"Why NOT Waterloo?" Topic

It sems to me that Waterloo is resented by all the Napoleon lovers because he LOST, and to a better man too!

It is considered "atypical" because History did not follow the preferred script, and the Great Man lost. Not only that, but he lost in in several rather stupid ways, and EVERYBODY knows that Napoleon did not make stupid mistakes.
Had Nappy won at Waterloo, I am sure it would be the favorite batttle of the Boney-lovers.

Oh, heck. They wouldn't even call it Waterloo. That sounds too … English. It would be the Battle of Mont St. Jean, or whatever it was called.

Glad to have you back John, and glad to see the slammer hasn´t changed you, even one iota

Fought once and the French (won) , once as the British (won) and once in a double Waterloo / Wavre as British (lost)

Great battle, why wouldn't you fight it?

"Boney-Lovers"? John, as medicated as I am, that was downright amusing…

Eric

Welcome back John, and I agree. The riff being all the battles he won and all anyone remembers is the one (not the only I add)he lost.

Even if he had one he was still done for, he had used up his allotment of trust long before.

Me thinks someone is looking for a fight. But a strange and bit of an obvious way to go about it.

As for the absurd statement, there may well be some Napoleon lovers who resent Waterloo, but most people I know who admire Napoleon (not sure about the love bit?), just accept Waterloo as the great man's final battle, which he lost. Such is life and such is history.

But I don't think many wargamers or enthusiasts dislike certain battles because the side or personality they favour lost. That would mean the Charles-Kutuzov lovers would hate Austerlitz and Wagram, the Blucher lovers would hate Jena and Auerstedt etc, etc. But, as far as I'm aware, there are very few who hate any battle in any period of history, just because the side or the leader they favoured lost!

Wellington as the better man is another matter of opinion,if not absurd statement, based mainly on the fact that Napoleon lost the battle. But if the Prussians had not arrived to save his bacon in time, I doubt many would have considered him in such a high regard, even though he was an excellent commander against Napoleon's subordinates.

I'm off to get my steel helmet and body armour now!

I'm thinking it's less to do with who won, or lost. More about how much attention it gets, or has gotten.
I find the war with Austria in 1809 more interesting than the hundred days. But I used to game that alot.

I think it is considered atypical because the field was so small, and the troops so dense- unlike the vast majority of battles during the period- but perhaps not so much unlike the really large battles of the period.

Anyway, he proved his own maxim that the general who makes the LEAST mistakes will win. That campaign he made the most. Until 1812 it was the other way around, and, actually, everybody knows that while he often made mistakes, he weathered them better than his opponents, who made more.

I prefer the War with Austria too, as I have Austrians.

Wellington as the better man is another matter of opinion,if not absurd statement, based mainly on the fact that Napoleon lost the battle.

No – if that was all the "better man" statement was based on, the claim would surely have beenThat he was a better general. A better man can be an inferior general but still a better man.

Doug

It is a self perpetuating thing. Ever since 1815, British kids have grown up with tales of capturing that Eagle, (OK everyone forgets the the other one), shutting that gate, holding that farmhouse, the cowardly allies, the noble Prussians who took their time to get there, the squares, the Grenadiers (sic) de La Garde facing our Guard, (just to give them their subsequent name, as grenadier guards….chasseur guards would just not have worked), the whole thing determining the history of Europe for a century, but over in 3-4 days, in an area that is actually very compact, well preserved and very accessible.

It has caught British imagination as no other Napoleonic battle ever could. Information overload makes that inevitable

Bondarachuk's Movie? I really believe that in Mosfilm Studios there are reels that will appear in the 200th Anniversary re-release of the DVD. I do…really……but having seen his other works (War and Peace, Quiet Flows the Don etc) I am not sure cutting was not the wisest move.

I'm rabidly pro Napoleon, and even though he lost Waterloo, I always find myself drawn to the Hundred Days. While I doubt Napoleon could have won the campaign I still feel the actual battle of Waterloo was balanced at several points on a razor thin edge that could have gone either way. Yes Napoleon made many tactical errors, but his opening strategy and moves to the campaign could not have been better.
I think the overall quality of his opposition from division through army commanders where the best he had faced up to that point. I'm not meaning to snub great leaders like Archduke Charles or Barclay de Tolly, but they didn't have same overall quality of staff and officer corps Wellington and Blucher had in 1815. As long as Wellington and Blucher remained committed as they were to support each other, the outcome was inevitable.
With so many manufacturers covering 1815, its much easier to get all the figures you need/want than other parts of the era. Since the battle was fought on a pretty narrow front makes it easier to game on the tabletop.

Wow? I have to ask myself…..Do I really have nothing better to do during halftime?

Anyone have a related battle report that we might find interesting or a helpful artcle on scratchbuilding Le Haye Sainte or something?

Not that some of the points made aren't valid, but I am just feeling a little snarley today.

If Sir John Moore had lived, how different would Waterloo be?

Wellington as the better man is another matter of opinion,if not absurd statement, based mainly on the fact that Napoleon lost the battle. But if the Prussians had not arrived to save his bacon in time,

Hmm, seems to me theres a few absurd statements going around here!

Whether Wellington is or isn't the better man is clearly subjective, agreed. For my part I think its 'better' to serve a cause greater than yourself and, if you must fight, strain every sinew to save your men's lives, as opposed to the 'What are the lives of a million men to one such as I' attitude of Napoleon….

However I cannot let the statement that the Prussians arrived to 'save his bacon' go without at least a passing reference to the facts, which your egregious statement ingore by implying that Wellington somehow stumbled into battle, and that everything was going wrong, before the Prussians happened along to set things right.

Whereas of course anyone who has more than the most nodding acquaintance with the battle will know:

1. Wellington planned to fight at the Waterloo position because its features would enable his outnumbered, hodge podge army to hold off the Grande Armee for a few hours;

2. He fought there on the clear understanding that he would be supported by at least one Prussian Army Corps;

3. Every French assault was successfully rebuffed, by the time La Haye Sainte fell the Anglo Dutch line had been reformed and reserves drawn in; whereas the French reserve cavalry had been expended, so that;

4. Had the Prussians failed to turn up the Allied army could have extricated itself back through the Forest of Soignies, a fighting retreat manouvre that a hard core of the army had conducted in the Peninsula on several occasions.

This is not to say that the arrival of the Prussians, by dint of incredibly hard marching, was not essential to turn a successful defence into the overwhelming decisive victory that it was.

Sparker

I think you say it all yourself with point 2-he fought on the clear understanding that he would be (saved) reinforced by Prussians and point 4-had the Prussians failed to turn up Wellington could have rtereated – yes, well, he would HAVE HAD to retreat, wouldn't he because Napoleon would have had more men to throw at him, instead of being diverted against the Prussians and he would have been worried that Grouchy might turn up. If, as you point out, he was relying on Prussian help so much, it means no Prussians, possibly no victory. And yes, that could, as you also point out, led to another Peninsular style retreat. But he would be retreating with Napoleon on his tail, not one of his Marshals, so who knows how that would have worke dout.

Since none of us knew either Napoleon or Wellington personally, it is rather silly to even consider who is the 'best man'. We can only have our own opinions, based on what others tell us they were like and what history, written by the victors or whatever, wants to tell us.

Dough em4miniatures

Saying Wellington is a better man is purely a matter of opinion. As a general he relied on Prussian help and may well have lost without it. However, if you say other factors should be considered, then you must surely consider that Napoleon was a better man than all the allied leaders, since they declared war against him when he wanted peace.

Gazzola and Sparker made excellent comments! Whatever happened is history!
A mistake here and there is what it take to loose a battle. All empires in history never last forever somehow finds its end. The British empire ended after WWII.

If I can't use the Anglo-Allied army I painted up, my French wouldn't have anybody to fight!

Actually since I only have about 100 Prussians painted up so far, I've actually only played Quatre Bras games to date for historical scenarios.

Once I finish the Prussians, and odds and ends of remaining French and Anglo-Allied, then it's on to Waterloo.

Also once the Prussians are done, I'm looking forward to being able to use Columbia Games' boardgame 'Napoleon' as a campaign system for gaming the whole campaign.

since they declared war against him when he wanted peace.

If peace was all he wanted then perhaps he should have remained on Elba – so far as I recall no war was raging in Europe at the time?

The reality is of course that he wanted peace once he had reclaimed the throne of France, gained at the head of his troops…

Prisons around the world are full of criminals who just wanted to be left in peace – once they had gained other people's property!

If peace was all he wanted then perhaps he should have remained on Elba

There is something to that argument…

Wow , some of you guys really play down the role the Prussians had in the Campaign. Last battle should always be known as "Waterloo (waiting for the Prussians)". Both Napoleon and the Duke were obsessing where and when the Prussians may arrive and that had a lot to do how they fought.
Many of the Histories were written by the Brits after the war so I am sure they skewed what happened to make much of what they did.

DK&BD writes: "If Sir John Moore had lived, how different would Waterloo be?"

If Berthier were there as Chief of Staff, how different would Waterloo have been? If Bessieres had been there to command the cavalry, how different would Waterloo have been? If Picton's injuries were known, how different would Waterloo have been? If it hadn't rained the day before, how different would Waterloo have been.

Is that enough 'If's'? I can continue if you'd like….

I'm with Lou from BSM. Napoleon chose his sub-commanders really poorly for that campaign. He should have sent Ney off to the south of France, used Suchet as his chief of staff and Davout as his wing commander. Soult would have capably undertaken Ney's role on the battlefield for the infantry and Grouchy could have commanded the heavies – and used them more astutely.

A better man? Surely you must be referring to Blucher!

Our club played W'loo in 6mm waaaaaay back (very early
80's) on the sandtable.

The French won, because they knew the Prussians were
coming, and that the British wouldn't move off the
hill crest.

Easy – pin the British, ambush the Prussians, et voila !

I'm with Lou from BSM. Napoleon chose his sub-commanders really poorly for that campaign. He should have sent Ney off to the south of France, used Suchet as his chief of staff and Davout as his wing commander. Soult would have capably undertaken Ney's role on the battlefield for the infantry and Grouchy could have commanded the heavies – and used them more astutely.

I agree with you on that but I think we always forget much of Napoleon's decision was based on who could I trust to be on their own. Davout could be counted on in Paris. Even though Ney is one of my favorite Marshalls, I don't think I would have trusted his abilities or loyalty on his own.

Lou from BSM you hit the nail on the head!

George Krashos nice comment!

Why not?
Too big… Too many Prussians. not enough British or Portuguese. No Austrians. French army is all French no interesting allied contingents.
I enjoy reading about it but dislike the later Prussian army and have no interest in collecting them. I have some Nassau troops. Best uniformed on the field, and lots of British. It was the battle that triggered my interest in history. But as a Game not much interest for me. I'd join in if some on asked though.

I do think many Anglophobes (many are also Napoleon fan boys but the two groups are different) resent the battle as the big man lost. Lost badly. And to the British! If only Russians or Austrians had been there instead of British… At least in Spain they have their get out clauses (no Napoleon, no imperial guard ect ect) but Waterloo the British are there, in command and winning. That grates I think. Sad really, it's like Britons resenting Americans for the AWI or Americans getting all worked up because the Nritish and Canadians beat them in 1812. Add to that that "evil" British even then deliberately conspired to murder Napoleon slowly with stomach cancer and rewrite the battle so all the others were cowards … That's their twisted view anyway.

Me? a fine Allied victory won by the 2nd best British general ever. Not as good as most of his wins in Spain, perhaps not as messy as Talavera or Fuentes D'Onoro, but not as slick as Salamanca, Bussaco or Vittoria. Helped by reliable Blucher, and a poor French display.

Good thing Blucher harbored no ill will for fighting at Ligny expecting the arrival of the Anglo-Dutch army… Look at the terrain and his dispositions. I do not want to rehash the debate of Wellington deliberately misleading Blucher as I personally believe it was the fog of war. Wellington and his Anglo-Dutch army fought extremely well at Waterloo and it is a fun battle to game. It could go either way on the dice rolls. One might ask why Gettysburg is so popular to game in the Civil War. Epic battles will always be popular.

I'll game any battle/period except Egypt, only because I don't have the figures for it… yet.

Sparker

We've all been over this several times. The Allies declared war, not Napoleon. Perhaps you can't accept that?

Also, you seemed to have missed the point completely – he marched back to the throne unapposed without bloodshed – yet you make it sound as though he forced his way. Interesting how the troops went over to him and did not support the king, don't you think? And come on, what leader, king or empire does not exist or survive due to its army? The British Empire being a prime example, so why even mention Napoleon did so as if it was differnet to anyone else.

Peace? You are joking? The Allies were at each others throats over carving up bits of land and had he not returned they may have gone to war with each other. If I remember rightly there were all sorts of secret alliances going on behind the scenes, The image of lovey dovey caring Allies does not stand, I'm afraid. Greedy and selfish more like.

