Napoleonic Wargame Club (NWC)

Was the French army at Waterloo "the best that Napoleon fielded during the wars?"

Here are some interesting thoughts:

1. The French-Allied army at Borodino faced a defiant opponent in the Russians, lost 30,000-35,000 men (K/W/C) out of about 130,000 men in a long day of action. This includes allies. The III Russian Corps and supports fought Poniatowski to a standstill. Davout had a tough time taking the Fleches. The Great Redoubt fell only after an incredible struggle.

2. At Waterloo the only strong point to fall of any note was La Haye Sainte. Leaving out that the allies remained concealed (with some exceptions) behind the hills the French had every chance to take Hougomont and the other chateau locations but failed to do so. And these strongpoints were not as heavily defended as those at Borodino.

3. French losses at Waterloo - 24,000 wounded & killed out of 72,000. Most of these were lost against the Anglo-Allied army. Which according to most games I have played was a polyglot of morale values.

Some further thoughts:

1. There was no threat of a flanking force on Napoleon's flank at Borodino as at Waterloo. Or was there? There was no way that he could know that he was facing all of the Russian army that Kutusov could bring to the table.

2. At Waterloo, Napoleon kept on wondering if Grouchy would show up. Thus he directed few troops to guard the flank using mainly the I & II Corps plus two cavalry corps against the Anglo-Allies. Now to the defense of the French it was not until MUCH later that the Guard made their appearance so really what Napoleon had engaged vs. what Wellington could bring to the table was LESS than his opponent, the Duke of Wellington. VI Corps and Young Guard plus cavalry were sent to guard the right against Blucher. But initially that was not the plan.

Conclusion: thus in both battles neither side had any idea if a flank attack was possible. The French at Borodino may have had a Russian wing barreling down on their wide exposed right flank. And at Waterloo if Blucher had been more tardy than he was it might have been a victory for the French with Blucher reinforcing a tragedy.

We also take into account that Ney conducted that actual battle for the most part and that the infantry and cavalry were not used in combined arms attacks. Thus this has to offset the French "veteran" factor.

Now lets consider some things:

1. How hardy were the French of 1815?

2. How do they match up against other French armies that were dealt a blow?

3. Was 24,000 losses for the French enough to have ended the war?

Lets now add in that the French army suffered additional losses. According to the Wiki article I used for Waterloo (and Borodino's numbers come from there as well) there were 8,000 Frenchmen captured. An additional 15,000 were listed as missing (deserted?). The total for Waterloo comes to 48,000 if you count in all categories.

So the question still remains: how did the French of 1815 match up against the French say of 1805? If this was the best army that Napoleon ever fielded it is impossible to rate the two based on a defeat as in 1805 this never happened to Napoleon.

We would have to go to 1807 to find his first "Draw/Minor Victory" on a grand scale - Eylau. But there we find two armies that just decided enough was enough - back to winter quarters.

Spain? There were veteran legions there for sure. Looking at some of the battles against Wellington a few come to mind that involved a French loss and then a retreat. And the terrain and guerrillas made retreating difficult at best. The supply situation was a mess.

So what about Salmanca? Here are the figures:

French had 48,000 - lost a total of 13,000 to K/W/C.

The French did not have incredible numbers against them as at Waterloo (though initially again it was an even fight with one army on the defense). However, the British botched the pursuit and the French got away. No figures were listed of MIA so I must assume that only a minor amount ended up falling out due to wounds, fatigue, etc.

Now the outcome of a battle is not always the test of its members. Certainly Waterloo has some points which lead one to believe that the French leadership was abysmal.

This article is not meant to compare HPS Waterloo with BG Waterloo or any other game's values. My feeling is that the French army of Waterloo was filled with men that had been POWs who were released, no longer was France fighting on far flung fronts - this was it. Other than about 50,000 men on other fronts (numbers vary) the main army was filled with men that had fought on campaign before. Conscripts were being called up but never were gathered fully into a fighting force.

So was this the best army that Napoleon fielded? What if he had had equal numbers against Wellington and Blucher? Could he have defeated the Allies and driven Wellington to fall back from Antwerp to above and east of the Rhine?

Eventually the cautious Austrians enter the picture and much later the Russians. But the Austrians and Prussians had no love lost between them.

I will leave you guys to discuss the individual morale ratings of the French and Allies. I have my own feeling on those. But for what its worth it was "a near run thing" and when you consider that the French were pressed on two fronts there is a case that the army of 1815 was ONE of the best armies he fielded. Just lacking in leadership.

