Could Napoleon have won at Waterloo?

[SKILORD]

hehe, I beat Wellington.

The point of course being that while Napoleon was doomed to defeat, I could have won Waterloo, if Wellsley had given me two tries....

 

[Knight-Dragon]

A related article... on the fate of Napoleon's Grand Army. They found a mass grave of Napoleonic troops of this campaign in early 2002 in Vilnius, capital of Lithuania.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/history/archaeology/napoleon_army_01.shtml

 

[MCdread]

Yes, Napoleon could have won the battle of Waterloo. Actualy, despicte all the inconveniences, I think that tha battle was still his to win, if Blücher hadn´t arrive at that point. I once read that it wasn't Wellington that won the battle, but Blücher. I guess that´s a bit of exageration, but I do think that Wellington's role in this battle is overrated, as the battle itself is.
The important thing is that even if he had won, he was probably doomed anyway. There were still the other armies of the coalition to face, and they were coming. Maybe history would have registed the name of some other small french, german or belgian village, but I woldn't bet on France in 1815.
Maybe for Napoleon the fate would be different. If he was captured by a different army, he could have been sentenced to death. This way he ended up in St. Helena, which wasn't exactly very nice either. What is curious is that there was some strong arguing in London newspapers at the time about what to do with Napoleon, and there was a strong party that favoured is release, and that ststed there wasn't any british law that could convict him. I guess this tells how big was his fame and reputation for even gathering so favourable reactions in one of his major enemies.

BTW, thanks Napoleon (the poster) for making a thread not realated to WWII.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Originally posted by napoleon526

Wellington's army contained Hanoverians, Brunswickers, Nassauers, and contingents from other German states. That's why I just called it "german."

are yes the brunswickers and Nassauers prefromed very well. especially at Quatre bras without them the french would have caputred the cross raods thanks to the stupidty of the prince of orange.


do you believe that the mauling of Halketts brigade at Quatre Bras was the prince of oranges fault or not?
becasue i believe that it was his fault why ohh why was he even there i know it was so that the dutch beligans would fight but they really didnt do that much at either battle in comparison to the britsih and 'germans'

 

[napoleon526]

Originally posted by Ancient Grudge
do you believe that the mauling of Halketts brigade at Quatre Bras was the prince of oranges fault or not?
becasue i believe that it was his fault why ohh why was he even there i know it was so that the dutch beligans would fight but they really didnt do that much at either battle in comparison to the britsih and 'germans'

I think this was the PoO's fault. All of his aides advised him that French cavalry was nearby and that it would be suicide to deploy Halkett's brigade in line, but he did it anyway. After that, the Duke broke up his corps so the Prince had no independent command during Waterloo.

The British needed Dutch support for their fight against Napoleon. The Dutch king would only allow the Dutch army to fight if his son was given a large command that included British troops.

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Originally posted by napoleon526
The British needed Dutch support for their fight against Napoleon. The Dutch king would only allow the Dutch army to fight if his son was given a large command that included British troops.

i know that but why did the british need the Ducth Support there infantry was sub standard. the light cavalry wouldnt even charge the enemy shown at Quatre Bras and Waterloo what use where they?

 

[Kentonio]

It was strictly political. Orange was a damn fool and a liability but politics dictated that it was necessary. Ah well, at least we won. ;D

Kentonio

 

[napoleon526]

Originally posted by Ancient Grudge
i know that but why did the british need the Ducth Support there infantry was sub standard. the light cavalry wouldnt even charge the enemy shown at Quatre Bras and Waterloo what use where they?

The British were assured by the Dutch government that their army would fight, despite the fact that many of them had been fighting FOR Napoleon for the past few years. Only about 35,000 British troops were in Wellington's army, and the Netherlands army doubled that force. German contingents contributed another 30,000.

 

[Hamlet]

I think it's obvious that Napoleon could have easily turned it, but surely the question must be asked, what could this have achieved in the long term?

 

[napoleon526]

Originally posted by Hamlet
I think it's obvious that Napoleon could have easily turned it, but surely the question must be asked, what could this have achieved in the long term?

The Belgian ports that Napoleon was aiming for were Wellington's only link to Britain. If N could have taken them, with or without defeating W, the British/Allied army could have been neutralized. He then could have turned his focus on the Prussian Army and destroyed it, since it consisted mainly of unmotivated conscripts. The Austrian and Russian forces would not have arrived for months.

I think that if 2 of the 4 major armies sent against him were destroyed, Austria and Russia may have hesitated and made peace with him. I'm not sure if England or Prussia would have accepted N as ruler of France or not.

 

[onejayhawk]

Originally posted by EdwardTking
Yes; Napoleon could have won the battle field.

However I doubt that he could have destroyed
Wellington's army; unless Wellington screwed up.

Amongst other things Wellington was a master
at disengaging when outmatched; and I am
confident that, if he assessed Napoleon as on
top, he would have broken away early and
been able to save at least half his army.

Cotrrect me if I'm wrong. This century is not my favorite. Isnt Waterloo cnsidered to be one of those battles where retreat is near impossible. The mud of course plus the terrain militate against withdrawing before the battle was fully decided.

I tend to agree with your other points, but N was always fighting uphill. AW was the only General in the theatre that could stay on the field with him consistently. If N escapes intact, the other armies may not slow im much. On the other hand the British route to the sea would have been secure, which was the point of the battle in the first place.

J

 

[Ancient Grudge]

Originally posted by napoleon526
The British were assured by the Dutch government that their army would fight, despite the fact that many of them had been fighting FOR Napoleon for the past few years. Only about 35,000 British troops were in Wellington's army, and the Netherlands army doubled that force. German contingents contributed another 30,000.

thats what i mean Wellington had his doubts about the Dutch before Quatre Bras. The Ducth-Belgain troops where as slow at loading as the french so maybe even if they had fought it could have been worse for the allies as the french coluoms might of been ablt to break the Ducth-Belgain line.

Didnt the Nassuers fight for napoleon as well?
If so why did they fight and not the Dutch-Belgians?

 

[Yoda Power]

Q: Could Napoleon have won at Waterloo?

A: Yes, but he did´nt, too bad for him.