滑铁卢是拿破仑的失败还是威灵顿的胜利？

Henrey Bradley
, Amateur Historian, Adventurer
Ok, let's get one thing straight, we’re comparing fracking Napoleon and Wellington, probably the two greatest Generals in the history of our species.
We’re essentially comparing the Lionel Messi and Cristiano Ronaldo, of the field of war.
Napoleon fanboys all over the world throwing their croissants on the floor and stomping their little high heeled boots in a tantrum, stop wasting perfectly good pastries and give Wellington the credit he deserves.
After the battle of Waterloo, Napoleon said - “Wellington ought to have retreated, and not fought that battle, for had he lost it, I should have established myself in France. Wellington risked too much, for by the rules of war I should have gained the battle
This is the key difference in the character of both men, for Wellington admired and heaped praise on Napoleon, while Napoleon himself scorned Wellington, dismissing his ability, and victory at Waterloo as nothing short of luck.
Yet the achievements of the Duke of Wellington are criminally underrated, he is the genius who never lost a major battle, across his outstanding military career. The commander that conquered vast regional powers while chronically outnumbered, the Master of logistics and quite possibly the greatest tactician of his age. He is the only commander who routinely dominated Napoleonic France on the battlefield, and he did this a stupid amount of times.
Both men displayed unrivalled battlefield tactical depth, exemplary understanding of strategy across their many campaigns, and unique individual styles which they both developed over their long careers, put simply, they stand apart from all other Generals, they’re the most complete generals in the pantheon of war.
Napoleon, ever the copycat, crossed the Alpes into Italy with an army in the footsteps of Hannibal (for me the most complete pre-firearms general), Napoleon then commissioned a grand painting of himself that clearly copied the Duke of Marlborough’s famous portrait, the only difference is, Napoleon asked that he be depicted as super sexy.
Who the frack is the Duke of Marlborough, you say?
While mocking Napoleon is culturally ingrained in me, don’t let that deceive you. For most of my youth, I believed Napoleon was the finest military commander in history, followed by the standard - Hannibal, Alexander and Cesear, in that order.
Notice a distinct lack of Wellington in my youthful list, well that is to my shame, years later I delved into the Peninsular War, reading about figures such as John Moore and the small professional British army that was elite compared to the conscxt units of the continent.
It was impossible not to be impressed by Wellington’s stunning 6-year military campaign across occupied Portugal and Spain, defeating the much larger French occupying forces with shocking ease, in multiple engagements and major battles. After kicking the French armies out of Spain in a series of epic battles, Wellington then casually invaded France in 1813, two years before the Battle of Waterloo, embarrassing the powerful French army guarding the border and then going on a rampage spanking every French army sent to stop him, Wellington showed that Napoleon’s seemingly invincible military that had been dominating the trembling armies of the continent for a decade, was actually beatable.
No other General during the Napoleonic Wars defeated as many French Armies in battle, not even close, the Duke of Wellington stood alone, the undefeated General.
I still rate Napoleon alongside Wellington, the two most complete Generals in history, in fact, had Napoleon displayed the same masterful understanding of Logistics that Wellington had, then Napoleon would likely be sitting in first place, and Wellington in second.
However, Wellington held a clear edge in logistics, and maybe even battlefield tactics, using reverse slopes to counter French artillery countless times, and crushing French columns formed of thousands of conscxts, with smaller forces of elite British soldiers formed in disciplined lines.
After the battle of Sabugal 1811, Wellington wrote; "Our losses are much less than one would have supposed possible, scarcely 200 men... really these French attacks against our lines with columns of men are contemptible."
Was Napoleon just having a bad day at the Battle of Waterloo?
Yes, but only because old Napoleon was certain he would defeat the British led army of 68,000 with his larger 73,000. Less than half was formed of professional British Soldiers, Napoleon only had to overwhelm the small 30k British force of elite soldiers that formed the core of the allied army, when they broke the allied armies cohesion would collapse and the conscxts would flee the field.
Throughout the war, the cream of Napoleon's marshalls, his very best generals, had been losing battles to British Armies and writing reports about the unequalled quality of the well trained British professional regiments, the difficulty to merely break and route a single regiment was nothing like the large continental conscxt based armies, and this was coupled with Wellington’s ability and unusually effective tactics
On the eve of Waterloo, Napoleon likely felt confident, for just two days earlier Napoleon had comfortably defeated the much larger Prussian Army at the Battle of Ligny. General Blucher commanded 84,000 men, around 15k more than Napoleon who had merely 69,000.
While Napoleon slapped around Blücher, defeating his larger Prussian army, and inflicting some 16k casualties and another 10k routed, yet only a few miles away that very same day, Wellington easily defeated Marshal Ney, at the Battle of Quatre Bras. Schooling one of Napoleons finest generals.
At Waterloo Napoleon had 73k men, and against his strong army was a 30k strong British army of professional soldiers and another 38k mixed allied conscxt units, which totalled 68k.
Napoleon managed to route over 3,000 allied conscxts during the battle and inflicted 13k casualties in the allied army, he did well. However, Wellington had killed twice this number, causing 26k French casualties, and breaking most of the best French units including their heavy cavalry and 8 Imperial Guard battalions.
Wellington had effectively withstood the standard French massed attacks in huge columns, he met them with elite regiments that were more accurate, fired faster and held well-disciplined lines that devastated the French assaults in columns, throwing back thousands of Imperial Guards, the finest French troops. Breaking the spine and spirit of Napoleon’s army, before the Prussians had even arrived.
Wellington said it best after Waterloo; "They came on in the same old way, and we defeated them in the same old way"

