"Wellington's Wars " Topic

Interesting review about this book here.

rosbiffrog.blogspot.com.ar

Amicalement
Armand

Thanks for the link, Armand!

A votre service mon ami!.

Amicalement
Armand

In my opinion, in the Napoleonic epoch, or Napoleonic Wars, there was only a military genius: and was not english.
Wellington was a great commander, very clever, no doubt, but not a genius.

If 'genius' is winning lots of battles, but ending up dying an embittered,lonely exile on a desolate island, I'd rather be merely 'very clever' and enjoy reputation, prize money and retirement in comfort, thanks!

Wellington certainly was a great commander but not as great as Napoleon, in my opinion.

In terms of retiring, basically being forgotten unless Napoleon and Waterloo are mentioned by most people, is far less an achievement than having a whole historical period named after you. And Napoleon had lived a life full of money and comfort as part of his empire.

And Wellington did not earn his title the Iron duke from his military achievements but from the metal shutters he was forced to place over his windows because of the stones being thrown at them by the 'adoring' British public.

But both great characters and commanders anyway and thankfully both from the same period. It looks an interesting book which was published last year but probably not the last of titles covering the 100 Days campaign and characters we shall see that will, no doubt, flood the market between now and 2015.

Arthur1815,
If you read about the subjects and with a objective mind, well, it's clear why this epoch is called Napoleonic Wars (for English too) not Wellington Wars. :o
Clever as I said and a gambler as Boney too: "Just don't mention the prussians" refered to Siborne's work about Waterloo. And finally, as Napoleon said, he was in a "lonely exile on a desolate island" thanks to Blücher and the prussians, not to Wellington (very good resistance for british army of course, but not for to win the battle… alone)

Gazzola,
Totally agree with you. Many people thinks that Wellington was an 'immaculate' commander, what also had his gaffes, of course: Burgos siege or the result of Cintra's convention just to mention two facts.

I have no problem with the era being called The Napoleonic Wars. It reflects the fact that Napoleon was either the aggressor in, or the target of, all the campaigns fought in Western Europe between 1804 and 1815. He – the French head of state – is the catalyst, the common feature, throughout.
And he was, also, very successful at winning battles.

Wellington was never head of state, he was neither the initiator of any of the wars, nor their target.

To use an analogy: it would be entirely appropriate to label the War in Europe 1939-45, 'The Hitler Wars', but very strange to call it 'The Montgomery Wars', 'The Patton Wars' or 'The Zhukov Wars'.

If the fans of the Corsican Tyrant reread my post, they will see I never denied Napoleon's claim to be a genius, nor to have the era named after him; I merely made the point that I, personally, would prefer to forego being called a 'genius' and enjoy a comfortable retirement from my military career. Similarly, I would prefer to be Scipio, rather than Hannibal…

arthur1815

When you retire, if you have not yet done so, you might well be surprised at what you want. Not everyone settles for slippers and comfort.

Yes, Hannibal was a great commander who I also admire, but he ended up being betrayed by his own people, so no love lost there for anything he achieved. And it is a matter of choice really. Some people are more facinated in Hannibal than Scipio, although I lean more towards the Roman commander.

But as an admirer of Napoleon, I have no problem in considering the 'Irishman' Wellington as a genius in the military sense. But, in my opinion, Napoleon easily topped Wellington because, as you pointed out, not only was he a military genuis, he was also an emperor running an empire, which I doubt Wellington or any of Napoleon's other military opponents, could have done.

But what great characters history has produced and we have the luxury and pleasure of reading all about them and admiring or disliking them, as is our choice. But none of our views will change history and sadly, I doubt history will produce many more like them.

Gazzola,
I am semi-retired, and will draw my work pension next year.
If I am fortunate enough to continue to enjoy reasonable health for my age, and can avoid dementia, slippers, comfort and time to spend wargaming, reading military history &c., will suit me just fine, thanks!

the result of Cintra's convention just to mention two facts.

Lets get with the program people – even a military court packed with his enemies was forced to exonerate Wellington from this convention he was ordered to sign, and which he had nothing to do with negotiating – he merely won the battle which preceeded it!

'Facts' indeed!

he was also an emperor running an empire, which I doubt Wellington or any of Napoleon's other military opponents, could have done.

I take your point mate, however any appreciation of the government 'support' that Wellington 'received' tends to make his feats of arms more, rather than less, impressive.

