If Napoleon is such a military genius, why was he such an idiot at Waterloo?

right, Don't mean to imply your wrong cause im a dunce with this, but wouldnt wellington fight to keep his right side intact. Or did on the red side know napoleon was walking into a fight he couldn't win.

Napoleon lost it some time before the invasion of Russia. At Borodino he already displayed a complete lack of tactical finesse, and he never really got his mojo back after that.

Fatigue. Not only did he lack a proper staff system to remove the load of not only governing, but planning the entire military operation, but he was also suffering from insomnia.

This kind of reminds me of total war, where towards the end of the campaign I start losing battles again because of the combination of lag and massive armies and the fact that I become too lazy to do proper micro.

Honestly, I don't see any way to really improve the tactical situation of this battle, those deep red center reserves are more than enough to counter those 3 detachments, and that blocking regiment stymies his main thrust while artillery rake everything. Sending Ney on a death march against the enemy center with an enfilading flank no less, what the serious fuck.

If I were in charge of this war I would have taken the entire army and marched straight to prussia, the prussians would have definitely engaged in open battle because of "muh honor," and are therefore the logical candidate to knock out of the coalition. The army already lives off the land, so I wouldn't worry too much about letting the brits frolick in France, but there really is no way to prevent this.

His butt hurt and he couldn't ride a horse so he couldn't see the battle and command properly.

There's also the fact that the prussians are coming on the right, meaning the only angle of attack is the left, which is obvious to just about everyone, it's not by random chance wellington deployed just about every asset to block this maneuver. That is just a wicked deployment on his part.

right dunce here again that's what I'm forgetting they wouldn't have known of all the British troops whereabouts of course I forget people really where in the thick of it. God war is hell, would've been terrifying as the french.

Do the french actually believe this?

My history teacher told us an amazing fact about the battle of Waterloo which I had never heard before, and it reinforces the essential importance of logistics and supply in "modern" warfare - the French forgot to bring batteries for their CB radios and couldn't communicate their tactics and commands effectively to each of the armies' elements, resulting in a total rout. This example highlights the importance of effective battlefield communication also.

>clinton

I FUCKING KNEW IT

Borodino was tactical genius!
He totally fooled the Russian as to where he was crossing and got a good portion of his surviving army over the river,only to have it die off in a winter storm

>he says when the entire army routed because his old guard broke and started fleeing like little girls

The sad part is that there are American on /k/ RIGHT NOW who will 100% believe this post

Fucking Americans

The world would be better off without them

...

It is a poor craftsman who blames his tools

They say in boxing 'styles make fights'.
Wellington was the perfect general to put against Napoleon. Even if he didn't match the all round genius of bonaparte, Wellingtons defensive tactics were perfectly matched to stymie Napoleon's bold aggressive tactics. Boney would have beaten any other general, but not Wellington

>nu-males will never understand being a cuckold to literally hitler

The sad part is that there are Europoors on Veeky Forums RIGHT NOW who will 100% believe this post
Fucking eurofags
The world would be better off without them

Napoleon was a talented man, but I think his leadership from about 1807 on takes him out of the running for "greatest commander in human history".

It's entirely true that Wellington was on the ropes before the arrival of Blucher, who was the real victor of Waterloo. There's ways for Napoleon to have checked Blucher's advance, though he of course failed to do so, and that is his fault.
But of course, even if he had won waterloo, it would be simple enough for the prussians to retreat and link up with other armies of the coalition. Wellington would have had all the bones in his body broken, but France was in no way capable of standing up to a sustained war at that point. Waterloo was merely an early ending to a foregone conclusion.

>Wellington was on the ropes before the arrival of Blucher
So was Napoleon. Wellington, knowing the Prusssians were coming, had expertly fought him to a stalemate. Wellington and Napoleon both knew that Napoleon had to win a quick decisive victory against Wellington if the campaign was to continue. Wellington had time on his side and both parties knew this. Hence Ney's Leroy Jenkins nonsense

That's why Gebhard Leberecht von Blücher is famous as the man who beat Napoleon whereas Wellington is a side note in history.

the whole battle and situation is poorly explained on a basic level
Before Waterloo

Battle of Ligny, prussians defeated but withdrawn in an orderly fashion

Napoleons plan to crush them quickly fails, now theres a chance for prussians and anglos to unite

Napoleon splits its forces, Grouchy is sent after the prussians

Grouchy finds prussians at Wavre, but Napoleons orders are misleading and slow
>Chase and beat the prussians then unite with main force asap

is just uncomprehensible, the prussians took a defensive position at the town, it will take a battle to chase them off, you cant fight your own battle and help Napoleon at the same time

With a smaller force left behind, the prussians headed to waterloo and occupied Grouchy who didnt have his clear orders

Napoleon lost because his original plan didnt work

>he was winning until he lost

I mean... whats the point?

A gigantic Russian, Austrian and Spanish army were also converging towards France.

There were also numerable reserve armies to support just in case.

You could laugh at the Spanish army but from all directions it would have at least tied his resources.

old guard never broke retard. in fact they stayed and fought on. also most of his force was fresh since the army was depleted in russia

You are thinking of the Berezina; and no that wasnt tactical genius either.

I've heard something similar about how Napoleon's notoriously illegible handwriting made it almost impossible for his men to decipher his notes telling them what to do.

I see nothing wrong with that order really.
>Fight Prussians
>Rout them
>Go to help Napoleon
However I have two questions
1. Did Grouchy even have enough men to do that
2. Would his command have been in any shape to march to Napoleons side and fight another battle after defeating the Prussians

unironically this

He was napping for much of the battle as his health was acting up. The massive accidental cavalry charged happened, amusingly enough it would have completely crushed Wellington had it in turn been properly supported with infantry and artillery. And despite all of this the French were on the cusp of victory until Groucht failed to keep the Prussians from joining in.

Napoleon had defied all odds before, there was no reason to doubt his ability to do it again.

I don't think that's true. Blucher may be one of the most incompetent commanders of the period.

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Six_Days'_Campaign?wprov=sfla1

Other then the fact he was beyond middle aged by this point?

That may be true but he hadn't lost his brilliance. Wellseley himself said the six days campaign better demonstrated Napoleon's genius than anything before, and that was only a year prior to Waterloo.

Much less money than the previous victorious ones

The Imperial guard had literally retreated by the time Blucher showed up. Bonaparte's assaults had been repelled.

Wellington was winning with his rag-tag ensemble against Napoleon's best men.

Defied all odds?
not really.
He was competent but in command of the most powerful country in Europe failed to break the Russians OR the British.

Lmao, he had beaten the Russians multiple times already, along with the Austrians, Prussians, and British. Look at how he turned the situation in italy around during the revolutionary wars. France was only in the advantageous situation it was because of him.

>inb4 muh largest population
Means little when he continuously won battles outnumbered and outgunned while on the offensive. It's pretty brainlet tier to say that Napoleon was anything other than a military genius.

First of all that's not true, the french were making significant progress
>wellington's rag tag ensemble vs. Napoleon's best men.
What a joke, France was devastated demographically after the Russian invasion. Most of the soldiers Napoleon had from 1813 onward were fresh conscripts, many of whom were called upon early due to manpower shortages.

>France was devastated demographically after the Russian invasion.
You know they didnt have contraceptive pills in those days? and all the 12-13 year olds didnt go on the russia campaign?

...What?
So because they did not have contraceptive pills they had a higher population or just what? What did you mean by this?

What the fuck are you even saying? The Grande Armee, the most effective fighting force in Europe for the previous ten years lost the vast majority of its battle hardened soldiery and officers, how could they have recovered from that in just a few years?

Defied all odds is hyperbolic is all, he's clearly one of the most remarkable statesmen/commanders in human history but defying all odds would have been crossing the channel and conquering Britain, not to mention Waterloo - a battle he lost without the excuse of being "outnumbered and outgunned while on the offensive"

>"La Garde recule. Sauve qui peut!"
His best men were there and his best men were vanquished.

And in what numbers? Not to mention the old guard was in enough of a good shape after the battle to help cover the retreat.

The reason it was effective was because of its commander-how he could use large masses of troops and move them quickly.

The problem was by 1815 the allies had devised a counter-tactic, one army would hold the french in place while the other allies would converge.

>Ney
The absolute madman.

Look at the campaign of 1814, that was Napoleons best campaign. He fought 14 battles in 2 or 3 months and won most of them.

>had it in turn been properly supported with infantry and artillery.

That’s what doesn’t make sense to me, that’s Battle 101 right there, how was NO ONE else on the French side able to make basic decisions without Napoleon?

Except he wasn't. Napoleon could have won at Waterloo if he'd broken Wellington's line, which he failed to do, despite numerous assaults. He only had a limited amount of time to win the field before the Prussians showed up and clearly he didn't manage to do this. He hammered away at Wellington's forces all day and although it was a close run fight, the French were failing to rout the Allied army.

From what I've read the charge was an accident. Apparently it was started by an overly eagre man as low rank as a captain and it had a massive cascading effect.

