyone else..

    War in Spain was first of all a partisan war led by Spanish nation who sacrificed the most and had the highest casualties and caused the overwhelming majority of the casualties to the French occupaniary force. Then there was a Spanish and Portugese regulars, then there were British with half (?) of them actually being German. War in Spain is a war of Spanish nation against the invaders. The British field “army” of around 20,000 very cautions of its own losses always avoided bloody engagements mostly dealing with manoeuvring, skirmishing and minor engagements with a losses reported in hundreds could not possible cause any significant losses to huge French occupational army. These were Spanish guerrillas who menaced French army.

    The average casualties suffered by the French army during
    the Invasion of Russian (1812) were 2,000-3,000 men per day.
    "... the French forces in the Peninsula lost approx. 100 men per day ... " (- David Gates)
    I wonder how many of that 100 were caused by British? 5? 7?

    Could the Spaniards harm the French in a same way without British money and Wellington's British-Portuguese army ? To high degree probably yes. One has only to look at the example of Soviet Invasion of Afghanistan to realize that armies - with facilities and innovations beyond anything that Napoleon could ever have dreamt of - were strained by the type of warfare that he encountered in the Peninsula.



    Quote Originally Posted by HMS Empire Broadsword View Post
    -British troops were the best trained and equipped, and they could fire and reload their muskets faster than anyone else. British soldiers were the only ones that could defeat and break French column attacks, and they were the only ones that beat the old Guard..


    Old guard you say?
    "Digby Smith is of the opinion that it's impossible to know the number of Guard survivors from Russia still present in its ranks in 1815, but points out that of the 400-600 officers and other ranks who'd got back, many must have succumbed in Germany. The Grenadiers' and Chasseurs' composition in 1815 is perhaps relevant to the fiasco of the last fatal charge at Waterloo." (Austin - "1815: the return of Napoleon" p 314)

    Again you should look at the broader - perspective ability to reload faster than anyone is good but what is it good if you cannot keep up with a Grande Army in speed? What if you don’t have sufficient artillery which has very low ammunition provisions and is not in particular accurate, what if your excellent heavy cavalry becomes a disorganised mob after a first charge? And what is it good to have best trained and equipped troops if cannot move a 20km without being out of supply and the situation requires you so? What if you face a Napoleon himself and the Prussians are not coming to help?



    Quote Originally Posted by HMS Empire Broadsword View Post
    -British troops were usually outnumbered by the French, but still managed to beat them. Other nations armies outnumbered Napoleon, but were still completely beaten by him..

    You can’t compare peninsular war to main theatres of Napoleonic wars. Refer to the above why.

    Quote Originally Posted by HMS Empire Broadsword View Post
    -The Royal Navy..

    Yes Royal Navy. The best Navy in the World. British army doesn’t become the best because its Navy is the best.


    Quote Originally Posted by HMS Empire Broadsword View Post
    -Thus we can conclude that Gret Britain played the biggest part in defeating the French, and Napoleon could not have been beaten without the British.
    Great Britain greatest contribution was in gold and not in its soldier’s blood and enemy casualties.

    in five years I shall be master of the world:
    there only remains Russia, but I shall crush her."

    - Napoleon in 1811
    Last edited by Kolyan; January 05, 2010 at 02:50 AM.

  10. #70

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by emperorpenguin View Post
    Hmm so let's see you claim a composite website is a better source than an intensively researched book? So I can use Wikipedia versus your scientific text book?

    Yes Didz put in a very detailed post. You claimed there were NO infantry in Ney's attacks, myself and Didz said you were wrong.
    Yes. I was not aware of the fact that there was infantry in the area. Always keen to learn something new. However it does not change the logic of my argument moreover Didz's detailed description confirms that my argument is correct - the badly needed infantry was fighting Prussians hence the attack was not very effective because Napoleon was outnumbered.

    The website i mentioned has over 10 references. Surprisingly the summary (don’t have the book itself now) of the book you mentioned talks about 72,000 French before the battle at 11-00am. http://www.napoleon-series.org/ also mentions 72,000.
    The Campaigns Of Napoleon, The Mind And Method Of History's Greatest Soldier.; David G. Chandler; Scribner; New York, 1966; ISBN: 0-02-523660-1 also mentions 72,000.You have a petty argument I must say.

