0
- My Forums
- Tiger Rant
- LSU Recruiting
- SEC Rant
- Saints Talk
- Pelicans Talk
- More Sports Board
- Fantasy Sports
- Golf Board
- Soccer Board
- O-T Lounge
- Tech Board
- Home/Garden Board
- Outdoor Board
- Health/Fitness Board
- Movie/TV Board
- Book Board
- Music Board
- Political Talk
- Money Talk
- Fark Board
- Gaming Board
- Travel Board
- Food/Drink Board
- Ticket Exchange
- TD Help Board
Customize My Forums- View All Forums
- Show Left Links
- Topic Sort Options
- Trending Topics
- Recent Topics
- Active Topics
Started By
Message
re: So if Napoleon wins Waterloo, does it merely prolong the inevitable?
Posted on 8/2/26 at 3:11 pm to RollTide1987
Posted on 8/2/26 at 3:11 pm to RollTide1987
Maybe Napoleon lasts another 2-3 years if he wins Waterloo. By his return even those sympathetic to him in Paris were becoming not just tired but almost indifferent.
However Wellington was a shrewd general and had crafted a pretty effective strategy with the Prussians
However Wellington was a shrewd general and had crafted a pretty effective strategy with the Prussians
Posted on 8/2/26 at 3:23 pm to RollTide1987
Also why Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington is not mentioned with the greats is almost criminal. The man never lost a face to face battle. Maybe you could say Burgess, but that was more a strategic retreat... why waste time and resources on a siege that in the end doesn't gain you much .....if anything
Posted on 8/2/26 at 3:27 pm to KiwiHead
The Duke probably was the most important man in British history and had a huge impact on world history, not just as the general at Waterloo, but he also became Prime Minister
And despite his hesitancy, he opened up the vote to the common man, which was a huge move forward in Democratic ideals and Western civilization
And despite his hesitancy, he opened up the vote to the common man, which was a huge move forward in Democratic ideals and Western civilization
Posted on 8/2/26 at 3:42 pm to prplhze2000
I don't know that Waterloo was at all a winnable battle for Napoleon. Even if the battle had lasted for more than one day, by the next morning, Napoleon's reinforcements would not have been there.
Grouchy's force might have been able to fight its way to the Waterloo battlefield by noon the next day, but, not before, I think. Grouchy had a lot of Prussians between himself and Napoleon on both June 18 and June 19.
There were many hundreds of thousands of British, Austrian, Prussian and Russians advancing on Paris on 18 June 1815. Merely surviving after the Waterloo Battle would just prolong the inevitable.
In the 100 Days Campaign, Nappy needed to destroy the enemy armies in detail, that is to say, one at a time. He had an opportunity to destroy the Prussian Army at Ligny, but, D'Erlon's First Corps failed to appear at all. Its prompt intervention at the right moment would have destroyed the Prussian Army and chased remnants out of Belgium. Then Nappy could have begun operations against Wellington and tried to defeat him before the Russian and Austrian Armies arrived.
Even if Nappy could have chased Wellington back to Britain, the Russian and Austrian armies were still approaching. I doubt that Nappy could have beaten them both, too.
Grouchy's force might have been able to fight its way to the Waterloo battlefield by noon the next day, but, not before, I think. Grouchy had a lot of Prussians between himself and Napoleon on both June 18 and June 19.
There were many hundreds of thousands of British, Austrian, Prussian and Russians advancing on Paris on 18 June 1815. Merely surviving after the Waterloo Battle would just prolong the inevitable.
In the 100 Days Campaign, Nappy needed to destroy the enemy armies in detail, that is to say, one at a time. He had an opportunity to destroy the Prussian Army at Ligny, but, D'Erlon's First Corps failed to appear at all. Its prompt intervention at the right moment would have destroyed the Prussian Army and chased remnants out of Belgium. Then Nappy could have begun operations against Wellington and tried to defeat him before the Russian and Austrian Armies arrived.
Even if Nappy could have chased Wellington back to Britain, the Russian and Austrian armies were still approaching. I doubt that Nappy could have beaten them both, too.
