I’m very skeptical that this is not the view held by most people in say, France, Germany, Austria, or Russia, but due to me not speaking those languages, I can’t look up their perspectives.
Similarly, in looking up primary sources on the subject, I’m immediately struck by the quick realization that there’s no shortage of published British primary sources, whether from Wellington or Nelson themselves, other officers, or soldier diaries, journals, and books. I have to look very hard for any other perspectives. I found a few translated French sources from some of Napoleon’s marshals, but these are far fewer in number and at a much higher level than the varied points of view of British soldiers. I suspect that if I based my opinion on these sources alone, I’d get an extremely skewed bias in favor of the British, and get the view of the other allied powers as a mere side cast of characters.
To be clear, I’d like to point out that I don’t believe this issue to be present among actual scholars, but unfortunately when as I search for things online as a lay person, more often than not what I find are not scholars, but Wikipedia articles, Quora questions, and YouTube videos, which while entertaining, I have a hard time fully accepting, and this is where I’m worried these biases may shine through the most.
I’ve actually bought two books on the Napoleonic Wars, but I haven’t had the chance to start them yet because I feel like to understand those wars I need to understand the French Revolution and the French Revolutionary Wars, which I’ve also bought books on and I’m reading those first.
And also to be more specific, I’m curious more about the performance of these soldiers on the tactical level. I’m aware of strategic factors like the failed invasion of Russia, but that says more to me about the state of command than it does about the performance of the soldiers involved.
You may be interested in my previous answer concerning the strategy by which the Continental powers [Austria, Russia, Prussia] decisively defeated Bonaparte in 1813; it was the skillful use of numerical superiority that underlay Allied success more than any edge in quality.
You are asking about a fair number of things here. I live in France and have a slight interest in this question. I can say that for the question of
The view held by most people in say, France
You might try the /r/france subreddit.
I am not an expert on this subject but I CAN confirm that people here in France who study this as well as the general French population would not agree that
Napoleon beating the pants off Europe for years until the British swoop in and save the day with a smaller, better army.
is what happened. I would seriously doubt one who studied your question in English would seriously believe this. There is ample material in English.
I suspect that if I based my opinion on these sources alone
Primary source documents are great but there has been so much written since then and I my suggestion to you would be to read some of the excellent books on askhistorians reading list.
Knowing French gives me a different prespective sure but there has been more written in English on this subject than you could read in a lifetime. As well lots of books (and novels like war and peace) have been translated into English. And excellent historical works (and novels like a tale of two cities) have been translated from English to French. If you are VERY interested in the 'average' French view I could recommend some French historical magazines you can access online and then throw the article through a translater.
I also minorly study history in Spanish and can confirm, no sorpresa, that Spanish history focuses more on what happened in Spain and the impact on the Spanish speaking world.