"If you had a Time Machine how would you alter Waterloo" Topic

imrael

Good post. Get ready to duck from the hotheads!

Ewulf

What a load of rubbish you spout!

It is a shame the Allies couldn't do the honourable thing and let him rule. But no, they let their fears take over and caused more bloodshed.

And I think you will find he was well supported when he returned, which suggests that the fat king that ruled and his cronies were not. They had to do a runner – rather than face him in battle – the second time they had done a runner and let others do the fighting. So who was without honour there then?

And had Napoleon not returned do you really believe there would have been no more wars or deaths. Do get real – read your history. And guess what, wars and deaths continued even after Napoleon died. But people can't lay the blame on him for those wars, so I wonder who they do blame?

imrael,

If you look at Wellington's career, he was never much of one for using fortifications in battle (Torres Vedras was another case entirely).

Fortifying the farms properly would have been useful, but I am less convinced about redoubts; the vast majority of the troops were already lurking behind the ridge so I am not sure how much extra cover redoubts would have given.

Edwulf,

Napoleon was notoriously dishonourable; he reneged on treaties and cheated at cards, even against his own mother.

I doubt that there would have been years of slaughter if he had beaten Wellington and Blucher; my suspicion is that sheer numbers would have overwhelmed him fairly quickly and, given the shaky support that he had in France, I doubt if he could have lasted long once France was invaded.

Certainly a lot of young men died because of Napoleon's return, but many of them might have died anyway if war between the former Allies had broken out, as it might well have done if he had not returned. Regardless of that surmise, he is to blame for their deaths, along with those of many others in the previous years.

That other conflicts would have arisen is of course a certainty. Where and when is anyone's guess. But it's all mute. The Hundred days was pointless waste of men, they all died, Germans, Dutch, French, British and Belgian because Napoleon wanted another stab. Despite the thrashing he received at the end of his last one they all died for his mad vanity and refusal to accept.

As for it being "rubbish" I don't know about you but I think a few books on the art of war by Bonaparte would make good reading. Mind you maybe you think it would be better to build a bigger butchers bill than write something interesting to read.

Letting him rule would have been cowardly (not that honourable) and of course would have upset quite a few Germans, Spaniards, Dutchmen, Portuguese ect ect when he would inevitably begin invading them all again. He's got previous form there.

I also believe on the contempory military culture, suicide was seen as a fitting end to someone who had failed miserably, shamed themselves or acted disgracefully. As he had ed everyone off, invaded all his neighbours including an old ally (whose soldiers and sailors) had been dying alongside his only 2/3 year before) and destroying possibly the finest army his nation and several allies,ever built got defeated horribly and was then KINDLY not executed, but instead give a nice place to live out his years. Now a bigger man would have been grateful that he wasnt in some Spanish garrotte or dangling from a Prussian city wall. But this one, not content with his previous catalogue of foul ups and betrayals, breaks his word, violates his trust and faith and runs off to get the poor sods who survived his last 12 odd years of slaughter killed in a doomed reckless gamble. After he fails that, gets two of his mates executed though he again escapes justice. …… And still doesn't do the honourable thing.

I'll not dispute the French king running (i never mentioned him actually bring as his behaviour has no reflection on Mr Bonapartes lack of good graces) but when your betrayed by your Generals and soldiers not much of a battle to be had.

Lastly you could just say you disagree, you needn't be quite so rude and insulting. We are discussing a long dead tyrant, not your mum, you can wind your neck in.

:) that last bit – a long dead tyrant, not your mum, wind your neck in – made me chortle & splutter my tea :)

Odd though, how so many would go back in time & assist Napoleon to win – surely you'd be on 'the wrong side' …..

Edwulf

I think it is your neck that needs winding in, since your feathers seem to have been well ruffled.

How absurd, if not damn foolish to blame Napoleon for the execution of Ney and Co. What a load of crap! And nations often end up fighting their allies throughout history – surely you have read a little – look at Britain and Spain during the Napoleonic Wars, Allies and foes, look at Russia with Napoleon, russia against Napoleon, look at the Austrians and Prussians marching with Napoleon itno their onec ally Russia, look at Britain in the Crimean War – the Brits fought with their former enemies the French against their former allies the Russians. I can't believe you came out with such utter garbage. Worse, I bet you even believe it!

