Martin Scicluna’s comments on the bicentenary of Waterloo evoked the perennial query among followers of the Napoleonic saga as to who was responsible for the debacle.
Scholars usually attribute the rout basically to three individuals, all of them marshals: Nicolas Soult, Michel Ney and Emmanuel Grouchy. Military historians consider that Soult was a complete misfit as chief of staff – no comparison at all with Berthier, the legendary ambulatory military computer who could tell the exact position of a particular corps at any particular time!
Soult is reputed to have sent his instructions to divisional commanders solely via General de Gourmont, who, to his eternal shame, not only chose to singularly desert to the Prussians precisely at the most crucial moment but was the one and only witness for the prosecution against Ney during the latter’s infamous trial.
Be that as it may, Bonaparte’s own unpardonable blunder was in leaving Davout (second only to Napoleon himself in his military brilliance), idly holding the fort back in Paris.
Ney, unstable after his heroic experiences at Moscow and at the crossing of the Beresina during the Great Retreat of 1812/13, was responsible for countermanding Bonaparte’s summons to d’Erlon’s reserve corps from Quatre Bras; acceding to this summons could well have been decisive. Scholars speculate on the possibility that if d’Erlon’s 20,000 troops were released by Ney and joined Napoleon in his hammering Blucher at Ligny, the result could have been completely different.
It is said that Grouchy, no comparison with the dashing Murat, completely mistook the situation and chased, without making contact with, the Prussians who, eventually after Ligny, joined Wellington for the final reckoning.
Should d’Erlon’s fresh corps have joined Bonaparte at Ligny, Grouchy’s 30,000 cavalry would have remained under Bonaparte’s direct controlling hand: Blucher would have been overwhelmed and contact with Wellington seriously prejudiced if not rendered impossible.
On reflection, I consider it unlikely that Enoch Powell’s “Rivers of Blood” speech in Birmingham sometime in the 1950s or 1960s – however interpreted – will ever be forgotten. Neither will be easily overlooked George W. Bush’s and Tony Blair’s controversial involvement in the Iraqi weapon’s of mass destruction tale. But Napoleon, for all his supremely unique achievements, in his bloody undertakings must surely outdo them all.
What a great pity.