Today marks the 209th anniversary of the Battle of Waterloo. Do you think it's one of the most important battles in history?

[Julie4]

Waterloo! Waterloo! Waterloo! dreary plain!
Like water boiling in an overfull urn,
In your circle of woods, hills, and valleys,
Pale death mingled the dark battalions.
On one side, it's Europe and on the other, France.
Bloody clash! God deceived the heroes' hope;
You deserted, victory, and fate was weary.
Oh, Waterloo! I weep and I pause, alas!
For these last soldiers of the last war
Were great; they had conquered the earth,
Driven away twenty kings, crossed the Alps and the Rhine, And their souls sang in the brass bugles. "

Victor Hugo

[RavVid]

Not the most important but one of the most important. Waterloo and the Concert of Europe set the course for another 100 years.

Waterloo certainly stopped another round of conquest by Napoleon reestablishing French hegemony in West and Central Europe. That Napoleon could beat two armies sent to chase him after Liepzig indicates that could have happened. Presumably he would not have tried Russia again. So I think we have to rate French hegemony likely.

If no Waterloo and Liepzig? French hegemony would have been a certainty. Bismark would not have had much to work with and Germany would have remained a collection. We could argue Waterloo and Liepzig inevitably lead to both WWI and WW2.

While a bad result, it does not invalidate the significance of Waterloo and Liepzig. Of the two I think we have to rate Liepzig as more significant as the later lead to Napoleon's abdication and the 100 days/Waterloo.

[Julie4]

Napoleon wasn't exactly trying to conquer Russia.

In fact, if he had really wanted Russian territories, he would have demanded them in 1807. In fact, at the Battle of Friedland, Napoleon inflicted one of the greatest military humiliations in Russian history, decimating practically the entire Russian army.

At the end of the battle, Alexander was forced to submit to Napoleon's every wish. Napoleon, however, did not demand any Russian territory. Alexander himself, in a letter to his sister, was surprised that Napoleon left his territory untouched.

[RavVid]

Wasn't Napoleon mostly wanting to enforce the continental system as Russia was breaking their agreement after Friedland with the real target being the UK?

The Baltic was very important to the Royal Navy with about 1200 masts sourced from there and only 200 from North America plus pitch and tar. It took 4,000 to 6,000 oak trees to build to build a ship of the line.

Oak was as strategic as navies were. The battle of Copenhagen was prompted by concerns for naval resources. It would have of advantage to Napoleon to restrict trade in naval supplies as well as general commerce.

Why didn't Napoleon go for St Petersburg instead of Moscow then? All conjecture by me and not read anything above the very general which might mean it is all a mares nest. But oak seems so strategic that France should have sought to deny UK and supplied itself. Any thoughts?

[RebelinSteel]

It was a fairly pivotal battle, a lot of Europe was heavily in debt having to field armies and navies. Napoleon came very close to breaking the British line, however he had been over confident and underestimated Wellington. About 20,000 of 1 Corps attacked Wellingtons left flank, towards Kempt, he stopped 1 division but 3 division nearly broke through, they sent Packs division reeling and at that moment if Napoleon had have provided reinforcements or accepted 1 Corps would not simply breakthrough, then the battle would have been his. Wellington had no infantry to spare, his reserve was the Heavy Dragoons, and that’s when they attacked (Scots Greys etc) and broke 1 Corps.
The Napoleonic wars ended over a hundred years of wars between Britain and France. It was to be over a hundred years until the British attacked the French.

[Julie4]

In spite of everything, Wellington almost lost, fortunately Blücher arrived as he himself recognized.

As a British historian wrote, what is astonishing is not that Napoleon lost (young soldiers, army assembled in a short time, poor quality of training, fewer men, etc.) but that he was able to resist for so long.

[purplepoppy]

It ended a war that had been raging for over 20 years so in that sense yes, it finally brought peace to Europe, for a while anyway.

[Anonymous]

I believe it's importance derives largely from it being Napoleon's last battle. I'm not saying it's unimportant, but I believe if he had won the ultimate fate would have been the same. In other words, Napoleon would have been defeated at a different battle on a different date. I have grave doubts he could have pulled off a successful military campaign by then. France was too beleaguered and too outnumbered.

I suspect if he had won the battle but ultimately lost the campaign, it might have made the coalition forces more merciless. They might have executed him. It also might have cost Wellington the office of prime Minister in later years, but that's a debatable point.

P. S. I once wrote an alternate history for an internet group I belonged to. It had the criteria that the split from history had to occur on June 17 (the date the challenge was posted) and it must affect the career of Tom Hanks. If you'd like to hear it, I'll tell you.

[abc3643]

I suspect so, but it's a great song too!

https://www.youtube.com/embed/nRuV7lRkBt4

In English, the idiom of being a "Waterloo" (or "Kryptonite") is being someone's weakness and they cannot win. That's why this song refers to a person as "Waterloo" - someone the singer can't help but love.

[Julie4]

Weakness? But the French fought bravely 🥲

[abc3643]

I don't think I explained myself or the idiom well.

The Battle of Waterloo was the end for Napoleon; his defeat in 1815 at Waterloo led to his second exile, this time for the rest of his life on the island of Saint Helena in the South Atlantic.

So, what defeated Napoleon, in a sense, was the Battle of Waterloo. His "Waterloo moment" was literally the Battle of Waterloo.

For other people, a "Waterloo moment" is a moment in which they are defeated and cannot continue.

(more)

[abc3643]

I asked Google Gemini to explain it:
https://g.co/gemini/share/a9fb7cf91878

PROMPT:
What is a "Waterloo moment"?

REPLY:
A "Waterloo moment" refers to a decisive defeat or failure. It often implies that this setback is so significant that it might even spell the end of something, like a person's career or a company's chances of success.

The term comes from the Battle of Waterloo, a pivotal battle in 1815 where French emperor Napoleon Bonaparte was decisively defeated by a combined British and Prussian army. This defeat is considered to be Napoleon's final downfall.

My follow-up...
https://g.co/gemini/share/fb7cc5f6331e

PROMPT:
What does it mean when someone says "That was my personal Waterloo"?
edit

REPLY:
When someone says "That was my personal Waterloo," they mean they experienced a major setback or defeat that was very significant to them personally. It might have been a failure that:

* Had a big impact: It wasn't just a minor inconvenience, but something that caused a lot of trouble or loss.
* Was unexpected: They were confident in their success, so the defeat was a surprise.
* Could have lasting consequences: This failure might affect their future plans or reputation.

Here are some examples of how "personal Waterloo" could be used in a sentence:

* "The athlete trained for years, but a bad injury at the qualifying event became her personal Waterloo."
* "The investor poured all his savings into the business, but its collapse was his personal Waterloo."

It's important to note that a Waterloo moment doesn't necessarily mean the end. People can recover from setbacks, but it acknowledges that it was a significant defeat.

[abc3643]

Back to the song "Waterloo", the singer is saying that the person she is singing too is her personal "Waterloo" (which is why the singer calls him "Waterloo"); she is defeated in her resistance to love him so she is resigned to her fate to love him.

[abc3643]

* "singing to" not "singing too"

[Julie4]

Oh okay I get it now lol

[abc3643]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Waterloo_(song)

[abc3643]

https://g.co/gemini/share/7881a0b4b022

PROMPT:

What is the ABBA song "Waterloo" about?

REPLY:

ABBA's "Waterloo" is a catchy song with a surprising meaning. On the surface, it's an upbeat pop tune, but the lyrics tell a different story.

The song uses the Battle of Waterloo as a metaphor for falling in love. The singer, typically interpreted as a woman, compares surrendering to love to Napoleon's defeat.

