Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 6

Nassau contingent
The article says there were 3,000 Nassau troops but the Order of Battle article indicates there were more than that in Saxe-Weimar's brigade alone.

Haythornthwaite (Uniforms of Waterloo) says there were 8 battalions of Nassauers totalling 7,180 men.

Five were in Saxe-Weimar's brigade and the other three were in Kruse's Nassau Contingent, whch was part of the Reserve, and was deployed in the centre behind La Haye Sainte.

3,000 would be about right for Saxe-Weimar alone on the day (one battalion was detached to Hougoumont). Tirailleur 00:38, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

What I am really looking for is the Nassau battalions around Papolotte and La Haie (not Le Haye Saint, LOL) those were the troops most likely mauled when the Prussians 1st arrived. They were still in the area and reportedly contributing when Zeithen advanced around 6:30. It needs to be included but can't I can't do that when I don't have a unit designation. Tirronan 17:30, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

Papelotte, La Haie and Frischermont were defended by Saxe-Weimar's 2nd Netherlands Brigade, according to Weller. This comprised the 2nd Nassau Regiment and the Regiment of Orange Nassau. The former had three battalions, the latter two, but the second battalion of the 2nd Nassau was detached to support Hougoumont. So the defenders were 1/ and 3/2 Nassau, and 1/ and 2/Orange Nassau.

If you want to know which exact unit was attacked by Ziethen, I've no idea. I don't have a source which goes to that level of detail. Weller says weight of numbers pushed the Nassauers back. As Ziethen apparently only brought 5,000 men to Waterloo, it seems likeliest to me that he attacked the easternmost of the battalions in front of him. The leading elements of Ziethen's force wouldn't have had much numerical advantage over Saxe-Weimar's whole force, so I presume only part was attacked.

I haven't heard of any Nassauers meeting Bulow's men. It was a long way from Papelotte to Plancenoit so it seems unlikely. The only candidates to do so would be Kruse's Nassauers, who fought in the centre right, but I don't see how they could possibly have met any Prussians in Plancenoit, since the French front had well and truly collapsed by then. Tirailleur 15:36, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

4th Corp moved down the road beside the Frischermont La Haie position driving French units both south and east and contact may have happened at that point. However I believe that it would have to be 1st Corp involved. I think most of Zeithen's 1st Corp was on the battlefield by 1930 hours and would have numbered 18,000 or so (very iffy as troop counts are not accurate between losses and deserters but at least 14,000). Chesney says 50,000 Prussians at that time and PH 48,000 so I am going to assume they are correct on the counts. The partial was Pirch's 2nd Corp only half of it being on the field at that time, the rest were still coming down that God awful road. Third Corp was fighting at Wavre and numbers at 15,500.

In any case apparently the Nassau battalions were not horribly mangled by the Prussians they were assisting taking Pappolotte and contesting for Fisherchermont against Durrote's advances. Any idea on which Highland regiment would have been in the area? The Prussians reported linking up with one in the area. Tirronan 15:58, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

btw I found the referrence to Le Haye Saint instead of Le Haye and changed it... opps... sheesh appologies all around. Tirronan 16:26, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I stand corrected, it was Pirch's Corps that arrived in smaller numbers; I had misremembered it as being Ziethen's.

Weller comments that the Nassau officers' papers appear to have been lost, the other units in the area (British and KGL cavalry) were not called on to do a lot, and Wellington never went over there after the Hougoumont fighting started; so all in all there is little in the way of memoirs. He footnotes that there was a certain amount of confusion about place names even then and that a number of participants got Papelotte and Frischermont confused.

In 1815, Papelotte and La Haye were in fact enclosed farms surrounded by independent outbuildings. La Haye still is; Papelotte is more built up. I suspct you aren't the first to confuse the farm / settlement of La Haye with the nearby farm of La Haye Sainte. I imagine the postman still does. Weller has aerila photos of them which show they were very solid indeed; like La Haye Sainte, except with buildings all around rather than on only 3 sides.

I can't find handy a source which hints which Highlanders might have gone forward with the Prussians. Weller shows Best's and Vincke's brigades next to Saxe-Weimar's, but these consisted of 4 battalions each of Hanoverian Landwehr. By elimination, my guess would be the 79th (the Camerons). I say this because there were only 3 Highland battalions nearby in Picton's 5th Division. One, the 42nd, got cut up at QB and Haythornthwaite says they were not heavily engaged at Waterloo. The 92nd was the one that supposedly grabbed the Scots Greys' stirrups; they didn't, but if they were near where the Greys charged, that would put them a shade too far west. That leaves the 79th, who were heavily engaged at Waterloo and who finsihed the battle under the command of a junior lieutenant. They seem the likeliest candidates to have fought right through to the last, although all 3 are plausible. Tirailleur 22:27, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Having reread PH's book on this section, it was Bulow's IV corps that smacked into the Nassau battalions and it looks as if both sides started firing on one another. This apparently caused by the Naussa battalions being in French uniforms and using French formations as they had once been part of the Empire. As they were driving down towards Placenoit and fighting French this isn't hard to understand. They are unlikely to have asked questions 1st before assualting. Anything that looked to be supporting a "French formation" would be attacked as well. The Nassau battatlions reformed and helped the Prussian 1st Corp by holding up Durotte's Division till Ziethen showed up to drive the Durotte off. Given that the Nassau battalions had been mauled by the French and Prussians they were not that active afterwards. I'd have to assume that the reluctence of the IV Corps to fire on the French on exit from Placenoit was probably due to the "Nassau incident". Tirronan 17:20, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Section on myths?
I wonder if it's worth adding one?

Eg:-

- Myth: There was a sunken road which the French cavalrymen were unaware of and which caused terrible losses when they fell into. The boring facts: This was actually made up by Victor Hugo; the Allied cavalry had no trouble negotiating the sunken road.

- Myth: The 92nd Highlanders grabbed the Scots Greys' stirrups as they charged. The boring facts: This one seems to have been made up by the Victorian painter Lady Butler; there are no contemporary accounts of it.

- Myth: La Belle Alliance means the beautiful alliance. The boring facts: It doesn't, unfortunately; it means the beautiful wedding-ring. Beautiful alliance would be le bel alliance.

Tirailleur 00:45, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

No it is not. A because it will attract a lot of muppets. And
 * 1) You have never tried to negotiate a sunken road on a horse have you? If you had then you would know that it is bound to cause horse men to bunch and slow down when negotiating it. Anyone who has ridden across country in pursuit of the inedible will be able to confirm this.
 * 2) Better handled in the current section if the need arises.
 * 3) Google's language tool does not agree with you . Nor do the Germans see Belle-Alliance-Platz. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:50, 30 April 2007 (UTC)

OK re 2 and 3, but if a sunken road is such an obstacle, why wasn't it an obstacle to the British cavalry, none of whom noticed it sufficiently even to mention it? The source appears to be Victor Hugo, who called it a ravine, but then he wasn't writing history. It can't be because the French cavalry came upon it suddenly and blundered into it - to reach it they have had to ride through and around the infantry squares, which itself would have slowed them down plenty.

It doesn't look too sunken today either, but then this is the area from which the Lion Mound was excavated, so not surprising.

Is there any eyewitness on either side who says the sunken road caused either side's cavalry a problem? Tirailleur 15:46, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

I really don't have much of an opinion here either way. I'll note that the article will probably get expanded some but by how much I am uncertain. I note that the sections on the Prussians probably should be expanded (I blame my laconic writing style for that) and I believe that Ur wants to expand the cavalry sections more.

We did have a Waterloo in popular culture section that I used to ignore to the best of my ability as it seemed to bring up the worst dreck and silly links.

Adding more to my research load just isn't that appealing right now. Some of the myths will get more smurfs attracted for sure (Ligny drives me to distraction, if I hear one more stupid comment on forward slope basing of Prussian troops I will personally buy the fellow's plane ticket and drag him from one end of the battlefield to the other showing him what the bottome of a gently sloping creek basin means).