And letting him rule would have been brave – not cowardly – they should have given him a chance to prove himself, and not let their fear rule their heads (or wallets) and had Napoleon invaded anyone, then he would have been shown up for it and I'm sure the same old Allies would have happily ganged up on him again. And do remember that the Allies declared war on Napoleon, not the other way around. They caused the war and the following deaths – perhaps you just don't want to accept that? I can imagine it is hard to take for people like yourself. Sad really, but the truth often hurts! Get over it and stop taking your frustrations out on those who disagree with you. To agree to disagree is ample enough, don't you think?

I also suggest you take advice from collinjallen who has it right about people dying even if Napoleon had not returned. I suggest you do a bit of decent reading and research of the Napoleonic period and especially ALL the wars after Napoleon died. There's quite a few, right up to the present day. And sorry, but the blame can't be placed on Napoleon.

Peeler

That's the whole idea silly, going back in time and altering history so that you WOULD BE on the right side. Get it now? By right side, I mean Napoleon – but that's my choice.

I deleted my previous message because I used a word that is often employed in Only Fools and Horses, which I can't believe is taboo – but there ya go.

John Walsh,

My words:

"Certainly a lot of young men died because of Napoleon's return, but many of them MIGHT have died anyway if war between the former Allies had broken out, as it might well have done if he had not returned. REGARDLESS OF THAT SURMISE, HE IS TO BLAME FOR THEIR DEATHS, ALONG WITH THOSE OF MANY OTHERS IN THE PREVIOUS YEARS."

You cannot even refer to someone else's words without twisting them to suit your own agenda! I was directly blaming Napoleon for the deaths during the 1815 campaign.

Why do you feel the need to insult and belittle other people? Is it to make you feel better? I strongly suspect that it is something that you only do from behind a monitor and not to their face.

Curiously, everything that you accuse others of is actually what you do.

collinjallen

The last bit of your post is the only bit really taking any notice of and had Napoleon not returned, then there was a very good chance the peace loving allies would have been at each others throats – eg; more deaths and no one to blame it on.

And the bit about had he won at Waterloo and what might have happened afterwards, remains a what-if and always will. I have a feeling Napoleon may well have wanted peace and it may (or may not) have happened, unless one of his previous allies, such as the Poles requested help to restore their torn apart nation by the greedy allies.

John,

You really do have a problem; get some help.

collinjallen

Nah, I've just hit a nerve, haven't I? Hence the insults. Sad really.

Gazzola,

No, that was a picture of you, having gone back to 1815 dressed in your little Emperor playsuit… shortly before being rogered by matelots all the way to St Helena…

Wow, everybody here has made some good interesting points.

But going back once again to my long message (a page before), as Napoleon's New trusted Aide, l still would stick with the plan of extreme left LEFT FLANK all the way parallel with the ditchy road to hit Wellington with an intact 100,000 army (not separated into chasing wounded Blucher) Again doing it quietly and quickly as possible and must be very early in the morning. And to maneuver around the troublesome Hougomount and completely avoid it!!

Like l said before, leave a small potion of 20,000 in the front center to trick Wellington in thinking Napoleon is staying. And to NOT waste the French's time with attacking the 2 farmhouses, best be left alone!

WHY? WHY do l go for the FLANK attack?
Because the main reasons why Wellington's causalities was so low was that he chose a very defensive long ridge. And l mean a very LONG ridge and he chose 2 defensive fortifications in the 2 farmhouses. That defensive position kept his causalities very low! Oh l ddn't even add the british squares as well.
It is why l would have a long talk to Napoleon about taking the 100,000 early in the morning to hit Wellington from behind Hougumont and hit him along the ditchy road on extreme left flank, and surprise the poms before they knew what was happening!!! l would combine the whole 3 forces together of Infantry, Calvary and Artillery working together in harmony and effectively.
By the time Wellington found out that Napoleon outsmarted him by advancing along the back way, then the Duke would have to REMOVE his large British forces of the long ridge and move them quickly. This would've been then noticed by all the French commanders who would then take advantage of the British vulnerable plight, and that is the best time to hit the redcoats HARD!!! with the combine 3 forces!!!

