Telegraph: George Washington named Britain's greatest ever foe

[HailGreen28]

Short version: The French had to take on the Prussians during the main attack on the British. And it's pretty clear that without the Prussians, Napoleon would have defeated Wellington at Waterloo.

The capacity of the British infantry to absorb losses and maintain formations in the face of heavy artillery fire and massed cavalry attacks won the day. That and Napoleon and Neys inability to adapt to the situation when their initial attacks and tactics failed.

Nevermind the 52,000 Prussians attacking Napoleon's right flank during the same time, lol.

___________________________________________________________________________________________________________

Long version:

At Waterloo itself Napoleons forces facing Wellington were about equal to the forces Wellingtom deployed but Napoleon had more artillery and more Cavalry. About 1/3 of Napoleons force was detached to pursue the Prussians who had been beaten by Napoleon at Ligny before Waterloo.

Don't forget the day before Waterloo, the Prussians had their army at Wavre about 8 miles to the east of Waterloo. Especially since these were the forces that turned the tide of that battle. The Prussian army near Wavre, and the British/Dutch force at Waterloo, handily outnumbered the French, even counting the forces Napoleon had sent to block the Prussians. And the Prussians did march forward around 0400 in morning, and attacked the French in the middle of the battle. The Allies outnumbered Napoleon about 115,000 to 70,000 at Waterloo.

Your right Napoleon had to defeat Wellington before he could finish off the Prussians but he had assumed that the Prussians would retreat along their lines of communication not towards Wellington - he did not expect them to be a factor at Waterloo. Napoleon also miscalculated that his detached forces could join him at Waterloo before the Prussians in the event they did turn towards Wellington.

It's really not a "miscalculation" on Napoleon's part, that Marshal Grouchy (leading the force Napoleon sent to pursue the Prussians) let Prussian General Bulow get between him and Waterloo. While Grouchy was outnumbered, Napoleon could have reasonably expected him to block the Prussians long enough to whip the British/Dutch force at Waterloo, even with delaying the battle till the afternoon. Credit Blucher for a brilliant move in the dark hours that morning sending Bulow and 3 corps west past Grouchy's corps just to the south.

In any case the burden of attack was on Napoleon. Wellington knew this and also counted on support from his left from Blucher but did not know when they would arrive. Napoleon was over confident and rather than attempt to out flank Wellingtons position or use maneuver he settled for an unimaginative series of frontal attacks which were poorly cordinated by Ney who had tactical command of the French forces. Neys use of the French Cavalry with no infantry support and insufficient artillery support was decisive and that Napoleon allowed it was a failure of command.

Napoleon's delay in attacking Wellington were understandable at the time. He could improve his odds of victory by allowing the ground to dry to help his artillery move, and giving his men a little longer to rest, eat, and clean their weapons after tough battles at Ligny and Quatre-Bras two days before, and marching forward since.

The capacity of the British infantry to absorb losses and maintain formations in the face of heavy artillery fire and massed cavalry attacks won the day. That and Napoleon and Neys inability to adapt to the situation when their initial attacks and tactics failed.

Nevermind the 52,000 Prussians attacking Napoleon's right flank during the same time, lol.

Here's the basic sequence of events at Waterloo. (whew, when I started this didn't think it'd be this long)

At around 11:30. Napoleon sends a small force at the end of Wellington's right flank for a diversionary attack. The plan is to draw forces from Wellington's center, then attack Wellington's left flank. In Napoleon's own words why he attacked the left flank (link embedded):

"I had preferred to turn the enemy's left, rather than his right, first, in order to cut it off from the Prussians who were at Wavres, and to oppose their joining up again, if they had intended doing so; and even if they had not intended doing so, if the attack had been made on the right, the English army, on being repulsed, would have fallen back on to the Prussian army; whereas, if made on the left, it would be separated therefrom and thrown back in the direction of the sea; secondly, because the left appeared to be much weaker (note: because Wellington had expected the attack to be on his right, ed.); and finally, because I was expecting every moment the arrival of a detachment from Marshal Grouchy on my right, and did not want to run the risk of finding myself separated from it."

Around 1:00 the main French artillery opens fire on the center and left flank of the British/Dutch front line. At about this time, Napoleon is told that Bulow's troops are unexpectedly about three miles away. He sends a corps of infantry and cavalry under General Lobou to cover his own right flank and sends word for Grouchy to return. (the message arrives too late, Grouchy ends up fighting a meaningless victory against remaining Prussians at Wavre). The French attack has to succeed now, Napoleon goal this whole campaign has been keeping the Anglo/Dutch and Prussian armies apart. If he retreats, he faces a combined army.

The French attack Wellington's left flank in earnest around 1:30. The French start to gain ground, but a British counter-attack throws them back. (remember Napoleon had to divert forces already to face the advancing Prussians)

Fighting continues on both flanks of Wellington's force, mainly the left, with an artillery fight in the center. The French artillery does well against the British artillery, but Wellington's center holds up against French bombardment because of his good choice of a reverse-slope defence (put a hill between you and the enemy, he gets the high ground if he attacks, but he can't shoot artillery directly at you from a distance.)

At 3:30 Napoleon orders Marshal Ney to attack the British center. Ney, thinking the British have drawn troops from the center, attacks with just cavalry. This next to Grouchy's is the biggest mistake of the battle. The British infantry vs French cavalry fight here is what's usually referred to as British infantry beating French artillery and cavalry at Waterloo. And the British squares do beat the French charges, as infantry squares should do. But what happens next is kind of glossed over, lol.

At 4:00, Prussian troops had started attacking Napoleon's extended right flank, and advancing.

At 5:30 Napoleon orders Ney to attack again, with combined forces. Infantry squares can beat cavalry, but infantry in squares also present good targets for enemy artillery and infantry.

The British began taking heavy losses, and try to counterattack. The British cavalry were unable, however, to break the French infantry, and fell back with losses from musketry fire. Uxbridge recorded that he tried to lead the Dutch Carabiniers, under Major-General Trip, to renew the attack and that they refused to follow him. Other members of the British cavalry staff also commented on this occurrence However, there is no support for this incident in Dutch or Belgian sources (snip)

Although the French cavalry caused few direct casualties to Wellington's centre, artillery fire onto his infantry squares caused many. Wellington's cavalry, except for Sir John Vandeleur's and Sir Hussey Vivian's brigades on the far left, had all been committed to the fight, and had taken significant losses. The situation appeared so desperate that the Cumberland Hussars, the only Hanoverian cavalry regiment present, fled the field spreading alarm all the way to Brussels

This map shows the positions originally.

This map does a pretty good job of showing the positions where Ney attacked, and Bulow's attack was in progress. The British/Dutch defenses have remained the about the same, except the French have taken La Haye Sainte (the sandpit). And the French have had to divert lots of troops to meet the Prussians to the east.

Ney asked Napoleon for reinforcements, to try to break through the British lines, but was denied. Napoleon was already having to use his elite units (His Old Guard, and Young Guard) to keep the Prussians out of Planecoit.

At 7:00, Napoleon had managed to hold the Prussians from taking the French rear at Planecoit. But was in dire straights, outnumbered and outflanked. Any hope of turning Wellington's left flank ,as originally planned, was shot by new Prussian troops (Zeiten) on that flank and by Blulow to the east. Napoleon ordered his Old Guard to make a final desperate attack against Wellington's forces where he had an advantage, hoping to reform and fend off the Prussians to the east afterward.

The attack against the British lines, in the darkness, is open to dispute. English sources credit British troops for making the final stand, then British, Dutch, and Prussian troops mopping up. The French and German side is different.

The sun had gone down, nevertheless, "the enemy…would be completely broken, as soon as the rest of the Guard debouched. A quarter of an hour was needed!

"It was at this moment that Marshal Blucher arrived at La Haie and overthrew the French unit defending it… the enemy cavalry swept over the battlefield…it was necessary to give orders to the Guard, which was formed up to go forward, to change direction. This move was carried out in good order; the Guard faced about (to handle the onslaught from two sides)… immediately afterwards, each battalion formed itself into a square. The four squadrons detailed for action charged the Prussians. At this moment the English cavalry brigade, which arrived from Ohain, marched forward. These 2,000 horse got in between General Reille and the Guard.

This account, which is verified by the Prussian accounts, is rather different than that of the British accounts, which form the basis for most Anglo/American history books. These focus on Wellington's, "Now Maitland, now's your time" command; the withering fire of concealed British troops, Wellington waving his hat, etc. All of this is true, but the critical role of the Nassauers in slowing the Guard's advance is usually totally omitted or downplayed, not to mention the decisive Prussian attack.

Any any event, after the attack failed, the Prussians took Plancenoit and the battle was over.

The French were effectively beaten before the Prussians arrived through Napoleons over confidence and Neys incompetence. The arrival of the Prussians drew off most of the French tactical reserve and helped turn a defeat into a rout.

This is totally wrong. Regardless of whether Zieten's (Blucher) Prussians reached La Haye when the final Old Guard attack was underway or not, the French were in no way beaten before the Prussians arrived.

Napoleon already had to divert forces from his initial main attack because of the Prussians. And the French were still pounding away at the British, who had gained no new ground themselves, when Blucher's full 3 corps were fully supporting Wellington's left flank and pounding Napoleon's own right!

Without the Prussians quick march, there's nothing keeping Napoleon from attacking Wellington's left as originally planned. Add a full corps (Labou), plus accompanying cavalry, plus Napoleon's reserves not being battered by Prussians. Take this quote:

At 1730 Napoleon ordered Ney again to take La-Haie-Sainte. The French had worked up close to the buildings by now and two Allied battalions sent to reinforce the farm were caught by cuirassiers. Uxbridge managed to extricate one, but only after it suffered heavy losses. The other battalion was destroyed. Ney, heavily supported by artillery and some cavalry, took personal command of an infantry regiment and a company of engineers and captured La-Haie-Sainte at 1800 in a furious assault. The survivors of the Kings German Legion that had occupied the farm had to run for their lives. Ney then brought up artillery against the crumbling Allied center and called on Napoleon for reinforcements. Napoleon answered something like; "troops, were do you want me to find them, do you want me to make some?" This was perhaps the moment of truth and had Napoleon sent in the Imperial Guard at this time the battle could have been won.

