Waterloo was a very important German victory against the French
Waterloo was a very tragic French defeat against the Europeans
>>880471
Waterloo only has this importance through the British Propaganda.
In fact, the important Battles are 1812 winter and 1813 Leipzig.
The 1815's empire is constitutional empire, a weak version of the first empire.
>>881200
>End of Napoleonic era
>Map of europe&world redrawn
>Beginning of industrial age
>(you) Not important
>>881200
Do you really hate the British so much that it has made you this delusional ?
>>881200
The only reason you think Waterloo is unimportant is because the French lost.
If Napoleon had succeeding in breaking the British and Prussian armies separately who knows what would have followed, it's hard to say what sort of stomach the Austrians and Russians had for another long war against the Man who had dominated Europe and who had just 2 of their most important allies?
Because Napoleon failed you can say "well it wasn't important at all as he had already lost at Leipzig an Dresden etc." but how different our history could have looked if he had won (even if he had lost to the alliance a year of bloody struggle later) is surely reason enough to consider it an important battle.
>>881230
>>881243
>>881216
>The only reason you think Waterloo is unimportant is because the French lost.
My fucking god, you know better than me what I'm thinking.
There were 800 000's french soldier able to be under weapon in 1815 and Undefeated general such as Davout. When Davout took place in front of the German-Belgium-dutch-BritishPussy. The Allies were too pussy to attack so they decided to open diplomacy.
>End of Napoleonic era
>Map of europe&world redrawn
>Beginning of industrial age
>(you) Not important
The collapse of the Empire is 1812's Winter because it destroyed La Grande Armée and allowed Austrians, Russians and Prussians to expect a victory after years of French domination.
The Battle of Leipzig lead to the betrayal of All French's support letting Napoleon alone against a way more important coalition of all European country.
So many Butt hurt saying bullshit in this Thread...
You are delusional to think that this is Waterloo that broke the French's Empire... It's 1812 and 1813 because the French's Empire fall one time in 1814...
Stop being arrogant British thinking that they were beast in war and stopped Napoleon while in Fact, You've always been pussy at war and a second rank tier military power such as Belgium or Netherlands.
lol it took your whole team to kill me
>>881292
Waterloo was the only decisive defeat of Napoleon, killing his soldiers doesnt count.
>>881292
>You are delusional to think that this is Waterloo that broke the French's Empire... It's 1812 and 1813 because the French's Empire fall one time in 1814...
I never denied that, but a battle can still be important even if it isn't the main cause you know?
For example if we agree that after the defeats of 1813 and 1814 Napoleon could never recover and the hundered days campaign could never be a final victory for Napoleon that doesn't make Waterloo unimportant. A French major victory allows them far more leverage in the peace treaties which set up Europe for the century preceeding WW1, shakes the confidence of Britain who no longer get to use the "propaganda" as you called it which in itself is an important change.
All that plus London Waterloo has to have a different name, and the Peterloo Massacre doesn't get such a catchy name.
Now stop pretending if something isn't the MOST important battle it isn't important at all.
Anyone else here play Stratego?
>>881338
I have done.
>>880471
>Waterloo was a German victory against the French
Yes
>Waterloo was very important
No
>>881243
The War of the Seventh Coalition was lost for France before it even started, senpai
The French Empire received its real defeats in 1812 and 1813.
1815 was just the crazy last stand of an already mortally wounded man
It was ONE (and only one) great battles of the age , very bloody and at times seemed on a knife edge.
It is a historically significant event and is one of the great battles of history. There are several memorable moments, such as the cavalry charges mounted by each side, the fierce fighting for La Haye Saint, the defeat of the guard and the subsequent "the guard never surrenders!" scene.
also Wellington was not saved by the Prussians in that their arrival was what was supposed to happen, otherwise he would not have fought at Waterloo.
He was supposed to hold the French and avoid defeat long enough for the Prussians to arrive -- which they did.
>>881292
>Stop being arrogant British thinking that they were beast in war and stopped Napoleon while in Fact, You've always been pussy at war and a second rank tier military power such as Belgium or Netherlands.
t. Jealous Frog
>>880485
>Waterloo was a very tragic French defeat against the Europeans
>>881243
>If Napoleon had succeeding in breaking the British and Prussian armies
Wellington didn't have a British army, he had an Allied army of soldiers almost entirely from German states, while Blucher's army was entirely Prussian. It was very much a German victory.
Waterloo was a very important slave victory against the nobles
>However, in the Renaissance there was a brilliant, uncanny reawakening of the classical ideal, of the noble method of valuing everything: Rome itself woke up, as though from suspended animation, under the pressure of the new, Judaic Rome built over it, which looked like an ecumenical synagogue and was called 'Church': but Judea triumphed again at once, thanks to that basically proletarian (German and English) ressentiment-movement which people called the reformation, including its inevitable consequence, the restoration of the church, - as well as the restoration of the ancient, tomb-like silence of classical Rome. In an even more decisive and profound sense than then, Judea once again triumphed over the classical ideal with the French Revolution: the last political nobility in Europe, that of the French seventeenth and eighteenth centuries, collapsed under the ressentiment-instincts of the rabble, - the world had never heard greater rejoicing and more uproarious enthusiasm!
