Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 2

Additions to the Battle Section
I've added the following to the Battle Section of the arcticle please let me know what you think here.

At the time the French Guard was being chased off of the British center, the Prussian 1st Corps was breaking through the French center. This allowed Wellington to reinforce his center in time to repluse Napoleon's attack on his center. Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten's 1st Corps had been arriving in greater strength. By 7:30 pm the French position was bent into a rough horseshoe shape. The ends of the U where now based on Hougomont on the French left, Plancenoit on the French right, and the center on La Haye. The French had retaken the positions of Le Haye and Papelotte in a series of attacks by Gen Durette. Oberst von Hofmann's 24th regiment led an advance towards Le Haye and Papelotte and the French forces retreated behind Smohain without contesting the advance. The 24th Regiment advanced against the new French position but was see off after some early sucess. The Silesian Schutzen and the F/1st Landwehr moved up to support as the 24th regiment returned to the attack. The French fell back before the attack without much of an attempt at defense. At this point the French began to seriously contest ground attempting to regain Smohain and hold on to the ridgeline along Papelotte and the last few houses of Papelotte. The 24th Regiment linked up with a Highlander Bn on its far right. Determined attacks by the 24th Regiment and the 13th Landwehr regiment with cavalry support threw the French off these positions and further attacks by the 13th Landwehr and the 15th brigade expelled the French from Fichermont. Durutte’s division was beginning to unravel under the assaults when General Zieten’s 1st Corp cavalry was being poured through the gap. At the threat of a charge by massed Cavalry moved quickly from the battlefield. 1st Corp then attained the Brussels road and the only line of retreat available to the French.

About the same time the Prussians were pushing through Plancenoit in the 3rd assault upon the town this day. The Prussian 5th, 14th, and 16th brigades, were involved in the attack. Each Prussian brigade would be about 9 battalions strong or roughly the size of a French division. Descriptions of Plancenoit sound like depictions of hell itself. The church was fully involved in a fire, with house to house fighting leaving bodies laying about from both sides. The French Guard battaltions a Guard Chasseur and 1/2e Grenadiers being identified in the position. Virtually all of the young guard was now involved in the defense with rements of Lobau's Division as well. The key to the position proved to be the wood to the south of Plancenoit. The 25th regiment's muskesteer battalions threw the 1/2e Grenadiers (Old Guard) out of the Chantelet woods, flanking Plancenoit and forcing a retreat. The Prussians IV Corps advanced beyond Plancenoit to find masses of French retreating in a mass jumble from advancing British units. The Prussians were unable to fire for fear of hitting allied units. It was now seen that the French right, left, and center, were failing.

Tirronan 19:01, 9 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hofschroer is a thoroughly partisan source with an agenda to inflate the significance of the Prussian contribution, as the title of his work shows. Given that the Prussians handsomely lost most battles they fought against the French between 1792 and 1815, and lost two out of three of the battles they fought in the 1815 campaign, isn't it time to revise the revisionism a bit? - Tirailleur

I don't know many that take Peter to task for anything other than slavish adherence to his sources. If I had any problem with his books it is probably in assigning to Wellington motivations that I am not sure were there. You may notice I stay away from the subject. Even there I would tend to give Peter his due for accurate research. I wouldn't call a man that is fairly even handed and critical of Prussian Generals as he was in his his books as partisan. This is an opinion, the times and places of the Prussian contributions are called and cited to source and I don't have a bit of problem with them. Tirronan 18:54, 19 December 2006 (UTC)


 * Hofschroer is thorough, if not a great writer. He has an explicit agenda, however, about which he is entirely unapologetic.


 * A historian who relies on in effect one source - the Prussian view of the battle - may succeed in offering a novel perspective, and indeed may have to do so to get published, but it's not necessarily a reliable one.


 * By focusing so explicitly on Prussian derring-do and speculative attacks on Wellington's integrity, he forfeits a lot of credibility as an objective chronicler of events.


 * On the actual current content, some of it is incoherent, either grammatically, logically, or temporally, and could do with a rewrite. Eg


 * "The Allies successfully, though expensively, held Quatre Bras and prevented Ney's advance.."..last time I looked, the allies lost 4,500 at Quatre Bras, the French 4,300, and the French were driven back. The article omits the latter fact and implies the rate of loss was disproportionately costly. It seems reasonable to me, however. They started out badly outnumbered, and finished up with numerical superiority, so they suffered early in the day but ended up taking a lower percentage loss.