It was Napoleon who was free from having sub standard commanders foisted upon him, and was free to exploit and browbeat his 'allies' at will, rather than having to humour, cajole, and go down on bended knee to them….

Back on topic, judging from the review it seems this author follows other recent revisionists into the trap of believing that old canard that Wellington somehow failed to acknowledge the essential contribution of Blucher and the Prussians, or his Netherlands allies to the victory.

Any historian worth his salt would of course look to Wellington's Waterloo Despatch as an unimpeachable primary source in this matter, since it was written the night after the battle, and would have been the first, and official, account of the battle. And of course Wellington is unstinting in his praise of both allies, and acknowledges freely that the battle could not have been won without the 'timely intervention' of Blucher and the Prussian army:

' 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.

Its actually quite sad if yet another historian has missed, or ignored, this freely available and key source as to any machinations Wellington is accused of in this matter.

The irony is, of course, that it was actually Napoleon who spent his time rewriting the history of the battle and reallocating blame! But no historian ever made money except by knocking British Generals!

arthur1815,
"If the fans of the Corsican Tyrant reread my post, they will see I never denied Napoleon's claim to be a genius, nor to have the era named after him; I merely made the point that I, personally, would prefer to forego being called a 'genius' and enjoy a comfortable retirement from my military career. Similarly, I would prefer to be Scipio, rather than Hannibal…"

I'm not a special fan of "the Corsycan Tyrant" and I respect your preferences for Scipio, but everybody knows and claims the figure of Hannibal, not Scipio's figure.
And about "Hitler's war" well, I think it's a poor comparison. A epoch is not only military matters, rigth?
education, thinking, laws, architecture, ecc, ecc.

Sparker,
As you said "…Wellington from this convention he was ordered to sign…".
Wellington signed a official convention following orders only???

You don't mention Siborne's "fact", sure Captain Siborne was a liar, surely, and the diorama of Waterloo was a faithful copy of Wellington's Waterloo Despatch, right?

"The irony is, of course, that it was actually Napoleon who spent his time rewriting the history of the battle and reallocating blame! But no historian ever made money except by knocking British Generals!"

Napoleons spent his time rewriting the battle? All his time? Man, be serious, please.
Perhaps Charles J. Esdaille is a example of your "theory" of "no historian ever made money except by knocking British Generals!"???

Napoleons spent his time rewriting the battle? All his time?

Not all his time, just the bit he had left over after re-writing the history of Marengo.

Technically there are two battles of Marengo. The first battle Napoleon lost and the second battle Desaix won. Naturally Desaix had the good taste to die so he couldn't contest Napoleon's account ;-)

Chorch,
I don't understand your point about Hannibal, unless you are saying he is more famous today than Scipio – in which case I probably agree. But Hannibal, like Bonaparte, died a wretched death, defeated, in exile; Scipio enjoyed retirement in his seaside villa.

I think my point about 'Hitler's War' is entirely valid – if Napoleon had not seized power as a result of his military success, and then won more battles as Emperor, it is extremely unlikely either the war or the era would have been named after him. Without his battlefield success, he would never had had the chance to meddle with the law, education or to have pieces of architecture erected to glorify his achievements. He is remembered, even by non wargamers, primarily as a general.

Funny how my tongue in cheek remarks generate such heat. I would imagine anyone but a megalomaniac would prefer to live out his retirement to a ripe old age in comfort, than to die at a relatively early age, a lonely, wretched exile accorded the epithet of 'genius'.

Sparker,
As you said "…Wellington from this convention he was ordered to sign…".
Wellington signed a official convention following orders only???

Correct Sir!

And I might add, since he was completely exonerated by the court martial, it is in extremely poor taste to bring the matter up to suggest he was a bad general.

You don't mention Siborne's "fact", sure Captain Siborne was a liar, surely, and the diorama of Waterloo was a faithful copy of Wellington's Waterloo Despatch, right?

Sir, if you can't bear to let go of the old, easily disproved cliche that Wellington somehow failed to give due credit to Blucher and the Prussians for saving the battle, then that is your right. Just don't ask me to join you on your planet….But I am a little curious – what is it about 'attribute the successful result' that you are failing to understand?

