"Happy Waterloo Day!" Topic

Happy Waterloo Day! Napoleon keeps Blucher from relieving Wellington, yet cannot take the Mont St Jean Ridge. A Bloody draw but the Emperor lives to fight another day!

link

I was just thinking should have made Beef Wellington

youtu.be/Sj_9CiNkkn4
Waterloo by Abba
And having a scotch

Waterloo Day? Don't tell Brechtel. It would only depress him.

Why? Brechtel still thinks Napoleon won :)

Nice Adlers btw, OP

Great AAR and love those Adlers

It's also the anniversary of Kolin, Fred 2's first defeat. But that was fought on a Monday, not a Sunday.

That's a nice-looking battle, pushing tin.

oh yes the famous german-dutch-belgian-british victory used by Britain despite a reduced participation to rewrite History and proclaim that the British Army was the greatest adversary in 23 years of wars and campaigns against France and that Austria and Russia were only minors players
considered as the great victory of Yurop and Yuropeans against France, celebrated by the 4th Frankfurt Brussels Reich as in 2015 until to mint coins,
the good old days for them when France was defeated conquered and occupied divided in zones of occupation shared by all the others Europeans armies,
easy to understand that is a "happy day" and an orgasmic vision for the continental and insular Yuropeans

My take on the 100 days is that Command and Control lost it for the French – Napoleon wrongly assigned commands and key staff positions. Keeping Davout in Paris as War Minister, and assigning Soult as Chief of Staff – his two best field commanders was a strategic blunder. Just think if Davout commanded I Corps and Soult commanded II Corps, Grouchey as overall cavalry commander and Ney in command of the guard – I bet 16 & 18 June 1815 would have turned out differently!

Grouchy was the commander of the Cavalry Reserve…

Ney should have been left at home…

Davout was appointed Minister of War because Napoleon needed a strong, incorruptible marshal in Paris. It was Davout that organized the Armee du Nord and got it ready to fight.

What an interesting scenario, congrats

"the good old days for them when France was defeated conquered and occupied"

It did happen rather a lot, didnt it?

"oh yes the famous german-dutch-belgian-british victory used by Britain"

Someone is a little bitter, oh don't forget the Penninsular! Fact of the matter is Napoleon did not come back from Waterloo and France spent alot of the next 2 centuries being conquered, and bailed out by former adversaries,

Tally Ho!

only two others demonstrations of limited knowledge adjusted in proportion to the limited participation of the British expeditionnary forces and also of the inversely proportional usual cynical egocentric way for Britain to appropriate victory and greater military commitment, sacrifices, human cost of others nations in the conflicts of the last 2 centuries, nothing new under the british fog

My mistake: not a lot.

"when France was defeated conquered and occupied"

As opposed to doing the defeating, conquering and occupying.

If you do not want defeat to be followed by conquest and occupation, you need the UK's greatest asset. The English Channel. A decent navy and latterly some degree of air control does not hurt.

Defeat in the field generally means those consequences for France (other than the occasional Miracle of the Marne I would admit.)

A water barrier over 25 miles wide does more than military prowess to explain the Superior war record this side of La Manche.

Lilian

YouTube link

only two others demonstrations of limited knowledge adjusted in proportion to the limited participation of the British expeditionnary forces and also of the inversely proportional usual cynical egocentric way for Britain to appropriate victory and greater military commitment, sacrifices, human cost of others nations in the conflicts of the last 2 centuries, nothing new under the british fog

I see the quote marks were routed along with Nappy's hoards?

Well I never expected this to turn into such a discussion but I might have guessed considering the topic :)

Just for the record, anyone who has actually looked at my scenario (it is on my blog, link provided on the original post) will notice 50% of the Coalition force are Prussian and I don't actually specify any of Wellington's army as British. Apart from the 1st Division, Wellington's Divisions were of course a mixture of British, Hanoverians and KGL combined with exclusively Dutch-Belgian Divisions, and of course the Nassau and Brunswick contingents. But as this is well known I didn't feel the need to reiterate this.

It is no harm to see such a discussion, even if it does get "heated".

Better than having your posting ignored and, as I often say here, it is how any face to face chat evolves away from the initial topic.

I thought "Middle Guard" would surely rile someone. It usually does. Great posting

The decision was a draw, but the events suggested a series of disasters for the forces of both DoW and Blucher. Every building, village etc of legend fell to the French and the centre was well and truly broken. There must have been many a double six thrown for morale to let the "Allied" soldiers stay on. I imagine DoW heading west to the coast, well before dark

Actually La Haie Sainte didn't fall and the rest except Hougoumont were swiftly retaken, mostly down to some poor command roles at the start making the Coalition slow to react

Oh well! Yet another game of Waterloo. I hope it was an enjoyable encounter?

