Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 5

British Heavy Cavalry Losses
Losses from the official returns taken the day after the battle:

Household Brigade, numbering 1,319 (page 217 Adkin, Mark The Waterloo Companion (London 2001))

killed - 95 wounded - 248 missing - 250 totals - 593 horses lost - 672

Union Brigade, numbering 1,332 (page 217 Adkin, Mark The Waterloo Companion (London 2001))

killed - 264 - wounded - 310 missing - 38 totals - 612 horses lost - 631 (Losses from page 544 Smith, Digby The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book, (London 1998))

That the Union Brigade fielded far fewer then their official numbers is based solely on a comment by Capt. Clark-Kennedy of the Royals in one of his letters to Siborne, this was expressed as an opinion and was not backed up by any alternative authority. That the brigade should be down over 300 men after a not very arduous campaign, up to that point, seems unlikely as the horses had not suffered any appreciable strain and were in an areas where plenty of fodder was available and the climate was no different to their native one. Some men, such as farriers and surgeons, would have been left in the rear, but such men would have numbered a couple of dozen at most. It seems incredible that a brigade should have 250+ men sick or injured, or with sick or injured horses, appearing on their rosters.

It can be seen from the figures quoted above that the Union Brigade could not have lost two thirds of its numbers killed and wounded in its first charge, because it lost slightly under half its numbers as casualties for the whole battle.

Even if you believe Clark-Kennedy's estimate that fewer than a thousand men were in the Union Brigade's ranks at the start of the battle, the estimate of two thirds killed and wounded in the first charge still doesn't make sense, because it would mean that the brigade could have experienced no losses at all during the subsequent hours of the battle. A number of eyewitnesses state clearly that the Union Brigade experienced considerable further losses later in the battle to artillery fire especially, but also infantry musketry and, in the Greys' case, cavalry carbine fire.

It appears that the number of casualties ascribed the Union Brigade, as a result of its first charge, in the text is based soley on Barbero's opinion, an opinion which takes no account of the official casualty numbers for the whole battle. I would therefore recommend that the numbers be deleted and replaced by some more general expression about heavy losses. The numbers as they stand seem far too contentious and unreliable to be used with any degree of confidence.

I have added something to the text which is of uncontestable verity. The text mentioned British and Dutch "Hussars" charging to push back the French cavalry after the counter attack against the British heavies. The charging brigades were those of Vandeleur and De Ghigny, they consisted of 4 regiments of light dragoons and only one regiment of hussars.

Urselius 21:45, 19 March 2007 (UTC)


 * There is no such thing as uncontestable really, and it is easy enough to state the book and source in a referrence if you would please inline citation and source it. I noticed in both Household and Union Brigade that the number of horses lost approaches 50% which most armies will conceed is hors de combat for the battle in most cases.  I've no idea when they took those losses and I suspect no one else would be able to pin it down after the battle and I agree with your assertion that a more general statement with cited and noted would be better. Tirronan 23:01, 19 March 2007 (UTC)

Uncontestable in a metaphysical sense, no. Although the composition of brigades, as regards the identity of their component regiments, is usually fairly well attested. I have given the relevant references as footnotes. By the end of the battle the heavy brigades were indeed essentially a spent force of little military value, but that wasn't the case a number of hours of heavy combat earlier - immediately after their first charge. After their first charge there were still enough of them left to render some valuable services, which are recorded in primary sources.

Urselius 10:14, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Then I would think that you can make a pretty serious argument that they were contributing up to a certain point. As long as you can put down 2 serious sources and footnote it you would be on safe ground with the assertion. Just for referrence a unit taking 25% hit would be considered pretty serious losses. There were Young Guard units reporting 92% losses btw. Tirronan 15:55, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I have added a paragraph on the later activities of the brigades, with detailed footnotes. I haven't changed the casualty figures given earlier as I'm unsure about what citations to give. Urselius 21:52, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

I've tried removing the Barbero casualty quotes and replacing these with a reference to the official casualty figures for the whole battle, and I reworded the section to give a more general picture of the heavy losses sustained.

Urselius 21:37, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Don't remove material from verifiable sources: add to them and summarise the arguments (from the sources, not your own). MAG1 21:15, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Adding and summarising would be the way to go here. Be very careful with "Offical" figures if quoted and make sure they are quoted exactly if done. It is probably the quickest path to OR if we so much as add figures together when they are not in a source. Tirronan 18:32, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Intro
This seems a bit strange in its wording and I wanted to have a discussion about it and get thoughts on this.