From my Civil War studies I will assure anyone that a sunken road is a pretty fair obsticle and cavalry suffers from such much more than infantry but this depends on the grade of the side slopes and I have no way of checking the validity of the claim as the road is sure to have changed in 190 years.
 * The building of the Lion's Hillock, changed the edge of the escarpment and the sunken road--Philip Baird Shearer 08:22, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

There are a ton of myths and outright lies where Waterloo is concerned. I think we have done well by sticking to the format of xyz unit at such time did this and that and keeping our opinions out of it. If a unit ran then it ran, if it did well later we state it did. While the talk pages have sometimes been heated (and I was to blame for some of it) we never allowed it into the article. I fear that a myths and lies section will get that started.

That being said, if you all think its important we can try it and hope for the best. Tirronan 01:55, 1 May 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been watching this page for a while (I was going to attempt to un-Americanise the English but never seemed to have the time), so I hope no-one minds if I throw in my 2p worth. Adding a Myths section to the article might make an interesting inclusion, with the worthy purpose of serving to debunk some silly ideas, but I don't think it would actually contribute to the already high quality of the article. IMHO, hiving off the Popular culture section was also a good idea, and the article is better focused as a result. Maybe a separate page for debunking Myths if it has to be included? EyeSereneTALK 16:30, 3 May 2007 (UTC)

Moving older discussions to Archive 5
I'm moving older discussions to Archive 5 Tirronan 17:23, 18 May 2007 (UTC)

Promotion to Class B
I've asked for an assesment on the article and we are back to a class B. Tirronan 14:44, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

Prelude
After rereading Chesney, this section might be revised.

Before leaving Ligny, Napoleon gave Marshal Grouchy 33,000 men and orders to follow up the retreating Prussians. A late start, uncertainty about the direction the Prussians had taken and vague orders to Grouchy meant that he was too late to prevent the Prussian army reaching Wavre, from where it could march to support Wellington.

There is nothing in this statement that is wrong, but it misses the point that the Prussian 2rd Corps was still on the field collecting up the artillery park and logistics train. They moved off in a very slow pace completely ignored by the French. It was 2nd Corps arrival at Placenoit that swung that positional battle. It was one of the strange inexplicable pauses that the French army imposed upon itself that contributed to the defeat at Waterloo. Also noted by the late attack at 1300 hrs on the emtpy Quatra Bra position. Tirronan 13:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

Myths, lies, and conclusions
I've been pretty quiet on this page for awhile and the reason was that I have been checking, rereading, and rechecking, my sources. There are some things that should be outlined in a new article hived off from this one.

There have been enough bad histories writen that there are areas of the campaign that should be taken on:


 * Forward slope basing of Prussian troops at the Battle of Ligny. This 1st came up when Wellington started attacking Siborn 20 years after the event.  There isn't a bit of proof that this actually happened and much to say where the troops were deployed.


 * Groucy's not marching to the battlefield. Chesney is mericless on this one as is Clauswitz and Muffling.  He would have had to deliberately disobeyed orders at 7am to have arrived in time for Waterloo, by 12pm-1pm it was too late and no road would have delivered him to the battlefield before 8pm at best.


 * Its become apparent that Napoleon nor Groucy had a clue where the Prussians were and in what numbers through out 17th to the 18th in the campaign (until it was far too late that is).


 * Ney's ordering of the cavalry charges, this was ordered by the reserve cav commander and both Napoleon and Ney watched it happen without comment when it was well in their ability to have stopped it.


 * Ney's supposed faults at Quarta Bra just don't seem to hold water.


 * D'Erlon's mistake of not joining Napoleon at Ligny, Napoleon in fact sent a letter to Ney remonstrating him for allowing D'Erlon to be so out of position. He seemed to be of the opinion that he had things well in hand and didn't require D'Erlon at all.


 * Lies from St. Helena, after the fact Napoleon wanted to blame everyone else for his mistakes.


 * Tactical/Stratigic conclusions, where were the mistakes made and who made them.


 * Call out the outright lies that seem to hover around the battles.

I am asking for opinions here if this will in fact be worth it or its just best to leave well enough alone. Tirronan 17:10, 30 May 2007 (UTC)


 * That would be quite interesting and useful actually. Given the wide ranging differences between accounts and the fact these are largely unknown amongst the general public, an article pointing out this sounds like a good idea.  Could be as contraversial nowadays as it was in Wellington's day though!  If you fancy the role of Siborne, I'd say go for it and good luck!Benea 14:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I have thought about this for sometime but I keep coming to the conclusion that attracting ever troll on wiki to the page just flat isn't worth it. I've decided to go ahead and complete my degree in history and perhaps this would make a great thesis.  We've got another troll sniffing around looking for a fight (over Napoleon's title of emperor of all things) to get into here and getting into fights with pea brains just isn't my forte. Tirronan 01:05, 12 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Good point I guess. Pity that people like that can stop valid content being added to push a point of view.  I noticed that as well.  By his reckoning, whenever we mention Augustus Caesar we should be careful to point out he was the 'self style' Emperor.  But oh well, I suppose I should follow your example.  I've an essay overdue as it is. Happy reading. Benea 06:16, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Two additions to the aftermath were made by an anonymous source 66.80.70.226 recently. I think they're both quite poor. The first ("Even if Napoleon had won the battle...") is simply a "what if", and dubious to presuppose Napoleon could not possibly defeat the Austrians and Russians. The second paragraph is inaccurate in several ways. I can only think it treats 'participation' as troops on battlefields, and that's a badly lopsided way to view warfare. Even then it's highly dubious Sweden, for instance, contributed more than Britain. It's relevance to the article is also very questionable. The suggestion that Britain's century of global domination was due to winning Napoleon's last battle is nonsense: that dominance was due to a number of factors like industry & technology, naval power, general wealth and so on. I think both should simply be removed, but I'd rather people put in their thoughts before it is done as it's quite an excitable tpage.Agema 00:16, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree that they're poor. The first is crystal ball and against Wikipedia policy for a start, as well as irrelevant.  Also I think if we start comparing contributions and declaring some major and some minor, then we're on a dangerous path strewn with bitter arguments.  Best to keep POV out of this as much as possible, and if we get someone saying the Prussians had the biggest contribution and the British were just there to mop up, we're going to have someone rushing to assert otherwise.  I'd say lose the second paragraph and maybe just keep a bit about how Russian and Austrian armies were on the way, and leave it at that. Benea 03:01, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'll remove those shortly, I agree its crystal ball though I doubt that France of 1815 was going to repulse all of Europe when fully mobilised it couldn't in 1814. Britain wasn't the dominent power in Europe, France recovered, Germany was forming, and Austria was still a player though a weakening one.  Britain wouldn't interfer in the US Civil War as it was admitted it was a war it couldn't win against another rising power.  The trying to say otherwise flys in the face of history. Tirronan 16:01, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

National Flags
I've recently put a couple of the national flags into the infobox to standardise this with other battle pages. I haven't been able to find any flags for Hanover, Nassau or Brunswick though. There is a coat of arms for Nassau, however, and possibly the coat of arms of the House of Hanover. Should these be put on, or it left as it is, or does anyone know where some suitable flags or symbols might be? Small fry really compared to discussing where the Prussians were at what time, I know, but it might improve the style a bit more. Cheerio! Benea 03:08, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hey at least its a useful contribution instead of nitpicking so by all means go ahead! Tirronan 17:32, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can use this one : Kgr_hannover_flagge.jpg. It is from the Kingdom of Hanover, admittedly, at this time not yet in existence, but perhaps nevertheless appropriate. On the other hand, your version seems to be clearer and the horse can be recognized easier. Best wishes Anne-theater 00:41 14 June 2007(CEST)

Prelude
Napoleon, with the reserve and the right wing of the Army of the North, made a late start and joined Ney at Quatre Bras at 13:00 to attack Wellington's army, but found the position empty. The French pursued Wellington's army, but the result was only a brief cavalry skirmish in Genappe just as torrential rain set in for the night. Many historians say that if it wasn't for the rain, Wellington's army would have probably been defeated.