Nevertheless Napoleon had good reasons for refusing Ney's request. The Prussians had at last reached Plancenoit and their cannonballs started to reach his reserves on the Brussels-Charleroi road. The Emperor ordered General Dushesme to recapture Plancenoit with the Young Guard. Bülow counterattacked, was repulsed and counterattacked again. Dushesme was mortally wounded and the Young Guard was thrown out of Plancenoit. Napoleon then turned to his faithful Old Guard. Generals Morand and Pelet with two battalions of grenadiers and chasseurs of the Old Guard were send in with the bayonet. Two Guard battalions pitted against fourteen Prussian battalions, but in only 20 minutes the Guard cleaned out Plancenoit, leaving some 3,000 Prussian casualties. Lobau also had successfully counterattacked in the meantime and the Young Guard occupied Plancenoit again.

The French had to take on the Prussians at the same time as the main attack on the British. And remember the Old Guard above are the same forces Napoleon had to try using for a final desperate attack on the British later. It's pretty clear without the Prussians, Napoleon would have defeated Wellington at Waterloo.

Napoleon needed a quick and cheap victory against Wellimgton to have any hope of being able to finish off the Prussians and then take on the Austrians and Russians who were also massing against him. Even if he had won at Waterloo he did not have the strength to defeat all the forces ranged against him given his inability to mass his own forces and the losses from 1812.

True, just don't forget that the Allied victory at Waterloo couldn't have been won without Bulow's quick march to help Wellington. You can say the British were holding their own, with some of Napoleon's forces already being drawn off by the Prussians, but things were turning for the worse for the British, until Blucher arrived in force.

web sources available now:

http://www.napoleon-series.org/military/battles/hundred/c_chapter5.html

http://www.napoleon.org/en/reading_room/articles/files/allen_waterloo.asp

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Waterloo

http://www.napoleonguide.com/battle_waterloo3.htm

http://www.roy-stevenson.com/battle-of-waterloo.html

[MartinC]

I don't want to take this thread off on a total tangent on Waterloo but its an interesting debate. As you can probably tell Military history is a hobby of mine! Should we start a new thread on this topic? Maybe we could look at some othe battles as well.

[zoony]

Eh go ahead, do it in here. The original thread had run its course

[HailGreen28]

I don't want to take this thread off on a total tangent on Waterloo but its an interesting debate. As you can probably tell Military history is a hobby of mine! Should we start a new thread on this topic? Maybe we could look at some othe battles as well.

Well aside from whether or not the Prussians attacked at La Haye Sainte when the Old Guard made one last attack on the Allied lines, I'm not sure there's much to debate.

The Battle of Waterloo wasn't a case of the British Army beating Napoleon and then the Prussians showing up to mop up. It was a case of Napoleon attacking Wellington with a relatively small advantage in numbers (72k to 68k), and then immediately having to send 15-20k to meet the Prussians (30k at first). And then Napoleon having to continue attacking Wellington while at a numerical disadvantage, while the Prussians increased their attacks on Napoleons right flank and towards his rear. Napoleon couldn't afford to fall back and face a combined Allied army, let alone forces from other allied nations.

A fight between just Napoleon and Wellington would have been interesting, minus the whole carnage and loss of life of war. Napoleon's forces were starting to make headway, but the full weight of 3 Prussian corps on Napoleon's flank was the deciding factor of the battle. (Grouchy won a meaningless victory against the 4th at Wavre)

Short, short version: The worst thing you can say about Napoleon at Waterloo, is that when younger he probably would have won even against those odds. :yikes:

[DCSaints_fan]

Yes, I have read there was a real possibility of a French victory at Waterloo, if Napoleon had committed the Guard much earlier, Ney's cavalry had the British on the defensive. The units that made the charge in the center were from the Young Guard. Much of the Old and Middle Guard units didn't see action at all, until the battle was already lost.

He made the same mistake at Borodino.

[No_Pressure]

Not even close. Of the German generals of WWII Manstein was the most able strategic commander and Guderian and Hoth were superior to Rommel as operational and tactical commanders. Rommel had ability as an operational and tactical commander but his 'genius' and reputation were to a large extent a product of him being one of Hitlers favorite commanders outside the SS - Rommel commanded Hitlers Werhmacht bodyguard battalion pre war - and Goebbels PR machine allied to Rommel's admitted ability did the rest.

Please tell me exactly where the British army came up against Heinz Guderian or Erich von Manstein on the battlefield. Of course those two were better commanders than Rommel, but von Manstein spent the entire war in the east following France, as did Guderian until he was relieved of command and then reinstated as inspector general of armored troops. I read his book, I'm fairly confident that neither Guderian nor von Manstein ever commanded military forces in armed combat against the British army. Through the fall of France Guderian fought only French troops and von Manstein fought in the same area that he did commanding an infantry corps at the time if I'm not mistaken.

The best commander the British ever faced was Rommel. Nobody they ever went up against had his operational intelligence and capability. In Guderian's book he admits that Rommel was quite a good military commander and deserved his inflated reputation in Africa, but that after El Alamein Rommel became totally convinced that allied air supremacy rendered a mobile armored response impossible and became obsessed with the same impossible stationary defense ideas Hitler clung to. Meanwhile during the same time period other capable German generals such as Walther Model had extremely high success rates as defensive specialists using mobile reserves to plug holes and hold positions against attacks in spite of Russian air superiority in the east.

I never said that Rommel was the best general in the war, Guderian mentioned multiple times that everyone knew von Manstein was their most brilliant commander. I said Rommel was the best the British faced in that war, and the best they have ever faced from a pure commander standpoint. Who else was really that brilliant against the British to completely and totally out think and out maneuver them in any other military engagement in their history. Everyone they've fought on a large scale in modern history dating back to Hastings in 1066 pales in comparison to Rommel's command ability, and that includes Napoleon.

[MartinC]

Please tell me exactly where the British army came up against Heinz Guderian or Erich von Manstein on the battlefield.

Manstein and Guderian were much more serious threats to Britain during WWII than Rommel not so much for what they did in terms of battle field command - though certainly Manstein and Guderian during the later stages of the drive to he channel did encounter British units during the Battle of France - but because they were the architects of the strategy and operational capability which lead to the fall of France in 1940. The defeat of the French and British forces in that campaign left Britain isolated and in its worst strategic position and threat since Napoleon and arguably since Roman times.

Manstein was the person who developed and proposed the German strategy for the Battle of France. If you have read "Lost Victories' you will be familiar with the story of how he rejected the original German plan which was essentially a re run of the WWI plan to drive through Holland and Belgium and seek to turn the left flank of the Allies and proposed instead a feint through Holland and Belgium to draw the Allies forwards and the main armored thrust through the Ardennes with Guderian and Hoth's Panzer Corps. He took this strategy over the heads of the Army High Command direct to Hitler who adopted it.

Manstein's strategy was only possible though because of the work that Guderian had done in developing the concepts of the deep penetration using massed armored formations and the creation of the armored division.

It was Guderians operational and tactical revolution of warfare allied to Manstein's strategic genius which achieved in weeks what the Germans could not do in 4 years in WW1. Their combined efforts were a far more serious threat than what Rommel did in purely operational terms - good as he was - in North Africa which was a sideshow from a strategic point of view.

The best commander the British ever faced was Rommel. Nobody they ever went up against had his operational intelligence and capability.

I know where you are coming from here and you have a point if you look at the question in the narrow sense of field command - I was looking at the question from a more strategic perspective.

Meanwhile during the same time period other capable German generals such as Walther Model had extremely high success rates as defensive specialists using mobile reserves to plug holes and hold positions against attacks in spite of Russian air superiority in the east.

Air power was never the same critical factor in the East it was in the West, mainly because of the vast spaces involved. The keys to the battles on the Eastern front were massed artillery, massed armour and the unlimited ability of the Russians to replace losses in a way the Germans could never come close to.

I said Rommel was the best the British faced in that war, and the best they have ever faced from a pure commander standpoint. Who else was really that brilliant against the British to completely and totally out think and out maneuver them in any other military engagement in their history. Everyone they've fought on a large scale in modern history dating back to Hastings in 1066 pales in comparison to Rommel's command ability, and that includes Napoleon.

On this narrow definition I tend to agree - especially the point about Napoleon

Well aside from whether or not the Prussians attacked at La Haye Sainte when the Old Guard made one last attack on the Allied lines, I'm not sure there's much to debate.

And yet Military historians and theorists have spent almost 200 years doing just that - so indulge me if we continue.

The Battle of Waterloo wasn't a case of the British Army beating Napoleon and then the Prussians showing up to mop up. It was a case of Napoleon attacking Wellington with a relatively small advantage in numbers (72k to 68k), and then immediately having to send 15-20k to meet the Prussians (30k at first).

I would not dispute that the Prussians made a critical contribution at Waterloo both strategically in terms of where and when Wellington offered battle and then tactically in terms of their contribution during the battle itself.

However lets just examine the chronology of the battle. Its important to note here that even the chronology is not entirely clear and has been the subject of much debate - both sides were using black gunpowder and once the engagement started the whole battlefield was shrouded in smoke and even senior commanders had a poor view of the overall battle field (even one as compact as Waterloo)

11.30 The first French artillery opened fire.

12 noon The first French attack on the British right wing started.

1.30 pm 17,000 infantry supported by about 72 guns under D'Erlon attack the British center and left wing. This attack made progress but was routed by a charge from the British Household and Union Cavalry brigades. British cavalry charged as far as the main French gun lines but were then counter charged by French cavalry and thrown back. D'Erlons Corp was routed though

3pm lull in the fighting apart from action still continuing around the British right.

3.30 pm Ney attacks again to attempt to capture LeHay Saint in the British center. He thinks he sees the British starting the withdraw and launches a series of cavalry attacks which last until about 6pm. Critically Ney fails to support these attacks with infantry - if Napoleon had supported these attackers with the his infantry reserve the Middle and Old Guard it might have been crucial, however even then Wellington had his remaining cavalry massed behind his centre so even if the French had broken the squares they would have been counter attacked.