    However, still not happy with a source? fine - let it be your way. 77,000- 15,000 = 62,000 French versus 73,200 Wellingtion’s (as per your source). So who is outnumbered?

  11. #71

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Jihada View Post
    ...but I do wonder why so many people concentrate on the Waterloo battle.
    Because we live in the English-American dominated world and British participated in the battle

    Because waterloo is the last battle for Napoleon

    Because up until Waterloo British never faced Napoleon himself.

    Because it was very easy to twist this German victory into British and create a myth of British super army

    Because centuries later it was easy support the myth of the super army saying that all these useless Europeans fought him for years and lost badly (I am almost quoting HMS Empire Broadsword) but as soon as Napoleon faced the real army (British of course!) he lost badly.

    Because British used mass media very well for propaganda purposes to grossly overestimated the importance of the Battle claiming that British saved Europe - like Napoleon was going to use his poor 100,000 1815 style army de nord to defeat 450,000 – 500,000 Russians, Austrian and Prussians.

    As you see possibilities for enjoyable British speculations around Waterloo are countless.

  12. #72

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Rolica,Talavera,Fuentes d'Orno,Vimiero,Salamanca,Vittoria,Busaco,Oporto.That's just the bigger peninsula battles won. Add to that the amazing victories in India with tiny armies against huge odds
    Wellington was a genius of both offence and defence. His preferred defensive tactics were because it played to his army's strengths, good but limited artillery, poorish and limited cavalry, and man for man the best line and light infantry in Europe. At least 3 of the above Wellington was the attacker. In the Waterloo campaign, after the initial surprise he played it (including bending Blucher to his needs)masterfully. Anyway if Ligny and Quarte Bras had gone worse for the allies he would have pulled back on Antwerp, and reassembled his Army, some of the best of which was on the way to America.
    In the meantime the Royal Navy would have resumed the blockade and France would have starved in the face of the Russian steamroller.

    Whilst we're at it lets get some numbers right for the makeup of his army at Waterloo
    British;
    31,253 British
    6,387 KGL (ie British Army)
    15,935 Hanoverians (de facto British Army)
    29,214 Dutch-Belgians
    6,808 Brunswickers
    2,880 Nassauers
    1,240 engineers etc

  13. #73

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolyan View Post
    Yes. I was not aware of the fact that there was infantry in the area. Always keen to learn something new. However it does not change the logic of my argument moreover Didz's detailed description confirms that my argument is correct - the badly needed infantry was fighting Prussians hence the attack was not very effective because Napoleon was outnumbered.
    Actually thats a misunderstanding and I should have been clearer in my original post.

    What I said was:
    If there was a failure it was in the fact that Napoleon did not expliot the success of the French cavalry attacks in sufficient strength, with La Haye Sainte taken and the French infantry and artillery in command of the ridge line he should have thrown in the last of his reserves and smashed the British centre completely, instead he held them back, and eventually depleted them by detaching many to counter the Prussian advance on Plancenoit.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolyan View Post
    As you see possibilities for enjoyable British speculations around Waterloo are countless.
    I think your right. Probably the most that Napoleon could have hoped to achieve by victory at Waterloo would have been the defeat fall of the British Government. The political consequences would have been enormous, and Britains allies would have lost faith in Wellington and his leadership. The coalition might well have fallen apart, and that would have left Napoleon with some interesting diplomatic possibilities, even if militarily he might not have been ready to take on the other European powers in 1815.

    One obvious possibility would have been a deal with Prussia, who were interested in their own Empire building at the time and might have been satisfied with a lions shared of the former Confederation states and a couple of northern channel ports in return for peace. That would have effectively set up a buffer state between France and most of its major enemies, and bought France time to rearm.

    I believe it was you who later interpreted this statement as 'the badly needed infantry was fighting Prussians hence the attack was not very effective because Napoleon was outnumbered.' But that was not the impression I mean't to give.

