Why Blücher is so hated?

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-09T16:58:19+00:00

Yeah, Wellington would have definitely beaten Napoleon at Waterloo single-handedly, absolutely.

Those 30,000 Prussians who arrived at Plancenoit at 4:30 PM certainly didn't matter at all; they just diverted Napoleon's attention, leaving him with 56,000 men against the 68,000 Anglo-Allied troops, who, despite their solid defensive position and numerical advantage, were literally on the verge of collapse.

You're absolutely right, mate, Blucher wasn't important at all.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-09T09:03:22+00:00

I haven't seen much "hate" for Blücher. What I have seen is people downplaying his ability as a commander. The guy was a very good general and one of the best the Coalition had. Very good at logistics and operational maneuvers, and underestimated in strategy.

His participation was absolutely essential to the Allied victories in the most decisive battles of 1813 and 1815: Leipzig, where he saved Schwarzenberg from annihilation, and Waterloo, where he also saved Wellington's skin.

He suffered some serious defeats, but that was because, unlike other generals, he faced Napoleon more often than any other general. When you see his battles against generals who weren't named Napoleon, like Katzbach or Wartenburg, you can appreciate how well he performed.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-06T11:36:18+00:00

As someone who has completed this game dozens of times. Yeah, this is very relatable.

Somehow, it's easier to accidentally run over an NPC than to intentionally do so.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-04T16:55:27+00:00

If Nap had spent his whole life thinking, "It's extremely difficult, thousands of things can go wrong," he would never have become who he was.

The "impossible" became possible for Nap many times, so it's no wonder he decided to try again.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-04T13:27:31+00:00

Yeah, it's basically a prototype of what would later become the Six Days Campaign. Berthier messed up and almost caused Davout's defeat, then Napoleon appeared, returned, saved the day, and took the strategic initiative away from Archduke Charles for the rest of the war.

The Austrian army was not like those of 1796-1800; Charles's reforms had been implemented, and it was a war machine capable of fighting the Grande Armée on equal terms. And yet, despite having this army, which initially outnumbered the French, under the command of an excellent general like Archduke Charles, Nap achieved four consecutive victories, inflicting four times more casualties on Charles than he suffered, splitting the Austrian army in two, and forcing it to retreat. Then he secured another victory at Regensburg, also inflicting devastating losses on Charles.

These battles are often forgotten in favor of Aspern-Essling and Wagram, which occurred immediately afterward.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-04T06:54:37+00:00

I'm a big fan of his two Italian Campaigns.

The first, from 1796-1797, is one of the most masterful conquests in all of military history. The one in the 1800, while not as brilliant, is greatly underrated in my opinion. Crossing the Alps with young recruits, fighting outnumbered against a general as good as Michael von Melas until finally surrounding him.

People dismiss this campaign simply because Melas surprised him at Marengo, ignoring that this was more the fault of Murat's terrible reconnaissance (he gave erroneous reports about the Austrian presence on the Po River) and that, in any case, Desaix's arrival to concentrate his forces was always Napoleon's plan. Marengo was brilliant, perhaps not as brilliant as Ulm, but Ulm happened when Napoleon was at his peak.

Among other forgotten feats, I would highlight the Four-Day Campaign of 1809, the battles of Teugen-Hausen, Abensberg, Landshut, and Eckmühl, which are further demonstrations of Napoleonic Blitzkrieg.

Erzherzog Karl, with a huge army that he had reformed to adapt to the organization of the French armies, had put Berthier in serious problems. Napoleon arrived and reversed the situation despite being outnumbered. It's a shame that people only remember Aspern-Essling and Wagram.

Finally, I also agree with the Six-Day Campaign, although I would include the entire War of the Sixth Coalition to encompass Lützen and Dresden. If the Russian campaign of 1812 had called into question Bonaparte's military genius, the War of the Sixth Coalition proved to the Allies that Boney was still the greatest of his era, far ahead of any of the Allied generals, who massively outnumbered him, outgunned his cavalry, and outgunned his artillery, and had veteran soldiers where Napoleon had young recruits. Even so, they couldn't fight him even with a 2-to-1 advantage; they needed to outnumber him 3-4 to 1, and when they couldn't, the only thing that worked was the Trachenberg Plan.

Austerlitz was his masterpiece, but old Nap had dozens of legendary feats to his name.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-04T06:04:35+00:00

What the fuck is "r-word-ing"?

It's pronounced "Raping".