This post was edited on 8/2/26 at 6:39 pm
Posted on 8/2/26 at 6:28 pm to Missouri Waltz
quote:
I don't know other than he was very unlucky to lose the battle.
He wasn’t unlucky, he was idiotic and broke so many of his own rules.
But to the OP’s question, it wounded merely prolonged the inevitable. They formed coalition after coalition against him and would’ve continued to do so until he made a mistake (Waterloo).
Posted on 8/2/26 at 9:50 pm to Champagne
quote:
I don't know that Waterloo was at all a winnable battle for Napoleon.
The Duke himself famously disagreed with that statement, no?
Posted on 8/2/26 at 10:04 pm to prplhze2000
You’d have to ask the Rothschild that, they have manufactured every war the last 500 years.
Look at how Israel started in 1947 and who was behind it and keep going down the rabbit hole and you realize we’re being played like a fiddle
Look at how Israel started in 1947 and who was behind it and keep going down the rabbit hole and you realize we’re being played like a fiddle
This post was edited on 8/2/26 at 10:06 pm
Posted on 8/3/26 at 1:44 am to prplhze2000
Just prolong the inevitable
The British LOATHED Napoleon and were absolutely never going to tolerate him wielding any significant power in Europe especially once they had him on the ropes
The British LOATHED Napoleon and were absolutely never going to tolerate him wielding any significant power in Europe especially once they had him on the ropes
Posted on 8/3/26 at 4:43 am to prplhze2000
No, they just would have put him on an island that’s even further away. Maybe the Falkland islands?
Posted on 8/3/26 at 5:55 am to Obi Wan Ryobi
Wellington was deadly when he could choose the ground the battle would be on and he chose the crossroads at Waterloo. Plus the weather helped him. Wellington had a at least two traits that Napoleon lacked.
1) He genuinely cared about his soldiers and would not needlessly sacrifice them into a meat grinder to win, so he chose his battles carefully
2) He engendering trust fro his allies, he was reliable and did not needlessly place his allies in disadvantages. If Wellington said he would be there, he would be there.
Also he understood how to use geography to his advantage....see Lisbon as an example, but also Waterloo where he used the terrain to his advantage.
Napoleon would piss people off . When he was winning it could be covered up, but after Russia his flaws are uncovered
1) He genuinely cared about his soldiers and would not needlessly sacrifice them into a meat grinder to win, so he chose his battles carefully
2) He engendering trust fro his allies, he was reliable and did not needlessly place his allies in disadvantages. If Wellington said he would be there, he would be there.
Also he understood how to use geography to his advantage....see Lisbon as an example, but also Waterloo where he used the terrain to his advantage.
Napoleon would piss people off . When he was winning it could be covered up, but after Russia his flaws are uncovered
Posted on 8/3/26 at 8:04 am to prplhze2000
If Napoleon wins at Waterloo, he simply lives long enough to fight another battle. There were several more armies heading his way. He had to win every battle while the coalition only needed to win one. If he wins at Waterloo, he only buys a few days, maybe a week, before he has to do it again. It’s possible that if he wins the second battle, he could convince some coalition members to drop out or switch sides, or that more allies could rally to Napoleon’s banner. But even then, he still has a long shot to hold onto power for another year. He simply did not have the manpower, economic advantage, or the right diplomatic strategy to turn things around.
Napoleon’s Continental system was 150 years ahead of its time, but Europe depended heavily on trade with Asian, African, and American colonies for its wealth. As Great Britain owned the waves, signing on to the Continental System essentially meant cutting oneself off from trade with the rest of the world. Napoleon wanted to cut England off from continental trade partners to starve England of money used to finance France’s rivals. However, England was self-sufficient, so it was relatively unharmed by the continental system compared to the devastation it wreaked upon Napoleon’s allies.
The reality was that after Trafalgar, Napoleon permanently lost any ability to blockade Britain and cut England off from its colonies. Without the ability to do this, Napoleon could not stop England from constantly funding revolutions and wars against him.
Napoleon’s Continental system was 150 years ahead of its time, but Europe depended heavily on trade with Asian, African, and American colonies for its wealth. As Great Britain owned the waves, signing on to the Continental System essentially meant cutting oneself off from trade with the rest of the world. Napoleon wanted to cut England off from continental trade partners to starve England of money used to finance France’s rivals. However, England was self-sufficient, so it was relatively unharmed by the continental system compared to the devastation it wreaked upon Napoleon’s allies.
The reality was that after Trafalgar, Napoleon permanently lost any ability to blockade Britain and cut England off from its colonies. Without the ability to do this, Napoleon could not stop England from constantly funding revolutions and wars against him.
Posted on 8/3/26 at 9:10 am to Obi Wan Ryobi
quote:
The Duke himself famously disagreed with that statement, no?
Good point. But we have a more clear and complete understanding of the whole situation now than the Duke had on 18 June 1815.
But IMHO, the wet muddy ground from the days of heavy rain are a significant factor. Nap's artillery fire and Well's reverse slope tactics neutralized the power of Nap's artillery.
We know that the ground was wet because of the previous day's heavy rains. That neutralizes the power of Nap's artillery. The Anglo Allies were on good defensive ground. Nap's attacking force did not significantly outnumber the Anglo Allied defenders, so Nap tactics in that situation would rely heavily on the "softening up" effect of artillery before launching the attack.
The attack was launched with two Corps - on the left with II Corps, on the right with I Corps. Neither Corps advanced against an enemy that was either outnumbered or shaken by artillery fire. Both Corps advanced against an enemy that had defensive reserves. The equation IMHO indicates that these two attacks were strong, but, not strong enough to chase the Anglo Allies off of the battlefield before the arrival of a strong Prussian Army on Nap's deep right flank.
Nap's army was outnumbered against the combined armies of Prussia and the Anglo Allies. It was difficult to chase the other guy off of the battlefield in one afternoon of fighting in those days. That's why I wonder whether Nap had a good chance to win that battle.
I know that in the morning, Nap thought he had a great chance. In the evening, I know that Well told Blucher that it was a close battle. But, from what we now know about the situation, I'm not convinced that they were right.
I think that the Waterloo Campaign was winnable against Well and Blucher in the short term, before the arrival of the Austrians and Russians. But, Nap had mishandled the campaign by the time the day of Waterloo arrived, and I think these mistakes made his win at Waterloo a long shot - because of the mud and because Grouchy had utterly failed to accomplish his mission.
But, as you say, the Duke did tell Blucher that it was close. And maybe he was right. Maybe Napoleon was very close to crushing the English battalions and chasing Wellington off of the battlefield.
Is your conclusion based on your own analysis of the situation or based on what Wellington said to Blucher? What is your own analysis?
This post was edited on 8/3/26 at 9:46 am
Posted on 8/3/26 at 9:31 am to kingbob
quote:
But even then, he still has a long shot to hold onto power for another year. He simply did not have the manpower, economic advantage, or the right diplomatic strategy to turn things around.
Yes, all of Europe had the rest of 1815 to deal with Napoleon's France. Unless the Allies just gave up and quit for some reason, we can see that the combined Armies of Britian, Prussia, Austria and Russia were going to prevail at some point before the end of 1815.
Great topic.
Posted on 8/3/26 at 9:56 am to Champagne
"They came on in the same old way, and we sent them back in the same old way"
Posted on 8/3/26 at 10:39 am to Champagne
Napoleon could not defeat the combined armies arrayed against him. He could only beat individual armies one on one. Once the coalition figured that out, and Napoleon failed to route the English before the Germans and Prussians arrived, he was finished.
Napoleon had a chance to win the battle by taking out the English first, then taking out the relief army in succession. However, even if he did, the coalition would just send another army. Napoleon wasn’t going to get another army.
One way to think about it is like Lee during the American Civil War. Lee could win great battles, but he couldn’t replace the men he lost to win them. Grant could lose battles and lose men, but he had near infinite supplies and reserves. Logistics wins wars. Napoleon was an x factor in every battle he fought, but in the end, he could only do so much against a foe with such a vast advantage in logistics, resources, and manpower. As such, he could conquer a continent, but he could not hold it.
