This could provide for stability on the continent, especially if some of Austria's lands are returned to them. Dave Hawaii : Napolean was at the fate of circumstance I think he should have crushed the Prussians which would have compelled the British to move from the prefered ground of Waterloo to try and save the Prussians.
Napolean then could do 1 of 3 things: He could continue into central Eurpoe and toward the Austrians whom would have likely been easily routed Napolean then could turn on Wellington and crush him from both sides. This would work since the British would not press Napolean since they would be reluctant to be cut off from the sea The Russians would miss out as they were slow to respond.
Napolean could retire toward Paris. The British would likely advance If he waited for the Allies to combine I think he still stood an excellent chance as the advantage would fall to the defender even against a huge allied force. I think Napolean's best bet was to destroy the Prussians then try to crush the British utterly.
That would give him substantial time to deal with the others. Paul Connecticut : Yes. If he had detained the Prussian forces long enough to wear down the British blocks, his forces would have won the day.
However, I do agree that Europe would never have come under his control again. Unfortunately, he chose poor battlefield commanders. Grouchy had little experience with independent command; Soult would have known better and marched to the sound of the guns. Ney was always impetuous and unthinking; if Davout had been with Napoleon, instead of back in Paris as Minister of War, he would have known better than to send waves of cavalry against the British squares unsupported by infantry.
Davout may have even made the battle unnecessary, for he would have had the knowledge to crush Wellington at Quatre Bras as he did Brunswick at Auerstadt. And if Marmont had not been a traitor, he could have led the artillery to better, more concentrated fire.
Napoleon's army was a veteran unit, but its morale was brittle. The treason of sowed the seeds of defeat in , because so many officers and marshals proved themselves more concerned about their own estates than the survival of the empire.
Travis North Carolina : Yes, Napoleon could have won at the battle of Waterloo had several things not taken place. First, Napoleon needed his confidence to win, and in this battle, he lacked it. After his Russian defeat and exile, he became inconfident. Thus, he lead his armies with less power and confidence. Second, he shouldn't have sent troops to stop the Prussians from coming.
He could've just crushed the British first, then taken care of the Prussians later with more troops. Third, if Berthier was present at the battle, Napoleon's chief of staff, he would have won.
Napoleon was also very ill, and if he'd been in full health, he wouldn't have delayed on attacking. Although, if Napoleon had won the battle, he would've lost eventually in the end. Reuben: No, and you have to go back to the disastrous campaign against the Russians. Any force that has attacked Russia and this attack prolongs itself into the Russian winter, has never succeeded in history.
IE: Stalingrad. The Grand Armee had been reduced to a Petit Armee, demoralized, tired, and really out of shape. The hundred days were really a major turning point in European history -- things would go back to the way they were on the continent, with each side having and protecting their own interest without interference until WW1. Wellington, as Sun Tzu remarks, had the field.
He was in a better position to see the battle, the British squares were extremely formidable against either infantry or calvary attacks. If Napolean pushed his artillery forward to smash the squares, British snipers and infantry would have had an open shot at the Frech artillery.
Napolean lost the battle before it began. Napolean even comments about this and he himself knows that he and his men are in a poor location and the terrain does not suit calvary nor artillery. He fought at the wrong place, a place of not his choosing.
Remember, if you fight a battle of the opponent's choosing, you are at a disadvantage and Napolean knew that he was at a disadvantage, but he had no choice, the Allies trapped him, he had to fight or go back to Paris and wait for a much larger Allied force. Duc: Quite possibly, as Wellington put it, the battle was "a near run thing". There are hundreds of what-ifs related to the specific course of the battle, as well as the campaign that preceeded it.
Disregarding all of these, one can quite simply, and with great confidence, say that Napoleon was let down by his subordinates, Ney and Grouchy, neither of whom wher competant to command an entire wing of the French army, as they had to do at critical times of the campaign. In addition, Ney had shown at Liepzig and Jena his inability to coordinate large numbers of troops in battle, a patern he repeated with disasterous consequences at Waterloo.
Bottom line, if Davout had been availble to command either wing of the French army, either pursuing the Prussians on the 17th and 18th, or attacking the British on the 16th and 18th, Napoleon would have won on the 18th, with either Wellington or Blucher destroyed. RJ California : Napolean could easily have won the battle of Waterloo and retained control of France. Marshal Ney led a cavalry assault in which the vast majority of British guns were in French hands for several hours. There was ample opportunity to destroy the guns, but Ney lacked the forsight when he led the assault.
Also, von Blucher may have died or been captured in an earlier battle, in fact he was knocked off his horse and was hidden only by a coat pulled over his face from a French search. If he had been killed or captured, his successors would have allowed Grouchy to push them back into Prussia.