The Battle of Waterloo, fought on 18 June 1815, was Napoleon Bonaparte's last battle. His defeat led swiftly to his final overthrow as ruler of France, as he was defeated earlier at the battle of Leipzig in 1813, for which he was exiled. After his exile, he reinstalled himself on the throne of France for a Hundred Days March, 1815, which subsequently led to the topic at hand.

Tirronan 15:28, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, it's poorly worded.

Something like:

The Battle of Waterloo, fought on the 18th of June 1815, was Napoleon Bonaparte's last pitched battle. His defeat led directly to his second abdication as ruler of France and the end of his military and political career. His first abdication, in 1814, had been the result of his expulsion from Germany following the Battle of Leipzig in 1813 and his subsequent inability to defend France from invasion by the Allied Powers. After his first abdication he was exiled to the small Mediterranean island of Elba. Judging that within a very few months the restored monarchy of Louis XVIII had become odious to the French people, Napoleon landed, with the few soldiers he had retained as ruler of Elba, on the southern shores of France. All the forces sent against him by the Bourbon authorities defected to his cause and he swiftly regained power. Urselius 16:27, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

One of the things is that the intro makes it sound like Nappy had to leave right after Leipzig when in fact there was an entire campaign through much of 1814 that took place in France before he had to abdicate. Although Louis was a fat sob without a spine he at least tried before and after the 100 days (more like 6 months) to heal wounds and overlooked much when many could have been hung for treason. The Ultra's probably did more to undermine the rule of the monarch.Tirronan 22:39, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

What about:-

The Battle of Waterloo, fought on the 18th of June 1815, was Napoleon Bonaparte's last battle. His defeat led directly to his second abdication as ruler of France and the end of his military and political career. He had previously abdicated in 1814 following a series of military reverses in Germany and Spain, which resulted in the restoration of the Bourbons and Napoleon's exile to the small Mediterranean island of Elba. In 1815 he escaped from Elba, returned to France, dislodged the Bourbons and resumed power. He then set about raising an army to deal with the inevitable Allied response.Tirailleur 12:29, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Peer review
I've put us up for peer review. Please watch for comments and act on them. I am asking that we all keep tempers firmly in check. These folks are trying to help us with this article. Tirronan 19:03, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Here is what we got for a peer review. There is not much I can disagree with.

Three editors have been working on this pretty hard for sometime and I think we can sure use a review on our progress. It has gone from 0 inline citations to 75+ and the sources from 0 to 7. Whole sections have been added to provide a more neutral pov. Tirronan 18:47, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Raymond Initial personal thoughts: Other observations:
 * Needs checking for spelling, grammar and typos (there are quite a few errors) and the article contains a mixture of US and UK spelling – it doesn’t matter which is used as long as its consistent – usually the –re –er / words
 * There are many great paintings of the battle and the only one in the article itself is rather poor.
 * Similarly the picture of Napoleon is very poor (a statue in silhouette. At least give some info as to where the statue is situated). Wellington is ignored altogether.
 * There a two pictures of the ‘Lions’ hillock’. Could be misleading having the first of these pictures where it is, certainly when considering it was not part of the battlefield’s topography.
 * The picture in the section called ‘Prussian Advance’ is of little help or interest.
 * Not sure having a quotation in the lead is a good idea.
 * Most of the above are personal observations/suggestions. The English however, is less moot and will need a little bit of attention in places (although it’s not too bad overall)
 * There are two references from D Chandler (same book). Only one edition is used in the notes (and then only once).
 * The Notes refer to Siborne, HT who is not listed in the References.
 * The notes section needs tidying up - I’m sure you don’t need to link to the References section.
 * Glover, Chesney, Howarth are all quoted as sources but are noticeable by their absence in the notes. In fact most of the article is taken from just two sources, one of whom is: Hofschröer, Peter; 1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory. An unbiased source??