The above comes from experience in winning that way in a couple of Waterloo Pc games l have and l still enjoy doing that way.. Result at the end of the PC games was that there wasn't much British and Prussians left to fully destroy and my French army was still very huge!!!

P.S: Also l don't think Napoleon was ignoring everybodies advise. Experts may think that way but it is very hard to completely ignore all his staff, which is why l wouldn't have much problems advising coming with so much stuff from future..

Aussie Mick

Eh?!

To perform such a manoeuvre, the French would be under observation from the moment they started moving and for their entire movement. Was Wellington going to sit there and let them do it? Did he do that at Salamanca? And as has been said, there was already a division at Hal to block exactly just such a move.

The whole point of a ridge position is that it provides the defender the complete freedom to move reserves free from observation. How, exactly, are the French going to observe the Allied movement of reserves? Through the Force? Again, see Salamanca for an example of Wellington moving reserves to a point of crisis using terrain to mask the movement.

Finally, the Waterloo position is manifestly not a long ridge – the frontage is miniscule compared to other battlefields of the era. One of the main reasons Wellignton chose it in the first place is that the frontage would be short, allowing him to concentrate and deploy in depth. You can walk from one flank to the other in just a few minutes.

:) Gazolla, but had you gone back & helped Napoleon win, you would still have been – clearly – on the wrong side. Nap was clearly the 'baddie' – to keep it simple. :)

I take it you used the "p" word from Fools & Horses – I'm surprised that's taboo too.

Gazzola,
I suggest that you either grow up a bit or get a life; either will do.

RMD,
I assume that you meant marines rather than matelots;).

Aussie Mick,
Stick to the computer games, mate:). From your description I can only assume that you have never actually seen the battlefield at Waterloo.

No, Matelots. The Royals would be too busy playing soggy biscuit and comparing their little black dresses…

RMD,
Very true about the marines but definitely untrue about matelots.

Gazzola,
I am amused by the way that you accuse others of insulting you, yet you are the one who insults others…odd that;).

collinjallen

Wow! I suggest you read the posts again and see who is doing the insulting and who started it.

As for blaming Napoleon – in 1809 the Austrians invaded Bavaria – Napoleon's fault?

In 1815 the Allies declare war on one person – Napoleon's fault?

Those are just some of the facts which you someone feel confirm your bizarre view that all wars and therefore all the deaths are Napoleon's fault? And I wonder if you also believe that no other nation was interested in building an empire, making profit and getting all the trade etc?

But I can see how this way of thinking would make some people's lives more simple and easier to cope with – people who don't like the sacred boat rocked, which might make them have to think for themselves rather than just accept what they're told.

Anyway, I suggets you calm down, cool off and stop taking life so seriously. This is a wargaming forum, after all – it is not a site for starting fights or wars with other people who have different views. Try remembering that when you hurl unecessary abuse at people.

So I'll stop posting to you, since you obviously can't cope with disagreement, and I hope you continue to enjoy the Napoleonic period and wargaming.

Best wishes.

Peeler

One person's baddie is often another person's goodie! Different viewpoints and all that.

R Mark Davies

How dare you suggest that I would go back in time and impersonate or dress up like the Emperor. The very thought!
You seem to have a thing about sailors?

G, all for different viewpoints, and its been a good read in any case :)

Gazzola, you really are completely lacking in both self-awareness and the ability to debate without behaving like a rude, arrogant idiot.

You may try to explain your stifle ratio away as being the result of people who are bitter about being out-debated by you, but it is very obvious why people stifle you; you are obnoxious.

Enjoy your life.

collinjallen

Someone diagrees with you and you have the arrogance to think they are obnoxious? And you also feel you have the right to throw abuse. I suggest you need to get a grip man, while you still can! Do have a nice day.

imrael,

If you look at Wellington's career, he was never much of one for using fortifications in battle (Torres Vedras was another case entirely).