I'll look at this section however the loss of 4,500 troops could be considered expensive.Tirronan 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Throughout the late afternoon, Zieten's 1st Corps had been arriving in greater strength in the area just north of Le Haye Saint [sic]. This allowed Wellington to reinforce his center...."


 * I have issues with a lot of this section. First, it comes after the description of the French collapse but describes events that occurred before it, so it is in the wrong place in the sequence.

Perhaps the answer to this is to rewrite the entire article based on what happened where on the battlefield by time events. I've though about this often as it does much to clear up what was happening when. However before beginning such a massive rewrite I would want to involve the French/British/German Military Task forces. Tirronan 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * The area 'just north of La Haye Sainte' was Wellington's centre. Ziethen's arrival at Papelotte, on Wellington's left, released forces which he was able to switch into his centre.

Please get out a map. There was one road between Wavre and Waterloo. It is easy enough to see where the Prussians would have deployed. There are about 400 referrences in various histories reporting that Ziethen relieved the British left and the troops were used by Wellington to reenforce his center. Tirronan 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "At the threat of a charge by massed Cavalry moved quickly from the battlefield." Not sure what this means.

The Prussian 1st Corp  would have had 8 regiments of Cavalry organic to its reserve. These forces where deployed and massing to charge the French forces in the area contested. At this the French forces cleared away. Sorry if that isn't clear enough and would you have a suggestion? Tirronan 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "1st Corp then attained the Brussels road and the only line of retreat available to the French." Given that 1st Corps, i.e. Ziethen, was reinforcing Wellington's left, they'd have reached the Brussels road somewhere in the middle of Wellington's lines, which would not have interfered with the French line of retreat. To do that, they'd have had to cut the Brussels road south of Plancenoit, i.e. about two miles south of where they actually were. If, as above, they really were fighting "north of La Haye Sainte" then they were already on the Brussels road, but behind Wellington rather than the French.

I think I understand what you are asking here and let me try again. Please pick up a copy of Peter H's work btw (hate him all you want but man does he have resources there). The French were at this time holding a U salent with the tip of that U facing Papelotte. I say it was a U but it was a very thin U. Again you need to check a map. When that was forced open 1st Corp had a clean shot all the way down both INTERIOR lines of the French. This alone would have collasped the French position (though I didn't say it in the article). The point I was making was that there were 3 failures in the French lines at about the same time. Be aware that timing the events is the single hardest thing about Waterloo. Tirronan 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * I think I know what the article is trying to say - that elements of 1st Corps crossed the battlefield somewhere near La Haye Sainte, in the rear of the French troops who'd won it from the KGL and were presumably still occupying it. This was a useful contribution, but it wasn't the near-envelopment implied.


 * "At about the same time, the Prussians were pushing through Plancenoit, in the third assault of the day upon the town." This section doesn't say much about the relative French and Prussian numbers in Plancenoit, but it's relevant. As I recall, 48,000 Prussians in Papelotte and Plancenoit had trouble beating 10-15,000 French for most of the day. 65,000 or so Anglo-allied troops along Mont St Jean beat the other 57-62,000 French everywhere along the line except La Haye Sainte (which, amusingly, was defended by "Germans"). Given the hagiographic account of Prussian prowess that Hofschroer would have us buy into, shouldn't the article be balanced by including this information about relative odds and performance?

I had though this section was a nice summation but it needs to be worked in with my paragraph.

The arrival of the Prussians: Placenoit Had there been any infantry reserves left at this point, the French must certainly have broken through Wellington's crumbling centre. Bülow's Prussians, however, had driven Lobau out of Plancenoit, which was behind the French right. Therefore Napoleon sent his 10 battalion strong Young Guard to beat the Prussians back. After very hard fighting, the Young Guard recaptured Plancenoit, but were themselves counterattacked and driven out. Napoleon sent two battalions of the Old Guard and after ferocious bayonet fighting - they did not deign to fire their muskets - they recaptured the village. The dogged Prussians were still not beaten, and approximately 30,000 troops under Bülow and Pirch attacked Plancenoit again. It was defended by 20,000 Frenchmen in and around the village. The Old Guard and other supporting troops were able to hold on for about one hour before a massive Prussian counterattack evicted them after bloody street fighting. The last to flee was the Old Guard which defended the church and cemetery. The French casualties at the end of the day were horrible; for example, the 1er Tirailleurs of the Young Guard had 92% losses.