>despite all of this the French were on the cusp of victory
They really weren't. Wellington had stalled them long enough for the Prusssians to arrive. When they did, he was still capable of launching a full frontal assault which turned the situation into a rout for Napoleon.
Why do Boneyfags have such a hard time admitting that just once their hero was out-thought and out generaled. It doesn't take away from all his masterful campaigns that this one time, in this one situation Wellington (probably the no.2 general around at that time) got the better of him.
I mean I love Federer but I don't pretend Nadal didn't school him

holy fuck, why was every country but France so fucking shit at war?

>Wellington (probably the no.2 general around at that time)
Is that a joke? All of his victories were when he had numeric superiority, most of them against inferior commanders like Joseph Napoleon, and most of them still close victories or stalemates despite that.

>France was devastated demographically after the Russian invasion
This.
They also lost a lot of horses.

>just once their hero was out-thought and out generaled.

he was a victim of circumstance more like, and of rare mistakes on his part.

The French lost, the Coalition didn't beat them.

Less so than Napoleon. Napoleon could resupply, Wellington could most certainly not. As for the charge of "stalemate", just a few hours delay by Blucher would have been a loss for Wellington. And Napoleon of course, but Wellington nonetheless.
>The Imperial guard had literally retreated by the time Blucher showed up
Not super important, a mere tactical victory. Were the fight to descend into attrition, as it might have in Napoleons fading years (he'd most certainly lost his edge), the battlefield would be in Napoleons favour, simply because Napoleon could resupply while Wellington could not.

he would have won if the prussians weren't there whoops looks like some faggot already stated the obvious

Wellington's positioning was basically perfect, the left was the only flanking direction and he knew it, and it would have fatally thinned Boney out no matter where he redirected troops.

If the French had convincingly destroyed Blucher at Ligny rather than let his forces withdraw unmolested and in good order then there'd have been no Prussians to support Wellington later in the battle.

If Ney had been able to gain the crossroads at Quartre-Bras then it might have stopped Wellington even reaching Mont Saint-Jean.

If Napoleon had been able to destroy the component parts of the coalition armies before they converged it might have all been different.

too bad that "if's" and "but's" don't mean shit in real life.

>The French lost, the Coalition didn't beat them.

frogaboos are officially worse wehraboos now

Napoopan probably wasn't in the battle much
he was sick as fuck by that time

you can't deny Boney played himself

>have Blucher on the ropes at Ligny
>let him retreat with the fucking bulk of his forces in good order
>they link up with the Brits later to fuck you

Still was out there commanding the battle, this battle was lost because of him. Stop making excuses and hero worshiping Napoleon. You can admire some one but to deny their faults and failures is beyond pathetic.

>this battle was lost because of him.

exactly, that fucking gimp Nosey was just scenery

>You can admire some one but to deny their faults and failures is beyond pathetic.

this, he had an incredible run, but sadly nearly all his mistakes more or less came at once at Waterloo

nah Napoleon have never lost any battles unless he's outnumbered and stuff

Assaye, Salamanca,Vitoria were not close victories or stalemates. Wellington was in charge of the coalition army because he was the best commander available and he had never been decisively defeated himself.

>Wellington was in charge of the coalition army because he was the best commander available
The best British commander available, maybe.

>and he had never been decisively defeated himself.
Not really something to brag about considering he always had the numerical advantage.

He'd been sucking since 1811 in Spain.

It's amazing how much attention Waterloo gets given that Napoleon probably would have been fucked even had he won a decisive victory, given the grand strategic situation. I figure that the battle's popularity is probably the Anglo's doing.

Greatest commander obviously goes to Alexander.
In terms of expert usage of tactics its not even really a contest.
Then again times were a lot different. Once firearms and cannon got in the mix things got kind of murky.

Stop doing /int/ before it rots the few faculties you have left.

>always had the numerical advantage.
Yeah that's kind of one the key skills a general needs to have, making sure you aren't outnumbered, and your men aren't fighting at a disadvantage. It's called planning, logistics, strategy etc. Only an idiot fights against the odds when he doesn't need to

But Massena was in command in Spain

Its the anglo POV, because that was the only point of the Napoleonic Wars were they did something relevant.
Much of the rest of the world considers the 100 Days an afterthough.

In germany for example the Battle of Nations is the best known battle of the period, in Russia probably Borodino and the Berezina.

There were four or five major armies converging on France at that time and every single one was larger then the french one.
A purely defensive strategy wouldnt have worked either, because France in 1815 was demoralized and in no conditions to wage any longer war after the total defeat and conquest the year before.

>planning, logistics, strategy
The secret is don't be a megalomaniac responsible for millions of dead.

Anglo spotted