What if Marshal Bessières had supported Masséna properly in the battle? Would they (Wellington's army) have been overwhelmed and forced to retreat? Open question. Feel free to leave your thoughts below.
It shows up all the time, even in earlier campaigns, miserable failures resulted when much better results could be achieved it they had supported each other - but when the master is absent or fails to establish a clear cut hierarchy - a receipt for failure.
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'supported Masséna properly' - what are you envisaging Bessières doing over and above what he actually did? Sending/bringing more troops? Giving Masséna full control of the troops that he actually did bring? Something else?
@Daniel Ross No worries - just wanted to be clear what the parameters were.
I guess in that case it might have been as simple as Masséna being able to give Bessières, as his loyal subordinate, full oversight of the flanking attack on the 5th. Off the top of my head, that would seem to be the point that Wellington was in the most danger and so better coordination of engaged French forces under an experienced commander, and the commitment of all the Armée du Nord cavalry, might have been enough to swing things in the French favour and roll up the allied left.
Then again, though, if we are hypothesising a world where members of the marshalate are willing to subordinate themselves to each other for the common good, the Peninsular War might not have lasted until 1811 anyway!
@Andrew Bamford Good points all round. When it comes to military misfortune, it's up to the General whose met it to deal with it and the opposing general to take advantage of it (if they can and know of said misfortune). It just so happens that Masséna was met with a Marshal's reluctance and couldn't deal with it. Masséna also didn't take advantage enough of the 7th Division's situation with what he had, allowing Wellington to create a new defensive line. Anyway thanks for the contribution.
Rivalry between Generals has always been a factor of military operations as it can be in any business or organisation.
However, it’s almost as if Napoleon’s Marshallate was designed to divide and conquer. There might be something in it, as 1814 showed. Expecting Marshals to collaborate effectively without the presence of Napoleon
It shows up all the time, even in earlier campaigns, miserable failures resulted when much better results could be achieved it they had supported each other - but when the master is absent or fails to establish a clear cut hierarchy - a receipt for failure.
I guess it depends on what you mean by 'supported Masséna properly' - what are you envisaging Bessières doing over and above what he actually did? Sending/bringing more troops? Giving Masséna full control of the troops that he actually did bring? Something else?