Yes, Wellington did downplay the role of the Prussians to make the English, and his own, contribution look bigger. But the fact is, Waterloo was a very well fought battle by the Anglo-Dutch army. The French made very few gains during the day and typically Wellington was always present at the key points, overseeing their rebuff. The exception that proves the rule is the loss of La Haye Sainte farm late in the evening. The French never took the ridge line - although it would have been closer, I doubt they would have won even without the Prussians (who took away the smallest French Corps and much of the Guard). It is hard to fault Wellington's handling of his army on the day at Waterloo, although I admit even he was not so proud of the run-up to the battle ("Napoleon's humbugged me" or some such).Originally Posted by [b
But if you want to see Wellington's battle skills unclouded by the contribution of major Allies, you can look at any one of the dozen or more major encounters he fought against the French in his Peninsular campaign. The fact was, he was never beaten despite typically unfavourable odds. This is in striking contrast to other allies, and indeed the British under different generals. Wellington had worked out a counter to French Napoleonic tactics and this, combined with his assured strategic skills, made him a general to rival Napoleon. Napoleon was the more flashy general, but much less consistent - with strategic defeats as notable (Russia, Spain) as his occasional spectacular victories on the battlefield.
Bookmarks