Originally Posted by Delenda est Roma

I dislike Marlborough for his materialism. Scipio for being unfaithful and beating Hannibal at his lowest ebb.

Originally Posted by Mangekyou

Now lets look at this a bit more closely.

At Waterloo Wellington was commanding a neopolitan force, a lot of his veterans were fighting the war in America.

Also, He wa facing a better trained army, and he planned for Bluchr to come to his aid, ust as he was going to go to Blucher's said earlier, but was stopped at the crossroads.

It was a decisive victory.


The victory that Charles got at Asspern was a minor check to Napoleon, partly through his own aggressiveness and the fact his forces had to cross a single bridge. Charles was defeated comfortably at Wagram not long after.

It was a minor victory.

Originally Posted by Belisarius

Perhaps you meant "Cosmopolitan" rather than "neoploitan" The Kingdom of Naples was on Napoleon's side in 1815

Originally Posted by Mangekyou

Sure, he was short of numbers. I wont dispute this. Im merely saying this was not the only reason.



British cavalry during the peninsular war were a mixutre of brilliance an bravery tempered by rashness and incompetent handling.

A prime example of this was the charge of the 13th light Dragoons at campo mayo. Two squadrons were able to charge and rout two regiments of French cavalry. There mistake was chasing them back to Badajoz. The charge was notably brilliant and brave but entirely reckless in the pursuit. Another prime example being Talevera which I mentioned before. Notable successes were at Benavente, Sahagun or Usagre. Paget under Moore being responsible for these, an the one who stands out after handling the regimental affairs under Moore.

Man for man, Wellington believed that his troppers were suerior to the French, the problem being that as numbers rose, they became harder to control. This is invariably seen by the notble successes of the British cavalry being small affairs. Benavente and Sahagun prime examples.

Finding an officer capable of maneouvering large bodies of cavalry was the problem what stopped Wellington thrusting the cavalry against the french in open combat, because he couldnt afford the lose them, and the French had the large open plains to perfect said move whereas the British did not.

Originally Posted by Mangekyou

Now lets look at this a bit more closely.

At Waterloo Wellington was commanding a neopolitan force, a lot of his veterans were fighting the war in America.

Also, He wa facing a better trained army, and he planned for Bluchr to come to his aid, ust as he was going to go to Blucher's said earlier, but was stopped at the crossroads.

It was a decisive victory.


The victory that Charles got at Asspern was a minor check to Napoleon, partly through his own aggressiveness and the fact his forces had to cross a single bridge. Charles was defeated comfortably at Wagram not long after.

It was a minor victory.

Originally Posted by Rongo

Charles did indeed have an ally at Aspern-Essling - a much more powerful ally than Blucher. An ally Napoleon would later refer to as "General Danube":



And yet with all that, Charles didn't follow up the victory, and ended up turning it into a decisive defeat at Wagram just 6 weeks later.