Why do Anglos take credit of the Prussian's victory in Waterloo?

Why do Anglos take credit of the Prussian's victory in Waterloo?

Attached: IMG_4529.jpg (509x289, 72K)

Because we planned it all and made it happen. Wellington commanded everyone. Plus we had more troops in combat

Yeah, Wellington commanded getting btfo until the Prussians arrived.

Attached: 1512670820739.png (800x729, 48K)

Because we have a massive rivalry with the French, and if Germans want to celebrate defeating France they have other victories they can do that with.

>b-b-but based Wellington had it all planned!

Attached: 1512918046117.png (625x773, 127K)

You should have said "German" instead of "Prussian"
Prussians made up hlaf of allied forces, but even among the "British" army, 3/4th of the forces were Germans

Brits accounted for 25,000 out of the 118,000 strong Allied forces

Attached: wtl.png (320x292, 9K)

Yeah but I guarantee the redcoat regulars were more valuable than whatever the Germans were deploying at that late stage. They were in utter shambles in 1812.

>utter shambles
>Prussians fight several campaigns on their own
>Wellington fails to show up at Ligny because he's being a degenerate in Brussels
>the Prussians still defeat Napoleon's forces

He successfully defended his army until reinforcements arrived that could defeat Napoleon. Sounds like his strategy worked. Napoleon might not have even took the offense otherwise.

>Why do the leaders of the coalition that planned and defeated Napoleon take any credit at all

Attached: 1520304576815.png (293x502, 139K)

Wellington was winning before Blucher arrived, the imperial guard had retreated and Ney (who warned Napoleon not to underestimate him) had failed calamitously.
Wellington was commanding an ad hoc coalition, many of whom had never seen battle, he was also outnumbered and out-gunned, Napoleon had his best men with him.
They had already been repelled and slaughtered at Hougoumont.
But believe what you want you coping frogboo

russia was the leader of the coalition

Why are "german"-american autist so annoying especially kaiserboos

Source?

Lmao. Britain led all the coalitions

Not him, but do you have any idea who led the victory parade through the streets of Paris? I do. They sure as fuck weren't British.

Why is it so hard for some people on here to accept that both the British *and* Prussians contributed to victory? Wellington led an excellent defensive operation, successfully holding his ground against superior troops and a superior offensive general when any other general of the time would have been crushed easily (despite Napoleon being at his lowest point in 1815), *and* Blucher’s arrival delivered the final nail in the coffin, routing the entire French army when they otherwise could have retreated in good order.

Not everything is binary. I would say most of the credit should go to Wellington, out of the fact that he faced the French for far longer at Waterloo, but Blucher’s arrival was essential for the crushing victory.

Nappy was a gambler not a planner, his theories didn't always pan out in practice as evidenced by his disastrous campaign in Russia. The reckless charge by Ney and sending the old guard into a hail of fire were acts of desperation.

Boots however was an actual planner. He planned on the assumption that there are unknown unknowns which he would need to leave ample "leg room" to counter when they become apparent, thus despite the setback he remained steady and organized and held off the French until the Prussians arrived.

It was a contest between the emotional hysterical effeminate Dionysian Frank and the logical disciplined masculine Apollonian Anglo.

>one battle = the war

Both armies would of been BTFO'd if they fought separately

>supposedly lead the coalition
>don't lead the victory parade
>bongs giving up the spotlight in favor of others ever
Get fucked

Because Prussians didn't go on to dominate global media

>giving up the spotlight
>everyone thinks Britain beat Napoleon
>long term result: British propaganda victory

>everyone

Shut the fuck up. Prussian scum would still be occupied in 1812 had it not been for napoleons failure in Russia.

Krautniggers were slaughtered by Napoleon, deal with it.

That's by no means the same as leading the coalition. Napoleon had been defeated, abdicated and had already surrendered to the British - in fact iirc Paris was surrendered to Wellington and Blucher, are you thinking of the Battle of Paris, that happened before Elba even and where the British weren't even present?
Most historians, Napoleon himself would have regarded the British as the leader of the coalition, chief and most constant amongst his enemies.
Russia was invaded in an attempt to bring them out of the British sphere and into the French one.

Also most people think that Russian winter defeated Napoleon, not Britain.

Lmao, not here in the states (only relevant country), cry somewhere else faggot

>Having a victory parade in Paris
>Losing control of that city within a year
>Britain saves the day again

Usa is an irrelevant shithole, and it was Russia which defeated Napoleon you dumb fuck.

OH NONONONONONONO
AHAHAHAHHAHAHA

>be Russia
>gets invaded just to curtail British influence

You're referring to the first time he got beaten, retard. The second, and definitive, time he got beaten was because of the Prussians.

