Who Really beat Napoleon
Moderator: Moderators
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 9:04 am
- Contact:
Who Really beat Napoleon
Just a throw in to see if anyone is listening
Did anyone read Barry Van Danzigs article in Feb Military Illustrated
It puts a very good argument against Peter Hofschroers "Prussia won everything" views and suggests the case very well that the future of a military dominated Germany was a result of blunders made by (and I quote) the Blucher Menace.
Comments welcome
Tiny
Did anyone read Barry Van Danzigs article in Feb Military Illustrated
It puts a very good argument against Peter Hofschroers "Prussia won everything" views and suggests the case very well that the future of a military dominated Germany was a result of blunders made by (and I quote) the Blucher Menace.
Comments welcome
Tiny
- steve stanley
- Post Knight
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Leicester
Quick thought...If Wellington had not stood at Waterloo,The Prussians would have continued retreating after Ligny....may be debates on who "won" Waterloo,but it was down to Wellington that there was a battle there....Actually,I don't think any of the armies had a good day....more a case of cock-ups cancelling each other out.
Steve
Steve
"Give me a tent and a kettle
Snowshoes and axe and gun
Send me up in Grand River
Steering by star and sun".
- Labrador Trapper's Song
Snowshoes and axe and gun
Send me up in Grand River
Steering by star and sun".
- Labrador Trapper's Song
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 9:04 am
- Contact:
Totally agree
as was shown at Waterloo and many other conflicts including the falklands its not the fact that mistakes are made that decides the outcome but exploiting the other fellows c##k ups
But do you agree that Waterloo decided Napoleons fate or did he only abdicate due to continued pressure by Blucher, attacking various strongpoints in France while the English/Allies rested
as was shown at Waterloo and many other conflicts including the falklands its not the fact that mistakes are made that decides the outcome but exploiting the other fellows c##k ups
But do you agree that Waterloo decided Napoleons fate or did he only abdicate due to continued pressure by Blucher, attacking various strongpoints in France while the English/Allies rested
- steve stanley
- Post Knight
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Leicester
- El Frog
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:09 pm
- Location: Oxfordshire (probably inside a cardboard box)
It is my belief that Napoleon was beaten at Waterloo, and - despite still having a large number of troops - had an army whose moral was totally destroyed. After all, the "unbeatable" Guard had been given a total kicking by the British they marched against...
Therefore, I suggest that Wellington (a fellow Irishman
) beat Napoleon. To be sure: I am not dismissing Blucher as that would be an unfair and untrue opinion, but rather that the damage was already done before Blucher arrived; I do not believe that the French could recover from such a beating.
Therefore, I suggest that Wellington (a fellow Irishman

AAAAAAIIIIIIEEEEEEE!!! The giant squid - she no longer respond to mind control!!!
The threat of the Prussians appearing tied downa alarge amount of the Young Guard which if they had been free to deploy could ahve been sued as a follow up to DErLONS ALMOST successful assault.
But if Blucher had not driven them on the Prussians would probabaly nto ahve appeared
But if Blucher had not driven them on the Prussians would probabaly nto ahve appeared
There’s a country in Europe where they treat their ex soldiers with pride no waits for medical treatment after injuries received during service, no amensia from the government. Cant for the life of me recall where it is but I know exactly where it is not.
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 9:04 am
- Contact:
Totally agree with el frog
But the argument was put in the article that Wellington was encouraging inactivity so that Napoleon did not have the excuse to take up the reins again, which resulted in his political removal and Blucher nearly wrecked this happening.
Remember the Allies declared war on Boney not France the entire campaign was designed to remove him not conquer France.
But the argument was put in the article that Wellington was encouraging inactivity so that Napoleon did not have the excuse to take up the reins again, which resulted in his political removal and Blucher nearly wrecked this happening.
Remember the Allies declared war on Boney not France the entire campaign was designed to remove him not conquer France.
