waterloo

**King Kurt** · 12-20-2005, 15:53

The problem with most wargame reenactments of Waterloo is that the participants probably know the battle inside out and never make the mistakes the generals - especially Napoleon - made. The approach is get all your best troops into a massive attack - usually the Imperial Guard backed with loads of cavalry - and go straight up the middle before the Prussians arrive. No diversions taking farmhouses, no all cavalry attacks etc. Of course, Napoleon would never commit the Guard at the begining of an attack - in fact he rarely commited them at all, so most refights are flawed unless you restrict the French - and then they have to do the mistakes they did on the day.

This might seem a little harsh on Wellington, but he had shown himself capable of beating the french over and over again with basically the same tactic - so it was no surprise that the French acted as they did - even if Napoleon had piles!!

**matteus the inbred** · 12-20-2005, 15:57

the people they get on Time Commanders would probably manage to make the mistakes the French did, they always seem to do something totally suicidal.

that's why i don't like refighting historical battles; either you already know what not to do, or you get restricted by rules devices to ensure you have to make the mistakes that got made historically.

**Templar Knight** · 12-20-2005, 16:02

In TC didn't the players always command the loosing side?

**matteus the inbred** · 12-20-2005, 16:14

by the end of the battle, yes.

oh, sorry, i see what you mean. i'm not sure...i swear i recall them getting the side that won historically a few times...? i couldn't watch it after a while, it got too frustrating. or, as General Cambronne probably didn't say at the end of the battle of Waterloo upon being asked to surrender, 'merde'.

**Grey_Fox** · 12-20-2005, 17:23

Originally Posted by matteus the inbred

...or, as General Cambronne probably didn't say at the end of the battle of Waterloo upon being asked to surrender, 'merde'.

Actually, the legend has it that Cambronne said 'The Old Guard dies, but never surrenders'. What he really said was 'merde'. Either way, he still surrendered.

**King Kurt** · 12-20-2005, 16:25

Originally Posted by Templar Knight

In TC didn't the players always command the loosing side?

The thing I always like about Time Commanders is that it is fronted by Mark Urban. I wargammed against him many years ago when he was about 16 and I steamrollered him out of sight - so I always feel smug when I see him.

**matteus the inbred** · 12-20-2005, 16:29

really? brilliant!

**English assassin** · 12-20-2005, 16:40

'The latest and most highly developed attempt to put wargames on TV was Channel 4's series 'Game of War', which was broadcast in August 1997

That was it. Was it really 9 years ago, that's very scary I thought it was about a year ago.

**Templar Knight** · 12-20-2005, 16:44

Nusbacher was good in TC, throwing blocks around

**King Kurt** · 12-20-2005, 17:25

Originally Posted by matteus the inbred

really? brilliant!

Yes - sadly it wasn't ancient warfare. In fact it was present day warfare. My combined artillery/ airpower tactics just blew him away. The spooky thing was the tactics were the same as the Americans used to invade Kuwait in the first Gulf War - a conflict that Mark covered for the BBC. It was really strange watching him on the TV talking about the very tactics I had used to beat him years before.

**Spino** · 12-21-2005, 08:51

This topic has been covered quite extensively here in the Monastery over the last few years but if I had to pick one single factor that contributed to the French loss at Waterloo it would have to be Napoleon's appointment of Marshal Ney as the commander of the Left Wing of L'Armee du Nord. Napoleon may have not brought his 'A' game to Waterloo but the massive bungling of one of his two main subordinates put the French in such a hole that only a miracle could have granted them a victory that day.

To Ney's credit he was fearless, aggressive, tenacious and an inspirational leader. To his discredit he was tactically unimaginative, barely competent in strategic matters and was seemingly incapable of effectively commanding a force greater than 10,000 men (a point I believe Napoleon made in his memoirs). Ney's lackluster performance during the campaigns of 1813/1814, especially his awful performance when granted independent command of the Army of Berlin in 1813, should have been all the proof Napoleon needed to severely limit his role and put him on a tight leash during the Waterloo campaign.

Beyond the battle of Waterloo the biggest 'what if?' of the 100 Days campaign is what would have happened had Napoleon taken the main body of L'Armee du Nord and chased Blucher instead of Wellington after the Prussian defeat at Ligny. For all his strengths Wellington was not nearly as aggressive as Blucher and possessed none of the hatred of the French his Prussian ally was so famous for. Furthermore the disposition of the British Army during the Waterloo campaign, from Wellington's prosecution of the battle of Quatre Bras to his apparent lack of support for the Prussian position afterwards, seems to imply a great deal of emphasis on self preservation instead of teamwork. I firmly believe that had Blucher and Wellington's roles been reversed at Waterloo the latter would have made only a half hearted attempt to assist his ally and at the slightest hint of a Prussian defeat would have beat a strategic withdrawal to the Belgium coast. I simply cannot envision Wellington moving heaven and earth to get at Napoleon's jugular as Blucher did at Waterloo.