E-text prepared by Brian Coe, Brian Wilcox,
and the Online Distributed Proofreading Team
([http://www.pgdp.net])
from page images generously made available by
Internet Archive
([https://archive.org])

The cover image was created by the transcriber and is placed in the public domain.

THE CAMPAIGN OF WATERLOO

SUPPLEMENTARY VOLUME.
AN ATLAS OF
THE CAMPAIGN OF WATERLOO.
By JOHN CODMAN ROPES.
Designed to accompany the author’s “Campaign of Waterloo; a Military History.”
Price, $5.00 net.
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS,
Publishers, New York.

THE CAMPAIGN OF
WATERLOO

A MILITARY HISTORY

BY
JOHN CODMAN ROPES

Member of the Massachusetts Historical Society, the Military Historical Society of Massachusetts, and the Harvard Historical Society; Fellow of the American Academy of Arts and Sciences and the Royal Historical Society; Honorary Member of the United States Cavalry Association, etc. Author of “The Army under Pope,” in the Scribner Series of “Campaigns of the Civil War”; “The First Napoleon, a Sketch, Political and Military,” etc.

THIRD EDITION.

NEW YORK
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS
1893

COPYRIGHT, 1892, BY
CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS.

PREFACE

The need of another narrative of the campaign of Waterloo may not be at first sight apparent. There has been a great deal written on this subject, and much of it has been written by eminent hands. The last and the most unfortunate campaign of the great soldier of modern times has naturally attracted the repeated attention of military historians. Jomini, Clausewitz, Charras, Siborne, Kennedy, Chesney, Vaudoncourt, La Tour d’Auvergne, Thiers, Hooper, and many others have sought to explain the almost inexplicable result,—the complete defeat in a very brief campaign of the acknowledged master of modern warfare. One would suppose that the theme had been exhausted, and that nothing more remained to be said.

But several circumstances have contributed to render the labors of these writers unusually difficult. In the first place, the overthrow of Napoleon, which was the immediate result of the campaign, operated to prevent a satisfactory account of it being given to the public from the French point of view at the time when the facts were fresh in men’s minds. The Emperor, exiled at St. Helena, could indeed give his story; but, unable, as he was, to verify or correct his narrative by citations from the orders that were given at the time, and by conferring with the officers who had served under him, he has left us an account, which, though by no means without historical value, is yet so defective and erroneous in parts that it has aroused in the minds of men who are not alive to the great difficulties which always attend the composition of a military narrative, and who are not concerned to make fair allowance for the unavoidable and peculiar difficulties of one writing in the circumstances which surrounded Napoleon at St. Helena, grave doubts as to the trustworthiness of his recollection and even as to his veracity. The chief officers of the army have also rendered little assistance to the historian. Ney was shot a few months after the battle. Soult, Grouchy, d’Erlon and others were forced into exile. No detailed reports were ever made by them. The royal government did not concern itself about this episode in the experience of their predecessors. What the French commander and his subordinates had to say about the campaign came out by degrees, and much of it only after long years of waiting. Many of the narratives were written and published before all the facts had become known,—hence were necessarily more or less imperfect.

With a few exceptions, too, the histories of this campaign have been gravely affected by the partisanship of their authors. It is well-nigh impossible for Thiers and La Tour d’Auvergne to admit any fault, for Charras and Quinet to admit any merit, in Napoleon’s management of affairs. It is equally difficult for the majority of English writers to avoid taking sides against the Emperor in any of the numerous disputes to which the campaign of Waterloo has given rise. These influences have operated in many cases to deflect the narrative of the military operations into a criticism of those who have written from the opposite standpoint.

Nevertheless, all this discussion has not been by any means without use. We have had many obscure corners cleared up, many seemingly inexplicable problems solved, and we are now in possession, taking all our information together, of nearly all, if not quite all, the facts. It only remains to collect and co-ordinate them in a spirit of impartiality. This is the task attempted in the present volume. It may be added that the narrative and discussions will be confined to purely military topics.

In the treatment of the subject, Napoleon will naturally be the central figure. The campaign was his campaign, planned and executed by him, frustrated by his opponents. It will be our endeavor to get at, as nearly as we can, his intentions, his expectations, his views from day to day of the facts of the case, so that we may, if possible, carry a personal interest into the varying fortunes of those eventful days. This will be found entirely consistent, it is believed, with an equally careful attempt to view events from the standpoints which the English and Prussian commanders must have occupied from time to time during the campaign.

The general method of Colonel Chesney in his “Waterloo Lectures” is adopted; that is, the chapters will first contain a statement or narrative, and, afterwards, notes. In these we shall have occasion to examine most of the controversies concerning this campaign. Those persons who do not care for these discussions can read the chapters seriatim.

Those controversies which would occupy too much space if given in the text proper will be found in appendices.

A partial list of works relating to the campaign is prefixed.

A map of the theatre of war in Belgium and another of the field of Waterloo are inserted in the book.

For those students who desire to follow the campaign more carefully, an Atlas has been prepared, which is sold separately. It contains a general map of the whole theatre of war, eleven maps of Belgium, showing the varying positions of the three armies during the campaign, and two maps of the field of Waterloo, in which the topographical features are shown by contour lines taken from the government survey, and on which the positions of the troops are set down at the commencement and close of the battle. The references in the text to maps are to the maps in this Atlas.

Copies of all the important orders and despatches will be found in Appendix C.

