On June 1, 1815 Louis Alexandre Berthier fell (or was pushed) out a window in his home in Paris. Berthier was probably the only person to understand Napoleon's handwriting. Without Berthier to understand Napoleon's handwritten orders Napoleon got his bony parts at Waterloo. But what if Berthier hadn't been fallen to his death? Would Napoleon have won at Waterloo? And if so what happens next?
Berthier at Waterloo
- Thread starter rick007
- Start date
Napoleonic victory is not certain, but likely. For good measure, have Napoleon take Davout with him. Davout was probably both the best and most underrated generals of the Napoleonic wars. In fact, he could be the most underrated of all time. Napoleon made him governour of Paris. Davout was a Tactical genius, as he showed at Auerstadt. Naapoleon might even have lost Germany because Davout was holed up in Hamburg until Napoleon abdicated. Give Napoleon Berthier and Davout, and Wellington and Blucher are in hot water
.67th Tigers
Banned
Assume the French win at Waterloo, then what?
Swartzenburg and his 200,000 men are linking up with another 2 Prussian Corps (50,000 men) to the East, and are going to come across the Rhine, assumidly Blucher would link up with them too in this case.
The British are freed from defending Belgium, and can commit 100,000 men to either Swartzenburg or an attack elsewhere on the French coast. The British "Army of the Low Countries" was the core of this Army, and had only received a few reinforcements from the rest of the Army (mainly some Cavalry). ISTR another 4 Divisions of Infantry joined him less than a week after Waterloo.
There's a Russian Army of 150,000 marching to join Swartzenburg too...
Yes, Napoleon might have done okay, but he's only defeated the first of 3-4 armies coming at him.
Swartzenburg and his 200,000 men are linking up with another 2 Prussian Corps (50,000 men) to the East, and are going to come across the Rhine, assumidly Blucher would link up with them too in this case.
The British are freed from defending Belgium, and can commit 100,000 men to either Swartzenburg or an attack elsewhere on the French coast. The British "Army of the Low Countries" was the core of this Army, and had only received a few reinforcements from the rest of the Army (mainly some Cavalry). ISTR another 4 Divisions of Infantry joined him less than a week after Waterloo.
There's a Russian Army of 150,000 marching to join Swartzenburg too...
Yes, Napoleon might have done okay, but he's only defeated the first of 3-4 armies coming at him.
I think you misunderstand Napoleon's grand strategy. He almost certainly never intended to defeat all of the armies coming against him, and knew that it couldn't be done. What he probably intended to do was to defeat, and preferably destory, the British army under Wellington, and then follow Blucher and destroy him too, before the other allies could intervene.
Then he sends Talleyrand out with peace overtures, hoping that the alliance, having been given a huge bloody nose, will negotiate. Or if not, maybe he can pry some of the partners out of it. This had worked for him in the past, and he may have harbored the hope it would work again.
Whether he would have been successful in the long run is questionable.
I agree as to Napoleon's strategy. But if he cannot, I see him fighting a campaign similar to 1814. He was outnumbered by huge enemy armies, but he kept picking off theur flanks, and almost won. Against armies like Shwarzenburg's, that would be very easy. The armies would have to move in detatched segment's. Have you seen the figures for the ammount of roadway a Napoleonic cavalry corp takes up?
67th Tigers
Banned
Which is why Napoleon "invented" the Corps in the first place. Each Corps marches on a parallel line, and only concentrates on contact with the enemy.
I think our perceptions are coloured by the later (mis)use of the Corps level of command in the ACW. Take the AoP's advance on Gettysburg for example, there are only actually two subunits of the army functioning as a "Corps level command", being the two army wings, while Corps functioned as Divisions, and so forth down to Regiments, which functioned as Prussian style companies (hardly surprising as average brigade strength at the time was less than 1,500 men)
Why is a Napoleonic Victory at Waterloo likely if Berthier is added? What difference could he have made to the battle? Are you sure that you are not underestimating Wellington?
Wellington defeated every marshal sent against him and left some with their reputations in ruins. For example Andre Messena, considered by many military historian to be one of the best field commanders in history and one of the greatest generals of his generation, he marched to war against Wellington and was stopped at the Line of Torres Vedras and never held a field commishon again.