    The fact, is that as the French cavalry assault developed, La Haye Sainte was taken, French infantry from D'Erlons Corps and from Hougoumont managed to secure the ridge line and occupy the sunken road. French horse artillery were dragged up the ridge to fire cannister into Halketts squares and the situation was looking decidedly grim. The squares of Halkett's brigade broke and began to disband only being saved by the timely intervention of the Netherlands Division who temporarily drove the French back over the crest and gave Halkett's officers a chance to restore order.

    However, at that point, when Ney sent an urgent request to Napoleon requesting more infantry to exploit the situation and break through the enemy centre, Napoleon actually had the entire Imperial Guard still in reserve and ready for commitment. He could and in my opinion should have committed at least the middle guard at that decisive point in the battle. Instead his only reply was 'Infantry! And where do you expect me to find infantry? Do you want me to manufacture some?

    When in fact he was standing within a few hundred yards of about 13,000 of the best infantry in his army who were sitting on their packs in assault column formations waiting to be committed to the fight.

    That I think was the point that Napoleon lost the battle, and that was his big mistake. The only explanation is that Napoleon did not grasp the fact that the decisive point had been reached, despite the fact that throughout the day his aim had been to break through the Allied centre, at the very point that his goal was within reach he allowed himself to be distracted, and when he did finally commit these reserves he didn't even send them against the weakened centre of the Allied line but against the British Brigades to the right where the French cavalry had been the least successful.

    In fact, at around the time that Ney requested more infantry, Wellington was on the point of admitting defeat. Many of the British regiments had already sent their colours to the rear to avoid the embarrassment of having them captured by the French, and Wellington was praying for either darkness (so that his army could escape) or the Prussian's. He sent a number of desperate messages to Blucher stating that unless the Prussian Army did something soon he would have no choice but the abandon the field and try to extricate what he could of his army. However, the Prussians had their own problems. The first of their Brigades were indeed at the edge of the battlefield, but their artillery and cavalry were still wading through knee deep mud trying to reach the front and without cavarly and artillery support their infantry could make little progress across the open ground guarded by Domon's Cavalry. To make matters worse the tracks they had followed had led the first brigades to appear behind the French flank, which whilst tactically advantageous, unfortunately mean't that Wellington and his staff could not even see them from the Waterloo ridge, and so there was still confusion and doubt as to whether they were really there. Wellington was perhaps wondering if Blucher was not being as equally diplomatic in his assurances of imminent support as he himself had been during the battle of Ligny.

    Certainly reading the description of this stage of the battle one can see quite clearly why after the battle Wellington said that 'it was a damned close run thing.' , and personally I'm convinced that had those 13,000 guard infantry even begun to advance on the Allied centre then it would have been the last straw that tipped the balance and either Wellington and/or his soldiers would have decided the battle was lost. As it happens by the time they did advance, Wellington was satisfied that the Prussian had indeed arrived and he was even able to move some of his troops from his left to reinforce his right as the Prussians relieved the pressure.

    In simple terms, Napoleon had left it too late and the opportunity had passed.

    Quote Originally Posted by Jihada View Post
    The Attack of the Old Guard: Never happened.
    Absolutely right. The Old Guard never attacked at Waterloo, their only contribution was to delay the Prussian pursuit so that Napoleon and most of the army could escape. Amazingly not a single French Eagle was captured during the French retreat.

    Another interesting piece of trivia is that the British 1st Foot Guards were renamed the 'Grenadier Guards', supposedly in honour of having defeated the Grenadiers of the French Imperial Guard at Waterloo, but in fact they didn't. The battalions that attacked their sector of the front were from the Chasseurs of the Guard, so by rights they ought to be the 'Chasseur Guards'

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolyan View Post
    As you see possibilities for enjoyable British speculations around Waterloo are countless.
    The most plausible benefit that Napoleon could have hoped to gain by victory at Waterloo would have been political rather than military. If he was lucky the public outcry in Britain over the defeat of its army and its best general would have brought down the government and possibly resulted in a request for peace.

    Even if that didn't happen the loss of credibility amongst the other coalition members would have provide Napoleon with a number of diplomatic opportunities. Not least the chance to do a deal with Prussia, who were very interested in build their own empire at the time and might have settled for a large slice of the former Confederation states and a couple of northern channel ports in return for peace.

    If that happened then Prussia would have acted as a buffer state between France as many of its other enemies, perhaps buying Napoleon time to re-arm.
    Quote Originally Posted by Kolyan View Post
    However, still not happy with a source? fine - let it be your way. 77,000- 15,000 = 62,000 French versus 73,200 Wellingtion’s (as per your source). So who is outnumbered?
    I think your figure for the French is missing the Imperial Guard. Or at least it seems to match the figures I have for the French Army excluding the guard. I have a total strengths of French: 123,665, Allied: 82,300, Prussian: 117,622. However, these figures are based on paper strengths at the start of the campaign. Its worth noting that the French had fought at least five battles before they reached Waterloo, and had suffered in excess of 13,000 casualties at Ligny and Quatre Bras. Also its a fact that most non-British Allied units were over-stated on paper as they were paid a bounty per head by the British which led to some creative accounting, and that the Prussians must have suffered considerable losses both at Ligny and the earlier battles not to mention stragglers and desertions during the march to Waterloo.
    Quote Originally Posted by Laird of Ravescroft View Post
    some of the best of which was on the way to America.
    ? (Just curious really, have I missed something?)
    Last edited by Didz; January 05, 2010 at 08:23 AM.

  14. #74

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Kolyan View Post
    Yes. I was not aware of the fact that there was infantry in the area. Always keen to learn something new. However it does not change the logic of my argument moreover Didz's detailed description confirms that my argument is correct - the badly needed infantry was fighting Prussians hence the attack was not very effective because Napoleon was outnumbered.

    Surprisingly the summary (don’t have the book itself now) of the book you mentioned talks about 72,000 French before the battle at 11-00am.
    ?
    As Didz says above that is NOT what he said. You were told that the infantry of Bachelu and Tissot were commited, just too late to be of use. Had they been committed earlier the attack may have succeeded.

    Not sure what you are talking about regarding the summary but I have the actual book mate and those are Adkin's figures....

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz View Post
    Another interesting piece of trivia is that the British 1st Foot Guards were renamed the 'Grenadier Guards', supposedly in honour of having defeated the Grenadiers of the French Imperial Guard at Waterloo, but in fact they didn't. The battalions that attacked their sector of the front were from the Chasseurs of the Guard, so by rights they ought to be the 'Chasseur Guards'?)
    I also read, many years ago, so I do not recall the source, that the credit given to the "Grenadier" Guards was deliberately given to them rather than the more desrving 52nd Light Infantry because it was considered that only a Guard unit could be capable of beating another Guard unit. Thus the poor Oxfords were snubbed and their part deliberately overlooked in order to make the 1st Guards look better.

  15. #75

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by emperorpenguin View Post
    I also read, many years ago, so I do not recall the source, that the credit given to the "Grenadier" Guards was deliberately given to them rather than the more desrving 52nd Light Infantry because it was considered that only a Guard unit could be capable of beating another Guard unit. Thus the poor Oxfords were snubbed and their part deliberately overlooked in order to make the 1st Guards look better.
    I'm not sure about that to be honest.

    Randall Turner and I were discussing the attack of the Imperial Guard before Christmas and there seems to be a lot of confusion about exactly what was happening on the left flank of their attack. Certainly, the 52nd Light Infantry did advance right shoulder forward to attack a French unit, but whether this was the same unit engaged by the 1st Foot Guards is less certain, also its worth adding that the 52nd were not the only regiment to take part in this maneourve the 95th moved up on their flank, and on the the other flank troops from Halkets German and Detmers Netherlands Divisions were also engaged. So, it becomes a problem trying to determine who was firing at whom really. The only thing that is almost certainly true is the the 1st Foot Guards didn't drive off the Chasseurs completely unsupported, there was musket shot flying in all directions, and the classic 'English Myth' version of 'Up Guards and at 'em' is almost certainly an after dinner elboration of events.
    Last edited by Didz; January 06, 2010 at 07:24 AM.

  16. #76

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz View Post
    I'm not sure about that to be honest.