4.40pm Bulows IV Corps is the first Prussian Corp to engage the French - this while the French cavalry attacks are in full force. Napoleon deployed Lobaus Corps to face Bulow. Pirch's II Corps follows behind and reinforces Bulow and these 30,000 Prussians gradually wear down the French which include the Young Guard and some Old Guard units - about 20,000 in total.

7.30 pm Attack of the Middle and Old Guard on Wellingtons centre. Also the same time noted as the start of Zeitens Prussian Corps arrival around Somhail on Wellingtons extreme left.

8.00 to 8.30 pm Attack of the Guard is repulsed and an Allied general advance pursues them - incluidng Zeitens Corps.

8.30 pm Placenoit finally falls to the Prussains

9.00 pm Wellington and Blucher meet.

9.00 pm onwards the Prussians pursue the fleeing French

Ultimately any attempt to give complete credit for the victory over Napoleon to either Wellington or Blücher is meaningless. This was neither a British victory nor a Prussian victory; it was an Allied victory. The tenacious stand of Wellington’s army against a series of heavy French attacks throughout the day was the essential precondition for the final Allied victory, for if he had been forced to retreat, the late arrival of the Prussians could have left them exposed to great danger. Wellington defeated D'Erlons attack and held fast against massed French cavalry attacks for well over a hour before the first Prussian units came into action against Placenoit.

The arrival of the Prussians and their subsequent attack contributed to Wellington’s successful defense by diverting Napoleon’s attention and a considerable portion of his reserve at critical junctions in the battle. And at the end of the battle, the complete destruction of Napoleon’s army occurred as a result of a combination of near-simultaneous actions by both armies that shattered French morale: Wellington’s forces defeated the supposedly invincible Imperial Guard and began a general advance; the leading elements of General Zieten’s corps attacked French right-wing troops who had been told to expect reinforcements under Marshal Grouchy; and General Bülow’s and General Pirch I’s corps renewed their heavy attacks on Plancenoit, leading finally to its capture.

The question of whether Napoleon could have defeated Wellington without Prussian support is pretty meaningless. Without knowing he would be supported from his left by Blucher Wellington probably would not have given battle because strategically it was more important that he join with the Prussians and concentrate forces rather than try to achieve a victory on his own.

However Wellington had beaten the French many times in Portugal and Spain in similar situations and with worse odds.

[HailGreen28]

On this narrow definition I tend to agree - especially the point about Napoleon

Rommel and Napoleon had some parallels as pure military commanders. Such as having to confront the British in the Med while their supply lines were cut off by the royal navy. But as great as Rommel's leadership was in France and North Africa, I don't think he had a campaign that compares to Napoleon's 6 days.

And yet Military historians and theorists have spent almost 200 years doing just that - so indulge me if we continue.

And British downplaying of the Prussian army at Waterloo for about as long ago as the battle happened, but ok.

I would not dispute that the Prussians made a critical contribution at Waterloo both strategically in terms of where and when Wellington offered battle and then tactically in terms of their contribution during the battle itself.

However lets just examine the chronology of the battle. Its important to note here that even the chronology is not entirely clear and has been the subject of much debate - both sides were using black gunpowder and once the engagement started the whole battlefield was shrouded in smoke and even senior commanders had a poor view of the overall battle field (even one as compact as Waterloo)

11.30 The first French artillery opened fire.

12 noon The first French attack on the British right wing started.

1.30 pm 17,000 infantry supported by about 72 guns under D'Erlon attack the British center and left wing. This attack made progress but was routed by a charge from the British Household and Union Cavalry brigades. British cavalry charged as far as the main French gun lines but were then counter charged by French cavalry and thrown back. D'Erlons Corp was routed though

3pm lull in the fighting apart from action still continuing around the British right.

3.30 pm Ney attacks again to attempt to capture LeHay Saint in the British center. He thinks he sees the British starting the withdraw and launches a series of cavalry attacks which last until about 6pm.

That timeline mostly matches my sources. But again, there's some omission of details that end up downplaying the Prussian's importance in the battle.

At 10:00, Napoleon was already reacting to news that the Prussians were trying to join Wellington and dispatching troops to recon.

At about 1000 Napoleon received a message from Grouchy which stated that the marshal was marching on Wavre and that most of the Prussians seemed to be attempting to join Wellingon by way of Brussels. Napoleon ordered the 7th Hussar Regiment to reconnoitrer in the direction of Grouchy in order to establish contact.

And around 1, this happened.

Around 1300 Ney requested permission to launch the main attack. At that time Napoleon's attention was drawn to a large body of troops massing in the St-Lambert area (direction Bois the Paris on the map). Jacquinot's hussars brought back some Prussian prisoners and an intercepted message from Bülow to Wellington revealing to Napoleon that Bülow was at St-Lambert and the other Prussian corps at Wavre.

Napoleon now needed to make a quick decision since he now had the Allied army and a Prussian corps before him. The French army was deployed but not committed and could withdraw without a problem but if he did that he would find himself badly outnumbered by the combined Prussian-Allied armies later. He figured he still had a 60% chance of winning the battle so he choose the bolder course of action. He sent Lobau's VI Corps and Domon's and Subervie's cavalry to cover his right flank against the Prussians and a message to Grouchy ordering him to join him immediately. This message was already too late as you will understand later.

So around 1, Napoleon was already sending a full corps and cavalry to confront the Prussians, and it can be understood that any plan to "turn the enemy's left (Wellington)" is gone at this point.

In your timeline around 1:30, mentioning d'Erlons forces as being "routed" (from the ground they had just taken) is fair, as long as it's acknowledged the British were "routed" in their counterattack on French lines. The boundaries between armies were unchanged after the French attack and British counterattack were over. Bear in mind this fighting includes the "sand pit" strong point so prominent in this battle.

4.40pm Bulows IV Corps is the first Prussian Corp to engage the French - this while the French cavalry attacks are in full force. Napoleon deployed Lobaus Corps to face Bulow. Pirch's II Corps follows behind and reinforces Bulow and these 30,000 Prussians gradually wear down the French which include the Young Guard and some Old Guard units - about 20,000 in total.

7.30 pm Attack of the Middle and Old Guard on Wellingtons centre. Also the same time noted as the start of Zeitens Prussian Corps arrival around Somhail on Wellingtons extreme left.

Ummmmm..... OK Martin, do you realize that you totally omitted a key attack here? Ney's second attack on the British center?

At 1730 Napoleon ordered Ney again to take La-Haie-Sainte. The French had worked up close to the buildings by now and two Allied battalions sent to reinforce the farm were caught by cuirassiers. Uxbridge managed to extricate one, but only after it suffered heavy losses. The other battalion was destroyed. Ney, heavily supported by artillery and some cavalry, took personal command of an infantry regiment and a company of engineers and captured La-Haie-Sainte at 1800 in a furious assault. The survivors of the Kings German Legion that had occupied the farm had to run for their lives. Ney then brought up artillery against the crumbling Allied center and called on Napoleon for reinforcements. Napoleon answered something like; "troops, were do you want me to find them, do you want me to make some?"

And this?

Although the French cavalry caused few direct casualties to Wellington's centre, artillery fire onto his infantry squares caused many. Wellington's cavalry, except for Sir John Vandeleur's and Sir Hussey Vivian's brigades on the far left, had all been committed to the fight, and had taken significant losses. The situation appeared so desperate that the Cumberland Hussars, the only Hanoverian cavalry regiment present, fled the field spreading alarm all the way to Brussels.

At approximately the same time as Ney's combined-arms assault on the centre-right of Wellington's line, rallied elements of D'Erlon's I Corps, spearheaded by the 13th Légère, renewed the attack on La Haye Sainte, and this time were successful (partly because the defenders' ammunition ran out).[111] Ney then moved horse artillery up towards Wellington's centre and began to pulverise the infantry squares at short-range with canister.[95] This all but destroyed the 27th (Inniskilling) Regiment, and the 30th and 73rd Regiments suffered such heavy losses that they had to combine to form a viable square.

And note the sequence of events. Around 6:00 Ney captures the strong point the two sides had been fighting over since 1:00. He inflicts heavy damage on the British, causing some British units to run. Napoleon denies Ney's request for reinforcements because he's been fighting the Prussians on his own right flank / rear for two hours!

Kind of important detail to leave out of the battle's timeline, don't you think?

Meanwhile Wellington did receive support.

Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten’s I Corps had been arriving with full force in the area just north of La Haie. General Muffling, the Prussian army liaison to Wellington, journeyed to meet I Corps. Zieten had by this time brought up his 1st Brigade, but had become concerned at the sight of stragglers and casualties coming from the Nassau units on Wellington’s left and from the Prussian 15th Brigade as well. These troops appeared to be withdrawing, and Zieten, fearing that his own troops would be caught up in a general refuge, was starting to move away from Wellington’s border and towards the Prussian main body near Plancenoit area. Muffling saw this movement away and persuaded Zieten to support Wellington’s left border.

Zieten resumed his march to support Wellington directly, and the arrival of his troops allowed Wellington to strengthen his collapsing centre by moving cavalry from his left.

8.00 to 8.30 pm Attack of the Guard is repulsed and an Allied general advance pursues them - incluidng Zeitens Corps.

8.30 pm Placenoit finally falls to the Prussains

9.00 pm Wellington and Blucher meet.

9.00 pm onwards the Prussians pursue the fleeing French

Compared to the total omission of Ney's second attack, I won't quibble over this part of the timeline, except that who beat the Old Guard's final attack is in dispute. The British give themselves the lion's share of the credit. Napoleon and the Prussians give the majority of the credit to the Prussians. (In this quote, Napoleon is probably counting all Allied troops including Wavre and reserves)

"The French army, 69,000 strong, which at 7pm. had gained a victory over an army of 120,000 men, held half the Anglo-Dutch battlefield, and had repulsed General Bulow's corps, saw victory snatched from it by the arrival of General Blucher with 30,000 fresh troops, a reinforcement which brought the allied army in the line up to nearly 150,000 men, that is two and a half to one."