And when you consider that Napoleon never committed his entire army against Wellington well it does make you want to agree that the army he commanded was definitely not as good as the one he had in the Peninsular. Units from that army over in America fighting against Jackson and Lafitte.

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

The french army at Waterloo was not the best they ever fielded. That distinction must go to la grande armee of 1805-1806 (peaking at Jena-Auerstadt). I would rate the Waterloo and Borodino french armies as about equal, though Corps and division leadership was better in 1812. This is in part due to the fact that the stragglers lost prior to Borodino would have been the poorer soldiers.

You didn't ask, but the worst french armies were Spring 1813, 1814, and the initial french force in Spain, before Napoleon's participation.

Monsieur once aging much to say about nothing!Every one should know that by now the best trained Armee was the one that your game 1805 said that they were rated as C.The best trained Armee that the Emperor ever put on the battle field came out of the camp at Boulogne! And the runner up would be the class of 1805.

And the cavalry mount losses in the Russian campaign were never replaced with the same quality.

What about the idea that the officers and men of 1815 were seasoned veterans of 1813 & 1814. They may have been green at the start of those campaigns, but the survivors comprised the army of the North that Napoleon fought the Waterloo campaign with. And to have survived those two previous campaigns, with all of those terrible battles, and incredible marches, truly they must have been hardened warriors by that time.
Of course, you might argue that a year off (not even) under the wastrel Bourbons softened them up.

Wastrel...... I love it!

I think if you were not there it is hard to judge any of Napoleon's Armies or his opponents armies. In addition every time Napoleon's armies engage there opponents they taught them and by 1812 & 1813 they had learned very well.

Todd,

The thing is that the veterans of 1813 and 1814 did not have a tradition of victory as did the veterans of 1805-6.

It may be hard to judge (seeing as we are definitely not there), but it's what we try to do, because we like to.
And I believe the above summation about teaching & lessons learned says it quite well indeed.

There were certainly a lot of seasoned veterans in the ranks of l'armée du nord in 1815. Moreover, it was an almost purely French army (without any doubtful ally contingents)...
The major problem in 1815 laid in the lack of motivation and competence among the French senior commanders...
- Soult had replaced Berthier as CoS... definitely not a good choice according to many specialists.
- Ney, as brave as ever... but still not a great tactician, was 2nd in command... while Davout was left in Paris!?
- On the whole, Corps and divisions commanders were not the brightest the empereur had had under his command. The way the attacks were conducted at Hougemont or on the right wing prove that assessment.

According to me, the best army fielded during the Empire was the Grande Armée in 1805-1807. After the huge losses in 1807, the quality of the army started to decline.

LOL - a purely French army that ran away!

If only Napoleon had had more Frenchmen and less "doubtful allies" during the wars.

It was those "doubtful allies" that helped him win victories in 1809. Without those "doubtful allies" there is no way he could have won at Wagram or in Bavaria (espeically). And the same "doubtful allies" marched into Russia with him and many of them never came back, they generally getting the crumbs left over once the "French" had had their fill. Yes, and they went to fight in Spain too. While those "pure Frenchmen" were raping the countryside for treasures the Germans and Poles were busy just trying to survive.

The allies were never the issue until he had exhausted their patience with them. If you study the various German allies you will only find the Westphalians to be of dubious quality (and they didn't like serving the Prussians either ...). Even the Rhine contingents served better under Napoleon than they did the Prussians. In 1813 things changed and there were entire battalions that mutinied and never made it to the front. (thinking of the Dessau battalion here)

The Poles and N.Italians were some of his best allies but the Wurttemberg, Baden and Hessians were fine troops as well. There were 3,000 Poles who rather than be prisoners of war for fighting with Austria turned around and reinforced the VIII Corps prior to Leipzig. Frankly I think that those Poles probably fought with more gusto than most of the French line units.

Only until 1813 were these forces tiring of Napoleon and even the defection of the Wurttemberg forces at Leipzig drew a sharp response from their king so much that Nordmann was never allowed back and the regimental names were changed for the defecting cavalry regiments.

I am thinking that had Napoleon replaced some of those French troops with Poles that Hougomont may have been taken ...

Durutte's 32nd Div in 1813 was filled with former convicts. One wonders how many of them served "with distinction" at Waterloo? Perhaps they lead the famous "Paris Races."

Thus if we are looking for a "pure French" army for an example we only need turn to the Bailen (sp?) for an example of how Frenchmen lead by a Frenchman (Suchet) can get it terribly "right."