    Ranald Turner and I were discussing the attack of the Imperial Guard before Christmas and there seems to be a lot of confusion about exactly what was happening on the left flank of their attack. Certainly, the 52nd Light Infantry did advance right shoulder forward to attack a French unit, but whether this was the same unit engaged by the 1st Foot Guards is less certain, also its worth adding that the 52nd were not the only regiment to take part in this maneourve the 95th moved up on their flank, and on the the other flank troops from Halkets German and Detmers Netherlands Divisions were also engaged. So, it becomes a problem trying to determine who was firing at whom really. The only thing that is almost certainly true is the the 1st Foot Guards didn't drive off the Chasseurs completely unsupported, there was musket shot flying in all directions, and the classic 'English Myth' version of 'Up Guards and at 'em' is almost certainly an after dinner elboration of events.
    It is pretty well established that the 52nd hit the 4th Chasseurs in the flank.

    Col Colbourne
    I ordered our left hand Company to wheel to the left, and formed the remaining Companies on that Company.....This movement placed us nearly parallel with the moving Columns of the French Imperial Guards. I ordered a strong Company to extend in our front [as skirmishers], and at this moment Sir F. Adam rode up, and asked me what I was going to do. I think I said, 'to make that column feel our fire.'
    According to this site there is a French source which also specifically mentioned the 52nd as the battalion which broke the Middle Guard's attack.

    http://www.waterloocommittee.org.uk/the%20secret.html

    Mark Adkin, Andrew Roberts and Albert Nofi also all state that the 52nd hit the 4th Chasseurs flank.

    I found reference to a French source in Ensign Leeke's book, as well as his testimony that the 52nd did indeed flank the Guard.

    http://books.google.co.nz/books?id=E...age&q=&f=false
    Last edited by emperorpenguin; January 05, 2010 at 09:48 AM.

  17. #77

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Yup.
    Under Packenham I think. They got whipped at New Orleans in a suicidal frontal attack against Andrew Jackson's entrenched forces.

  18. #78

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Laird of Ravescroft View Post
    Yup.
    Under Packenham I think. They got whipped at New Orleans in a suicidal frontal attack against Andrew Jackson's entrenched forces.

    Sorry. Should have checked my dates. Read instead....On their way back from America, after the disasterous New Orleans expedition (Dec 1814- Jan 1815)

  19. #79

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by emperorpenguin View Post
    It is pretty well established that the 52nd hit the 4th Chasseurs in the flank.
    I'm not sure how, or who, has established that, pretty well or otherwise, but the issue Ranald and I were discussing was the suggestion that the guard advanced in square. Thus, for a start, there would have been no flank, 4th Chasseurs or otherwise.

    According to Barbero the first two battalions to march up the ridge were those of 1/3rd Grenadiers and the 1/4th Grenadiers. But they weren't met by the 1st Foot Guards, in fact they hit the remnants of Halketts Brigade and the Dutch, suggesting that they may have chosen to take the line to the right (east) of the central spur, or if not then very close to its western slope. Neither side in this confrontation seemed to have a stomach for the fight and both Halketts men and the French Grenadiers began a half-hearted exchange of musketry whilst flinching away form each other as fast as their officers would allow them to. Halketts units had had enough and began to disband again, but the French seemed reluctant to grasp their chance of victory. Behind Halkets crumbling line only the children of the Brunswick Battalion and the three battalions of the 1st Duke of Nassau Regiment under Von Kruse stood between the French and victory. They were still in formed in square because they were petrified with fear and their officers dare not risk asking them to move for fear that they would run. Wellington further down the ridge with Maitland saw the danger and sent Major Kelly to "See what's wrong there."

    He arrived just as Sir Colin Halkett received a French Musket ball in the face. leaving Colonel Elphinstone in command and completely at a loss what to do. In desperation Elphinstone turned to Kelly and begged him for advice. Two sergeant's from the 73rd ran up to them in a panic reporting that every officer in their regiment was dead or wounded and they had nobody to command them. Everyone had already sent their colours to the rear for fear of losing them. there seemed to be little hope that Halketts (now Elphinstones) Brigade could hold its ground and so Kelly took the initiative and ordered them to fall back to the hedge bordering the nearby road.