Fortifying the farms properly would have been useful,

I recall reading about orders being given to loophole and reinforce La Haye Sainte, but a waggonload of picks going astray…? I hesitate to go further in impugning the good name of the Royal Engineers (my Grandfather's regiment) without corroborating evidence. Can anyone cast light on this…Certainly some reserve ammunition wouldn't have gone astray as far as the 1st Battle Drill is concerned!

l still would stick with the plan of extreme left LEFT FLANK all the way parallel with the ditchy road to hit Wellington with an intact 100,000 army (not separated into chasing wounded Blucher) Again doing it quietly and quickly as possible and must be very early in the morning. And to maneuver around the troublesome Hougomount and completely avoid it!!

And I'm afraid I must still stick to my points above that the Detachment at Hal was posted there precisely to cover this eventuality and would have smashed your clever plan to red ruin as they were caught in a pincer between a hammer (the Hal force) and an anvil (the Garrison of Hougomont)….

Gazz

So Ney and Murat would have been executed if Napoleon stayed put? Thats what you think?

So, in 1815 just one year after the war exactly which allies do you think would have been fighting? I think there would have been at least 5-10 years of peace while governments, economies stableized.

There is a marked difference I believe in stabbing a loyal friend in the back in the style of Napoleon, to befriending an old enemy to fight of a murderous hostile enemy, in the style of Sp
ain. If Napoleon had treated his oldest ally well… He might have even won.

Also I dont see the relevance in the Crimea, you would have a point if say Britain and Russia had been allies fighting France but then shafted Russia and joined France. But I think what happened was Britain and Russia fell out over several DECADES and then Britain and France became allies. Passage of time. I doubt anyone in the Crimea could even remember fighting alongside Russians.

Also Napoleon had his chances. He could have held off in 1802.
Been remembered for protecting the republic against the four most powerful nations on Europe and then shaping France as a model republic. But couldn't keep his chubby grubby fingers to himself could he. Why should he be given more? The man was a serial breaker of oaths, promises and treaties. Of course the allies declared war on him. It's still his fault as he left Elba. If he had stayed all those boys would have lived. End of.

As for not invading anyone, the battle was fought in Belgium, not in France. Back in power, illegally, already marching through another's country what 2 months after returning. He could have played it defensively and tried to protect France. His realm.

Again. Please note how I've made my case to you with out insulting you, or suggesting something is wrong with. I may not hold the little corporal in as high esteem as some, but being as he's been dead for almost 200 years I don't think he'll mind. My neck is not sticking out calling people stupid, or crazy, my feathers are unruffled, my eyebrows are raised by the mouth frothing anger from some quarters, but I'm more amused by it than upset.

Napoleon was a warmonger. He should have wound his neck on, but like all self obsessed people, he felt the need to impose himself on others.

Short arse syndrome maybe … ;)

Gazzola does have a point.

After all, if Boney had been given just one more chance, he might not have bled an army to death following the silly Bourbon dream of joining France and Spain;
He might not have squandered the lives of half a million men in the name of glory;
He might not have reduced the height of the average Frenchman.

He might have become the model for the modern Eurocrat, bankrupted tha nation and enjoyed his expense account,

or not.

But as a gambler, he was a little foolish not to work out that double or nothing only results in the bank breaking you.

Edwulf,

A couple of points:

1. In late 1814/early 1815, the major powers had split into two camps. In the blue corner were Prussia and Russia, while the red corner consisted of Britain, France and Austria. There were real concerns that they would end up fighting each other.

2. The British commander in the Crimea had been at Waterloo and sometimes referred to the new enemy as "the French".

However, the main thrust of your post is utterly correct.

I have to say that I find it quite hard to understand why anyone would think that the European powers should have given Napoleon a chance to prove himself in 1815; he had already proved himself over the previous 15 years and their reaction to his return can hardly have been unexpected, except possibly to a man who was entirely egotistical.