好吧，让我们弄清楚一件事，我们在比较拿破仑和威灵顿，可能是我们人类历史上最伟大的两位将军。
我们基本上是在比较战争领域的莱昂内尔-梅西和克里斯蒂亚诺-罗纳尔多。
全世界的拿破仑迷们可能会气得把他们的羊角面包扔在地上，跺着他们的小高跟鞋发脾气，但是不要再浪费这些这么好的糕点了，请让威灵顿得到他应有的荣誉。
滑铁卢战役后，拿破仑说："威灵顿应该撤退，不打那场战役的，如果他输了，我就能在法国立足。威灵顿冒的风险太大，按照战争规则，我本应获得这场战斗的胜利。
这是两人性格上关键的差异，因为威灵顿钦佩并赞美拿破仑，而拿破仑本人却蔑视威灵顿，认为他的能力和滑铁卢战役的胜利不过是运气。
然而，威灵顿公爵的成就被严重低估了，他是一位天才，在其杰出的军事生涯中从未输过一场大仗。他是一位在长期以少打多的情况下征服了广大地区势力的指挥官，是一位后勤大师，而且很可能是他那个时代最伟大的战术家。他是唯一一位在战场上经常性支配拿破仑的法国的指挥官，而且他这样做的次数之多令人难以置信。
两人都表现出无与伦比的战场战术深度，在众多战役中对战略的理解堪称典范，他们都在漫长的职业生涯中形成了独特的个人风格，简单地说，他们与其他所有的将军不同，他们是战争万神殿中最没有缺点的将军。
拿破仑永远是个模仿者，他带着一支军队沿着汉尼拔（对我来说是最没有缺点的前火器时代的将军）的足迹越过阿尔卑斯山进入意大利，然后拿破仑委托人为自己画了一幅宏伟的画，这幅画明显模仿了马尔堡公爵的著名画像，唯一不同的是，拿破仑要求将他描绘成超级性感。
你说，马尔堡公爵是谁？（链接）

虽然嘲笑拿破仑在文化上对我来说是根深蒂固的，但不要让这一点欺骗了你。在我年轻的大部分时间里，我相信拿破仑是历史上最优秀的军事指挥官，其次是标准的--汉尼拔、亚历山大和塞萨尔，依次排列。
请注意，我年轻时的名单中明显缺少威灵顿，这是我的耻辱，多年后我深入研究了（伊比利亚）半岛战争，阅读了约翰-摩尔等人物和小型职业英国军队，与欧洲大陆的征兵部队相比，他们真的是精英。
威灵顿在被占领的葡萄牙和西班牙开展了长达6年的惊人的军事行动，在多次交战和重大战役中以令人震惊的轻松方式击败了规模更大的法国占领军，这不可能不给人留下深刻印象。在一系列史诗般的战役中将法国军队踢出西班牙后，威灵顿又在滑铁卢战役前两年的1813年随意入侵法国，让守卫边境的强大法国军队感到尴尬，然后大肆鞭挞每一支派来阻止他的法国军队，威灵顿表明，拿破仑看似不可战胜的军队，在十年间一直支配着欧洲大陆颤抖的军队，实际上是可以击败的。
在拿破仑战争期间，没有其他将军在战斗中击败过那么多的法国军队，甚至都没有能接近的，威灵顿公爵独自站在那里，成为不败的将军。
我仍然将拿破仑与威灵顿并列，认为他们是历史上最无暇的两位将军，事实上，如果拿破仑表现出与威灵顿一样的对后勤的高超理解，那么拿破仑很可能会坐在第一位，而威灵顿则排在第二。
然而，威灵顿在后勤方面占有明显的优势，甚至可能在战场战术上也是如此，他无数次地使用反斜坡来对付法国大炮，并以较小的英国精英士兵组成的纪律严明的队伍粉碎了由成千上万的应征士兵组成的法国纵队。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

1811年萨布加尔战役后，威灵顿写道："我们的损失比人们想象的要少得多，几乎不到200人......法国人用纵队对我们的防线进行的这些攻击没什么成效。"
在滑铁卢战役中，拿破仑只是过了糟糕的一天吗？
是的，但这只是因为老拿破仑确信他能用他的7.3万名大军击败英国人领导的6.8万名军队。后者只有不到一半的军队是由专业的英国士兵组成的，拿破仑只需要击破组成联军核心的3万英军精锐部队，当他们崩溃时，联军的凝聚力就会崩溃，新兵们就会逃离战场。
在整个战役期间，拿破仑的元帅们，他最优秀的将军们，一直在输给英国军队，并在报告中提到了训练有素的英国职业军团的无与伦比的质量，想要击破和驱逐一个英国军团的难度与欧洲大陆以征兵为主的大军完全不同，再加上威灵顿的能力和异常有效的战术使之更加困难。
在滑铁卢战役前夕，拿破仑很可能感到信心十足，因为就在两天前，拿破仑在利尼战役中轻松击败了规模更大的普鲁士军队。当时布吕歇尔将军指挥着84,000人，比拿破仑多出约15000人，而拿破仑只有69000人。

当拿破仑围着布吕歇尔打，打败了规模比他更大的普鲁士军队，造成了后者大约16000人的伤亡和另外10000人的溃败时，就在同一天，威灵顿在夸特拉斯战役中轻松地打败了内伊元帅，离利尼仅仅几英里远。拿破仑最优秀的将领之一也因此受到训斥。
在滑铁卢，拿破仑有7.3万人，对抗他的强大军队的是一支3万多人的英国职业军人军队和另外3.8万多人的混合盟军义务兵部队，总共有6.8万人。
拿破仑在战斗中成功地歼灭了3000多名盟军士兵，并给盟军造成了13000人的伤亡，他干得不错。然而，威灵顿杀死了这个数字的两倍的法军，造成了2.6万法军的伤亡，并击溃了大部分最好的法军部队，包括他们的重骑兵和8个帝国卫队营。
威灵顿有效地抵御了法军以巨大的纵队进行的标准攻击，他以精锐的军团迎战，这些军团更加目的明确，射击速度更快，并保持着纪律严明的防线，破坏了法军的纵队攻击，将数以千计的帝国卫队，最优秀的法国部队击垮。在普鲁士人还没有到达战场之前，就打破了拿破仑军队的脊梁和精神。
威灵顿在滑铁卢战役后总结得很好："他们以同样的方式进攻，而我们以同样的方式击败了他们"。

Kevin Winslow
Thanks for putting this answer together! I live in the U.S., and we pretty much never hear a peep about Wellington, which I think is a shame. Napoleon gets the lion’s share of passages in our textbooks, mostly because our history is tied really closely with France around that Era as allies.
But Wellington is one damn impressive S.O.B.! I can’t believe we don’t talk about him more over here! The more I’ve looked into the battle of Waterloo and the Peninsula War, the more impressed I’ve become over his leadership and abilities.
What’s funny to me is that Napoleon seems to have much better press and hype men, even now. I love the UFC, and you hear the same lines being used when comparing fighters: “Yeah, Napoleon didn’t take Wellington seriously, but if he DID…”, “Yeah, Wellington was good, but probably just lucky…”
But history shows he most certainly wasn’t just lucky, and Napoleon DID take him seriously. I think it’s a bit of a travesty that Napoleon is a household name and Wellington is treated more like a historic footnote instead of the man Napoleon consistently couldn’t stop. It’s like watching someone make the case for a fighter being the GOAT of UFC fighters, but who consistently lost to the same guy over and over in his career; AND the guy he lost to consistently won against all his own toughest opponents.
Flair apparently counts for a lot, as does audacity and press. It’s a real shame, and it’s great that answers like this are getting out there to remind folks that yes, Napoleon was good, but there was this whole other guy who was arguably just as good or even BETTER. And if I had to place a bet on who was better, I’d actually put it on Wellington.

谢谢你的这个答案! 我住在美国，我们几乎从来没有听到过关于威灵顿的讯息，我认为这是一种耻辱。拿破仑在我们的教科书中占了大部分篇幅，主要是因为我们的历史与法国在那个时代是盟友，关系非常密切。
但威灵顿绝对是个大牛逼! 我难以置信我们这里竟然没有更多地谈论他! 我对滑铁卢战役和半岛战争了解得越多，对他的领导和能力就越是印象深刻。
对我来说，有趣的是，拿破仑似乎有着更好的媒体传播和炒作人员，即使是现在也是如此。我喜欢UFC（终极格斗锦标赛），但是在比较两位拳手的时候，你会听到下面这种台词："是的，拿破仑没有认真对待威灵顿，但如果他认真对待......"，"是的，威灵顿很好，但可能只是幸运......"
但历史表明，他肯定不只是运气好，拿破仑也确实有把他当回事。我认为，拿破仑是一个家喻户晓的名字，而威灵顿却被当作一个历史的注脚，而不是拿破仑始终无法逾越的人，这有点滑稽。这就像看着有人为一个拳手是否应该称作UFC拳手中的GOAT（世纪最佳）而辩护，但这名拳手在其职业生涯中总是一次又一次地输给同一个人；而他输给的那个人在面对自己所有最强硬的对手时却总能获胜。

Michael Robinson
It’s hard to say who was better as Napoleon and Wellington only fought each other directly once, at Waterloo, when both had very different victory conditions. But they are definitely of the same tier when it comes to generals.
My opinion here is that if you want to hold ground go with Wellington, if you want to attack, go with Napoleon.

很难说谁更厉害，因为拿破仑和威灵顿只在滑铁卢直接交手过一次，当时两人的胜利条件非常不同。但说到将领，他们绝对是同一级别的。
我的看法是，如果你想坚守阵地，就选威灵顿，如果你想进攻，就选拿破仑。
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Peter P C Dobson
From where I sit it’s
if you want to win a battle go for Napoleon
if want to win a war go with Wellington
but even that’s a little over simplistic

从我的角度来看，它是：
如果你想赢得一场战役，请选择拿破仑
如果想赢得一场战争，就选择威灵顿
虽然这么说有点过于简单化了。

Tony Ryan
People like to compare generals “who was the best?” Etc. But while Wellington was a General, Napoleon (although a brilliant person in many ways) was an aggressive dictator fixated on subjugating his neighbours etc. This is a very different mindset. Wellington was undoubtedly one of the best generals and not by accident. He knew his supplies, he paid for many himself to ensure his men had boots. He initiated the Provost Marshall so he could punish his men for theft and rape (and to keep his allies onside). He maintained diplomatic relations with many difficult allies, especially in Spain and Portugal. He rode 25 miles a day scouting for suitable terrain and was nearly captured several times. He built roads behind his lines so he could move his scarce cannon quickly to where they were needed. None of this is accidental. He was called a defensive general because he had to conserve his scarce troops, but he was also an inspired and technically great person.