    Unfortunately, this was the signal that most of the men had been waiting for as an excuse to abandon their posts and the withdrawal quickly degenerated in the rout that went far beyond the hedge line Kelly had indicated they should reform behind. I suspect that many of the men simply took the opportunity to make themselves scarce. Macready was damning in his criticism of Kelly's order pointing out that he could not conceive what the enemy was about during our confusion, and that fifty cuirassiers would have been able to annihilate the entire brigade if they had had a mind to.

    In fact, the reason the French were not advancing was thanks to the Prince of Orange. Who at that point was the only Allied Officer in the area still with a horse and therefore able to see over the intervening hedges what the French were doing. He immediately called out to one of Kruse's Nassau battalions and drawing his sword led it forward in a bayonet charge against the 1/3rd Grenadiers. For a moment the Grenadiers paniced, but after the intial shock began firing into the German column at close range with fearful effect. The Prince of Orange was wounded and the Nassau regiment disbanded and it sound like they quit the field complety. Apparently Von Kruse was forced to send his last battalion (a militia one) forward to plug the gap in his line.

    Meanwhile some of Halketts men had rallied and moved back into line, but now at last the Grenadiers heartened by the rout of the Nassau Regiment began to advance again, not with the bayonet but slowly and steadily firing and reloading as they came on. The officers were scampering back and forth in front of them screaming at them to advance but they refused to stop firing prepfering to move forward slowly and steadily despite the encouragement for them to charge.

    Halketts Brigade ignored them concentrating of reforming their line and holding their fire until the last possible moment. When they did fire the French at first merely halted and their was a breif fire fight at close range before the French simply seemed to melt away into the smoke and their firing gradually stopped leaving Halketts Brigade more perplexed than victorious.

    What had actually caused their dissappearance was not the fire of Halketts men but an attack by Chasse's 3rd Netherlands Division, and most importantly the Horse Artillery of Captain Krahmer who had galloped forward out of the smoke and dropping into position of Halketts flank had proceeded to blast the two Grenadier battalions with close range cannister from his eight 6 pdr guns.

    Meanwhile, on orders from Wellington Detmers Dutch Brigade moved forward and replaced Halketts in the line and began firing steady volley's into the smoke in the general direction that the Grenadiers had disappeared. As they did so they perceived through the smoke that they seemed to be facing the flank of at least one of the French coilumns and General Chasse ordered them forward with the bayonet. Most of these men were still drunk from all the Juniper Brandy they had been plied with by the villagers of Brain l'Alleud and on the order to advance they rushed forward with quite comical enthusiasm shako's raised on their muskets screaming 'Oranje boven!" and 'Vive le Rio" scaring the French Grenadiers to death and tumbling them back down the slope in disorder. [Incidently, it occurs to me that ths column which Detmers men charged might not have been that of the Grenadiers. The timing coincides with the attack of the 3rd Chasseurs on Maitlands Brigade, and its possible that as the Dutch were firing into the smoke they might have noticed the 3rd coming forward on their right and helped the British Guards defeat it. Maitlands Brigade was deployed further to the rear than Halketts so the 3rd would have had to march past the flank of Detmers Brigade to reach them exposing their flank to just such an attack.]

    Meanwhile Maitlands Guard Brigade was still lying amongst the wheat on the reverse slope of the ridge as the artillery supporting them rained death and destruction on the 3rd Chasseurs to their front. Some accounts report that the first volley from the Guards topple the French down the slope of the ridge, but Barbero claims that the Guards were lying on the reverse slope of the ridge behind their artillery and that the fire fight did not begin unto the French reached the crest.

    The first men to crest the rise were the skirmishers screening the advance closely followed for the first of the supporting French horse guns, with the 3rd Chasseurs column appearing soon afterwards. The British artillery were firing shot rather than cannister into them (its possible that all the cannister in the ready ammunition had been expended by now) and eyewtinesses report seeing daylight through their formation every time a gun fired as whole files were carried away at once. As soon as the Chasseurs reached the top of the ridge they did exactly what the Grenadiers had done, they halted, and began to firing independantly at the troops in front of them, right under the mussles of the British artillery. At this point someone ordered the Guards to their feet and the sudden appearance of the Guards right in front of them followed by their first volleys of close range platoon fire resulted in their formation immdeiately starting to fall apart General Michel was killed, as was Colonel Malet a veteran who had begun his career as a drummer boy. Major Angelet receive his twelth wound.