For good measure, have Napoleon take Davout with him. Davout was probably both the best and most underrated generals of the Napoleonic wars. In fact, he could be the most underrated of all time. Napoleon made him governour of Paris. Davout was a Tactical genius, as he showed at Auerstadt. Naapoleon might even have lost Germany because Davout was holed up in Hamburg until Napoleon abdicated. Give Napoleon Berthier and Davout, and Wellington and Blucher are in hot water
Davout would have made Waterloo very interesting. He may have swung the battle in Napoleons favor but whether he would have been capable of defeating Wellington in a defensive posistion I dont know. After all Wellington never chose a bad defensive posistion and rarely, if ever, lost that posistion.
I think that for a Napoleonic victory over Wellington in 1815 the battlefield cannot be Waterloo. Waterloo is Wellington's choice of battlefield and at Waterloo he choses where his army goes and how the French must attack him to beat him. If Napoleon could defeat Wellington he would have to chose the battlefield himself and force Wellington to fight him there, he must not be drawn into a battle where Wellington has chosen the battle ground or he will face his ruin.
Max Sinister
Banned
AFAIK during the war of 1813/14 Napoleon was contacted by Metternich with a peace proposal that would've left him with Italy and the Rhina border. He declined, though.
The usual argument I've heard along these lines is that if Berthier was there he would have done a better job of "clarifying" Napoleon's intentions than Soult did (who simply faithfully transcribed his master's unclear thoughts, it seems) with the result that Grouchy and his 35,000 men might have been recalled in time to reach the battlefield before the Prussians did.
Of course one could achieve the same result by having Grouchy simply ignore Napoleon's stream of consciousness musings and simply march to the sound of the guns, but as Grouchy did not actually do this one is left wondering as to just how enthusiastic he was to get to Mont St Jean on the 18th.
Absolutely. Davout is very lucky in that he never had to go up against Wellington and therefore his reputation never suffered from the experience. I see no obvious reason why he would automatically do better than Ney, Massena, Soult...
Incidentally, Napoleon didn't leave Davout behind out of sheer caprice - he did it to prevent Paris rising against him once he'd left. Davout was one of the very few marshals at that point that Napoleon could rely on to fire on the mob instead of joining it. The fact that Napoleon judged this was a more important use of Davout's talents than any advantage he would provide on the battlefield should not be discounted.
The best bet for a Napoleonic victory over Wellington is at Quatre-Bras, you simply need to avoid the fiasco whereby Ney and Napoleon spent the entire day issuing contradictory orders to D'Erlon with the result that an entire corps of 20,000 men spent the day marching between two battlefields and not intervening in either one - the sort of event which if it had happened in an AH would have have the readers crying foul. However, that fiasco was squarely Napoleon's fault.
Anaxagoras
Banned
Another point to consider is that if Berthier is chief-of-staff, then Soult isn't and so will resume his customary role as a corps commander. If he was a total failure as a chief-of-staff, Soult was a quite competent corps commander.
Murat also offered to rejoin Napoleon and, considering his earlier betrayal, the Emperor turned him down. Suppose Murat had been there to lead the cavalry?
Murat also offered to rejoin Napoleon and, considering his earlier betrayal, the Emperor turned him down. Suppose Murat had been there to lead the cavalry?
Anaxagoras
That's something I was thinking of as well. Soult was wasted as COS. Napoleon didn't like his concerns about attacking British led troops in such positions but I think he would have been a very useful addition. Coupled with Davout it would be a far more formidably led army and most of what I have read suggests that was the single biggest weakness on the French side during the campaign.
However wasn't there some doubt over Berthier's loyalty and even a suggestion that he either committed suicide or was killed by Napoleon's supporters?
Steve
Wellington was good on the defensive, but I cannot think of a time Davout ever lost, even against overwhelming odds. Messena was a great commander, but past his prime when he met Wellington. Personally, If Napoleon had Berthier and Davout with him, there wouldn't have been a Waterloo. Davout won at Jena, he wouldn't have bumbled Quatre Bras the way Ney did. And Berthier was the man whose transcriptions of Napoleon's orders made Napoleon's carear.