- steve stanley
- Post Knight
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Leicester
Does that work time-wise?...Without checking books,I think the YG deployment to Placenoit came later...If Nappy had wanted them to follow up D'Erlon,at that point he could have done so...I believe the VI corps were initially deployed from the reserve to face a possible Prussian threat & only reinforced when Bulow's IV corps actually attacked.Nigel wrote:The threat of the Prussians appearing tied downa alarge amount of the Young Guard which if they had been free to deploy could ahve been sued as a follow up to DErLONS ALMOST successful assault.
But if Blucher had not driven them on the Prussians would probabaly nto ahve appeared
Steve
"Give me a tent and a kettle
Snowshoes and axe and gun
Send me up in Grand River
Steering by star and sun".
- Labrador Trapper's Song
Snowshoes and axe and gun
Send me up in Grand River
Steering by star and sun".
- Labrador Trapper's Song
- El Frog
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:09 pm
- Location: Oxfordshire (probably inside a cardboard box)
You could also say that Napoleon beat himself then. He didn't have to fight at Waterloo, and if he felt he did have to, he could have waited longer for the ground to dry completely.Eggles wrote:Who beat Napolean?
A large chunk of my vote goes to the weather....
AAAAAAIIIIIIEEEEEEE!!! The giant squid - she no longer respond to mind control!!!
- El Frog
- Posts: 29
- Joined: Tue Jan 29, 2008 5:09 pm
- Location: Oxfordshire (probably inside a cardboard box)
He would if he knew what was good for him!m300572 wrote:Being born in a stable does not necessarily make one a horse - to paraphrase Wellington! I don't think he would have thanked you for the comment!Wellington (a fellow Irishman )

AAAAAAIIIIIIEEEEEEE!!! The giant squid - she no longer respond to mind control!!!
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 9:04 am
- Contact:
Gneisanau
Gneisanau
I say again
Gneisanau?
If he had it together rather than mis trusting everything English he might have allowed the fore-most parts of the Prussian army to assist earlier in the battle (Waterloo that is, not the side show) rather than using those furthest away.
If dear ol' Blucher had stayed under his horse Gneisanau would have been back in Berlin before the French had fired the first shot of the day at the brave Cornishmen of the 32nd.
OK I am willing to concede there might have been some other regiments there as well
Gneisanau
I say again
Gneisanau?
If he had it together rather than mis trusting everything English he might have allowed the fore-most parts of the Prussian army to assist earlier in the battle (Waterloo that is, not the side show) rather than using those furthest away.
If dear ol' Blucher had stayed under his horse Gneisanau would have been back in Berlin before the French had fired the first shot of the day at the brave Cornishmen of the 32nd.
OK I am willing to concede there might have been some other regiments there as well
- steve stanley
- Post Knight
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2005 6:07 pm
- Location: Leicester
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 9:04 am
- Contact:
Wurzul
I think everyone got to QB late that was the problem, pity I rather like Humbugs myself
The 32nd and the 79th met Gingers massed infantry attack with standard echelon extended line attack, honed to perfection in the clotted cream wars of 04, once again demonstrating the Cornish line beating the French column.
Tiny
I think everyone got to QB late that was the problem, pity I rather like Humbugs myself
The 32nd and the 79th met Gingers massed infantry attack with standard echelon extended line attack, honed to perfection in the clotted cream wars of 04, once again demonstrating the Cornish line beating the French column.
Tiny
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 9:04 am
- Contact:
-
- Posts: 6
- Joined: Sun Mar 02, 2008 1:52 pm
Are we debating who beat Napoleon, or who won Waterloo here?
I have to say, that even if Old Trousers hadn't been defeated at Waterloo, he still would have had some major difficulties in getting back any sort of power, or raising the sort of armies that he previously had.
Might I also point out the thorough thrashing that his armies recieved constantly in Portugal and Spain and France and... in fact, on every single battlefield where French troops encountered Wellington.
