Blucher totally smashed at Ligny; does Wellington give battle?

[longsword14]

Because he knowns how easy it is to chop up an army on the move in hilly country and he does not want a reverse Salamanca done to him. So instead he will offer battle somewhere like Waterloo where he has a clear and defensible line of retreat. He likely won't fight to the finish, something like the mutual exhaustion of the Allies and the French at Waterloo OTL would be a great outcome for Wellington ITL but he probably cannot chance it. So he will blood the French and then withdraw preferably to another position he can blood them again. That way Napoleon has to treat each hill line as perhaps hiding the lurking menace of Allied troops rather than hunting down an army with a collection of ill assorted and often inexperienced corps staffs who would be very vulnerable in a head long retreat.

He does not need to win any battles but fighting those battle are safer for his army and all he needs is to buy time.

Against someone other than Napoleon, I would say that he could do so. A series of battles with Prussians in the dustbin is too damned risky. It has to be remembered that his allied army would also take losses.

 

[RodentRevolution]

Against someone other than Napoleon, I would say that he could do so. A series of battles with Prussians in the dustbin is too damned risky. It has to be remembered that his allied army would also take losses.

Again though losses are the price of business in warfare. Wellington is not a nice man, he will spend blood towards diplomatic and political goals. Further but in weighing the risk Napoleon and more importantly the staffs he has trained are masters of moving men. I would argue that French army can move faster than the Anglo-Dutch. Thus it is less of a risk to fight, in terms of fighting ability the Anglo-Dutch are a match but if they want to try and force a campaign of manoeuvre then they need to make the French cautious.

 

[DAv]

Wellington fought at Waterloo with a forest at his back; Jomini considered it a good screen for a possible retreat, but if a more skillful French combined arms assault drove the Allies from the field, would it be possible for Wellington's army to come unglued retreating through the forest?

Welling actually saw that as a strength and he had a contingent of 17,000 (I believe) to cover his flank in such a case of a move. It was actually what he was expecting in the battle.

What about the rest of the Peninsular War, not just just two battles in it?

Battle of Rolica, Second Battle of Porto, Battle of Sabugal and numerous battles in Southern France count as well. Wellington was perfectly capable of offensive battles, but only did so when he had the odds in his favour.

 

[unprincipled peter]

there's a difference between waging a war of attrition and being willing to spill blood. I doubt there is a good general out there who isn't willing to spill blood. It was McClellan's big down fall. He was afraid to spill blood. Wellington was willing to spill it, but he was only going to do so when he could get more than he gave. that was his genius. Had Waterloo not happened, he would have kept maneuvering and slashing until a pivotal moment occurred.

 

[dandan_noodles]

I mean, it's easy to say that, but he's tethered to Ostend, and the area south of Brussels is the only place where the communications of Wellington and Blucher meet. Even if Wellington would not willingly offer battle, I suspect Napoleon would be able to attack his communications with Ostend and force him to stand and fight.

Also wrong about McClellan, but that's incidental.

 

[chornedsnorkack]

So: if Wellington retreats on 18th of June and does not accept battle, would Napoleon be able to force a losing battle on Wellington? When and where?
How far were Austrians and Russians, respectively, on 18th of June, and when would they have reached Belgium if Napoleon was still there?

 

[Redbeard]

Interesting thread

Concerning the question of the expandability I think the consequences of the British Army on the continent being destroyed would be mainly political and on the continent. Britain itself would not be in danger as long as the RN rule the waves whereas the Habsburgs would be in severe danger if the Austrian army is destroyed - and said Empire dissolved very soon after the the KuK Army dissolved in October 1918. Until then the Habsburg armies had often been defeated in the field but never completely destroyed - until October 1918 (Mack at Ulm in 1805 probably came close, but still only a part of the army).

But if Wellington is decisively defeated the gain of prestige to Napoleon is tremendous and if he wins the next battle against the Russians or Austrians he actually has a chance to achieve a favourable peace. If OTOH Wellington still is in business it will to everyone still just be a repeat of the Leipzig campaign where "Napoleon advanced and won a battle only to learn that he had lost two others".

IMHO the allied armies and not at least their staff systems and overall doctrines of field leadership (as well as tactics) had improved tremendously by 1813 and after. The Prussian reforms and general staff system are well known, but the Austrians also had improved tremendously and made much better use of the old Quartiermeister system. The Austrian army advancing on France in 1815 probably was the most powerful on the planet at that time.

 

[longsword14]

the Austrians also had improved tremendously and made much better use of the old Quartiermeister system. The Austrian army advancing on France in 1815 probably was the most powerful on the planet at that time.

The Austrians were the ones who were most often on the receiving end of Napoleon and his army, but they are the ones who are the least remembered by Anglophone literature.
They were the ones who finally closed the book on Napoleon in 1813. Glad someone remembered them.

 

[Redbeard]

The Austrians were the ones who were most often on the receiving end of Napoleon and his army, but they are the ones who are the least remembered by Anglophone literature.
They were the ones who finally closed the book on Napoleon in 1813. Glad someone remembered them.

Exactly! When Blücher, Bernadotte, Wellington or whoever were engaging Napoleon's more or less competent lieutenants the Austrians were up against Nappy himself, and actually did quite well. When I started being interested in Napoleonic wars (many years ago) I wondered about the bad press the Austrians usually got, after all they not only were the ones to usually take on Napoleon himself but also stayed in business almost continiously. It appeared like the English language litterature about the continental campaigns (especially the 1813 campaigns) was based almost 100 % on Prussian accounts and knowing how Prussia and Austria in second half of 19th century were rivals in the battle over the soul of Germany I then started to seek sources written before mid 19th century. Luckily the Garrison Library in Copenhagen has quite a lot of first half 19th century accounts on not at least the Leipzig campaign. I here got a lot of details on the Austrian part usually omitted in the English language litterature and very much contradicting the usual image of a lacklustre Austrian effort. Next, in the English language litterature the reports on the condition of the Austrian Army in spring of 1813 (from English observers) often were seen as illustrative of the Austrian Army at Leipzig - they were very far from. The ill clad recruits called up in spring of 1813 by Leipzig had become a solid army of regulars with a strong influx of veterans. Of the major armies only the British was more experienced (but also smaller) and although the Russians also had an experienced army they had taken a lot of losses in 1813 and spring campaign of 1813 and their units often quite small from attrition. The Austrian units were by Leipzig still at close to full strength, often with 800 man bataljons!

This quote from the French foreign minister Huges-Bernard Maret in September 1813 is quite telling (In my own translation from Danish which again was translated from French): "The Russian Army is not our most dangerous enemy. It has suffered terrible losses and has not been reinforced, and apart from its cavalry which is rather numerous, it only plays a minor role in the ongoing conflict. Prussia though, has made big efforts, and strong emotions has strengthened the position of its Monarch. His armies are big, his generals, officers and men have good morale. But still, Russia and Prussia would combined still only be weak obstacles for our armies; the inclusion of Austria however has made the matter extremely more complicated."

BTW I'm not online for the next four days - as I'm in Vienna - sadly not to visit archives or museums, but business wise. Not too bad though - Vienna is a beautiful city outside the archives and museums