The author desires to express his thanks for valuable manuscripts, books and references kindly furnished him by Major General R. Oldfield, R. A., and Colonel F. A. Whinyates, R. A.; also for many useful suggestions, and for assistance in many ways, to Major W. R. Livermore, Corps of Engineers, U. S. Army, and Captain A. H. Russell, Ordnance Department, U. S. Army.

He desires also to acknowledge the aid rendered him by M. Eugène Wenseleers, Barrister of the Court of Appeal, Brussels, in ascertaining the location of the Chateau Marette, at Walhain, where (and not at Sart-à-Walhain, as has been generally believed) Marshal Grouchy was when he heard the sound of the cannon of Waterloo.

99 Mount Vernon Street:
Boston: June 1, 1892.

J. C. R.

NOTE TO THE THIRD EDITION.

Since the publication of this book the writer has been put in possession of facts which have led him to reverse his opinion of the truth of the story that the Duke of Wellington rode to Wavre on the evening of the 17th of June, 1815.

J. C. R.

99 Mount Vernon Street:
Boston: May 17, 1893.

[CONTENTS.]

A PARTIAL LIST OF WORKS RELATING TO THE CAMPAIGN.[1]

ALISON:

History of Europe from the commencement of the French Revolution to the Restoration of the Bourbons in 1815. By Archibald Alison, LL. D. New Edition with Portraits. Vols. XIII and XIV. Wm. Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh & London, MDCCCL.

BATTY:

An Historical Sketch of the Campaign of 1815, illustrated by Plans of the Operations and of the Battles of Quatre-Bras, Ligny and Waterloo. By Captain Batty, of the First or Grenadier Guards. 2d Edition, Considerably Enlarged. London, 1820.

BAUDUS:

Études sur Napoléon. Par le lieutenant-colonel de Baudus, ancien aide-de-camp des Maréchaux Bessières et Soult. 2 Vols. Paris: Debécourt: 1841.

BERTON:

Précis, historique, militaire et critique, des batailles de Fleurus et de Waterloo. Avec une Carte. Par le Maréchal-de-Camp Berton. Paris: Delaunay. 1818.

BIBLIOGRAPHY OF THE CAMPAIGN:

Prepared, with critical estimates, in October, 1875, by Justin Winsor, now Librarian of Harvard College, in Bulletin No. 35 of the Public Library of the City of Boston, of which Mr. Winsor was then Librarian. It includes a notice of Maps and Plans.

Colonel Chesney gives a list of works cited by himself just after the Table of Contents in his Waterloo Lectures.

Colonel Maurice in his book entitled “War,”—London and New York: Macmillan & Co., 1891,—gives in the Appendix, pp. 128 et seq., a list of books relating to the campaign of Waterloo,—with comments and estimates.

BROWNE:

Wellington: or Public and Private Life of Arthur, first Duke of Wellington. By G. Lathom Browne. London, W. H. Allen & Co. 1888.

BULLOCK’S DIARY:

Journal of R. H. Bullock, 11th Light Dragoons. English Historical Magazine. July, 1888.

CAMPAGNE DE LA BELGIQUE:

Contenant

1. L’Ode sur la Bataille de Waterloo ou de Mont St. Jean:

2. Relation Belge sur la Bataille de Waterloo, et de la part qu’y a prise la troisième division militaire du Royaume des Pays Bas:

3. Relation Française, par un témoin oculaire:

4. Campagne de Walcheren et d’Anvers; 1809:

5. Relation Anglaise, traduite sur le texte, publiée à Londres en Septembre dernier.

Bruxelles, 1816. (With a portrait of the Prince of Orange, and maps.)

CHARRAS:

Histoire de la Campagne de 1815: Waterloo: Par le Lt-Colonel Charras. 5me Édition, revue et augmentée. Avec un Atlas nouveau. Leipzig: F. A. Brockhaus. (No date.)

CHESNEY:

Waterloo Lectures: A Study of the Campaign of 1815. By Colonel Charles C. Chesney, R. E., late Professor of Military Art and History in the Staff College. Third Edition. London: Longmans, Green & Co. 1874.

CHURCHILL’S LETTER:

Letter to his father written by Major Chatham Horace Churchill, of the 1st Foot Guards, Aide to General Lord Hill. (Waterloo Roll Call, pp. 2, 14, 92, and Appendix.) The letter was first printed in the Life of Sir William Napier, pp. 175 et seq. It was reprinted, with some omissions and some additions, in an English magazine called Atalanta, in November, 1887, where it erroneously said to have been “hitherto unpublished.” The writer’s name is not given. Mr. Dalton, the compiler of the Waterloo Roll Call, states in the Appendix (p. 235) that a copy of the letter is in his possession. It would be well worth while to republish it textually with notes.

CLAUSEWITZ:

Der Feldzug von 1815 in Frankreich. Hinterlassenes Werk des Generals Carl von Clausewitz.

Zweite Auflage. Berlin: Ferd. Dümmler’s Verlagsbuchhandlung: 1862.

CLINTON:

The War in the Peninsula, and Wellington’s Campaigns in France and Belgium. With original maps and plans. By H. R. Clinton. London: Frederick Warne & Co. 1878.

CORRESPONDANCE de Napoléon 1er, publiée par ordre de l’Empereur Napoléon III.

Tome XXVIII.

Tome XXXL Œuvres de Napoléon 1er à St. Hélène. Paris: Imprimerie Impériale. 1869.

