Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
It was a battlefield. Luck must be made if not convenient; Marshal Ney, "seemed antsy" and could have been dispatched from the wing, to lead a "flying column" to ensure the Prussians were no longer, Wellington's, "lucky charm".In spite of all those illnesses of Napoleon (because he was an old man by then) the fight with Wellington would have ultimately resulted in a draw of two approximately equal forces.At the end he was sick not the same Napoléon did not have the same skillsAn astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.
In Dresden he suffered several days of hepatic colic. During the Battle of Leipzig, he again had extremely violent gastric and hepatic pains at the limit of the bearable. His health did not improve during the campaign of France.
From March to May 1815: Astreint permanently sat in his office to reorganize his army and government, under considerable stress and overwork, he was constantly beset by new gastric crises.
June 16-17, 1815: On the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, he was resumed by pains similar to those felt at Leipzig in 1813. He did not sleep that night (Boigey, 1930).
June 18, 1815: On the morning of the battle, he is treated for hemorrhoids very frequent among the great horsemen (Masson, 2010).
When Blucher showed up it was just bad luck for Napoleon and good luck for Wellington.
Lots of battles in history were simply good luck for one side and bad luck for the other. Sort of like a crap shoot. You roll the dice and you take your chances.
I think Wellington was brave -- maybe even rash -- which means insane bravery beyond the point of sanity.Let's face it, The allies knew how to beat napoleon at his own game by the Battles of the Nations or Battle of Leipzig....In spite of all those illnesses of Napoleon (because he was an old man by then) the fight with Wellington would have ultimately resulted in a draw of two approximately equal forces.At the end he was sick not the same Napoléon did not have the same skillsAn astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.
In Dresden he suffered several days of hepatic colic. During the Battle of Leipzig, he again had extremely violent gastric and hepatic pains at the limit of the bearable. His health did not improve during the campaign of France.
From March to May 1815: Astreint permanently sat in his office to reorganize his army and government, under considerable stress and overwork, he was constantly beset by new gastric crises.
June 16-17, 1815: On the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, he was resumed by pains similar to those felt at Leipzig in 1813. He did not sleep that night (Boigey, 1930).
June 18, 1815: On the morning of the battle, he is treated for hemorrhoids very frequent among the great horsemen (Masson, 2010).
When Blucher showed up it was just bad luck for Napoleon and good luck for Wellington.
Lots of battles in history were simply good luck for one side and bad luck for the other. Sort of like a crap shoot. You roll the dice and you take your chances.
I used to do tech work for the TOW I and TOW II systems, with a 99% kill ratio they are awesome..Back in the early 1980's they were only on tripods or mounted in jeeps..Also used to do tech work on the DRAGON a shoulder fired light anti armor missile..When you think about it, size always matters.Yes, when I play, I always concentrate artillery against the English center and use cavalry for screening and matched attacks against cavalry...Plus, I don't do like Napoleon and do a center attack, I outflank the weaker units on the right French flank...or English left flank..Much like Alexander did...But that is the advantage of having a battle done over and over...The Brit's have never had enough guys to be able to mass infantry like the French, the Russian, or the Prussians had.The Anglo-English used line tactics, which did give them better firepower, while the French used a heavier artillery...
So the Brit's could only go about 3 lines deep.
That however worked quite well for them since that is about how long it takes to reload a muzzle loading rifle.
Cannon are really big guns. They still are. But until the tank was invented by the British in WW1 these big guns were slow.
So cavalry was superior to cannons back in those times because cannon was slow while cavalry was fast.
Cannons are superior to infantry at a distance however.
Infantry then and now can only be beaten by other infantry. This lesson was most recently learned during the Iraq wars -- both against the Persians and also against the USA.
Infantry now have rockets and missiles that can defeat tanks.
Tanks can defeat other tanks and any other mechanized vehicle.
But tanks are easy meat against modern aircraft.
Modern aircraft cannot always remain on station -- they need to refuel and reload. And bad weather can keep them complete out of the fray.
Go fokk yourself. To the ignore list with you.We are discussing Waterloo. You need to pay better attention to the argument; because, any corporal could do better.A lance is not longer than a bullet can fly.It is why traditional cavalry could not break infantry squares. Lancers could have a lance longer than a musket with baynet, and could "lance them" at the infantry square at a charge. Sufficient break in the square could enable cavalry to jump over breaks in the formation and melee at close range from within the square.Normally the squares had bayonets attached...and could fire volleys...Not a good match up..You claim that; but, ranged attack by lancers who can then close like cavalry, could have made a difference.You cannot break an infantry square except with other infantry or with long range shelling by artillery.