As to the numbers at Plancenoit it is put at 50,000 troops involved, 20,000 French Empire, Lobau's Divion, the Entire Young Guard, 2 Battlions of the Old Guard, 30,000 Prussian mostly from the 4th Corp. If you will check the map, you will find that the French position @ 7pm was a long thin U. Every Author I have ever read on the subject stated that the road beside Plancenoit was the last viable line of retreat. If I read the accounts correctly what is being presented is that Paponette was at the very apex of that position with about 18,000 1st Corp Ziethen (Prussian) facing a defense that crumbled rather comprehensively with the entirety of 1st Corp's Cavalry pouring through the gap. What is being presented is that the French lines were suffering complete colaspe in 3 separate sections. This would be consistant with an Army that is beng overwhelmed by numbers, and by this stage they certainly were. Tirronan 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Source: 1815 The Waterloo Campaign, The German Victory..." - why is the only source cited in the text of the article this one? Why not among the other sources?


 * More generally, if we are going to use material from one pro-Prussian source, why no material from any pro-French ones? For example, the French Wikipedia account of Waterloo


 * - attributes the incomplete victory at Ligny to the absence of d'Erlon, which isn't mentioned here.
 * - suggests that two brigades of cuirassiers (Dubois' as well as Travers') joined in d'Erlon's attack (so the Union brigade wiped out two, not four, en route into Donzelot's flank).
 * - says, of Plancenoit, that two cavalry brigades and Lobau's corps held it but were eventually forced out, and that one young Guard division and two Old Guard battalions then retook it.
 * - says that it was the "elite of the elite" - Friant's grenadiers and Morant's chasseurs - who were repulsed from the ridge, not the Middle Guard, as most non-French accounts suggest.


 * The article summarises the causes of the French defeat as:-


 * 1/ Poor communications and staffwork;
 * 2/ Failure to get stuck in quickly at all four actions on the 16th and 18th;
 * 3/ Poor all-arms co-ordination (eg Jerome attacking Hougoumont without artillery)
 * 4/ Attacks made in the wrong place (Ney, but also the guard's attack);
 * 5/ Allied guns captured by Ney were not disabled and were thus-re-used.


 * It goes on to criticise d'Erlon's choice of formation as grossly vulnerable to cavalry; in effect, two divisions were destroyed which could have been crucial later.


 * Overall, the general flavour of the French account is that it was the Anglo-allied army that beat them while the Prussians afforded a distraction.


 * I realise this French view doesn't serve the Hofschroer agenda, but the article should recognise, more than it does, that his spin that the whole affair was a "German" victory is a minority opinion. It's disagreed with by the losers as well as by the side he thinks should not be credited with the victory. It may be that the French would rather have been beaten by the Anglo-Netherlanders than the Germans, and that this affects the flavour of the article, but even if so, it's just Hofschroer's own prejudice with the signs reversed.


 * 129.230.248.1 14:48, 31 January 2007 (UTC)Tirailleur


 * I seriously doubt that the French would rather credit the British rather than the Germans with the victory. I was sitting in a Wellington pub during the last Rugby world cup final (2003) and it was very funny to listen to the Kiwis as they did not know who they wanted to lose the most. I suspect that French opinion would be similar over who they would want to credit the victory too, as I suspect they, (like the Kiwis), consider that they should have won the event. :-O --Philip Baird Shearer 17:53, 1 February 2007 (UTC)

One thing here and I will submit there are more than a few holes in your arguments Tirailleur. One thing I will outright wonder is why you continue to refuse to have an actual account on Wikipedia. Please create an account and sign your work. I added the only referrence to the battle as there had been a complaint for the lack of refferences. As I was adding the sections that needed to be added I included my source for the section I was working on. Hofschroer doesn't just quote Prussian sources but rather the slant on his work was the German speaking population's contribution to the victory. As such however I have multiple UK sources he referrences, Dutch, and Belgian, and again I am left wondering have you read his book?

There has been and I guess will always been those that insist that Only the British were actually on the battlefield and they and only the contributed a thing to the victory. I am ok with that view (50% of American's think that the moon landings were fiction) but it has nothing to do with history.

As to troops and numbers. Before I typed a word I checked my facts against order of battle, reported position (after action reports by the regiments involved) times, (found errors and should have, ect.. I've noticed all you have offered is objections and opinions. This is a article about a history, its not about opinions.  Look, Chandling, Noftzinger, Eating, Siborn, Patty Griffin, and others, all have writen Histories.  You may or may not like what they have to say but they took the time and reseached what they wrote.  They are not Peter Hofschroder, so perhaps you will be a bit more open to what they say.  If you need a really neutral 3rd party the U.S. Army actually has books available for study on the tactical and stratigic lessons to be learned.  If they have sources that contravien what is said then by all means lets look into it.  Most of those authors didn't speak German and therefore didn't go to far with that section of it. If I am wrong I would like to see the information time, date, article, source, (NOT YOUR OPINION) and by all means we have something interesting and a real challenge to talk and work through. That I honestly would love to work with. Till then is JAFO type stuff.

Finally, the Prussians of 1815 were not the Prussians of 1806. I would gather (I hope correctly) that you don't have much of an opinion of the Prussian Army of that period or it's contributions. I'll state my views and these are opinions not facts:

1. The British forces (Dutch, Nassu, ect) have absolutely nothing to be ashamed of. They took the best that the finest General Europe may ever see threw at them and came off the victors.

2. There would not have been a battle had the Prussians not shown up in force. Wellington would have retreated to the ports (stated and noted as fact btw).

3. The French Army out fought a Prussian army Ligny and 48 hours later almost won again at Waterloo. They lost because they were massively out numbered on the battlefield.

4. The Prussian Army lost Ligny reformed left 3rd Corp at Waver tying up 33,000 French. 3rd Corp 18,000 Prussians held off 33,000 French till noon the day after Waterloo was over. Marched over a hideous road to complete the destruction of the French Army at Waterloo.

There is not one Army that day that had a thing to appologise for. No one that I am aware of is trying to lie or distort facts. I tire of this so if you have actually temporial sources that verify I would sure like to see them.

Lastly before dragging any Author's name and reputation in the mud I would prefer you be able to name actual facts and documents or leave it be. Tirronan 15:31, 8 February 2007 (UTC)


 * "Had there been any infantry reserves left at this point, the French must certainly have broken through Wellington's crumbling centre" This is speculation and should not be included in this article because as Churchill said "The terrible ifs accumulate". As to a time line on the article I do not think this would be much of an improvement over what is there now because: "The history of a battle, is not unlike the history of a ball. Some individuals may recollect all the little events of which the great result is the battle won or lost, but no individual can recollect the order in which, or the exact moment at which, they occurred, which makes all the difference as to their value or importance . . . . . Just to show you how little reliance can be placed even on what are supposed the best accounts of a battle, I mention that there are some circumstances mentioned in General--'s account which did not occur as he relates them. It is impossible to say when each important occurrence took place, or in what order." -- Wellington Papers, Aug. 8, and 17, 1815. I would go with Wellington on this as it seems to me that if watches were not even set to the same time, and people then (and now) have a vested interest in distorting the time that events took place. For example the earlier the battle started then the longer Wellington's army held out alone so more glory to them and the less to the French. The earlier that the Prussians started to have an effect on the battle the more glory to them. Further there is a practical editorial problem at the moment: This article is already larger than the 32k which is recommended (even with my moving of the trivia section out of the main article), and we ought to be moving more of the battle details into sub-articles with an overview remaining in this one. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:47, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

I'd tend to agree with you on this one Phillip, the issue of what happened when rears up and bites you quickly. When I really got to looking at P.H. Sources one captain stated that he began an attack at 6pm supported by 2 other regiments both of which report 7pm times for the same attack! They were all Prussian as well! My interests do not lie with who gets more glory but the point is taken. To make matters worse Wavre is pretty wrapped up in the envents as well. I'd support it. Tirronan 05:59, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Order of battle
I'd like to change this section slightly as it refers to Division's in Bulow's 4th Corp. The Prussians use a Corp/Brigade system. If there are any thoughts please let me know before I make the change.

Tirronan 15:17, 19 October 2006 (UTC)

See main article Order of Battle of the Waterloo Campaign The battle was to involve 71,947 French soldiers; while the Allied army from Britain, Brunswick, Hanover, Nassau and the Netherlands were 67,661 men strong. (Of the 26 infantry brigades in Wellington's army, 9 were British; 7 of the 12 cavalry brigades were British. The remainder were Hanoverian, Netherlands, Nassau and Brunswick troops. Half the 29 batteries of guns were Hanoverian or Netherlands).

Two and a half Prussian army corps were engaged in the battle, attacking the French right flank, bringing the number of Prussians fully engaged by about 18:00 to 48,000 men. (Two divisions under Friedrich von Bülow, commander of the IV Corps, attacked Lobau at 16:30, Georg von Pirch's II Corps and parts of Graf von Ziethen's I Corps engaged at about 18:00.)