As to wars after 1815, there were no pan-European conflicts again until 1914 and the first full-scale war between major European powers (excluding independence struggles, border disputes, a bit of bickering about succession to thrones and other stupidity) did not happen until 1859, some 44 years after Waterloo. It seems that Europe was capable of living in relative peace once Napoleon was off the scene.

While there may not have been a DNA based link between the two men, it may be worth noting the identity of the only head of state to have been a protagonist in the wars of 1859, 1870 and the expedition to the Crimea: someone trying to live up to his alleged uncle's "glory".

Edwulf

It was a spiteful crime that Ney was executed but I think we've had a long thread on that topic. There was no need for him to be shot. Should they have shot Murat? No. But you can't blame Napoleon for Murat's actions. Well I can't but others might.

And the whole Allies point was that nations change sides for whatever reason and nations end up fighting their once allies, for whatever reason. It has always been that way and probably always will.

But I suggest you go to this site and see an interesting list of ALL the wars being fought during and after Napoleon's death. It might suprise you.

link

If you want to go on blaming Napoleon for everything, especially all the deaths, then that's your choice. Absurd, but your coice. They were afraid to give him a chance – admit it!

But I'm so glad you agree that the The Allies started the war. Bit puzzled however that, according to you, instead of brilliantly moving inbetween two enemy armies (The Brits and Prussians) and almost winning the campaign after stopping them for joining up and defeating one of them in battle, he should have stayed where he was and let them build up their forces and overwhelm him? I think that shows the difference between a great commander and leader like Napoleon and ordinary people.

As for not throwing abuse or insults, well done you. You have proven to others how easy it is to have some self restraint. But I imagine others will continue to throw abuse and insults, more so at Napoleon. But if it keeps them off the streets…

Anyway, I guess we will have to agree to disagree. I have no problem with that, do you?

Collinjallen

The only thing I can say to you, since I don't want your stress levels to overload, is to look at the website I mentioned to Edwulf. Lots of wars going on after Napoleon's death and guess what, wars are still going on.

Anyway, as with Edwulf, I guess we will have to agree to disagree?

LOL @ Gazzola:))

colinjallen

Phew! Glad to have amused you rather than anger you. Much better all around if we laugh. I've had a really good laugh at some of your posts.

There you go again, John; you just cannot help yourself can you?

Peeler

They were all wannabe empire builders or warmongers as you prefer to term them. Look at what the gracious allies did to poor old Poland! But Napoleon was just better at it than most of them – well, for a while anyway.

Poland…yet another "nation" that Napoleon led on and then betrayed. His behaviour towards the Poles was hardly better than that of the Allies.

He used Poland like a desperate lover , talked them up, took them out & had his wicked way, then dumped them … the cad. :-)

Cad…that about sums him up really.

Mafiosi, or whatever the equivalent title would be in the Union Corse.

colinjallen and Peeler

So creating the Duchy of Warsaw was dumping them? It was the allies who abolished the Duchy of Warsaw and did for Poland, with the Congress of Vienna, rather than letting Poland exist as a seperate nation, divided it into three, with one part having the Russian emperor as their king. So if Napoleon used Poland as a desperate lover, you can guess what the Allies must have used Poland as.

A tarts budoir?

Napoleon created Poland for manpower for his wars.

Interesting point though – the Polish anthem is the only one which mentions Napoleon. (Or did …)

Napoleon set up the Grand Duchy while promising the Poles much more; he then kept on promising them so much more but always managed to fail to deliver on it. However, they had to keep delivering men to his forces.

Polish dreams of a Polish nation ruled by a Pole (or Poles if they had a republic) were never achieved under Napoleon because it was not in his interest; to state that the Allies "did for Poland" is not accurate as there was no Poland to do for.

Why would the Allies have allowed the further existence of the Grand Duchy? It was an artificial state recently created by Napoleon from the territory of other states; all that they were doing was returning things to the status quo ante, just as they did with Westphalia.