COTTON:

A Voice from Waterloo: a history of the battle, &c. By Sergeant-major Edward Cotton, late 7th Hussars.

Fifth Edition, revised and enlarged. Printed for the author. London. R. Green. 1854.

CRAAN, W. B.:

Plan du Champ de Bataille de Waterloo. Bruxelles: 1816.

DAMITZ:

Histoire de la Campagne de 1815: Par le major de Damitz, officier prussien, d’après les documents du Général Grolman, Quartier-Maître-Général de l’armée prussienne en 1815.

Traduite de l’Allemand par Léon Griffon. Avec Plans. 2 Volumes. Paris. Correard. 1840.

D’AUVERGNE:

See La Tour d’Auvergne.

DAVOUT:

Histoire de la Vie Militaire, Politique, et Administrative du Maréchal Davout, Duc de Auerstaedt, Prince d’Eckmühl. D’après les documents officiels. Par L. J. Gabriel de Chenier. Paris: Gosse, Marchal & Cie: 1866.

DOCUMENTS INÉDITS:

Documents inédits sur la campagne de 1815, publiés par le Duc d’Elchingen. Paris. 1840.

DRAME DE WATERLOO:

Le Drame de Waterloo: Grande Restitution Historique. Avec un plan. 3me edition. Paris: Au Bureau de la Revue Spiritualiste. 1868.

DROUET:

Le Maréchal Drouet, Comte d’Erlon. Notice sur la vie militaire, écrite par lui-même et dediée à ses amis. Publiée par sa famille. Avec portrait. Paris: Gustave Barba: Libraire Éditeur. 34 Rue Mazarine. 1844.

ELLESMERE:

Essays on History, Biography, Geography, Engineering, &c. Contributed to the Quarterly Review: By the late Earl of Ellesmere. London: John Murray. 1858.

FRAGMENTS HISTORIQUES:

See Grouchy.

FRASER: Letters written during the Peninsula and Waterloo Campaigns. By Sir A. S. Fraser. London: 1859.

FRASER:

Words on Wellington—the Duke-Waterloo—the Ball. By Sir Wm. Fraser, Baronet. London. John C. Nimmo: 1889.

GARDNER:

Quatre Bras, Ligny and Waterloo. A narrative of the campaign in Belgium in 1815. By Dorsey Gardner. London: Kegan Paul, Trench & Co. 1882.

GAWLER:

The Crisis and Close of the Action at Waterloo. By an Eyewitness. Dublin. Richard Milliken & Son: 104 Grafton Street. 1833.

GÉRARD:

1. Quelques Documents sur la Bataille de Waterloo, propres à éclairer la question portée devant le public par M. le Marquis de Grouchy. Par le Général Gérard. Paris: Denain: Novembre, 1829. (With a Map.)

2. Dernières Observations sur les Opérations de l’aile droite de l’Armée Française à la Bataille de Waterloo, en réponse à M. le Marquis de Grouchy. Par le Général Gérard. Paris: Denain: 1830. (With a Map.)

3. Lettre à MM. Germain Sarrut et B. Saint Edme, Rédacteurs de la Biographie des Hommes du Jour. Paris: 12 Mars, 1840.

GIRAUD:

The Campaigns of Paris in 1814 and 1815, etc. Translated from the French of P. F. F. J. Giraud by Edmund Boyce. 2d Edition, enlarged. London. 1816.

GNEISENAU:

Das Leben des Feldmarschalls Grafen Reithardt von Gneisenau. Vierter Band. 1814, 1815. Von Hans Delbrück. Fortfetzung des Gleichnamigen Werkes von G. H. Pertz. Berlin. 1880.

GOMM:

Letters and Journals of Field-Marshal Sir William Maynard Gomm, G. C. B. From 1799 to Waterloo, 1815. Edited by Francis Culling Carr-Gomm. London: John Murray. 1881.

GORE:

An Historical Account of the Battle of Waterloo; intended to elucidate the topographical plan executed by W. B. Craän, J. U. D. Translated from the French, with explanatory notes, by Captain Arthur Gore, 30th Regiment of Foot. With Plates. London. Printed for Samuel Leigh. 1817.

GOURGAUD (original):[2]

Campagne de dix-huit cent quinze: ou Relation des Opérations Miliaires qui ont eu lieu en France et en Belgique, pendant les Cent Jours. Écrite à Sainte Hélène. Par le Général Gourgaud. Paris: 1818.

GOURGAUD (translation):

The Campaign of 1815. Written at St. Helena by General Gourgaud. London: 1818.

GRENADIER GUARDS:

The Origin and History of the First or Grenadier Guards. By Lieut. Gen. Sir F. W. Hamilton, K. C. B. In three volumes. London: John Murray. 1874.

GROUCHY:

1. Observations sur la Relation de la Campagne de 1815, publiée par le Général Gourgaud, et Réfutation de quelques unes des Assertions d’autres écrits relatifs à la bataille de Waterloo. Par le Maréchal de Grouchy. Philadelphie. 1818.

2. The same, with omissions and changes. Philadelphia, 1819.

3. The same title except that the author’s name is given as “le Comte de Grouchy.” Reprinted, with many omissions and changes, from the Philadelphia edition of 1819. Paris: Chez Chaumerot Jeune, Libraire, Palais Royal. 1819.[3]

4. Doutes sur l’Authenticité des Mémoires historiques attribués à Napoléon et première réfutation de quelques unes des assertions qu’ils renferment. Par le Comte de Grouchy: Philadelphie: Avril, 1820.