[edit] Kirill Lokshin Not bad, but a number of areas that need improvement:


 * The citation format needs to be cleaned up—what are the "References" link doing there? *Footnotes should always be placed after punctuation; and, in most cases, a single footnote at the end of a sentence is better than a footnote after every phrase. Most of this material isn't that controversial.
 * Footnotes should not always be placed after punctuation. That is a SV thingy and there is no consensus on that issue. --PBS
 * The Referenecs is a link to that section, it makes navigation around the page easier. It saves space rather than having all of the book details on every citiation. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:33, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * The quote in the lead isn't really needed, and is lacking in proper context besides.
 * I like it and it is an expert opinion on the battle. --Philip Baird Shearer 19:35, 23 March 2007 (UTC)
 * There are still Fact tags that must be dealt with.
 * The external links section should be greatly trimmed.
 * should probably be changed to.
 * Beyond that, I'll echo Raymond's comments about the imbalance of sources being cited. Kirill Lokshin 13:07, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

thoughts and questions and actions.


 * response
 * 'Actions to date
 * 'Removed quote
 * 'Removed 2nd ref to Chandler
 * 'I'll trim the links section
 * 'If I get a chance I will see about ordering in a copy of Naufzinger to expand sourcing and reference (I am certain I misspelled his name)and get a copy of Chandler in my house and we can add to the citing. Right now 2 of us do most the footnoting I am hoping that will change.
 * ''questions
 * ''I confess I don't understand the main vs. detail
 * '''Thoughts
 * '''I am an American and I think another of us is a subject of the UK. I think that explains the switching of spelling conventions. We are going to have to work on that one I believe. I'll ask Philip if he doesn't mind editing to a British style since I believe it started out that way. Entirely my fault that we mixed them up.
 * '''When we started upgrading the article there wasn't much on the Prussian contribution and after looking at various sources if you want to know where and which Prussian units were located and what they were doing you are probably going to end up referring to Peter Hofschröer. He has a level of detail on actions on that side of the battlefield that simply is not available anywhere else. I have David Hamilton-Williams book but there seems to be a great deal of anger towards that author and I am not that interested in causing controversy. I will say that I've known PH for a decade and never caught him going much beyond his sources. Exception here is that I don't agree with his take on Wellington I think he went too far on iffy evidence. You may notice I stayed away from the subject in the article. I do believe the article takes a fair and neutral stance resolving for the most part on what happened where without further comment.
 * Thank you so much for the help! Tirronan 16:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:WikiProject_Military_history/Peer_review/Battle_of_Waterloo"

Tirronan 16:25, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Attack of the Imperial Guard
Can we get some of these out of there?

French Cavalry Assaults
The French cavalry attacks were very memorable to those who witnessed them, I think the section could stand expanding, preferably with some eyewiness accounts added. There was a definite increment to the numbers of cavalry committed to the attacks over time, it would be good to reflect this.

Urselius 21:42, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sounds good to me and I think all 3 of the Prussian sections could be expanded. I really would prefer to see the rest of the removed with citations 1st though. Tirronan 23:41, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I've replaced one in the Imperial Guard attack section. I've had a look at the wording of this section and it isn't perfectly clear that the Middle Guard attack was split into two parts of three and two battalions, three battalions attacking the British Guards and Adams' brigade and the other two attacking Halkett and being countercharged by Detmer.

BTW "George Nafziger" is the author and publisher. Urselius 14:42, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Ur!

Houston we have a problem
I've been sitting on this since I got my additional Waterloo histories and I am not sure what to do with it. Colonel Charles C. Chesney RE was in a highly regarded professor at the United Kingdom's staff college and acknowledged expert on Waterloo. Part of the annual exercised at the staff college was a series of lectures done on Waterloo campaign. Thus arose a book, Waterloo Lectures:A Study Of The Campaign Of 1815 ISBN 1428649883. Colonel Chesney passed away sometime before 1907. Colonel Chesney makes note of the research he does and where those sources came from in a most rigorous fashion. While never unkind he is rather blunt with the truth. If you get a chance I would urge you to get the book. I am left here on a brink coming to the conclusion that some of what we have should be rewritten in the light of a new understanding from an old source.

Among his assertions:


 * Grouchy was acting to his orders as he best understood them. Col. Chesney then reprints the orders of Napoleon which gives no doubt as to what he asked of the Marshal.  Marshal Grouchy marched his troops quickly over twice the distance of a daily march that would normally expected by a force that large.  He then fought with extream vigour until he forced Theilman's III Corp to retreat (for a couple of hours), then extracted himself from an impossible situation that should have seen his forces destroyed.  This is not the idiot often protraited to us.


