Napoleon Bonaparte: The Exception to the Rule. . .Why?

a reply to: JDmOKI

Yes, but Wellington only fought at Waterloo because the Prussians promised that they would come.

originally posted by: JDmOKI

. Also, napoleon had very little part in the Spanish theater

Except using French troops and French tactics developed by Napoleon, chances are he would have used the same tactics and strategy if he had been there. The fact was Napoleons tactics or marching columns and massed artillery ect proved ineffective against the British.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
. Secondly, Napoleon only faced Wellington once at Waterloo, already depleted of his veterans and lost nearly 400k troops in Russia due to attrition. At Waterloo, Wellington would have lost for two reasons, if the Prussians never showed, and if Grouchy would have showed up with a large chunk of his forces.

Would have would have would have.
Would have are all very good. But the fact is Napoleon still lost and Wellington and Blucher won. I dont deal in would haves .

Wellington was a skilled commander FACT, So was Napoleon. But Napoleon was not leaps and bounds ahead. Napoleon won his early campaigns mainly cause his early foes were disorganized, inflexible and had bickering and useless officers.
As soon as French forces using Napoleons advanced tactics came up against a skilled commander and flexible force in the British they stalled.

originally posted by: JDmOKI
Although, Napoleon would have lost the war in my opinion even if he won at Waterloo.

Very likely a french victory at waterloo would have just delayed the inevitable.

Also, Wellington was the smartest commander in opposition to Napoleon. He was very aware of his tactics and adapted to them at Waterloo and Spain.

My point is that Napoleon revolutionized warfare while other commanders had to adapt to his tactics in order to succeed. Just because Wellington "figured it out" doesn't discredit his military genius.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: crazyewok
a reply to: spooky24

Nope American.

Was recommend by my History lecturer back at college before I hopped off into the world of Biology. The book got me my A in A levels History He gave some very good points and you learn a lot more detail about Napoleons marshals.

I recommend 'Napoleon' by David Chandler. Superb book with excellent maps and diagrams.

I forget that one. Yes read that too was a good book.

originally posted by: JDmOKI

My point is that Napoleon revolutionized warfare while other commanders had to adapt to his tactics in order to succeed. Just because Wellington "figured it out" doesn't discredit his military genius.

I agree.

But

The British were also undergoing there own revolution in warfare too that started in 1783 after the US kicked us out and the disastrous Flanders campaign of 1793–1795. Senior officers in the Napeloinc wars were the junior officers of the last wars and unlike the rest of Europe we adapted like France did.

Wellington like Napoleonic just built on past lessons.

a reply to: crazyewok

Having Napoleon on the field in the Spain would have changed the entire outcome of the theater. Morale would have been higher and the very thought of Napoleon taking direct command would have changed everything. I'm sure he would have changed tactics. Napoleons biggest mistake was using a large part of his army in the useless Spanish theater without directly commanding them.

"Would haves" is not what I'm discussing. I'm stating the fact that things "could have" been much different in favor of Napoleon. Does is make Wellington a military genius and superior to Napoleon, I still say no freaking way.

but all he had to do was win and he achieved that and deserves all the respect and admiration the people of Britain give him.

a reply to: crazyewok

agreed, the use of tactics used by the Americans is the main reason for Spain being such a failure. Another failure of Napoleon was not seeing the importance of rifles for his voltigeurs

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: crazyewok

agreed, the use of tactics used by the Americans is the main reason for Spain being such a failure. Another failure of Napoleon was not seeing the importance of rifles for his voltigeurs

Well, the problem with the rifles of the day was that they were very hard to load quickly, because of the rifled barrels. Napoleon preferred rapidity of fire to accuracy of fire.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg

originally posted by: JDmOKI
a reply to: crazyewok

agreed, the use of tactics used by the Americans is the main reason for Spain being such a failure. Another failure of Napoleon was not seeing the importance of rifles for his voltigeurs

Well, the problem with the rifles of the day was that they were very hard to load quickly, because of the rifled barrels. Napoleon preferred rapidity of fire to accuracy of fire.

Which was a mistake to really just on the rapid fire smooth bore.

The British and Portuguese made extensive use of a mixture of both using the slow loading rifles as snipers and skirmishers. The french voltigeurs send out in front of the columns to cause panic and mayhem in the enemy would be be crushed by the mixed rifle and smoothbore armed Brits and Portuguese skirmishes (Plus the skirmish tactics picked up in America) which helped blunt the french attacks and cause mayhem in the columns itself.