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.

arthur1815

Indeed Hannibal (Trebia, Trasimene, and Cannae) is more famous than Scipio (Zama). And I like the comparison because more or less (more or less I repeat) is the same situation than Napoleon and Wellington.
Best retirement of Scipio and Wellington? No doubt. You prefer (I too) old retirement and confort, but we speak from a XXI century perspective not XVIII-XIX centuries perspective.
Returning to the question: I only said that for me Wellington is not a military genius in comparison to Bonaparte. Bonaparte transformed the battlefield and the structure and constitution of his armies, and soon the other countries (Austria, Prussia, ecc) copied his methods.
I don't speak of Napoleon as a head of state but is an interesting point from Gazzola post that makes a clear distintion between Napoleon (Emperor) and Wellington (Marshal and spanish "Generalísimo"). Of course Napoleon made big mistakes (the Continental System) and huge mistakes (Russia's invasion) and many others mistakes, but for me, in a military way, always is the number one of these years. Wellington the second? Perhaps… there are more opinions. For me the second is Davout, he played a very impressive military career.
And a simple question: you as a wargamer, give the same value to Napoleon´s counter that Wellington's counter? ;)

Sparker,

I see you say that Wellington signed the convention "following orders". Well, it's the same old story (he made it following orders). But if the Cintra's convention was a mistake from a military point of view (It's Esdaile's opinion, not mine but I agree) and these commanders signed (Dalrymple, Burrard… and Wellington) clearly this signature was a mistake: following orders or not. The commision exonerated Wellington the December 22, not was the case of the two others commanders (hum! very curious). A very lucky man!
On that point I suggest you the reading "The Peninsular War. A new history" from the same author. Clarifies significantly the events of this conflict.

Siborne's affair is an old cliché? Or it's not true? If that's the case (it's not true) you can say: Wellington never said/or suggested "Just don't mention the Prussians" on that point.

Surely is an old cliché too the Wellington criticism of the dispositions of the Prussian army at the Battle of Ligny and how Gneisenau remembered bitterly the help promises from the Iron Duke (Alessandro's Barbero book on this point). Some Prussian commanders didn't trust Wellington, but the victory (Waterloo) has many fathers and makes strange friends.

I never said nor suggested that Wellington was a "bad general". Never. I only said that he was not a military genius. Bonaparte transformed the battlefield and the organization and disposition of their armies, systems soon copied for other countries (Austria and others). On these years (20 years) and on military way, for me the number one is clearly Napoleon. Wellington the second? There are many opinions on the subject, for me the second is Davout, a military career that has nothing to envy to Wellington, for example.

Finally speaking about Wellington "formalism" I remember the Wellington's opinion of spanish Marquis of la Romana (Pedro Caro y Sureda) as a general ("clearly a disaster") and when he spoke in La Romana's death, a brilliant quote as your example of Marshal Blücher, more or less:
"El ejército español ha perdido en él su más bello ornamento, su nación el más sincero patriota y el mundo el más esforzado y celoso campeón de la causa en que estamos empeñados".
Google trad.:
"The Spanish army has lost in him its most beautiful ornament, his sincere patriot nation and the world the most courageous and zealous champion of the cause in which we are engaged".
My God!!!

Sincerely yours and from my planet,

and how Gneisenau remembered bitterly the help promises from the Iron Duke

Its a shame Gneisenau didn't also remember the caveat that Wellington gave 'If I am not attacked myself' – he was! (Quatre Bras)

Thank you for both those book suggestions, as it happens I have read and enjoyed them both. Of course all modern history is just reiterpretation of the sources, so is not infallible.

Personally I find the facts of the case, when the reported speech or writing of the Iron Duke, still speak clearly over the centuries…

He remains direct, honest, and to the point! And so concerned with his reputation or legacy that he was prepared to grovel on his knees before a Spanish aristocrat to feed his men, and admit as much….

Mserafin

Thanks for your opinion. To clarify more the question:

"In addition to the numerous memoirs published by those who followed Napoleon to St. Helena (Montholon, Gorgaud, Les Cases, Marchand et al.), the Emperor dictated notes on several of his campaigns during his exile. These memoirs are contained in the final volumes of the Correspondance de Napoleon Ier."(*)

(*) "Witness to the glory-Lieutenant-General Henry Gatien Bertrand, 1791-1815", by Steven Laurence Delvaux, Florida State University, 2005

Not to mention his memories or the opinion about other historical characters as Caesar.

Sparker

"Of course all modern history is just reinterpretation of the sources, so is not infallible.".

Modern historians have the advantage of perspective over the years on the facts that write (more objectivity in some cases) apart from access to sources and writings from 200 years ago that old historians could not access (even German and Russian sources nowadays thanks to the efforts of Mikaberidze and others). Sure Oman and Napier also weren't infallible.