 * Most of the errors on the French side might be most properly laid on Napoleon's doorstep. He states and proves that most of the errors laid at the feet of Groucy and Ney were his and his alone.  Throughout the campaign there were strange pauses in action that were completely inexpiable: Allowing the Prussians to leave Ligny without even an effort to pursue for 24 hours, Allowing the British all the time they needed to consolidate at Mont St. Jean.  Allowing the Prussian's to march from Wavre to Waterloo without attempting to interfere (or even be aware) with the movement. Tirronan 14:13, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Evidence was that Napoleon was completely unaware of the movements of the Prussian army and seemed to think that it was mostly in retreat with some small part in Wavre when it was in fact moving upon his battlefield.


 * The order of disasters with the French army seems to have been 1st Corps (Prussian) ripping through Durette's Division of D'Erlon's Corp at Papelotte at the apex of the French position. French regiments began to roll up and run at this point. Durette was out numbered 4 to 1 at that point.


 * The defeat of the attack of the Guards and Wellington's advance, troops retreating were being run over by the ones running from 2 Brigades of Prussian 1st Corps cavalry.


 * Any attempt at resistance stopped when the Prussians IVth and II Corps pushed through Placinoit and threatened the last access to retreat. Everything became a total rout at this point.

Comments are begged for

Tirronan 15:35, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * It is not that Grouchy was an idiot, it was that with the most famous decision of his life he made the wrong one. It is mulled over by military historians and is taught in military academies, because it reinforces Nathan Bedford Forrest's maxim "The first with the most".


 * "Damn the fellow, he is a mere pounder after all." I am sure that if you read a French history of the campaign they will have an explanation for all the points your raise against the military genius of his age, (See Alan Coren "Golfing For Cats" for other similar opinions on things held by the French) -- piles is I believe a favourite one. Clearly such a military genius would not make mistakes like you describe so it must have been his inferiors who made them (including Wellington and Blucher -- who were only ordinary generals).


 * The fog of war. If only he had remembered to pack his drones, Bonaparte would have know where the Prussians were.


 * As to your last three points, they are debatable :-) I think that here on the talk page you put far too little emphasis on Wellington's order for a general advance. (particularly given the way the British Army regiments was trained to press home an attack as demonstrated by Sir John Colborne's 52nd Regiment of Foot) --Philip Baird Shearer 10:19, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Wellington's Charge in general and the 52nd's in particular were outstanding. Then again very few British infantry units would not charge with every intention of wiping out an enemy with a bayonet charge (not their fault few enemies would stick around to receive that charge). In that age and time, the best infantry out there period!.

Any one of the 3 events would be fatal to the French to have all happen was just weird. This isn't a one over the other argument just where the events should be placed. So that no one misunderstands me Wellington won it, Blucher turned it into a outright unrecoverable rout. Tirronan 21:29, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon despatched the hussar regiment (6th?) of Jaquinot's cavalry division to watch the roads to the east of the Waterloo position at a very early stage of the battle. This shows that he had a certain amount of apprehension about his right flank and the possibility of a Prussian advance against it.

General Durutte had his hand severed and one of his eyes blinded by a sword cut made by trooper of one of the light dragoon regiments in Vandeleur's British cavalry brigade. This suggests that the British were advancing in parallel with the advance of Ziethen's Prussians. The final repulse of the guard and Ziethen's breakthrough at the angle of Lobau's and D'Erlons corps seem to have happened essentially simultaneously.

Urselius 11:24, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Actually I have a couple of unanswered questions about the 1st Corps advance via La Haie, the 1st being that the Prussian's stated that there were at least a couple of Nassau battalions they were working with and I am assuming these were under the command of Prince Bernard, but I don't have unit designations and thus I can't quote anything about it. This upsets me since I would prefer to be giving credit where it is due and to be accurate. Hofshcroder notes that they linked up with a Highlander regiment to begin the operation but again I don't know the unit exactly or I would have included it. I believe as you do that this was more of a combinded operation than I have let on so far and I would like to correct this but I won't until I can quote actual unit designations and sources. Tirronan 15:06, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

As for Napoleon's concern of his right flank, I am sure he was concerned but... again per Chesney, his orders to (on or about 6am) Grouchy were to march smartly to Wavre and again at or around 2pm orders to the same effect. Around 6pm he received orders to march to Waterloo but it was far too late at this point to effect a change. The nearest road had 15,000 Prussians across it and it was a 5 to 6 hour trip over that horrible road. More to the point there was a marked choke (I want to say it was called Lannes but I don't have the map with me here) point between Wavre and Plancenoit where it would have been perfectly possible to hold up the Prussians all day with fairly minimal forces. Even an forced delay of a few hours might have made a huge difference to the French. Needless to say but it wasn't done. Tirronan 19:00, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

English or English
One of the things that got brought up was that half the article is British English spelling and the other half is American spelling... I know I am responsible for the American half... Anyway Philip I think you are the UK half of this... would you mind converting us to the Queen's English? I can barely spell anyway. Tirronan 02:05, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

Nor can I so I ran it through SeaMonkey's New Zealand spelling checker as the UK one seems broken. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:51, 30 March 2007 (UTC)

Notes on additions to the talk page
Having had our experience with trolls in the past I am asking for contributions from the other regular editors of this page for additions to rules for the talk page.


 * This isn't a debating club. Its ok to have an opposing view to what we have in the article but keep it specific to a subject and cite source in doing so.  Serious works only please.  Stating XZY author is biased is an opinion, citing XZY author is wrong because citation (78) jomani's work of IBSN  is flawed because Chesney IBSN  states with citation of ABC was wrong and cites the following examples..., ect, is a disputation and will be regarded as a formal challenge to be seriously considered.


 * This isn't an opinion board. There are lots and lots of strong opinions about the Napoleonic era and Waterloo in particular.  This talk page isn't about that.  Its about the article on the Battle of Waterloo.  Again if you have a subject with direct bearing on Waterloo that should be addressed by us cite source and make a clear statement for consideration. To clarify (The Duke of Wellington left 30,000 troops at the village of Angiers out of the battle as sourced in Chesney IBSN page xxx and no referrence is made to it) is acceptable in fact desired, while (Blucher was an incompetent old fart that couldn't get out of his own way and why are Prussians mentioned at all!!!) is not.


 * If there is a dispute work it out in the talk page don't get into a revert war. Remember that fighting in online forums is like winning a Special Olympics; everyone is still looking at you like a short bus kid.  Philip Baird Shearer, Mag51, Urselius, and I, all work on this article and as you may surmise we all seem to have great respect for each other.  If you have questions of us ask us in our talk pages and we will assist.


 * This isn't a teaching forum. If you want further understanding on the subject please note the source section of the article, all the works there are at least competent if not outright brilliant.  When you finish reading them you can probably move straight to contributing to the work here!

Tirronan 18:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Keep it civil and no personal attacks.


 * Tirronan,


 * You do not own this page and neither do you get to make the rules. If you delete my contributions again I will report you as a vandal.


 * I would remind you of wikipedia's rules of behaviour - theirs. not the above little list of your own:-


 * "Wikipedia is not a place to hold grudges, import personal conflicts, or nurture hatred or fear. Making personal battles out of Wikipedia discussions goes directly against our policies and goals.


 * Every user is expected to interact with others civilly, calmly, and in a spirit of cooperation. Do not insult, harass, or intimidate those with whom you have a disagreement." (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:What_Wikipedia_is_not)


 * and on the same page:-


 * "Wikipedia articles are not:


 * Propaganda or advocacy of any kind. Of course, an article can report objectively about such things, as long as an attempt is made to approach a neutral point of view. You might wish to go to Usenet or start a blog if you want to convince people of the merits of your favorite views."


 * Please pay attention to these points. If you have trouble observing these rules, perhaps you should rethink whether you can contribute anything here.


 * You seem to take the view that anyone who disagrees with Peter Hofschroer is a troll. That is your point of view and you're entitled to it. What you aren't entitled to do is rewrite the article and edit the talk page to make alternative perspectives to his and yours go away.


 * I recommend you read more than one book about the battle of Waterloo. You will find it informative. Let me advise you how history is written. Starting on 19th June, accounts of the battle began to be written down. They arrived rapidly at the view that Wellington defeated the majority of the French army at Waterloo, and that Bluecher's intervention ensured that what would have been a bloody draw or check turned it into a calamitous French rout. The process by which this comes about is called "historiography". Any revisionist with an agenda can concoct an alternative narrative, but it must either agree with the facts, or explain how all those inconvenient alternative facts came into being. This, for your information, is why nobody takes David Irving seriously - he can cook up a tale about how there weren't any death camps, but he can't explain away all the evidence that there were.


 * Hofschroer is the revisionist who is arguing that the "German" contribution was the decisive one. As such, he is the one who is at odds with every other account of Waterloo, and his are the claims that must be backed up. He, not Chandler or Weller or anyone else, must show that "Germany" was more than a geographical expression in 1815, and he must prove that the "German" contribution outweighed all others. It is inappropriate to rely on him so heavily as a source of objective data when the title of his work and the peer review done here identified his perspective as biased.


 * I don’t know how much of your contributions to the article are his errors, and how many are yours from misreading him. Either way, it still contains some gross errors. For example, the article still states that "Zieten's I Corps had been arriving in greater strength in the area just north of Le Haye Saint." I have pointed out to you before that this is nonsense. If you mean La Haye Sainte, then that location is right in front of the centre of Wellington's line. No historian on the planet makes this claim, and if Hofschroer does, he's alone. Do not insult me by suggesting I look at a map, as you did last time I pointed this out to you. I have looked at maps of Waterloo for 30 years, and I have walked the length and breadth of the battlefield many times, and I tell you that if Hofschroer really makes this claim, he is either mendacious or mad.


 * There is a google map at the links at the bottom of the page listing Ohain, Pappalotte, Le Haie, and Frichermont, and the locations of all four. Use it I am tired of arguing physical reality to you. I guess walking the battlefield didn't help you remember the phyiscal features.  Then again you seem to have a problem reading an order of battle or you wouldn't have stated the Prussians fought 10,000 French multiple times.  Learn to read a map and an order of battle before stating something this outright stupid again.  Here is the link to follow and perhaps it will help. []
 * Tirronan 17:56, 9 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Is the problem here that you have confused the village of La Haye, on Wellington's left, with the farmstead of La Haye Sainte, in front of his centre? Prussian troops did not fight near La Haye Sainte. They did arrive on the Anglo-Allied left at Papelotte and La Haye.Tirailleur 10:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * If I have ever given the impression I was talking about La Haye Saint with the advance of 1st Corps then I owe you and appology. I am and talking about La Haye aka La Haie (and probably 2 other spellings I haven't heard of) which is within a very short walking distance of Pappalotte.  To my knowledge 1st Corps was not near La Haye Saint until it was far too late to matter (ie the entire position was distergrating). Tirronan 15:17, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Well, you did write La Haye Sainte and not La Haye. I've replied at more length to your other stuff on my talk page (which I just noticed you'd added to).Tirailleur 17:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)


 * This the trouble when you rely on one source. You yourself put the article up for peer review and the peer review made the same critique. You didn't like it, but that's too bad isn't it? Hofschroer is a revisionist whose agenda belittles 2 other rather important points. One is the fact that Prussian friendly fire inflicted a significant proportion of Anglo-allied casualties, including 70% losses inflicted on Captain Mercer's horse battery (according to his diary written at the time), and substantial losses inflicted on the Allied defenders of Papelotte. Hofschroer isn't so keen on mentioning that. His account also dismisses the contribution of the Netherlands forces, who saved the day at both Quatre Bras (by taking and holding the crossroads) and Waterloo (when Chasse routed the Guard).


 * Tirailleur 15:44, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Colonel Charles C. Chesney [] Seems to agree with Peter Hofschroer, he was a professor of military history at Sandhurst and a chair of Staff (makes him suspicious in my eyes and perhaps a dastard revisionist!) seems to agree and go further than Peter ever did. Then again so did David Hamilton-Williams damn historians, they just keep agreeing horrid isn't it? Colonel Chesney is painstaking in his research and have fun disputing it. I am not interested in your opinions of me Peter H, or anything else. I am interested when you can prove when they are wrong because I think sometimes they are! But you have to cite/source to do that otherwise you are just putting stuff up for the sake of blasting your opinion out there... or was that the point... again? Tirronan 22:59, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * I haven't read Chesney, but his work shows that the value of the Prussian contribution was acknowledged outside Prussia a long time ago. The value of the Prussian military intervention is not in doubt, probably starting with Chesney. I don't think he supports the claim that Waterloo was a "German" victory, though, does he? Tirailleur 10:42, 11 April 2007 (UTC)


 * Peter's title is the problem, I told him it wasn't a great idea but there you are. Authors have to write to an angle or its just another Waterloo history (and except for us few who would care?) and not all that profitable.  I'll answer a few things here in the interest of burying the sword.
 * the title is about the 75% of the German speaking population of the allied armies (not just the Prussians) to include the Dutch, Nassau, KGL, ect... Its also taking to task some pretty poor histories writen along the lines of the entire victory being laid at the feet of the Wellington and his British troops.  If a mistake was made it was made by poorly led and poorly motivated troops included in his force.  You've read the histories as have I, of the cowardly Dutch at Quatra Bra and and German troops at Waterloo itself.  At no point does his work revise any British contrabution but rather does give credit where it was due in most points.
 * The Prince of Orange and the Dutch contingent's firm defense of Quatra Bra
 * Ostabruck contributions
 * German troops repulsing Guard along side other regiments of Wellington's army
 * Peter was pretty complementary of the Dutch at Quatra Bra.

Now please include sources and cite page numbers to your disputation so it may be followed up. This is just more opinion (what else is new and why did I expect nothing else?). As I stated before I have 5 sources I am currently using. Your comments were nicely written and professionally handled thank you. Also would you please bring up your points about the article in another section? Just bullet them with your argument on what hasn't been handled correctly with your supporting information. I wanted this to be a points page about disagreements and how to handle them. I asked for input and that can certainly include yours. Oh! I finished a section below that perhaps you can add to with Weller (who I have never read) on what I am reading with Chesney. If you have issue with me then please move that to my talk page. If you have issue with Peter H. perhaps you should email him with your objections I believe he still lists his email. However I don't think you have ever read his books and that really confuses me. Tirronan 16:21, 5 April 2007 (UTC)


 * the title is about the 75% of the German speaking population. This claim is a bit meaningless. Sure, a %age spoke German (the Dutch spoke Dutch by the way), but so what? On that basis, could one claim that Yorktown was an English victory? I don't see what it adds to our understanding of the battle. Also, if one were going to look at "German" performance, you should really look at German performance overall, including the discreditable stuff. Eg the mutiny of the "German" V Corps (Saxons)that meant they got dropped from the campaign, the desertion of 8,000 "Germans" (Westphalians mainly IIRC) after Ligny (1/3 of Prussian losses), the desertion en masse of the Duke of Cumberland's "German" hussars (Hanoverians) at Waterloo, and the "German" friendly fire incidents against the Dutch in Papelotte and Mercer's horse battery. My point, in raising these matters, is to debunk the notion that by looking at things through a "German" lens we somehow get a better understanding of the battle. We don't - we just get half the story again. If PH were to 'fess up that German was the language of 75% of the victors at Waterloo but also of 99% of the deserters, mutineers, and friendly-firers in the campaign, he'd convince me that he was a resolutely fair-minded person, but as he doesn't, it's evident that he just has an agenda, like all previous historians.


 * Incidentally, the fears about Netherlands troops being unreliable turned out not to be true but those who mention it are simply reporting accurately Wellington's own well-documented, if misplaced doubts about their loyalty. The Dutch-Belgians unquestionably did very well, grabbing QB, repulsing the Old Guard and helping defeat the French cavalry charges. Tirailleur 17:26, 20 April 2007 (UTC)

I state this again for clarity:I don't know that I am right, in fact I question everything I write. I find alot of histories are writen for purposes other than enligtening a distant past. I don't nor have I ever believed that the Prussians won Waterloo, they were not there for over half the battle. I think they made a bloodbath into an unrecoverable victory because there were so many well trained and well lead allied troops on the battlefield that no other result as really posible anymore. This is a battle where the French position failed completely and beyond recovery in multiple places with no reserves. They were completely overwhelmed by numbers of very competent armies. In that regard it becomes Liepzig again compressed into a shorter time period. Tirronan 15:40, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
 * Wellington's charge would have won the battle of itself, there were no reserves.
 * Zeithen's rupture of Pappelotte would have won the battle, you can't have your enemie's cavalry pouring through the center of your position and win, there were no reserves.
 * Blucher's capture of Placenoit would have won the battle, you can't have 30,000 troops in your rear across your only line of retreat. Again there were no reserves to retreive the situation.

Hi Tirailleur! I admire Tirroan for even bothering to converse with you. You are obviously out of your tiny little mind and largely a waste of time. Sadly, you are typical of the sort of demented idiot that fills up space on Wikipedia (Wankipedia would probably be a better term for this sad effort). Ever thought of getting professional help for your obvious condition?


 * While I sometimes get irritated online, try to keep the personal attacks off the page, he was correct in pointing out that I had put La Haye Saint where I should have put La Haye. While we get heated here sometimes (and I am probably one of the worst about it) where I am wrong (and I am sometimes) just point it out with the evidence (ie cite) and we'll get through it.  Tirronan 20:35, 9 May 2007 (UTC)