As evidenced by contemporary documents, many Polish nationalists of Napoleon's era were disgusted by his treatment of them and their ambitions. As a minor example, one of the officers of the Polish Lancers of the Guard, Dezydery Chlapowski, who wrote a remarkable memoir of his service, left Napoleon's service in 1813 due to his anger at what he saw as Napoleon's betrayal of Poland. Sadly, apart from Chlapowski's memoir, very few memoirs have been translated into English so this is little known outside Poland; sometimes having a Polish-born historian as an uncle is useful:).

Napoleon is still mentioned in the Polish national anthem, albeit as Bonaparte as it was written in 1797. His name is used as his campaign in Italy should serve as an inspiration to General Dabrowski and his Polish legion in Italy as to how to act in order to liberate their country:

Przejdziem Wisłę, przejdziem Wartę,
Będziem Polakami.
Dał nam przykład Bonaparte,
Jak zwyciężać mamy.

We'll cross the Vistula and the Warta,
We shall be Polish.
Bonaparte has given us the example
Of how we should prevail.

Stirring stuff; such a pity that he let them down so badly!

colinjallen

If there was no Poland, as you state, then Napoleon could not have let the Poles down, could he?

But Poland was treated extremely badly by the Allies, the lands of which were partitioned by Russia, Prussia and Austria in 1792, 1793 and 1795. They all wanted as much as they could get.

Napoleon restored the land taken by the Prussian after he won in 1807. Basically, Napoleon restored a Poland and gave it the title Grand Duchy of Warsaw.

Had Napoleon won in Russia – then who knows what might have happened? But it is much simpler to believe that he just wanted the men from Poland. If you are at war, and really want to win the war, you need men and would gladly obtain them from just about anywhere. Plus the Poles knew that Napoleon was the only possible way that their lands could be restored, which they had to fight with him. Could you see the Allies giving them their lands back if they fought against him? No way! The Poles knew that.

And if the Allies were concerned in just removing Napoleon during the Napoleonic Wars, they could have let Poland exist, instead of dividing it into three, controlled again by Russia, Prussia and Austria. Why do that when France and Napoleon were supposed to be the enemy? Greed is the answer, and probably revenge, pure and sweet.

And those Poles were great soldiers.

"Poles" refers to people with a shared language and culture; "Poland" refers to a country. It is quite possible to have Poles without Poland being a country, in the same way that it is possible to have Catalans without Catalonia being a country or Bavarians without Bavaria being a country any more. Therefore, he could have, and did, let the Poles down.

Napoleon did not restore "a Poland"; he created an economically non-viable entity called the Grand Duchy of Warsaw, which was ruled by a foreigner rather than a Pole.

As for why the Allies disbanded the Grand Duchy, I explained that earlier; why would they allow a potentially hostile and disruptive state to exist on territory that had been taken from them by Napoleon a few years previously?

'Poles were great soldiers' – no doubting that. Smart caps too.

collinjallen

That's a pretty poor excuse for why the Allies would not allow an independent state of Poland to exist. Admit it – they were greedy for Polish land as they had always been.

And you have to ask yourself why did the Poles fight against the Allies in the first place – for fun? And some even fought with Napoleon in 1815. They later rebelled against Russia in 1830-31.

Chlapowski's memoirs, as interesting as it is, comes with a warning. It is suggested that he may have written them more to persuade others of his military skills in order to convince them that the failed rebellion against Russia in 1830 had nothing to do with him. Plus, there may be a question of would he have been allowed to see a document intended for the Russian Emperor?

It is very sad the way Poland was teated by all sides throughout history and a great credit to the Polish people that the state still exists. And on a wargaming level, it is great to have Polish units fighting for Napoleon.

Yawn! IS this still going on. Why can't alternative reality sorts make there own forum instead of hijacking this one!!!!!!

What's done is done. They are all dead and so long as we learn from history with the view of allowing its more extreme moments to be repeated then that is all we need concern ourselves with regarding Napoleonics or whatever history. Oh and did I forget to mention so we can play with toy, err I mean model miniature figurines LOL :)

bavois, well that is one point of view; just because it is yours does not mean that it has to be that of everyone else.