"Waterloo - Did the Prussians win the day?" Topic

I reckon Wellington was on a hiding to nothing at Waterloo.

I reckon …

The great hero (in Britain only)

In Britain only – so all the estates and honors conferred upon him by the governments of the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain were donated because they hated him?

finally comes up against his nemesis, Napoleon.

The standard usage of 'Nemesis' is of one who brings doom. As in 'Napoleon finally came up against his nemesis, Wellington…'

Quatre Bras is a desperate shambles with his men barely hanging on as fumbled staff work has them turning up in dribs and drabs.

Yes the Anglo Netherlands army was indeed well dispersed to cover all possible routes Napoleon might have taken…hindsight is a wonderful thing and clearly something you revel in, but I speak from experience when I say that it is not something a Staff Officer has in abundance at the crucial time…

But Ney gets chucked in the deep end by Nappie and doesn't realise he has a virtually open road in front of him

Yes, shame he didn't have any light cavalry or light infantry with him that could have patrolled forward…Oh, wait, he did!

and somehow, Wellington survives to fight again.

Yes, had quite the annoying habit there, didn't he…

He blames his withdrawal on the Prussian defeat

I think you might be confusing Hollywood with history here, but even so, would you have remained at QB with your left flank in the air?

Stiff upper lip all the time but I bet he was bricking it.

Interesting mixture of images there, but I don't disagree…

If the ground dries out overnight, Nappie could well walk right over his ridge well before midday.

What like Vimiero or Bussaco you mean? Or Talavera perhaps? Barrosa?

he leaves troops at Halle all day.

There you go with that hindsight thing again – what a shame you weren't there to advise him….

even the little Belgians he despises so much,

Any evidence for this at all?

it's all a big mistake and Nappies real army is just about to pop up behind him.

On second thought perhaps even with your wonderful hindsight its for the best that you weren't there…

Please ask to the man who made Waterloo plastic and was ruined by Wellington

Please ask to the man who made Waterloo plastic and was ruined by Wellington

Which man was that?

Yep- Prussians won the day for sure, French would have got there eventually otherwise.
@Connard Sage- you crack me up everytime…..Cheers!

Well it really would not matter since Napoleon did not have the forces to confront the Austrians and Russians who were marching once again towards the borders of France.

He lost to large a piece of his Cavalry at Waterloo and would have been very hard press to build this force back up.

Napoleon could have won the Battle of Waterloo but the end results would have been the same.

@ the OP:

No particular reason to suppose that the French would have got much further before nightfall.

@ Sparker:

I'd let it go. Some people just hate the idea of Wellington and British troops winning anything. Reading the History of the Napoleonic Wars must be fairly traumatic for them, just try and be sympathetic.

Regards

Quote from Peter Hofschroer's book Waterloo 1815, Wavre, Plancenoit & the Race to Paris.

Page 38
"Napoleon had done absolutely nothing to prevent the union of the two Allied armies. The earlier gains he had made were now slipping away. In such broken terrain, just a few well-positioned men could have delayed the Prussian advance. There were several suitable places to deploy them, including the defile of the Lasne brook, or the Paris Wood, but these crucial chokepoints were left to the Prussians. It would now be impossible to stop them joining the battle."

The fact Napoleon did not send out light cavalry to explore his right flank is a major tactical error. He was relying on Grouchy to keep the Prussians off his flank, however he had not heard from him until 11:30 am on the 18th. The message from Grouchy saying "he was 20 km away from Wave and had not established what Prussians were on his left, that is between him and Napoleon".

After receiving this message Napoleon should have sent cavalry to find out if there were Prussians on his far right flank.

@ Sparker:

I'd let it go. Some people just hate the idea of Wellington and British troops winning anything. Reading the History of the Napoleonic Wars must be fairly traumatic for them, just try and be sympathetic.

Thanks for your wise words, mate.

Its not the anglophobia that gets me down, I think we all get by now that British Anglo Saxons are the only ones its OK to be prejudiced against these days…()

Since Wellington was an Anglo Saxon Upper Class male who spent his time in the military and was a Tory to boot, it's practically compulsory to hate him…The main agenda of my 3rd form history syllabus, as I recall…

Rather its the contempt for the facts of the case and the primary sources that gets my goat….none are so blind as shall not see, etc….

I used to get a tad riled with those who declared British efforts in the Peninsula a meaningless sideshow.

Definitely not worth the aggravation.

In Britain only – so all the estates and honours conferred upon him by the governments of the Netherlands, Portugal and Spain were donated because they hated him?

Hi Sparker

I had promised myself not to intervene in this thread. As you know it has been 'designed' by the OP to cause a flame war, so I wanted to avoid it. However, I can't resist to qualify the statement above.