>Prussians fight several campaigns on their own
And Lose every one

Anyone who has studied the Napoleonic wars knows that Russia was invaded because Napoleon had exhausted all other options. >Completely cucked by royal navy on all frontiers bar one
>Know full well invasion of UK is certain to end in ignominious defeat
>Only hope is invading Russia, potentially resulting in absolute dominance of the continent which MIGHT set France up to be able to consider contesting British global dominance.

Attached: cope.png (258x594, 42K)

>tactical loss
>strategic win
>Britain takes credit

Lmao the absolute state.
>be prussia
>get occupied (Hahaha)
>be Russia
>Get invaded just to stop british trade
>claim credit because "muh deaths"
>blatantly ignore british economic and naval support
>most people think Britain won anyway
Great success

Attached: 1521989720847.gif (320x221, 996K)

British*
Both times he was defeated first and foremost by the British, their was opportunity, and a period of time before his first surrender where Russia was France's ally.

Attached: Treaties_of_Tilsit_miniature_(France,_1810s)_side_A.jpg (606x600, 283K)

>muh stronk prussians
>defeated by Napoleon after only 19 days

>tfw 200 years after your death autists from around the globe argue on a mongolian basket weaving forum who had the honor of finally defeating you
How did the based madman do it? A son of minor nobility from an irrelevant island rose to become an Emperor and have an entire era named after him. Will we ever see such a man again?

Attached: 1519634798204.png (2000x2000, 71K)

>he think the Prussians won at Ligny

Nigga, this battle is well known for being Nappy's last victory

Attached: li.png (324x660, 170K)

Because Napoleon himself said the English defeated him.

Quote from his dairy: "The English defeated me"

Napoleon was Nordic being born into a Norman house on Corsica.

Hitler was kinda like that

>Hitler was kinda like that

Attached: 1516047527027.png (645x729, 41K)

>a man who declared war on the entire world, causing the most horrific war in history, and committed genocide, a shit leader and even worse military commander
vs
>one of the most able political and military leaders of all time who personally led his troops in battle, not to mention that almost every single war was declared on him first

Attached: 1521502750839.png (2518x1024, 1.01M)

Not what was being discussed

>brainlet meme
Simply ebic

Attached: IMG_9979.jpg (947x1024, 95K)

I guess France should take all the credit for the victory in WW1 then...
Yet for some reason, I think Anglos won't agree with the "coalition's leader nation should take all credit" logic for this one...

>Wellington was winning before Blucher arrived, the imperial guard had retreated

Let me guess, your knowledge on Waterloo comes from that one movie, right?
Because in reality, the Prussians didn't arrive "at the end" but mid-battle, hours before Napoleon even committed the guard

We aren't talking about WW1. Britain is the strongest member of both coalitions and the defacto leader.

>Napoleon had his best men with him.
A majority of his staff/marshals didn't even rejoin him when he came back from exile and one of his best marshals, Davout, was in Paris acting as minister of war. And to be honest, most of Napoleon's best men died somewhere in Russia. It was impressive that he was even able to muster an army after he came back from exile and especially in the fashion that he did, marching from the coast to Paris without firing a single shot.

Nor do Brits
But by luck, the country that does is one of their ex-colonies completly obsessed with them, and thus overrate their history constantly

heh, losers.
lmao

He also said Spain did
And Grouchy
Basically everyone but Russia (because he wouldn't admit it's his own shitty decisions in Russia that ruined everything)

>Wellington was winning before Blucher arrived, the imperial guard had retreated
That happened long after the Prussians arrived tho

>Ney (who warned Napoleon not to underestimate him) had failed calamitously.
Ney had always been retarded

>Wellington was commanding an ad hoc coalition, many of whom had never seen battle, he was also outnumbered and out-gunned, Napoleon had his best men with him.
Imagine being this dishonest
French and British forces were roughly equal in numbers before the Prussians arrived
Wellington had vased Germans and Dutch under him instead of shitty Brits like in Soain (which is why he performed better)
And Napoleon's "best men" died in Russia, Waterloo was mostly conscripts

Tell me how I'm wrong
"Muh hitler was a bad General" isn't an argument

Well, if you're talking about their rise to power in some respects it is similar although Napoleon's is far more impressive due to it being mostly due to his personal merit (proved on the battlefield), being achieved in a much shorter amount of time, and also for being unprecedented.

>That happened long after the Prussians arrived tho
If by "arrived" you mean begun capturing an undefended village a few miles away then yes, if however you think that the Prussians were fighting in the fray then you're full of shit. The most you can say is that news of imminent Prussian arrival prompted Napoleon to gamble with his imperial guard.
>Ney had always been retarded
He evidently had more foresight than Napoleon

>Imagine being this dishonest
ahaha
>French and British forces were roughly equal in numbers
Doesn't mean the British weren't out-manned and out-gunned - they were.
>vased Germans
>Soain

Um no. Redcoats were definitely not drilled better than Prussian line infantry.