Napoleon and his generals had been sure the battle was won; Napoleon describes the excellence of the French disposition.

"They were only waiting for the arrival of the infantry of the Guard to decide the victory; but they were staggered when they perceived the arrival of the numerous columns of Marshal Blucher.

The sun had gone down, nevertheless, "the enemy…would be completely broken, as soon as the rest of the Guard debouched. A quarter of an hour was needed!

"It was at this moment that Marshal Blucher arrived at La Haie and overthrew the French unit defending it… the enemy cavalry swept over the battlefield…it was necessary to give orders to the Guard, which was formed up to go forward, to change direction. This move was carried out in good order; the Guard faced about (to handle the onslaught from two sides)… immediately afterwards, each battalion formed itself into a square. The four squadrons detailed for action charged the Prussians. At this moment the English cavalry brigade, which arrived from Ohain, marched forward. These 2,000 horse got in between General Reille and the Guard.

This account, which is verified by the Prussian accounts, is rather different than that of the British accounts, which form the basis for most Anglo/American history books. These focus on Wellington's, "Now Maitland, now's your time" command; the withering fire of concealed British troops, Wellington waving his hat, etc. All of this is true, but the critical role of the Nassauers in slowing the Guard's advance is usually totally omitted or downplayed, not to mention the decisive Prussian attack.

Ultimately any attempt to give complete credit for the victory over Napoleon to either Wellington or Blücher is meaningless. This was neither a British victory nor a Prussian victory; it was an Allied victory. The tenacious stand of Wellington’s army against a series of heavy French attacks throughout the day was the essential precondition for the final Allied victory, for if he had been forced to retreat, the late arrival of the Prussians could have left them exposed to great danger. Wellington defeated D'Erlons attack and held fast against massed French cavalry attacks for well over a hour before the first Prussian units came into action against Placenoit.

Wrong. Again, you totally omit what happened after the first hour of the French attack. Ney's second attack causing the British center to start to crumble. Zeiten's support and Bulow's attacks prevented Napoleon from turning Wellington's left as planned.

While it's true both sides deserve credit for the victory, the British were the ones in great danger and the Prussians saved Wellington's bacon.

The arrival of the Prussians and their subsequent attack contributed to Wellington’s successful defense by diverting Napoleon’s attention and a considerable portion of his reserve at critical junctions in the battle. And at the end of the battle, the complete destruction of Napoleon’s army occurred as a result of a combination of near-simultaneous actions by both armies that shattered French morale: Wellington’s forces defeated the supposedly invincible Imperial Guard and began a general advance; the leading elements of General Zieten’s corps attacked French right-wing troops who had been told to expect reinforcements under Marshal Grouchy; and General Bülow’s and General Pirch I’s corps renewed their heavy attacks on Plancenoit, leading finally to its capture.

Again, not true. The Prussians did much more than divert Napoleon's attention and reserves. They supported Wellington from his left when his army was weakening, drew off more than a whole corps to the east, and struck the decisive blow at the strong point contested all day by the French and British (Where you note the French got a Prussian attack rather than French reinforcements.). And it was the Prussians that broke up the French army by finally taking Plancenoit for good.

What "general advance" are you talking about? You mean the British counterattack that was destroyed as much as the first French attack was middle of the afternoon? Or the sweep of the battlefield mopping up after the Prussian advances at La Haye and Plancenoit that night?

With Bülow repulsed Napoleon turned back to his original plan. Wellington's forces were so shattered that one decisive blow could finish them off. The Prussian reinforcements were very slow to arrive and the sound of guns coming from the general direction of Wavre told Napoleon that Grouchy had engaged the Prussians too.

Napoleon still had 9 battalions of his Old and Middle Guard in reserve. At 1900 the Guard was ordered forward. Napoleon himself marched at the head of the Guard with Generals Friant and Drouot before giving command to Ney some 600 yards before the enemy lines. By this time troops were appearing in the northeast. These were of course the Prussians but Napoleon had it circulated that they were Grouchy's troops. The French troops were excited and all shouted: "Vive l'Empéreur, en avant!" But this lasted only for a moment since it soon became apparent that the arriving troops were Prussian. The morale of the French evaporated and they hesitated.

The question of whether Napoleon could have defeated Wellington without Prussian support is pretty meaningless. Without knowing he would be supported from his left by Blucher Wellington probably would not have given battle because strategically it was more important that he join with the Prussians and concentrate forces rather than try to achieve a victory on his own.

And yet, historians have been debating points like these for over 200 years, so indulge me.

Napoleon, with inferior numbers, attacked Wellington at Waterloo, (remember he had to send a whole corps east to fight Bulow), took an important strongpoint from the British (La Haye), and was causing the British center to crumble. There was still much fighting to be done at that point, but it's pretty clear that Napoleon had the advantage over Wellington at Waterloo when the Prussians arrived in force.

However Wellington had beaten the French many times in Portugal and Spain in similar situations and with worse odds.

Napoleon was actually beating Wellington at Waterloo at "worse odds", until the Prussians saved the day. Had beaten the British many times in Spain himself. And not only fought at Waterloo against the odds, but won victories against odds that Wellington nor any allied general would have stood a chance against. (The Six Days Campaign)

Again, to disparage the Prussian contribution, by describing them as just "drawing off reserves" and the French as "already beaten", is wrong. And does everyone a disservice. The Prussians and British deserve equal credit for the victory at Waterloo. And give the French credit for a valiant effort in a fight figuratively and strategically against 2-1 odds.

---------- Post added April-22nd-2012 at 12:18 PM ----------

Yes, I have read there was a real possibility of a French victory at Waterloo, if Napoleon had committed the Guard much earlier, Ney's cavalry had the British on the defensive. The units that made the charge in the center were from the Young Guard. Much of the Old and Middle Guard units didn't see action at all, until the battle was already lost.

He made the same mistake at Borodino.

Good point. Timing and placement would have been everything. The Old Guard could have punched through, or run up against the kind of situation Ney's first attack did.

A lot of Guard troops had already been thrown from and retaken Plancenoit from the Prussians, before the final attack on the British near La Haye. Just because they weren't fighting the British most of the battle, doesn't mean they weren't fighting for their lives against the Prussians meantime. lol.

[MartinC]

That timeline mostly matches my sources. But again, there's some omission of details that end up downplaying the Prussian's importance in the battle.

I'm not attempting to downplay the importance of the Prussians - the clue to that was when I said

'I would not dispute that the Prussians made a critical contribution at Waterloo both strategically in terms of where and when Wellington offered battle and then tactically in terms of their contribution during the battle itself.'

At 10:00, Napoleon was already reacting to news that the Prussians were trying to join Wellington and dispatching troops to recon.And around 1, this happened.

So around 1, Napoleon was already sending a full corps and cavalry to confront the Prussians, and it can be understood that any plan to "turn the enemy's left (Wellington)" is gone at this point.

The sources I have read have Napoleon deploying Lobau later than 1pm. In any case the first Prussian forces did not appear on the field until 2.30 in the form of an advanced cavalry screen followed by two infantry brigades at 3.00 pm and 3.30 pm. It was not until 4pm that the first Prussian action against Lobau began and it was 5pm before the whole of Bulows Corps was in place and about 5.30 pm before the advance of Bulows Corp towards Lobaus positions began.

The British has been standing against the French for over 4 hours before the Prussians were fully engaged with Lobau.

Ummmmm..... OK Martin, do you realize that you totally omitted a key attack here? Ney's second attack on the British center?

At 1730 Napoleon ordered Ney again to take La-Haie-Sainte. The French had worked up close to the buildings by now and two Allied battalions sent to reinforce the farm were caught by cuirassiers. Uxbridge managed to extricate one, but only after it suffered heavy losses. The other battalion was destroyed. Ney, heavily supported by artillery and some cavalry, took personal command of an infantry regiment and a company of engineers and captured La-Haie-Sainte at 1800 in a furious assault. The survivors of the Kings German Legion that had occupied the farm had to run for their lives. Ney then brought up artillery against the crumbling Allied center and called on Napoleon for reinforcements. Napoleon answered something like; "troops, were do you want me to find them, do you want me to make some?"

Your right - but if that's my only omission from a timeline I drew up from memory I'm quite pleased with myself frankly. But I note you don't question the overall timeline I gave.

And note the sequence of events. Around 6:00 Ney captures the strong point the two sides had been fighting over since 1:00. He inflicts heavy damage on the British, causing some British units to run. Napoleon denies Ney's request for reinforcements because he's been fighting the Prussians on his own right flank / rear for two hours!

Kind of important detail to leave out of the battle's timeline, don't you think?

The unit holding Le Hay Saint was a German battalion and another 2 battalions Wellington sent to reinforce were caught by Cavalry and cut up. Losing La Hay Saint was an important achievement in that it gave the French more room to maneuver. However it was too late in the day to make a difference. It was an omission to not to have inserted this is in the timeline - but I would assert it was not a critical moment in the battle as it might have been if the French had taken the strong point a couple of hours earlier.

Compared to the total omission of Ney's second attack, I won't quibble over this part of the timeline, except that who beat the Old Guard's final attack is in dispute.

If you are suggesting the Prussians were responsible for defeating the advance of the Middle and Old Guard against Wellingtons right and center then you are really reaching. The Prussians were by that time winning the battle for Placenoit but had not won and Zeitiens Corps was just arriving on Wellingtons left flank.

Napoleon and the Prussians give the majority of the credit to the Prussians.

Napoleon spent the rest of his life after Waterloo explaining to anyone who would listen why it was not his fault that he had lost at Waterloo and you need to read his memoirs with more than a touch of salt. As to the Prussians history of the battle that's an interesting thing to bring up.

Prussian historian Julius von Pflugk-Harttung wrote “The main problem of the Prussians was their lack of success at Plancenoit.… Because the enemy Guard battalions unswervingly held this village until Wellington’s line had achieved the final victory, they also kept the Prussians from gaining the laurels of the day.… If Bülow had captured Plancenoit an hour earlier, he would have achieved the decisive results in the flank and rear, which Wellington now won at the front.

