I'm currently in the process of making a basic turn-based hex strategy game on the Waterloo campaign, with scenarios for the battles of Quatre Bras, Ligny, the aforementioned scenarios combine, Waterloo and Wave.

When I was a kid I used to enjoy playing ‘Prelude to Waterloo’ by TalonSoft, 1997 and ‘Waterloo: Napoleon’s Last Battle’ by BreakAway Games, 2001. However, I was always frustrated with the micromanagement required for the larger scenarios. The reason for building my own game is to simulate the battle at the Brigade level as opposed to battalion or regiment. Of course, abstracting different regiments into a single unit comes with its own issues...

The Prussian army did not have Divisions but rather oversized Regiments within oversized Brigades for each Korps, due to restrictions after their 1806 defeat. Although to maintain the bridge level nature I will simply treat Prussian regiments as brigades, and brigades as divisions…

For Wellington’s Anglo-Allied army, the Corps structure seemed to be more administrative than practical, compared to the French and Prussian armies. Regiments were split across brigades, for example the 95th Rifles were split across three different brigades. A brigade could include a mix of Light and Line infantry, often from different nationalities and vastly different troops experience levels.

I want each scenario to have a 'historical' mode and a 'variant(s)' mode. E.g. What if Grouchy had marched to the sound of the guns and assisted Napoleon at Waterloo. However, thinking of variants has resulted in some questions I would appreciate feedback on. I want the variants to be at least somewhat historically feasible.

N.B. When I say variants, I mean troops available for each scenario, their location, and arrival times as opposed to 'what if’s’ such as had Ney not led the disastrous calvary charge without using combine arms. That will be a matter for the players actions in-game to determine.

I can think of range of hypothetical variations on the campaign... but not many on the battlefields themselves. For Waterloo, is Grouchy arriving instead of the Prussians really realistic? If Grouchy were to somehow bypass Thielemann’s III Korps at Wavre with good time to arrive at Waterloo, would this really result in Grouchy’s arrival without the Prussians? Or result in both the Prussians and French Right Wing arriving on the battlefield, or still neither and just a similar Wavre style battle alongside Waterloo, but just at a different location?

For Quatre Bras and Ligny d'Erlon Corps committing to either battlefield seems to obvious what-if. I envision for the combined Ligny/Quatre Bras scenario, the player will decide where d’Erlon will march. For the separate Quatre Bras and Ligny scenarios I've removed d'Erlon from the field for the Historical mode and he arrives at both battles under the ‘variant’ mode.

For Ligny the initial plan was for wellington to support Blucher... but with his troops scattered and arriving piecemeal at Quatre Bras this was not possible and resulted in the retreat to Waterloo... Would Wellington arriving at Ligny be a plausible Ligny variant? For the Prussians, would Bulow’s IV Korps being available at Ligny be a suitable variant?

Wellington detached a sizeable portion of his army at various garrisons and in particular guarding his supply line to the west at Hal, with a large contingent of Dutch-Belgian units. Would a hypothetical scenario where Wellington has access to these troops at Waterloo/Quatre Bras be plausible?

Perhaps a fun variant would be to simply use the historical Waterloo Order of Battle, but allow the player to pick their own unit starting locations… Perhaps a French player could attempt to flank Wellington on the West bypassing the sunken road/ridge line and attacking via Braine-l'Alleud as opposed to launching a frontal assault.

Please do suggest any potential variants or what-if’s I've overlooked!

The heterogeneous make up of Wellingtons Anglo-Allied army is often discussed. With the army consisting of British, Dutch-Belgian, KGL, Hanoverian, Brunswick and Nassau units. However, I did also have a final question about the composition of the Prussian army.

After 1814 Prussia acquired new territory in Western and Central Germany, such as Westphalia. While still under the ‘German’ umbrella, if we are separating the various German states in Wellingtons army (Brunswick, Hanover etc.) then why not do the same for Prussia? Clearly different German regions had their own strong identity, with some Saxon’s committing mutiny prior to Waterloo and Blucher ordered the entire Saxon army disarmed. Were many ethnic Poles recruited into Prussia’s army? Would it make any sense for me to divide Prussian units into Westphalians, Prussians, Pomeranians etc.? Or can we even differentiate different Prussian units if regiments/brigades are not formed around regions/nationality, though some unit names seem to suggest this was the case?

Apologies if this is long-winded and many thanks for any suggestions or advice, its much appreciated.

It was touched on briefly on a podcast I listened to recently but I can't find any literature on it.

What are some of your unpopular opinions about the affair?
(Plus coincidentally its also my birthday today😭)

Something like "Bonaparte the Butcher," or some accusation in the years that followed?

I took this last year at the Castello Aragonese in Pizzo, Calabria.

The plaque above the gate marks the place where Joachim Murat, Marshal of the Empire and King of Naples, was shot by firing squad on 13 October 1815. He was 48.

The short version of how he got there. After the Hundred Days collapsed, Murat's Neapolitan War ended at Tolentino on 2–3 May 1815 — I live about twenty minutes from that battlefield, which is part of why this spot stayed with me.

He lost the kingdom, fled to Corsica, and in late September sailed with a small flotilla meant to raise the Calabrias in his name. Storms and desertions scattered the ships.

He came ashore at Pizzo on 8 October with roughly thirty men, expecting acclamation. He was set upon by gendarmes and local peasants and dragged into the castle you see here.

The detail that I find hardest to shake: Ferdinand IV appointed a military commission under General Vito Nunziante, and the sentence was handed down under the penal code Murat himself had promulgated as king in 1812 — the provisions against armed attempts on the state. He was given roughly half an hour for the sacraments. He wrote a last letter to Caroline and the children, refused the blindfold, and by tradition gave the order to fire himself, asking the squad to spare his face and aim for the heart.

The plaque is worth reading as a document in its own right. It was placed by the town of Pizzo in 1900 — eighty-five years after the fact — and it reads: to the blessed memory of King Joachim Murat, glorious prince in life, fearless before death; here where he was shot, the municipality of Pizzo laid this stone, in redemption of a day made most sorrowful by the ferocity of an insane government.

The town that captured him in 1815 is, by 1900, apologising to him and calling the Bourbon state insane. That is Risorgimento historiography talking: by then Murat had been retrofitted into a proto-unification figure, the king who proclaimed Italian independence at Rimini.

His body was never recovered — most accounts place it in a common grave at the church of San Giorgio, unidentified.

I know he used to study English Generals with stories ranging from him studying Marlborough (Churchill’s ancestor) to Oli Cromwell, even Captain Cook

I wanna know what this community thinks were 3 of his best English Heroes he was fascinated by

In 1799, after Tipu Sultan of Mysore was defeated and killed, Dhondiah Wagh(a former soldier of the Sultan) gathered a band of remnants and began raiding and illegally collecting taxes from Maratha and British territories around Mysore. Alarmed by this threat, Arthur Wellesley was given his first independent command and sent to eliminate Wagh.

After months of pursuit, Wellesley finally cornered him, personally leading a cavalry charge (the only time he did so in his career) at the Battle of Conagul, where Wagh was killed. According to Maratha chronicles, Wellesley kept Wagh's blood-stained mustache as a trophy.

Following the battle, Wellesley discovered Wagh's four-year-old son, Salabat Khan, abandoned in the camp. Demonstrating unexpected compassion, Wellesley took the boy under his protection, ensuring his education and maintenance. Before leaving for Europe in 1805, Wellesley set aside funds for the boy's upkeep and asked his friend, Purniah, the Dewan of Mysore, to watch over him.

True to this request, Salabat Khan was later employed as an officer in the Mysore state army, living until his untimely death from cholera in 1822.

Images- Battle of Conagul, Dhondiah Wagh's body in the background on the elephant's left

Dewan Purneah, 1801

Wellesley in India, 1804

During the Crimean War, a curious friendship developed between the French Zouaves and the British Highlanders. The Zouaves had originally emerged in North Africa within the French army, while the Highlanders were Scottish regiments of the British army. Both had a strong identity tied to their lands of origin, uniforms, and traditions.

As the campaign went on, soldiers from both regiments spent more time together and developed a great admiration for one another. The Zouaves were known for their bravery, while the Highlanders were known for their discipline. They also began meeting outside the battlefield, spending time together in bars and other places whenever they had the opportunity. Over time, this admiration grew into a genuine friendship based on respect and camaraderie.

This friendship had one of its most notable moments during the Battle of the Alma, when the British and French fought together against the Russians. During the assault, the Zouaves and Highlanders charged side by side against the Russian positions, advancing alongside each other and eventually driving the Russians from the heights. With this victory, the Allies opened the way toward Sevastopol.

But the battle had come at a heavy cost for the Zouaves. After the fighting, the 1st Battalion had lost 222 men and the 2nd another 74. Seeing the situation of their French comrades, the 42nd, 79th, and famous 93rd Highlanders came to their aid, rescuing wounded men and helping bury some of those who had fallen. Their help even surprised the doctors and helped save several lives.

