Could Napoleon have won Waterloo?

Could Napoleon have won Waterloo?

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

LifeStraw Water Filter for Hiking and Preparedness

250 Piece Survival Gear First Aid Kit

  1. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes. If only he hadn't lost.

  2. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    depends what you mean by won, crushing wellington was beyond him, but fighting to a draw and withdrawing, with wellingtons force too exhausted and battered to mount an effective pursuit was certainly possible

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >crushing wellington was beyond him, but fighting to a draw and withdrawing, with wellingtons force too exhausted and battered to mount an effective pursuit was certainly possible

      Not taking Wellington bait while judiciously inflicting maximum casualties was definitely possible Then again:

      Napoleon played Waterloo a lot more conservatively than his previous campaigns, he could have put more force on Wellington's right flank, his escape route, he could have attempted to storm the British positions without waiting to use his artillery, which might have allowed him a chance to drive them back before the arrival of Von Blucher's Prussians, he should have committed his reserve, the imperial guard early on so that any infiltrations of the enemy line could have been readily exploited. Additionally, he needed to take personal command of the battle rather than watching Marechel Ney do it. If he had taken personal command and not wavering, showing the typical decisiveness that was characteristic of him, it should have been a ready-made victory.
      BUT, overall, that would have won him the battle, but it would not have won him the war. The defeated Anglo-Allied and Prussian forces would have fallen back to regroup, while larger armies from Russia and Austria were marching ever closer. Napoleon lacked reserve manpower and he no longer had the general staff support and the marshalate to field multiple armies effectively.

      It was the end for him one way or another. He might have been able to save the empire, but his crown was out of the question.

      >, he could have put more force on Wellington's right flank, his escape route, he could have attempted to storm the British positions without waiting to use his artillery, which might have allowed him a chance to drive them back before the arrival of Von Blucher's Prussians, he should have committed his reserve, the imperial guard early on so that any infiltrations of the enemy line could have been readily exploited. Additionally, he needed to take personal command of the battle rather than watching Marechel Ney do it

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >crushing wellington was beyond him
      You're an idiot and don't know anything about the battle.

  3. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Napoleon played Waterloo a lot more conservatively than his previous campaigns, he could have put more force on Wellington's right flank, his escape route, he could have attempted to storm the British positions without waiting to use his artillery, which might have allowed him a chance to drive them back before the arrival of Von Blucher's Prussians, he should have committed his reserve, the imperial guard early on so that any infiltrations of the enemy line could have been readily exploited. Additionally, he needed to take personal command of the battle rather than watching Marechel Ney do it. If he had taken personal command and not wavering, showing the typical decisiveness that was characteristic of him, it should have been a ready-made victory.
    BUT, overall, that would have won him the battle, but it would not have won him the war. The defeated Anglo-Allied and Prussian forces would have fallen back to regroup, while larger armies from Russia and Austria were marching ever closer. Napoleon lacked reserve manpower and he no longer had the general staff support and the marshalate to field multiple armies effectively.

    It was the end for him one way or another. He might have been able to save the empire, but his crown was out of the question.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >he could have put more force on Wellington's right flank
      But he wanted to get to Brussels, which is in the centre
      dicking around on the right (west) is pointless
      >his escape route
      this presupposes Wellington wanted to withdraw to the coast; he could also easily have withdrawn north to Brussels
      >he could have attempted to storm the British positions without waiting to use his artillery, which might have allowed him a chance to drive them back before the arrival of Von Blucher's Prussians
      Household Cavalry destroyed d'Erlon the first time he tried that
      >he should have committed his reserve, the imperial guard early on
      then Wellington would have committed his reserve early on in turn, and the result would be an even faster defeat
      remember, the Anglo-Allied army took most of its casualties later in the day, during Ney's assault
      >without waiting to use his artillery
      and mostly from artillery fired close-range into the squares holding off Ney's cavalry or at Hougoumont and La Haye Saint

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      You're crazy. Leading troops in battle personally is a stupid thing to do. Napoleon had terminal stomach cancer and could barely keep his lunch down at Waterloo. He was not in any shape for physical exertion.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        He had blood clotted hemorrhoids, the cancer was almost a decade later.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          that's the butthole lol

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            Yes, my point was his stomach was fine that day.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          He never had hemorrhoids. He had cancer. He also died a few years after Waterloo.

