Part  3

Having made this decision, Napoleon had no difficulty in selecting which of his many foes he should attack. The only hostile forces within striking distance were those of Wellington and Blücher, and he accordingly aimed his blow at them. Further, reasoning correctly from the characters of his two opponents that if he did not soon attack them they would very shortly invade France, he decided to enter Belgium forthwith, and to beat in turn the English and the Prussians, long ere the Russian and Austrian host arrived. Delay would be fatal. He now only had to decide where he would strike his first blows in the Belgium theatre. Three main lines of advance were available: -

1. Lille – Tournay or Valencienne – Mons, thus turning the Allies’ right and cutting off Wellington from his base at Ostend.
2. The Allies left might be turned by the Meuse and Namur, thus cutting off Blücher from his base.
3. He might advance direct on Brussels by Charleroi, thus piercing the Allies’ centre.[1]

In order that the pros and cons of these three lines of advance may be properly appreciated, it must be remembered that Napoleon though superior to either Blücher and Wellington, was greatly inferior to them combined of nearly two to one. Thus to meet them combined must be almost certainly fatal to Napoleon, and consequently it was of paramount importance to prevent any such combination. Now it is quite clear that if the Allies’ right was turned, Wellington would be driven back upon Blücher. Similarly, if the Allies’ left was turned, Blücher would be driven back upon Wellington. Consequently an attack on either flank would but bring about that combination which it was essential to prevent, and two days later the Emperor would find himself face to face with the united forces of the Allies. It is perhaps hardly necessary to repeat at this stage that it was not Napoleon’s custom to drive allies together. This reason alone, irrespective of several minor considerations, was sufficient to indicate that an advance on the centre offered the best chance of success. Perhaps the most important of the minor considerations was the fact both Blücher and Wellington would be aware of the extent to which their communications were exposed and, expecting their attack, would have made careful preparations accordingly.

After carefully weighing these points, and inspired by one of his finest stategical conceptions, the Emperor resolved to break boldly into the very centre of the enemy’s cantonments, and to fall like a thunderbolt on the junction – point of the Allies near Charleroi.

It is now well known that Wellington, taking into consideration the proximity of the French frontier to his communications and the ease and rapidity with which Napoleon could have concentrated against them, believed and expected that Napoleon would advance from Lille or Valenciennes. It was, however, a notable feature of Napoleon’s strategy that he, whenever possible, avoided the apparent and adopted the unexpected. It is a common saying that it is the unexpected that happens in war; but it is very nearly as accurate to say that it is the unexpected that succeeds in war. Certain it is that no student of Napoleon’s campaigns can fail to be convinced that his skill in devising unexpected, but strategically sound, courses of action was, to a great extent, the secret of his numerous successes.

Returning to Napoleon’s decision to advance by Charleroi, it has been shown that the principle reason for the selection of this line was the somewhat negative one that the other two lines were inexpedient, but that was not by any means the only reason. Let us investigate the probable course of events as Napoleon would have foreseen them when making his plans. Let us suppose that he has effected strategic surprise and has launched his whole army at Charleroi. Now the Charleroi – Brussels road was the junction – point of the allied armies, and their two lines of communication ran practically in opposite directions from that road. Consequently it was only reasonable to suppose, arguing from the analogy of the conduct of allies in general, and particularly from that of the Austrians and Sardinians in 1796, that each would now fall back to concentrate on his own line of communication. If this happened, Napoleon would have been in the strategically advantageous position of having placed his army between two portions of the hostile army, each numerically inferior to himself and with sufficient “elbow room,” provided they did so retire, to contain one and strike the other. It was a favourite manoeuvre of Napoleon’s to interpose between two hostile armies with his own force in three portions, two wings and a strong centre, each within easy touch of the other. He then reinforced his wings alternately with his centre, and thus defeated the two hostile armies in succession.

Meanwhile, by the use of a strong “containing force” he neutralised the independent will – power of that commander whom he designed to keep away from the battlefield where he himself would deal vigorous and decisive blows. But this central position is not one to be sought for, unless the commander who obtains it is possessed of more than an ordinary amount of resolution. The irresolute general, so placed, merely vacillates; doubt, that arch – foe to all success, grip him unceasingly; the uncertainty as to whether he has chosen the right moment, and the right opponent, will nip all his operations in the bud. Thus only generals of great determination can successfully use the central position.

Further, for the general so situated suitable distances are of paramount necessity, and moderate dimensions are required. For one of the detached divisions must be fully accounted for ere its ally appears on the spot to succour it: and further, the disseminated parts must not be lost sight of. Thus we get the rule that if the detached groups are nearer together than two full days’ march they can hardly be separately defeated, and a great risk is run of being caught between the enemy’s forces as they concentrate on the battlefield itself, thus bringing about the envelopment of the force in the central position. Nowadays the longer range of firearms and their greater retaining power make it increasingly difficult to ensure the speedy annihilation of the selected division of the enemy’s army which is the special object of attack. And it must be remembered that the belligerent operating upon the inner lines is only advantaged by a complete victory on the field, for the pursuit will almost always be impossible.  He must look out for his other opponents.

But supposing Blücher and Wellington did not fall back to concentrate on their own communications, then their only other course was concentration on their inner flanks to oppose his advance on Brussels. Napoleon, well served by his cavalry and by spies, was aware that Blücher could concentrate on his right 24 hours earlier than Wellington could do so on his left, as a glance at the dispositions previously given will make clear. Consequently Blücher might well be attacked and defeated before Wellington could complete concentration. It would appear, therefore, that an advance by the Charleroi – Brussels road afforded an excellent prospect of defeating the Allies in succession, whatever action they took. A last and not unimportant inducement to move by this road was that at Charleroi the frontier was only thirty miles distant from Brussels, whose political importance has already been noticed.