I don't know if history ever made a definitive determination about the first question. My interpretation of the events is that the 2 wings came about by circumstance. On the 15th, when the French crossed the boarder, there was only 1 army, not seperate wings. It was not till after the battles at Quatra Bras and Ligny that he split his command. I do not believe his health really had anything to do with it. QB and Ligny were too far apart for him to command both battles, and he knew it, so gave local command to Ney at QB. Again, when the Prussians retreated, they were too far from the Anglo-Allied forces for Napoleon to command both the attack on Wellington, and the pursuit of Blucher, so gave command to Grouchy to harrass the Prussians while he faced Wellington. Yes, he may have been lethargic on the 16th, and possibly that may have been influenced by poor health, and which also may very well have effected the use (or lack of use) of I and VI Corps, but the decision to split his army was Post Ligny, based on what he wanted to do given the circumstances at the time.
As for it being a good inovation or not, I'll say the decision was good, it was just poorly executed. Had I Corps been given to Ney, it most likely would have changed the outcome at QB. If Grouchy had "marched to the sound of the guns", Waterloo may very well have had a different outcome. Yes, he split his army, but it still fit his Central Position preference, it was only the execution that failed.
There are several other facets to this overall issue, such as choice of wing commanders, locations of armys relative to each other, aggressiveness of pursuit, utilization of assets, but they go outside the questions originally posed.
Cadet William Davis
Royal Military Academy
|