I don't know what's going on with the William Sadler credit for the painting. If there's a painter by that name, then it shouldn't link to the actor, correct? Right now it links to the actor if you click on the picture. 69.162.19.28 12:17, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Critic on Article
There is much in this Article that bothers me more than a bit. The problem with Waterloo histories is that often national honor seems to be at stake and historians need to be a blind justice of what actually happened not what we think happened. It is not just Waterloo of course there is just as much of these issues in the American Civil war histories as ever was in Napolenic histories. If a unit is reported as routing can't we look at the unit histories and confirm that the unit did indeed run? At least 2nd hand accounts if we can't read German and French (I'm an English speaker only unfortunately). There are serveral aspects of the battle that are completely left out. Some of the sections are less than clear.

This section should be up for an edit

"Ambiguous orders by Napoleon on the 17th to his subordinate Marshal Grouchy, to pursue the Prussians with 30,000 men, contributed to Napoleon's eventual defeat. Because Napoleon took his time issuing orders on the morning of 17 June, Grouchy started the pursuit late on 17 June, by which time the Prussians had disengaged. Precious time was lost locating the main body of the Prussian Army, by which time it was too late to prevent it reaching Wavre, from where it could march to support Wellington. On the 18th, with the right wing of the Army of the North, reinforced with a cavalry corpsGérard's, he engaged the Prussian rearguard under the command of Lieutenant-General Baron Johann von Thielmann at the Battle of Wavre."

Further to the above it might be good to be explicit about at least one example of the uncertainty of histories. In particular the British version of the battle history compiled by Captain William Siborne and an author says perhaps disowned at the time by Wellington himself. The account has been the basis of much subsequent british comment about the source witness materials he collected. He contends that it has now been revealed [i.e. Waterloo new perspectives, the great battle reappraised;D Hamilton-Williams; 1993; Brockhampton Press; 1860199968] that Siborne's history is based: firstly on British views only, secondly on a selected set of witness accounts with significant unresolved contradictions to the excluded set and lastly that the selected set's content may have been influenced by financial considerations. There has been a strong rebuttal of his views and he perhaps is now discounted. But the predominance of the British viewpoint in a battle largely fought by others is significant. So unless there are objections i'd like to add a paragraph that covers this aspect of many still existing versions of the Waterloo history. Facius 16:19, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay i'll try to think up a brief section on the different representation of the events of the battle by Captain Siborne for your views. Facius 11:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Grouchy was ordered to agressively follow up the Prussian army to prevent its reorganization. Occasional violent attacks by Prussian calvary discourged close pursuit and Grouchy pursuit of the Prussian army was lax at best. In point of fact Grouchy blundered into the Battle of Wavre and had the Prussian III Corps blocking the shortest path to Waterloo. Grouchy never had an option of marching to the Battle of Waterloo, no road net existed that could have possibly got him there in time except for the road that III Corp sat astride. The battle of Wavre went on till midnight and Waterloo was over by then.

2nd point, at the time of the Guard's retreat from the British center right, the center of the French lines had been shattered and I Corp(Prussian)was in the process of shoving its entire calvary complement through the gap peeling up the lines in either direction. This needs to be contained in the account. The newer histories include action reports by Prussian and French units involved and seem unreproachable at least at this time.

All that I am asking here is that we be accurate and use 1st hand (temporal) accounts where possible. Too much of what I see in many histories is a rehash of some Officer's recollections decades after the event. Like all human beings they too often remembered it the way they wanted it to be.

(thick skinned here feel free to disagree) Tirronan 23:26, 12 June 2006 (UTC) 208.254.22.50 18:51, 17 June 2006 (UTC)

David Hamilton-Williams
The charges made by "Hamilton-Williams" (that is NOT his real name) were shown to be false years ago. Anybody that has read Siborne's History will see that he used German and Dutch sources. They are mentioned in the forewards to the various editions of his History. And anybody that has read Hofschroer's "Wellington's Smallest Victory" gets chapter and verse on Siborne's correspondence with the Prussians and Hanoverians, along with mentions of the German language sources used. Any chance we might try to get our facts right here?

Itzenplitz

I think it was understood long ago that David Hamilton-Williams was a pen name. Peter Hoffschorer was pretty damning in his critic on DHW. I also hold Siborne in higher regard and loved his scholership at a time it wasn't popular. He did consult with Dutch, Prussian, and Neatherland, and other sources. I consider his work stellar. DHW however did point out facts that no one else was willing to talk about in English histories on Waterloo. Given how angry folks got about his work I can't say that I blame him on the pen name. I found much right though I regret his stance on Siborne who was owned much and received little. Tirronan 18:00, 16 February 2007 (UTC)

Neidhardt von Gneisenau
>> In fact, the Prussian chief of staff General August von Gneisenau, planned to withdraw toward the Rhine, away from the Anglo-Allied army. ...... However, General Blücher arrived at Wavre (he had fallen under his horse leading a counter charge and been ridden over by French cavalry twice) and in a stormy meeting with Gneisenau it was decided to march upon Wellington's left flank at dawn with the I, II and IV Corps. <<

This narrative is not historical for it was Neidhardt von Gneisenau (not "August") who, despite of his mistrust of Wellington, decided to rally all available Prussian forces in and around Wavre thus giving up the "natural line of retreat". Bluecher
 * His full name was August Wilhelm Anton, Count Neithardt von Gneisenau Philip Baird Shearer 21:37, 11 October 2005 (UTC)

wasn't available at the time these orders were given, due to his wounds and bruises and finally lateron approved of Gneisenau's orders (as was always the case due to their likemindedness). As soon as Wellington received this news (not earlier) he decided to wage battle at Mont Saint Jean on 18 June, as he had been re-assured of timely Prussian assistance. Prussian assistance was then delayed by the catastrophic condition of the muddy roads near Lasne brook and the outbreak of a fire in Wavre itsself. &mdash;The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canadian historian (talk &bull; contribs) 18:45, 8 October 2005  (UTC)


 * "Give me night, or give me Blucher."
 * Please see Sign your posts on talk pages Philip Baird Shearer 00:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC)

Gneisenau and Blucher were not like minded. There were several incidents where the arugments were open and loud. Gneisenau was indeed going to pull back on the Prussian lines of communication in large part as he felt he had been betrayed on the battlefield by Wellington. In this case the promised support never arrived. Newer histories Peter Hoffschroder for one outline this pretty clearly. If it is your opinion that this is incorrect lets start the quotations of sources so we can get this resolved. Until then I will stand by the narative as given as accurate. Tirronan 22:27, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

9 of 25 Allied Brigades were English...so what were the other 16?
I imagine some of the other 16 brigades were dutch included in that number as 25 brigades would roughly equal the total number of troops of the allied force at waterloo. But it needs clarification I feel, for someone with only a passing knowledge of the battle I am left asking questions such as "were any of the additional Brigades Indian Sepoy regiments?" for example. Can anyone more knowledgeable than I help on this subject? Thanks, --WikipedianProlific(Talk) 21:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * There's an article about the Waterloo OoB: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Order_of_Battle_of_the_Waterloo_Campaign
 * You can see here that Wellington's entire army (Waterloo and Halle positions) comprised of:
 * 9 British infantry brigades; 13 German (Brunswick, Hannover and KGL) infantry brigades and 6 Dutch infantry brigades
 * 3 British cavalry brigades, 3 mixed British-KGL cavalry brigades, 3 German cavalry brigades and 3 Dutch cavalry brigades.
 * No sepoy brigades though: the "British" troops consisted out of some guard regiments, highland regiments and the rest were territorial regiments --fdewaele, 31 July 2006, 16:25

some questions about tactics etc
I have some general questions and observations about this entry.

1/ ISTR that Napoleon initially targeted Wellington because the latter had a military reputation that Napoleon wanted to destroy, for reasons of achieving a quick and spectacular success. When the Prussians instead concentrated in a forward position at Ligny, beyond Anglo-Allied help, he hit them instead. I forget what source this was from - Chandler? - but it was cited as evidence of the flexibility of the French strategic system. Does anyone know if it's true?

1a: It is true that Napoleon was very aware of Wellington's reputation. However Napoleon didn't go after the British to confirm his own reputation. Napoleon was far too great a general to allow that to influence him. He had to eliminate in rapid succession both the Prussian and British armies. To that end he defeated but could not destroy the Prussian army. 1b: The reason for the Prussian defeat were many but 2 major factors stand out. Bulow's 4th Corp was late to the battle due to willful misunderstanding by General Von Bulow. The Prussian deposistion in forward positions appears to not be the case (Hoffschroer), However posistioning an entire Corp to the left in a posistion that could not be taken (swampy ground) was a factor. Tirronan 16:52, 2 November 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't suggesting he went after Wellington to cement his own reputation. My recollection (unfortunately I forget the source) was that he initially targeted Wellington over Bluecher because destroying Wellington's military reputation was a political priority. The parliamentary opposition in Britain spent most of the Peninsular War arguing that it was being incompetently managed and that British forces should be either reduced, reinforced, or withdrawn. To humiliate the victor of the Peninsula would have been a gift to this faction, and would probably have resulted in a protracted exit by Britain from the land campaign. Crushing Bluecher wouldn't have had the same effect, not least because Prussia lacked Britain's freedom to opt out of a European conflict by interposing the Royal Navy. Bluecher, however, presented himself to be defeated first, in a position which Wellington and Napoleon agreed and subsequents events proved was poorly-chosen, so Napoleon took the gift he was offered and hammered Bluecher first.Tirailleur

Wellington's reputation with regards to some factions within the Parliment is recorded and is bitter. How aware Napoleon was of this I haven't a clue and if this was a motivation I am unaware. The problem that presented itself to Napoleon was that the Prussian armies' 1st Corp had been opposing his advance all day and the Prussian army was assembling rapidly. To ignore Blucher and press Wellington (that army was still assembling and nowhere near as ready) would have invited a open invitation to a prepared Prussian army. I would argue that the position was not poorly choosen, rather that depositions were rather poor as 2 of the corps were intermixed on the Prussian right and another full corp I would have positioned more towards the center than defending a position that was next to impossible to take. Ligny was not a easy battle for the French either. The aftermath of the Battle of Ligny left the French unwilling or unable to aggressively follow up the Prussians. In Several battles of 1814 campain the Prussians had turned over aggressive pursuit into huge traps Kasbach for one comes to mind. Tirronan 05:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Quite - Napoleon attacked the Prussians first because they concentrated forward, on ground where they were easily beatable. What I'm unclear on is whether this was in line with the original plan or not. Soult was not a terribly effective chief of staff, and it appears to be his mistake that d'Erlon was not recalled to Ligny sooner; was this because he was still fixated on the idea of beating Wellington first? I don't agree that the French were unable or unwilling to follow up the Prussians. Sending 33,000 men after them looks pretty keen to me. The idea was that Grouchy would pin them in position while Napoleon beat Wellington. 33,000 was arguably either too many (if he was just watching them) or too few (if he was supposed to beat them). Tirailleur

I'd disagree that the positions at Ligny were "easily beatable" and I am not sure where you are getting your facts on Ligny. Look, Ligny was not a pocket battle and it wasn't concluded in an hour. There were entire villages involved in house to house fighting. I'd suggest you read several of the histories on Ligny. There were 10's of thousands dead after the battle that went on for hours and well unto the night. Napoleon thought that if Grouchy followed up quickly and violenlty in the prusuit he would keep the Prussians running. The Prussians were not nearly as beaten as Napoleon has presumed and had charged any close attempt to pursue them. I agree it was a mistake, Napoleon would have been better served to have kept the entire force with him and attacked Wellington or taken the entire force and pursued Blucher. Tirronan 20:44, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

2/ Bylandt's brigade actually took very few artillery casualties, despite being bombarded for a good hour. Not sure if this was because the ground made such bombardment ineffective, or because only a few batteries targeted his brigade (which is not what most histories claim), or because the likely effect of bombardment of troops in line has been overstated. There can be little doubt of its effect on troops in column.

2b: Quoting without the source in front of me makes me nervous in the extream. However serveral of the more contempory histories of the Battle of Waterloo show temporal accounts that the artillery was not nearly as harmless as has been claimed in some earlier histories. Some units were being pretty badly mauled. Tirronan 01:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Haythornthwaite I think suggests about 40 casualties. I don't know where these numbers would come from.Tirailleur

David Hamilton-Williams Waterloo New Perspectives list some units being torn up badly however I have nothing on Bylandt's Brigade in particular. Tirronan 05:07, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

3/ What was the purpose then of Wellington's reverse slope position? Concealment and shelter clearly, but was this a means to make his essentially 18th-century linear tactics work better? A column advancing towards a ridge cannot be sure that it will face its opponents squarely when it breasts the slope. Its front may be misaligned with enemy units, so that when the exchange of fire does start, the formation in (say) d'Erlon's situation finds itself receiving fire from its front, but also from either side of its front - from formations which have wheeled to engage its flanks. This is the only way lines can bring superior firepower to bear on each other, I think. Otherwise you would have had the French six battalions deep exchanging fire with the Allies rather less deep, and since the French were no slouches this could only go one way.

3b: Paddy Griffon's work showed that the line vs. column musket counting fire vs. fire was not what was in fact happening. He gave fairly convining work that the British would stand ground in utter silence, wait until the opponent was close, fire 1 volley, then charge bayonets with a cheer. This would send any opponent scrambling for the rear in a hurry. Tirronan 01:02, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

4/ As the four French divisions advanced, the two outermost would have been drawn into action against La Haye Sainte and Papelotte respectively. This left the middle two advancing against a front wider than their own, and which would be overlapped from the sides. D'Erlon is often criticised for having advanced in an unwieldy formation, but it seems to me he actually did this attack right, given what he knew of how Wellington fought a position. He had his men deployed for a firefight, and he had his most exposed flank - the left flank of the left-middle division - covered by cuirassiers.

