Leccy

A perfect example of using the quick galloper guns, not as powerful but better able to move with the Cavalry, fire and scoot from a distance, with the cavalry protecting them.

If you have the time, once a unit is in squares they are not very mobile and you can bring up the heavier horse artillery. The square will then be in trouble.

Paulinus

Its also a good example of Wellington's tactical nouse as he manouvered the squares onto the reverse slope where Ney couldn't see their organisation until he'd passed the crest and the main French artillery batteries couldn't damage them. As a point of interest, did Ney have significant horse artillery he could have called up and if so was it practical to do so over the distance involved?

Krystian

You can think of so many historic british troops that were good simply because british history is overrated and repeated in every historic movie or doccumentary, so it is simply hard not to have heard of the longbowmen, highlanders, redcoats etc. However, in reality these troops have not been the world elite at any given time - the longbowmen were a local force that was good enough to fight the french heavy knights, but it didn't fare as well against middle-eastern or mongol archers that had the much better - composite bows. The highlanders, black watch, redcoats etc. were standard infantry for its time and have both many victories as well as many defeats. A unique elite unit is one that has in its records an overwhealming number of victories over defeats - such as the polish winged hussars, who fought for 150 years with tens of victories and no 2 defeats. There were battles like the one at Kluszino where 2,500 winged hussars defeated 45,000 russian,swedish and western-mercenaries army and caused casualties of 15,000 dead. And it wasn't an ambush or a battle at a muddy field (like Crecy, Agincourt...) but a face-to-face open battle. Where does any british cavalry or unit have such victories? Yet there are a million western movies showing longbowmen or redcoats and none showing the winged hussars, so that is where the delusion comes from. For me the british were always with a good, proffesional army that was a match for any foe at almost any given time in history, yet besides their navy, they were never really masters of any given type of ground warfare.

The Harlech man

Well Canada has won more VC's than any other part of the british commonwealth.

Belgarion

By the time of Waterloo Ney was probably suffering from what is now called battle fatigue. His judgement was questionable and his conflicting loyalty must have taken a toll. At Qatre Bras/Ligny his confusing orders allowed the Prussians to withdraw in good order and thus be available to arrive at Waterloo at a decisive moment.

The repeated unsupported charges at Waterloo were not the actions of a general at the top of his game. All the years of combat had finally caught up with him.

The Harlech man

I can name 1 elite British cavalry unite the Ironsides, fought in the British civil war. Let me for frank until WW2 the Russians were not very good, the Prussians and Polish were far better, but tell me how big was the polish empire? The redcoast were bog standered British troops. Britain also had like almost every other nation elite cavalry units the Life Guards, the Blues and Royals. The Black watch in around 150 years won 3 battles and lost 7. Long bow men were elite they trained from the age of 12, and won victories over French, and did have semi composite bows after they fought the Muslims. Highlanders were known for being the best attack troops on the field. What about the British marines, Grenadiers, Rangers or destert rats.

Krystian

You are just listing the elite units that the british had throughout history and forgetting what the thread is all about. Any large nation can do the same thing as you - the french, the germans, the italians, the russians etc. did all have elite units of some sort at any given age. That is not what makes a nation win the title of boasting "the greatest soldiers" of all. To me a nation must have at least one period when it boasted soldiers that had no equivalent in their skill, experience and general effectivness on the battlefield anywhere in the world. That were for example the roman legions, which were not just the elite troops of an empire with their equivalent in the neighboring states - they were unique and almost unbeatable at their best days. Same goes for the mongols during the 13th century and the armies of Timur later. Or the armies of the Thrid Reich at the beginning to middle stages of world war two. I do not disagree that britain had great soldiers, but so did many other nations. What they didn't have were soldiers that completely and utterly dominated a particular era and were better than anyone else in the world at the time - like the legions of rome and the mongols.

The Harlech man

Rome was beaten by Persia, the Mongols were beat by Japan. Britain made the biggest empire so Britain dominated utterly for around 100 years. I must agree about the Germans in WW2, but there best troops were matched by the SAS and commando's, then by the Russians, even if the Germans had way better troops, the Russia won. You could say the same thing about Japan in WW2, but they were still beat by British India.

Krystian

Do you make a distinction between strategy and tactics? Between the best geo-politics and the best soldiers? Britain didn't create the biggest empire because it had the best soldiers, that is a ridiculous claim. It did it because of a set of geo-political and economical decisions of its ruler and a fair amount of historic luck. Still, there hasn't been a single british type of ground unit that was as succesfull and unbeatable for its era as the mongols or polish winged hussars were. This thread is about the greatest soldiers, not which countries had a set of good troops throughout history as england did.

BTW, could you specify if you are talking about Britain or England? Cause you seem to talk about the country called Britain, while at the same time include the welsh longbowmen or scotish highlenders, which never fought for a country called Britain. You can't put them and the redcoats for example in the same cathegory as they didn't fight for the same country or nation.

The Harlech man

I am talking about troops that came or come from the island of Britain. It doesn't matter how good you leader is, in a time war you need troops, the British has some of the best troops, thus meaning they made the Biggest empire in history, no other troops can say that. Why did Britain have a good economy? the size of it's empire. What other unit could match the SAS over the last 65 years, or the Green Jackets in the Napoleonic wars?