What short military leader was defeated at Waterloo?

What rather short military leader was finally defeated at Waterloo in 1815?

Napoleon.

What French dictator was known for how short he was and how great of a military leader?

Napoleon Bonaparte was the French dictator known for his short stature and military prowess. He was a skilled strategist and leader who rose to prominence during the French Revolution and went on to conquer much of Europe before being defeated at the Battle of Waterloo in 1815.

Who were wellies named after?

The term "wellies" is short for Wellington boots, which were named after Arthur Wellesley, the 1st Duke of Wellington. He was a British military leader who became famous for his victory in the Battle of Waterloo in 1815. The boots were designed based on his specifications to provide protection and comfort for soldiers during wet and muddy conditions.

What is the short form for captain?

The short form for captain is "Capt." This abbreviation is commonly used in various contexts, such as in military, aviation, and maritime settings, as well as in sports to denote the team leader.

What was the nickname the troops at Waterloo had for the Duke of Wellington?

He was called Our Atty which was short for Arthur.

Who did Alexander the great conquer as a military leader?

The long list for this is very long. The short list is Darius III, emperor of the Persian empire.

Where was the over-all conference held which decided how Europe would be after the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo?

It was held in Vienna (The Congress of Vienna) but it started before the Battle of Waterloo, short after the Napoleon's abdication of 1814.

Was sulla a good roman leader?

To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.To an extent, yes, as he was a gritty, tough military leader. However in his political aspects he falls short. Sulla tried to bring back the ideals of the republic, but his methods were brutal. A good leader perhaps could have instigated reforms without the bloodshed and proscriptions that Sulla initiated. Whether he was good or bad is a question that can be debated forever.

Who defeated Egypt in the 1700's BC?

Napoleon bonaparte and his french army defeated Egypt in 1798 in the battle of the pyramids........... he and his army then occupied Egypt for a short period of time until an ottoman Leader named Muhammed Ali changed this, muhammed ali turned Egypt into an independent country with cairo as it's capital.

What is a saw?

A saw is short for a military gun, squad automatic weapon. A saw is short for squad automatic weapon. It is a military gun.

Was Harold Godwineson a good leader?

No, Harold was not a good leader and certainly not as good as William. One of the reasons for this answer is that whilst William prepared his troops the night before the battle, The Saxons got drunk and didn't seem to care. They also didn't have very good tactics or a good plan and I doubt Harold wanted to win as much as William. So consequently, Harold Godwineson was not a good leader.

What is a short story about the dragon in china?

the red dragon defeated the white dragon.... the end...