The website http://napoleonguide.com/ has some useful information on the subject. For one thing, they have a rating system of the generals and Marshals, including Napoleon and Wellington. Davout scores 39 out of 40. Napoleon scores 39, Massena 22, and Wellington a 39. So, by that index, Davout and Wellington are equal generals.
Atreus
Very interesting. Will have to have a fuller look some time when I've got a spare week or so.
Bit surprised they gave Beresford a 8 for tactics after Albuera but then they only gave him 6 for admin and he was the one who reformed the Portugese army. Disappointed they didn't have a rating for Moore through. Many thanks.Steve
Anaxagoras
Banned
IIRC, the murder theory usually suggests that Berthier was killed by Napoleon's enemies, so as to prevent him from rejoining Napoleon. All the marshals (except Davout) abandoned Napoleon in 1814, including Berthier. Again, IIRC, he was said to be torn with guilt over this, so perhaps would have rejoined Napoleon had he not died/been killed.
To this I ask you, can you think of a time when Wellington lost, even against overwealming odds?
I annoys me when I hear, or read, the frase "Wellington was good on the defensive", Wellington was a defensive genius, never lost a defensive battle, but he was also good on the offense and out manouvered and routed the armies sent against him in Spain and in India. He was not so good when in seige conditions though.
I dont know that much about Davout I must admit ((I looked him up on Wikipedia before my last post)) and, probably through stubborn British pride, I dont think that any general of the 1800's was equal to Wellington. I believe that Waterloo would have been a harder fought battle if Davout was there but I still believe Wellington would have won even if it was an ever closer run thing than in the OTL.
If those two men met each other in battle then one of them would have their reputation destroyed. If Wellington lost he would lose his reputation as the only general to consistantly win against the French and if Davout lost he would lose his reputation as an unbeatable commander.
Flocculencio
Donor
Actually I think Wellington's percieved problem with sieges is a bit unfair. Yes when confronted with a siege his first instinct was to go hey-diddle-diddle, straight down the middle and just attempt to swamp the enemy fortifications with men. Yes, this was pretty wasteful. However, one has to remember that in these situations Wellington generally couldn't afford to sit out a siege as he was generally operating in the field against larger enemy armies and couldn't afford to let those armies concentrate. Rather, he needed swift, smashing victories against manageable numbers of opponents and he was willing to accept hige casualties trying to force a breach in order to do this.
I know what you mean about Davout. There isn't to much information on him around. However, he was the only Napoleonic Marshal who retired undefeated. The list of men who can claim that is pretty short, as seen here
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Undefeated_military_commanders.
However, that is a list which includes Sargon the Great, Khalid ibn al-Walid, Chandragupta Maurya, Subotai, Epaminondas, Maurice de Saxe, Alexander the Great, and Shaka Zulu. He also appears to be the most recent European to do so.
Davout on his own does not necessisarily mean Napoleon wins Waterloo. But with Davout and Berthier, I am not sure that there will be a Waterloo. Davout would not make Ney's mistakes at Quatre Bras, which would seriously damage Wellington at least. If there is a Waterloo, it will be Napoleon and Davout smashing a weakened Wellington, then turning and bloodying Blucher when he shows up.
Anaxagoras
My memory of what I read was a bit vague so your probably right. Thanks.
Steve
I wouldn't rely on that article. The reasons given for excluding Wellington from the list are farcical (you have to go to the Discussion page to find them) - the "Battle of Torquemada" consisted of the French driving in a skirmish screen before the British rallied and drove them back, with total casualties of only a few hundred on either side. How that fits the definition of a "significant engagement" I have no idea. It also lists Busaco as a defeat for Wellington!
Well, yes. And if Wellington had had the army he fought with in the peninsula instead of the mix of barely trained conscripts and raw recruits scraped up from all over northern Europe he actually had (there were more Germans in the "British" army than there were British - and almost as many Dutch) then there would have been no Waterloo either, for different reasons.
Also, you're assuming that Davout would get Ney's job, and that Napoleon was wrong to worry that Paris would rise against him without someone reliable in charge of the garrison. Neither are particularly safe assumptions. And if Paris rises, the game is certainly over without a battle.