Book tip: How the French won Waterloo (or think they did)

Lol is this satire?

Right.

If we're actually talking about historical circumstances:

1. IIRC, I believe that Marshal Grouchy was supposed to either intercept the Prussians and prevent them from linking up with the international forces OR destroy the remnants of Blücher's army.
His failure to completely carry out either objective allowed for the largely intact Prussians to join hands with the international forces at Waterloo.

2. Supposedly, Grouchy was able to identify an ongoing engagement at Waterloo, but he did not join the battle directly, and continued the pursuit of his Prussian targets. This was influenced by Napoleon and Soult's orders to pursue the Prussians.
This would lead him to engage the Prussians at Wavre which would successfully block Grouchy from assisting Napoleon at Waterloo in time.

3. The international forces led by Wellesley held numerous advantages. He chose a good defensive position and he maneuvered his troops to a position which was close enough for Prussia to arrive at quickly.
I believe that Wellesley's defensive tactics had also enhanced his forces' ability to hold the ground against strong French assaults.

4. Both Wellesley and Blücher likely had some intention to link up both Coalition armies and check Napoleon with numbers. This possible strategy would have guided both commanders to try to coordinate with each other's movements and the eventual link up at Waterloo.
Despite fierce French attempts to disrupt the combining of both armies, eventually, the two did join forces.
Blücher had also left a force at Wavre to either block the French should they come in force or move to support Wellesley if no opposition reared its head. This led to a stalling battle which prevented Grouchy from assisting in at Waterloo.

5. French tactical mistakes weakened the French ability to win and enhanced the Coalition's hand.
Ney's solo cav charges would be extremely costly and he threw somewhat exhausted troops against a readied enemy in enemy territory. This was influenced by a possible mistaken belief that the enemy was retreating when in fact, it was the evacuation of wounded troops.
This would bleed the French army, especially the cav.
Additionally, Napoleon had decided to avoid committing the Old Guards to exploit Ney's breakthrough on the during the battle.
This might have prevented Ney from collapsing and rolling back Wellesley's Coalition forces.

6. A decisive battle similar to Waterloo was inevitable. The major Coalition states were mobilising numerous armies.
IIRC, Beresford was marshalling the assembly of Spanish and Portuguese troops.
Austrian troops were marching to join the war.
Murat's forces were decisively defeated in the Neapolitan War before Napoleon's defeat at Waterloo.
Sooner or later, a decisive battle would have been fought. Undeniably, the alternative fictional battles would be less controversial than Waterloo. This is so since they were likely theoretical French failures in defending rather than an actual failed French offensive against a supposedly inferior foe.

“Bonaparte and the authors who support him have always attempted to portray the great catastrophes that befell him as the result of chance. They seek to make their readers believe that through his great wisdom and extraordinary energy the whole project had already moved forward with the greatest confidence, that complete success was but a hair's breadth away, when treachery, accident, or even fate, as they sometimes call it, ruined everything. He and his supporters do not want to admit that huge mistakes, sheer recklessness, and, above all, overreaching ambition that exceeded all realistic possibilities, were the true causes.“

— Carl von Clausewitz.

Not yet. Is it from the book? I’m interested in history but anything but an expert for the Napoleonic era. After I’ve read about the pretty good job of the bonapartic propagandists I just digged a bit deeper and found this quote. As a non-native anglophone it was easier to just copy it.