"He remains direct, honest, and to the point!"

But you (as Wellington) couldn't speak about the same character at first instance as a "very bad general" -there are opinions about this fact, probably some spanish historians disagree- and following in La Romana's death: "The Spanish army has lost in him its most beautiful ornament…". The most beautiful ornament a bad general? Honesty or hypocrisy?

Finally I think the best quote it's from Wellington itself:
"Napoleon's hat on the battlefield is worth 50,000 men". In that point he was direct and honest.

138SquadronRAF

"Technically there are two battles of Marengo. The first battle Napoleon lost and the second battle Desaix won. Naturally Desaix had the good taste to die so he couldn't contest Napoleon's account ;-)"

Of course, and from the same point of view technically there are two battles of Waterloo: The first battle Wellington vs. Napoleon ant the second Wellington and 52.000-45.000 prussians (some sources vary the numbers) vs. Boney! ;)

138SquadronRAF

I'm not sure I agree you on the two battles of Marengo. Desaix's arrival turned the tide and saved the day true, but if the victory is given to him, then we must assume that Blucher won the battle of Waterloo, since his arrival won the day for the Allies.

arthur1815

Your retirement 'plan' sounds good but that is my point, what you are content with in retirement might not be enough for others, who might want more. And you don't have to be a megalomaniac to prefer something other than comfort and slippers. People might want to go exploring, mountain climbing etc, etc. And you must remember you are not Wellington or Napoleon, well, not in this life anyway, so I doubt you will have had such a successful and eventful life to think about.

As for dying at an early age, considering the period, the wars, health, diseases, poverty etc, that most people would not live all that much longer than Napoleon did. For a start, they were not filled with as many preservatives as we are these days.

But they would certainly never achieve as much as Napoleon did in their short/long lives, as none of us will. It is, I suppose, a matter of choice – to live long, unknown, achieve nothing, perhaps with only the reward of slippers and biscuits at the end of it, or to live a shorter life, be involved with some of the greatest characters of history and make history yourself. I'd go for the latter but sadly, I think, like most people, I will have to settle for slippers and biscuits.

As with your posts, mine are also written somewhat with tongue in cheek, so I do hope no one takes offense, although my stifle count had probably gone through the roof!

Sparker

I think there are quite a few 'authors/historians' making money doing their best to knock Napoleon than Wellington. And most authors writing on the Allied commanders that I've come across seem to offer nothing but praise about Wellington, while watering down his failures at Burgos and first Badajoz and his later politcial career, from which he earned his title the Iron Duke. I am somewhat suprised that the book calls him by that name, as it was earned for his military achievements, but perhaps the rest of the book is okay?

Other than that, Napoleon and Wellington were and always will be two great commanders. That can never be changed, no matter how hard some people try.

Gazzola,
I accept most of your first paragraph entirely – obviously people have their own individual tastes and ambitions they will wish to satisfy. You may be taking my metaphor of 'comfort and slippers' a little too literally.

However, I think in many ways I have had a 'more successful' life than Boney: I have taught many pupils and helped at least some of them to achieve their academic goals; I have a wife and two healthy children from whom I am not exiled; I am not a prisoner whose every move is watched, but am free to come and go as I please; I have had articles on my favourite hobby published which some people have enjoyed and may continue to do after I am gone.

Most importantly: I have NOT led thousands of young men to their deaths to satisfy some desire for 'glory' or reputation. We must be grateful that only a very few 'achieve as much as Napoleon did' !! The worst any one has suffered at my hands has been a 'teling off', having to redo a piece of shoddy work or a detention! True, I shall probably not be remembered long after my demise, but that doesn't desperately worry me…

If Boney was such a 'genius', he would surely have realised that the Allies – after spending so long and so much blood and treasure to finally defeat him in 1814 – were never going to let him regain and retain power in France in 1815, and stayed put on Elba. Reminds me of some recent Middle Eastern heads of state, who try to cling onto power in the face of internal revolt and international condemnation, when a smart chap would hop into his private jet and disappear – after cashing in his secret Swiss bank account deposits – to live in comfort and obscurity somewhere.

IIRC, Odysseus visits the Underworld and speaks to Achilles, who had chosen to go to the Trojan War knowing that he was fated to die there, in oreder to gain eternal glory, who had come to bitterly regret his choice…

arthur1815

You post proves a point. You are not Napoleon, and neither am I. We are who we are and try to achieve what we can for whatever reasons we are trying to do so.