Yes, a slightly different take as it includes Wavre as well. Slightly messed up the deployment as I accidentally left out some of the Anglo-Allied artillery, but balanced by also messing up the French deployment instructions so some of theirs started further back than necessary :)

How did the medium cavalry do?

Given the scale of the game I didn't really differentiate between different cavalry types, except heavies are more likely to be Aggressive.

Waterloo will always be a fascinating battle, no matter what. Had some of Napoleon's commanders acted differently or achieved the tasks given then who knows what the result might have been. Had Napoleon won, history would have been asking why the heck did Wellington and the allies take up such a position? And why did Wellington risk everything on the arrival of the Prussians, etc, etc? Such is life.

Just like Penalty shootouts in Football Cup Finals. If only that player had not missed that penalty? And why did the manger let him take a penalty in the first place? Obviously the manager knew the player would miss and would not achieve the task given, so the fault of loss must be down to the manager's choice? LOL

If only life (and history) was as simple as some people think?

But still a great game to play and that is all wargamers can do – play it.

pushing tin

Great game, post and pics.

Vive l'Empereur!!

All I can say is, when I play a game with many players per side, and I am but a small part of any potential victory, and my side wins because of poor fate of the opponent, on many levels I try to win small and gracefully. It is poor form to act differently. I enjoy Waterloo, but am a little turned off by British "celebration." Barely there and can barely take credit.

Anyway. Great photos and great and important battle and I am sure fun to play out. The forces and terrain almost seem done all by the same individual, which may not be true but I enjoy when it seems so. There is something about it which does not look like what I see when I imagine Waterloo, but I can see how this is what someone else imagines and I enjoy that. Great stuff.

Russia and Austria fought in the Napoleonic wars?

I thought the British won the war, first at sea and then at Verdun by invading Maryland and burning Washington DC, then occupying Paris, Texas?

It's all so complicated….
:(

DevoutDavout

I enjoy Waterloo, but am a little turned off by British "celebration." Barely there and can barely take credit

So! The French would have done what If it won the battle? Sit on their collective backsides and pondered on not being open and ecstatic over their 'victorie'?

The British can more than barely take credit. Their performance on the day was without equal.

This is the problem that besets Napoleon fans. There is a running sore in their glorious Napoleonic history. It was an enemy who, by sea and land, fought against Napoleon throughout his Consulate and Imperial rule. And bested his armies and navies in all the major encounters…Britain

Well, here's the question – what would have happened at Waterloo, if there was no Blucher driving madly against the French?

I see a quickly retreating Wellington doing a Dunkirk, or else facing encirclement.

Then, quite possibly, Napoleon may still have lost to his other enemies, but it may have take a few years. The key is his ability to divide them. If Austria, Prussia and Russia [and well, Spain] stay completely united and totally determined, then they might have done it.

Or, their citizens may have become sick of the wars, and refused to continue.

Here we go! The Scooby-Doo…'You pesky kids' syndrome settles into the argument.

The salve is applied but the pain persists.

The British are alright, and I never disparage a line soldier in any army. The thing is the only reason half the "Napoleonic Wars" happened is because Georgie was too insecure to handle the idea of a pleb on a throne, so instigated a lot of war and got a lot of people, his included, killed.

No matter. Had the Forwardcombinglittlefat*r and his hoards won the battle, He'd still have lost the war and be dead of cancer of the guts less than six years later. Unless that is, he's executed, his forward combed hair along with his head, rolling into a dried fish seller's basket at La Roche-sur-Yon Abbey.

He's been dead over 200 years and still making people that mad. Kinda legendary I don't care who you are lol

Now I am dead with laughter. Boney take me home, show me your methods.

DevoutDavout

I refer you to my post of the 30th of June.

:^)

DevoutDavout

Yes, the mere mention of his name certainly appears to make dibble mad. LOL

And the fact they keep writing countless books about Napoleon and making films and documentaries about his life must really baffle him?

I sense he might actually believe that if you say something positive about an enemy of Britain who lost in the end, you must dislike Britain and don't think the British soldiers were good soldiers or that the British army achieved great victories? I mean, that's what his posts seem to imply?

But life and history is not just about winning or only talking or admiring those on the winning side, otherwise we would not be praising and admiring the life, victories and military skills of other great commanders who lost in the end, such as Hannibal.

Perhaps some people are still having nightmares of Napoleon returning or found themselves in an alternative universe were the French won at Waterloo! LOL