Napoleon had a chance to win the battle by taking out the English first, then taking out the relief army in succession. However, even if he did, the coalition would just send another army. Napoleon wasn’t going to get another army.
One way to think about it is like Lee during the American Civil War. Lee could win great battles, but he couldn’t replace the men he lost to win them. Grant could lose battles and lose men, but he had near infinite supplies and reserves. Logistics wins wars. Napoleon was an x factor in every battle he fought, but in the end, he could only do so much against a foe with such a vast advantage in logistics, resources, and manpower. As such, he could conquer a continent, but he could not hold it.
Posted on 8/3/26 at 11:05 am to kingbob
Why the Metaurus was a key battle in the Second Punic War and why losing Spain was so huge.
Posted on 8/3/26 at 11:20 am to KiwiHead
quote:
Also why Arthur Wellesley, Duke of Wellington is not mentioned with the greats is almost criminal.
Mathematical analytics are sure high on him. He ranks third all-time on the list from a pure arithmetic stand-point.
LINK to the study/list
Posted on 8/3/26 at 2:01 pm to kingbob
quote:
Napoleon had a chance to win the battle by taking out the English first, then taking out the relief army in succession. However, even if he did, the coalition would just send another army. Napoleon wasn’t going to get another army.
I've already agreed with your over-arching position on the whole Waterloo Campaign.
The only question I'm still pondering is simply whether or not Napoleon's day at Waterloo on 18 June 1815 was a winnable battle for him. He initially attacked with two Corps and both were repulsed rather severely. Nap had no idea that the Prussian Army was going to show up, so, he was not in a great hurry on that day. Nap thought Grouchy was routing the Prussians.
The Prussians DID arrive in the afternoon and when they did, they hit like a ton of bricks with heavy attacks right into Nap's deep right flank.
So, if Nap was going to win the battle on 18 June 1815, he was going to have to whip Wellington's whole army pretty quickly and chase them away, THEN deal with Blucher's Prussian Army. When I examine all of the military units involved and the fact that Nap's army was outnumbered and not elite, I sometimes wonder whether the Battle of Waterloo was winnable for him.
The Duke of Wellington's Army was pretty good, especially on defense, and the Duke himself was an excellent army commander - really outstanding. So, I'm not sure that Nap could have quickly whipped the Duke's forces on that day. Sure, if the Prussians never show up, then, yes, but, it didn't happen that way.
After all, even if Nap's Army managed to stay on the field until morning of 19 June 1815, Grouchy would not be there to help. Grouchy was still being held off by a Prussian Army Corps. Nap would be fighting the combined armies of Wellington and Blucher on 19 June, and he would have lost on that day.
So it is very interesting to ponder.
This post was edited on 8/3/26 at 2:06 pm
Posted on 8/3/26 at 2:05 pm to Champagne
quote:
I sometimes wonder whether the Battle of Waterloo was winnable for him.
Given how it all went down, I don't think it was. Even if he had pushed Wellington off the ridge he was defending, he still would have had Blucher barreling down on his right flank with an additional 50,000 men. While these Prussians weren't fresh (they had been defeated two days earlier by Napoleon at Ligny), they would have had a superior tactical position that I don't think Napoleon would have been able to overcome. He'd have had to have wheeled his entire army to the right while it was in the middle of chasing Wellington. There's no way he would have been able to get them organized enough to blunt Blucher's attack.
Posted on 8/3/26 at 2:30 pm to RollTide1987
Pretty much agree. However, the one wild card is Blucher's mindset if NB had quickly disposed of Wellington. If the news of Wellington's defeat reaches Blucher, now he's faced with the prospect of NB to his front and Grouchy somewhere behind him. He probably doesn't press on towards Waterloo given those circumstances.
Other than that, it was pretty much a done deal.
Other than that, it was pretty much a done deal.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow TigerDroppings for LSU Football News