5/ Do we definitely know for sure that the combined Union / Household brigades' charge was a mistake - or at least unintended? That is how it is usually related in British histories. Uxbridge was a capable cavalry commander though, and as such, he must have known that the orthodox way to use heavy cavalry by 1815 was en masse. If he had studied Marengo, Austerlitz or Eylau he would have known that a full-blooded cavalry strike could win battles. At Wagram, the Austrians' tendency to use cavalry in penny packets in support of their infantry worked fine up to the point the French launched their cavalry corps en masse, at which point the Austrians had no answer. That Wagram-style of use seems to be what most writers think Uxbridge had in mind.

I don't know...it just seems questionable. In the Peninsula, he had relatively few cavalry to play with. At Waterloo, he had (by my count) 7 regiments or about 3,000 heavy cavalry in the Union and Household brigades alone, plus he had the Dutch heavies too. It seems conceivable to me that the mass charge actually was intentional, that it achieved its effect in removing most of one of Napoleon's three corps from consideration, and that the claims afterwards that nobody knew who ordered them all forward may perhaps have been a CYA exercise when the charge went out of control and the heavies got themselves destroyed. I appreciate that this is speculation and thus doesn't belong in the main entry. --Tirailleur 13:45, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

unreferenced
added an unreferenced tag since there are no sources for anything in the article - PocklingtonDan 16:06, 12 November 2006 (UTC)

I removed the unreferenced template because: I don't think it should not be placed at the top of the article; and there are some citations for some of the points which are contentious, but most of the battle is so well known that it is uncontentious. I would not disagree that more citations would improve the article but I don't think that the template is needed. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:41, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I would agree with Philip on this as well. The top of the article lists only the time, date, and place, of the battle. Given that there is a monument on the site I don't think there can be much disagreement on where and when the battle was. Tirronan 21:08, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

referenced
I would suggest the the suggested reading be moved to the reference section as Peter H's work is what I use as well as Chandler.

Tirronan 15:24, 21 November 2006 (UTC)

I've added one referrence and I will be adding others.

Tirronan 14:32, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Shouldn't Hofschroer be health-warned as a revisionist source who enjoys little support? Napoleon had four infantry and four cavalry corps at Waterloo, of which 2.5 and 3 were beaten by the Anglo-Allied force, and 1.5 and 1 by the Prussians.Tirailleur

Have you read his books and had a look at his sources? I'd also look at David Hamilton-Wilson (speaking of contraversial) but read them and check the sources. I've known Peter for the better part of a Decade, and he doesn't go beyond where his sources take him. His work builds on what David Hamilton-Williams began. Lots of what they said came as an ugly shock to me too... It doesn't make it any the less real. Along with the Battle of Shilo, The battle of Waterloo is perhaps one of the most contraversial battles going. In this case Wellington used its fame to propel himself to the front of British political life and to remain there. The German and English versions of this battle are rather eye opening to say the least. This is the last time I will rise to this bait. If you see sources that are misidentified, counterfitted, contradicted by other temporal accounts, I'm all ears, otherwise its an opinion. We are all welcome to our opinions, the Lord knows I have mine, but it is not history. Tirronan 16:22, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree that Hofschroer should be health-warned. His work contains, horror of horror, documented fact. Now that is inappropriate when it comes to the "history" of Waterloo, eh?

Itzenplitz

Rewriting the intro
The latter part of the first paragraph is confusing and slightly incorrect. I'm not knowledgeable enough to edit it, but it'd be great if someone else could. Xiner 02:55, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Please outline your objections in exact terms and perhaps a rewrite may be considered. Your request itself is rather vague...

Tirronan 05:50, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

"Sharpe's Waterloo" by Bernard Cornwell
Does that really belong into the further reading section? I'd think that was reserved to scientific material, not fiction. I must confess I read a large number of Sharpe novels as a teenager, but they have little in common with actual history.--Caranorn 12:41, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

I am not aware of and have not read "Sharpe's Waterloo". This is fiction? Then I would say it doesn't belong. Any other thoughts? I'll wait 24 hours before removing the referrence for comment from others Tirronan 14:11, 29 December 2006 (UTC)

Both Sharpe and Hamilton-Williams are fiction. Itzenplitz 07:38, 30 December 2006 (UTC)