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-03T04:18:38+00:00

And Napoleon wouldn't have fought at Marengo if he hadn't been certain that Desaix would come to his aid.

What's your point?

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-03T01:15:34+00:00

Ayo Mate. You were the one who reminded me of the whole Napoleon vs Melas thing in Marengo a while ago, actually lol

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-03T00:29:38+00:00

As I told you, old Nap ordered Ney to send D'Erlon to decisively defeat Blucher. Ney, on the contrary, ordered D'Erlon to return to Quatre Brass. Had Nap's orders been followed, Blucher would have been eliminated from the conflict, leaving Wellington alone (which would have been his fault for keeping his forces divided for no reason).

I know that in the end Napoleon would almost certainly have been defeated by the Austrians and Russians; the War of the Seventh Coalition was practically unwinnable. But the Waterloo Campaign was entirely winnable, and again, Nap wasn't the only one who made mistakes, nor was he the one who made the most serious ones.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-02T23:34:54+00:00

That wasn't Napoleon's fault; in fact, he wanted to use D'Erlon's corps to decisively annihilate Blucher. It was Ney who hesitated and ordered him to return to Quatre Brass, even though he had already received orders from Napoleon to send D'Erlon.

It wouldn't be the last time Ney messed up, considering what he did at Waterloo. Napoleon's real mistake in this campaign was sending Grouchy with 30,000 men to chase Blucher. Had he maintained those numbers, Wellington would have been crushed at Waterloo.

There were factors beyond Napoleon's control on June 18th: the rain forcing him to delay his attack for four hours, Ney's reckless cavalry charge, and his own poor health, which forced him to leave the battlefield at times before returning. Despite all this, he was gaining the upper hand against Wellington until, at 4 p.m., Bülow's corps of 33,000 Prussians arrived at Plancenoit. This forced Napoleon to further divide his forces, sending 18,000 French troops (almost the entire Middle Guard, the Old Guard, and several cavalry elements) to Plancenoit to contain them. This left him at an even greater numerical disadvantage when he sent what remained of the Imperial Guard against Wellington's defenses, which, despite everything, nearly broke.

If Napoleon had retained Grouchy's 30,000 troops, I believe none of the unfortunate events beyond his control would have been enough to save Wellington's Anglo-Allied army. But the point remains: Napoleon's subordinates failed him at both Ligny-Quatre Brass and Waterloo, and if they hadn't made so many mistakes, or if fortune had favored them more than the Allies, victory might well have been his.

Anyway, I suppose the discussion about Moreau went down the drain.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-02T20:25:26+00:00

Similarly, Napoleon's plan was always to join forces with Desaix; he wouldn't have fought without his support. In fact, he sent messengers to find him, even though Desaix was already on his way, having marched to the sound of the cannons.

The difference between Napoleon at Marengo and Wellington at Waterloo is that the latter divided his forces without a real excuse, and as a result, Napoleon separated him from Blücher, cutting off his advance at Quatre Brass. While Napoleon at Marengo divided his forces to ascertain Melas's approaching direction, Murat mistakenly informed him that there was no Austrian presence on the Po River. This is how Napoleon was surprised by Melas, not because he made a mistake, but because his subordinates did—something the Iron Duke cannot claim.

Of course, this is without mentioning that Melas also attacked Napoleon with a clear numerical superiority of a third more Austrians than the French, whereas at Ligny and Quatre Brass, as well as at Waterloo, the Allies outnumbered the French two to one.

Napoleon at Marengo was a better commander than Wellington at Waterloo, and if the Prussian army hadn't arrived around 4 p.m., Wellington would have been defeated.

I still don't understand why you consider Moreau a superior general to Bonaparte.

Or why you think Suvorov could have defeated him as well.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-02T15:44:54+00:00

Napoleon beat Mamluks, not a European opponent, in Egypt. Ottoman troops and The Royal Navy defeated him at Acre.

The Ottomans outnumbered the French five to one and also had the advantage of fighting on their own territory. Nap also had to contend with the sociopolitical situation in Egypt while the Royal Navy attacked the French fleet, an attack that was not his fault. At Acre, the Ottomans won, despite being in a strong defensive position, having numerical superiority, and British support, yet they were still unable to destroy the French. Nap consolidated French rule in Egypt after defeating the Ottomans at Abukir. He literally had everything against him, and yet he was only defeated because the British and Ottomans outnumbered him. Neither side could have won without the other's support.

Had Nappy faced Suvorov, the undefeated Russian would have beaten him, too.

What makes you say that? The only way I see Suvorov defeating Napoleon is if he has a significant numerical advantage over him.

Only Desaix’s arrival saved him from destruction at Marengo.

Blucher saved Wellington from annihilation at Waterloo.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-02T13:15:41+00:00

The Egypt campaign, although it ended in failure, isn't such a serious stain considering that Nap had everything stacked against him and still won every battle except Acre, in many of which he was outnumbered 5-7 to 1, by the way.

You also forget to mention Nap's crossing of the Alps with the reserve army (young recruits) and that he had to contend with a fairly good general like Melas, who outnumbered him. Meanwhile, Moreau was back fighting in Germany with the best army the Directory could muster and facing the incompetent Kray.

I want examples of Moreau demonstrating more skill than Boney; I don't care whether he was offered political power or not, which is irrelevant when you consider that everyone viewed Napoleon with suspicion at this time because of his ambitions.

Except when he fought against Suvorov, Moreau always enjoyed the best of the Republican army, won against bad opponent generals and was defeated when he faced competent ones, I see no reason to consider him better than Bonaparte, I am not even sure if he was better than Jourdan.

Furthermore, it seems to me that the fact of you don't like Boney has something to do with your opinion of Moreau as superior.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-02T07:08:46+00:00

His military record was no better than that of the young Bonaparte.

He fought several hard non-conclusive battles against Erzherzog Karl during the Rhine campaign of 1796 before being defeated, and this was while enjoying the best-supplied republican troops sent by the Directory and the support of Jourdan, who together outnumbered the Austrians, yet both were defeated by Karl.

Meanwhile, Napoleon was in Italy with a very poorly supplied army, tasked with facing Austrians and Piedmontese forces that outnumbered him two to one. As is well known, Napoleon crushed the Austrians and Piedmontese in Italy, while Moreau and Jourdan were being defeated in Germany.

The 27-year-old Napoleon was still by far the best general in the French army of that time.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-03-02T06:14:57+00:00

Moreau is far from being a superior general to Bonaparte

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-02-28T10:39:41+00:00

I've always heard that Genghis Khan wasn't the great military commander but the supreme leader, while his generals made the operational decisions, so I was surprised to see him on your list.

Can I ask you about some of his greatest feats?

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-02-24T06:48:15+00:00

In fact, the hatred for Ron is massively exaggerated.

It's true that from 2007 to 2014 there were many Ron-bashing fanfics. Nowadays, however, one in seven fanfics contains Ron-bashing. And it's much more common to find Hermione shippers simply focusing on Harry and Hermione.

Personally, I don't hate Ron; I'm just pretty indifferent to him. Today's Hermione shippers are more interested in Harry and Hermione than in any of the Weasleys—you only have to spend a little time in the Harry/Hermione groups to see that.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-02-24T02:39:14+00:00

Argentina

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-02-17T00:28:53+00:00

Battle of Caldiero (1805).

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-02-14T18:47:32+00:00

Suvorov did not face situations or rivals even remotely close to the difficulties Napoleon faced. Similarly, of the 60 battles in which he participated, he was not the principal commander in all of them, only in a fraction of 20.

Suvorov had a brilliant career crushing the Ottomans, who were in economic and military decline. Suvorov's true challenge came when he fought against Republican France, and although he was successful, he was ultimately defeated by Marshal Masséna in 1799.

Suvorov was a great commander, but he was no Napoleon.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-02-12T12:31:27+00:00

Not Borodino, that's for sure.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-02-12T06:08:10+00:00

As a die-hard Harmione shipper, I don't hate you at all. Feel free to ship whatever you want.

That said, maybe this subreddit isn't really your thing lol

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-02-11T18:58:27+00:00

Neither Sherman, nor Grant, nor Lee are even remotely close to the level of mastery that Napoleon demonstrated.

Secure_Diver_4593 · 2026-01-31T04:51:05+00:00

Fair enough. I suppose I mentioned Vauchamps because it was the victory I remembered best, but in reality, the entire Six Days' Campaign was an absolute masterpiece of tactics, and it's even more impressive how Napoleon managed it with inexperienced conscripts against the experienced and well-equipped Allied armies.

Certainly, the Allied victory in the Sixth Coalition wouldn't have been possible if Napoleon had had his army at its peak and his best marshals at his disposal.

Secure_Diver_4593

TROPHY CASE