"To what extent was French defeat at the battle of Waterloo due to Napoleons lack of judgment"?

Authors Avatar

        -  –

Paul Hartley

RRH

“To what extent was French defeat at the battle of Waterloo due to Napoleons lack of judgment”?

        After abdicating to the island of Elba Napoleon Bonaparte returned to France to rule the country once again. However after just 100 days ruling he had suffered the final defeat and was aboard a British ship returning to exile once more. He gambled everything on a battle which if he had won would’ve have left in an extremely strong position in Europe and would’ve changed the face of Europe as we know it today.   He was arguably the greatest military commander in modern times; he achieved things that seemed impossible on many occasions. However this deity of modern warfare and Emperor of France was beaten during a battle, which everything was in his favour. To what extent it was his fault? Or was napoleon controlled by circumstances?

Many historians make a very good case for the battle being Napoleons fault. There evidence can be divided into tactical errors, personal errors and political lack of judgement. However, many people see that the loss was no fault of his; this evidence will again be split into what napoleon did right during the battle (therefore not making it his fault), the fact that he could have been beaten by a better enemy, and other reasons accounting for the loss.

        Tactically, Napoleon had often proven himself to be brilliant. Looking into his previous battles the battle of the pyramids is a good example of this. Facing elite Mameluke cavalry of Murad Bey, and hardened desert veterans napoleon brilliantly commanded his troops, which resulted in an emphatic victory. The Murad Bey army lost thousands of men and horses. The French lost 29 men. Another example of Napoleon’s tactical genius comes from his early campaigns in Italy and Austria. Here he showed, as a young man, his credentials as a commander. He was defeating men like General Alvinczy, an extremely experienced leader of the Austrian army. His victories lead to a peace, which no one thought could be achieved. However, in non-extraordinary circumstance he was defeated. Throughout his career he had beaten armies which more men, guns and higher morale. This time however when he had more men, more guns and arguably better morale, he lost.

        Napoleon insisted on a very unsubtle battle plan. He never considered outflanking the numerically weaker British; he focused on a frontal attack aiming at breaking Wellingtons centre and making him run.  If he had considered some technical manoeuvres many historians believed he would’ve won. A historian wrote; “Napoleon believed the secret of winning lay in the simple offensive, here he showed it didn’t work”. However, this tactical error cannot account for the overall loss. Napoleon had used this system of pouring firepower into the centre many times before, and more often than not it had prevailed. In saying that he had usually committed his old guard far earlier than he did that day.

        The decision Napoleon took in using Grouchy, Ney and Shoult has to be questioned. They all made terrible mistakes during the battle, and therefore it reflects badly on Napoleon in his choice of commanders. Ney ordered a mass, unsupported, cavalry charge on an enemy he thought to be retreating. This proved fatal as Wellington formed his steadfast troops into squares and heavily defeated Ney’s cavalry.

Grouchy was ordered to stop the Prussian army-reaching waterloo. He had 33000 men, the Prussians amassed to only 15000. The men grouchy had, could’ve been used with great affect if he had used some initiative. However he did not, so they were not. Napoleon could have chosen from many generals, he knew Grouchy and Ney especially were soldier generals, who fought gallantly and who’d never give up, but, as generals of entire armies how far could they be trusted? This, I feel is no fault of their own, but it is their generals fault for not choosing the right men for the right job; he didn’t play to their strengths. A historian writes, “As overall commander whatever mistakes made under him reflect on him, therefore he must have accepted the blame for the overall defeat.” This view contradicts many of the other historians, who believe that blame could be apportioned to his subordinates for their poor performance.

Join now!

        Even if you take the view that individual commanders should take responsibilities for their own actions, would Napoleon have commanded the troops any better? The part of the battle he did command personally was in no way decisive. When the Prussians entered the battle on the French right flank napoleon mobilised his old and young guard for the first time in the battle. You would have expected these elite troops of the French to have heavily defeated the tired, demoralised Prussian troops. However they only managed to hold them and the battles fought on the flank were never decisive. ...

This is a preview of the whole essay