    Wellington turned to Maitland and said "Now Maitland, now is your time!" The order was given and the Foot Guards lowered their bayonets and began to advance. To their great relief and amazement the French did not wait for them to get any closer, but as soon as they began to advance the French began to fall back becoming more and more disordered until they broke and fled back down the slope chased by the Foot Guards.

    Maitlands men were in the process of chasing the French down the slope when the last French Battalion the 4th Chasseurs loomed out of the smoke on their flank. Maitlands first reaction was to form front to flank, but in the confusion his order was not understood, or ignored and instead the instinctive reaction of the battalion officers was to form square. Not surprisingly the conflicting orders coupled with the imminent arrival of a French column caused total chaos and the Foot Guards began to disband.

    In desperation the British officers chased their men back up the ridge pursued by the column of the 4th Chasseurs and only with some difficultly managed to get their men to halt beyond the crest and reform. Turning at bay they could hear the drums of the 4th Chasseurs close on their heels beating the pas de charge. Once again the British artillery opened fire, and once again on reaching the crest the 4th Chasseurs halted and attempted to form into line. Accoring to Lt Sharpin of the 4th Chasseurs the regiment (it consisted of both battalions) struggled to form line for a full 10 minutes under appalling fire whilst responding as best it could to the British fire being poured into them.

    It was a this point that Colbourne' 52nd Light Infantry swung out of line right shoulder forward and begun to fire into the French formation from its flank. General Adam his superior galloped up demanding to know what he was doing, to which he simply replied "Making that column feel our fire." leaving the General to fume at his impudence. The 95th came up alongside the 52nd and added their fire to the slaughter and when Colbourne perceived that the French were begining to fall apart he order an advance with the bayonet and French disbanded and ran for the rear.

    Quote Originally Posted by Laird of Ravescroft View Post
    They got whipped at New Orleans in a suicidal frontal attack against Andrew Jackson's entrenched forces.
    Very few of the troops at Waterloo had served in America (I think the 44th Foot had) or indeed anywhere before. Most of the troops at New Orleans were colonial garrison units which simply returned to the West Indies after the battle. However, it was actually a worse mess than you seem to suggest. The attack at New Orleans was not suicidal, it was actually pointless and impossible, mainly because the British had left their scaling ladders behind on the beach and had no way of reaching the defenders. They were also 12 hours late making their attack due to a cock-up by the Royal Navy and so instead of attacking under cover of darkness they were caught in march column standing in a marsh in broad daylight under artillery fire with no hope of crossing the enemy ditch. In short it was a a complete -up.
    Last edited by Didz; January 06, 2010 at 07:21 AM. Reason: Correcting some typo's

  20. #80

    Default Re: What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

    Quote Originally Posted by Didz View Post
    I'm not sure how, or who, has established that, pretty well or otherwise, but the issue Ranald and I were discussing was the suggestion that the guard advanced in square. Thus, for a start, there would have been no flank, 4th Chasseurs or otherwise..
    Most Historians. As I said Adkin, Roberts, Nofi, and many others. Of course maybe they are all wrong...

    If you had been discussing the formation of the Guard then you should have been aware that the British reported the Guard to have advanced in column and not the squares which we know they actually used. You see this even in Colbourne's own quotation. Therefore the British believed they were flanking the Chasseurs and received a nasty surprise when the "flanked" unit fired and inflicted ~150 casualties.

    I can see no debate as to the role of the 52nd, I don't know why you have doubts once again Didz! I think your mistrust of historians borders on paranoia!

    And by the way Barbero has been shown time and again to be a poor source, he makes so many mistakes.
    For instance you say Barbero credits the Prince of Orange with organising the defence against the Guard, when he was in fact wounded over an hour earlier ~6.15 near La Haie Sante and was at a medical station (according to eye witnesses) in the rear when the Cumberland Hussars rode past before 7.30, the time of the Guard's attack.
    Last edited by emperorpenguin; January 05, 2010 at 03:31 PM.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •