[Cookie Monster]

What was the most crucial error that led to Napoleon's defeat at the Battle of Waterloo?

Was it Marshal Grouchy's decision to continue his orders or any other error?

[Oxymoron]

What was the most crucial error that led to Napoleon's defeat at the Battle of Waterloo?

Returning to France in the first place.

At the time of the battle his faith was already sealed. He could not win the battle of Waterloo and the war at the same time. All he could have done is delay the obvious, France made too many enemies.

[Rojik of the Arctic]

The diversionary attack on Château d'Hougoumont that used involved 14,000 French vs 3,500 English, and left something like 7,000 French dead or wounded. As diversions go it would make a good example of what not to do.

[Cookie Monster]

At the time of the battle his faith was already sealed. He could not win the battle of Waterloo and the war at the same time. All he could have done is delay the obvious, France made too many enemies.

Through victory, he could have secured a peace (break) with the allied powers. Or at least fight the others on his terms.

[Oxymoron]

Through victory, he could have secured a peace (break) with the allied powers. Or at least fight the others on his terms.

Through victory he would delay the situation, no power would make peace with him. They wanted to restore the Monarchy, Napolean was more then a military threat, he was a social threat.

[Cookie Monster]

Untill he became a monarch himself, than he was more of a military threat.

[Oxymoron]

Untill he became a monarch himself, than he was more of a military threat.

Even though he became "emperor" he still was reforming the system. He took the role of Dictator in the Roman fashion, but he never gave up on the concepts that put him into power.

[Cookie Monster]

Even though he became "emperor" he still was reforming the system. He took the role of Dictator in the Roman fashion, but he never gave up on the concepts that put him into power.

True, but at the time of Waterloo, he was less of revolutionary and more of an old monarch trying to reclaim his throne. In fact the lack of a cause/vision, is part of the reason of his defeat. It was his one of his essential weapons for his many campaigns.

[Oxymoron]

True, but at the time of Waterloo, he was less of revolutionary and more of an old monarch trying to reclaim his throne. In fact the lack of a cause/vision, is part of the reason of his defeat. It was his one of his essential weapons for his many campaigns.

The other powers were not going to take the chance. If he won in Waterloo, there would be other battles. He made too many enemies, there was no way he would be allowed to lead France again.

[Cookie Monster]

The other powers were not going to take the chance. If he won in Waterloo, there would be other battles. He made too many enemies, there was no way he would be allowed to lead France again.

The coalition was not that firm, he could break it if he had early success at Waterloo.

[Doomhammer]

I don't know too much about the Napoleonic Wars but, as I recall, Napoleon was incapacitated during Waterloo because of his gastric cancer acting up. Thus, much of the battle was conducted by Phillip Ney - Napoleon did not have a clear idea about what was happening.

The diversionary attack failed, as did the cavalry attack. After sustaining many casualties, the Old Guard was unleashed and they were ambushed (head on) by the Scottish Rifles, which routed the Old Guard.*


*Note: I've heard this explanation many a time but I don't know how reasonable it is for the Old Guard to have been defeated by a single line of riflemen.

[Smilin' Dave]

I'm pretty sure the Guard were defeated by line infantry, rather than just riflemen. Wiki says it was the British Foot Guards?

I'm not overly familiar with the battle, but would the axis of advance have been better going past Papelotte? Unless I'm mistaken this was a lesser obstacle than Hougomont, and this was also the Dutch end of the line. So in effect bring your best against their weakest so that the gap can be exploited?

[Rojik of the Arctic]

It was the Foot Guards but they were assisted by other units. The main reasons for the defeat of the Old guard lie in supporting units from two other corps became concerned with the Prussian arrival and didn't advance, and the intrinsic nature of the column. A column attacks with around 70 men broad but very deep, and a line may be around 400 men broad but very shallow, so it was outgunned as it approached and until it punched a gap in the line. This was compensated for by the French habit of concentrating artillery at the vital point and blowing a hole in the line for the columns to crash through. Wellington nullified this by keeping his troops on the reverse slope and also by the quality and steadfastness of his troops.

In a loose way the columns could be compared to the German Blitzkrieg in that it was almost unstoppable at the beginning but its effect became less, and the casualties it took became heavier as other generals learnt from their earlier mistakes and the shock value of it wore off.

Ney was an interesting one. As brave as they come and a great leader from the front but wholly unsuited to high command.

Oh, and I thought that it was Napoleons haemorrhoids that were playing up that day but it would be a bit hard to verify that.

[pugsville]

Ney was the classic cavalry commander of the period, the main overwhelming (and almost only) requirement was "balls", charge when asked to without thinking or counting the odds, he was a good weapon in the right hands but unsurprising that he was unsuitable for higher command. Napoloen promoted him above his competence by making him a marshall.

In the first world war the british (and most nations) were lead almost exclusively by cavalry generals the generation that grew up in the shadow of waterloo. They still have the virtue of "balls" , they were told to charge so they sent there men over the top.

[Potemkin]

In the first world war the british (and most nations) were lead almost exclusively by cavalry generals the generation that grew up in the shadow of waterloo.

Actually, WWI was four or five generations after Waterloo, so they really didn't have that excuse. And the American Civil War had given a foretaste of what was to come, but most European military strategists weren't paying attention.

[Harold Saxon]

I'm inclined to agree with Rojik of the Arctic. Napoleon's decision to attack the Coalition forces using diversionary tactics at Château d'Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte, splitting up his army, was quite foolish. He also did not properly counter the Prussians when he had the chance to, and focused too exclusively on them (at the expense of the British forces) upon their return.

[killim]

Waterloo was lost in Ligny and i say that despite the fact that my ancestors were under the command of Wellington.

[Magnus Prometheus]

His mistakes were relying on his subordinate - General Grouchy - against the Prussians, while his own attack was postponed due to inclement weather, giving the Prussians under Blucher and the British under Wellington time to reinforce each other and take Napoleon's Olde Guard head on. Due to the close communication of the coalition, and the weather itself, Napoleon allowed his early victories at Austerlitz and others cloud his better military judgment.

[JohnRawls]

Napoleon had no chance after the loss at borodino that battle and the russian campaighn settled the war for good.
After borodino and death of kutuzov when he was crossing the alps napoleon lost 0 battles but was just overrun , his meazly 100k army could not survive the almost 1 000 000 allied army even though he was a tactical genius . He managed to win all the battles at the final year of the war but in the end had to give up , a good example of how wining all battles doesn't lead to victory .

Same goes for waterloo , in the long run it was a insignificant battle because napoleon would have been crushed 1 way or the other . The allies would overrun him with numbers again .

[MB.]

Napoleon was defeated at Waterloo for a number of reasons; strategy, tactics, operational tempo, logistics... Napoleon had placed his army in a position where it had to defeat one opponent before marshaling against a flank; principally Blucher. Tactically, the Light Infantry concept developed by Wellington and composed of veterans from the Peninsula campaign was hard as nails and decimated wave after wave of cavalry, grenadier and guard assaults covered by sustained Imperial cannonade. Napoleon had been forced into this position as a result of the convening of the congress of Vienna and had been marching to the coast in a daring attempt to outflank Georgian sea power and win a decisive victory against the Seventh Coalition.

Waterloo was a titanic battle, and a watershed moment in European history. I am not particuarly versed in french revolutionary war history.