Can you win Waterloo?

[The Duke]

So, how would you guys have fought the battle of Waterloo, had you been Napoleon?  He lost, so I was wondering what you would have done differently.

[PBrunsel]

I would have used the French special guard on the Prussians sooner.

[The Duke]

I'd have pulled my force back, instead of trying to take the various villes like Hougamount and such.  I have more artillery, so I'd batter those positions from a distance with guns instead of assaulting them with infantry.  If I can bludgeon them without serious losses, I can begin to push Wellington of his ridge.

[PBrunsel]

Wellington's biggest boost was he was fighting Napoleon, who believed in his own invincibility. Napoleon put all his eggs in one basket. When fighting at the farm house Napoleon should have opended fire with his big guns, then have a cavalry charge.

[The Dowager Mod]

i would have commited the old gaurd much sooner.
and i would have hit the right flank instead of the left.
the allied troops were much inferior to the british regulars on the left.
and it would have helped if ney hadn't thrown some of his best shock troops at the squares between hougoumont and la haie sainte.
when the british finally lost la haie sainte ney couldn't exploit it because his heavy cavalry was shot.
basically i blame ney and grouchy for all of it.

[12th Doctor]

I would have forced Wellington to attack mean.  Napoleon's attack was a disaster largely because a heavy rainstorm the night before caused his troops to get bogged down in mud while they marched on the British.

[Filuwaúrdjan]

Replaced Ney with the "Duke of Damnation" of course.
Oh and attack earlier.

[Ben.]

Sack Grouchy and bring his thirty thousand men to mass on Wellington’s right and envelop Wellington’s flank with Ney demonstrating on the Allied Left and Jerome Attacking in support of these men (formally under Grouchy) against Wellington’s Right and Centre, then bring the Imperial Guard up as a reserve to finally split the Allied force in two.

Order Ney to lead the Cavalry in pursuit of the Allied force through the Sonnies Forrest and break them up (I would expect the British remnants to make it back to Gent or Antwerp, but the German and Belgian units would disintegrate after a tough pursuit by French Cavalry and some Belgian units could even change sides)   to the north and send some small forces towards Brussels to meet with Bonapartist Rebels (who had planed to rebel and join the French). While leading the bulk of the French Army East to crush the Prussians before they can withdraw across the Meuse.

Grêler à l'Empereur

[12th Doctor]

Replaced Ney with the "Duke of Damnation" of course.
Oh and attack earlier.

If you are refering to Marshall Soult the Duke of Dalmation, we used to think I was directly related to him, but found out that my poser relatives just changed our name in the 1810's to claim to be related to them.  

[Dr. Cynic]

There's an online game at a BBC site where you can play as Napoleon or Wellington. And yes, I won. The only way Napoleon would have won is if he had commited his Imperial Guard on Haye La Sainte sooner.

[CARLHAYDEN]

If that is the ONLY way the game could have been won, then the game is defective!

If Napoleon had sent his cavalry in a attack on Wellington's rear (cutting him off from his base), then use sufficent forces to finally crush the Prussians, while holding Wellington at Waterloo with sufficent forces (during the time bombarding Wellington with his cannon), and only attacking when Wellington's hope of relief was destroyed and the fields were reasonably dry, then Napoleon would have won.

Trying to dislodge the Brits under Wellington of that era from a ridge/hill was something the French really weren't capble of accomplishing without having other advantages.

[Dr. Cynic]

No, it's not the game. The only way he could have won was if he commited his Imperial Guard. The course of the battle was decided, and your strategy is not the way a proper European battle was fought in those days. However, you're strategy would work if it was an American, and not a Europeon who fought by the rules of war. Your strategy would have been considered unethical. (It was considered improper to attack from the rear, especially when Wellington had a superior position, and Napoleon arrived straight at him.)

[??????????]

Attacking the center is what ruined Napoleon. Of course, the weather didn't help either.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I'd have pulled my force back, instead of trying to take the various villes like Hougamount and such.  I have more artillery, so I'd batter those positions from a distance with guns instead of assaulting them with infantry.  If I can bludgeon them without serious losses, I can begin to push Wellington of his ridge.

The problem with that is that it would be totally against how field artilery (as opposed to seige artillery) was used in Napoleonic era warfare.  Field artillery was primarilly  used in the role that that today would be filled by the heavy machine gun. Grapeshot, not shell was the primary ammunition that was made available to smoothbore artillery.  Rifled artillery capable of accurate fire couldn't fire grapeshot without damaging the rifleing and had a much slower rate of fire, so it was relegated to seige artillery.  It wasn't until the development of breech loading made rifled cannon feasible that the distinction between field artillery and seige artillery began to fade. It took the development of the Minie-ball rifle musket to drive the smoothbore cannon from the front of the battlefield where it had been.

[??????????]

I didn't think they had canister at Waterloo, Ernest.

[CARLHAYDEN]

No, it's not the game. The only way he could have won was if he commited his Imperial Guard. The course of the battle was decided, and your strategy is not the way a proper European battle was fought in those days. However, you're strategy would work if it was an American, and not a Europeon who fought by the rules of war. Your strategy would have been considered unethical. (It was considered improper to attack from the rear, especially when Wellington had a superior position, and Napoleon arrived straight at him.)

Buonoparte limited in stratedgy and tactics by ethics!?!

ROTFLMAO

[Dr. Cynic]

The Rules of War prohibited such a thing as attacking from behind. Besides, Bonaparte came at Wellington's front, because he didn't realize the superior Wellington defense, and the terrain. He basically shot from the hip, stratigically speaking. Had he commited his guard sooner, after weakening Wellington, and such, he would have won.

[True Federalist (진정한 연방 주의자)]

I didn't think they had canister at Waterloo, Ernest.

They didn't IIRC.  Field artilery pieces were  used at the time like giant shotguns.  Pour in the powder and lots of musket sized pelets or even rocks or nails and fire.  Cannister was developed so as to cause less barrel wear and permit this tactic to be used with rifled cannons which are more accurate when firing shells.  (You can fire uncannistered grapeshot from a rifled cannon, if you don't mind ruining the rifling in the process.)   Long range artillery duels happened, but were more a show of strength than something that caused significant damage because smoothbore cannon aren't accurate enough for effective indirect fire.

[??????????]

I didn't think they had canister at Waterloo, Ernest.

They didn't IIRC.  Field artilery pieces were  used at the time like giant shotguns.  Pour in the powder and lots of musket sized pelets or even rocks or nails and fire.  Cannister was developed so as to cause less barrel wear and permit this tactic to be used with rifled cannons which are more accurate when firing shells.  (You can fire uncannistered grapeshot from a rifled cannon, if you don't mind ruining the rifling in the process.)   Long range artillery duels happened, but were more a show of strength than something that caused significant damage because smoothbore cannon aren't accurate enough for effective indirect fire.

The confederacy did have rifled breechloading cannons and used them during the Civil war...just more useless trivia.

[CARLHAYDEN]

The Rules of War prohibited such a thing as attacking from behind. Besides, Bonaparte came at Wellington's front, because he didn't realize the superior Wellington defense, and the terrain. He basically shot from the hip, stratigically speaking. Had he commited his guard sooner, after weakening Wellington, and such, he would have won.

While it is true that the French have a history of stupid battles with the English (Crecy, Poiters and Agincourt are good examples),  I know of no 'rule of war' which prohibited an attack on the enemy's rear (unless what you mean is the rule that when confronting the English, the French almost always act stupidly).

Further, Wellington was well known for his expertise in defending ridges.  Also the British line was well known for shooting the attacking french columns to pieces on numerous occasions under Wellington in Spain.

[Dr. Cynic]

There are rules of war that haven't been practiced in many years. One of those rules was never attack an enemy's rear. You were supposed to go muzzle to muzzle with the other army. We broke that rule during the American Revolution, but it was practiced until the 1850's.

[CARLHAYDEN]

While it is true that stupid generals used frontal attacks, and that those with poorly organized/disciplined forces also used frontal attacks as flanking manuevers were beyond their abilities, Napoleon frequently used flanking attacks.

General stupidity and incopetence does not constitute a 'rule of war,' but rather and indication of defeat.

[Dr. Cynic]

It was just the way it went. Personally, I could have cared less.

[CARLHAYDEN]

I'll take that as an admission that the "rule" was merely the 'practice' of incompetents and poorly led/trained/organized armies.

[Dr. Cynic]

It may have been, but it was still a rule.