And I'm pleased you feel you have had a happy life. Good for you and long may it continue. I have also achieved many of the things you have mentioned. But you and me live now, not then. You and me live in a completely different world, not Napoleon or Wellington's world. We know what happend in history and how one thing led to another and what should and should not have been done. The luxury of hindsight and all that. And how we think now cannot compare on how we might have thought then, no matter what we hope we may have thought.

And if you accuse Napoleon of leading thousands of young men to their deaths, then that charge must also be laid at the feet of all the Allied kings, emperors and generals, especially those who started the wars (eg-1809 etc) against Napoleon and those who paid others to start wars or continue fighting with Napoleon. You cannot just blame Napoleon, although it obviously easily for many to do so. They were all as bad as each other in that sense, but Napoleon was just better at it for most of the time.

Napoleon was a leader, an Emperor, so he probably expected to be treated as one, in the same way that he did not exile or execute any of the Allied Emperors, kings etc after his victories. And if the Allies 'really' wanted peace in 1815, they could have given him the opportunity to prove it. Instead, to use your own words, they lead thousands of young men to their deaths. They declared war on Napoleon, Napoleon did not declare war on them. Any blood is on their hands.

And some characters in history, like Alexander the Great, Julius Caesar etc, probably did want to be remembered for glory and the creation of empires, but there is far more to them than just glory seeking and empire building. To accuse Napoleon or any other great military character of just wanting glory at any cost, is to ignore reality. But for some people it is much easier to paint everything black and white and throw all the blame on one person. Saves them looking any deeper or discovering and accepting that the so called 'goodies' were equally as bad. Not that I'm saying you are like that.

And I'm not sure I can accept your Trojan war example, because that was a myth (as far as we know) written by a fiction writer, not an historian or author writing about something factual (Again, as far as we know up to now). And Napoleon and Wellington were real people, in real times, creating real history. But we must never forget that they were people and people do make mistakes and the wrong decisions. None of them were gods.

Anyway, enough ranting from me. Everything I have said is just my opinion and I accept some people wilI disagree. I have no problems with that. I do hope your happy life continues. At the moment, I'm just recovering from climbing a mountain, well, a medium sized hill to be more truthful and it was more walking than climbing. But later, after some enjoyable reading and research, I hope to get stuck into more painting – French Guard, Cossacks and lovely Confederation of the Rhine miniatures, plus some 1809 buildings from Timecast. Who said retirement is boring? Slippers and biscuits – no chance! (well, not until the painting is finished anyway)

Gazzola,

And I hope you continue to enjoy what you do, and achieve the success you desire therein.

I think it was Victor Hugo who wrote something to the effect that: just as the street girl gives herself to the man who beats her, so do the masses worship the tyrant who slaughters them to build his pyramid.

To my mind, the admiration of Napoleon so often displayed on these boards is an example of that phenomenon.

You may object – as you did to my reference to the Odyssey – that this was a work of fiction. But surely both Hugo and Homer, whilst not reporting facts, display considerable insight into human nature as well as to the cultures of their eras?

And surely the issue raised by the book in the OP is whether – in the judgement of history, rather of his own time – Wellington deserves to be regarded as a 'genius', whatever that may be? So, similarly with Napoleon…

arthur1815

I think your posts offer some interesting insights into human nature. But you must remember that one man's tyrant is another man's hero, so how an historical character is thought of, depends on who is doing the thinking. Sadly, some people don't think any further than their noses.

And to be honest, I find your description of those who admire Napoleon as a military commander, a bit disturbing. It does not in least relate in any way to those who admire him or what he achieved, unless, of course you propose the same 'example' for those who admire Wellington or other historical characters? Do you?

And it is so easy to just blame one person for everything and to look at events and history as black and white. But real life is not like that and anyone doing deep and decent research will be aware of that, whatever the period.

But, to get back to the original post, Wellington could be considered as a military genius – I'd have no problem with accepting that. But, in my opinion, Napoleon was far more of a military genius than Wellington or any of the other Revolutionary and Napoleonic period commanders. And my DIY skills are not that good, so I doubt he'd want me to help him build his pyramid.

Gazzola,

Of course one's interpretation of any character will depend upon one's own perspective, nationality, prejudices, religion &c., &c.