5. Fragments Historiques relatifs à la Campagne de 1815 et à la Bataille de Waterloo. Par le Général Grouchy.

Lettre à Messieurs Méry et Barthélemy.

Paris: Firmin Didot Frères, 20 Novembre, 1829.

6. Fragments Historiques, &c.

De l’influence que peuvent avoir sur l’opinion les documents publiés par M. le Comte Gérard.

Paris: Firmin Didot Frères, 20 Decembre, 1829.

7. Le Maréchal de Grouchy du 16 au 19 Juin 1815. Par le Général de Division Sénateur Marquis de Grouchy. Paris. E. Dentu. 1864.

8. Mémoires du Maréchal de Grouchy. Par le Marquis de Grouchy, officier de l’état-major. vol. 4. Paris: E. Dentu. 1874.

GURWOOD:

The Despatches of Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington. Compiled from official and authentic documents, by Lieut.-Colonel Gurwood. Vol. XII. London: John Murray: 1838.

HAMLEY:

The Operations of War explained and illustrated. By Edward Bruce Hamley, Colonel in the Army, etc. Second Edition. William Blackwood & Sons. Edinburgh and London. 1869.

HILL:

The Life of Lord Hill, G. C. B. By the Rev. Edwin Sidney, A.M. Second edition. London: John Murray: 1845.

HISTOIRE DE L’EX-GARDE:

Depuis sa formation jusqu’à son licenciement. Paris: Delaunay: 1821.

HOOPER:

Waterloo: the Downfall of the First Napoleon: A History of the Campaign of 1815. By George Hooper: author of “The Italian Campaigns of General Bonaparte.” With Map and Plans. London: Smith, Elder & Co. 1862.

IMPERIAL GUARD:

See Histoire de l’Ex-Garde.

See St. Hilaire.

JOMINI (original):

Précis Politique et Militaire de la Campagne de 1815, pour servir de supplement et de rectification à la Vie Politique et Militaire de Napoléon racontée par lui-même. Par le Général J. Paris: 1839.

JOMINI (translation):[4]

The Political and Military History of the Campaign of Waterloo. Translated from the French of General Baron de Jomini, by Capt. S. V. Benét, Ordnance Dept. U. S. Army. Second Edition. New York: D. Van Nostrand: 1862.

JONES:

The Battle of Waterloo, with those of Ligny and Quatre Bras, described by eye-witnesses, and by the series of official accounts published by authority. To which are added Memoirs of F. M. the Duke of Wellington, F. M. Prince Blücher, the Emperor Napoleon, etc., etc. Illustrated by Maps, Plans, and Views of the Field, and Thirty-four Etchings from Drawings. By George Jones, Esq., R. A. Eleventh Edition, enlarged and corrected. London: L. Booth: Duke Street. 1852.

KENNEDY:

Notes on the Battle of Waterloo. By the late General Sir James Shaw-Kennedy, K. C. B., acting at the time of the battle on the Quarter-Master-General’s Staff of the Third Division of the Army. London: John Murray: 1865.

LA TOUR D’AUVERGNE:

Waterloo: Étude de la Campagne de 1815. Par le Lieutenant-Colonel Prince Édouard de La Tour d’Auvergne. Avec Cartes et Plans. Paris: Henri Plon: 1870.

LEEKE:

The History of Lord Seaton’s Regiment (the 52d Light Infantry) at the Battle of Waterloo. By the Reverend William Leeke, M. A. 2 vols. London: Hatchard & Co. 1866.

LOBEN SELS:

See Van Loben Sels.

LOCKHART:

The History of Napoleon Buonaparte. By J. G. Lockhart. Third edition. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 1835.

The History of Napoleon Buonaparte. Reprinted from the Family Library. London: William Tegg. 1867.

MARÉCHAL DE GROUCHY EN 1815:

See Grouchy.

MAURICE: ARTICLES ON WATERLOO:

By Col. J. F. Maurice, R. A. From the United Service Magazine. Vol. 123. In the years 1890 and 1891.

MÉMOIRES (original):

Mémoires pour servir à l’Histoire de France en 1815, avec le plan de la bataille de Mont St. Jean. Paris: 1820.

MEMOIRS (translation):

Historical Memoirs of Napoleon. Book IX. 1815. Translated from the original Manuscript by B. E. O’Meara. London: Printed for Sir Richard Phillips & Co. 1820.

MERCER:

Journal of the Waterloo Campaign. Kept throughout the Campaign of 1815. By the late General Cavalié Mercer, commanding the 9th Brigade Royal Artillery. In 2 vols. Wm. Blackwood & Sons, Edinburgh & London. 1870.

MORRIS, O’CONNOR:

See O’Connor Morris.

MUDFORD:

An Historical Account of the Campaign in the Netherlands in 1815 under his Grace the Duke of Wellington and Marshal Prince Blücher. By William Mudford. Illustrated. London. 1817.

MÜFFLING: PASSAGES:

Passages from my Life; together with Memoirs of the Campaign of 1813 and 1814. By Baron von Müffling. Edited with notes by Col. Philip Yorke, F. R. S. Second Edition, revised. London: Richard Bentley, New Burlington Street. 1853.

Part II., beginning with page 197, contains an account of the Waterloo Campaign.

MÜFFLING: SKETCH:

A Sketch of the Battle of Waterloo, to which are added the Official Despatches of Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington, Field Marshal Prince Blücher, and Reflections on the Battles of Ligny and Waterloo. By General Müffling. With Craän’s Map of the Field. Sixth Edition. Waterloo. H. Gérard, Publisher. 1870.

MUQUARDT:

Précis de la Campagne de 1815 dans les Pays-Bas. Bruxelles. Libraire Militaire C. Muquardt: Merzbach and Falk, Éditeurs. 1887.

NAPIER:

Life of General Sir William Napier, K. C. B., Author of the “History of the Peninsular War.” Edited by H. O. Bruce, M. P. 2 vols. London: John Murray. 1864.

NAPOLEON:

See Correspondance.

„ Mémoires.

„ Memoirs.

NAPOLÉON À WATERLOO:

Souvenirs Militaires. Napoléon à Waterloo, ou Précis rectifié de la Campagne de 1815. Avec des Documents nouveaux et des Piéces inédites. Par un ancien officier de la Garde Impériale, qui est resté près de Napoléon pendant toute la campagne. Paris: J. Dumaine, 1866.

NIEMAN’S DIARY:

The Journal of Henri Nieman of the 6th Prussian Black Hussars. From the English Historical Magazine for July, 1888.

O’CONNOR MORRIS:

Great Commanders of Modern Times, and the Campaign of 1815. By William O’Connor Morris. London: W. H. Allen & Co.: 1891.

OLDFIELD:

Letters on the Battle of Waterloo. MSS. By John Oldfield, Captain and Brigade-Major, Royal Engineers.

OLLECH:

Geschichte des Feldzuges von 1815 nach archivalischen Quellen. Von Ollech, General der Infanterie. Berlin: 1876.

O’MEARA:

See Memoirs.

PAJOL:

Pajol, Général en Chef. Par le général de division Comte Pajol—son fils ainé. 3 vols. Paris. Firmin Didot Frères. 1874.

PASCALLET:

Notice Biographique sur M. le Maréchal Marquis de Grouchy, Pair de France, avec des Éclaircissements et des Détails historiques sur la Campagne de 1815 dans le midi de France, et sur la Bataille de Waterloo. Par M. E. Pascallet, Fondateur and Rédacteur en chef de la Revue Générale, Biographique, Politique and Littéraire. 2e Edition. Paris. 1842.

QUINET:

Histoire de la Campagne de 1815. Par Edgar Quinet. Paris: Michel Lévy Frères. 1862.

RELATION BELGE:

See Campagne de la Belgique.

ROGNIAT:

Réponse aux notes critiques de Napoléon sur l’ouvrage intitulé “Considérations sur l’Art de la Guerre.” Paris. 1823.

SIBORNE:

History of the War in France and Belgium in 1815. Containing minute Details of the Battles of Quatre Bras, Ligny, Wavre and Waterloo. By Capt. W. Siborne; Secretary and Adjutant of the Royal Military Asylum Constructor of the “Waterloo Model.” 2d Edition. 2 vols. London T. & W. Boone: 1844. With an Atlas of Maps and Plans.

STANHOPE:

Notes of Conversations with the Duke of Wellington. 1831-1851. By Philip Henry, 5th Earl Stanhope. New York, Longmans, Greene & Co. 1886.

ST. HILAIRE:

Histoire, anecdotique, politique et militaire, de la Garde Impériale. Par Émile Marco de Saint-Hilaire. Paris: Eugène Penaud. 1847.

SUPPLEMENTARY DESPATCHES:

The Supplementary Despatches, Correspondence and Memoranda of Field Marshal Arthur, Duke of Wellington, K. G. Edited by his son, the Duke of Wellington, K. G. Volume X. London: John Murray. 1863.

THIERS:

History of the Consulate and the Empire of France under Napoleon. By M. A. Thiers. Vol. XX. London: Willis and Sotheran. 1861.

TREUENFELD:

Die Tage von Ligny und Belle-Alliance. Von v. Treuenfeld, Premier-Lieutenant im 2 Hessischen Infanterie-Regiment No. 82. Mit 11 Karten. Hanover, 1880. Helwing’sche Verlags-Buchhandlung: Schlägerstrasse 20.

VANDAMME:

Le Général Vandamme et sa Correspondance. Par A. Du Casse. 2 Vols. Paris: Didier et Cie. 1870.

VAN LOBEN SELS:

Précis de la Campagne de 1815 dans les Pays-Bas. Par le major d’artillerie E. Van Löben Sels, aide-de-camp de S. A. R. le Prince Frédéric des Pays-Bas. Avec Plans. Traduit du Hollandais. La Haye: Chez les Heritiers Doorman: 1849.

VAUDONCOURT:

Histoire des Campagnes de 1814 et 1815 en France. Par le Général Guillaume de Vaudoncourt. Tome Quatrième. Paris. 1826.

VAULABELLE:

Campagne et Bataille de Waterloo. Par Achille de Vaulabelle. Bruxelles. 1853.

WATERLOO LETTERS:

Waterloo Letters. A selection from original and hitherto unpublished letters bearing on the operations of the 16th, 17th and 18th June, 1815, by officers who served in the campaign. Edited, with explanatory notes, by Major General H. T. Siborne, late Colonel R. E. Illustrated with numerous Maps and Plans. London: Cassell & Co. Limited. 1891.

WATERLOO ROLL CALL:

The Waterloo Roll Call. By Charles Dalton, F. R. G. S. London. Wm. Clowes & Sons, Limited. 13 Charing Cross, S. W. 1890.

WELLINGTON:

See Gurwood, and, also, Supplementary Despatches.

CHAPTER I.
THE PLAN OF CAMPAIGN.

Napoleon entered Paris on his return from Elba on the twentieth of March, 1815. His first endeavor, after quieting the not very formidable movements of the royalists in the south and west of France, was to open communications with the great powers. He proclaimed his policy to be strictly one of peace, and we have every reason to believe that his intentions were sincerely pacific. But his agents were turned back on the frontier. The nations of Europe refused to treat with him on any terms, and entered into an offensive and defensive alliance against him with the avowed purpose of driving him from the throne of France. The armies of the neighboring powers began immediately to concentrate on the border, and even Russia set her troops in motion for the general attack upon France and her Emperor.

To meet this formidable coalition Napoleon bent all his energies. The army had, since his first abdication, been reorganized, and many high commands had naturally been given to the chiefs of the royalist party. Much had to be done before the new arrangements, necessitated by the re-establishment of the Imperial government, could be effected.

These changes in the military organization of the country required time. Besides, Napoleon was not desirous to precipitate matters. He was naturally solicitous not to appear to commence an avoidable war. He was, moreover, much occupied with domestic politics, but of his dealings with the chambers and of his new constitution we do not propose to speak.

Besides increasing and reconstituting the army, work was begun on the fortifications of the principal cities.

By the first of June, no change having taken place in the relations of France with her neighbors, it became incumbent on the Emperor to decide what he would do.

The situation was, in brief, as follows: Two large armies, one composed of English, Dutch, Belgian and Hanoverian troops, with contingents from Brunswick and Nassau, the whole under command of the Duke of Wellington, the other composed of Prussians, Saxons, and other Germans under Marshal Blücher, lay scattered in their cantonments in Belgium to the north and east of the rivers Sambre and Meuse. On the eastern frontier, the Austrians were collecting a formidable force, and were expecting to be reinforced in July by a powerful Russian army. If Napoleon should maintain a strictly defensive attitude, France would again be the theatre of hostilities, as in the previous year. True, time would be gained by the delay, and time was most important for filling the ranks of the army, completing the fortifications, manufacturing ammunition, and generally putting the country into a state of defence. But when the invasion came, it would be made in overwhelming force. It was possible, certainly, to hope for the repetition of the exploits of 1814, for victories like Champ Aubert, Montmirail and Rheims; on the other hand, bloody and indecisive battles like those of Brienne, Laon, and Arcis-sur-Aube were to be expected with equal probability. The thing for Napoleon to do, if possible, was to reduce this tremendous disparity of numbers, and this could only be effected by beating his enemies in detail. If he could dispose of the armies of Wellington and Blücher now, he would have so much the better chance against the Austrians and the Russians. And Napoleon undoubtedly hoped that if fortune should favor him in 1815 as in 1805 and 1806, for instance,—if he should be able to repeat in Belgium the astonishing successes of Austerlitz and Jena,—he would not find it impossible to make peace with his father-in-law, the Emperor of Austria, and that Russia, whose interests in the war were remote and really theoretical, would willingly retire from the contest. When we add to this that Napoleon’s forte was the offensive, that his genius was specially adapted for enterprising and daring strategy, we are not surprised that he should have decided to move at once, with all his available force, upon the armies of Wellington and Blücher.[5]

These armies were, as has been stated, lying in their cantonments on and behind the Belgian frontier. (See Map 1.) Their front covered, roughly speaking, an extent of a hundred miles, from Namur and Huy on the east to Mons and Tournay on the west. They were distributed in numerous towns and villages, some of these being as far back as forty miles from the frontier. With the location of the various detachments Napoleon was undoubtedly, to a great extent, acquainted. He calculated that Wellington’s forces, which were scattered over a wide extent of country, could not be concentrated in less than two days; and that it would require more than one day for Blücher to assemble the four corps of which his army was composed.

The high-road, which runs from Charleroi north through Quatre Bras, Genappe and Waterloo to Brussels, ran between these armies,—that of the Duke of Wellington lying to the westward of the road and that of Marshal Blücher lying to the eastward of it. The Prussians lay considerably closer to the frontier than the English and Dutch. Wellington’s headquarters were at Brussels; Blücher’s at Namur. The turnpike, which runs from Namur through Quatre Bras to Nivelles, was the main avenue of communication between these two armies.

The Prussian lines of supply extended by way of Liége and Maestricht to the Rhine; the English by way of Ostend and Antwerp to the sea. The bases of the two armies were thus situated in opposite directions. It was, of course, probable that if either of these armies should be obliged to retreat, it would retreat towards its own base. But to retreat towards its own base would be to march away from its ally. On this peculiarity in the situation Napoleon’s plan of campaign was, to a great degree, founded. The situation was far more favorable for him than if the 220,000 men in Belgium had all belonged to one army, for now, not only were there two armies, under two commanders, in whose operations he might safely count upon the existence of more or less misunderstanding and failure fully to meet each other’s expectations, but the two armies were bound, in case of disaster to either or both, to follow lines of retreat which were wholly divergent.

We are now prepared to consider Napoleon’s plan. He proposed to assemble his own forces with all possible secrecy in the neighborhood of Charleroi,—near the point of junction of the two opposing armies. He expected that, on the first news of his approach, the two armies would respectively concentrate, and then endeavor to unite. He expected that the Prussians, being less scattered than the English, and being likely to know of the approach of the French before the English could possibly hear of it, would be the first to concentrate, and he expected therefore to encounter them alone and unsupported by their allies.

The statement of Napoleon’s plan of campaign in Gourgaud’s narrative is as follows:—[6]

“The Prussian army, having intimation of the enemy’s intentions eight or ten hours before the English, would accordingly be first concentrated. Hopes were even entertained of attacking the Prussians before their four corps were united, or of obliging them to fall back in the direction of Liége and the Rhine, which was their line of operations; and by thus separating them from the English, to create an opportunity for new combinations.

“In these calculations, the characters of the enemy’s commanders were much to be considered. The hussar habits of Marshal Blücher, his activity and decided character, formed a strong contrast with the cautious disposition, the deliberate and methodical manner of the Duke of Wellington. Thus, it was easy to foresee, that the Prussian army would be the first to be concentrated, and also that it would evince more decision and promptitude in hastening to the aid of its ally [than the English army would if the Prussians should be the first to be attacked]. If Blücher had only two battalions ready to act, he would be sure to employ them in support of the English army; but there was reason to believe that Wellington, unless his whole army was united, would not attack the French to succor Blücher. All these considerations rendered it desirable that the attack should be commenced against the Prussian army; it necessarily would, so we thought, be the first to be concentrated, and this turned out to be the fact.”

To the same effect the Emperor says in his “Memoirs”:—[7]

“The [Prussian] army was to assemble in rear of Fleurus. * * * In the night between the 14th and 15th, confidential messengers returned to the French headquarters at Beaumont, and announced that everything was tranquil at Namur, Brussels and Charleroi; this was a happy presage. To have thus succeeded in concealing from the enemy the movements which the French army had made for the last two days, was to have already obtained a great advantage. The Prussian army found itself obliged either to establish a point of concentration further back than Fleurus, or to receive battle in that position without being able to be assisted by the Anglo-Dutch army. * * * All the measures of Napoleon had therefore for their object to attack the Prussians first.”

In a word, Napoleon believed that the allied generals had fixed the points of concentration of their armies too near the frontier for that concentration to be effected in season to oppose to his army an overwhelming force; he thought it very likely also, for the reasons above stated, that he would have only the Prussian army to deal with in the first encounter of the campaign.

There were, to be sure, other courses open to him. He might direct his army upon the communications of the Prussians by passing to the eastward of them and turning their left flank. But this operation involved a wide détour over a difficult country, and in the battle which was certain to result, the Prussian and the English armies would, beyond a doubt, both be united against him. On the other hand he could turn Wellington’s right by moving viâ Lille, Valenciennes or Mons upon Ghent or Brussels. An advance in this direction presented, to be sure, fewer difficulties than the one just spoken of, and promised greater advantages. The Duke himself always maintained that this would have been Napoleon’s best move. It probably would have cut the English communications with Ostend, and would very likely have forced Wellington to evacuate Brussels without a battle, that is, unless he cared to risk an engagement without the aid of his ally. But the Prussians in the meantime would have concentrated without molestation their whole army of 120,000 men, and if Wellington had been successful in avoiding a battle with the French superior force, the two allied generals ought to have been able either to manœuvre Napoleon out of Belgium or to force him to battle on disadvantageous terms. It is probable that in neither of these flanking movements would there be an opportunity afforded for a direct, immediate, crushing blow upon one of the allied armies, such as that which Napoleon thought it very possible that the temerity of Marshal Blücher was going to present to him, if he advanced by way of Charleroi.

We have seen that Napoleon seems to have thought it very likely that Blücher would fight, but, of course, Napoleon could but conjecture what Blücher would do; he could not certainly know that he would not now, as he had done in Germany in 1813, avoid a direct conflict with him, and retire on his base of operations. If Blücher should do this, the two armies, it is true, would be separated and could be dealt with accordingly; but the difficulties of the campaign would be vastly greater than if the Prussian army should be practically disposed of by a decisive victory at the outset. For if the Prussians should fall back without hazarding a battle, they would have to be pursued, certainly far enough to ascertain their real intentions, and to become assured that they were, for the time being at least, definitely separated from the army of Wellington. If this should appear to be the case the question would then arise, which of the two armies should be followed up; and in considering this question, the importance of the occupation of Brussels, at that time the capital of the Netherlands, would naturally influence Napoleon in favor of throwing the bulk of his forces against the Anglo-Dutch. Napoleon, however, as we have already said, seems to have thought it on the whole probable, knowing, as he did, the daring and resolute character of the man, that Blücher would fight, with or without the assistance of the English army, and he also thought that the situation of the English army was such that Blücher would not be likely to get much assistance from it. Napoleon, therefore, hoped to open the campaign with a signal victory, crippling, perhaps destroying, the Prussian army, and he knew that the result of such a victory must be the retreat of the beaten Prussians in a direction certain to separate them entirely and definitely from their English and Dutch allies. The French Emperor would then be free to carry the great bulk of his forces against the English and Dutch. If Wellington stood, he expected to beat him; if he retreated, he would leave Belgium and perhaps Holland at the disposal of the French.

Such, in brief, were Napoleon’s calculations and expectations.

NOTE TO CHAPTER I.

The view given above of Napoleon’s plan has been by no means universally accepted. It is often stated that he intended to separate the two armies and attack them in detail, but if this expression is to be understood as meaning that the former operation was to precede the latter in point of time, it is not in our judgment a correct statement. There never was, we believe, any expectation on Napoleon’s part that he could, by throwing his army between those of Wellington and Blücher, or by merely occupying strategic points, separate the allied armies definitely from one another. What he did expect, was, as we have seen,[8] to encounter one of these armies, that commanded by Marshal Blücher, alone and unsupported by its ally. If it should decline an engagement, or should fight and be beaten, he calculated on its retiring towards its own base of operations, and so separating itself by every march taken in that direction from its ally.

But several writers on the campaign present us with quite other ideas of Napoleon’s intended operations. And as it is obviously of the first importance that we should start with a correct idea of Napoleon’s plan, if we would follow the events of the campaign intelligently, we will examine these other theories somewhat in detail.

Take first the view that Napoleon’s intention was to throw his army between those of Wellington and Blücher. This is Alison’s view. We cite him, not because his name carries any weight as a military authority, but because his error has been so clearly pointed out by no less a person than the Duke of Wellington, in a criticism[9] of Alison’s History of Europe written by the Earl of Ellesmere, who wrote, as is well known, under the Duke’s inspiration. In the following passage a quotation is made from the work of the famous German military critic, Clausewitz:—

“Mr. Alison (Hist. of Europe,[10] etc., vol. x, p. 991) speaks of ‘Buonaparte’s favorite military manœuvre of interposing between his adversaries, and striking with a superior force first on the right hand and then on the left,’ as having been attempted by him and baffled in this campaign. We doubt whether the expression of interposing between two adversaries can be correctly applied to any of Buonaparte’s successful campaigns, and we almost suspect that, if he had in contemplation a manœuvre of so much hazard on this occasion, it was the first on which he can be said to have attempted it. Hear Clausewitz on this matter:—

“All writers who have treated of this campaign set out by saying that Buonaparte threw himself between the two armies, in order to separate them. This expression, however, which has become a terminus technicus in military phraseology, has no clear idea for its foundation. The space intervening between two armies cannot be an object of operation.[11] It would have been very unfortunate if a commander like Buonaparte, having to deal with an enemy of twice his force, instead of falling on the one half with his united strength, had lighted on the empty interval, and thus made a blow in the air, losing his time, whilst he can only double his own force by the strictest economy of that commodity.

Even the fighting the one army in a direction by which it will be pressed away from the other, even if it can be effected without loss of time, incurs the great danger of being attacked in the rear by the other. If the latter, therefore, be not far enough removed to put this risk out of the question, a commander will scarcely venture on such a line of attack. Buonaparte, therefore, chose the direction between the two armies, not in order to separate them by wedging himself between,[12] but because he expected to find and fall on Blücher’s force in this direction, either united or in separate bodies [corps].” Feldzug von 1815, &c., p. 54:[13]

* * * * * * * *

His main object was evidently to find the Prussian army, and beat it.”

Nevertheless we find Hooper,[14] who wrote long after Clausewitz, making the very statement which Clausewitz thought so objectionable:—

“He (Napoleon) calculated that if he struck at the centre of the two armies he should be able to wedge himself in between them, crushing any divisions which attempted to obstruct his progress, and, having won a position of vantage, he imagined that it would be in his power to manœuvre with rapidity from side to side and defeat each army in succession.”

To the same effect writes Quinet:—

“He (Napoleon) will place himself between the two armies, at the centre of the line, that is to say, at the extreme right of the Prussian cantonments. By this move, the Duke of Wellington and Marshal Blücher will be separated from the first hour. The occasion, the moment, will decide on which of the two armies it will be best to strike the first blow.”[15]

It is unnecessary to repeat what has been so well said above in opposition to this view. It is plain that these writers have misconceived Napoleon’s plan. But we must consider this more fully.

This conception of the campaign is practically identical with the theory first put forth by Rogniat in his “Considérations de l’Art de la Guerre,” and repeated in his “Réponse aux Notes critiques de Napoléon,” in the form of a criticism of Napoleon’s operations. He maintains that Napoleon should have aimed first at seizing the two points of Quatre Bras and Sombreffe on the Nivelles-Namur road, over which the allied armies communicated with each other.

“If, instead of six leagues, he had made eight or nine (and he had time enough, inasmuch as the Sambre was crossed at two o’clock), in pushing his left to Frasnes and his advance-guard to Quatre Bras, the centre and right to Sombreffe, with the reserves at Fleurus, he would have obtained the precious advantage he ought to have aimed at, that of separating the two opposing armies, of retarding the union of their corps, of taking a central position and of attacking them one at a time. In fact, Quatre Bras and Sombreffe are on the high-road from Namur to Brussels; master of these points, he could then have opposed the junction of the English on one side, of the Prussians on the other.”[16]

This view has also received the endorsement of Jomini,[17] who evidently thinks that Napoleon must have entertained it.

“Napoleon perceived that their (the Prussian) army sought to assemble between Namur and the causeway leading from Charleroi to Brussels, as it was by this route that the English would come to their assistance: now, under this supposition, the Emperor had but one wise course to follow; the most simple glance at the map would sufficiently indicate that it was essential to seize upon Sombreffe on the one side, and the central point of Quatre Bras on the other. * * * Because, once master of these two points, he was in position to act at will on either of the opposing armies, and prevent their junction.”

To the same effect is the sketch of Napoleon’s plan put forth by his advocate, the Prince de la Tour d’Auvergne in his “Waterloo”: