"Why NOT Waterloo?" Topic

I don't care that Napoleon lost, I dislike Waterloo because many people see it as the archetypical battle of the Napoleonic Wars not for the outcome but for its staging.

This is horribly untrue, the picture it paints is of a massively dense body of troops on both sides with little lateral maneuvering and a small field of battle. The reality is that troop density at Waterloo was atypical of the period.

Austerlitz, 1805 – approximately 7 miles of frontage, 22,000 men per mile
Eyau, 1807 – approximately 6 miles of frontage, 25,000 men per mile
Friedland, 1807 – approximately 8 miles of frontage, 19,000 men per mile
Aspern-Essling, 1809 – approximately 3 miles of frontage, 52,000 men per mile
Wagram, 1809 – approximately 11 miles of frontage, 27,000 men per mile
Borodino, 1812 – approximately 4.5 miles of frontage, 56,000 men per mile
Lόtzen, 1813 – approximately 5 miles of frontage, 13,000 men per mile
Bautzen, 1813 – approximately 11 miles of frontage, 19,000 men per mile
Leipzig, 1813 – approximately 5 miles of frontage, 125,000 men per mile
Waterloo, 1815 – approximately 3 miles of frontage, 67,000 men per mile

So there are three call outs that are similar to Waterloo:

Aspern-Essling, 1809
Borodino, 1812
Leipzig, 1813

In two of these (Aspern-Essling & Leipzig) the troop density is explained by the fact that the French Army is pinned against a river and the entire opposing army is horse shoed around it. Thus, not really comparable to Waterloo. Borodino is the most comparable to Waterloo. So that is… one out of 1/9…

If Waterloo were as typical a battle as many people have come to think with regard to troop density and lack of grand tactical maneuver then it would seem that the majority of major battles should be similar. They aren't. There are many others not mentioned here but I think these exemplify my point.

To answer the original poster, this is why I don't like Waterloo. That and just how proud the English are for taking credit for a German victory. Wellington's claim to fame at Waterloo comes down to: "I avoided defeat long enough for Blόcher to win."

Cheers,

The Bandit

Ha! and more Ha!

Napoleon was a loser long before Waterloo.

Can you name a campaign he won after Tilsit? No, just campaigns he LOST!

As for who is supporting whom here, if the Prussians were so good, how come they lost to a much smaller French force on 15th June? And without Wellington holding up Ney at Quatre Bras the entire Prussian army would have been destroyed – not merely defeated, but totally wiped out as an army.

Napoleon underestimated Wellington, and paid the price. Wellington got it right when he credited the Prussians for their con tribution to the ALLIED victory, but he also go tit right when he said "I do not think it would have done if I had not been there."

Re wargaming Waterloo, just like in history, it's a spectacular battle and one the French should win 9 times out of 10.

I enjoy gaming Waterloo, but get more pleasure from the unique problems and interesting armies in fighting 1813 battles.

Sir John Moore? Great Brigade or Division commander – but he would have lost the British army in Spain. There probably would not have been a Waterloo at all if Moore was in charge, god bless his soul.

Whirlwind

Sorry, as much as you want to belive I'm blinkered you are totally wrong. But I suppose it is a good excuse for you not to question your own beliefs. And Hero-worship – come on, that's just another feeble attempt to put down someone down because they disagree with you! Perhaps you can't take someone disagreeing with you?

'Because no one can know what someone else intends for the future'

Your words – but it seems the Allies did somehow know, judging by your excuses for them, since you say they punished him for what he might do by not letting him have the opportunity to do anything.

You should stand back a bit and view what happened and consider if the Allies were really criminals for declaring war on one man, not the country, knowing full well that the people will support him and that it will lead to more bloodshed and death.

And you must remember that the allies were often on Napoleons side when it suited them. No one was saying he should be punished then – why was that, do you think? Could it be they making a profit form supporting Napoleon – a sort of 'pre 1812 – we love you Napoleon and hate your enemies, because we will prosper from supporting you' to 'post 1812-we hate you Napoleon and love your enemies, because we will prosper from supporting them.'

You have to think of poor old Poland and how the lovey dovey caring allies constantly carved the nation up between them – and that was before Napoleon hit the headlines! And there's the Russia vs Sweden war over Finland and Norway! Should that all be ignored and say they have a right to say who ruled what country?

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree. If you make another post I might reply. But really, I doubt it will be worth it.

I don't hero worship Napoleon and, as I've said before, there are things he did that I disagree with, such a putting his relatives on the throne of Spain and invading Russia, and of course, dividing his forces on the 18th June 1815. It was interesting that you state you don't 'blame' napoleon for returning from Elba – isn't that a bit of a contradiction?

Sparker

Not looking for a fight? I suggest you read the first line of the first post again!

If you disagree with someone it does not mean they are speaking from passion rather then sense. That is just a feeble excuse to put down someone who disagrees with you and has a different viewpoint. It also stops you from questioning your own viewpoint.

I never said there would be a war between France and the Allies had Napoleon stayed on Elba. For a start everyone knows that would not happen because the king prefered running away to standing his ground. The other nations may well have started up against each other since none of them wanted any of the others to gain any advantages.

In my opinion, Britain and the other allies did not have the right to say who could or could not rule a country, especially someone who did so without any blood being spilt! He marched at the head of his troops – why was that? Because they wanted him to rule not the king. The allies ignored what the people of France wanted and based their actions on fear. And fear never gives anyone a chance.

Some people in France… But didn't he carefully choose his route of march to avoid monarchist areas? And unarmed civilians tend to be very coy about showing their true feelings to thousands of muskets, swords and guns. Not saying they were threatened, but they probably waved flags and rejoiced when the king returned and would do again.. probably fairly enthusiastic about any army marching through their territory.

I think some the people did genuinely rejoice… maybe until the conscription notices came flooding in. Then again I'm sure some just kept their heads down and said "merde… Here we go again… "

I'm fairly sure he wasn't invited back though so he wasn't missed that much.

Sorry, as much as you want to belive I'm blinkered you are totally wrong.

Well, I do think you are blinkered. You literally cannot see the Allies' viewpoint or see why reasonable people might think they had, at the least, a point.

But I suppose it is a good excuse for you not to question your own beliefs. And Hero-worship – come on, that's just another feeble attempt to put someone down because they disagree with you! Perhaps you can't take someone disagreeing with you?

I couldn't care less whether you agree with me or not on any subject under the sun.

'Because no one can know what someone else intends for the future'

Your words – but it seems the Allies did somehow know, judging by your excuses for them, since you say they punished him for what he might do by not letting him have the opportunity to do anything.

No, you say this. There seems to be little point in re-iterating this since you seem incapable of understanding it, but here goes: they declared war on him, the individual man, for his imperialistic aggression over the last twenty years. Not for what he was going to do what he had already done . Try to comprehend this at least.

You should stand back a bit and view what happened and consider if the Allies were really criminals for declaring war on one man, not the country, knowing full well that the people will support him and that it will lead to more bloodshed and death.

There you go again, assuming 'the people' supported him. No-one knows if they did or not. 'The people' does not mean 'the army'. The Allies had made it perfectly clear when they beat him in 1814, that he, Napoleon, alone was the only obstacle to peace between the Allies and France, and he accepted this in his surrender.

And you must remember that the allies were often on Napoleons side when it suited them. No one was saying he should be punished then – why was that, do you think? Could it be they making a profit form supporting Napoleon – a sort of 'pre 1812 – we love you Napoleon and hate your enemies, because we will prosper from supporting you' to 'post 1812-we hate you Napoleon and love your enemies, because we will prosper from supporting them.'

You have a strange focus on the word 'punishment'. Napoleon wasn't 'punished' until after the failure of his 1815 putsch. And of course the rulers of other European states had to deal with him when he was the strongest power. Finally he alienated just about everyone. You have no point.

You have to think of poor old Poland and how the lovey dovey caring allies constantly carved the nation up between them – and that was before Napoleon hit the headlines! And there's the Russia vs Sweden war over Finland and Norway! Should that all be ignored and say they have a right to say who ruled what country?

Erm, this is the strawman of strawmen. European countries had been fighting each other since their inception – what is your point? Napoleon had done lots of invading, conquering and dividing up lands amongst his relatives and friends. No-one has said that the Allies were a particularly peaceful or nice bunch. What have the wars in Scandinavia got to do with anything??

Anyway, we will have to agree to disagree. If you make another post I might reply. But really, I doubt it will be worth it.

I doubt it too. You seem to be unable to see both sides of the story.

I don't hero worship Napoleon and, as I've said before, there are things he did that I disagree with, such a putting his relatives on the throne of Spain and invading Russia, and of course, dividing his forces on the 18th June 1815. It was interesting that you state you don't 'blame' napoleon for returning from Elba – isn't that a bit of a contradiction?

No contradiction at all. It is easy to see why a man as capable and brilliant as Napoleon should chafe in exile, having been defeated by (as he saw it) a mixture of incompetence and treason, and forced to watch from afar an uninspiring king from a discredited family try to undo his achievements and turn the clock back 25 years or more. It is also easy to see why the French Army would support their true leader and creator and why at least some of the people would fear the restoration of aristocrats to power and land within France. But it is equally easy to see why the Allies would feel that he had proved just too insatiably aggressive and domineering to be acceptable as the leader of France, with a history of trying to defeat the Allied states and (in some cases) impose French rule upon them. There is no guarantee that they coud possiby have accepted from him, save the promise not to be head of state – which he had just broken.

Back to the OP: I'm an unappologetic Bonapartist but if I hated the battle I would not plan to be on the field in 2015, even if it takes a wheelchair. I'll be there crying "vive l'Empereur" and taking the defeat with grace.

I've gamed it several times and the French have won all but one and that one had the Prussians showing up on the 2nd turn by dint of a flukey dice roll.

It is a fascinating battle with lots of "what ifs" to debate over a pint, drama and heroics, and represents the end of an era and the beginning of another one. So what is not to like? I am not particularly anxious to game it again though because it is too well known to play w/o 20-20 hindsight.

So I really don't understand the point of the OP except to agitate the masses.

Edwulf

But wasn't Napoleon supposed to be a man of war and not caring about blood being spilt? Why would he pick a route that involved no bloodshed when there was probably a quicker route that would involve bloodshed. Perhaps there is some truth in the idea of him not wanting war, not that some people attending this site will ever believe that. But each to their own and all that.

Whirlwind

You really are , aren't you, to try to make out someone's point of view has no value, just because they don't agree with yours. That they don't understand history because they dare to see it different to you. How arrogant and blinkered you really are! Unbelievable!

Of course the allies had a point – they were afraid, as I kept saying to you and which you, for some odd reason, seem incapable of understanding or more than likely prefer to ignore.

Of course what happened to Poland, Finland etc, during the Napoleonic period is relevent, it all is – Why are you pretending it is not when you know perfectly well it is. It shows what the allies were like – basically, the same as Napoleon, no different – they were all empire building – Napoleon was just better at it until the latter years.

And the allies fighting or not fighting for Napoleon, when it suited them best – no comment about that? I wonder why? It couldn't mean they were part of the 23 years that you blame Napoleon for and the reason why the allies would not give him a chance? Or are you the type who would let off one but not the other? If Napoleon was guilty then they all were.

The people were not the army – are you kidding? An awful lot of them were the people. How many thousands of your 'non-people' did he have in the Hundred Days campaign?

You might be able to fool some people with your blinkered views and put downs but you are ignoring anything that threatens to make you think or question what you believe.

It would be nice to think that you are basing your views with an open mind, but your posts suggest otherwise. So, I think it best we end it here. I don't want to waste any further space or time on the matter, since it is obvious you can only view things from one point of view and will probably never agree with anything I say. But nothing is as black and white as you try to make it out and putting people down does not really support your arguments.

Happy wargaming anyway.

If an infinate number of monkeys post an infinate number of threads under the name OFM, sooner or later they were bound to get it right.

You really are , aren't you, to try to make out someone's point of view has no value, just because they don't agree with yours. That they don't understand history because they dare to see it different to you. How arrogant and blinkered you really are! Unbelievable!

Well, since I haven't said any of that, I don't think there's much point i responding to what is happening inside your head. Since you have gone in for name-calling '', 'arrogant', etc. I assume you have reached the end of anything sensible you wanted to say.

Of course the allies had a point – they were afraid, as I kept saying to you and which you, for some odd reason, seem incapable of understanding or more than likely prefer to ignore.

Oh, they did have reason to be afraid, did they? Afraid that the person who had invaded pretty much all of Europe again and again, would do so once more? How unreasonable of them to think that his return to power was a bad idea as they would have to defeat him all over again!

Of course what happened to Poland, Finland etc, during the Napoleonic period is relevent, it all is – Why are you pretending it is not when you know perfectly well it is. It shows what the allies were like – basically, the same as Napoleon, no different – they were all empire building – Napoleon was just better at it until the latter years.

Well, that is the point isn't it? Napoleon was the best at 'empire-building' i.e. seizing other people's countries and giving them to his family. So they defeated him and he abdicated. But somehow if he comes back a year later and it is all okay?

And the allies fighting or not fighting for Napoleon, when it suited them best – no comment about that? I wonder why? It couldn't mean they were part of the 23 years that you blame Napoleon for and the reason why the allies would not give him a chance? Or are you the type who would let off one but not the other? If Napoleon was guilty then they all were.

Erm, I did but you didn't read my post? Because Napoleon forced those countries to fight for him, then therefore he should be allowed to be Emperor of France? *sigh* This has been explained to you over and over again. I'm not really interested in sitting as some kind of moral or quasi-legal judge

The people were not the army – are you kidding? An awful lot of them were the people. How many thousands of your 'non-people' did he have in the Hundred Days campaign?

I shall ignore your insulting and ignorant insinuations with 'non-people', appalling though that is. If you genuinely think that the view of military institutions, particularly that of Napoleonic France, must be the same as that of the civilian population, then there is really no point in discussing it with you.

You might be able to fool some people with your blinkered views and put downs but you are ignoring anything that threatens to make you think or question what you believe.

Well, like I said, I think it is your views which are blinkered and biased, favouring Napoleon, ignoring the events of the preceding two decades and not taking any account of the Allies position whatsoever. I hope I can see all parties' points of view.

It would be nice to think that you are basing your views with an open mind, but your posts suggest otherwise.It would be nice to think that you are basing your views with an open mind, but your posts suggest otherwise.

Well I certainly hope that I have approached this question with an open mind. Naturally I think my posts reflect that, but I could of course be wrong. Personally I think it is you have not approached this with an open mind, but there you go.

So, I think it best we end it here. I don't want to waste any further space or time on the matter, since it is obvious you can only view things from one point of view and will probably never agree with anything I say.

Well, hopefully it will end here. Feel free not to waste any further space or time, as you can obviously only see things from the point of view of one trying to create some myth of the 'wronged' Napoleon. I'm afraid i will have to keep on trying to see both sides, which will never be satisfactory to those only interested in maintaining Napoleon's reputation two hundred years on.

But nothing is as black and white as you try to make it out

Well, I feel that really it is you who see Napoleon = good and Allies = bad without taking into account any possible nuances to that.

and putting people down does not really support your arguments.

If you read the posts back, you will find that is you who have introduced the insult in lieu of any actual arguments.

Happy wargaming anyway.

And to you.

Not so Gazz.

I would think a route involving skirmishes and resistance from even a tiny number would
1) possibly slow him down
2) give hope to the king
3) make him seem unpopular and beatable
4) increase the likely hood of resistance elsewhere.

Very savy to make straight for the king and not to sully his return by killing Frenchmen don't you think ?

Id be very wary of mistaking hating the king = wanting an emperor back. Though I'm sure his surviving no maimed veterans would have revelled in it. Either way in sure after another crop of young French men were being buried, or adjusting to life as a crippled financial drain on their families, they had cause to regret it.

I still can't accept the fact he broke his exile. I'm glad he lost to the British led allies… If we hadn't have been there the continentals would have hung him or worse!

Edwulf

So what you are saying is that he could not possibly be thinking of not spilling blood?

I'm not saying everyone wanted Napoleon back or preferred an Emperor to a king, but he did seem very popular and quite a few thousand people were willing to fight and die for him.

Interesting point about the Brits not been there.had they not been then it is possible Napoleon might well have done much better, considering what happened at Ligny, and who knows, and some of the allies, despite their fears might have even gone over to him.

A shame that didn't happen because the anniversary events and publications might have have passed 2015. But anyway, time to move on.

Happy wargaming to you.

Whirlwind

I suggest you try and read your own posts and try to pretend someone is writing them to you – you'll soon spot the insults. Perhaps you are somehow unaware you are doing it?

Glad you agree their reasoning was based on fear of what might happen, rather than what he did.

All the countries that supported or were allied to him were all forced to so were they? Pull the other one Whirlwind. I can't believe you really believe that!

And you know what I meant by non-people, in regards to your statement about the army not being the people – so there was no need for such a rapid and stupid response.

I am not trying to create a myth of a wronged Napoleon-but expressing my views, which differ from your own. Why you keep having to invent such absurd reasoning for someone disagreeing with you is *snup*.

I do try to look at things from both points of view. But it seems you seem baffled if someone can't come to the same conclusions as your own. This suggest that we should end it here because I don't want you to get a headcahe thinking up any further escuses for why someone might disagree with you. Just accept it .

I suggest you try and read your own posts and try to pretend someone is writing them to you – you'll soon spot the insults. Perhaps you are somehow unaware you are doing it?

Well, it is you who have been using very actual insults.

Glad you agree their reasoning was based on fear of what might happen, rather than what he did.

*Sigh*. No. It was based on what he had already done . He had proved himself time and time again as too aggressive and domineering for the other heads of states to accept. Honestly, this is simple stuff, really. Your two 'fears' are exactly the same. Why was Austria afraid of Napoleon in 1815? Because he had invaded and defeated them many, many times in the past 19 years and they were justifiably afraid that given the chance, he would do so again. Can you really not see this?

All the countries that supported or were allied to him were all forced to so were they? Pull the other one Whirlwind. I can't believe you really believe that!

Erm, yes? Russia and Prussia after 1807, Austria after 1809, Spain before 1808, the hitherto neutral German states after 1806…

And you know what I meant by non-people, in regards to your statement about the army not being the people – so there was no need for such a rapid and stupid response.

No. It was your comment that was 'stupid'. Support of a country's Army is not the same as support of that country's People.

I am not trying to create a myth of a wronged Napoleon-but expressing my views, which differ from your own. Why you keep having to invent such absurd reasoning for someone disagreeing with you is rather sad.

Have whichever opinions you like. I'm sorry you use words like 'absurd' and '', but I presume you just use them because you have no reasonable points?

I do try to look at things from both points of view. But it seems you seem baffled if someone can't come to the same conclusions as your own. This suggests that we should end it here because I don't want you to get a headache thinking up any further excuses for why someone might disagree with you.

Don't worry, I'm just fine – perhaps it is your headache we should be concerned about? I'm puzzled why you can't admit the Allies had a point, but there you go. Believe whatever makes you happy.

Just accept it

I look forward to you accepting that some people disagree with you . I imagine that to that have been your last posting on the topic then.

No.
I think his record shows he had no qualms about shedding blood. I Think he weighed up the odds. IF he was more than 100% sure he would be accepted back by Europe then he would have been more than happy to kill a few Frenchmen if he had to. He'd done it before they weren t his folk after all.

Enjoy your war gaming matey.

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

That and just how proud the English are for taking credit for a German victory. Wellington's claim to fame at Waterloo comes down to: "I avoided defeat long enough for Blόcher to win."

Sigh…This has already been quoted above, , so once again, even shorter:

'I should not do justice to my own feelings, or to Marshal Blόcher 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.'

(From Wellington's Waterloo Despatch, the very first official report on the Battle to reach London and the King, therefore the report that would shape public perception)

For the benefit of the hard of thinking, Wellington's claim to fame comes down to: "I avoided defeat cos, as previously agreed, Blucher came in on the French flank and rolled em up…"

BTW, this clear and unambiguous primary source is used by uni lecturers to illustrate the importance of proper research in exploding myths, such as Wellington somehow trying to discredit the Prussian contribution at Waterloo,

Gazzola you've been insulting Whirlwind as soons as he disagreed with you. He in turn has shown restraint.

Lol avoiding defeat. You mean winning?
Love seeing bitter Anglo-phobes sad that British were there at his downfall.
Notice how it's the English eh. Funny that after the battle it was English and Irish units that said THEY had been written out of the history books in favour of Scottish units.

Hate to say it Blucher arriving and the Prussian involvement has always been credited with playing their part. German victory highly disrespectful to the 7000 British and Irish soldiers and 7000 Allied casualties that had been fighting off Frenchmen while the Prussians were dragging their arse and getting trounced in Plancoit. The Germans… Who also lost La Haye Sainte while British and Dutch soldiers held on to hougomont and paploette. Wasn't the only unit to run off a German unit? Hanovarian? But yeah. The British and Netherlands troops who held the line they "lost" the battle. Lol. The destroyed the French army doing it then.

If the British and Dutch army was broken and shattered or retreating then that German victory nonsense would have some truck.

NOW that said I'd fully expect Prussian accounts of the battle to focus the Prussian, Hanovarian to focus on the Hanovarians, ect ect of course if the British do it they are of course deliberately trying to rob the glory and conspire against all others. Lol. I mean you never get Americans claiming THEY won ww2 do you, or Aussie books on the Dardenelles that fully credit the British and French with doing most of the fighting and dying. But of course it's British arrogance…

Gazzola insult someone; surely not!

I am amazed that some people still cling to the idea that Wellington tried to claim all of the credit for the victory at Waterloo; perhaps Anglophobia dominates their thinking to such an extent that they cannot understand what Wellington actually wrote.

As to popular support for Napoleon's return to power, there is evidence that the return was popular in some quarters but not in many sections of society. The Vendee, for example, did not seem too happy with the idea and what data there is on the resistance to conscription indicates that a great many young Frenchmen were not willing to put their lives on the line for Napoleon. By 1815, the vast majority of the French population were sick of war and glory and having their sons killed or maimed on some battlefield or other. There were no popular demonstrations of anguish following Napoleon's two abdications.

Gazzola insult someone; surely not!

I stand corrected. I was probably drunk.

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

- Oh sure! Wellington was notoriously easy to pin by inferior forces, and an old hussar like Blόcher would obviously march his whole army through hostile countryside without anything like a cavalry screen to warn of ambushes.

MungoJess said

That self promoting allied commander has the honour of never beating Napoleon in a head to head battle

Now I'm realy getting confused! Which side won at Waterloo?
It can't have been the Wellington/Blucher side because MJ has pointed out that they didn't.

So, we are now asked to believe that the British-Dutch-Belgian-German army was defeated at Waterloo. I guess that means that the Middle Guard regiments broke through on the ridge and that the French army was not routed by the Allies.

I guess that some people are either so insanely Bonapartist or Anglophobic that they just cannot deal with reality.

As for calling Wellingtom "self promoting", he was, but nowhere near as much as Napoleon.

Wellington was a very good general indeed; however, I feel that he let himself down badly by not interceding on Ney's behalf when he was tried and condemned.

That would have been nice if he'd helped out Ney.

Whirlwind

You did not have to make another post, did you – but you must have felt you had to. And I suppose you will feel obliged to reply to this post.

But please, go get real mate, states joined or fought against Napoleon when it suited them, not because they felt he was right or wrong! And when a state is defeated it often came under control of whoever concquered them, you know, like the Romans conquering Britain. It is not rocket science! But you know that so why the silly statement? Of course, if you object to what Napoleon did, you must surely object to what the allies did when they constantly carved up Poland for example!

Yes, I think I do know the difference between the army and the people. But have you considered that the thousands of men who formed the army had brothers, fathers, uncles, sisters, mothers, daughters – all, you know, people. But I suppose they were all too scared to object to his return.

Of course I can see the allied point of view. Why you pathetically attempt to make out I don't is quite baffling. Your attempts to do are basically a simple-minded if not a dumb attempt at a put down. The argument was that they could have taken the risk because things and people keep changing and have changed throughout the Napoleonic period. I'm pretty sure Napoleon was aware that the French people were probably tired of constant war as I imagine he may have been himself.

But if he had become a threat to their status again then they could have easily clubbed together to sort him out, so they should not have acted on their fears of what might happen. And please, don't try to twist what I say or make out I don't understand what you are saying. If you think that, do me a favour and don't reply to this post. I don't like time wasters!

And I think we have deviated too far from the original post and have now attracted some unsavoury characters. It has almost been enjoyable debating with you – almost.

Maxshadow

I think Mungojess meant Wellington had not defeated Napoleon alone, which he hadn't. He knew he needed the Prussians to even consider a possible victory and probably would not have dared to stay at Waterloo. He would more than likely have tried to find another place or time where he could unite with the Prussians to give him a better chance of success.

But history is history and it was an Allied victory. Anyone claiming either the British won or the Prussians won the battle, is living in cloud cuckoo land and ignoring reality.

Gazzola.
When you said
"But if he had become a threat to their status again then they could have easily clubbed together to sort him out,"
Thats what I think they were doing. You could call it fear.

You did not have to make another post, did you – but you must have felt you had to. And I suppose you will feel obliged to reply to this post.

Obliged? No. Don't feel that you have to reply to this one though.

But please, go get real mate, states joined or fought against Napoleon when it suited them, not because they felt he was right or wrong! And when a state is defeated it often came under control of whoever concquered them, you know, like the Romans conquering Britain. It is not rocket science! But you know that so why the silly statement?

Well, no. Even the most cursory reading of the history of the period 1805-15 will show that the Allied states generally didn't ally with Napoleon except when they had no choice.

Of course, if you object to what Napoleon did, you must surely object to what the allies did when they constantly carved up Poland for example!

Yes, I do – as I object to Napoleon's subsequent betrayal of the Poles' hopes. Frankly I don't see what relevance this has?

Yes, I think I do know the difference between the army and the people. But have you considered that the thousands of men who formed the army had brothers, fathers, uncles, sisters, mothers, daughters – all, you know, people. But I suppose they were all too scared to object to his return.

Your 'point' was that Napoleon came back to popular acclaim. But my point was that this is simply unknowable, the only part of France that we know to have supported Napoleon was the Army. You seem unable to grasp this.

Of course I can see the allied point of view. Why you pathetically attempt to make out I don't is quite baffling. Your attempts to do are basically a simple-minded if not a dumb attempt at a put down.

I assume that you use 'pathetically', 'simple-minded' and 'dumb' because you have run out of anything meaningful to say.

The argument was that they could have taken the risk because things and people keep changing and have changed throughout the Napoleonic period. I'm pretty sure Napoleon was aware that the French people were probably tired of constant war as I imagine he may have been himself.

Yes. You imagine that Napoleon after 23 years had become tired of war and a man of peace. Can you understand that there was no reason at all why the Allies should share your imaginings? You think they 'should have given him another chance', and fair enough, think what you like. But there was no reason at all for the actual Allied governments to share your optimism.

But if he had become a threat to their status again then they could have easily clubbed together to sort him out, so they should not have acted on their fears of what might happen.

Well, no. The history of the Napoleonic Wars shows that defeating Napoleon was an incredibly difficut proposition. They might well have been defeated, not a chance they could reasonably be expected to take.

And please, don't try to twist what I say or make out I don't understand what you are saying.

I don't try and twist what you say. But I don't think you understand.

If you think that, do me a favour and don't reply to this post. I don't like time wasters!

No. I'm allowed to post as long as Bill allows me on his site. It is up to you whether you post or not. I don't really understand the 'time waster' abuse. You can stifle or ignore me at will, it is easy.

And I think we have deviated too far from the original post and have now attracted some unsavoury characters.

I think calling other members of this forum 'unsavoury' is not very nice at all.

It has almost been enjoyable debating with you – almost.

Well I don't know whether to be pleased that you almost enjoyed it, or sad that you didn't. But I get the impressions that you haven't enjoyed any of this in the slightest, and I am sorry for that.

Last Hussar said

If an infinate number of monkeys post an infinate number of threads under the name OFM, sooner or later they were bound to get it right.

ROFL What a gem! That was so funny!

Gazzola. I think you have lost this one, just by coming across as a very blinkered, and, more important, unpleasant person.

John

Seems like everyone else has waded into the fray on this so I guess I might as well too. Besides, It was originally my WHY ALWAYS WATERLOO? thread that started all this off, before it was cynically derailed by some of you.

First of all an easy one;

Can you name a campaign he won after Tilsit? No, just campaigns he LOST!

Um, how about his (two) campaigns in 1809. 1815 guy you really should get some very basic facts right if your going to write something imflammatory.

secondly, this 'who was in the right in 1815' thing, I guess this argument is un-winnable considering the passions that have been inflammed, but here's my view;

Napoleon had the perfect right to leave Elba and return to France. The Bourbons were hated by almost everyone, as they were both immoral and incompetent. The Allies had no right to impose a monarch on the French. It had to be up to the French who they chose.
The Allies DID have a right to declare war on France, but they actually declared war on Napoleon.
Napoleon was a despot it is true, but how often was he backed into a corner by the ruling families of Europe? I see 1815 as being another one of these times.

I just think Waterloo makes a really fun game with lots of very pretty miniatures.

I can set it up on my dining room table. Or use a lot more pretty figures and play it on a bigger table when there's one available.

A British army. Actually fighting against Napoleon. Nosey Hisself v. Boney Hisself. Whee!!!

Gazzola:

way back on page one, you suggested that had the Anglo-Dutch made a withdrawal, they'd have had Napoleon hounding them on the pursuit. Are you sure? It seems to me that Napoleon's next move would have been to wheel on the Prussians and try to finish them off--what with Grouchy already in position to move on their flank.

it's all speculation anyway, but i'm curious as to your reasoning.

It is highly unlikely that Napoleon would have hounded any withdrawal made by Wellington if he knew that the Prussians had escaped from Grouchy and were bearing down on him.

Depending on when Wellington withdrew, Napoleon would either have:

1. An intact army
2. An army with a very badly disorganised I corps
3. An army with a very badly disorganised I and II corps
4. An army with a very badly disorganised everything (except the senior guard infantry and a couple of flanking cavalry regiments)

If Napoleon had set off in pursuit of Wellington without knowing about the Prussian advance towards him, things might have become very interesting indeed.

that's my thought as well.

trotskylives

That was just a what-if thingy. Napoleon may have pursued Wellington, had he been forced to retreat, or as you say, turned on the Prussians. Or he may have done neither-his army may not have been capable after all the fighting – i couldn't say. It would all depend if the Prussians had been held, forced to retreat or had not even approached the battlefield. But the suggestion was if Napoleon was leading the pursuit the same day, the day after or whenever, it may have been more effective than when his Marshals pursued the Brits in the Peninsular.

Whirlwind

Firstly, my apologies for using unecessary terminolgy and also to reference to some members attending this site. A sign I let your insulting posts have an effect. And you are insulting and you know it because you keep trying to put me down by saying I do not understand what you mean.

It is fairly simple and you know it – I know what you mean but I disagree with you. yet you have to make out that someone who disagrees with you has not read history or is unable to understand what happened and why. To do so comes over as a feeble attempt to raise yourself above your actual status.

I can understand and accept your viewpoint and why you have it, yet you seem unable to accept mine. Is it that hard to do?

As you are obviously aware by now, I disagree with your reasoning on most matters, such as why some states sided with Napoleon – it wasn't a case of always having no choice and some stuck with him after 1812.

And there were no mass protests or signs of anguish when the king was, shall we say, chased away, which suggests he may well have been preferred as the ruler. Or, in your mind, they may have been too scared to protest. But I doubt the people of any nation would prefer war with whoever was leading them. The Allies, of course, did not even consider that!

I don't IMAGINE anything and it is beyond an insult to even suggest it. But I can take your insults and laugh them off.

A man of peace – a shame he could not have been given the opportunity, to be one or not.

We have different points of view. Nothing you have said has altered my viewpoint in the slightest way, if anything, my viewpoint has been strengthened by your failed arguments. I imagine that nothing I have said or will say will alter your viewpoint. That is the way it is and such is the beauty of the period we all love – we are not all sheep believing the same or interpreting things in the same way.

Happy wargaming and again, apologies for letting your insults cause me to react the way I did.

A man of peace – a shame he could not have been given the opportunity, to be one or not.

What – you mean as well as 1802,1805,1812 and numerous offers of settlement made in 1813?

My particular favourite Napoleonic act of peace – invading neutral Switzerland in 1802!

Hows this for a peace loving quote:
'What are the deaths of a million men to a man such as I?'

Him and John Lennon, Eh?

Firstly, my apologies for using unecessary terminolgy and also to reference to some members attending this site. A sign I let your insulting posts have an effect. And you are insulting and you know it because you keep trying to put me down by saying I do not understand what you mean.

I'm not trying to insult you by saying you don't understand. I am saying you don't understand because you don't appear to take what is being said into account into your arguments.

It is fairly simple and you know it – I know what you mean but I disagree with you. yet you have to make out that someone who disagrees with you has not read history or is unable to understand what happened and why. To do so comes over as a feeble attempt to raise yourself above your actual status.

Well ignoring the 'feeble attempt to raise yourself above your actual status' comments (and what would that status be?), I do not think that you haven't read the history of the period – I know that you have. But if you don't take salient facts nd key issues into account, then I will think you don't understand them.

I can understand and accept your viewpoint and why you have it, yet you seem unable to accept mine. Is it that hard to do?

Well, actually your understanding and acceptance of other viewpoints hasn't seemed that clear.

As you are obviously aware by now, I disagree with your reasoning on most matters, such as why some states sided with Napoleon – it wasn't a case of always having no choice and some stuck with him after 1812.

Well most of the Allies escaped alliances with Napoleon as soon as they could.

And there were no mass protests or signs of anguish when the king was, shall we say, chased away, which suggests he may well have been preferred as the ruler. Or, in your mind, they may have been too scared to protest. But I doubt the people of any nation would prefer war with whoever was leading them. The Allies, of course, did not even consider that!

The lack of mass protests rather cuts both ways here, as the lack of protests on Napoleon's two capitulations would suggest they didn't want him either? Actually the point is that protests aren't a key indicator of majority opinion, ever. And of course, the Allies did consider it – which is why they declared war on the individual.

I don't IMAGINE anything and it is beyond an insult to even suggest it. But I can take your insults and laugh them off.

Well, there is no insult, so laugh off whatever you like. But you are imagining it. You have no evidence because you don't know what Napoleon intended for the future, but you prefer to ignore the actual past of the Emperor. I think 'imaginings' covers it reasonably well.

A man of peace – a shame he could not have been given the opportunity, to be one or not.

He had had plenty of opportunity, and consistently refused to consider anything approaching a just, equitable peace.

We have different points of view. Nothing you have said has altered my viewpoint in the slightest way, if anything, my viewpoint has been strengthened by your failed arguments. I imagine that nothing I have said or will say will alter your viewpoint. That is the way it is and such is the beauty of the period we all love – we are not all sheep believing the same or interpreting things in the same way.

So much is clear. You just don't want to consider that the Allies might have had a point.

Happy wargaming

And to you

and again, apologies for letting your insults cause me to react the way I did.

This is really pretty ungracious, you know?

there is a very good book :

Coppens, Bernard : Waterloo, les mensonges

The French 'Allies' lost more troops fighting for Napoleon than against…

to paraphrase a Mel Brooks movie; In 1815 Napoleon wanted piece alright, a little piece of Belgium, a little piece of Italy etc…

I am currently reading "Napoleon's Wars An International History 1803 – 1815" by Charles Esdaile.

Very interesting overview of the realpolitik in the period – from all of the major player's perspectives. So far I think it portrays the conflicting regime views well.

If any pro-Bonapartist has not read this I would suggest they do. In my view it puts the diplomatic relationships between the warring powers and Napoleon's own role and actions into a differing perhaps harsher light.

Consequently Waterloo is of course vastly important as it acts as the denouement of the period and lays the foundations for the next.

Whirlwind

It seems you don't know or you are pretending you don't know that you are being insulting. I think you know full well. At least I admit to mine and will try to refain from doing so in future. Again, apoloigies to those who feel I have insulted them. But perhaps you should try to do the same?

Basically it all comes down to you having your views and me having mine, based on the same material and what occurred during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. A bit like two people supporting different teams in a football match-we will both judge what happened differently. A bit like you accusing a player of diving because he did it in the past – so he will always dive – he is never fouled. Different opinions, different views. I'm sure you can at least understand that?

I can't see anything wrong with having different viewpoints, yet you do seem incapable of accepting it. But, unlike you, I do not blame Napoleon for everything that happened.I could be wrong but your posts suggest that you do. And that is the difference between you and me and how we have interprested what we have read and researched.

And come on, you don't really expect everyone to see and interpret things the way you do, just because that is how you see things, do you? That would be pretty foolish and unreal. Best thing is to just accept some people do not agree with you and do not see things the same way. I don't find that hard to to do. Why can't you?

rick32

That's a bit like saying Austria, Russia and Prussia wanted this bit of Poland and that bit of Poland. Russia and Sweden wanted this bit of Finland and that bit. Britain wanted every bit, starting with India.

All the nations were the same with the same mindset but it is much easier for some people to blame Napoleon for everything.

It seems you don't know or you are pretending you don't know that you are being insulting. I think you know full well. At least I admit to mine and will try to refain from doing so in future. Again, apoloigies to those who feel I have insulted them. But perhaps you should try to do the same?

I haven't tried to insult anyone and I am truly sorry if you have felt insulted.

Basically it all comes down to you having your views and me having mine, based on the same material and what occurred during the Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars. A bit like two people supporting different teams in a football match-we will both judge what happened differently.

Sure, no worries.

A bit like you accusing a player of diving because he did it in the past – so he will always dive – he is never fouled.

I don't think the analogy is particularly apt or helpful, but hey-ho.

I can't see anything wrong with having different viewpoints, yet you do seem incapable of accepting it.

I have never had a problem accepting that people have different viewpoints.

But, unlike you, I do not blame Napoleon for everything that happened.I could be wrong but your posts suggest that you do. And that is the difference between you and me and how we have interprested what we have read and researched.

Well I can only think that you haven't read my posts. I don't blame Napoleon for anything. But, on the contrary, you have blamed everyone but Napoleon for 1815. If pressed to give 'blame', I would probably attribute the fault to the Bourbons, Napoleon and the Allies, in that order.

And come on, you don't really expect everyone to see and interpret things the way you do, just because that is how you see things, do you? That would be pretty foolish and unreal. Best thing is to just accept some people do not agree with you and do not see things the same way. I don't find that hard to to do. Why can't you?

I don't find it hard at all. But you seem to find it difficult to disagree about something and not get upset?

I've read this thread with interest, and – ignoring the accusations of ness and promises not to post any more – I am left with a couple of questions for Gazzola:

Is it your feeling that the Allies should have left Napoleon 'in peace' in 1815?
If so, do you at least concede that this would potentially have been a very dangerous thing to do?

Bulldog I know your question was not adressed to me but I found it an interesting one so hope you don't mind if I have a go. I have found myself mostly in agreement with Mazzola throughout all this.

I believe the Allies should have left France and Napoleon in peace in 1815, rather than trying to prop up the ridiculous Bourbons. A nation deserves the right to choose its own Monarch and not have one foisted on it by an outside force.

To repeat what I wrote above.
"Napoleon had the perfect right to leave Elba and return to France. The Bourbons were hated by almost everyone, as they were both immoral and incompetent. The Allies had no right to impose a monarch on the French. It had to be up to the French who they chose.
The Allies DID have a right to declare war on France, but they actually declared war on Napoleon.
Napoleon was a despot it is true, but how often was he backed into a corner by the ruling families of Europe? I see 1815 as being another one of these times".

Of course leaving Napoleon in peace was a potentially dangerous thing to do, but that doesn't mean it wasn't the morally right thing to do. It might also be useful to remember that Napoleon was an older and more worn out figure in 1815 (you could argue that he wasn't the same man after Russia) his armies were far smaller, and the French people/soldiers were not prepared to support him as they did in the old days.

"Um, how about his (two) campaigns in 1809. 1815 guy you really should get some very basic facts right if your going to write something imflammatory."

Oh err….yer…… I actually meant the breach of Tilsit, in December 1810 when Russia withdrew from the continental system. I'll give you that one for my bad writin' and everyfink.

Re some other bits on here…….

On his return to France Napoleon didn't make a beeline for the King. He took a deliberately circuitous and ponderous route in order to build up his support – which he partially did in France.

He was indeed bored in Elba, but the clincher to come back was 1) Fouche had reneged on the promised income to Nap (something like a million francs a year iirc) and 2) Russia had finally acquiesced to Fouches plan to move Bonaparte to St Helena. Nap had little choice but to roll the dice…..

And to finish with the now customary insult/challenge

"Happy Wargaming – God Bless us, Everyone!"

:o)

the clincher to come back was 1) Fouche had reneged on the promised income to Nap (something like a million francs a year iirc) and 2) Russia had finally acquiesced to Fouches plan to move Bonaparte to St Helena. Nap had little choice but to roll the dice….

Oh yeah I'd forgotten about all that! Even more justification for Napoleon's decision to return to France.