Part 9

One can only ask what might have happened on June 17th and 18th had the unfortunate Marshal but displayed the same activity, resolution, military talent, strategic insight, and comprehension of necessities of the situation on and after June 19.

Waterloo is perhaps one of the most crushing defeats known to history, and it is consequently instructive to examine the causes to which this may be attributed.

These would appear to be: -

1. The direction of the Prussian attack, i.e. the French right rear. It is clear that when two armies acting from divergent bases do manage to combine on the battlefield, one or other must inevitably strike the foe in the flank, or rear, inflicting usually a mortal wound. 
2. But the magnitude of the disaster will largely depend on the energy with which the pursuit is pushed. Gneisenau after Waterloo rose to the occasion and gave the French no breathing space, and no time to rally before Paris itself was eventually reached.

With reference to the battle itself, there are several incidents that occurred during its course that will well repay investigation.

It is not easy at first to understand why Napoleon deferred his attack till 11 a.m. His orders testify to the fact that he meant to commence the action early in the morning. The attack was postponed from 6 a.m. to 9 a.m., and then once more deferred, on account army, of the sodden ground, which forbade all movements of artillery and cavalry until it had some time to dry; and also the rapid pursuit of June 17 (carried out, as Mercer has it, “ at the pace of a fox hunt”) had spread-eagled the French army, who in closing up outmarched their commissariat and were hardly in sufficiently good trim to commence an attack on Wellington’s position at daybreak. But had the battle begun at 6 a.m., then Grouchy’s great strategic blunder would have led to no serious consequences, for the English army would have commenced its retreat before Blücher could strike a blow to help it.

It must not be overlooked, however, that here, as at Ligny, he did not remain idle, but utilised the time in making a careful personal reconnaissance before committing himself to the attack. As a result of this reconnaissance, he formed an admirable plan of attack by which a vigorous diversion against the enemy’s right was to cover the attack against his centre by the whole of the reserve, a favourite and generally successful manoeuvre. The essence of Wellington’s scheme of defence lay in the concealment of his dispositions and the light occupation of the general position, with local and general reserves under cover ready to move to the point assailed. He was not strong enough to arrange for a grand counter – attack, nor was Napoleon the man to give him the opportunity; but the advancing Prussians striking the French in flank would form the offensive movement essential to the success even when standing on the defensive.

The failure of Napoleon’s scheme of attack may be traced first to the fact that his diversion against the right flank did not deceive Wellington into unduly reinforcing that flank, and secondly, to the indifferent tactics of his subordinates, who failed to appreciate the true value of fire effect, e.g. D’Erlon’s Corps, and later, the Guard, attacked in heavy columns and were repulsed by the fire of the British line. D’Erlon’s formation indeed was so vicious that although five times as numerous as his opponents, the brigades of Pack and Kempt (Picton’s Division), his corps could bring no more muskets to bear than could the British; and the unwieldy columns, too formed a target which it was impossible to miss; consequently the French were worsted in the fire – fight which ensued.

The charge of the Union Brigade illustrates the penalty to be paid for the tactical error of permitting a body of cavalry to charge without keeping a portion of it in reserve to cover its retirement or re – formation; and of the price that has to be paid when a cavalry charge is allowed to overreach itself.

More important features were:  -

1. The absence of Grouchy’s Corps from the battlefield. Had Grouchy manoeuvred so as to cross the Dyle higher up, and to detain at least two Prussian corps, then the panic which ensued at the close of the battle when Zieten debouched at Papelotte would have been avoided; and also Wellington would have been unable to use Vandeleur’s and Vivian’s Cavalry Brigades to support his centre at the critical moment, and he might then have been unable to reform his line before the assault of the Guard – and under this supreme onslaught the British line might well have yielded. Further, had Blücher heard the sound of a great battle raging in his rear, would he have engaged to succour the English, at the certain risk of sharing in their defeat? It is unlikely, for although he was ardent enough – yet he was undoubtedly circumspect.
       The appointment of Grouchy, who had gained his great reputation merely as a leader of horse, was unwise; and to entrust the safety of the right wing to a leader who had never held in war an important command before, and whose strategic insight and initiative were unknown quantities, was hazardous in the extreme.
2. Napoleon’s neglect to hold the passage of the Lasne permitted the Prussians, in spite of the heavy roads, to arrive in time to decide the issue of the battle. Lobau should not have been contented with taking up a position some 1,200 yards east of La Belle Alliance, but he should have held the range of steep hills commanding the valley of the Lasne. Here he could have resisted longer and more efficiently, and Blücher would have been forced to turn him by way of Couture, thus gaining important time for his master. At any rate Lobau might have occupied the Paris Wood.

The first of these is directly traceable to neglect of staff duties, in that a message received from Grouchy at 2 a.m. was not answered till 10 a.m., but more particularly to the fact that the Emperor did not reiterate his instructions to cover his right much earlier, and with far more precision, than he had done the first time. The second was the penalty paid for the indifferent scouting of the French cavalry, who failed to discover the Prussian advance. For the cavalry of Domon and Subervie proceeded only to the outlets of the Wood of Paris, when they ought to have guarded its approaches.