Waterloo was by no means Wellington's finest victory, and I don't think that a French victory there would have proved as crushing a defeat to the Allies as it did to the French.
I have to say, that even if Old Trousers hadn't been defeated at Waterloo, he still would have had some major difficulties in getting back any sort of power, or raising the sort of armies that he previously had.
Might I also point out the thorough thrashing that his armies recieved constantly in Portugal and Spain and France and... in fact, on every single battlefield where French troops encountered Wellington.
Waterloo was by no means Wellington's finest victory, and I don't think that a French victory there would have proved as crushing a defeat to the Allies as it did to the French.
-
- Posts: 17
- Joined: Sun Jan 13, 2008 6:15 pm
- Location: Tottenham, London
Nutcracker wrote:Who beat Napoleon?
The men in the ranks with their muskets and rifles
Josh
Absolutely, whether they were British redcoat, KGL, Nassau, Brunswicker or even Dutch-Belgian.
To be fair, we also need to credit the donkey-wallopers. The Household/Union Brigade charge left both units out of action for the rest of the day - but crucially they did the same for most of D'Erlon's I Corps.
On a different tack, even if Boney's swing door plan had worked and Boney marched into Brussels at the head of the Guard on the evening of the 18th, he would still ultimately have lost the campaign.
The reason? He would still have had 150,000 Austrians and a similar number of Russians to deal with.
"I hold it to be of great prudence for men to abstain from threats and
insulting words towards any one, for neither the one nor the other in any
way diminishes the strength of the enemy." Niccolo Machiavelli
insulting words towards any one, for neither the one nor the other in any
way diminishes the strength of the enemy." Niccolo Machiavelli
- StaffordCleggy
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:25 pm
- Location: Rochdale
Let's not forget that - whilst the British heavy cavalry destroyed themselves in their insane "Onwards to Paris" charge after ripping apart an entire French Divisional attack - Bonaparte must bear some of the blame for sending said French attack forward without adequate, nay ANY, form of cavalry support ( am i correct in this?).
Having this conversation 'in another place' & this crippling blow to the French infantry was derided as "Pah, the British just got a free kill".
That maybe, but it was (IMO) the startling blunder of Bonaparte that allowed that "free kill".
The more i look into the perceptions of Britain's role in the Peninsular/Napoleonic Wars, the more i run into some form of naked Anti-British revisionism. I am quite happy to accept this from French & German historians as it is perfectly understandable that they have a vested interest in explaining the actions of their Countrymen, but i have a greater difficulty when it comes from people who (for whatever reason) simply have an axe to grind with the Brits.
As Jim knows, i'm currently in a conversation/argument with an Australian who adamantly maintains that British soldiers were inferior in every way to those of the French, pointing out examples of troops breaking & not being able to stand. However, he seems to ignore the same evidence when presented against the French. If the Old Guard were the best that Bonaparte had available, then does the fact of their inability to stand against the British Foot Guards show that French troops were inferior?
Not too my mind, but then again i am not trying to find evidence to support my already-decided-upon position.
Having this conversation 'in another place' & this crippling blow to the French infantry was derided as "Pah, the British just got a free kill".
That maybe, but it was (IMO) the startling blunder of Bonaparte that allowed that "free kill".
The more i look into the perceptions of Britain's role in the Peninsular/Napoleonic Wars, the more i run into some form of naked Anti-British revisionism. I am quite happy to accept this from French & German historians as it is perfectly understandable that they have a vested interest in explaining the actions of their Countrymen, but i have a greater difficulty when it comes from people who (for whatever reason) simply have an axe to grind with the Brits.
As Jim knows, i'm currently in a conversation/argument with an Australian who adamantly maintains that British soldiers were inferior in every way to those of the French, pointing out examples of troops breaking & not being able to stand. However, he seems to ignore the same evidence when presented against the French. If the Old Guard were the best that Bonaparte had available, then does the fact of their inability to stand against the British Foot Guards show that French troops were inferior?