Finally, there were several direct orders from Napolean to Grouchy to screen the Prussians and hit Wellington on the flank, but Grouchy ignored them and continued to follow a diversion of 10, Prussian troops. If Ney had had the forsight to spike the British guns and ordered infantry to follow his cavalry assault, if von Blucher had been killed or captured or if Grouchy had followed Napolean's orders, the Russians would likely have gone home and signed a treaty and the Austrians would have probably been defeated.
James Oklahoma : Military Command is a matter of both skill and chance. Had "old Bluker" not arrived at the last moment with his fresh troops the "Grand Army" may very well have carried the battle. In that event our view of Napoleon would no doubt be quite different. Rob Michigan : Yes Napolean could have won. If only he had used the brilliance that he used in all his prior Prussian campaigns.
Napolean was so successful agianst Prussia and Italy because he changed the rules of war, and that is what he should have done again at Waterloo.
By this time all of Europe was familiar to Napolean's new flanking strategy, and his strategy of fighting the enemy one-by-one. Napolean should have changed the rules again, instead of sending the cavalry. Napolean should have simply attacked the enemy's supply line. Or use the same strategy that the Rusians used on him, slowly retreat and at the same time sabatoge the land that your enemy will cross as they persue you, or force them to cross a bridge and place cannons on the other side and once the enemy has been weakened strike with full force.
Charles California : Of course, Napoleon could have won the Battle of Waterloo, except that he made enough mistakes to turn it into a disastrous defeat. First, he underestimated his opponents. He had no respect for Blucher, who had been defeated several times already by the French, and was confident that Wellington was merely a "Sepoy" General. He also underestimated the British Infantry, who were remarkably cool under fire, and the resiliency of the Prussians to bounce back quickly after the Battle of Ligny.
Those who say that the Prussians won or that the English won, do a disservice to both armies. It was a joint effort all the way and neither the English nor the Prussians could have won on their own. Although relations between the two armies were strained at best, they still had a common enemy and this united them in their cause to defeat the Emperor. As far as the battle itself, Napoleon's decision to give Ney the overall command was the first of a long string of errors that ultimately led to his defeat.
The waste of enormous resources to overtake Hougemount was another. Ney's total lunacy in charging the British squares with French Cavalry but without the infantry may have been the turning point of the battle.
Why did Britain win at Trafalgar? The main reason why the British fleet won was the superior training and discipline of the crews. They had been at sea for years and most had been together in the same ship for at least two years.
Nearly every duel involving manoeuvre during the battle was won by the British. None of the lions are individually named, but collectively they are often called the Landseer Lions. Legend has it that the lions will come to life if Big Ben chimes 13 times. Although cast in bronze, the original plans had called for stone or granite. The Battle of Trafalgar was a sea battle fought on 21 October between the navies of France and Spain on one side, and Great Britain on the other.
The Battle of Trafalgar was the most important sea battle of the 19th century. Villeneuve himself was captured, and his fleet lost 19 or 20 ships—which were surrendered to the British—and 14, men, of whom half were prisoners of war. Nelson was mortally wounded by a sniper, but when he died at pm he was certain of his complete victory.
Trafalgar, as the battle was named by George III, had crushed the naval power of a deadly enemy, and — although they had fought like heroes — the Spanish and French had been annihilated. He is the author of the History in an Afternoon textbook series. By creating a blockade, he had planned to destroy their trade, economy, and democracy.
Generally, the poor French Navy dooms any attempt at an English invasion. Napoleon chose not to spend the money to build enough high-quality ships to match the British navy if he had the money , nor did he have the patience to take the time necessary to train qualified sailors and officers.
France was a small principality in what is today France until it conquered all the other states — Lorraine, Alsace Burgundy etc. In Normandy conquered England. If you take the Normans as being not of French extraction………….
In the British enjoyed victories over the French in Europe, Canada and India, severely weakening the French position around the world. But at one time the Kings of England ruled enormous chunks of what is now France. Napoleon and a colossal army crossed the Neman River on 24 June to intimidate Russia, but it turned out to be the undoing of his empire.
The Russians, under Mikhail Kutuzov, systematically retreated and scorched the earth, which dragged the French deep into their territory.
The French entered Moscow a week later, only to find it evacuated Russians also set parts of the city on fire to deprive the invaders of shelter and supplies. The retreat ended up being even more costly. Soldiers had insufficient clothing for the freezing temperatures of an early winter, disease devastated the ranks, and Russian forces pursued them all the way.
A little over a sixth of the , men who marched into Russia crossed the river again. On 2 December , Napoleon masterminded his greatest victory. He deliberately abandoned a strategic position near the town of Austerlitz in the Austrian Empire so that his army, which numbered around 68,, would appear vulnerable.
0コメント