  4. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If he took a Poo
    He would certainly have won
    Over in Waterloo

  5. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Waterloo ultimately doesn't matter either way, it's like asking "could Hitler have won the Battle of Berlin?"

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      so what's the turning point for napoleon? trafalgar?

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Leipzig.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Trafalgar arguably.

        many ill point out perfectly fairly that other nations troops did more of the fighting, but it was ultimately the implacable hostility of the british which doomed Napoleon, the british funded and inspired the resistance of their allies and s lonf as they remained engaged as they were in spain, victory for napoleon was impossible.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Turning point

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Probably fricking up Spain even though he had every piece he needed to peacefully bring them into his sphere.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Trafalgar was his Battle of Britain moment, but he could have sat back, rebuilt the navy, and tried again
        The Peninsular War was nearly as great a defeat as Russia and produced his great nemesis, Wellington, but 1812 was truly devastating

        It's weird how much WW2 is a replay of the Napoleonic Wars however

        Probably fricking up Spain even though he had every piece he needed to peacefully bring them into his sphere.

        He could have just let them do their own thing, but no, he had to force the Revolution down their throats, turn them into a vassal state and put his brother over them

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          No he couldn't have rebuilt his navy, maybe in the. Same way Japan rebuilt after midway but it wouldn't have mattered, he lost the core sailing knowledge needed to compete. And the UK would stop France and Spain from regaining it.
          But ya trafalgar is my vote for a the turning point. Britain's continued shenanigans directly lead to the breakdown of the continental system which led to the invasion of russia.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >he couldn't have rebuilt his navy
            French ship production was very prolific and it took all Britain's resources to counter it, which is partly how the war of 1812 managed to happen: the RN really was THAT stretched that they couldn't crush the US Navy like the insect it was at that time

            but Napoleon was an utter tard when it came to naval matters so...

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Spain+Moscow at the same time. (moronic as frick). He should have taken St petersburg, sat there super comfy and watched the Russians run out of ammo because their industry was absolutely dogshit. He should have negotiated with the Spanish as well.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Either invading Russia or firing his chief diplomat.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Russia
        Spain was a clusterfrick undoubtedly, and it was a mistake to try and turn them into a vassal state in the first place. But if Napoleon had chosen to send his 1812 army into Spain, he would've easily wiped out the Spanish resistance, subjugated Portugal and delivered a decisive defeat to Britain that would've taken them years to recover from. The last time Napoelon personally led a united army into the Peninsular, it was a cakewalk, and a force of 500,000 men invading a country that borders France would've had far better chances than invading Russia.
        Instead, he chose to try and reinforce his ineffective Continental System and tried to subjugate Russia, but the country was too big, too hard to traverse, and too far away for his army to properly operate in. It was the same mistake he made in Egypt, only he didn't have the same level of PR to cover up the disaster this time, and it weakened France to the point it couldn't withstand another fight with the Coalition.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Russia, undoubtedly. Certainly not Trafalgar.

  6. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No, he was French (Actually Italian), and the French lost a Waterloo.

  7. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Even if he won decisively and took Brussels, he was still fricked strategically. I doubt the coalition would have stopped fighting. They, especially Britain, were scared and furious at the surprise comeback of Napoleon and wanted to end it once and for all. Prussia was also eager to kick some French ass.

  8. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    So he wins, who cares? The Coalition assembles another army and comes back and keeps coming back until France literally has no men left to fight, because they're a spent nation after a generation of war.

  9. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Napoleon arrived to France prematurely. He should have waited maybe a year or three more in hopes of Russia/Prussia/Austria and UK alienating each other and their armies being demobilized/sent elsewhere, using the Congress of Vienna as excuse to return, kinda like Hitler did with Versailles

  10. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    If he had sacked Ney beforehand.

  11. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    of course. wellington got lucky

  12. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Maybe if Davout wasn’t stuck in Hannover. He still would have lost the war though.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Davout was in Paris during Waterloo

  13. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Haiti

    He should have just given them old weapons and ships and told them to liberate their brothers and sisters. They would have cause immense turmoil in the carribbean and massively affected Britain's income

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Would have been a waste of time and an utter disaster. Might have distracted the bongs for a while. Also, it might have brought the USA into the war on the allied side, which would have freed up a lot of British manpower and naval assets in 1813

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Americans fighting with the British a year after they emasculated the shit out of them? I think not.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >after they emasculated the shit out of them
          That's a weird way of saying lose.

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            It was a draw. Britain prevented the US from taking Canada and ending British presence on the continent, but the US got them to stop taking their sailors and to expand east.

  14. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Fellow Napeoleongays has anyone found the missing waterloo footage yet? I would suck a wiener unironically to see the cavalry actually frick up the French Column or the Prussians the day before (pay attention to which hand is holding the sabre when they charge at the end, it is actually flipped footage meant for earlier in the movie)

    So close to perfection and yet those last little key moments escape our grasp.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      I watched this version and found some extended unfinished bits in, is this what you mean?

  15. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    >Napoleon was not feeling well on the day of the battle of Waterloo, despite fighting well at Ligny, a few days before the last, dramatic June 18 battle. There is considerable indication that Napoleon was bothered by very painful thrombosed hemorrhoids

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      >c-can I have a sickie
      cope

  16. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Any good online sources on 100 day campaign uniforms and regimental colors, especially for Prussian Landwehr? I really don’t want to buy the entire Osprey library.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Why buy? Just looked and LibGen seems to have most of the Osprey catalogue, see for yourself if it has what you need.

  17. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Fields of Glory by John Schettler is a good "what if" book involving time travelers messing around with Waterloo. Shuffling around of Officers, keeping Ney as an Infantry Commander, recovering Jaochim Murat for his Calvary as examples. Not outright intel/movements but giving Napoleon the best Army and Commanders possible for his time/position. I can't remember who he has chasing Blucher but instead of chasing his tail they instead "March to the Sound of the guns".

  18. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes but it's only delaying the inevitable.

  19. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    It took literally everything possible working against him to lose the battle. If his generals would have stopped chasing Prussians and went to Waterloo he would have won. If he didn't get sick that day he would have won. If it didn't rain the night before he would have won.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      If swings both ways
      If the Prussians weren't such tards and hurried the frick up
      If the Union Brigade had been more disciplined
      If the Prince of Orange was snuffed as a baby
      If the Allied army wasn't 2/3rds militia
      If, if, if
      >sick
      >rain
      everybody was sick and miserable that day, them's the breaks
      most of the line infantry in both armies barely slept or ate, you don't hear them b***hing and moaning about muh stomach pains
      Boney was a spectacular seether in exile, and he has nobody to blame but himself for that

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Cope.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >Cope
          >I cannot, my tum tum hurts

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >Boney was a spectacular seether in exile
        And yet, 200 years later, it seems that he's living comfortably in your mind, without paying you a single dime of rent

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          let's recap here
          >OP: could Boney have won?
          >no
          >yes
          >LOOK HE HAD A TUMMY ACHE THAT DAY AND IF AND IF AND IF
          >no
          >YOU'RE COPING NOT ME
          so what did you expect us to do?
          not reply to your obvious cope?
          let's flip this round: I say
          >"did Blucher made Napoleon his b***h? he escaped at Ligny and came back to pound French ass"
          >you: no he didn't
          >ROFL BLUCHER LIVING RENT FREE IN YOUR MIND 200 YEARS LATER
          how's that then?

          • 1 month ago
            Anonymous

            >so what did you expect us to do?
            >us
            Lol calm down and take your meds : you're talking on the behalf of no one else except yourself, also I am not that anon

            It took literally everything possible working against him to lose the battle. If his generals would have stopped chasing Prussians and went to Waterloo he would have won. If he didn't get sick that day he would have won. If it didn't rain the night before he would have won.

            • 1 month ago
              Anonymous

              >I'm not that guy, there's more than one of us, really
              >you are definitely alone
              mmhmm
              I'm not that guy either 😉

  20. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    No the Prussians would have crushed him anyway.

  21. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, if he didn't have hemorrhoids

  22. 1 month ago
    Anonymous
    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      Did the French not know that the Brits would form into bayonet squares and thus be a very tough nut to crack fro their cavalry? Or did they just shrug and charge anyway

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        they almost certainly expected it given it was the textbook anti calvary tactic, doesn't mean it was guaranteed to work as shit happens in combat. The biggest driving force was they just didn't have time to do much else, it was either crack them there or the British and Prussians would join forces and outnumber the French near 2 to 1

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        The 1970's movie does a good job portraying this. Feigned retreat over the hill crest that Ney couldn't see, from appearances he had broken the British lines and it was the correct time to run them down with Calvary as

        wtf is this meme lol it's hilarious!

