Napoleon Bonaparte

[Moonglow]

A lance is not longer than a bullet can fly.

Plus horses are nice big targets.

This became even more apparent during WW1.

We are discussing Waterloo. You need to pay better attention to the argument; because, any corporal could do better.

Go fokk yourself. To the ignore list with you.

We are discussing Napoleon.

You are not the O/P.

You are just a little weasel who does not know anything.

ok. Napoleon used lancers to chase Wellington's cavalry off the battlefield. Why was that, if they were equal as a mounted force?

Only inferiors have nothing but bigotry, instead of a superior argument.

Wellington had a larger calvary force to work with..

Yet, lancers were able to "match them", just fine, and drive them from the field.

Not all and calvary can make only so many attacks during a battle..

 

[danielpalos]

At the end he was sick not the same Napoléon did not have the same skills

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).

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.

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.

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".

Ney was all Napoleon had left after losing the majority of his Marshals...He was not the best one could have..

nothing needed to happen on that front; a corp commander would have been sufficient.

The Ferme de Hougoumont was being assaulted..

That should not have happened; it is why Marshal Ney should have been dispatched with a flying column to intercept the Prussians instead of engaging the British.

 

[danielpalos]

Ney was all Napoleon had left after losing the majority of his Marshals...He was not the best one could have..

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.

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.

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.

Unfortunately for Napoleon it rained until noon, and canon balls don't bounce very well on wet sod..

It is why dispatching his marshal to intercept the Prussians, in the mean time, was a good idea.

 

[danielpalos]

We are discussing Waterloo. You need to pay better attention to the argument; because, any corporal could do better.

Go fokk yourself. To the ignore list with you.

We are discussing Napoleon.

You are not the O/P.

You are just a little weasel who does not know anything.

ok. Napoleon used lancers to chase Wellington's cavalry off the battlefield. Why was that, if they were equal as a mounted force?

Only inferiors have nothing but bigotry, instead of a superior argument.

Wellington had a larger calvary force to work with..

Yet, lancers were able to "match them", just fine, and drive them from the field.

Not all and calvary can make only so many attacks during a battle..

It is about the application of force; lancers were a match for regular cavalry; and, could have been used to break infantry squares instead of cavalry.

 

[Picaro]

In my opinion, lancers should have been effective against infantry squares; unlike cavalry.

If there weren't musketry and grenadiers in the squares, they might have been. Napoleon's use of artillery was original, effective, and hard to beat.

He could not use them to his advantage at Waterloo due to the weather.

In the frontal assault right up the center into a dug in position, yes. His left flank, however, wasn't as muddy, and conducive to his usual tactics. He would then have been in a perfect position to route the reinforcements arriving from the direction of his right flank later in the day as well. Hougemont was a tough nut, but he only had to screen it, not take it. But all in all, Wellington set up a brilliant defense, and Napoleon should have chosen not to fight it out there; he didn't have to, and his mistakes were inexplicable, like delaying his attack until his entire army was arranged along the front, losing precious hours for a pointless fashion show. Definitely not his best moment.

 

[Picaro]

Except the French used infantry column tactics...

Yup back in those times everybody did.

It was called "Napoleonic".

Robert E Lee tried something like this at Gettysburg and we all know what happened there.

The Anglo-English used line tactics, which did give them better firepower, while the French used a heavier artillery...

The Brits used a three man line, kind of outdated by then, easily flanked by skirmishers and cavalry, and chewed up by artillery. This lesson still wasn't learned by many commanders in our own Civil War, essentially a Napoleonic war itself.

 

[danielpalos]

In my opinion, lancers should have been effective against infantry squares; unlike cavalry.

If there weren't musketry and grenadiers in the squares, they might have been. Napoleon's use of artillery was original, effective, and hard to beat.

He could not use them to his advantage at Waterloo due to the weather.

In the frontal assault right up the center into a dug in position, yes. His left flank, however, wasn't as muddy, and conducive to his usual tactics. He would then have been in a perfect position to route the reinforcements arriving from the direction of his right flank later in the day as well. Hougemont was a tough nut, but he only had to screen it, not take it. But all in all, Wellington set up a brilliant defense, and Napoleon should have chosen not to fight it out there; he didn't have to, and his mistakes were inexplicable, like delaying his attack until his entire army was arranged along the front, losing precious hours for a pointless fashion show. Definitely not his best moment.

I agree; he should have declined to offer battle to the British and focused on the Prussians.

 

[Moonglow]

In my opinion, lancers should have been effective against infantry squares; unlike cavalry.

If there weren't musketry and grenadiers in the squares, they might have been. Napoleon's use of artillery was original, effective, and hard to beat.

He could not use them to his advantage at Waterloo due to the weather.

In the frontal assault right up the center into a dug in position, yes. His left flank, however, wasn't as muddy, and conducive to his usual tactics. He would then have been in a perfect position to route the reinforcements arriving from the direction of his right flank later in the day as well. Hougemont was a tough nut, but he only had to screen it, not take it. But all in all, Wellington set up a brilliant defense, and Napoleon should have chosen not to fight it out there; he didn't have to, and his mistakes were inexplicable, like delaying his attack until his entire army was arranged along the front, losing precious hours for a pointless fashion show. Definitely not his best moment.

I agree; he should have declined to offer battle to the British and focused on the Prussians.

That's a luxury he did not have, as the Austrians and Russians were coming to battle also..

 

[Moonglow]

Except the French used infantry column tactics...

Yup back in those times everybody did.

It was called "Napoleonic".

Robert E Lee tried something like this at Gettysburg and we all know what happened there.

The Anglo-English used line tactics, which did give them better firepower, while the French used a heavier artillery...

The Brits used a three man line, kind of outdated by then, easily flanked by skirmishers and cavalry, and chewed up by artillery. This lesson still wasn't learned by many commanders in our own Civil War, essentially a Napoleonic war itself.

Which is why Duke of Orange used the reverse slope tactics..

 

[Picaro]

In my opinion, lancers should have been effective against infantry squares; unlike cavalry.

If there weren't musketry and grenadiers in the squares, they might have been. Napoleon's use of artillery was original, effective, and hard to beat.

He could not use them to his advantage at Waterloo due to the weather.

In the frontal assault right up the center into a dug in position, yes. His left flank, however, wasn't as muddy, and conducive to his usual tactics. He would then have been in a perfect position to route the reinforcements arriving from the direction of his right flank later in the day as well. Hougemont was a tough nut, but he only had to screen it, not take it. But all in all, Wellington set up a brilliant defense, and Napoleon should have chosen not to fight it out there; he didn't have to, and his mistakes were inexplicable, like delaying his attack until his entire army was arranged along the front, losing precious hours for a pointless fashion show. Definitely not his best moment.

I agree; he should have declined to offer battle to the British and focused on the Prussians.

Yes, veering East and defeating them one at a time seems to be the consensus. He already had them divided and far enough apart to do so. The Prussians were especially weak and relatively easy to defeat for him, under-manned, slow, and little more than half the firepower compared to Napoleon's average battalions.

 

[Picaro]

Except the French used infantry column tactics...

Yup back in those times everybody did.

It was called "Napoleonic".

Robert E Lee tried something like this at Gettysburg and we all know what happened there.

The Anglo-English used line tactics, which did give them better firepower, while the French used a heavier artillery...

The Brits used a three man line, kind of outdated by then, easily flanked by skirmishers and cavalry, and chewed up by artillery. This lesson still wasn't learned by many commanders in our own Civil War, essentially a Napoleonic war itself.

Which is why Duke of Orange used the reverse slope tactics..

Yes, and also why he should have avoided the frontal assaults on the ridge and went for an assault on his left flank, or withdrawn. When gaming the battle we win every time with Napoleon doing that and attacking early, and lose almost every time playing the Wellington side, a draw being the best we could ever do, and that depended on bad luck and the French running out of ammo too early.

 

[danielpalos]

In my opinion, lancers should have been effective against infantry squares; unlike cavalry.

If there weren't musketry and grenadiers in the squares, they might have been. Napoleon's use of artillery was original, effective, and hard to beat.

He could not use them to his advantage at Waterloo due to the weather.

In the frontal assault right up the center into a dug in position, yes. His left flank, however, wasn't as muddy, and conducive to his usual tactics. He would then have been in a perfect position to route the reinforcements arriving from the direction of his right flank later in the day as well. Hougemont was a tough nut, but he only had to screen it, not take it. But all in all, Wellington set up a brilliant defense, and Napoleon should have chosen not to fight it out there; he didn't have to, and his mistakes were inexplicable, like delaying his attack until his entire army was arranged along the front, losing precious hours for a pointless fashion show. Definitely not his best moment.

I agree; he should have declined to offer battle to the British and focused on the Prussians.

That's a luxury he did not have, as the Austrians and Russians were coming to battle also..

that was the luxurious point; to give battle to the Austrians/Prussians and Russians, not the British.

 

[Moonglow]

If there weren't musketry and grenadiers in the squares, they might have been. Napoleon's use of artillery was original, effective, and hard to beat.

He could not use them to his advantage at Waterloo due to the weather.

In the frontal assault right up the center into a dug in position, yes. His left flank, however, wasn't as muddy, and conducive to his usual tactics. He would then have been in a perfect position to route the reinforcements arriving from the direction of his right flank later in the day as well. Hougemont was a tough nut, but he only had to screen it, not take it. But all in all, Wellington set up a brilliant defense, and Napoleon should have chosen not to fight it out there; he didn't have to, and his mistakes were inexplicable, like delaying his attack until his entire army was arranged along the front, losing precious hours for a pointless fashion show. Definitely not his best moment.

I agree; he should have declined to offer battle to the British and focused on the Prussians.

That's a luxury he did not have, as the Austrians and Russians were coming to battle also..

that was the luxurious point; to give battle to the Austrians/Prussians and Russians, not the British.

He had to strike quick or it would have been another Leipzig..

 

[Moonglow]

Except the French used infantry column tactics...

Yup back in those times everybody did.

It was called "Napoleonic".

Robert E Lee tried something like this at Gettysburg and we all know what happened there.

The Anglo-English used line tactics, which did give them better firepower, while the French used a heavier artillery...

The Brits used a three man line, kind of outdated by then, easily flanked by skirmishers and cavalry, and chewed up by artillery. This lesson still wasn't learned by many commanders in our own Civil War, essentially a Napoleonic war itself.

Which is why Duke of Orange used the reverse slope tactics..

Yes, and also why he should have avoided the frontal assaults on the ridge and went for an assault on his left flank, or withdrawn. When gaming the battle we win every time with Napoleon doing that and attacking early, and lose almost every time playing the Wellington side, a draw being the best we could ever do, and that depended on bad luck and the French running out of ammo too early.

That is what I do also..I have a game of Napoleons Last Battles on CD but it was made for XP..I have a new one through Steam but have yet to play all the way through...I also have the board game from the 1980's..

 

[Moonglow]

I was also able to beat a long time player friend of mine at the Battle of Marengo....He stopped playing me after that..

 

[danielpalos]

He could not use them to his advantage at Waterloo due to the weather.

In the frontal assault right up the center into a dug in position, yes. His left flank, however, wasn't as muddy, and conducive to his usual tactics. He would then have been in a perfect position to route the reinforcements arriving from the direction of his right flank later in the day as well. Hougemont was a tough nut, but he only had to screen it, not take it. But all in all, Wellington set up a brilliant defense, and Napoleon should have chosen not to fight it out there; he didn't have to, and his mistakes were inexplicable, like delaying his attack until his entire army was arranged along the front, losing precious hours for a pointless fashion show. Definitely not his best moment.

I agree; he should have declined to offer battle to the British and focused on the Prussians.

That's a luxury he did not have, as the Austrians and Russians were coming to battle also..

that was the luxurious point; to give battle to the Austrians/Prussians and Russians, not the British.

He had to strike quick or it would have been another Leipzig..

Giving battle to the Austrians/Prussians and Russians, is an offensive strategy.

 

[Picaro]

I never gamed the German campaigns, except I have the Battle of Nations bookcase game or something like that but I never got around to playing it. The SPI game had some 5,000 pieces and took an average of a month or more with three to a team, lol the actual battle was less than a day.

 

[Moonglow]

In the frontal assault right up the center into a dug in position, yes. His left flank, however, wasn't as muddy, and conducive to his usual tactics. He would then have been in a perfect position to route the reinforcements arriving from the direction of his right flank later in the day as well. Hougemont was a tough nut, but he only had to screen it, not take it. But all in all, Wellington set up a brilliant defense, and Napoleon should have chosen not to fight it out there; he didn't have to, and his mistakes were inexplicable, like delaying his attack until his entire army was arranged along the front, losing precious hours for a pointless fashion show. Definitely not his best moment.

I agree; he should have declined to offer battle to the British and focused on the Prussians.

That's a luxury he did not have, as the Austrians and Russians were coming to battle also..

that was the luxurious point; to give battle to the Austrians/Prussians and Russians, not the British.

He had to strike quick or it would have been another Leipzig..

Giving battle to the Austrians/Prussians and Russians, is an offensive strategy.

Yes, but you can never let the enemy get behind you, which is what was occurring..

 

[Moonglow]

I never gamed the German campaigns, except I have the Battle of Nations bookcase game or something like that but I never got around to playing it. The SPI game had some 5,000 pieces and took an average of a month or more with three to a team, lol the actual battle was less than a day.

I had a game room with the game set up so I could play after work..I had moved away from people I grew up with so I was left to playing by myself..I was so happy when game consoles came out to play war strategy games and now with computers it is more challenging...Like a game of Rome's battles...There are scenarios like Battle of Carrhae that I can't beat..

 

[Picaro]

I never gamed the German campaigns, except I have the Battle of Nations bookcase game or something like that but I never got around to playing it. The SPI game had some 5,000 pieces and took an average of a month or more with three to a team, lol the actual battle was less than a day.

I had a game room with the game set up so I could play after work..I had moved away from people I grew up with so I was left to playing by myself..I was so happy when game consoles came out to play war strategy games and now with computers it is more challenging...Like a game of Rome's battles...There are scenarios like Battle of Carrhae that I can't beat..

Yes, it does suck when you can see the entire battle front, no fog of war handicaps with the board games. I never took to computer games, except Civ III and Civ IV and Age of Empires, strategy type stuff.