>redcoat regulars being better than prussian line infatry

Attached: brainlet.jpg (642x725, 42K)

British Redcoats were basically the shittiest European army, as they proved in Iberia
The only reason why they performed okay at Waterloo is because most weren't real "redcoats" but Germans and Dutch troops stuffed with Britsh uniform

Lmao 19th century britain was the media superpower like the US today

Bongs didn't even enter Paris lmao

The Russians took Paris aided by Austria and Prussia, the Bongs were just mosquitoes annoying Napoleon while he was fighting against serious opponents

Attached: Vstuplenie_v_Paris.jpg (1199x886, 395K)

That’s because it’s an obvious false equivalence, just lilebyoure obviously retarded

>by luck

Leftwing retards are the worst. Imagine genuinely believing that one of the greatest empires the world has ever known, one that propelled the world forward immensely, was simply lucky

T. Retard who knows nothing about history

> the bongs were just mosquitoes

T. Normie brainlet

The importance of Waterloo is overrated anyway. If Napoleon won that day he would have last maybe a few more weeks.

The battle is famous for being Napoleon's last stand but it had no impact on the outcome of the campaign anyway.

t. bzz bzz

this

Wrong, first time he was beated entirely because of Russia.

That really lacks a lot of nuance and stinks of /int/. British troops, while having very poor strategic mobility, were excellently trained and drilled relative to continental troops.

Wrong, you fucktard. British redcoats would curbstomp Prussian filth, and were superior in every fucking way. It was the Brits who won at Waterloon, not Krautniggers.

This. Krautfags do not even understand, that Prussians were shitty, third rate power until Franco-Prussian war. Their army was weak, and medicore.

Inb4 ''Muh 7 years war'' it was a LOST war, and Russians only halted from occupying entire Prussia because ''Miracle of Branderburg house'' happned.

Most important contributors to Napoleon's downfall official final power rankings:

>Great "based and robust" Britain
>Russia
>Napoleon's own retardation
>Austria
>Prussia
>whatever literally whos I've forgotten

Reasoning:

Britain's Royal Navy forced Napoleon to make huge strategic errors like invading Russia, and Britain had some of the finest commanders. The Russians deserve huge credit for outsmarting Napoleon in 1812 by denying him the decisive battle he wanted, retreating without disintegrating, and then the glorious counter-attack through 1814 ending in Paris itself which the Russians mostly organised. Bravo Tsar Alexander and Barclay de Tolly.

Prussia performed dreadfully losing to France in just 19 days, which is why they were so desperate to redeem themselves later. The Austrians were more impressive, more resilient and always bouncing back.

Attached: 1521239892717.jpg (210x210, 16K)

Prussia did a hell of a lot to modernise after the 1806 blowout, by the hundred days they were up to snuff

No, they didn't? They would still be oblitherated by France in 1v1 fight. Prussia was a small shitstain on the map of Europe until 1871.

Mass media were invented by the US after WW2

>until 1866
fix'd

The KIng's German Legion and Hanoverian troops were from George III's lands in northern Germany

Attached: 1512670231317.png (768x752, 88K)

Lol someone's mad
You got molested by a Prussian or anything?

>No, they didn't?
They didn't modernise after 1806? Fuck off retard.
>They would still be oblitherated by France in 1v1 fight.
Retarded /int/ fantasy match up.

They weren't weak, mobilising over 100,000 men for their Army of the Lower Rhine, nor mediocre, having heavily reformed their army, training, and leadership in the years following 1806.

Wrong, you ignorant cretin. Prussians were exact same weak, incompetent trash like they were in 1806, when they were conquered in mere 19 days.

100 thousans is Nothing compared to Le grande Armee.

Battle of Ligny, where Prussians got curbstomped despite having numerical adventage, is the clear proof of French superiority. Napoleon only lost because whole Europe ganged up on him. (funny thing is, Stormniggers say the same about Shitler)

Attached: Muh Prussian discipline.png (310x626, 232K)

Ligny was hardly a curbstomp, the Prussians lost but got away in good order.
> (You)
>Wrong, you ignorant cretin. Prussians were exact same weak, incompetent trash like they were in 1806
Absolutely indefensible crap. You are as bad as any Prussiaboo, worse even, because you are self superior over just pushing the same petty cart of exaggeration and bullshit in the other direction.

More fool me though I suppose thinking I might stumble upon some decent discussion in an /int/ nigger thread.

Not him but leave /int/ alone. /int/ has achieved great things and deserves nothing but your respect.

Attached: 1455237514209.jpg (2860x4032, 2.84M)

i unironically think /int/ has better history threads than Veeky Forums

This

Attached: finno korean hyperwar.png (319x525, 121K)