Skip to comments.
Waterloo: Napoleon was undone by complacency
The Times ^
| 4/24/2008
| Duncan Anderson: Analysis
Posted on 04/24/2008 10:43:29 PM PDT by bruinbirdman
click here to read article
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
To: bruinbirdman
2
posted on
04/24/2008 10:55:57 PM PDT
by
Steve Van Doorn
(*in my best Eric cartman voice* 'I love you guys')
To: bruinbirdman
This makes little sense, particularly for someone with his title. “Complacency” and calculated risk are totally different animals.
“Complacency” is to patiently sit in camp and wait for the enemy to gather their forces for co-ordinated action. There is nothing “complacent” with outmaneuvering between superior enemy forces to grab the advantage of interior lines of communication and piecemeal opposition.
That such an article comes from “Head of War Studies at the Royal Military Academy, Sandhurst” may go some distance in explaining the peculiar lack of British military initiative in the Army’s recent campaigns.
3
posted on
04/24/2008 11:11:12 PM PDT
by
tlb
To: indcons; LS
4
posted on
04/24/2008 11:21:06 PM PDT
by
The Spirit Of Allegiance
(Public Employees: Honor Your Oaths! Defend the Constitution from Enemies--Foreign and Domestic!)
To: bruinbirdman
"...Napoleon knows that these are the Prussians, but he sends his aides out through the ranks to say they are French soldiers. He has calculated that the British will fall first and he will have time to redeploy. It is a massive miscalculation."
Highly misleading IMHO. At that point at the height of the battle, in the final couple of hours, all Napoleon COULD do was try to break the British/Allied (3/4 non-British!) line before the Prussians came to bear. There was nothing else he could do at that moment (there is much to 2nd-guess about the hours and days leading up to that point).
Had Napoleon abandoned the attack on Wellington at that point and turned forces to meet the Prussians, he (Napoleon) was finished anyway. No way would he have ended up victorious at that point - he had to inflict a decisive defeat on at least one of the armies facing him on that day, and by the time his forces were deeply engaged with Wellington's forces his only hope was to achieve a breakthrough against Wellington, lonnnng shot though it was at that point.
Now leading up to that day there are certainly points where one can point to complacency, miscommunication, and carelessness on the part of N. and several of his commanders. N. had to come to grips with either the Prussians first and defeat them handily, or else somehow hold them off while defeating Wellington. He had about 1/2 the number of troops on the scene IIRC compared to Wellington + Blucher, so facing those two armies together was an extreme long shot at that point in his career. He was very ill at that time, I believe, and did not display anything like his usual boldness and decisiveness.
5
posted on
04/24/2008 11:40:50 PM PDT
by
Enchante
(Obama: All you dumb, bitter "typical white people" must learn to say "God D--n America!")
To: bruinbirdman
The key to Napoleon’s success was that he was a living computer. His mental skills enabled him to bring greater force to bear in the required place at the key moment in time. Everything thing he did - his strategy, his planning, his logistics, his tactics were all geared towards that objective. As a result, he won every fought battle he fought - except for one. And that is the one where Blucher did what he promised Wellington he would do and brought superior force to bear in the required place at the key moment in time.
To: bruinbirdman
their commander, Blücher,
7
posted on
04/24/2008 11:45:45 PM PDT
by
Jeff Chandler
(It takes a father to raise a child.)
To: vbmoneyspender
As a result, he won every fought battle he fought - except for one. And that is the one where Blucher did what he promised Wellington he would do and brought superior force to bear in the required place at the key moment in time. Somehow I never considered the Russian invasion to be a success.
8
posted on
04/24/2008 11:47:29 PM PDT
by
AlaskaErik
(I served and protected my country for 31 years. Democrats spent that time trying to destroy it.)
To: AlaskaErik
He didn’t lose any battles to Russian generals - unless you consider General Snow and General Winter to be Russian generals.
To: Enchante; vbmoneyspender
"The key to Napoleons success was that he was a living computer. His mental skills enabled him to bring greater force to bear in the required place at the key moment in time. Everything thing he did - his strategy, his planning, his logistics, his tactics were all geared towards that objective. "It is reported that primary source material concerning these subjects (Napoleon) from the French perspective are state secrets, archived by France and off limits for research.
yitbos
10
posted on
04/24/2008 11:56:46 PM PDT
by
bruinbirdman
("Those who control language control minds." - Ayn Rand)
To: bruinbirdman
Chandler’s Campaigns of Napoleon is an incredible book. If you haven’t read it, I would very much recommend it. The one problem Napoleon had was that he either couldn’t or wouldn’t teach to others what he was able to do himself. The Germans learnt this lesson and the result was the German General Staff which Scharnhorst (Blucher’s chief of staff) recreated based on the lessons learned from Napoleon. The principal goal of the German General Staff was to identify and then train officers who would excel at fighting on an operational level.
To: vbmoneyspender
I don't off hand know the biography I read in the last few years. I think the preface noted that French archives are off limits concerning Napoleon primary sources. Is there other insight?
I mention this because that would mean what we have is the perspective of everyone who was defeated by Napoleon.
They would have an incentive to say he was a genius.
yitbos
12
posted on
04/25/2008 12:15:21 AM PDT
by
bruinbirdman
("Those who control language control minds." - Ayn Rand)
To: vbmoneyspender; AlaskaErik
He didn’t lose any battles to Russian generals - unless you consider General Snow and General Winter to be Russian generals Only if you consider the battle to be an 18th century style battle where the armies face off against each other. The Russians let Napoleon enter Moscow but left no supplies in the city and set the city on fire. Once Napoleon decided to evacuate Moscow and retreat to Paris, Cossacks did harrass the French. The scorched earth strategy was just as much a military tacic in 1812 when Napoleon tried to conquer Russia as it was in 1941 when Hitler tried an even bigger invasion of the Soviet Union.
To: Paleo Conservative
Nobody did scorched earth like Sherman. He set the standard. And it seems nobody has quite duplicated it.
To: tlb
I agree. “Complacency” is a terrible word to use in the context of the events portrayed above.
I think “over-confident” or even “arrogant” would have fit better.
To: tenthirteen
"He set the standard."Sounds like a Southern perspective.
yitbos
16
posted on
04/25/2008 1:37:30 AM PDT
by
bruinbirdman
("Those who control language control minds." - Ayn Rand)
To: Steve Van Doorn
WoW is this true?
It's a fairy tale. The Prussians arrived on the French flank hours before the Imperial Guard attacked Wellington's army and were beaten back.
17
posted on
04/25/2008 1:37:33 AM PDT
by
Cheburashka
(Liberalism: a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.)
To: vbmoneyspender
He didnt lose any battles to Russian generals - unless you consider General Snow and General Winter to be Russian generals.
He sure lost the logistical battle in Russia.
And he lost outright at Leipzig.
18
posted on
04/25/2008 1:45:46 AM PDT
by
Cheburashka
(Liberalism: a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.)
To: vbmoneyspender; AlaskaErik
19
posted on
04/25/2008 2:05:11 AM PDT
by
FreedomPoster
(<===Non-bitter, Gun-totin', Typical White American)
To: bruinbirdman
"..When the Prussians come into musket range they open fire. The cry goes up among the French: Treason! They think these are French soldiers that have changed sides. It is then that the French army collapses..."
The French army collapsed at Waterloo when the French Imperial Guard broke.
"La Garde recule. Sauve qui peut!" ("The Guard retreats. Save yourself if you can!").
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first 1-20, 21-40, 41-50 next last
Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson