A-Players, A-Team: Napoleon Failed
Check other articles in the series...By Dominique Trempont, Guest Author
In 1815, Napoleon began building up his army in preparation for an invasion of Belgium.
His goal was to capture Brussels. He wanted to divide the British, Prussian, Belgian and Dutch armies before defeating them separately, forcing Wellington’s army to retreat back to the Belgian coast in the west and the Prussians, headed by Blücher, to retreat to the east. He was ready to attack on June 15, 1815.
Three days later, against all odds, Napoleon lost the battle of Waterloo.
The battle was a close call but mistakes in leadership, communication and judgment led, ultimately, to the Allies’ victory.
Napoleon’s choice of leaders was poor.
Grouchy was a good General but not a Marshal. He was not showing initiative and maneuvered slowly against the Prussians, giving them time to outmaneuver him. Ney also proved a weak leader: he lead his cavalry into battle, without waiting for his infantry and artillery.
The rain soaked the grounds. Napoleon decided to postpone the main attack until 1pm to get a more solid ground. The French muskets became damp and useless. He lost a precious time and place advantage. The Prussians were far from the battlefield: the delay gave them time to catch up.
Communication became a problem too and compounded the other issues. The fastest way to communicate was by sending messages with horse riders. That choice proved to be fatal as time was critical and riders could be captured. Ney failed to capture Quatre-Bras because he delayed the attack and was waiting for instructions. d’Erlon’s corps missed the action at Quatre-Bras and Ligny because of a confusion of orders. Napoleon did not have any system in place to ensure that the orders had been received.
Ultimately, the Emperor lost the battle because he did not have the right players, acting as one team focused on victory.
Each of his French generals was doing his thing, defining and measuring his success, with no clue how it fit in the overall scheme. It was full of arrogant assumptions, miscalculations and over-confidence.
It was a dysfunctional team. The Generals were obedient but not passionate about overall victory. They did not discuss and argue before settling on a common set of tactics: they left it to Napoleon. They did not call out their peers’ deficiencies. They did not communicate effectively between themselves. They did not make trade-off decisions to make sure that the team wins. They did not necessarily trust that their peers would deliver their part. They were isolated from bad news. The real issues were not brought up. They were quick to seek credit for their own successes and slow to point out to those of others.
In contrast, the Allies were not stronger but were tightly coordinated: they argued a lot but their deliverables were extremely simple and executed in time. Every single decision, attack, retreat and movement of troops was focused on one thing: victory. They agreed on the drivers of success and devised together the warplan. There was a genuine sense of collective purpose. They knew that if they lost the war, each of them will be marked with the defeat. They put their Allied Force ahead of their national armies and accepted sacrifices so the Allies could win.They made sure they had the right resources in the right places at the right time, even if it meant to put Prussians and English troops in the same corp. They held each other accountable.
Napoleon did not learn that lesson. He and his generals did it again in Russia. When he decided to attack Russia, Russian generals simply retrenched, waiting for the winter to become very harsh. Napoleon easily took Moscow, declared victory and partied, overlooking the overall goal.
When the very cold winter hit, the French troops were not equipped to deal with it and Napoleon tried to retrench quickly. He lost 95% of his army in short order and the Russians simply walked back home.
In these two important battles, Napoleon was his own worst enemy as a leader and he managed a dysfunctional team: he lead B and C players who did not act or function with the rules of a winning team. And they were not humble enough to see their weaknesses, and fix them. Ego and arrogance were first. What it took to achieve actionable results and win came in second place, way behind.
This segment is part 2 in a 2 part series
Jump to part: A-Teams, Napoleon Failed
interesting take but it all seems obvious with 20/20 hindsight.
Napoleon was a fantastic organizer and strategist especially in his early days. How else could he have become Emperor of France.
Yes, he did eventually become arrogant (and lazy); more than once using just the brute force of his army. The curse of success.
Also, the implied time line is wrong: Napoleon’s invasion of Russia was in 1812; Waterloo in 1815.
Napoleon’s failure in Russia does demonstrate a failure to adapt: war in Russia is a different game to one in Europe.
Nevertheless, the scorched earth strategies of the Russians did cripple them. And he probably did not expect the Russians to sacrifice so much.
Anyway, I understand the author’s intention to study Napoleon’s failures but I think it is presented in a rather condescending way.
Napoleon can teach us both success and failure. A truly wonderful character in history.
Informative read anyhow.
Napolean didn’t apply lessons learned at Waterloo elsewhere because he was exiled to St. Helena where he died.
The Russian disaster was years earlier.