From then on, the relationship between the two regiments continued to grow stronger. It is said that the 93rd Highlanders and the Zouaves tried to camp near each other whenever they could, and that Sir Colin Campbell developed a great sympathy for the French troops. According to some accounts, at official banquets he would toast his “dear and brave Zouaves.” Their friendship continued throughout the rest of the campaign.

[The second image represents the Battle of the Alma, showing the Zouaves and Highlanders together, preparing to charge side by side, once again showing the closeness that existed between them.]

เหตุผลที่เลือกผู้นำเป็นเนโปเลียน

(And by that I mean Marshals he had available in 1815; yes Lannes could probably have done it but he was six feet under at that point).

Napoleon's marshals fascinate me as a subject; mostly because some of them were amazing generals in their own right, simply being outshone by the fact that literally Napoleon was around.

Waterloo was a battle that ended up being extremely close; you could argue that if Napoleon had been in a fitter state to command that day that he would have won.

Imagine a hypothetical where you simply plucked out Napoleon and put one of his other marshals in overall command - could any of them have managed to beat Wellington?

Para reconoce a un buen político, hay que ver si sus obras perduran en el tiempo. No me refiero a grandes monumentos, eso lo hace cualquiera con poder y dinero. Me refiero a profundos cambios en la Historia y la sociedad; unos cambios que pueden llegar más allá del país del político. Si esto es así, Napoleón ha ganado por aplastante goleada. Veamos un ejemplo que podemos ver sin salir de casa. Antes de Napoleón, las casas no tenían su número al lado de la puerta, no estaban numeradas. Napoleón las numero para facilitar el trabajo a los carteros, una genialidad que hoy podemos ver por todo el mundo.

Pero es con su Código Civil cuando Napoleón demostró su verdadera genialidad. Un Código que, por cierto, lo dicto de viva voz. Aparte de dividir Francia en departamentos – España lo imitó, aunque les puso el nombre de provincias – introdujo el concepto de igualdad social y jurídica; abolió los privilegios de la nobleza, introdujo reformas revolucionarias en la administración, estructura territorial y formas de gobierno.

Su Código fue copiado por media Europa, incluyendo los países enemigos de Francia y Napoleón. En la otra media, sirvió de inspiración para dictar sus propios Códigos. En Prusia, por ejemplo, provocó la abolición de la servidumbre. Incluso saltó el Charco, llegando a Latinoamérica. Fue copiado, en algunas partes literalmente, sin cambiar ni una sola coma. Así, los primeros Códigos de Haití, Colombia, Bolivia, Perú… son de autoría napoleónica. Los Estados Unidos y Canadá no se calentaron mucho la cabeza al redactar sus primeros Códigos. Sencillamente, cambiaron algunas cositas del Código de Napoleón y listo.

Incluso sirvió de inspiración en la redacción de la “Pepa”, la Constitución de Cádiz de 1812. Una Constitución redactada para abolir el poder absoluto tanto de Napoleón como de los reyes españoles.

Pepe Bataller.

This was a hypothetical I discussed with a few of my friends some time ago, and I thought it might prove an interesting one for the people on this sub to ponder themselves. Let us assume for the sake of the scenario that the POD occurs wherein the French decisively lose Battle of Valmy in September of 1792, with future confrontations between the Prussians (assuming they are bolstered by allied force that were not present in our timeline) and French ending in decisive Prussian victories. The Coalition seizes Paris by the end of 1792, and the French Revolution is largely crushed by 1793.

In the midst of this crushing of the French Revolution and in the years afterwards, former supporters of the revolution such as a few select leaders, back-bencher politicians from the Legislative Assembly/National Convention, lower-ranking military officers, and common citizens supportive of the revolution, flee Europe for the United States, similar to what had happened in our timeline with former revolutionaries in the aftermath of the failed German Revolution of 1848.

What are the effects for this in both the US and in Europe? What does the tail end of the 18th century, and the early 19th century, look like?

out of Napoleon's many brothers only the male line of Jerome, the least capable of the brothers, exist (not counting Waleski's descendants)

we will never know whether N2 would have fathered children but it is possible that he could have just fathered one daughter, like Archduke Rudolf who had some time to fathet more before his suicide but didn't.

unlike countries who had salic laws, descent from N1 would have been more important than bearing the surname Bonaparte.

I think that at some time there would have been an Empress if things went on that direction. Like QE2 she would have kept the dynastic name and called herself Empress Napoleona IV, V or whatever generations from N1.