Cavalry with horses and lances or swords cannot do it.
Artillery is ideal actually, since the squares are condensed.
But if you fired your artillery upon an infantry square you will also kill your own cavalry.
The infantry would never form squares unless attached by horses.
Otherwise the infantry will be drawn up in lines or in skirmishers.
The US Civil War promoted skirmisher formations rather than lines and squares because rifles had become so much more accurate.
In modern warfare we use skirmisher formations now for lite infantry on the ground (deployed from their mechanized transport vehicles).
Why do you believe lancers could not effectively engage an infantry square, at range, with lances, before closing with sabers?
Plus horses are nice big targets.
This became even more apparent during WW1.
Uncle Sam never trusted me with a TOW.I used to do tech work for the TOW I and TOW II systems, with a 99% kill ratio they are awesome..Back in the early 1980's they were only on tripods or mounted in jeeps..Also used to do tech work on the DRAGON a shoulder fired light anti armor missile..
Ney was all Napoleon had left after losing the majority of his Marshals...He was not the best one could have..It was a battlefield. Luck must be made if not convenient; Marshal Ney, "seemed antsy" and could have been dispatched from the wing, to lead a "flying column" to ensure the Prussians were no longer, Wellington's, "lucky charm".In spite of all those illnesses of Napoleon (because he was an old man by then) the fight with Wellington would have ultimately resulted in a draw of two approximately equal forces.At the end he was sick not the same Napoléon did not have the same skillsAn astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.
In Dresden he suffered several days of hepatic colic. During the Battle of Leipzig, he again had extremely violent gastric and hepatic pains at the limit of the bearable. His health did not improve during the campaign of France.
From March to May 1815: Astreint permanently sat in his office to reorganize his army and government, under considerable stress and overwork, he was constantly beset by new gastric crises.
June 16-17, 1815: On the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, he was resumed by pains similar to those felt at Leipzig in 1813. He did not sleep that night (Boigey, 1930).
June 18, 1815: On the morning of the battle, he is treated for hemorrhoids very frequent among the great horsemen (Masson, 2010).
When Blucher showed up it was just bad luck for Napoleon and good luck for Wellington.
Lots of battles in history were simply good luck for one side and bad luck for the other. Sort of like a crap shoot. You roll the dice and you take your chances.
Damm you are dumb.It was a battlefield. Luck must be made if not convenient; Marshal Ney, "seemed antsy" and could have been dispatched from the wing, to lead a "flying column" to ensure the Prussians were no longer, Wellington's, "lucky charm".
Just a bad day for Napoleon; there may be some credence to his being too sick to be more diligent.I think Wellington was brave -- maybe even rash -- which means insane bravery beyond the point of sanity.Let's face it, The allies knew how to beat napoleon at his own game by the Battles of the Nations or Battle of Leipzig....In spite of all those illnesses of Napoleon (because he was an old man by then) the fight with Wellington would have ultimately resulted in a draw of two approximately equal forces.At the end he was sick not the same Napoléon did not have the same skillsAn astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.
In Dresden he suffered several days of hepatic colic. During the Battle of Leipzig, he again had extremely violent gastric and hepatic pains at the limit of the bearable. His health did not improve during the campaign of France.
From March to May 1815: Astreint permanently sat in his office to reorganize his army and government, under considerable stress and overwork, he was constantly beset by new gastric crises.
June 16-17, 1815: On the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, he was resumed by pains similar to those felt at Leipzig in 1813. He did not sleep that night (Boigey, 1930).
June 18, 1815: On the morning of the battle, he is treated for hemorrhoids very frequent among the great horsemen (Masson, 2010).
When Blucher showed up it was just bad luck for Napoleon and good luck for Wellington.
Lots of battles in history were simply good luck for one side and bad luck for the other. Sort of like a crap shoot. You roll the dice and you take your chances.
Blucher knew he could not stop Napoleon however, and without Wellington, Prussia would have been conquered.
It is just lucky for Europe that Wellington came along when he did, and that Blucher showed up at just the right time. Otherwise Europe would have been speaking French entirely after that.
ok. Napoleon used lancers to chase Wellington's cavalry off the battlefield. Why was that, if they were equal as a mounted force?Go fokk yourself. To the ignore list with you.We are discussing Waterloo. You need to pay better attention to the argument; because, any corporal could do better.A lance is not longer than a bullet can fly.It is why traditional cavalry could not break infantry squares. Lancers could have a lance longer than a musket with baynet, and could "lance them" at the infantry square at a charge. Sufficient break in the square could enable cavalry to jump over breaks in the formation and melee at close range from within the square.Normally the squares had bayonets attached...and could fire volleys...Not a good match up..You claim that; but, ranged attack by lancers who can then close like cavalry, could have made a difference.
Why do you believe lancers could not effectively engage an infantry square, at range, with lances, before closing with sabers?
Plus horses are nice big targets.
This became even more apparent during WW1.
We are discussing Napoleon.
You are not the O/P.
You are just a little weasel who does not know anything.
Remember however that even with all of Napoleon's problems, he still fought his way to within a few yards of Wellington -- right up until the time that Blucher finally showed up.Ney was all Napoleon had left after losing the majority of his Marshals...He was not the best one could have..
I never got to fire one, just watch at practices...My job was to keep them firing...Yet, during Reagan we could never get shelf stock parts...Good thing we didn't have to go to war..Same with my second MOS which was power generation equipment tech...My last duty station was 1st cav, 68th ADA, before the mobile surface to air missile systems came out...Another case of lucky to have not had to go to war..A Mig could knock out the ADA 2 miles away and the ADA could only fire a mile...Uncle Sam never trusted me with a TOW.I used to do tech work for the TOW I and TOW II systems, with a 99% kill ratio they are awesome..Back in the early 1980's they were only on tripods or mounted in jeeps..Also used to do tech work on the DRAGON a shoulder fired light anti armor missile..
All I ever got was a LAAW.
Wellington had a larger calvary force to work with..ok. Napoleon used lancers to chase Wellington's cavalry off the battlefield. Why was that, if they were equal as a mounted force?Go fokk yourself. To the ignore list with you.We are discussing Waterloo. You need to pay better attention to the argument; because, any corporal could do better.A lance is not longer than a bullet can fly.It is why traditional cavalry could not break infantry squares. Lancers could have a lance longer than a musket with baynet, and could "lance them" at the infantry square at a charge. Sufficient break in the square could enable cavalry to jump over breaks in the formation and melee at close range from within the square.Normally the squares had bayonets attached...and could fire volleys...Not a good match up..
Plus horses are nice big targets.
This became even more apparent during WW1.
We are discussing Napoleon.
You are not the O/P.
You are just a little weasel who does not know anything.
Only inferiors have nothing but bigotry, instead of a superior argument.
True he should have sent a blocking force..Remember however that even with all of Napoleon's problems, he still fought his way to within a few yards of Wellington -- right up until the time that Blucher finally showed up.Ney was all Napoleon had left after losing the majority of his Marshals...He was not the best one could have..
I suspect that without Blucher, Waterloo would have ended up as a draw, and most of the troops on both sides dead.
In that case the French could have raised more troops from France, but the Brit's would have been fresh out with no more available anywhere.
We have already beaten cavalry to death.Wellington had a larger calvary force to work with..
My dad was in 1st Cav too.I never got to fire one, just watch at practices...My job was to keep them firing...Yet, during Reagan we could never get shelf stock parts...Good thing we didn't have to go to war..Same with my second MOS which was power generation equipment tech...My last duty station was 1st cav, 68th ADA, before the mobile surface to air missile systems came out...Another case of lucky to have not had to go to war..A Mig could knock out the ADA 2 miles away and the ADA could only fire a mile...Uncle Sam never trusted me with a TOW.I used to do tech work for the TOW I and TOW II systems, with a 99% kill ratio they are awesome..Back in the early 1980's they were only on tripods or mounted in jeeps..Also used to do tech work on the DRAGON a shoulder fired light anti armor missile..
All I ever got was a LAAW.
Ney was all Napoleon had left after losing the majority of his Marshals...He was not the best one could have..It was a battlefield. Luck must be made if not convenient; Marshal Ney, "seemed antsy" and could have been dispatched from the wing, to lead a "flying column" to ensure the Prussians were no longer, Wellington's, "lucky charm".In spite of all those illnesses of Napoleon (because he was an old man by then) the fight with Wellington would have ultimately resulted in a draw of two approximately equal forces.At the end he was sick not the same Napoléon did not have the same skillsAn astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.
In Dresden he suffered several days of hepatic colic. During the Battle of Leipzig, he again had extremely violent gastric and hepatic pains at the limit of the bearable. His health did not improve during the campaign of France.
From March to May 1815: Astreint permanently sat in his office to reorganize his army and government, under considerable stress and overwork, he was constantly beset by new gastric crises.
June 16-17, 1815: On the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, he was resumed by pains similar to those felt at Leipzig in 1813. He did not sleep that night (Boigey, 1930).
June 18, 1815: On the morning of the battle, he is treated for hemorrhoids very frequent among the great horsemen (Masson, 2010).
When Blucher showed up it was just bad luck for Napoleon and good luck for Wellington.
Lots of battles in history were simply good luck for one side and bad luck for the other. Sort of like a crap shoot. You roll the dice and you take your chances.
The Ferme de Hougoumont was being assaulted..Ney was all Napoleon had left after losing the majority of his Marshals...He was not the best one could have..It was a battlefield. Luck must be made if not convenient; Marshal Ney, "seemed antsy" and could have been dispatched from the wing, to lead a "flying column" to ensure the Prussians were no longer, Wellington's, "lucky charm".In spite of all those illnesses of Napoleon (because he was an old man by then) the fight with Wellington would have ultimately resulted in a draw of two approximately equal forces.At the end he was sick not the same Napoléon did not have the same skillsAn astoundingly brilliant tactician and logistician, ultimately undone by poor strategy and lack of ideals.
In Dresden he suffered several days of hepatic colic. During the Battle of Leipzig, he again had extremely violent gastric and hepatic pains at the limit of the bearable. His health did not improve during the campaign of France.
From March to May 1815: Astreint permanently sat in his office to reorganize his army and government, under considerable stress and overwork, he was constantly beset by new gastric crises.
June 16-17, 1815: On the eve of the Battle of Waterloo, he was resumed by pains similar to those felt at Leipzig in 1813. He did not sleep that night (Boigey, 1930).
June 18, 1815: On the morning of the battle, he is treated for hemorrhoids very frequent among the great horsemen (Masson, 2010).
When Blucher showed up it was just bad luck for Napoleon and good luck for Wellington.
Lots of battles in history were simply good luck for one side and bad luck for the other. Sort of like a crap shoot. You roll the dice and you take your chances.
nothing needed to happen on that front; a corp commander would have been sufficient.
Napoleon could not attack in a timely manner due to the weather; he should have dispatched Marshal Ney with a flying column to ensure there was no luck in Wellington's favor, from that quarter.Remember however that even with all of Napoleon's problems, he still fought his way to within a few yards of Wellington -- right up until the time that Blucher finally showed up.Ney was all Napoleon had left after losing the majority of his Marshals...He was not the best one could have..
I suspect that without Blucher, Waterloo would have ended up as a draw, and most of the troops on both sides dead.
In that case the French could have raised more troops from France, but the Brit's would have been fresh out with no more available anywhere.
Yet, lancers were able to "match them", just fine, and drive them from the field.Wellington had a larger calvary force to work with..ok. Napoleon used lancers to chase Wellington's cavalry off the battlefield. Why was that, if they were equal as a mounted force?Go fokk yourself. To the ignore list with you.We are discussing Waterloo. You need to pay better attention to the argument; because, any corporal could do better.A lance is not longer than a bullet can fly.It is why traditional cavalry could not break infantry squares. Lancers could have a lance longer than a musket with baynet, and could "lance them" at the infantry square at a charge. Sufficient break in the square could enable cavalry to jump over breaks in the formation and melee at close range from within the square.
Plus horses are nice big targets.
This became even more apparent during WW1.
We are discussing Napoleon.
You are not the O/P.
You are just a little weasel who does not know anything.
Only inferiors have nothing but bigotry, instead of a superior argument.
Unfortunately for Napoleon it rained until noon, and canon balls don't bounce very well on wet sod..Napoleon could not attack in a timely manner due to the weather; he should have dispatched Marshal Ney with a flying column to ensure there was no luck in Wellington's favor, from that quarter.Remember however that even with all of Napoleon's problems, he still fought his way to within a few yards of Wellington -- right up until the time that Blucher finally showed up.Ney was all Napoleon had left after losing the majority of his Marshals...He was not the best one could have..
I suspect that without Blucher, Waterloo would have ended up as a draw, and most of the troops on both sides dead.
In that case the French could have raised more troops from France, but the Brit's would have been fresh out with no more available anywhere.
