2006-07-16 06:29:53 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in Arts & Humanities ➔ History
He didn't need to be. He was a tough Irishman leading British soldiers, whose prowess and experience were legendary. The Napmeister, on the other hand, painted himself into a corner. His "victories" of La HayeSainte and Hougoumont left him with no reinforcements when the Prussian troops came rushing in from the flanks. Also, despite initial "success" at Ligny he eventually botched that up too. His incompetent "assistant" deGrouchy was more help to the Brits and the Prussians than to Nappy himself. Even Mother Nature seemed to be against him by sending all that rain on the night of Waterloo. Besides, the Duke of Wellington was just an all-around cool guy.
2006-07-16 08:22:25 · answer #1 · answered by . 5 · 4⤊ 1⤋
No,it was the peculiar circumstances at that time which lead to the defeat of Napoleon more than the strategy of Wellington.
2006-07-16 13:36:29 · answer #2 · answered by sa 7 · 1⤊ 0⤋
I dont think so.he was plain lucky.thts it
and are you aware of the fact that when he served in india he was defeated by Pazhassi Raja(a petty prince) who only had the adivasis(primitive hill tribes) weilding bows and arrows
2006-07-16 15:04:04 · answer #3 · answered by anoop_pattat 3 · 1⤊ 0⤋
i dont think so as he was great on the defense but offense was not his forte wher napoleon could do both sides more equal
2006-07-16 20:53:31 · answer #4 · answered by Dan B 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
yes. the duke used the muddy terrain of waterloo to his advantage. and the brits had better cannons too
2006-07-16 13:38:34 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Most probably he was just luckier, but that is how it goes in war.
2006-07-16 13:56:20 · answer #6 · answered by Hi y´all ! 6 · 1⤊ 0⤋
who is Wellington again???
2006-07-16 13:37:27 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