But the opposite of 'hero' is not necessarily 'tyrant'. For example, though I might not accept the rationale behingd the rebellion of the American Colonies, and believe George Washington to have been but a mediocre tactician and no military genius, I find him an admirable man, both for his moral courage in adversity and his refusal to give way to the temptation to remain President to cling onto power. George III himself recognised this, and praised Washington for it. Washington was no genius, but he achieved a great deal – and lived to enjoy a comfortable retirement. Wouldn't you prefer to have been Washington than Bonaparte? – even if your battles would never by held up for admiration in military academies or wargame magazines!

Bonaparte, on the other hand, perhaps deserves to be called a 'military genius', but abandoned the principles of the Revolution by seizing power in a coup, and becoming Emperor – king in everything but name – and making his brothers into monarchs over countries he defeated – a good illustration of the axiom that power tends to corrupt.

The Hugo quotation was not cited to disparage those who admire Napoleon's undoubted military skills, but as an illustration of the tendency to idolise people such as Achilles, Alexander, Richard Coeur de Lion and Napoleon for physical bravery, winning battles and causing death and destruction, above others whose contributions to human history have been more constructive.

And I do detect that tendency in some posters on TMP, who rush to counter any perceived 'criticism' of their hero…

man's hero is another's

arthur1815

I don't think anyone is 'rushing' to post against any negative criticism, they are just posting their viewpoints which disagree with yours and some others. Negative and postive viewpoints are to be expected, well, except perhaps by those who panic and leg it to the stifle button.

And historical characters do not have to be one's 'hero' to be admired -just admired for what they achieved. And not everyone will be impressed by what that character achieved, which again, is to be expected.

But yet again, it is far too easy to blame one person for causing death and destruction – all the allied powers wanted what Napoleon and France had, and at any cost – hence the 1815 campaign which didn't have to happen. To think otherwise is to ignore reality, but some people do love to play the 'blame' game and only see the allies as goody-goodies.

Most revolutions die, become corrupted or turn into Empires, so Napoleon only moved it on to the next stage, which, thankfully, we enjoy reading about and wargaming. I loved the Revolutionary period but I also love the Empire period. Same with the Roman Republican and Empire periods.

Yes, many great characters have achieved great things for mankind, as well as incredibly destructive things – but this is a website about wargaming. We play wargames and wargaming has nothing to do with saving or destroying mankind, well, not outside the game anyway, so I don't think this is the right site to discuss who your non-military hero might be, do you?

Washington or Napoleon – both great characters of history but I would certainly go for the one with a period of history named after him. My choice of course and you might prefer Washington. It is all about how the individual sees and interprets history and its famous characters and most of us tend to view things differently, perhaps as it should be.

Think that Monsieur le Rosbif had to post here…

No, I'm only kidding my friend, as I had read your comments in your blog. (big smile).

Keep with the good work on it!.

Amicalement
Armand

And if you accuse Napoleon of leading thousands of young men to their deaths, then that charge must also be laid at the feet of all the Allied kings, emperors and generals, especially those who started the wars (eg-1809 etc) against Napoleon

Bit of a hoary old chesnut on TMP, those nasty nasty Sovereigns declaring war on poor old Napoleon, but, just to clarify, when you refer to 1809, are you referring to the Austrian conflict, or the one in the Iberian peninsula?

Thats the thing with going around invading countries and kidnapping their heads of state. Sooner or later the s will start doing it to you, the ingrates!

Sparker

Everything we discuss today is old, considering it all took place 200 years ago! And I was refering to the campaign against the Austrians when they invaded Bavaria.

In 1815 Napoleon did not invade anyone. He just took back the the crown without any bloodshed.

Yeah, possibly right about effects of invading other countries – Britian's take over of India for example.

And I was refering to the campaign against the Austrians when they invaded Bavaria.

Right, got that. So not the campaign against the Portuguese caused when Napoleon invaded Portugal. Just checking.

Sparker

It is always good to check and a shame more people did not check their facts. But it is easier for some people to blame Napoleon for everything and ignore reality, even 200 years after the event! Funny old world, init, or should that be funny old people?

we must assume that Blucher won the battle of Waterloo, since his arrival won the day for the Allies.

I agree with 'Mad Hoffy' on this one – he did.

138SquadronRAF

Wellington on his own – No

Blucher on his own -definitely No

Both together (and with the Dutch and Belgians of course) – Yes

It wasn't Wellington or Blucher's victory – it was an Allied victory

Can't change history, no matter how hard some authors try (well, not yet anyway)

Yes, I think we can all agree with the Duke of Wellington's official published assessment as to what cliched the outcome:

'the timely arrival of Marshal Blucher'!