QJM.

This is coolbert:

Dupuy, in his book, "Understanding War", gives a quick a dirty method of evaluating battlefield scenarios.

This method is called QJM [Quantified Judgment Model].

A modeling method allowing the analyst to evaluate the relative combat strengths of protagonists on the battlefield.

This model looks at the combat numerical strengths of the battlefield foes, examines the postures and the terrain factors, and arrives at relative combat strengths.

This model uses values from what is called HERO [Historical Evaluation Research Organization] to arrive at conclusions. Analysis of historical battles such as the 1940 German Ardennes offensive demonstrate that QJM effectively shows the analyst as to with who the advantage lies in a battle.

I applied the quick and dirty QJM method to the Battle of Waterloo and found that even without reinforcement of Wellington's army by that of Blucher's, Wellington was in good shape and probably would have triumphed anyhow. Some assumptions had to be made to apply the QJM equation properly. These were:

1. The combat effective value [CEV] of one British/German/Dutch/Belgian troop in Wellington's army was roughly the same as one troop in the army of Napoleon.

2. Strength of Napoleon's army was about 20 % numerically greater that of Wellington's.

Further, HERO analysis indicates that troops in a hasty defense have a multiplier of 1.3 for their combat strength. [posture]

Further, HERO analysis indicates that the terrain of Waterloo gives a multiplier of 1.1 to the defender. [terrain]

As Napoleon's army was the attacker at Waterloo, their multiplier for both posture and terrain would be 1.0.

Applying strengths, posture, and terrain factors into the QJM equation for Wellington, we get:

65K X 1.3 X 1.1 = 93K [relative combat power]

For the army of Napoleon, we get:

78K X 1.0 X 1.0 = 78K [relative combat power]

Dividing 93/78 [the k's cancel], you get 1.20.

The combat power of Wellington at Waterloo was 20 % greater than Napoleon's [defense is the stronger form of combat]. As long as Wellington remained on the defense, did nothing foolish, and made no serious mistakes, he would defeat Napoleon. This is what happened.

I would expect that some experts would disagree with my first assumption.

That the troops of Wellington's army were on a par with those of Napoleon's.

Weapons wise I would say the two opponents were more or less equal.

The muskets and cannon and bayonets were more or less the same from army to army.

With regard to fighting ability, reliability, experience, you could make a case that some of the units under the command of Wellington were inexperienced or shaky at best.

But you could probably make the same argument with regard to some of the units under the command of Napoleon too.

My intuitive approach to this would tell me that the CEV's of the troops in both armies was about the same. One Frenchman under Napoleon had about the same combat value as a troop in the army of Wellington.

coolbert.