人们喜欢比较将军，"谁是最好的？" 等等。但是，虽然威灵顿是一位将军，但拿破仑（虽然他在很多方面也很出色）却是一位咄咄逼人的独裁者，一心想要征服他的邻国等等。这是一种非常不同的心态。威灵顿无疑是最好的将军之一，而且不是偶然的。他了解自己的补给，他自己掏钱买了很多，以确保他的手下有靴子。他发起了宪兵司令，这样他就可以惩罚手下的偷窃和强奸行为（并让他的盟友站在一边）。他与许多困难的盟友保持外交关系，特别是在西班牙和葡萄牙。他每天骑行25英里侦察合适的地形，有几次差点被俘。他在战线后面修建了道路，这样他就可以把稀缺的大炮迅速运到需要的地方。这些都不是偶然的。他被称为防守型将军，因为他必须节约他稀缺的部队，但他也是一个有灵感和技术的伟大人物。

Dave George
Napoleon had a huge non-military role that demands history’s attention. During his time in power, Napoleon was France. Under his rule, for better or worse, many unique governmental programs were implemented. Wellington was a brilliant military leader, but his place in history stopped there.

拿破仑有一个巨大的非军事作用，得到了历史的关注。在他执政期间，拿破仑就是法国。在他的统治下，无论好坏，都实施了许多独特的政府计划。威灵顿是一位杰出的军事领袖，但他在历史上的地位仅此而已。

Ronald Orenstein

对，除了他还成为了英国首相、上议院领袖和英国武装部队总司令这些“无关紧要的小细节”。

Patrick Slattery
He became an extremely popular prime minister in the UK government,maybe the most popular of all including Churchill. As PM,he had the wisdom to approve the Catholic Emancipation Act in 1829 which introduced the vote for Irish catholics despite his hatred of catholicism. His sources in Ireland persuaded him that the act was needed to prevent a likely revolution in Ireland if the huge mass movement led by MP Daniel O’Connell was denied the vote.

他成为了英国政府中非常受欢迎的首相，也许是包括丘吉尔在内的所有首相中最受欢迎的一位。作为首相，尽管他憎恨天主教，但还是明智地批准了1829年的《天主教解放法》，为爱尔兰的天主教徒提供了投票权。他在爱尔兰的消息来源说服他，如果议员丹尼尔-奥康奈尔领导的巨大群众运动被剥夺了投票权，那么就需要该法案来防止爱尔兰可能发生的革命。

Enrico Toro
One of the most interesting things of reading the diaries of British officers at Waterloo is how much they were enamored of Napoleon and not thinking much about Wellington, so your young self is not in bad company.
Side note, Wellington only gave battle because he knew about Blucher coming. If not, he knew well he would have been defeated in the end and would have never put his army at risk. More points to him I guess

读一下滑铁卢战役中英国军官的日记，最有趣的一点是他们对拿破仑的迷恋和对威灵顿的不以为然，所以你年轻的时候列出那个名单也是正常。
另外，威灵顿之所以选择出战，是因为他知道布吕歇尔会来支援。如果不是这样，他很清楚自己最终会被打败，所以也不会让自己的军队处于危险之中。我觉得这样反而给了他更多的分数。

Alex Wiley
I find it interesting that these fanboys constantly state that the prussians won the battle and somehow give all the credit to what was a relatively small reinforcing army that showed up at the eve of the fighting.
People also forget that while Napoleon did hold some men back to face the prussians, Wellington also had a significant force waiting behind the lines to cover for a possible allied retreat.
I would also add that unlike Napoleon, Wellington made no serious strategic blunders in his history. Napoleons invasion of Russia and Spain were both serious mistakes.

我发现一个有趣的现象，这些狂热者总是说是普鲁士人赢得了这场战役，并且把所有的功劳都归功于一支在战斗前夕出现的相对较小的增援军队上。
人们还忘记了，虽然拿破仑确实保留了一些人去面对普鲁士人，但威灵顿也有一支重要的部队在战线后面等待，以掩护盟军可能的撤退。
我还想补充一点，与拿破仑不同，威灵顿在历史上没有犯过严重的战略失误。拿破仑对俄罗斯和西班牙的入侵都是严重的错误。

Etienne Verpin
“ a relatively small reinforcing army”
Seriously? Wellington wrote after the battle
“I shall not do justice to my feelings or to Marshal Blücher and the Prussian army, if I do not attribute the successful result of this arduous day, to the cordial and timely assistance I received from them”:

"一支相对较小的增援部队"
认真的吗？威灵顿在战后写道：
"如果我不把这艰苦的一天的成功结果归功于布吕歇尔元帅和普鲁士军队，我就对不住自己的良心，也对不住布吕歇尔元帅和普鲁士军队，因为我从他们那里得到了亲切而及时的援助。"
原创翻译：龙腾网 http://www.ltaaa.cn 转载请注明出处

Alex Wiley
Do not always take wellingtons humility in the situation as the basis for sound analysis.
I am not disregarding the effect of the Prussians, simply that they were not responsible for the majority of the victory. It was the allied army led by Wellington that did 90% of the work beforehand. People always get confused by this. If you sub a football player on in the 90th minute and they score the winning goal, that does not mean that they singlehandedly won the match, it was the other players that allowed that.
The fact is wellingtons army did far more damage to the french than the Prussians.

不要总是以威灵顿在这种情况下的谦逊作为进行合理分析的基础。
我并不是无视普鲁士人的影响，只是说他们并没有对大部分的胜利负责。是威灵顿领导的盟军事先做好了90%的工作。人们总是对这一点感到困惑。如果你在第90分钟让一名足球运动员上场，他们打进了制胜的一球，这并不意味着他们单枪匹马地赢得了比赛，而是其他球员的功劳。
事实是，威灵顿军队对法国人造成的伤害远远大于普鲁士人。

Etienne Verpin
Before the arrival of prussian, allied army was under pressure after the capture of La Haye Sainte. The Prussian intervention determined the result of the battle. There is no debate among historians about this.

在普鲁士人到来之前，联军在攻占La Haye Sainte后受到了法军的压力。普鲁士的干预决定了这场战役的结果。对此，历史学家们并没有争议。

Alistair R. Thompson
I think it would be fair to say that the Prussian army and the British-Dutch-German army together won Waterloo.

我认为可以这样说，普鲁士军队和英国-荷兰-日耳曼军队共同赢得了滑铁卢。

Michael Perkins
Napoleon was a good General, and for about 15 years he was the greatest General of his time.
But his time was from the early 1790s to 1808. After this, he lost that title, not only because of his actions in initiating the Russia campaign, but because of the actions of Wellesley, who did what Napoleon did not: learned from his enemy and adapted to their tactics and strategies.

拿破仑是个好将军，在大约15年的时间里，他是他那个时代最伟大的将军。
但他的时代是从1790年代初到1808年。在此之后，他失去了这一称号，不仅是因为他发起俄国战役的行为，还因为韦尔斯利（威灵顿）的行为，他做了拿破仑没有做的事：向敌人学习，适应他们的战术和战略。

Michael Robinson
Bravo, sir. I’d say it could only be better if there was a comparison of their earlier campaigns (Napoleon in Italy and Wellington in India) as well as both faced forces larger than their own in their respective theatres. I still can’t figure out how Wellesley succeeded at Assaye in 1803.

漂亮的答案。我想说的是，如果能对他们早期的战役（拿破仑在意大利和威灵顿在印度）进行比较，以及两人如何在各自的战场上面对比自己更大的部队，那就更好了。我还是想不明白韦尔斯利是如何在1803年的阿萨耶成功的。

John Higson
Extremely well written and I believe entirely accurate. Wellington admired Napoleon, studied his tactics, adapted and thereby defeated multiple French armies and finally Napoleon himself. Whilst Napoleon did not appreciate Wellington, failed to adapt to his tactics and thereby lost. Making in my book Wellington the better general. I can hear a distant rain of croissants hitting the floor.

写得非常好，我相信完全准确。威灵顿钦佩拿破仑，研究他的战术，并加以调整，从而击败了多支法国军队，最后打败了拿破仑本人。而拿破仑并不欣赏威灵顿，没有适应他的战术，从而输了。在我看来，威灵顿是更好的将军。我可以听到远处传来羊角面包雨落地的声音。