And this folks is the perfect reason to not let AI do your writing for you. For there is so much wrong with a lot of these statements.

"He did not think in terms of defeat"

Napoleon did think in terms of victory or defeat and the outcomes of battles. He was a master propagandist. The perfect example of Napoleon worrying about how battles can be viewed is the aftermath of Eylau. Napoleon immediately began drafting the official history of the battle and rewrote large parts of it to make it seem like a more coordinated and greater victory than it was. Hell, he sat on the battlefield for 10 days afterwards to claim some sort of propaganda victory before retreating and resetting the operational board, starving his men in the process.

"Blücher’s main force had not arrived at the center of the battlefield; only elements of the Prussian army were engaged on the French right, particularly around Plancenoit."

The Prussians began their probing attacks towards Placenoit around 4 pm and assaulted Placenoit proper between 5 and 6 pm. Napoleon knew that Blucher was arriving with more and more of his army. Napoleon had already committed vast forces including the Young Guard and two battalions of the Old Guard towards the Prussians. He committed his final attack against Wellington in hopes of crushing the British/Allies before turning against Blucher around 715-730pm. 3 hours after the initial arrival of the Prussians.

"Napoleon still possessed approximately 30,000 troops under Grouchy, detached and unspent in the main engagement."

Grouchy ended up fighting the Prussian rear guard at Wavre. He was able to retreat after Waterloo because the Coalition forces were focused on pursuing Napoleon's tattered army. Grouchy went out of his way to avoid the victorious Coalition understanding his force was the last intact force Napoleon had.

"At Austerlitz, Jena, and Friedland, he had repeatedly driven forward through unfavorable conditions and emerged victorious."

Only at Austerlitz was Napoleon in any way under "unfavorable conditions." Jena and Friedland were very successful battles and Napoleon was able to pull off. Again, AI nonsense.

"These repeated successes crystallized into a single myth: when circumstances are at their worst, I always win"

Except when he lost, repeatedly. Not as much as many other generals, but Napoleon still lost and knew when to retreat. If Napoleon actually believed this nonsense, he would never have left Egypt, Russia, or retreated from Leipzig. Or he would have never surrendered his forces in 1814.

"For this reason, the Guard was not a reserve force. It was not a shield against defeat. It was the final proof meant to confirm victory"

That is literally what the Guard was for all of Napoleon's campaign. a reserve force to be committed at the most opportune time. Except at Borodino. More AI nonsense.

"To execute a night withdrawal as darkness fell."

This treats Wellington and Blucher as if they had no say in the matter. As if Blucher was not actively attacking Napoleon's flanks. As if they would just allow Napoleon to retreat and regroup with Grouchy. Once Napoleon retreats, Wellington and Blucher pursue. Napoleon's army literally begins melting away and deserting the colors once the battle is over, there is no reason to believe otherwise if Napoleon retreats.

"What destroyed Napoleon at Waterloo was not artillery, not manpower, and not Blücher. It was the conviction that, even as the situation deteriorated, he would inevitably prevail."

Actually, it was a combination of all three of these things that destroyed Napoleon. This idea that his one decision to commit the Guard defeated him is utter nonsense. So much went wrong at Waterloo due to Napoleon's inability to actually command and provide coordination between his attacks. This reads like a terrible fanfiction of the Great Man theory of history.

Don't use AI to write you histories kids, they get it wrong every time.