ahhhh....not so.
It was Blucher who won the battle of Waterloo in 2 ways:
1) His army when it withdrew from the defeat of Ligny drew off one Corp of Napoleon’s army, which was not present at Waterloo.
2) His very fast movement of the Prussian army allowed his army to be present at Waterloo, again while one of Napoleons corps was off chasing him in the wrong direction.
3) His fierce attack on the right flank of Napoleons army in the afternoon kept Napoleon from concentration on the British forces. Napoleon had to split his forces in the midst of two forces and was unable to mass the concentration he needed to defeat the British in detail. Had Blucher not been coming in on the right flank, that would not have been the case.
Wellington certainly held off Napoleon in the “same old way” but without Blucher the best he would have achieved was a draw, instead of the decisive defeat achieved by the allied armies.
So the combination of moving his army faster than the French thought possible and making a very effective flanking attack with forces coming off of a movement was what one the battle and made it famous.
Histories written since 1915 seem to have left most of this out, focusing instead on the valiant British stand at waterloo. I wonder why.......
Wellington -- with the belated assistance of the Prussians -- defeated Napoleon,
I specifically credited the Prussians.
Napoleon counted on Blucher not being able to make it to the battlefield in time to save Wellington. Even the latter had his doubts, and it undoubtedly would have gone ill for the English if Blucher had not shown up when he did, and immediately plunged into the fray.
I in no way discredit the contribution made by the Prussians. But SunkenCiv's implication that Wellington was a screw-up doesn't seem borne out. As you point out, it was the allied armies that won the day.