And perhaps the French king and supporters (if he had any) should have fought against him instead of doing the usual runner. But he was a royal so it is okay to scarper at the fist sign of a fight. At least Napoleon had the courage to face death.

As for mentioning criminals and wanting peace when they have their loot, you are doing a pretty good description of the once mighty British Empire – I mean, who could not possibly not want to be part of the British Empire. And guess what, they had an army to back up and maintain their empire. Perhaps they learnt that from Napoleon?

"Oh, heck. They wouldn't even call it Waterloo. That sounds too … English."

It were the Wellington-lovers that called it so. Nobody fought in Waterloo 1815. The Prussians called it Battle of Belle Alliance. (Until now, british books and the song by ABBA has changed that now in Germany.)

I'm with Edwulf more or less on the army interest- I do think it is a fascinating campaign to game- but honestly a bit boring to battle one-off more than once, without the context of that campaign to drive the nature of the engagements and provide alternative opportunities for decision-making.

As to Spain, how much fun is it being a cranky French Marshal, away from the Emperor, bickering with your peers and trying to get rich? A LOT, that's how much!

Trying to beat the British is huge fun without Napoleon and the Guard, and would not be with them- prior to 1812, it would be a poor challenge for gaming a campaign to have those weapons under Napoleons guidance in Spain. Hardly worth the effort to run the whole thing from either sides perspective.

Gazzola, your version of history is the one I most agree with. Of course it is all debatable, but it seems that your perceptions of the nations, armies, and empires involved is based more on evidence than opinion.

The majority (even if small) of the French would rather have had Napoleon and a civil government than a Bourbon monarchy, I believe, and Napoleon recognized and accepted politically that France wanted to accept its borders rather than continue the wars.

I think the rest of France would not have allowed war if the allies had not threatened invasion again.

The Allies, it seems, just couldn't accept Napoleon- or the ideology of the revolution. The fear of re-invigorated French armies able to spread their thinking in not so many years was too much.

The question remains, should and/or could Napoleon have accepted that the Allies would deny him, and stayed on Elba? Perhaps he should have.

My feeling is that it wouldn't have taken more than a handful of years before Austria tried to shore itself up internally by extending it's borders down the Danube in Bavaria, or into Poland, and sucked everybody else in to war again anyway, including Bourbon France! Napoleon's return changed the landscape just enough to change some of those dynamics.

All the 'what-ifs' not withstanding, you work with what you've got. Look at the Poker champions; bluffing their way to millions with a pair of 7's!!!!

Napoleon had to work with what he had. Imagine what could have been done had Lannes, Davout, Berthier, Bessieres, etc. were available to him. Alas, he had what amounted to his second team on hand to fight the campaign. Ney was certainly in decline, Grouchy had more responsibility than he was accustomed to, and Soult was thrust into an unfamiliar role as Chief of Staff.

I've commented on this campaign too many times to remember. With my 20-20 hindsight, I would have placed Ney in command of the wing that pursued the Prussians after Ligny. I firmly believe Ney would have brought them to battle on French terms, rather than allowing them to slip away and regroup. I think Grouchy would have been of better service under Napoleon's eye in command of the reserve cavalry at Waterloo. Perhaps Grouchy can even be the voice of reason and prevent the suicidal cavalry charges against the allied center.

Soult would have been the far better choice for taking direct control of the battle, as he and Wellington had significant history together. Soult would not have interpreted the British consolidation behind the ridge as a retreat. He would have been intimately familiar with the reverse slope tactics that Wellington depended upon. He also would not have allowed the battle for Hougoumont to degenerate into a full blown battle. Based on his history, he would have detailed a division, perhaps, to screen it off, and used his available resources (II Corps) to develop the against the allied right.

Better usage of the available resources could have (likely would have) changed the course of the battle. I don't think the French could have prevailed in the long run with all of Europe in the process of mobilizing to remove him once and for all. However, I think it is very likely that Ney drives the Prussians east, and Wellington must either retreat (back to the coast to the safety of the fleet) or he stands and fights and takes a drubbing (considering the changes in command that I have previously stated). Waterloo (Mont St. Jean, La Belle Alliance… so that all sides are happy) may never have even occured. The battle(s) if fought at all, could have taken place closer to the coast, ala Corunna, as the British abandoned the low countries in favor of preserving their army to fight another day. I firmly believe Wellington would not have given battle if he were less than reasonably assured of Prussian intervention. Certainly, the French would not have gambled (gone 'all-in' in Poker terms) with the attacks they were forced to make if there were no Prussians descending on the right flank.

Again, lots of 'what-ifs' but likely a very different outcome, if L'Empereur had made better choices given the command staff available.

… and ABBA would have had to write a different song…!!!

Lou from BSM, you got it right, even with lots of ifs!

then you must surely consider that Napoleon was a better man than all the allied leaders, since they declared war against him when he wanted peace.

Not one person in the whole of history knows whether Napoleon finally wanted peace and justice or not other than the man himself. His contemporaries judged him by how much of a man of peace and justice he had been in the preceding 23 years. Who can say that they were wrong when they didn't believe a word of it?

Whirlwind

Exactly! And who can say they were right? For a start, the contemporaries you mention were his enemies during those 23 years, some of whom had declared war against Napoleon and France during that period and not the other way around, so I doubt they were judging him on an even playing field, despite the fact he marched back to the throne without blood being spilt, which meant the people were for him and not the king. But why let that little fact overcome their fears!

However, with all this in mind they could have given him a chance rather than cause more fighting and deaths. After all, had he shown any signs of empire building they could have quite easily got together again, couldn't they? And he did not have many allies for them to worry about at the time either.

For a start, the contemporaries you mention were his enemies during those 23 years, some of whom had declared war against Napoleon and France during that period and not the other way around, so I doubt they were judging him on an even playing field, despite the fact he marched back to the throne without blood being spilt, which meant the people were for him and not the king.

Sigh. By similar 'logic' we should blame that notorious militarist, Neville Chamberlain, for starting WW2. A declaration of war does not necessarily make someone the aggressor.

Whether 'the people' as opposed to 'the army' were for Napoleon or not is moot and frankly unknowable.

However, with all this in mind they could have given him a chance rather than cause more fighting and deaths

Or better, Napoleon could have remained on Elba rather than cause more fighting and deaths, like he had agreed when defeated the last time…

After all, had he shown any signs of empire building they could have quite easily got together again, couldn't they?

Could they have quite easily got together again? Would Napoleon have used a time of peace for rebuilding a Grande Armee? Who knows? But he had, as they say, 'form'.

And he did not have many allies for them to worry about at the time either.

Neither had France significant allies in 1792 or 1805-6. The Allies were worried by the military power of Napoleonic France alone. Whether the Bavarians or Spanish supported them at any given time is a pretty secondary issue.

Whirlwind

SIGH INDEED! You obviously have your mind made up, sort of guilty without being proved. Imagine if all the present day judges were like that! Save money on the court cases I suppose.

But it is pretty blinkered to just want to accept that if someone has done something you disagree with, they will continue to do so, so they must be punished, just in case they do it again. Big brother mentality. Of course, that way of thinking does offer a feeble excuse not to give someone a chance.

Why mention WW2? How absurd! You know full well what the Germans were doing when war was declared against Germany. What was Napoleon doing – he was sorting out ruling France -NOT QUITE the same is it?

Remained on Elba-BIGGER SIGH! That's why he became an Emperor and made history while others spent their lives attempting to stop him and faded from history quite quickly. But perhaps, just perhaps, he thought that if he became Emperor again, without any bloodshed being spilt, it proved the country wanted him and he wanted no further bloodshed, so he should be given a chance to rule. Unfortunately he did not count on the Allies fear of him or rather, based on what you say, what they feared might happen.

And of course Napoleon would want to build or rebuild an army to defend his country, if needed. Any decent leader would do the same! Who would want to live in a country that could not defend itself? So why should you even consider it wrong for him to do so?

Your final statement suggests that you feel some states may well have sided with Napoleon had he been allowed to remain in power. Makes you wonder why they would want to do so. Perhaps he would have offered better trading agreements, although, of course, that coudl well spark off a war with a nation jealous of such deals who may lose out because of it.?

And come on, 1792 and the war against the newly created Revolutionary France has no comparison to the situation in 1815! No one was beheaded for Napoleon to regain the throne. And in 1805, the Austrians and Russians were uniting to attack France, so what would you expect him to do – let them? And if anyone was to attack France, then and post 1815, would he not have the right to try and stop them? And to do that you need an army – it's not rocket science is it?

Anyway, it clear your mind is made up. Basically, I disagree with everything you say and you probably feel the same about my views. But that's life I suppose, we all look and interpret things in different ways. I would have given Napoleon a chance, you probably wouldn't. Such is life! But as interesting as the 1815 thread has been, my head is in 1812 mode at the moment, so I'm off to do some further research. Happy wargaming to you.

SIGH INDEED! You obviously have your mind made up, sort of guilty without being proved. Imagine if all the present day judges were like that! Save money on the court cases I suppose.

But it is pretty blinkered to just want to accept that if someone has done something you disagree with, they will continue to do so, so they must be punished, just in case they do it again. Big brother mentality. Of course, that way of thinking does offer a feeble excuse not to give someone a chance.

I think it is obvious that you are the one who has blinkers on – ignore the past 23 years 'and just give him one more chance' – this time he really means peace. I think this is exceptionalism – you would give Napoleon this chance, but wouldn't use the same reasoning for anyone else.

Why mention WW2? How absurd! You know full well what the Germans were doing when war was declared against Germany. What was Napoleon doing – he was sorting out ruling France -NOT QUITE the same is it?

Erm, no. It is you have been banging on about the declaration of war being the key thing, as if that proved anything.

Remained on Elba-BIGGER SIGH! That's why he became an Emperor and made history while others spent their lives attempting to stop him and faded from history quite quickly.

One rule for Napoleon, one rule for 'other men'. Convenient.

But perhaps, just perhaps, he thought that if he became Emperor again, without any blood being spilt, it proved the country wanted him and he wanted no further bloodshed, so he should be given a chance to rule. Unfortunately he did not count on the Allies fear of him or rather, based on what you say, what they feared might happen.

No, based on what he had already done – invade their countries and not give those countries to the people, but instead give Europe to his family and friends.

And of course Napoleon would want to build or rebuild an army to defend his country, if needed. Any decent leader would do the same! Who would want to live in a country that could not defend itself? So why should you even consider it wrong for him to do so?

Well, funnily enough, that Napoleonic Army hadn't been doing that much fighting in France, but had been "defending" France in such places as, erm, Moscow. and Lisbon. and Egypt. Actually, I think you know fine well what I meant here – that the Allies did not want to risk him putting another true Grande Armee in the field

Your final statement suggests that you feel some states may well have sided with Napoleon had he been allowed to remain in power. Makes you wonder why they would want to do so. Perhaps he would have offered better trading agreements, although, of course, that could well spark off a war with a nation jealous of such deals who may lose out because of it.?

Because realpolitik would make some countries side with France against a closer enemy. It says nothing about the legality, morality or justice of Napoleon's rule. I think you understand this perfectly well too.

And come on, 1792 and the war against the newly created Revolutionary France has no comparison to the situation in 1815! No one was beheaded for Napoleon to regain the throne. And in 1805, the Austrians and Russians were uniting to attack France, so what would you expect him to do – let them? And if anyone was to attack France, then and post 1815, would he not have the right to try and stop them? And to do that you need an army – it's not rocket science is it?

He had made war on the whole of Europe, been defeated, then come back from the exile he had agreed to. If he was interested in peace, he could literally have achieved it by doing nothing.

Anyway, it clear your mind is made up. Basically, I disagree with everything you say and you probably feel the same about my views. But that's life I suppose, we all look and interpret things in different ways. I would have given Napoleon a chance, you probably wouldn't. Such is life! But as interesting as the 1815 thread has been, my head is in 1812 mode at the moment, so I'm off to do some further research.

Well I disagree when you claim that Napoleon only wanted peace (how can you know?) and that the Allies clearly should have given him another chance (I can understand why they didn't, although who is to know whether that was the best decision?). That is about the limit of my feelings on the subject. I'm sorry if that strikes you or anyone else as 'blinkered'.

Happy wargaming to you.

And to you.

Have to say if a man convicted of several crimes escaped from jail before his sentence was up I WOULDN'T be saying "it's ok. He said he will be good this time" I'd be hoping the police drag him back to an even more secure prison.

This is the man that stabbed Spain his ally in the back. Who sent armies into Portugal, Spain, Russia, Prussia, Austria, Italy…. so his word meant little.

@Lou from BSM.
Good food for thought. I like your staff rearrangement.

Whirlwind

I think you are completely blinkered to absurdly blame all the Napoleonic wars on Napoleon. You know that is not true but it obviously makes you happy to want to belive it. But it suggests you believe the allies were squeaky clean and not greedy for land and power. If that is not blinkered, I don't know what is. To blame Napoleon for everything is very convient for you. You don't have to think about it. Just blame Napoleon and life will be wonderful.

Anyway, it is interesting how people see things differently and you just have to accept some people have such blinkered views. A bit like the Allies in 1815 really, letting their fears rule their heads or perhaps just plain vengance.

But as you said yourself, who knows what Napoleon really thought or intended. Yet you accept, even though they did not know, that he should still be punished, just in case!

Sigh! Enjoy your wargaming.

Edwulf

Yes, fear often rules someone's head. You have to learn to control your fears.

And this is the man who had to defend his country against the invading allies. had to help his ally Bavaria defend their country against the invading allies in 1809. This is a man who walked back to the throne but what the people of France obviously wanted was not even considered by the goody goody allies – like I say, people need to control their fears, even then.

Happy wargaming.

Me thinks someone is looking for a fight

We've all been over this several times. The Allies declared war, not Napoleon. Perhaps you can't accept that?

You obviously have your mind made up

If that is not blinkered, I don't know what is

Actually I rather suspect its you who are looking for a fight, since you seem to be substituting passion for reason.

Of course I accept that it was the Allies who declared war! On Napoleon personally, rather than France. This would have been an absurd thing to do had he not generally been accepted as the single cause of the 1815 war. Are you seriously suggesting there would have been a war between France and the Allies had Napoleon remained upon Elba?

And are you seriously suggesting that the British government should have accepted his return, and allowed him to consolidate his grip on power and complete rearmament, to allow him the initiative in going to war when he was good and ready? (he occasionally neglected the formality of actually declaring war prior to invading another country)

Anyway, it clear your mind is made up

I think you are completely blinkered to absurdly blame all the Napoleonic wars on Napoleon. You know that is not true but it obviously makes you happy to want to belive it.

Well if I did think any of that you might have a point. But since I don't, you haven't. I do consider that the character of Napoleon had a certain influence over these events.

But it suggests you believe the allies were squeaky clean and not greedy for land and power. If that is not blinkered, I don't know what is. To blame Napoleon for everything is very convient for you. You don't have to think about it. Just blame Napoleon and life will be wonderful.

Well if I had believed or had written any of that, you again might have a point. But unluckily, I don't and haven't. I don't 'blame' Napoleon for returning from Elba. But I do think it is incredibly blinkered to imagine that the Allies who had defeated him nine months earlier and made it clear to him his behaviour had made him unacceptable as the ruler of a large nation might not reasonably have objected to this.

Anyway, it is interesting how people see things differently and you just have to accept some people have such blinkered views. A bit like the Allies in 1815 really, letting their fears rule their heads or perhaps just plain vengance.

Well I do accept that you have blinkered views about this. I don't let it trouble me too much, it all happened a long time ago. I don't understand your comparison to be honest. Fears might be irrational or they might be rational. If the Allies fear of Napoleon using France to start more imperial worries is in irrational fear, it would be hard to imagine what a rational fear might be. You claim to know, or be reasonably sure, that Napoleon wanted peace. But you have nothing to base that claim on, and there are 23 years of reasons to be sceptical.

But as you said yourself, who knows what Napoleon really thought or intended. Yet you accept, even though they did not know, that he should still be punished, just in case!

Because no-one can know what someone else intends for the future. However, the Allies did know what he had done in the past – build an Empire at their expense. He wasn't being punished for what he might have done in the future – he was being prevented from having the opportunity. He had abdicated his claim for that very reason. None of this is controversial – but for very unclear reasons you deny that the Allies even had a point. Unhealthy hero-worship perhaps?

Sigh! Enjoy your wargaming.

And you, yours.

@John the OFM
By the better man I assume you meant Blücher.

Wellington was all but beaten at Waterloo but he was able to arrogantly claim victory without any thanks to the Prussians (Blücher's) timely arrival.

That self promoting allied commander has the honour of never beating Napoleon in a head to head battle & was never able to achieve the level of Generalship that Napoleon did.

Wellington was all but beaten at Waterloo but he was able to arrogantly claim victory without any thanks to the Prussians (Blücher's) timely arrival.

Some statements are just wrong. Try:

I should not do justice to my own feelings, or to Marshal Blücher and the Prussian army, if I did not attribute the successful result of this arduous day to the cordial and timely assistance I received from them. The operation of General Bülow upon the enemy's flank was a most decisive one; and, even if I had not found myself in a situation to make the attack which produced the final result, it would have forced the enemy to retire if his attacks should have failed, and would have prevented him from taking advantage of them if they should unfortunately have succeeded.