_________________


Generalfeldmarschall Wilhelm Prinz Peters von Dennewitz

3. Husaren-Regiment, Reserve-Kavallerie, Preußischen Armee-Korps

Honarary CO of Garde-Ulanen Regiment, Garde-Grenadier Kavallerie

NWC Founding Member

For Club Games: I prefer the Single Phase mode of play. I prefer to play with the following options OFF:

MDF, VP4LC, NRO, MTD, CMR, PR, MIM, NDM, OMR (ver 4.07)

I guess what Stephane is referring to when talking about doubtful allies is mainly the ones who defected by the end of the Russian adventure or later during the 1813's campaign (without discussing the reasons).

The Polish were certainly the most constant allies, they served in the French Army until the end... But they weren't the only ones.

Waterloo runs deep in the French psyche and to some extend in the same way that the Lost Cause of the Confederation.
Waterloo was the end of an era for France, the end of a continental predominance, and it took a century to regain it (and lose it again).

Up to Ligny the campaign was a success for the French Army but a short lived one and even if Napoleon had won at Waterloo nothing could assure him peace with the allies.

So who are we to decide what army was better prepared ? The French soldiers seemed determined but sometime lacking good tactical sens (Hougoumont for example). Stories were running in the Army about traitors so there was a malaise and lack of trust in their officers. Some Maréchaux and Généraux were not too eager to go to fight again... so the moral of the Army was fluctuating with what was going on during the battle. Very high at the beginning and then very low after the Prussians arrived.

_________________
Général David Guegan

3ème Régiment de Grenadiers - Bataillon d'élite du 3ème Légère
2ème Brigade
Grenadiers de la Réserve
Réserve
La Grande Armée
--------------------------
"From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step."
Napoléon Bonaparte

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx

Lost Cause? I don't know what you are talking about. We uns is jest restin'.




I think you are dead on here, David. The morale fluctuation is also common for any army that enters a field hyped on recent victories, only to realize in the course of the engagement that they are suddenly facing defeat.

_________________
Général David Guegan

3ème Régiment de Grenadiers - Bataillon d'élite du 3ème Légère
2ème Brigade
Grenadiers de la Réserve
Réserve
La Grande Armée
--------------------------
"From the sublime to the ridiculous is but a step."
Napoléon Bonaparte

Military justice is to justice what military music is to music.
Groucho Marx

I am of the opinion that the moral and loyalty issues faced bye the French during the course of the 100 days campaign compare very poorly to what was faced by the Allies. It could be said that Wellington and the English feared The affect of a resurgent Prussia on the balance of power in Europe more then they did Napoleon.The alliance between England,Austria and Royalist France ( a copy of which allegedly falls into Prussian hands sometime in April of 1815 )signed on the 3rd of January of 1815 against Russia and Prussia drive that point home fairly effectively. In the very least that results in the best troops in the Prussian Army including the Prussian guard staying home to keep an eye on there Allies the Austrians. The botched pursuit of the French by the English as Bill mentions above was I believe more a matter of Wellington not wanting to damage his would be Allies the French more then he absolutely had to. So we find distrust and issues with Loyalty at the very highest level within the Coalition.

Looking at the Anglo Allied army that the French face at Waterloo I am of the opinion that it is a better army then many historians would like us to believe. The Dutch mobile army and the Nassau contingent in particular are better then advertised. But again we find issues of contempt and questions of loyalty that are well publicized and need not be mentioned here. Those are just a couple of the issues relating to moral and loyalty faced by the Allies so I have to say they had considerably more to deal with in that area then the French. Where all this fits into the conversation is one can't rate the quality of the various French armies without considering there opponents and due to the political B.S and wrangling behind the scenes I don't believe the 7th Coalition was the toughest opponents the French army's of the era faced. That said I can't give the French army of 1815 the vote.

Just because I am an annoying old S.O.B I will add one more thing. If not for Constant Rebeque's decision to ignore Wellingtons orders and order the Dutch Belgian and Nassau troops of Perponchers 2nd Division to hold at Quatra Bras I suspect we would not be having this discussion now as there wouldn't have been a battle of Waterloo......so much for untrustworthy allies.

Regards
Walt

_________________
Generallieutenant Walt GroßHerzog Moehle von Neuhardenberg
Kommandeur der Korps Artillerie-Brigade
Kommandeur der Gardegrenadier
Königlich Preußische Korps