Ok. I always here everyone saying how wellington is better than Naoleon, he crushed him at Waterloo, blah blah blah. Let me say this: Wellington never defeated NApoleon. In Spain, he defeated Napoleon's subbordinates, which isnt much of an accomplishment, because the Spanish did the same thing.... Now for Waterloo. Wellington had an amazing defensive position. It had just rained, limiting the effectiveness of Napoleon's artillery. Yet, he still managed to get all but completely chased from the field by Napoleon. The only thing that saved his army from complete annhilation was Blucher and the Prussians arriving at the last second to defeat Napoleon's tired and depleted forces. Blucher was only able to save the day to the incompetence of (Grouchy was it?) and his inability to finish off the already defeated Prussian army. In short, Napoleon beat Wellington. Blucher was the one who defeated Napoleon, and only due to the incompetence of Grouchy. Napoleon had Wellington completely defeated and his army sent packing until the prussians arrived.
Not to mention napoleon was high as shit on opiods and the person who really commanded that battle was Michael Ney. So really Michael Ney lost waerloo napoleon was just chilliing getting high and dieing from ulcers(I think thats what he had)
Pluse, the farmer (or whatever profession) who acted as a guide was infact a traitor, and a huge number of cavalry died in a ditch? (I can't find the correct word) wich nobody saw.
Don't you do that shit. Blaming ney for the defeat you maggot. Napoleon did the planning and he's plans were followed, only thing ney did was ordering that cav charge that went to shit. And napoleon did lead at the beginning and at the end (napoleon got back t leading just before prussians showed up if I remember correctly). He only went away during the middle of the battle you pinhead I agree with you @slydessertfox
Maybe because napoleon lost? When Blucher arrived, napoleon was just forced to commit his reserves and guard units, The British still had plenty of reserve units on the flanks. He could have defeated Napoleon easily with his remaining forces. Plus napoleon wouldn't have been able to fight on much longer considering he'd mobilized all of the Armee to fight the Anglo-Dutch and the Prussians, There is no way that napoleon could've continued on, even after he "won" waterloo.
Besides, the troops Wellington had at his command weren't the same men he had fought with in the Peninsular, experienced and hardened. Most of the British army wasn't available for the battle at Waterloo, as Nappy had caught the Coalition sort of by surprise. The troops Wellington had were mostly foreign, not used to Wellington or his strategies. If Wellington had his forces from the Peninsular, he would have won even more convincingly. And you are wrong to diminish his success against Napoleons subordinates in Spain. Those men were some of the best generals in France, and always outnumbered Wellingtons men vastly. And of course Wellington would defend. Because he had already won one war against Nappy, most of Europe was under the control of Napoleons enemies and reinforcements were on the way. Only a fool would have attacked in that scenario.
What Impeccable says. I'm half way through a book with Wellington and Napoleon as the main characters. I have not yet reached Waterloo, but I have to say that Wellington was a genious in the Peninsular. He did not once fight a battle outnumbering the enemy, and he, for a considerable amount of his campaign, fought with an under-manned, under-nourished, under-equipped and an un-paid army. Particularly whilst in Portugal, where he was defending a small amount of land against the strongest army in Europe. Within two years he had Madrid. What is more, is that the sheer incompetence of Napoleon led him to a defeat in Russia. On my life I have never heard such a level of arrogance, the character seemed destined to fail, completely disreguarding the logic and excelence supplied Davout and backed up by his other Marshalls. Overall, it seems to me that Wellington was a much more competent commander.
In addition, Wellington never lost a battle. Not one. He fought in Denmark, India, Portugal, Spain and France, he won every battle. Not many generals can say that. @C_G Those aren't the Simon Scarrow books, by any chance? I've read those ones.
You seem to forget that history channel has the most legit shit. but in all honesty I really dont care how people see napoleon its just shitty hes remembered, for the most part, as losing waterloo and losing all his army in Russia when he has won more battles then caeser and alexander combined and only lost like 7 times or something.
Interesting, apart from Napoleon, what other real challenges he faced? I don't know much about him. Anyway, even if Napoleon lost some battles, he was still considered a military genius and other generals feared facing him in battle.
I've gotta agree here. There were so many factors that undid Napoleon. A BIG one was the God awful weather. The second being Ney in charge for a long while & his bloody cav charge. You also got Grouchy not being able to catch the Prussians. Those three things undid Nappy. Nappy's plan was great. It was to strike at the middle farmhouse & then Wellington would crumple. Under his command it was taken, but the army was so depleted it couldn't follow up & the Prussians were arriving. So you can say Wellington & the Prussians beat Napoleon, but to say he is better than him after winning one horribly lopsided battle is ludicrous.
Mind you, there wasn't much of a chance Napoleon was going to win the War afterwards unless he got incredibly lucky. Everyone in Europe hated him and shit and was mobilizing to kill him. If he had won it only delayed the inevitable.