>True, the most dreadful and unexpected thing happened in the middle: the ancient ideal itself appeared bodily and with unheard-of splendour before the eye and conscience of mankind, and once again, stronger, simpler and more penetrating than ever, in answer to the old, mendacious ressentiment slogan of priority for the majority, of man's will to baseness, abasement, levelling, decline and decay, there rang out the terrible and enchanting counter-slogan: priority for the few. Like a last signpost to the other path, Napoleon appeared as a man more unique and late-born for his times than ever a man had been before, and in him, the problem of the noble ideal itself was made flesh - just think what a problem that is: Napoleon, this synthesis of Unmensch (brute) and Ubermensch (overman) ...
>>880485
Waterloo was a very tragic European defeat against the Monarchic families.
>>881857
This.
France was freeing Europe. The monarchy feared this and sent their brainwashed slaves to fight against the own interests of the slaves. Thus liberty was squelched by tyranny and the world was the lesser for it.
>>881869
Makes me wonder why Britian Joined the war in the first place given how they hated Absolute monarachies and its seen with how they refused to join the holy alliance later on
>>881842
Nietzsche was literally the Buzzfeed of the 19th century
>>881877
Because Britain has for a long time been wholly obsessed with keeping the European man down. They would rather Europe become a hellscape than gain a formidable competitor on the international stage.
>>881872
>Napoleon wanted to make the Bonapartes the dynasty of Europe and he was willing to kill millions of Europeans to accomplish that.
That is just a baseless assumption that he and his brothers and marshals acted purely out of self interest. Joseph tried to make Spain more liberal and equalitarian, and Louis is remembered in the Netherlands as a good ruler. Most of the things the Emperor did were done for the greater good of all Europeans. Let me remind you the allies declared war on France every single time excluding the near bloodless coup in Spain and the invasion of Russia.
>>881872
>mfw people think history can be void of personal ideals
>mfw people think you can judge history well without a refined philosophical sense
>>881898
Let's be honest though, they wanted what was best for Europe but THEY wanted to be the ones who did it. Every noble cause is self serving at some level.
>>881857
Napoleon was a monarch anon, no amount of denial will make this any less true. Just throw away your republican nonsense and rally behind the emperor.
>>881942
A monarch born of the much more absolute monarchs of Europe banning together to crush the French Revolution. He was a chief executive of necessity.
>>881952
*banding
>>881952
He destroyed the republic and rightly so. He actually said that the revolution was over. The fact that he retained support from republicans I find astounding.
>>881954
So basically he was Caesar, giving the average man a say in the government over the aristocrats of the republic.
>>881966
I think he was a pragmatist and a moderate, really.
>>881954
The Republicans try to claim Napoleon as one of their own because they like to think they accomplished something great instead of causing the bloody Reign of Terror.
>>881977
How did he manage it though? Was France really in such a desperate state that the ideologues of the republic would let someone like Napoleon take over?
>>881982
He was a popular war hero. Historically if you have the support of the army, you can do anything you want.
>>881975
Still like Caesar, gaining power by exploiting the disenfranchisement of the masses without being a "true believer".
>>881982
I don't know about the ideologues of the republic, but I doubt any of the ideologues of the Revolution and of the Enlightenement could have expected to find themselves with a dead King, and a rule of Terror on their hands (just look at Lafayette). The extremist political beasts like Danton and Robespierre just roused the people enough to seize power, and once both were done and dead, the Directoire proved to be too weak to deal with the Jacobins and the Royalists.
So the Consulate sounded like a good idea at that time, and remember Napoleon was not alone to begin with.
By the time he crowned himself emperor, he had saved France from the union of Tyrants of Europe, had proved to a moderate and enlightened ruler, and put an end to the Jacobin agitation and the royalist insurgencies. No wonder he passed the plebiscite.
His nephew was no fool either, and knew his rule depended on the will of the people, and organized two plebiscites, one at the beginning of his reign and one at the end, both of which succeeded.
Having a strong man at the head of the country with a lot of power to work with, while still having to work for the people's best interest rather than political or selfish ones has always been a factor of France's political canvas. See De Gaulle.
Fucking ungrateful fags in this topic. Sure Waterloo wasn't a British victory, but without our money, you would all be speaking French and living like slaves
>>881891
Can you blame them, though? It's only through such maneuvering that a small island off of a much richer continent can hope to hold on to any sort of power.
>>881977
>>881977
> The Republicans try to claim Napoleon
What. Who are you talking about ?
Republicans saw napoleon as the despot he was. At the time, they reluctantly got in line because there wasn't much choice and it was better than a bourbon, but they weren't particularily happy about it. In 1815 it was the only one with a chance to remove the king. After 1815, though, he was generally seen as the worst thing that happened to france since thermidor.
>>881857
Waterloo was a tragic European defeat against the Rothschild family