        [...]
        well, firstly, Ney misread the situation and thought the army had already broken and was fleeing, at which point the correct decision IS to charge

        secondly, it's possible to break infantry squares, provided their morale or discipline is weak, or you inflict enough casualties. in general the British infantry was very good, and didn't break

        thirdly, once Ney had realised his mistake, he ordered a general attack. this is often characterised as either a series of reckless cavalry charges, or a mistake on his part as Napoleon painted it - but bear in mind that he was in full cope mode in St Helena at the time. the attack was not solely cavalry, but the usual French combined arms with plenty of skirmishers and artillery, and indeed at this point was when the Anglo-Allied army suffered most of its casualties.
        realistically at this point, what else could he have done but to commit? there was no time to prepare any more, the Prussians were coming.

        Waterloo was a slugfest and quite simply, the Allied army traded better. tactically, Napoleon was wrong to give battle - but that's what's called losing.

        said. Instead it was a trap laid by Wellington that Ney kept smashing his forces into, think he had his horse shot out from under him something like 5 times. If he had been a proper Calvary commander instead of an Infantry commander thrown into the role he probably would've done it differently and there is much debate on this. Called off the Calvary sooner, call up support/infantry sooner, turned British cannons on their own formations or even just spiking the guns themselves.

        Regardless, it ended with most of the French manpower spent past the Old Guard and British discipline and rapid fire held the day and the Prussians were already pressing the French outskirts. At this point even if Wellingtons line had broken, Blucher should've been able to carry the day before the French could've reorganized enough to stop the Prussians. Their best case scenario at that point would've been to cede the field and perform holding actions while trying to regroup their units.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >turned British cannons on their own formations

          the brits spiked the guns themselves before fleeing back to the squares. that or they removed the wheels and dragged them back themselves

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      wtf is this meme lol it's hilarious!

      Did the French not know that the Brits would form into bayonet squares and thus be a very tough nut to crack fro their cavalry? Or did they just shrug and charge anyway

      well, firstly, Ney misread the situation and thought the army had already broken and was fleeing, at which point the correct decision IS to charge

      secondly, it's possible to break infantry squares, provided their morale or discipline is weak, or you inflict enough casualties. in general the British infantry was very good, and didn't break

      thirdly, once Ney had realised his mistake, he ordered a general attack. this is often characterised as either a series of reckless cavalry charges, or a mistake on his part as Napoleon painted it - but bear in mind that he was in full cope mode in St Helena at the time. the attack was not solely cavalry, but the usual French combined arms with plenty of skirmishers and artillery, and indeed at this point was when the Anglo-Allied army suffered most of its casualties.
      realistically at this point, what else could he have done but to commit? there was no time to prepare any more, the Prussians were coming.

      Waterloo was a slugfest and quite simply, the Allied army traded better. tactically, Napoleon was wrong to give battle - but that's what's called losing.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        >the army had already broken and was fleeing, at which point the correct decision IS to charge
        >Mon centre cède, ma droite recule. Situation excellente, j'attaque.

        • 1 month ago
          Anonymous

          >on centre cède, ma droite recule. Situation excellente, j'attaque
          Based Desperate Frankie.

      • 1 month ago
        Anonymous

        Napoleon is like Putin today

        This war he launched could not be won, not against the entire Europe.

        Instead of living in luxury, both thought they were smarter than they actually are.

  23. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    no, he was in a situation where his only real option was to attack before his enemies had time to consolidate and have an insurmountable manpower advantage
    the enemy he had to attack was in a fortified position and the terrain was absolutely shit for an assault and that was before the torrential rains that were happening at the time

  24. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Reminder that Waterloo is pronounced water low, and not water loo.

    • 1 month ago
      Anonymous

      you just ruined the entire battle for me.

  25. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yes, if the ground were not so damp. But eventually, given the numbers and the variety of weather and his position in which he needed to fight, it was inevitable he would meet his Waterloo in that campaign even if it wasn't at the battle of Waterloo.

  26. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    Yeah but strategically it wouldn't have meant much

  27. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    According to Ridley Scott, Napoleon lost because he didn't have Josephine with him anymore.

  28. 1 month ago
    Anonymous

    no
    it rained recently and the ground was muddy
    its literally that simple, you cant make maneuvers when the ground is fricked up

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *