Gets BTFO

>gets BTFO
>goes into exile
>comes back, still has the support of the troops
>gets BTFO again

Wasn't he the greatest strategist of his era? What caused him to lose his military prowess towards the end of his reign? Was it arrogance?

Other urls found in this thread:

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Napoleon_Bonaparte
twitter.com/SFWRedditImages

No, Wellington was the greatest strategist of his era because he defeated the greatest strategist of his era.

>inb4 blucher

Wellington still would've won even without that faggot.

>Wasn't he the greatest strategist of his era?
No, beating a bunch of useless Germans gave him an illusion of grandeur so he sperged out and went against Russia.

>invading Russia in the winter
>got stranded in Egypt
>cucked by his wife

Napoleon was a meme

For the first BTFO, he lost his army to Russian winter and got overran by highly numerically superior coalition forces

For the 2nd BTFO, he had even less troops than before (pic related)
It was a last stand with no chance of success

> I know people think I'm stupid. Because I get bored easily. Because I have no interest in strategy or logistics or contingency planning. But see, I've learned a lot over the years. And now I see planning doesn't matter, fuel doesn't' matter, strategy doesn't matter. Only two things matter: Force in as great a concentration as you can manage, and style. And in a pinch, style can slide. In any battle, there's always a level of force against which no tactics can succeed.

Military strategy is a romantic meme

He had utterly BTFO the Russian army into submission twice in a span of a few years
That's what made him believe he could invade them
Least did he know that, if the Russians are easy to beat, Russia isnt

That's like saying Scipio was better than Hannibal because he beat him. In other words you are right.

>lost in Egypt
>lost in Spain
>lost in Russia
>lost at sea
He was a terrible strategist. He was a very decent tactician, but even that wasn't so much compared to his real talent, which was organization; but by the close of the wars, the rest of Europe had started to copy his organizational methods.

All this shows is how piss poor he was at diplomacy. He was just a school yard bully with no aim other than to make himself seem powerful. Genghis Khan had the sense to crush everyone before they even had to fight.

>sprouts this meme
>gets flanked, routes, dies

>He was a terrible strategist. He was a very decent tactician
Please explain the different. Completely ignorant about military matters.

There was no place for diplomacy
It all began at the revolution, when European kings chimped out against France

They got BTFO one by one until only Greed Cucktain was left
Now alone, they pussied out and begged for peace to the French

All was good for a few years until in 1803, Britain chimped out again and convinced Russia and the HRE to attack France
Napoleon raped their ass, but from there it was clear he would never obtain peace, since European rulers saw him as a commoner who shouldnt get to rule a major European power, and kept trying to overthrow him
He did the only thing he could, conquer Europe in self-defense
Then he grew a bit overconfident and invaded (for the first time not in self-defense) Russia, which caused his ruin

Strategy happens before the battle, tactics happen during combat.

>Wellington still would've won even without that faggot.

Yeah, we all know how well he fared when alone...

Then he was very good at strategy, as proven by Austerlitz, Jena, Friedland...etc
You're confusing it with diplomacy it seems (aka the grand scheme of things)

Strategy is decisions like invading Egypt, tactics are things like battlefield maneuvers.

>Wasn't he the greatest strategist of his era?

Napoleon was a mediocre strategist at best, he was an excellent artillery commander and and even better administrator.

He should read Sun Tzu :^)

Diplomacy is a tool of strategy, not the sum of strategy.

Okay so he lost 4 battles.

That's not even that bad?

Winning wars with France aka the BBB (plus weaponized with nationalism) isn't really that hard.

And how many did Napoleon lose?

He lost the ones that mattered

Alot more.

Excuses
proofs

Here's your proofs, Proofster.

Didn't he lose like half a million soldiers invading Russia?

>not even reading the article
>en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Military_career_of_Napoleon_Bonaparte
>Napoleon thus won 54 battles when personally heading his army, with only 7 losses and none against a weaker force. Even at the Battle of Waterloo where he had 73,000 men on the field against Wellington's 68,000, he was on his way to a victory when the Prussians arrived and turned the tide.

Most of his victories came in 1796 and 1814, and he won 10 battles in both years. Between 1799 and 1809, he went undefeated, and his losses after 1809 came against armies of Fifth and Sixth Coalition where he was generally outnumbered by insurmountable proportions.

Notably, his last great adversary Arthur Wellesley won 34 and lost 6 battles in his lifetime.[292] Thus, Napoleon won 88.5% of his battles while Wellington won 85% of his.
>loses one more battle
>Alot more

Well, if you're going to quote order of the stick out just be true

>he was on his way to a victory
Im sure that doesnt count

more importantly why wasnt he executed for starting one of the worst wars ever?

You're right, but the point still stands. Napoleon fought more battles and consequently lost more (by 1), Wellington is a good general, but not better than ole bonny

The Pope intervened and asked that he not be.

Uhh, uhhhhhhhhhm

Fuck you user, I was right the first time. Wellington is soooo better than that Corsican piece of TRASH.

And you know why? Because the British Empire lasted LONGER than Napoleon's shitty campaign.

Suck on it you pro-Napoleonic piece of shit, and fuck off. AHAHAHahahaha.

>gets BTFO

>He was a terrible strategist.

He also won way more.

No.

In all reality he hoped for a diplomatic peace when he returned from elba. He even made his first public appearance wearing the red clothes of a diplomat instead of his military uniform.

However unfortunately for him the powers happened to be all together at the time and agreed to declare war on him to protect their new treaty.

Napoleon was able to catch Britian and Prussia separated before Austria mobilized.

He beat the piss out of the Prussians before they could link up and put his subordinate Grouchey in charge of blocking them out of waterloo.

Grouchey however failed to so do and failed to march to the sound of guns when waterloo started. He ended up marching an invaluable third of napoleon's army around without blockin gout the Prussians and without returning to the field to end the battle.

Napoleon made no real mistake but sadly he could not do everything himself and his subordinates failed him.

If his battle plan at waterloo was 'uninspired' as some historians say it is because he was very ill that day and likely had duodenal ulcers. He even retired for an hour during the battle because he was so ill.

Im fucking plying

Wellington lost far more than 4 battles, deluded fag

just picked the most humiliating
And good luck to find any defeat with such favorable odds for Nappy

>If his battle plan at waterloo was 'uninspired' as some historians say it is because he was very ill that day
I love Napoleon and read everything about him but nothing points to him being sick that day.

Wut?
He had been sick for the entire campaign
He had to leave the battlefield several times that day to go take a shit in a barn

NAAAAAAAayyyyyy!!!!!!

What about Suvorov?

Why was he not exiled to Saint Helena in the first place?

Thats a good bait

Because greedy Brits didnt want to pay for such a long journey

Several historians repeatedly point out he wasn't particularly ill that day. So what if he takes a crap now and again. He performed equally as well as he did in Russia at Borodino and he wasn't sick there either.