We took what caused us the most damage in the American war of Independence and turned it on the French

Napoleon would have been smarter to not dismiss rifles as gimmicks and to have adapted them into his voltigeurs .

a reply to: crazyewok
Wellington was old school. Napoleon was of the New School of military thought. Was Napoleon evolved in any of the battles in Spain against the English? I don't think he was. Wellington's defense at Waterloo was marvelous but Napoleon was sick on the day it was fought. I'm not saying he would have won if he was healthy, nobody could know that. But the battle would have been different.

The English had better technology. Rifled musket's are a major improvement over what the french had. I also believe the English were using canister at Waterloo.

originally posted by: 8654drp
a reply to: crazyewok
Wellington was old school. Napoleon was of the New School of military thought.

Wellington used old school tactics but also was flexible when needed. He was mixture of old and new, and that was his strength.

originally posted by: 8654drp

Was Napoleon evolved in any of the battles in Spain against the English? I don't think he was.

He was involved in the 1808-1809 campaign which was sort of a draw/loss due to the Spanish screwing up. You can win every battle like the British did in that campaign but if the Spanish cant even win a simple skirmish and leave you high and dry? what can you do but withdraw.

But even in the other battles although Napoleon was not there the French were still using HIS tactic, the "new school" tactics. And they certainly worked on the Spanish to great effect! But stalled when encountering the British.

French tactics were great against the Armies of Prussia, Russia, Austria and Spain. They just didn't work as well against the British and Portuguese.

originally posted by: 8654drp
. I also believe the English were using canister at Waterloo.

All sides used Canister, what you are referring to is shrapnel. Wellingtons army also tried Rockets (Proved useless) Rifles and even early camouflage with there riflemen.

France also used some new tec like canned food. Sounds simple but back then that was useful!

a reply to: 8654drp

Wellington did something that Napoleon could never do - he created a fully functioning supply system that almost never failed him. Moreover he was not old school - he was very flexible. He always used the reverse-slope defence against the French (which allowed him to protect his troops from artillery and also to shift reserves freely), as opposed to the Continental School of putting their troops on full display. Take what happened to the Prussians at Ligny. Wellington took one look at their dispositions and then said that if they stayed there they would be beaten. He was 100% right.
In Portugal, Spain and France Wellington took on and beat almost every Marshal that Napoleon sent. What Napoleon should have done in 1810 was to go to Spain himself. However, not even Napoleon could have cracked the very hard nut that was the Lines of the Torres Vedras.

originally posted by: AngryCymraeg
a reply to: 8654drp

Wellington did something that Napoleon could never do - he created a fully functioning supply system that almost never failed him. Moreover he was not old school - he was very flexible. He always used the reverse-slope defence against the French (which allowed him to protect his troops from artillery and also to shift reserves freely), as opposed to the Continental School of putting their troops on full display. Take what happened to the Prussians at Ligny. Wellington took one look at their dispositions and then said that if they stayed there they would be beaten. He was 100% right.
In Portugal, Spain and France Wellington took on and beat almost every Marshal that Napoleon sent. What Napoleon should have done in 1810 was to go to Spain himself. However, not even Napoleon could have cracked the very hard nut that was the Lines of the Torres Vedras.

Exactly!
Wellington may have used old school tactics but only as what suited his needs! He was very flexible! And the lines of Torres Vedras were almost trench warfare. IE holeing up in fortified positions.

a reply to: crazyewok

A fortified position is always ideal. Who knows why Napoleon thought it was a good idea to attack uphill at Waterloo, although it almost worked and had worked before...

a reply to: xuenchen

Or even the hand of the Rothschilds in financing Wellington? Always follow the money

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: xuenchen

Or even the hand of the Rothschilds in financing Wellington? Always follow the money

Not much of a conspiracy as there agenda was pretty clear, save there own arses from the French who would have torn the family apart and striped it wealth and also to make a quick buck from the war.

Its only a conspiracy if the agenda hidden

originally posted by: 8654drp
Wellington was old school. Napoleon was of the New School of military thought.

That is a nonsense statement. Wellington used the tactics that were appropriate to defeat Napoleon. You can argue the toss as to whether they were "old school" or "new school", but the fact is that they worked and the rest (as they say) is history.

Regards

originally posted by: TheConstruKctionofLight
a reply to: xuenchen

Or even the hand of the Rothschilds in financing Wellington? Always follow the money

And,

The Rothschilds "financing" Napoleon to make convenient "errors".

And at least, "buying" some of Napoleon's advisors.

a reply to: xuenchen

(Pokes the old fox and tells him to stop stirring AGAIN, before making shooing noises)

a reply to: crazyewok

Sorry my mistake. Shrapnel is what the Englishmen used(range app. 1000 meters,canister app. 300 meters.). Which is an example of Wellington's innovative thinking.

English light infantry wore green jackets. Simple yet effective camo. When in the prone position with Baker rifles were hard to spot.