Not too my mind, but then again i am not trying to find evidence to support my already-decided-upon position.
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
- Anne Lamott
- Anne Lamott
pedant hat on
Cleggy the Guards sent up the hill were middle not old
Cleggy the Guards sent up the hill were middle not old
There’s a country in Europe where they treat their ex soldiers with pride no waits for medical treatment after injuries received during service, no amensia from the government. Cant for the life of me recall where it is but I know exactly where it is not.
- StaffordCleggy
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:25 pm
- Location: Rochdale
no worries
The Old gaurd were amazingly ill equipped and its cooler ot beat the old rather than the middle
A Prussian alancer unit atacked what they took to be a conscript unit which turned out to be an Old Gaurd grenadier Battalion
The Old gaurd were amazingly ill equipped and its cooler ot beat the old rather than the middle
A Prussian alancer unit atacked what they took to be a conscript unit which turned out to be an Old Gaurd grenadier Battalion
There’s a country in Europe where they treat their ex soldiers with pride no waits for medical treatment after injuries received during service, no amensia from the government. Cant for the life of me recall where it is but I know exactly where it is not.
- StaffordCleggy
- Posts: 121
- Joined: Fri Feb 10, 2006 7:25 pm
- Location: Rochdale
That is something else we are arguing about.
I maintain that (from what i have read) the French Army was degrading thoughout the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Era to the point that Bonaprte was reported to have said of one of his Generals at Waterloo that he could only manoevre his troops in column & in no other formation. The inference being of course that the column is the easiest way to move troops - especially raw conscripted troops - across country.
My oppo argues that not only is a column better suited thus (no argument there) but that it is also much safer for its inhabitees than a line attack is from artillery fire. He claims that a column is a much smaller target than a double line because well sighted guns can blow down the length of the line.
Of course, this presupposes that the attacking infantry will obligingly advance at right angles t your artillery.....
I maintain that (from what i have read) the French Army was degrading thoughout the Revolutionary/Napoleonic Era to the point that Bonaprte was reported to have said of one of his Generals at Waterloo that he could only manoevre his troops in column & in no other formation. The inference being of course that the column is the easiest way to move troops - especially raw conscripted troops - across country.
My oppo argues that not only is a column better suited thus (no argument there) but that it is also much safer for its inhabitees than a line attack is from artillery fire. He claims that a column is a much smaller target than a double line because well sighted guns can blow down the length of the line.
Of course, this presupposes that the attacking infantry will obligingly advance at right angles t your artillery.....
"You can safely assume that you've created God in your own image when it turns out that God hates all the same people you do."
- Anne Lamott
- Anne Lamott
-
- Posts: 61
- Joined: Tue May 29, 2007 9:04 am
- Contact:
Exactly Cleggy you have perfectly countered his argument
The artillery must be to the side of a line to sweep through as suggested
whereas a column being densly packed each hit will count and count again
The English/Cornish line of two or three deep would result in six to eight casualties per artillery hit, less than the continental line of four deep, and the regimental square would be almost as lethal for the occupants as the column.
The battering ram effect of a column was a battle winner prior to the frenchies meeting the 32nd Cornish Regiment (and a few others)
But my original question was about after Waterloo but maybe I didn't ask it in the right way, and the debate is interesting, as is yours on the other page about other countries perception of history
The artillery must be to the side of a line to sweep through as suggested
whereas a column being densly packed each hit will count and count again
The English/Cornish line of two or three deep would result in six to eight casualties per artillery hit, less than the continental line of four deep, and the regimental square would be almost as lethal for the occupants as the column.
The battering ram effect of a column was a battle winner prior to the frenchies meeting the 32nd Cornish Regiment (and a few others)
But my original question was about after Waterloo but maybe I didn't ask it in the right way, and the debate is interesting, as is yours on the other page about other countries perception of history