Here's the breakdown:

* The lyrics reference the battle: The song opens with "My, my, at Waterloo, Napoleon did surrender," immediately setting up the metaphor.
* Love as a defeat: The singer feels defeated by love, but in a positive way. Lines like "I tried to hold you back, but you were stronger" and "I feel like I win when I lose" show a playful acceptance of giving in to love.
* A promise of forever: Despite the "defeat," the singer commits to their love, promising to "love you forevermore."

So, while "Waterloo" sounds like a celebratory song, it's actually about the surrender and joy of falling in love.

[strateguy632]

no way, it was less important than napolean defeat in russia but even that is too old to have any real importance

[Mettbltt]

I don't know if it is one of the most important battles in history, but it is an important battle for Europe.

[Julie4]

Oh that just allowed England to become the first world power, Russia to become a very great power , It put an end to the French empire, which in the longer term led to German reunification, which in turn led to two world wars.

[Mettbltt]

If you interpret it like this, yes it seems that way, but there are people who interpret it differently.
After all, many things in history are interconnected.

[Julie4]

It's not an interpretation, it's a fact. How do you expect Germany to reunite, if the French empire had been maintained?

Do you know how German nationalist feelings were born?

German nationalist sentiment was born in the struggle against Napoleon. Germany used to be a mosaic of small states, but Napoleon destroyed the Germanic Roman Empire to bring his various German states under his domination. He simplified their administration, etc.

By fighting against the French, his various small states became aware of a national sentiment.

[Mettbltt]

alright
I don't understand its connection with World Wars

[Julie4]

Oh really? It's quite simple, if the French empire wasn't defeated, there'd be no German reunification, if there's no German reunification, there'd be no powerful Germany, and no powerful Germany, no war on this scale. For it was the Germans who were responsible for both world wars.

In fact, Germany was the only country at the time that could practically rival the United Kingdom. With the other countries, there were too many economic and military differences to start such wars.

[Mettbltt]

British empire would definitely start a war because of the search for raw materials and colonies.

[Julie4]

No. They already had all the resources they needed with their empire.

Moreover, the United Kingdom's policy has always been based on the balance of power.

And above all, no country had the industrial and economic capacities of the United Kingdom at that time, only Germany came close.

If the UK had started a war for the reasons you describe, it would never have reached the proportions it did to fight Germany. Quite simply, because the other countries outside Germany could not seriously compete in the long term, due to their much lower capacity to produce weapons, etc.

[Mettbltt]

I think every state has a reason for this war.
England wanted more colonies for the security of colonial roads.
The Ottoman Empire wanted to take back and protect the lands it lost.
Russia wanted Pan-Slavism and descent into warm seas
France wanted to take back the lands it lost from Germany

[Mettbltt]

You can understand that England wants more by occupying Mosul and Kirkuk.
These are places where there's a lot of oil

[Julie4]

No, England did not wage this war for colonial reasons. And even if they had, they would have won, just as they did to build the largest colonial empire in history, and the war would not have taken the scale it did against Germany.

Everyone had their reasons, but only Germany had the capacity to really wage it. In fact, all countries only entered the war when Germany did.

Before Germany did this, other countries had their ambitions but didn't have the means to realize them. When Germany went to war, however, different states saw the opportunity to try their luck.

[Mettbltt]

Yes you are right about Germany
But I think England definitely wants to expand its colonies.

[Julie4]

But even if they had wanted to expand their empire, the wars to do so would never have reached such heights.

[Mettbltt]

I don't understand what you mean

[Julie4]

If England had fought a war to expand its empire, these wars would not have reached the level of warfare achieved in the fight against Germany.

[Mettbltt]

Maybe this was not England's intention at first, but later it acquired many raw material regions.
nevermind england
I think you are a nationalist

[PA19062024]

Borodino was a more important battle, because it marked the turning point in the war against Napoleonic tyranny.

[msc545]

Very important. Napoleon thought so too I bet.

[FunkyMonkee]

I have no clue what it was even about!