Also lets consider the war diary of of the Prussian 1st Corps, which was written shortly after the end of the battle, described how the advance guard of the corps’ 1st Brigade attacked and captured the hamlet of Smohain and continued on to attack the French right wing. But then, “because our forces were too weak, they were forced back to Smohain. In the meantime the rest of the brigade’s infantry arrived. The enemy, who were already being attacked in the rear and the flank by the 4th Corps from Plancenoit and now also by us and also by the entire English army in the front, fell back, offering only slight resistance, which soon ended and turned into flight and the complete dissolution of their entire army.” The War Diary thus shows that the 1st Corps suffered an initial setback when advancing from Smohain, and succeeded in pushing back the French right wing only after the British general advance took place. The casualty returns for Zieten’s corps on 18 June also show that it did not undergo much heavy fighting that day, as would have been the case had it attacked and broken through a deployed French force, rather than simply advancing against disordered enemy units that were already in the process of disintegration due to events elsewhere on the battlefield

Wrong. Again, you totally omit what happened after the first hour of the French attack. Ney's second attack causing the British center to start to crumble. Zeiten's support and Bulow's attacks prevented Napoleon from turning Wellington's left as planned.

Nonsense. If you mean the capture of La Hay Sainte that happened around 6pm not after the first hour. If you mean the French cavalry attacks these had been contained with heavy loss mainly from French artillery admittedly but did not come close to breaking the British center.

While it's true both sides deserve credit for the victory, the British were the ones in great danger and the Prussians saved Wellington's bacon.

What you are failing to grasp is that Waterloo was conceived by Wellington and Blucher as a combined operation. It was not a question of either side saving each others bacon it was Wellington giving battle and remaining in place on the field and fixing Napoleon counting on support from Blucher to help finish Napoleon off.

Again, a lie.

A lie? Because someone holds a different opinion to you or interprets events differently does not make it a lie.

What "general advance" are you talking about? You mean the British counterattack that was destroyed as much as the first French attack was middle of the afternoon? Or the sweep of the battlefield mopping up after the Prussian advances at La Haye and Plancenoit that night?

The British advance following the defeat of the Middle and Old Guard came at almost exactly the same time as the fall of Placenoit. Its no point either you or me claiming we know exactly which came first as even those at the battle can not be sure of the exact timing. I point you though to the Prussian historian I quoted above who puts the break through at Placenoit AFTER Wellington had held and then turned the Guard.

Napoleon was actually beating Wellington at Waterloo at "worse odds", until the Prussians saved the day. Had beaten the British many times in Spain himself.

Now for one quibbling about me missing a single attack in the narrative of a battle this is funny. Napoleon had never commanded forces in the field against the British or Wellington before Waterloo apart from one encounter in Spain against John Moore and then Moores forces only fought part of Napoleons formation while Napoleons main effort was against the Spanish. Wellington won a series of victories in Portugal and Spain beating every French Marshall sent against him - but the first time Wellington and Napoleon faced each other on the battle field was Waterloo.

[No_Pressure]

I'm not getting anywhere near Waterloo, and I don't want to piece up quotes to respond to because I'm too lazy right now

MartinC- You are right if you're looking at it from an overall strategic standpoint, which I'm not. I think we can all agree that the fall of France was a greater blow than even the possibility of losing the Suez, especially since the campaign in Africa wouldn't have been at all possible with an intact France. I am looking at it through the definition of battlefield command, one commander up against another. With dwindling supplies and an outnumbered force, Rommel and his Afrika corps was chewing up and spitting out the British for quite some time. He was simply more talented than every commander he faced and in my opinion that certainly includes Montgomery. Besides, the crushing blow was dealt when poor Georg Stumme was left in command.

As far as the threat that one single commander posed to Great Britain, no one commander on the battlefield (again, the way I'm defining it) had an opportunity to hurt the British as badly as Rommel if he had succeeded in pushing to and capturing the Suez canal and other strategic points further into the Middle East. It wouldn't have had that big of an effect on the Russian Campaign but there are so many things which could have happened as a result of a victory in North Africa. Perhaps actions could finally be taken against Malta and the Germans could work on closing off the Mediterranean. The British wouldn't be able to have position for bombing raids into Rumania and specifically Ploiesti, and we can all speculate on what would have happened from there. Of course from a grand strategy standpoint, nobody hurt the British more than Guderian and von Manstein overall because of the strategic effects of defeating France and doing it in such quick fashion.

My speculation is that in terms of grand strategy you are still correct, and Rommel wouldn't have had much of an effect even if he had been successful. Stalingrad would have still happened, Citadel would have still happened, Hitler's "No-Retreat" orders would have happened, and the German army would have still likely been doomed. Perhaps having extra reserves from the West with diminished threat of a successful allied invasion would have bought the Germans time to rebuild much of the luftwaffe, gain more control over the day and night raids from Britain/the U.S., perhaps they could have held out until they had developed a nuclear weapon. I hear people tell me this all the time. Well what exactly would they have done with it? They would have an atomic bomb or two and about 50,000,000 good targets to use it against, most of which were unobtainable. Risking dropping one on Moscow was out of the question, firing one in V2 form into London would have been devastating but accomplished little against the red army, you can't very well launch an atomic attack against the Russian lines without hurting yourself in the process.

Oh well its all speculation. I wish I could go back and just observe everything as it happened.

Rommel's mistakes in 1943-1944 with France however in my opinion led to a more successful invasion than the allied powers would have enjoyed had von Rundstead and von Schweppenburg's plans been employed for defense. I guess in that regard he was not as great of a general as he's made out to be, but Guderian is clear he only developed his obsessions about allied air control after being somewhat traumatized in Africa.

Oh and one last point about Model and the Russian airforce. Yes, it was a gigantic area they had to cover, but specifically when Model saved what was left of Army Group Center after their disastrous collapse near the Pripet marshes, he was under extremely heavy pressure from the air, and managed to conduct a mobile defense in spite of it which showed at least that it was a possibility unlike what Rommel and Hitler felt.

[MartinC]

I'm not getting anywhere near Waterloo, and I don't want to piece up quotes to respond to because I'm too lazy right now

I think that's probably the right choice - we are getting more bogged down in detail than Ney did on British squares :evilg:

I am looking at it through the definition of battlefield command, one commander up against another. With dwindling supplies and an outnumbered force, Rommel and his Afrika corps was chewing up and spitting out the British for quite some time. He was simply more talented than every commander he faced and in my opinion that certainly includes Montgomery. Besides, the crushing blow was dealt when poor Georg Stumme was left in command.

I can agree with all the above and I certainly would rank Rommel far ahead of Montgomery. There are quite a few German commanders I would rate ahead of Montgomery even just from an operational and tactical perspective.

mistakes in 1943-1944 with France however in my opinion led to a more successful invasion than the allied powers would have enjoyed had von Rundstead and von Schweppenburg's plans been employed for defense. I guess in that regard he was not as great of a general as he's made out to be, but Guderian is clear he only developed his obsessions about allied air control after being somewhat traumatized in Africa.

This is an another interesting debate and what if - could the Germans have done a better job of defending against D-Day.

I think Allied air power did make it very difficult for the Germans to have used massed Panzer counter attacks but then the power of Naval gun power supporting the landings made it very difficult for them to defend in close to the beaches successfully.

The real problem though was that Hitler rather than choose one strategy or the other in a pretty typical move attempted to do both and compounded this by reserving authority to deploy the Panzers to himself.

My own view is that Schweppenburg should have been given his head and that a defense based on fixed points had already been shown to be obsolete by the Germans themselves.

Of course the deception that the Allies pulled off about the site of the landings was key was well. The Germans firmly believed that the landings would be at the Pas d Calais not at Normandy and thought Normandy was a diversionary attack at first - that along with no one wanting to wake Hitler to release the Panzers lead to a fatal delay. The Germans were then condemned to a defense that was simply feeding in reserves to maintain a front with no defensive strategy to speak of apart from holding ground.

Oh and one last point about Model and the Russian airforce. Yes, it was a gigantic area they had to cover, but specifically when Model saved what was left of Army Group Center after their disastrous collapse near the Pripet marshes, he was under extremely heavy pressure from the air, and managed to conduct a mobile defense in spite of it which showed at least that it was a possibility unlike what Rommel and Hitler felt.

That's correct but the Russians never had the same effective airforce that the US and Britain had. The Luftwaffe was destroyed by the US Airforce and RAF as an effective fighting force by the time of D-Day and we enjoyed total air superiority brought to bear in a fairly concentrated area. It was not just troop concentrations that were hit, transport, bridges, fuel dumps even individual staff cars were straffed.

Rommel was seriously wounded by air attack and was still recovering from these injuries when he was forced to commit suicide by the SS and Hitler for being implicated in the July plot and attempt on Hitlers life.

[Stadium-Armory]

Ask the British expeditionary force about Von Manstein.

[No_Pressure]

That's correct but the Russians never had the same effective airforce that the US and Britain had. The Luftwaffe was destroyed by the US Airforce and RAF as an effective fighting force by the time of D-Day and we enjoyed total air superiority brought to bear in a fairly concentrated area. It was not just troop concentrations that were hit, transport, bridges, fuel dumps even individual staff cars were straffed.

Rommel was seriously wounded by air attack and was still recovering from these injuries when he was forced to commit suicide by the SS and Hitler for being implicated in the July plot and attempt on Hitlers life.

Yes, it wasn't the same amount of strength in the air with the Russians, but then again those attacks took place later in June on the eastern front so he wasn't exactly getting too much help from the luftwaffe, though of course whatever tatters of the luftwaffe did remain at any front were in the east if existent at all. I would say that the fact that the Russians attacked with, according to Guderian's book I have right here, 146 rifle and 43 tank formations. Model wasn't without his brushes with death, in fact he was one of the most haphazard commanders in the German army, constantly putting his life in danger driving enemy infested roads and getting strafed to make it to another command center to keep a situation in hand.

Regardless, it is all hypothetical and if we were to take von Manstein as the lead candidate I'd say it still holds true that he was the most threatening general of all time to the British from a grand strategy standpoint. As for that original article it made me want to slap somebody. The British Empire wasn't making 1/5th off the 13 colonies that they were making off say, Jamaica during that time period. The colonists weren't even a major source of tax revenue or a big enough buyer of British products to make a real dent in anything. Losing the American colonies was a minor bump on the road for the English back then. Okay somebody could say that seeing what America became and what the British I suppose lost out on suddenly George Washington becomes way more important but I don't think I would argue that the British lost out much by not holding on to the huge mess of North America.

[JMS]

Your right that the Grand Armee was destroyed in Russia, but not by the Russian snow. Napoleon entered Russia with over 400,000 of which only 100,000 were left by the time he took Moscow. Most had died from disease or were casualties in the significant engagements with the Russian Army on the road to Moscow. Napoleons army was destroyed before the long retreat from Moscow in the teeth of the winter. Only about 10,000 made it out of Russia.

.

actually there were 4 major river crossings in both his advance into Russia and his retreat from Russia. These reiver crossings were a major cause of his diminished forces both in reaching moscow and returning from moscow.

Probably the best statistical graphic ever drawn, this map by Charles Joseph Minard portrays the losses suffered by Napoleon's army in the Russian campaign of 1812. Beginning at the Polish-Russian border, the thick band shows the size of the army at each position. The path of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow in the bitterly cold winter is depicted by the dark lower band, which is tied to temperature and time scales.

[Predicto]

All of the impressive (and true) things people have said about Von Manstein (and Rommel) as tactical generals and military innovators are also true about Napoleon, and even more so. Napoleon's flaws were strategic and resulted from hubris. In my view, he was the greatest General, but flopped in the role of Emperor.

[MartinC]

actually there were 4 major river crossings in both his advance into Russia and his retreat from Russia. These reiver crossings were a major cause of his diminished forces both in reaching moscow and returning from moscow.

http://www.emersonkent.com/images/russian_campaign_stat.jpg

Probably the best statistical graphic ever drawn, this map by Charles Joseph Minard portrays the losses suffered by Napoleon's army in the Russian campaign of 1812. Beginning at the Polish-Russian border, the thick band shows the size of the army at each position. The path of Napoleon's retreat from Moscow in the bitterly cold winter is depicted by the dark lower band, which is tied to temperature and time scales.

That's a great graphic - and I think supports my statement that Napoleons army was destroyed by the time he reached Moscow. It also shows that the teeth of the Russian winter only became a factor on the retreat from Moscow not the advance towards it. It's also worth pointing out that Moscow was not the Russian capital back then that was St Petersburgh.

I wonder if the casualties being tied to river crossings is because they were contested or if that was a natural point to leave wounded and sick - who later died - rather than transport them over the rivers onwards. Borodino took place just before Moscow and was a very very costly battle for both sides.

---------- Post added April-23rd-2012 at 02:23 PM ----------

All of the impressive (and true) things people have said about Von Manstein (and Rommel) as tactical generals and military innovators are also true about Napoleon, and even more so. Napoleon's flaws were strategic and resulted from hubris. In my view, he was the greatest General, but flopped in the role of Emperor.

Agreed that Napoleon was a great operational and tactical general but not a great strategist and an even worse politician. I think he is closer to Rommel than Manstein in that like Rommel he excelled in operations and field command while Manstein while a very good field commander was a master of strategy.

[Predicto]

Agreed that Napoleon was a great operational and tactical general but not a great strategist and an even worse politician. I think he is closer to Rommel than Manstein in that like Rommel he excelled in operations and field command while Manstein while a very good field commander was a master of strategy.

I guess that it comes down to the definition of "strategist." If you mean big picture massive campaign skills, then Napoleon had a command of strategy that enabled him to successfully conquer all of continental Europe, from Spain to Poland, Norway to Sicily. If you mean the political skills to hold it all together and the wisdom not to overreach, well then, nope he didn't have that skill. Of course, Von Manstein was never called upon to make those kinds of decisions either (and I think Manstein was the best German general ever).

[Lombardi's_kid_brother]

Waterloo was the winner of the 1974 Eurovision Song Contest.

How's that for being a conqueror?

[HailGreen28]

I'm not attempting to downplay the importance of the Prussians - the clue to that was when I said

'I would not dispute that the Prussians made a critical contribution at Waterloo both strategically in terms of where and when Wellington offered battle and then tactically in terms of their contribution during the battle itself.'

Again, the Prussians did much more than you suggest. They deserve at least as much credit as the British for victory at Waterloo. Especially since it was Prussians who were driven back by Napoleon's main army at Ligny a couple days earlier. They marched forward again to draw off Napoleon's forces beginning at 10, more than a corps around 1, supported Wellington's left flank so he could reinforce his crumbling center where Ney had been pounding it, and broke the French Army taking Plancenoit.

Give the British credit for a stout defense, but denying the Prussians at least equal credit, is kinda like lauding British and American forces for beating Hitler, and downplaying there was kinda this Red Army that actually launched a heavy prolonged offensive at the enemy and broke his back, describing the Soviets mainly as "they drew off reserves". Whether it's the Soviets surrounding Hitler in Berlin, or the Prussians taking Napoleon's carriage train, you're kinda overlooking what actually happened in battle.

The sources I have read have Napoleon deploying Lobau later than 1pm. In any case the first Prussian forces did not appear on the field until 2.30 in the form of an advanced cavalry screen followed by two infantry brigades at 3.00 pm and 3.30 pm. It was not until 4pm that the first Prussian action against Lobau began and it was 5pm before the whole of Bulows Corps was in place and about 5.30 pm before the advance of Bulows Corp towards Lobaus positions began.

And the sources I posted had Napoleon start to send Hussars out at *10*, and give orders to Labou at *1*. In any case these were forces amounting to more than a corps that would have been free to smash Wellington's left if 3 Prussian corps hadn't side-stepped past Grouchy.

Bear in mind with these diverted forces Napoleon would have had a small superiority in numbers, a few thousand. As it was, Napoleon had to attack with at least ten thousand fewer troops than Wellington.

The British has been standing against the French for over 4 hours before the Prussians were fully engaged with Lobau.'

How do you figure? Sure if you count them staring at each other all morning eating and cleaning their weapons, sure. The British stood against the French for the whole morning and previous evening before the Prussians finally showed up. The British stood up to Napoleon for at least 3 hours alone, but I'm not sure how you get "more than 4" without the humor. And the battle was very much in doubt the few hours *after* the three or four in question.

I'm not sure how you say that Bulow's skimishers engaged before 4, the action began at 4, but you're only counting when additional troops came up as when the Prussians were really involved. The Prussians were doing much more attacking than the British before 5:30.

My sources say the main fighting stated at 1, Bulow engaged Labou at 4. fine that's at least three hours. Never mind the Prussians had taken on Napoleon himself two days ago and and been thrown into a retreat since. The first three hours of the British fighting Napoleon at Waterloo are accounted for. Would you care to describe what happened the remaining SIX hours of the battle?

Especially fighting between the French and British at say, 5:30?

Your right - but if that's my only omission from a timeline I drew up from memory I'm quite pleased with myself frankly.

Hey, seeing as how neither of us are historians, and the people actually knowledgeable on the subject disagree, if we get most of it right here, we should congratulate each other.

I'm still pointing out what is still a lie. That "the French were already beaten by then time the Prussians showed up". Don't mean to get personal, again neither of us are pros, and I'm not accusing you of making up that lie, just repeating it as a lot of people have. Also pointing out the timeline

But I note you don't qtion the overall timeline I gave.

I'll try putting it this way. If your timeline is a bridge, without including Ney's second attack, your timeline kinda looks like this:

So I focused on the obvious gap.

The unit holding Le Hay Saint was a German battalion and another 2 battalions Wellington sent to reinforce were caught by Cavalry and cut up. Losing La Hay Saint was an important achievement in that it gave the French more room to maneuver. However it was too late in the day to make a difference. It was an omission to not to have inserted this is in the timeline - but I would assert it was not a critical moment in the battle as it might have been if the French had taken the strong point a couple of hours earlier.

Oh for FFS. What about the multiple sources I posted of the French firing canister into the British squares at this point? That was rather more important than "room to maneuver". How else was the British center "crumbling" by multiple sources including what I posted earlier?

And I hope you're not insulting the King's German Legion here. I think a German or Briton should really take offence to you if you are.

If you are suggesting the Prussians were responsible for defeating the advance of the Middle and Old Guard against Wellingtons right and center then you are really reaching. The Prussians were by that time winning the battle for Placenoit but had not won and Zeitiens Corps was just arriving on Wellingtons left flank.

His right? Well, the Guard may have strayed that far, but as far as the Prussians I'm talking about on the British left / center, with Zeiten's troops already providing support to Wellington's left, and in Napoleon's own words (and according to the Prussians)

"It was at this moment that Marshal Blucher arrived at La Haie and overthrew the French unit defending it… the enemy cavalry swept over the battlefield…it was necessary to give orders to the Guard, which was formed up to go forward, to change direction. This move was carried out in good order; the Guard faced about (to handle the onslaught from two sides)… immediately afterwards, each battalion formed itself into a square. The four squadrons detailed for action charged the Prussians. At this moment the English cavalry brigade, which arrived from Ohain, marched forward. These 2,000 horse got in between General Reille and the Guard."

Napoleon spent the rest of his life after Waterloo explaining to anyone who would listen why it was not his fault that he had lost at Waterloo and you need to read his memoirs with more than a touch of salt. As to the Prussians history of the battle that's an interesting thing to bring up.

Sure, no doubt. People are unreliable and have agendas. For example, I'm debating someone right now who's asserting that Ney firing canister into British squares around 6:00 was no big deal.

Prussian historian Julius von Pflugk-Harttung wrote “The main problem of the Prussians was their lack of success at Plancenoit.… Because the enemy Guard battalions unswervingly held this village until Wellington’s line had achieved the final victory, they also kept the Prussians from gaining the laurels of the day.… If Bülow had captured Plancenoit an hour earlier, he would have achieved the decisive results in the flank and rear, which Wellington now won at the front.

And on the other hand we have Zeiten's autobiography that his forces saved the Scots from the Old Guard in the climactic final attack.