In Spain, neither Wellington or the British were loved. There was too much bad blood between the two nations. With the exception of people like Alava, who actually liked Wellington, the rest accepted rather than loved him. Or to be more exact: they knew(after 1809 anyway), even if it ed them off, that Spain couldn't sustain the war effort against France by herself. She needed the British money and the British army.

The honours bestowed upon Wellington by the Spanish government were intended to reinforce his position as generalisimo and to satisfy -cheaply- the British honour.

Spain and Britain were allies of convenience -the enemy of my enemy is my friend-, with only one point in common: the need to fight the French aggression. Besides that there was no love lost between them.

Best regards

"Besides that there was no love lost between them"

But Sharps wife was Spanish!

Ooohh, my illusions have been shattered now….

The British (the English if I am perfectly honest) are often accused of having a superiority complex. This is wrong. It is not a complex.

It is unfortunate that foreigners are too dull to realise this.

We can't understand why America, the present superpower, seems to need to be loved by everybody. We were once the most powerful and richest country on earth and actually enjoy being disliked by any foreigner who cares to do so, in the knowledge that it is driven by envy. We, however, do not envy Americans because they are rather common.

We consider Australians, New Zealanders and Canadians to be almost as good as us but by the time they are, we will be even better. We have a grudging respect for Germans but are content for France to be between us and them.

One of the most enduring Napoleonic myths is that we do not concede that the Prussians turned up at Waterloo, better late than never, but our wars have often been fought with a 'who cares who wins' attitude.

We were delighted when the Belgians chose to name one of their villages after a London railway station.

The Britain is part of Europe, but not part of the Continent. We pity our Continental neighbours, particularly the French, who are often cut-off by fog in the channel.

We will continue to drink beer in pints rather than meters, or whatever foreign measurement they use elsewhere. We consider ‘continental breakfasts' rather effete and are happy to point out, at almost every available opportunity, that we have not been invaded successfully for nearly 1000 years.

Damn! I seem to have bitten my tongue.

But Sharps wife was Spanish!

Ooohh, my illusions have been shattered now….

Recent research by members of this very board has established that Sharpe actually married…… Sgt Harper. His Spanish wife was just a rewrite for the TV show to secure co-production funding from a Spanish investment house with strong nationalist feelings.

I would imagine that loathing and distrusting foreigners was normal in C19th Europe.

Foreigners who did not speak your language and, worse, were another religion were anathema.

Of course "foreigners" could be the people who lived on the next hill.

As the question stands, "would Napoleon have won at Waterloo if the Prussians did not turn up?" It seems more than likely, but nothing is assured in war. The Young Guard, VIth Corps and part of the Old Guard were held back and directed against the Prussians. If they were free to turn on the British "The near run thing" would have been tipped in the french Favour.

All said and done however, the question then begs, would Wellington have fought at Waterloo if he knew that the Prussians were not coming. This then completely obliterates conjecture on the first question if he was to have chosen NOT to have fought the French at Waterloo…..

I guess at the end of the day nobody will really know. History turned out how it has and that my friends is that!

"()"

Sparker, not sure political statements like this are really needed in a discussion about the battle of Waterloo.

Napoleaon did indeed have enough troops to counter the Austrian and Russian armies. They were forming in Paris and were more than 100,000 under arms at the time. Just could not make it to the Army du Nord in time.

I though this old chestnut had been well buried.

Seems I have to take time out to explain it excessively simply again that, IMHO, -:

The English alone won Waterloo (after all they were the only ones who fought there)
The Allies won Mont St Jean
The French lost La Belle Alliance.
The Prussians won Placenoit.

If you could be bothered to read contemporary sources beyond one sheet of scribble at the shrine of St Welly this would be perfectly clear. In fact you dont have to read them to get this far – just the look at the ruddy titles why don't you!

PS Only in England does allowing a foreign army to land, occupy your capital, dethrone your sovereign, and take over the government not count as an invasion; apparently on the limp excuse that you ran off without putting up a decent fight.

Sorry but facts are facts and contemporary sources are perfectly obvious.
Just as its perfectly clear to anyone who doesn't have utter contempt for the merest of fact checking that .

XXXL caramel flavor thank you.

Actually, contemperory military diarists from England and Ireland often complained that English and Irish troops were ignored in favour of Scottish troops who seemed to featured in most paintings and renditions of the battle.

To this day, I've never seen a book or British made film about waterloo that shows only the English fighting it. EVEN sharpe repeats over and over again, "where are the Prussians".

Further more Wellington was Irish. Not an Anglo.

Ah, another anti-English rant.

Sorry but facts are facts

Quite so.

Seems I have to take time out to explain it excessively simply again that,

Sometimes, being simple is the best one can manage. Never mind.

The English alone won Waterloo (after all they were the only ones who fought there)

The actual town of Waterloo was some way from the site of the battle. Still is, even allowing for modern urban sprawl. I assume you've never bothered to visit?

No-one fought *at* Waterloo on the 18th June 1815. Wellington got to choose what the battle would be known as. He chose 'Waterloo', get over it.

The English (actually the British, are you American?) and their allies won the Battle of the ridge line across the Brussels road which lies between the farm of La Haye Sainte and the village of Mont St. Jean.

Which is a bit of a mouthful. Especially if you have to ask the way to the eponymous London railway station.

The Prussians won Placenoit.

Plancenoit. I suppose that's just a typo, and not your good self being overly simple. Again.

PPS Only in England does allowing a foreign army to land, occupy your capital, dethrone your sovereign, and take over the government not count as an invasion; apparently on the limp excuse that you ran off without putting up a decent fight.

Now here you've lost me. Care to expand?

Glorious revolution of 1688.

An invasion force lands with William of orange. A small skirmish at reading saw off the few Catholic troops who tried to fight noteworthy in that the people of reading helped the 250 Dutch troops to attack the Catholics. . The Protestants joined him. For some this is not a defeat by a hostile power but the rescue of the country from popery. For others it's a successfull invasion.

Completely irrelevant to Waterloo though.

Glorious revolution of 1688.

Ah, thanks.

I thought King Billy was invited over, and supported by, a bunch of disgruntled, popery-fearing Parliamentarians?

Sort of, "Hello Bill. We're looking for a new king, the one we've got seems a bit too tolerant of Catholics. We were wondering, if you've got nothing else on in November perhaps you'd fancy having a sail over with some of your army and taking a look around. Job's yours if you want it, I'm sure we won't have too much trouble selling regime change to the plebs. What do you say?"

Basically.

King James only used his Irish troops, his English and Scottish ones he didn't trust. Large numbers of them had gone over.

"()"

@ SVP – Yes you are quite right of course, and it has muddied the waters, so apologies.

@ Basileus. Yes I don't disagree with you, I was simply trying to get across that it is pointless and facile to talk about the allies 'hating' Wellington. Emotions of 200 year old protagonists can only be brought out by primary sources, and in the absence of those to the contrary I believe that these awards and estates reflect that he was held in high esteem.

@ Jeff:

Just as its perfectly clear to anyone who doesn't have utter contempt for the merest of fact checking that .

Well since you pretend to respect for the facts, here are a couple pursuant to the status of

Sparker,

Would it be possible to remain on-topic?

Wasn't it mel Gibson who won the day?

After Wellington burnt the pub where his kids were having a quiet belgian beer, Mel rounded up the French army and brought Libertie egalitie et fraternitie befor tie time.

This is why the French were the dominant power in europe until those beastly huns took over in 1914.

Er, where is this going?

I watched Waterloo on DVD last night and according to the film, you're all talking rubbish.

Don't you lot ever watch TV? ;)

No, seriously, cheers for the replies, I've much to learn here.

Matt

Would it be possible to remain on-topic?

Sure.
Just say something interesting.
On this very stale subject.

My problem with Sparker is that he apologizes for being off topic but implies his simplistic summation is obviously correct. The situation is nuanced, tragic, and divisive, which is why gentlemen don't discuss it in hobby forums.

TMP link

Make your own mind up.

"Glorious revolution of 1688.

Ah, thanks.

I thought King Billy was invited over, and supported by, a bunch of disgruntled, popery-fearing Parliamentarians?

Sort of, "Hello Bill. We're looking for a new king, the one we've got seems a bit too tolerant of Catholics. We were wondering, if you've got nothing else on in November perhaps you'd fancy having a sail over with some of your army and taking a look around. Job's yours if you want it, I'm sure we won't have too much trouble selling regime change to the plebs. What do you say?" "

Oh that was funny!!!!!! LOL

First MJ eating popcorn now this, most entertaining Connard Sage. LOL A most excellent whit :)

Excellent whig – I think it looks a bit silly me self.

Surely the Prussians won the night? Possibly the Twilight. Maybe Tea but that is stretching it. Before that, no.

That is less than half the day, while the Anglo-Belgian and etc. won all the day's segments.

Going strictly on points then, "no ".

As Siege Works Studio pointed out the Prussians were part of Wellies' plan so the question is not so straightforward as it might seem at first glance.

PS Only in England does allowing a foreign army to land, occupy your capital, dethrone your sovereign, and take over the government not count as an invasion; apparently on the limp excuse that you ran off without putting up a decent fight.

Let's just cut to the chase… .

The answer is simple. No Prussians, no campaign. No British etc., no campaign. It was a joint endeavour from the outset.

Wellington fought Waterloo on the basis of Prussian involvement and would not have done so without it.

I've always thought that the 'near run thing' quote was more to do with the Prussians arriving when they did, than anything else.

Napoleon failed to prevent the junction of the two armies at Waterloo and had previously failed to destroy either separately.

To say the Prussians won the day is a joke and just a big a joke as saying that the British won the day! The reality is that the ALLIES won the day, although personally, I prefer to term it as Napoleon lost the day.

Still, if he had of won, the battle might not have been given the title Waterloo and ABBA would not have written that flamin' song. Can't get the flamin' tune out of my head!

Maybe, good luck for the winners and bad luck for the losers? Doesn't luck or Providence play a big part in history?

John Tyson

I suppose you could say that, to a certain degree, in that it was good luck for Wellington that the Prussians came instead of Grouchy and bad luck for Napoleon.

Gazzola, good luck for Allies and bad luck for Napoleon:

Ney not pressing home attack at Quatre Bra.

D'Erlon marching back and forth between Quatre Bra and Ligny.

Grouchy not marching to the sound of the guns.

Mud.

Ney, thinking Wellington was retreating, launched French cavalry without proper support.

And….

Too many Methodists in the British army.

John Tyson

Yep, all those things happened but if Grouchy would have come instead of the Prussians – game over!

I think it was bad luck for Napoleon that there was a drenching, all night rain. I thought those were supposed to happen after the battles ?

@ Hew Johns:

My problem with Sparker is that he apologizes for being off topic but implies his simplistic summation is obviously correct.

Clearly it was a mistake throwing in that remark about . And for the record I never mentioned , JeffsaysHi did in a facile attempt to distract from the realities and intricacies of which I so foolishly wove into this thread. And yes, I believe I have demonstrated that my view, no matter how off topic, is correct.

The situation is nuanced, tragic, and divisive, which is why gentlemen don't discuss it in hobby forums.

Hello? Most people agree that all war is nuanced, tragic and divisive. It comes with the territory! So suggesting that discussing one particular war on a wargaming forum is ungentlemanly (as opposed to being wildly off topic!) is just plain daft.

Wellington chose ground where the French had to attack uphill with fairly narrow frontages where his numerically inferior artillery could have maximum effect. He could also place his infantry on a reverse slope protecting his from French artillery.
He was also aware of the Prussian armies location at 10:00 am the morning of the 18th. He also knew almost to the minute when the Prussians would be able to intervene effectively.

Chosen ground, he knows the Prussians are coming and when; why not fight. However without the Prussians drawing off critical French reserves, he might not have won.

I'll never understand why the British gave command of their army to a general named after the capital city of New Zealand.

Half of you have missed the point of the topic.

"Waterloo – Did The Prussians win the Day."

We should all know by now that Wellington only stood at Mt St Jean as he had been promised that Blucher would send one or two corps.

There would not have been a battle at Mt St Jean if it were not for this promise.

Now on to the topic.

I think that Wellington would have been badly mauled or even badly defeated if the Prussians had not come.

Napoleon had launched D'Erlon's attack with the idea of drawing Wellingtons reserves to his right, which he did.

Napoleon had the 6th Corps and the Young Guard with which to attack Wellingtons left (Nassau, Brusnwickers and Belgians)

Also Napoleon would not have been forced to panic if had not seen the Prussians coming and he could have planned his attacks better.

It is well known that if Wellington been forced back he had the wood of Mt St Jean at his back which not much of his army would have been able to retreat through.

So yes The Prussian arrival did result in a Coalition victory.

"Napoleon had launched D'Erlon's attack with the idea of drawing Wellingtons reserves to his right, which he did."

I suspect you might be somewhat confused there.

Mathew83 first arrived in November, yet does seem to know his way around these boards very, very well , knows how to stir up all the usual suspects with a well placed bomb – in short, I feel almost as though he has been here before.

Any Biblical scholars looked up Mathew 83 recently?

Pat

Funny you should ask – i AM a Biblical scholar

Matthew 83 v 8 "I am the Troll, and the untruth and the Git. No one comes to the Dawghouse but through me"

Glad to be of service

I'm considered a Bible scholar and sometimes Acts 19:32 applies here. ;-)

link

God bless.

Ha ha ha John. Yes, that about sums us up.
I think his name is Mathew born 1983.
Mathew8:3 is Jesus curing the leper.
Max