Also lets consider the war diary of of the Prussian 1st Corps, which was written shortly after the end of the battle, described how the advance guard of the corps’ 1st Brigade attacked and captured the hamlet of Smohain and continued on to attack the French right wing. But then, “because our forces were too weak, they were forced back to Smohain. In the meantime the rest of the brigade’s infantry arrived. The enemy, who were already being attacked in the rear and the flank by the 4th Corps from Plancenoit and now also by us and also by the entire English army in the front, fell back, offering only slight resistance, which soon ended and turned into flight and the complete dissolution of their entire army.” The War Diary thus shows that the 1st Corps suffered an initial setback when advancing from Smohain, and succeeded in pushing back the French right wing only after the British general advance took place. The casualty returns for Zieten’s corps on 18 June also show that it did not undergo much heavy fighting that day, as would have been the case had it attacked and broken through a deployed French force, rather than simply advancing against disordered enemy units that were already in the process of disintegration due to events elsewhere on the battlefield

No, Zeiten flanked the last French attack in the darkness, and deserves at least as much credit as the British for the counterattack that broke the French attack around La Haye. Give credit to the British defenders too, but don't just ignore one side.

Nonsense. If you mean the capture of La Hay Sainte that happened around 6pm not after the first hour. If you mean the French cavalry attacks these had been contained with heavy loss mainly from French artillery admittedly but did not come close to breaking the British center.

There was Ney's ineffectual first attack, his more successful second attack, and the final attack by the Guard. Please try to keep them straight.

What you are failing to grasp is that Waterloo was conceived by Wellington and Blucher as a combined operation. It was not a question of either side saving each others bacon it was Wellington giving battle and remaining in place on the field and fixing Napoleon counting on support from Blucher to help finish Napoleon off.

No, I didn't think you needed that explained to you. Even before the Prussian defeat at Ligny, Blucher and Wellington remained in contact. In fact there was some controversy that Wellington had intentionally refused to come to the Prussians aid at that time, though that was disproven. Blucher, retreating north deeper into Belgium, asked Wellington what his intentions were. Give credit to Wellington for deciding to stand at Mont-Saint-Jean (Waterloo) if Blucher would promise the support of two Prussian corps. But don't deny what happened during the battle.

The way the battle turned out, the Prussians did indeed save the British bacon that day. It's understandable to disagree on this. The British could feel like they bore the brunt of it, including casualties. While the Prussians could feel the same way including the battle at Ligny two days before. including casualties. My point is that when you say at Waterloo the French were already beaten when the Prussians arrived, you're doing everyone a disservice.

A lie? Because someone holds a different opinion to you or interprets events differently does not make it a lie.

Again, the overall idea the French were beaten before the Prussians arrived, when Bulow began attacking in force around 4, and Ney was firing full canister into pinned British squares at 6, is a lie.

The British advance following the defeat of the Middle and Old Guard came at almost exactly the same time as the fall of Placenoit. Its no point either you or me claiming we know exactly which came first as even those at the battle can not be sure of the exact timing. I point you though to the Prussian historian I quoted above who puts the break through at Placenoit AFTER Wellington had held and then turned the Guard.

True, but like forgetting Ney's second attack, you're forgetting a substantial part of the Prussian force that came into play at the end. Here's a hint, name starts with "Z".

Now for one quibbling about me missing a single attack in the narrative of a battle this is funny. Napoleon had never commanded forces in the field against the British or Wellington before Waterloo apart from one encounter in Spain against John Moore and then Moores forces only fought part of Napoleons formation while Napoleons main effort was against the Spanish. Wellington won a series of victories in Portugal and Spain beating every French Marshall sent against him - but the first time Wellington and Napoleon faced each other on the battle field was Waterloo.

So except for out-maneuvering Moore's army and driving him towards the coast, Napoleon never commanded forces in the field against the British or Wellington before Waterloo. OK. (To be fair, I did think Napoleon faced more British forces in his quick romp to Madrid, but maybe I was thinking of the general with the great Spanish name Joachim Blake and surprise that zero British troops actually helped defend Madrid, even with the Spaniards understandably in the majority regardless. )

Still, that makes Napoleon undefeated against the British in Spain. And keep in mind he had gained an advantage over Wellington at Waterloo with inferior numbers, till the Prussians arrived in force.

And comparing Wellington's and Napoleon's other battles, please don't try to suggest Wellington could have pulled off anything like Napoleon's Six Day Campaign, at 1-4 odds against the Prussians.

Our debate's been kind of interesting. Like a controversy between professionals on the same subject. (link embedded)

Wellington's Smallest Victory: The Duke, the Model Maker and the Secret of Waterloo

By Peter Hofschröer

Hofschröer, Peter. Wellington's Smallest Victory: The Duke, the Model Maker and the Secret of Waterloo. London, UK: Faber & Faber, 2004. 240 pages, illus. (partially colored). ISBN# 0571217680. Hardcover. £14.99.

Visitors to London's Egyptian Hall in October 1838, like visitors to London's National Army Museum today, had a chance to marvel at a finely detailed model of the battlefield of Waterloo—the field of the Duke of Wellington's famous victory over the Emperor Napoleon. Capt. William Siborne, the modeler who made the diorama of Britain's greatest battle, found himself in a losing, lop-sided battle of his own with Wellington, the man Siborne wished to honor with his model by freezing Wellington's greatest victory like a fly in amber in the memory of Britons.

(snip)

Though Siborne got permission to collect his data, and as a by-product producing an indispensable archive of first-hand accounts of the battle. When he sought out the views of Prussian officers, he, in Hofschröer's view, ran afoul of Wellington. Raising the specter of the Prussian contribution to the victory was viewed by Wellington as undermining the reputation of the sole victor of Waterloo--Wellington.

[MartinC]

Again, the Prussians did much more than you suggest. They deserve at least as much credit as the British for victory at Waterloo.

As I said in earlier post Waterloo should be viewed as an Allied Victory not a British or Prussian victory. You disagreed with me then but if your view now is that each side deserves as much credit we are in agreement.

And the sources I posted had Napoleon start to send Hussars out at *10*, and give orders to Labou at *1*. In any case these were forces amounting to more than a corps that would have been free to smash Wellington's left if 3 Prussian corps hadn't side-stepped past Grouchy.

Lobaus forces did not amount to more than a Corp whatever time they were committed. One of his infantry Brigades had been detached and was with Grouchy - Lobaus Corp was the weakest French unit at Waterloo. They would still have been a very useful force for Ney to have committed to support D'Erlon or perhaps follow up after D'Erlons advance was smashed. They would certainly have been priceless to support the French Cavalry from 4 pm onwards.

The British stood up to Napoleon for at least 3 hours alone, but I'm not sure how you get "more than 4" without the humor. And the battle was very much in doubt the few hours *after* the three or four in question.

It was 5 PM before the first full Prussian Corp was in place (Bulow) and started to advance on Lobaus position. Battle started at 1pm - its 4 hours to 5pm when the first Prussian action in any force started. Bear in mind the massed French cavalry charges started at 4 PM over an hour before Bulow started his advance.

The Prussians were doing much more attacking than the British before 5:30.

What attacking did the Prussians do before 5.30? There was some skirmish action and Prussian artillery coming into action as it arrived but it was only around 5.30 that the first real Prussian attack began.

Never mind the Prussians had taken on Napoleon himself two days ago and and been thrown into a retreat since.

As had the British taken on Ney at Quatre Bras.

Oh for FFS. What about the multiple sources I posted of the French firing canister into the British squares at this point? That was rather more important than "room to maneuver". How else was the British center "crumbling" by multiple sources including what I posted earlier?

The French had been firing canister into the British squares since 4pm. Almost all the casualties the British took between 4PM and 6PM where from artillery - eye witness accounts and memories on the British side are consistent in saying that those in the squares found the advances by the French cavalry a relief is it meant the cannon fire had to pause.

If the French had taken La Hay Saint at say 4PM it would have been a critical moment in the battle and probably fatal to Wellington. At 6 PM though the French cavalry were spent and Napoleon was not willing to commit the Imperial Guard - he had good reasons not to with the Prussians now fully engaged on his right rear but it would have been better to commit the Guard against Wellington at 6PM rather than 7.30 PM.

And I hope you're not insulting the King's German Legion here. I think a German or Briton should really take offence to you if you are.

I'm enjoying this debate/discussion with you but you do sometimes seem to suddenly get a little personal. How am I insulting anyone? It was a German unit that held La Hay Saint and had done so heroically all day - it was only shortage of ammunition that caused them to fail.

His right? Well, the Guard may have strayed that far, but as far as the Prussians I'm talking about on the British left / center, with Zeiten's troops already providing support to Wellington's left,

The advance of the Imperial Guard is one of the great myths of the battle on both sides. The last French advance was certainly based around the Guard though it was actually only the Middle Guard which made contact with the British line. However there were many other French units involved and the advance had its right shoulder on La Hay Saint and its left on Hougomount. It was also supported by French horse artillery and some French cavalry units. There was even some action at the same time on the British left.

The myth on the British side is that is was the British Guards who stopped the French Guard - again there were many other units involved and not just British units as you pointed our earlier. I guess its more exciting to think of it as one set of Guards being stopped by another set.

And on the other hand we have Zeiten's autobiography that his forces saved the Scots from the Old Guard in the climactic final attack.

A claim the war diary of his own unit written a day after the battle rather undermines. In any case Zeitens forces were on the extreme left of the British line and the attack of the Imperial Guard was to the right (as Wellington looks at it) of La Hay Saint so I'm not sure how Zeiten could claim to have had any part in that specific encounter.

No, Zeiten flanked the last French attack in the darkness, and deserves at least as much credit as the British for the counterattack that broke the French attack around La Haye. Give credit to the British defenders too, but don't just ignore one side.

Its not me you are disagreeing with here - its the war diary of the Prussian unit involved written a day after the battle. War diaries are not always the most reliable source as they can be partial but its a rare war diary which understates a units achievements.

[HailGreen28]

As I said in earlier post Waterloo should be viewed as an Allied Victory not a British or Prussian victory. You disagreed with me then but if your view now is that each side deserves as much credit we are in agreement.

This is simply not true. I disagreed with your statement that the French were practically already beaten when the Prussians arrived. If you agree with me now that statement is false, and we agree the credit should be share 50/50 between the Prussians and British, good.

Lobaus forces did not amount to more than a Corp whatever time they were committed. One of his infantry Brigades had been detached and was with Grouchy - Lobaus Corp was the weakest French unit at Waterloo. They would still have been a very useful force for Ney to have committed to support D'Erlon or perhaps follow up after D'Erlons advance was smashed. They would certainly have been priceless to support the French Cavalry from 4 pm onwards..

There were smaller units at Waterloo than a corps, lol, and Napoleon sent additional cavalry with Lobau. Not to mention the forces, including Guard, he had to send to retake Plancenoit during the battle.

It was 5 PM before the first full Prussian Corp was in place (Bulow) and started to advance on Lobaus position. Battle started at 1pm - its 4 hours to 5pm when the first Prussian action in any force started. Bear in mind the massed French cavalry charges started at 4 PM over an hour before Bulow started his advance.

My sources say fighting between the Prussians and french occured by 4. But tell you what, count the fighting at 11:30 or so on Wellington's right at Goumont, and you can have 4+ hours. Now will you stop trying to spin the majority of the battle, which occurred after 4? When the French engaged the Prussians, and stop ignoring and downplaying Ney's second attack and the Prussians attacking?

What attacking did the Prussians do before 5.30? There was some skirmish action and Prussian artillery coming into action as it arrived but it was only around 5.30 that the first real Prussian attack began.

My sources say the Prussian attack started around four, and Bulow's attack reached it's height at *5*. Not that serious fighting didn't start till 5:30. What reason would the French have to lie about when the Prussian attack occurred?

As a result of the error, von Bulow showed up on Napoleon's right/rear flank at Plancenoit around 4pm After bitter fighting, the Prussians had broken through, forcing Napoleon to commit regiments of the Young Guard, and to deny fresh reserve infantry to Ney, when Ney needed it most. This was not a mistake, it was a necessity; it was however, why Ney's desperate attacks failed.

(snip)

"It was five o'clock, the moment when General Bulow's attack was at its height when, far from being held, he kept on throwing in new troops, which formed his line to the right. The English cavalry was repulsed by the bold soldiers and chasseurs of the Guard. The English abandoned all the battlefield between La Haie-Sainte and Mont-Saint-Jean… At the sight of these charges, shouts of victory were heard on the battlefield. I said 'It is an hour too soon; nevertheless what has been done must be followed up.

As had the British taken on Ney at Quatre Bras..

Yes and the British deserve credit for that. But keep in mind the relative forces then. At Quatre Bras: 8,000 growing to 30,000 British/Dutch and 18,000 growing to 24,000 French. At Ligny, Naploeon himself and 68,000 French vs 84,000 Prussians. And credit to the British fight their battle to a tactical draw being forced to retreat by the Prussian defeat; my point being the Prussians should be given credit for coming back into the fight at Waterloo two days after a defeat by Napoleon and the majority of French forces at Ligny.

The French had been firing canister into the British squares since 4pm. Almost all the casualties the British took between 4PM and 6PM where from artillery - eye witness accounts and memories on the British side are consistent in saying that those in the squares found the advances by the French cavalry a relief is it meant the cannon fire had to pause.

If the French had taken La Hay Saint at say 4PM it would have been a critical moment in the battle and probably fatal to Wellington. At 6 PM though the French cavalry were spent and Napoleon was not willing to commit the Imperial Guard - he had good reasons not to with the Prussians now fully engaged on his right rear but it would have been better to commit the Guard against Wellington at 6PM rather than 7.30 PM.

And your "what ifs" ignore what actually happened. I provided multiple sources the British center was crumbling under said artillery. And Ney asked for reinforcements Napoleon denied because of the Prussian attacks at Plancenoit. And credit is given to the Prussian attack at La Haie for striking the decisive blow at Wellington's left.

I'm enjoying this debate/discussion with you but you do sometimes seem to suddenly get a little personal. How am I insulting anyone? It was a German unit that held La Hay Saint and had done so heroically all day - it was only shortage of ammunition that caused them to fail.

Cool, i was just curious why you felt the need to specify most of the troops there were German, when the King's German Legion was known as a very distinguished part of the British army.

Sorry, I know my style of typing can seem combative on a lot of subjects here. In all cases I'm really just trying to debate just the point.

But statements like your misrepresentation of my position at the start of your post I'm quoting: (Your saying I object to giving the allies equal credit when in fact that's MY position against your statement that the French were already defeated when the Prussians arrived) really "poisons the well" as I'm responding to you.

The advance of the Imperial Guard is one of the great myths of the battle on both sides. The last French advance was certainly based around the Guard though it was actually only the Middle Guard which made contact with the British line. However there were many other French units involved and the advance had its right shoulder on La Hay Saint and its left on Hougomount. It was also supported by French horse artillery and some French cavalry units. There was even some action at the same time on the British left.

The myth on the British side is that is was the British Guards who stopped the French Guard - again there were many other units involved and not just British units as you pointed our earlier. I guess its more exciting to think of it as one set of Guards being stopped by another set.

Let alone stuff like Ney's curious left turn at one crucial point, lol. The last stages occurring in darkness certainly didn't help either.

A claim the war diary of his own unit written a day after the battle rather undermines. In any case Zeitens forces were on the extreme left of the British line and the attack of the Imperial Guard was to the right (as Wellington looks at it) of La Hay Saint so I'm not sure how Zeiten could claim to have had any part in that specific encounter.

Its not me you are disagreeing with here - its the war diary of the Prussian unit involved written a day after the battle. War diaries are not always the most reliable source as they can be partial but its a rare war diary which understates a units achievements.

I'm providing details from the actual French and German commanders, from English language websites. I can't prove it, but at least one of the sources I've provided, and I believe past readings of the battle, the French and German sources are even more against the British accounts of the battle.

In any case, do we agree now: That the French were certainly not practically beaten by the time the Prussians arrived? And that the British and Prussians deserve equal credit for victory at Waterloo?

[MartinC]

This is simply not true. I disagreed with your statement that the French were practically already beaten when the Prussians arrived. If you agree with me now that statement is false, and we agree the credit should be share 50/50 between the Prussians and British, good.

I was not attempting to misrepresent you.

When this Waterloo tangent started out of the debate about who was Britains greatest foe at one point I did make a statement that the French were essentially beaten before the Prussians arrived - that statement was an over simplification at best although I was talking about their strategic position rather than the actual battle itself. The French needed a quick and cheap win at Waterloo to be able to turn their Army around to face the Prussians - the failure of D'Erlons attack meant that the battle became a slogging match rather than a quick win and at that point - strategically - the French were beaten in terms of the campaign.

However later when we started this debate seriously about Waterloo I said

Ultimately any attempt to give complete credit for the victory over Napoleon to either Wellington or Blücher is meaningless. This was neither a British victory nor a Prussian victory; it was an Allied victory. The tenacious stand of Wellington’s army against a series of heavy French attacks throughout the day was the essential precondition for the final Allied victory, for if he had been forced to retreat, the late arrival of the Prussians could have left them exposed to great danger. Wellington defeated D'Erlons attack and held fast against massed French cavalry attacks for well over a hour before the first Prussian units came into action against Placenoit.

And you replied.

Wrong. Again, you totally omit what happened after the first hour of the French attack. Ney's second attack causing the British center to start to crumble. Zeiten's support and Bulow's attacks prevented Napoleon from turning Wellington's left as planned.

I understood that to mean you did not agree credit should be shared equally but that and you talking about the Prussians 'saving Wellington bacon' gave the impression to me that you felt the Prussians were the major reason for the French defeat.

Now will you stop trying to spin the majority of the battle, which occurred after 4?

I'm not spinning anything. I'm quoting sources at least as credible as yours - not least war diaries from the actual Prussian units involved.

My sources say the Prussian attack started around four, and Bulow's attack reached it's height at *5*. Not that serious fighting didn't start till 5:30. What reason would the French have to lie about when the Prussian attack occurred?

The French have been seeking to explain the Waterloo defeat since the day after the battle. For historic reasons any way to downplay the importance of the British effort plays well locally :-) Also explaining the Prussian attack was earlier than it might have been gives some cover for the failure of both Ney and Napoleon to have supported the Cavalry attack with infantry at 4 PM and not committing the Guard earlier than they did. On a slight tangent De Gaulle wrote a history of the French Army which failed to even mention Waterloo ....

my point being the Prussians should be given credit for coming back into the fight at Waterloo two days after a defeat by Napoleon and the majority of French forces at Ligny.

Agree with this totally.

Sorry, I know my style of typing can seem combative on a lot of subjects here. In all cases I'm really just trying to debate just the point.

But statements like your misrepresentation of my position at the start of your post I'm quoting: (Your saying I object to giving the allies equal credit when in fact that's MY position against your statement that the French were already defeated when the Prussians arrived) really "poisons the well" as I'm responding to you.

As above I was not misrepresenting you - I show the quote above were I say Waterloo should be viewed as an Allied victory and you respond 'No'.

I'm providing details from the actual French and German commanders, from English language websites. I can't prove it, but at least one of the sources I've provided, and I believe past readings of the battle, the French and German sources are even more against the British accounts of the battle.

I have provided a direct quote from the War diary of Zeitens Corp written the day after Waterloo which states in simple terms that their initial units were thrown back when they first arrived and did not join the general advance on Wellington left until after Wellingtons own general advance and the breakthrough of Bulow at Placenoit. How do you explain that? Commanders accounts in later writings are always suspect on all sides.

In any case, do we agree now: That the French were certainly not practically beaten by the time the Prussians arrived? And that the British and Prussians deserve equal credit for victory at Waterloo?

Agreed!

[HailGreen28]

In any case, do we agree now: That the French were certainly not practically beaten by the time the Prussians arrived? And that the British and Prussians deserve equal credit for victory at Waterloo?

Agreed!

Cool. I think on the rest, the deeper we dig, the more we'd disagree and find sources and real historians disagreeing. Like the article about Wellington's supporters and a model of Waterloo, that I posted earlier.