I'd contest this as well, the fact that the UK forces marched and the French couldn't do so in the same weather is silly. This was another of the strange pauses that you get during this campaign. This was happening at the same time the Prussian army was making a very slow stroll off the Ligny battlefield unmolested. Tirronan 16:20, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * My main reason for flagging it was the weasel words - which historians say this? Further reading leads me to agree with you, the fact that the French didn't catch Wellington owes more to their own leisurely pursuit than it does to the state of the weather.  There's a scene in Dino de Laurentis' film which illustrates this rather nicely - Napoleon says 'Why is it that Grouchy does six miles a day and I do ten!... Well tell him the roads are the same for everyone.  True?... So you tell him to march faster!'  If there's no supporting evidence (and I can't find any, though maybe someone else can) pretty sharpish I vote to remove it forthwith.  Benea 16:47, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I've plenty of proof that it was pausing of the French not rain that caused the issues and that it was happening in 2 places at the same time is even less of an excuse. Grouchy didn't start until 7am the next day on orders that arrived shortly before and moved with speed and decision from that point on. Ney was under orders to capture Quatra Bra and consolidate so both Generals were doing exactly as they were directed. Instead of removing the section it just needs to be rewritten. Let Mag1, Ur, and Phillip, look at this before doing anything, I prefer their imput before taking action. Tirronan 17:33, 18 June 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm happy with most of the section, the bit I take issue with is that one sentence "Many historians say that if it wasn't for the rain, Wellington's army would have probably been defeated."  This seems to state that the French were on the brink of defeating Wellington's army, foiled only by the fact the rain prevented an engagement.  As you point out, and I agree, the rain was an incidental factor, considering the Generals' orders.  This sentence is therefore highly misleading, as well as using weasel words and being unsupported.  Benea 17:59, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

There is more than a bit of that running around the histories of Waterloo. The French historians of the period were interested in blaming Ney and Groucy for any mistakes as was Napoleon in his later memiors. Wellington went after Siborne for daring to suggest that the Prussian's contributed anything to his victory some 30 years after the fact, ect. I'll remove the weasel statement and if any of the other editors object we can talk it over here. Tirronan 18:11, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

I think the rain is neither here or there when it comes to the outcome on the day: it delayed the start of the battle, but it also delayed the Prussians who were having to negotiate muddy country lanes. As to the storm the night before, it happened as Wellington's army cleared the bottleneck at Genappe so I don't really see how it hindered the pursuit. MAG1 10:31, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

I think it was a feature of Napoleon's later campaigns (1814 possibly excepted) that after major engagements there was no hurry to pursue. Quite the opposite of what had happened earlier, for example after Jena-Auerstadt. After Ligny and Q. Bras the French troops had a fairly leisurely breakfast, there seems to have been no particular push from the army command towards an early or vigorous pusuit. Most of Napoleon's units had been involved in the battles, and D'Erlon's corps which had seen very little action had been fruitlessly countermarching most of the day. It is possible that Napoleon simply considered that he did not have enough troops that were sufficiently fresh to mount a timely pursuit in force. Certainly enough British cavalry officers recorded their amazement that the French left them totally unmolested until so late in the day. Even the action at Genappe was not caused primarily by the leading French cavalry pushing the British cavalry rearguard very hard, it was more that Uxbridge wanted to "blood" his own regiment and allow it to gain distinction. As it was Uxbridge timed his counter-attack badly and the "Saucy Seventh" (7th Hussars) were repulsed with loss.

Urselius 15:12, 25 June 2007 (UTC)

Well both Chesney and Hofschroer record that the French watched the Prussian III Corps leaving with the artillery and seige parks in town in the morning with complete disinterest on the morning of the 17th and didn't send Groucy until the morning of the 18th, that isn't rain that just one of those strange pauses that happened serveral times on the French side. By the time Groucy marched on Wavre, IV Corps was marching on Waterloo. I concure this was not weather related. Tirronan 21:17, 25 June 2007 (UTC)


 * Not only that, but it is on record that Wellington uttered the words "Thank God for Blucher" when told of the arrival of the Prussian Army. It has long been accepted that the Prussians saved the day. I am so surprised this is even questioned here. David Lauder 10:14, 26 June 2007 (UTC)


 * "The day" would not have happened if Wellington had not judged that Blucher would arrive in time to help him. It was a Coalition victory because as planned they combined to defeat Bonaparte, or alternatively it was a French defeat because Bonaparte failed to stop them combining. But either way it was a close run thing. --Philip Baird Shearer 11:16, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Waterloo today
Chapter "Waterloo today": If the battle of Waterloo had a "pivotal rôle in European and World history" I would expect some explanations. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.168.204.193 (talk • contribs) 08:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

OK - I did not subscribe and will never. However - how do you respond now to my "question mark"? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.168.231.29 (talk • contribs) 11:08, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

You are asking us to start responding to an unidentified IP address and to make changes on such. No one will make you get an account even if they are free and painless. However most of us won't respond or take action on requests unless we get some idea of who we are talking to. Just too many folks out there willing to hide and snipe to get much interest going to responding to such. I'd suggest at least looking into getting an account, you can get an email account on gmail, yahoo, ect, only for this purpose and when that happens I'll be happy to exchange ideas on what you would like to see done here. Tirronan 16:17, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comments - which I think are quite discouraging. I said: I do not subscribe and I will never. I confirm: I will never. Because I think this is an irrelevant aspect. Apparently you do not get the sense of my suggestion: To outline what was Waterloo as a "pivotal point in European and world history" (the formulation used in the article). To add some lines to the respective article is completely independant of your assumption that I am "one of the folks willing to snipe much interest". No, I don't. I was just suggesting to add some lines to an important part of the article. OK - I have to accept that conditions of intervention in Wiki are more important than serious arguments. - Thanks for this information - as disappointing as it may be. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 84.168.231.29 (talk • contribs) 17:55, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * ''Please sign you comments with ~ it will automagically change it into a signature and timestamp.


 * Please read WP:OR if anything was to be added to the article then it would have to be from a verifiable reliable source. Indeed as it is not sourced the sentence can be removed. But if you have some to add then please add it with a citation yourself. But this is not the place to speculate on this issue of what you or I or anyone else (other than a published reliable sources) thinks why it played a pivotal role.    --Philip Baird Shearer 18:26, 13 July 2007 (UTC)


 * There are times I realise I have been dealing with trolls too much and act like a jerk, this is one of those times. I agree that the statement should be supported by a statement why and further that this would have to be supported by inline citation or the sentence and perhaps the section should be removed.  My appologies to whoever you are.  I'll look into this and see if I can find a generic statement on the outcome of Waterloo by a couple of historians, I am pretty sure both PH and Chesney would have something on the matter.  Both Phillip and I both contribute here often and we try to be consistent with the policies.  The statement made in Waterloo today shouldn't have been made and has to be supported or removed. Tirronan 19:23, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Groucy
I've got info on the actual orders from Napoleon and when they arrived on the 18th. I've also got the report to Napoleon from Groucy on the 17th.


 * On or about 10pm Groucy reports that at least 3 Prussian Corps have moved through the area he is moving through and that he believes that the ultimate objective is the plain befor Brussels where the Prussian's will combine with the British. He notes that he believes they are currently collecting at Wavre.  This makes a few things a bit clearer, he understood the Prussian intention but not that a battle was going to take place at Mount St. Jean (if anyone other than Wellington did at that point).  The other thing is that he was expecting orders, again pointing out here that Napoleon hadn't given enough instruction to his desires at this point.


 * On or about 6am Groucy recieves orders to drive through Wavre pushing the Prussians with a sword at their back. Here it becomes apparent that Napoleon thinks that the Prussians are in full rout.  Nothing they have seen should have given them that impression except that most of the Saxon and Rhineland (new and reluctant Prussians at this time) are taking the opportunity to vote with their feet). Groucy moves to his orders with speed and proceeds toward Wavre.


 * On or about 4pm another message repeats the same orders in the same way and Groucy proceeds into the Battle of Wavre.


 * On or about 6pm the last order arrives demanding he push through the Prussians and get to Napoleon's flank.


 * At the time of the opening of the Battle of Waterloo the nearest road was a 6.5 to 8 hours to march 33,000 over its doubtful that this could have been done and the Prussians were in the way of this route at the time also moving from Wavre to Waterloo. Chesney quotes the work of a historian that walked the route about 50 years after the event.


 * Groucy was making little headway in the battle until a crossing is discovered unguarded. This crossing was covered until the corp covering it moved off to Waterloo.


 * Groucy didn't receive another order until mid moring on the 19th ordering him to fall back and reorganize retreating French forces for the defense of Paris.

There was a goof made but it wasn't Groucy's it was Napoleon's. How Groucy was to drive 85,000 Prussians with 33,000 men unless it was in full rout is beyond me. Several of the French Marshals had been defeated chasing "routing" Prussian armies before, and so had Napoleon at Laon. He should have known better. Tirronan 17:23, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Most writers seem to agree that 33,000 men was too few to engage 85,000 Prussians and too many simply to observe them, so it was definitely Napoleon's error. Almost any other division of forces between Grouchy and Napoleon would have worked better. If Napoleon had sent 50,000 to pin them properly, he could have then attempted to defeat Wellington with his remaining 55,000, unhindered by Prussians. If he'd sent only 10,000 after the Prussians, to make a noise and look threatening, he could then have attacked Wellington full-on with 95,000 men. Even if he'd had to detach 25,000 of those to hold off Blucher, he'd still have had numerical parity with Wellington, and he could have switched troops between fronts to achieve the desired result. Tirailleur 17:36, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Quotation added
I've added one of the best descriptive eyewitness accounts of the French cavalry attacks to the appropriate section. A remarkable description well worth reading.

I've also modified the wording of the start of the British heavy cavalry attack section. I introduced a mention the excellence of the sword training that British cavalry received, which I think is appropriate. As it stood there was, other than mention of the quality of mounts, a litany of the faults of the British cavalry with nothing to counterbalance it. Anyone reading the passage might then be extremely puzzled how two brigades of such poor quality cavalry could rout a brigade of cuirassiers and five brigades of infantry.

Urselius 11:31, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

I for one never subscribed to the idea that the British Cavalry was of poor quality, I think various people are expressing grief about loosing so much of it by not stopping in time but then again even if the entirety of the heavy cav had been so expended it was in more than a good cause, if the charge hadn't happened the British loose the battle then and there, it was that serious. Tirronan 00:38, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It was merely the impression that the wording might give to the casual reader, it made the exploits of the heavies, as described in he following text, a little inexplicable.

I've added a little more to the French cavalry attack section, mostly on how the numbers involved were increased. Unfortunately I wasn't logged on so they appear as anonymous edits. I'll look up some more specific references for these.

Urselius 13:51, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Ouch I think I reverted it thinking it was another muppet Tirronan 17:45, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

It seems to be there now. I added a few references and amended the numbers of French cavalry(slightly lower than my first estimates). The section has a little more body now, and balances the account of the British cavalry attack somewhat better.

Urselius 18:25, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Do we have any decent sources that give figures for the losses suffered by the French cavalry?

I have a French source which shows that the Guard heavy cavalry division lost 47% of its strength between 14 and 19 June - i.e. on the 19th they had a total of 862 troopers between them, having started with 1,612. If that level of losses were repeated across all the units who participated in the attacks, and I can't see why it would not have been, then the cavalry attacks must have cost about 4,000 to 5,000 men.Tirailleur 09:48, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

The issue you face there is combat loss over desertion, needless to say any army that gets beat at bad as the Army of the North is that you have a demonstrable route in progress. I am quite sure they suffered losses between being shot at point blank range from the 2nd and 3rd ranks of the squares and calvary counter attacks but what proportion is going to be dead/wounded/deserted. In most cases desertion is the greatest factor. How you phase it will probably handle this issue by simply stating total losses (dead, wounded, captured, and deserted) equaled x numbers and y percentage. After all a deserter is just as lost to the cause in the short term as the other two. I think it will make a good addition just make sure you place an inline citation with it and you are good to go. Nice work by the way! Tirronan 14:42, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I will root around some more and see if I can rustle up comparable figures for the other cavalry. I am actually working from a couple of French-language sources (Houssaye and Martinien).

Your point about desertions etc is well taken. The reason I thought the Guard stats were interesting is that you'd expect the elite formations to suffer relatively less from this. So their losses might be a ballpark guide to the actual level of battle casualties.

ISTR in a previous version of this section that we had an estimate of "over 1,000" cavalry casualties, and that piqued my interest. It seemed far too low, given that so many accounts of the battle speak of the French heavies having been "destroyed". French cavalry absolutely would not break just because they lost a mere 11% of their strength, and neither could they be considered "destroyed" if they did.


 * Again, eye witness accounts are just that, it has been stated that the most ignorant guy on a battlefield is an infantryman as he doesn't see nor will he care about anything beyond his line of sight, this includes most officers of battalions. It isn't that they don't care but rather it is a matter of survival.  Your muster counts on the 19th are about as close as you will get.  PH stated that the closer French units got to Paris the more they started to distergrate due to desertions.  Given his predaliction for digging up arcane scripts and translating them I'd have to believe him. Tirronan 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

-

-

Chapter "Aftermath": There seems to be an error. It states that Davout suffered a defeat at Issy on 3 july, leading to the abdication of Napoleon on 24 june. Hm.

Napoleon was fleeing at that point and nowhere near Paris as he seemed to think, and Blucher stated, that he would be hung. I don't have much doubt that if the Prussians got hands on him they would have hung him to the nearest tree and asked forgivness later. Tirronan 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

-

But if they lost 50%, well, that would be another matter. If a 500-man regiment lost 250 men, and another 250 of its men each had their horse killed, then until the 250 surviving riders get together with the 250 surviving horses, the regiment has temporarily ceased to exist. Once they do, it becomes clear that its actual loss is 50%. I wonder if that is what happened.

How about something like this towards the end of the section:-

''The casualties suffered by the French cavalry cannot easily be reckoned. Musters taken after the battle reflect not only combat losses, but also subsequent desertions, prisoners lost to the Allied pursuit, and wounded troopers still with the army but no longer among its effectives. Illustratively, however, Houssaye ("1815", 1893; and "La vieille Garde impériale", 1932) reports that the Grenadiers a Cheval numbered 796 of all ranks on the 15th June, but just 462 on 19 June, while the Empress Dragoons lost 416 of 816 over the same period. The combined loss rate for the Guard heavy cavalry division was 47%.''

I don't know how to format the inline cite BTW. Tirailleur 17:24, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Here is some help with inline citation WP:REF use the "<"ref">" without the quotation marks at the start and "<"/ref">" at the end with the reference in the middle. At the bottom of the page in refernces where the books are cited put your reference there and then just the authors name and the page number. The addition looks good and covers and area we haven't addressed by all means proceed. Tirronan 17:45, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Some suggestions
The Prussian sections seem a little terse and could benefit from some extra material.

Perhaps a separate section on the fall of La Haye Sainte and its consequences (or lack)?

The page as a whole might benefit from some more eye-witness quotations. They are often descriptive and lively, and would add colour to the narrative.

Urselius 13:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Title problem
There is a reference in the introduction about 'final end to Napoleon's rule as Emperor of France.'

As far as I'm aware Napoleon's title was 'Emperor of the French' (Empereur des Francais) so this phrase should be changed to either 'rule as Emperor of the French' or alternatively, 'rule as emperor of France' (the word emperor in lower case would then be a descriptive term rather than a formal title.

Urselius 15:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

My problem is that I don't speak French (I wish I did it is a pretty language) and I don't understand the social context that the phase might mean, ie while it is litterally Emperor of the French, is that all the connotations involved so that it would be closer to Emperor of France? I confess I don't know. Tirronan 15:43, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Imperial titles tended to take their form from that of the 'original empire,' that of the Romans, which was 'Imperator Romanorum' or Emperor of the Romans (not Emperor of Rome). There were exceptions like the Russian tsar who was 'Emperor of All the Russias' or Victoria's title of 'Empress of India.' In Napoleon's case the title was carefully differentiated from the Ancien Regime monarchy's use of 'King of France,' as Napoleon liked to emphasise his connection with the French people, who in a manner 'elected' him to his imperial position in the first place. Though in some ways a military dictatorship, Napoleon's regime was outwardly a form of constitutional, not absolute, monarchy and as such Napoleon regarded himself the leader of the French people not the 'owner' of France.

Urselius 16:19, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Empress of India was the common title
 * [Google] bout 12,400 English pages for "Empress of India" site:uk.
 * "Empress of the Indians" site:uk - did not match any


 * What the French did or did not do or do or don't do does not matter. What matters is what he is and was known in English. UK academic sites are split on the title Nappy used:
 * about 390 English pages from ac.uk for Napoleon "Emperor of the French"
 * about 314 English pages from ac.uk for Napoleon "Emperor of France"
 * US academic sites tend to favour Emperor of the French
 * about 11,300 English pages for Napoleon "Emperor of the French" site:edu
 * about 2,500 English pages for Napoleon "Emperor of France" site:edu


 * But surly in 1815 to be technically accurate he was self styled Emperor and an international outlaw. So we could just call him Napoleon Bonaparte and not mention his self proclaimed title at all :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 17:23, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As a kid (pre-decimalisation) I saw enough old coins with "GEORGIVS VI D: G: BR: OMN: REX F:D:IND: IMP." to find the IND IMP interesting. As I said the Emperor/Empress of India was one of the exceptions to the "people not place rule."

If we want to be true to contemporary British usage then we would have to refer to Napoleon as "General Buonaparte" throughout. Within France, and as he was the leader of the French this must be the most cogent referent, even in 1815 he clothed his coup in constitutional forms.

As I said earlier, if you don't like "Emperor of the French" then "emperor of France" will do just as well as the latter (emperor in lower case) would be a description of his position not claiming to be his formal title.

These niceties of form are still considered important in monarchies, the Queen of UKGB&NI (for short) does not invite people to functions (such as a Buckingham Palace garden party), she commands the Lord Chamberlain to invite the person. This way a subject can decline the invitation withoput committing lese majestie, and the monarch does not strain the boundaries of the freedom of a citizen of a constitutional state by issuing a command directly.

Urselius 20:00, 22 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Personally I'd put Bonaparte throughout -- but as to his title, as the English language usage seems to lean towards the "Emperor of the French" and as you point out it is closer to the original French, then I think that is the title we should place on the page. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:32, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

As far as the British government was concerned, Napoleon was never more than "the head of the French government", because Britain was never defeated militarily by him and thereby forced to recognise his position. Any British officer or official who inadvertently appeared to recognise his position or regime would have committed thereby a huge political mistake. This was not true of many of the other powers; I am pretty sure Russia recognised him at Tilsit if not before, and Austria allowed him to marry a Hapsburg princess, which would surely never have been countenanced if Austria still regarded him as just a French general. FWIW, Wellington's Waterloo despatch referred to "the imperial guards" in the lower case and not to "the Imperial Guard". The soldiers who physically protect the seat of government are certainly "guards" but not necessarily "the Guard". Tirailleur 10:09, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't have a passionate view on this one way or the other like most American's I am mostly bemused by titles and think them a bit of an affectation. However I would take exception to this line of thought: What the French did or did not do or do or don't do does not matter. What matters is what he is and was known. Whatever his position was titled he was of and about France, and his frame of reference should be from that view point I would think. It doesn't matter what his enemies called or saw him they didn't title him and he didn't rule them. I would take the position that it was how the French saw him that would matter in this case. If you take the other view you end up where that guy was vandalising the page with "the so called" or the "self styled" Emperor of France, or the French. Tirronan 13:59, 23 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I made my position clear above about what to use, but I have to respond to Tirronan
 * I think you misunderstood me when you quote me "What the French did or did not do or do or don't do does not matter". What I mean by this is what current English source say on the issue should be our guide not primary sources. Hence my leaning to "Emperor of the French" because it seems to be the most popular on English language academic sites.
 * Also as a point to Tirailleur and the last couple of sentences of Tirronan. We are not talking about his position before he was exiled we are talking about his position at Waterloo. He was an international outlaw at that time, apart from sections of the French population (because not all were happy to see him back) was there anyone else on the planet who recognised his claim to be "Emperor of the French" in 1815? --Philip Baird Shearer 16:22, 23 July 2007 (UTC)
 * Not all were happy to have him back by any means! If I remember my history correctly the Chambers had him back as a kind of consitutional monarch and had to surrender much of the power he had previously enjoyed in the 1813/14 period, verify for sure its been many years since I read about his return.  Anyway to put this to rest from my end, I just don't care that much Emperor of the French works for me as well as of France.  Most American's just are not that interested in titles and I will confess to be one of them. Tirronan 16:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

However, they were important at the time, Napoleon, after years of "citizen," reintroduced princes, dukes, counts and barons to the French state. Napoleon was an astute manipulator of people and there can be no doubt that the lure of a title, as was the case with the Legion d'Honneur, was a useful incentive to loyalty and the desire to excell.

Urselius 08:45, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I could have been clearer there. All I was saying is that we can't really go by what contemporaries termed him, simply because they termed him several different things. Britain simply considered him a general and de facto head of the French government. Others did recognise his title, perhaps because they had little choice in the matter. I think it is quite right, and in line with house rules, that we refer to him in whatever fashion he is usually referred to nowadays. Tirailleur 09:07, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Belgians
The line:

"A counter-charge by British and Dutch light dragoons and Hussars on the left wing...." could benefit from amendment. Ghigny's brigade had a Belgian regiment (8th Hussars) and a Dutch regiment (4th Light Dragoons). —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 130.88.150.208 (talk • contribs) 08:39, 26 July 2007 (UTC)
 * How does one distinguish between Dutch and Belgian regiments given that they were part of the same nation fighting in the Netherlands Cavalry Division? --Philip Baird Shearer 13:59, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Well the Scots always seem to manage to be distinguished in descriptions. The Belgians were just that, not Dutch. As Belgium was part of the United Netherlands then "Netherlands' light dragoons..." or 'Dutch-Belgian' a term used by near-contemporary writers could be used. The United Netherlands army did distinguish between Dutch, Belgian and "East Indian" regiments they weren't undifferentiated officially.

Urselius 14:43, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * True, but "British " is not a synonym for English. If a Scottish regiment is mentioned fair enough but one would not usually write the "Charge of the English, Irish and Scottish heavy cavalry" (no offense meant they are in alphabetic order) one would write the "Charge of the British heavy cavalry" --Philip Baird Shearer 14:53, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, imagine the offence if the Greys were called "English dragoons!" The same applies to Belgians being called Dutch. Of course some Belgians are and were French speaking, and as the term 'Dutch' is derived from a Franconian word meaning "common" (ie the 'speakers of the common language' - that is 'not Latin') it is wholly inappropriate.

Urselius 20:08, 27 July 2007 (UTC)


 * AFAICT following you logic, when the British Army launches an attack involving units from the Brigade of Gurkhas then one should write British and Gurkhas attacked, but one does not one writes "the British" eg: Falklands War, because it is the British Army attack. I see nothing wrong in writing Dutch if it is referring to units in the Dutch army. --Philip Baird Shearer 07:39, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Just to ask a silly question but what were the units actually called by unit designation? Tirronan 13:29, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * See Order of Battle of the Waterloo Campaign. But it is only of limited use because for example the Scots Greys were the the Royal North British Dragoons. --Philip Baird Shearer 20:06, 28 July 2007 (UTC)


 * I see that it was the Neathersland Cavalry Division outlined by brigade and regiment. I'm afraid that I agree with Phillip here as there is nothing to say which was which and I understand the modern distintion but as it applies to unit designations that would be as far as it goes, 1st Karbineers 1st Brigade Neatherlands Cavalry Division if that particular unit would be involved.  I certainly don't have issue with a short statement that the Netherlands Divisions were combinded Belgian/Dutch formations drawing from the populations of both countries as they are today to clear up the Belgian's populations contribution to the effort as I believe that is a historic fact.  I further understand that forced combination of the two countries at the time wasn't at all popular and thus the split later in time.  However this is a simple recounting of the battle as we best understand it at this time and not intended as a slight to the Belgians.  Let me look at some of my sources if anything denotes a Belgian unit by designation in some of my other orders of battle I will post here. Tirronan 22:07, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

William Siborne writing in the 1840's used the term "Dutch-Belgian" throughout his history of the campaign, so the distinction was recognised even by British writers. Dutch is not merely a national term relative to all the inhabitants of the then United Netherlands (like British was inclusive of Scots and Welsh) it was a specific ethno-linguistic term and as such excluded both the Flemmings and Wallons of Belgium. Netherlands, however, is inclusive as a geographical term, as the area of modern Belgium has always been thought of as a part of that geographic region. The army of King William did not raise mixed regiments, the regiments were distinct - either Dutch or Belgian. In this case I think either "Dutch-Belgian" or "Netherlands'" light cavalry would be more accurate. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urselius (talk • contribs) 09:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * But does Dutch not mean of the Netherlands as British means of the UK? What distinguishes "Dutch light cavalry" from "Netherlands'light cavalry"? As for the historical context, one would not normally say British-Irish just because the UK no longer includes most of Ireland. (BTW by 1831 Belgium was an independent kingdom so what Siborne writing in the 1840 could easily have political overtones). Also the French imperial guards included in the 2nd Brigade of the Guard Heavy Cavalry Division, Dutch, French and Polish lancers, so should we start to qualify the term French cavalry? --Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

OK, takes deep breath. Dutch is not a term used by the Dutch people of themselves, they use Nederlander or, informally, Hollander. In the Dutch language the name of their country is Nederland, it's singular, the short lived united state would be expressed in the plural Nederlanden. Were we writing this in Dutch a simple plural would imply the United Kingdom of the Netherlands, inclusive of Belgians. However, Netherlands is always plural in English, so this is impossible.

However, Netherlands is also a geographical term, meaning "Low Countries" which was used to include all of the (16 - I think) provinces which make up modern "Holland," Belgium and Luxembourg. The Dutch Republic (ancestor of modern "Holland) was merely the 7 northernmost provinces, the southern ones were politically split between the Austrian Netherlands (Belgium) and certain bishoprics (pre-1795).

So, while the term Dutch exclusively refers to the inhabitants of the 7 provinces, Netherlands' (belonging to the Netherlands) would include the Belgians as well.

As to your point about French cavalry, well yes. You could legitimately say that there was a French cavalry attack on the Raevski redoubt at Borodino, but to refer to the Saxon Garde du Corps, who took a prominent part in this assault, as a "unit of French cavalry," would be wrong. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Urselius (talk • contribs) 09:20, 30 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Why do you think that the English term "Dutch exclusively refers to the inhabitants of the 7 provinces", and not whatever the Netherlands happens to be inhabitants of the territory of the state at any particular time? I was not referring to Borodino, it was Polish lancers who wounded Frederick Ponsonby of the British 12th Light Dragoons. So while I have no problem referring to the specific unit as Polish I don't think that the term "French cavalry" at Waterloo needs to be termed "French-Polish cavalry", the British "British-Irish cavalry" or the Dutch "Dutch-Belgian cavalry". However if an individual regiment is named then the nationality like Scottish Belgian or Polish can, and probably should, be mentioned. --Philip Baird Shearer 18:33, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

I've spoken to a Dutch colleague and he is decidedly of the opinion that the Belgians of 1815 as well as modern Belgians would have been deeply unhappy at being called "Dutch." The Belgians of both ethnic groups had a shared Catholic faith and a "Burgundian" inheritance, the Dutch of the 7 provinces were overwhelmingly Protestant and had quite a distinct social and political history. The two peoples were not the same and the efforts William I to "Dutchify" the Belgian provinces provoked a revolution. There can be no stronger argument for treating the two peoples as separate in 1815 than that subsequent event. The United Netherlands army of the time did treat its constituent parts separately, even in the point of uniform. The Belgian infantry wore false-fronted shakos identical to the British model, Dutch infantry wore bell-topped shakos.

Urselius 11:53, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

If you know the names of the Belgian formations perhaps we could call them out and this would end the discussion and present the units to everyone's satisfaction. Tirronan 21:14, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

The Belgian units at Waterloo:

2nd Netherlands Division

1st Brigade 7th Belgian Line Infantry Regiment

3rd Netherlands Division

1st Brigade 35th Belgian Jäger Battalion

2nd Brigade 3rd Belgian Line Battalion 36th Belgian Jäger Battalion

1st Netherlands Division

1st Brigade 4th Belgian Line Battalion

2nd Brigade 1st Belgian Line Battalion

Dutch-Belgian Cavalry Division

1st Netherlands Heavy Cavalry Brigade 2nd (Belgian) Carabiniers

2nd Netherlands Light Brigade 8th (Belgian) Hussars – Lieutenant

3rd Netherlands Light Brigade 5th (Belgian) Light Dragoons

Wheras almost half the cavalry (3 out of 7 regiments) was Belgian the proportion of Belgian infantry was much less, this was largely because the Dutch militia was present in numbers but the Belgian equivalent had not been mobilised. Having said that when the 1st Brigade of the 2nd Netherlands division broke up under D'Erlon's attack, the only Belgian unit in the brigade (7th Line) was the only one not to disband but remained in formation firing at the French column.

Urselius 08:26, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Then here is what I propose, where a Belgian unit is involved let us use the nominclature you have provided including the (Belgian) to denote the unit and we would have covered this to everyone's satisfaction I believe. Phillip would you sign off on this as a fair resolution? Tirronan 16:48, 1 August 2007 (UTC)


 * It is what I said above with regards to individual units, so I am happy with that, but they should be described as Dutch not "Netherlands" cavalry. The first place to add this information should be to the Order of Battle of the Waterloo Campaign. Also while that is being added can someone look over a problem I highlighted on the talk page

of the OOB back in November 2005 --> See Talk:Order of Battle of the Waterloo Campaign --Philip Baird Shearer 18:39, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll look at PH's book he tends to get anal retentive about German speaking units so he might have some additional information. As for Dutch over Netherland I don't know if they were listed as the Netherland's Division I would tend that way. Tirronan 18:52, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

More on friendly fire
Captain Mercer's account of the effect on his RHA troop of Prussian friendly fire:-

"The rapidity and precision of this fire was quite appalling. Every shot almost took effect and I certainly expected we should all be annihilated. Our horses and limbers, being a little retired down the reverse slope, had hitherto been somewhat under cover from the direct fire in front; but this plunged right amongst them, knocking them down by pairs, and creating horrible confusion...The whole livelong day had cost us nothing like this. Our gunners too...were so exhausted that they were unable to run the guns up after firing...the guns soon came together in a confused heap, the trails crossing each other...I sighed for my poor troop - it was already but a wreck." Tirailleur 11:00, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

If you have a citation for that I don't have much of an issue with inserting a "friendly fire" portion to this. I found PH's recount of this though it was short so it could make a nice addition to the article. Tirronan 22:21, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

I just thought it was interesting. The extract is from Waterloo Journal by Captain, later General, Cavalié Mercer. Elsewhere, he mentions that at first he tried returning this fire, but the effect of the incoming rounds told him that these must be 12-pounders, and the speed with which the guns were served told him that these were not gunners who'd been in action all day long. Taken together, that told him that these were Prussians. So he didn't return fire and had to watch as his battery was blown away by his own side.

Friendly fire must have been a peculiar hazard at Waterloo because you had French formations and speakers on both sides, and of course Napoleon lied to his army about who the new arrivals on the right flank were.

If you want a flavour of the battle, Mercer is a very good, if often grim, read. I think it is Mercer who says that canister fired at cuirassiers made a noise like throwing a handful of gravel at a window. One of his gunners, a ramrod operator, was killed when he slipped as the gun was fired. His position was in front of the gun, and as he fell, he reflexively flung his arms forward just as the gun went off. The round severed both arms above the elbow and he bled to death. Later, Mercer was disturbed on the night after the battle by a wandering horse, apparently loose, which was making its way from battery to battery and from squadron to squadron trying to attach itself to each in turn, and being shooed away. When it reached his battery's position, Mercer saw with horror that its whole nose and face had been taken off by a roundshot just below its eyes. He had no ammunition left to shoot it with.

The popular imagery of the battle is probably "Scotland Forever", by Lady Butler, and immaculate serried ranks, but I for one would love to see a Saving Private Ryan style portrayal of the battle as it really was. Tirailleur 10:46, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Actually I would like you to insert that section in the Prussian section about Zeithen and his arrival complete with citation of course. It expands a section that needs it and gives lie to the ideal that this was some perfect plan, there are no perfect plans in battle. I'll dress it up with what I have from PH. The reason it happened was that the Nassau troops were dressed in French uniforms, used a French Formation, and Mercer's battery was in support. Given that they were in battle with the French 48 hours before and lost 11k men and 11k more decided to go back to momma (and didn't want to be Prussian in the 1st place) you had at this point the hard core troops that really wanted to fight and were going to take it to the French no matter the cost. As for Napoleanic area battles, they were always bloody affairs, a musket is accurate to about 50 meters. I'm reading "six frigates" about the US Navy in 1812 it describes just horrors, American seamen on British Frigates reporting running like buckets of it had been dumped on the decks. I don't like romantic histories it leads to stupid things and stupid ideas, battles are organized murder with no sense of fair play. Tirronan 15:02, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I'll take a look at doing that, but I need to get the page reference straight first. I am working from a 1990s reprint of Mercer. It occurs to me we could probably work out which Prussian battery was firing on him. IIRC, only about a third of the Prussian foot artillery had 12-pounders, so there weren't that many 12-pounder units in Ziethen's Corps. I'd need to find the bit where he mentions he thought they were 12-pounders, otherwise the logic won't make sense internally. 129.230.248.1 08:56, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

I can provide the 12 pounder batteries in 1st Corps and I have already outlined the battalions actually fighting around La Haye and Frischmont. Tirronan 23:13, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

The Prussian 1st Corps had 3 12lbr batteries and 5 6lbr batteries as well as a horse artillery battery. In other words enough to form a mini grand battery of 72 guns if they so desired. Mercer never stood a chance, and this explains why 1st Corps was having such an easy time with Durout, all the arty and cav support they could have asked for. Tirronan 22:11, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Pity there were 3 - doesn't help narrow down to which one it might have been. Of academic interest only, admittedly. Tirailleur 17:12, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Well 1st and 4th Brigades were involved in taking the area, but artillary would be assigned as needed. Tirronan 18:22, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

Interesting to note this was not the 1st Friendly fire incident, Highlanders mowwed down Dutch Cav at Quatre Bras as well, those French uniforms were not doing the Dutch/Nassu continents much good. Tirronan 19:07, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Intro - poor sentence
"While the campaign hung in the balance for most of its duration, the decisive battle became the Battle of Waterloo."

I think this needs a re-write.

I don't think it "became" it was the decisive battle, I think no-one who was present doubted, at its end, that the battle had been decisive.

It became known as Waterloo in English speaking countries - but this is a separate matter, it was known as the Bataille de Mont Saint-Jean in France. 'Old Nosey' used to name all his battles after the place where his HQ was, in this case it was at Waterloo.

Urselius 19:43, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Oh yikes that needs changing Tirronan 05:27, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

I was looking for this phrase and didn't find it did you already change it? The Battle of Waterloo was the decisive battle, the forces of France never really did recover and with Napoleon gone there was nothing really to rally around. Many a French fortress surrendered to representatives of the King. Tirronan 15:10, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

No I haven't changed it, it is the first sentence of the third paragraph from the very start of the whole article.

Urselius 08:15, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Than I am going to change it, sheesh that is horrible Tirronan 23:20, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

What about a clever reference, after the one referring to the 100 days, to the "100 years" (1815-1914), in the same sentence. That could sound poetic. Some multi-volume European history series will have a volume titled, "Europe, 1815-1914". Just a thought. P.S. The passages on the British heavy cavalry are suburb--some of the best detail I've seen anywhere. Jebbrady 00:12, 11 August 2007 (UTC)Jebbrady

Battle of Ligny
I've started work on that page if anyone would like to come over and help it would be appreciated. Tirronan 03:51, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

GA review
Hi there, great article, makes a good job of understanding a relatively complex battle. There are however a few points which should be addressed before this is ready for GA.

General points
These are a few ideas to bear in mind for the article, and to enact as you read through.
 * Link all commander's names when they are first mentioned, even if this results in a red link. Perhaps you will be asked to remove them later if you are going to FA, but at the moment i think it would be best to link as many as possible. Some seem interesting but without a link a reader cannot find them. (e.g. Lobau, Bauduin, Donzelot, Milhaud etc.)
 * throughout the text, links to "Battle of . . ." should not have a capital "B". Please change these to lower case.
 * - No, "Battle" is the name and is correct. A reference to "the battle" should use lower-case. Otherwise, leave out the "Battle of" and just refer to the battle's name. (Tom H) —Preceding unsigned comment added by  86.3.205.122  (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 October 2007


 * In placces there are very short paragraphs which make the text look choppy. try to merge some of them together. I have indicated most of these instances below.
 * I will address specific problems below, but the text as a whole could use a copyedit to make sure it is clear, at some points it drifts into uncertainty and should be cleaned up.
 * More references for such an important article are probably needed. The article is (except for a few parts) well referenced enough for GA, but if you plan to go to FA then more references and perhaps more sources are required.
 * It would be nice (although by no means necessary) to use some textboxes with quotes from people who were at the battle to enliven the text in places.
 * Are there anymore maps of the battle, the one there was nice and more would help the article?


 * - Please proof read the above as there are mistakes, e.g. 2nd rather than "second" etc —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.3.205.122  (talk • contribs) 16:21, 18 October 2007

Specific Points

 * Lead should be longer and give a slightly better brief overview of the circumstances of Napoleon's banishment and return. Aim for three substantial paragraphs on this. The quote from Wellington looks odd as a cquote in the lead, I recommend integrating it into the text.
 * The first paragraph of the prelude is unreferenced.
 * Shorter paragraphs in prelude should be merged, I recommend putting the 3rd, 4th and 5th and the 6th, 7th and 8th together to make two larger paragraphs.
 * The false intelligence mentioned is unclear - either explain it, remove it or link to somewhere which explains it.
 * The end of the 2nd paragraph of Prelude is not clear, it repeats itself about Wellington's orders and doesn't present a clear timeline.
 * The 7th paragraph of the prelude is again unclear, particulaly with regard to Ziethen's Corps, what did they actually do on the day? Also be consistent on whether you use "1st Corps" or "I Corps".
 * Conclude the prelude with the attention focused on the battlefield of Waterloo, at the moment there is no logical link between prelude and armies.
 * the last sentance of the 2nd paragraph in armies is a little clunky, I know what you mean but try to explain it a little better.
 * The paragraph on the Prussian army is also a little unclear and could probably use some expansion.
 * In battlefield make it clear whose position you are talking about at which point.
 * 1st two paragraphs of battle should be joined together and explain who Bulow was i.e. that he was the vanguard of the reinforcement's sent to aid Wellington.
 * Source the legend of the Gordon Highlanders grabbing the stirrups.
 * Link or explain in a footnote the term Cuirassiers (I know they are French heavy cavalry but many readers won't)
 * In Charge of heavy cavalry, the term alternative view is incorrect, say something like "historians have estimated that . . ." and give sources and if possible, names.
 * In the same paragraph you talk about the deaths of Ponsonby and Hamilton twice, the reapt is unecessary.
 * Give a time of the French cavalry attack, don't just say "at this point".
 * 3rd paragraph of FCA has no references.
 * Palcenoit - the church was "fully involved" in a fire? Just say it was burning.
 * source Wellington's spoiled my battlefield quote.
 * perhaps some information of the longer lasting importance of this battle, which afterall is one of the most notable battles in modern history. If this is too much then consider a seperate article about it, but ignoring the longer legacy of Waterloo is not possible.

I realise this is something of a long list and that some of these issues may be a little advanced for GA, but I wanted to give you as thorough a review as I could. If it too much then don't worry, lets just see how much gets done and go from there. I think this article could easily be a GA ina couple of days and congratulations for all your hard work.--Jackyd101 10:40, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Have referenced the anecdote about Highlanders grabbing Greys' stirrups - and removed word "apocyphal" as I have sourced the legend to a particular Sgt. of the Greys.

Urselius 12:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I forgot to mention yesterday, but when you believe the article ready for me to look over again send me a message on my talk page and I'll be happy to go over it again. Don't worry about the seven days thing either, even if that expires I'll simply review the piece for GA as if it was a new nomination. I see there is a lot of good work going on, keep it up. All the best--Jackyd101 10:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

I started processing some of these suggested edits. In so doing I rearranged some paragraphs a bit for clarity - the section on Quatre Bras was repetitive and the 17 June jumped back and forth between Ligny and Quatre Bras in an unhelpful manner. The narrative on the retreats from Quatre Bras and Ligny also didn't mention that they were parallel. Feel free to revert if you don't like, but I think the Prelude now reads better. Tirailleur 13:46, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Wellington's dispositions at Hal
I have just noticed that the article makes no mention at all of one of Wellington's more controversial pre-battle decisions, which was to leave 17,000 men at Hal to his northwest.

We should put something in about this. Wellington has been criticised for this disposition by several historians over the years - Naylor and I think also Chandler - but others (forget who) have supported it. The criticism is that he left valuable troops too far from the battle to support him. The response to this is that the Hal detachment provided a force to rally on if he were defeated and had to retreat to Antwerp, and, as Wellington did not know the whereabouts of all Napoleon's troops, represented a reasonable positioning of a reserve against any flank march. We know - as Wellington did not - that the "missing" French troops on the 18th were to the east, not the west.

According to Mercer, it was generally understood in the army by early May that, in the event of a French attack, Wellington would aim to draw them onto one of two prepared and reconnoitred positions. One was at Waterloo, and the other was at Hal. Mercer was billeted west of Brussels, so he rode over to look at the Hal position. He doesn't say much about what he thought of it, but it sounds like a classic Wellingtonian defensive position. There was a series of ponds strung along a small river which was crossed by a bridge where three roads met. To the north was what he calls a "steep" ridge (by local standards perhaps) and to the south another one. It sounds like the Waterloo position with the added frisson of a nice little water obstacle for the French to cross and a choke point (the bridge) enfiladed by well-built fortifiable houses all around it.

I will dig out the Mercer quote tonight. I am re-reading him at the moment but I had clean forgotten that bit. Interesting, no? Tirailleur 14:18, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

OK I found it on Google books:-

"To meet the threatened invasion, it was generally understood in the army that the Duke had made choice of two positions in the neighbourhood of Brussels - the one a little beyond the village of Waterloo, the other at Hal...Curious to see these positions, I one day rode over to Hal...This little town is situated on the Senne, here interrupted a good deal in its course by mill-dams, etc., so that it forms numerous ponds in and about the place, only to be crossed by the stone bridge over which the road from Braine Le Leud and Braine Le Chateau passes...and thus ascends the steep street in the direction of Brussels. On this side the ground rises to a considerable height, giving a great command over the valley and roads winding through it...the opposite hills...recede so much to the southward as to be of no avail against the positions, although considerably higher." (http://books.google.co.uk/books?id=ErFFAi4j21IC&pg=PR2&dq=mercer+waterloo&sig=bIqRF0VPrgvc9L1-GgDXclwfJwc#PPA196,M1; General Cavalie Mercer, "Journal of the Waterloo Campaign", Chapter IX).

This account is based on his diary of the time, the particular entry dating from early May 1815. So I wonder if we think it is worth saying something about this? Wellington's "spare" 17,000 were in fact located at his alternative preferred battle site at Hal. If defeated at Quatre Bras or otherwise forced to fight further to the west, this seems to be where he would have stood. Tirailleur 17:29, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes mention of the force at Hal should certainly be included.

Urselius 08:40, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Textboxes with quotes
Well, I think my level of expertise on this topic is dwarfed by that of the main authors here, but I have found a fantastic collection of first hand accounts of the battle on google books, published in 1815. I will, as I get time, dig through this for passages relevant to particular parts of the battle, and insert these as quotes. If nothing else it's interesting to see the POV in the language used on both sides. -Kieran 15:41, 29 August 2007 (UTC)

I've pressed for the inclusion of more quotes from eyewitnesses in the past, they certainly enliven the text.

Urselius 08:44, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Blank
Is it just me or is there a large blank space at the top of the article at the moment?

I'll look up something supportive for the unreferenced paragraph of the "French Cavalry Attack." There ought to be plenty of examples in Nosworthy's book on tactics.

Urselius 08:48, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

It's not just you and that gap has only just appeared. I can't see any obvious reason for it. Tirailleur 12:02, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote
If anyone wants to "enbiggen" the quote in the French Cavalry Attack section to fit it in with the style of the others feel free. The cut and paste of code required is a little beyond me at present. -Urselius 09:03, 30 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Done. :) -Kieran 14:43, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Final advance
Much was made in print, not least by Vivian himself, of the part played by Vivian's hussar brigade in spearheading the final British advance. Perhaps some mention of this might be made. At present there is no reference to any Allied cavalry being active in the final advance.

Also the text reads as though all the British/Allied infantry leapt forward in the final advance, but I remember at least one witness say that some of the most depleted and physically exhausted batallions simply piled their arms and sank down where they stood. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs) 19:51, August 30, 2007 (UTC)

Urselius 14:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Personal actions of the generals
I'm not sure if this is mentioned in the article, but Wellington seems to have been extremely mobile throughout the battle, giving orders, gathering information and inspiring his troops across the battlefield. I have a great quote for this, but I don't quite know where to put it:

The Duke visited us frequently at this momentous period; he was coolness personified. As he crossed the rear face of our square a shell fell amongst our grenadiers, and he checked his horse to see its effect. Some men were blown to pieces by the explosion, and he merely stirred the rein of his charger, apparently as little concerned at their fate as at his own danger. No leader ever possessed so fully the confidence of his soldiery: wherever he appeared, a murmur of 'Silence--stand to your front--here's the Duke,' was heard through the column, and then all was steady as on a parade.

Is it perhaps worth having a section on the personal actions of Wellington and Napoleon during the battle? -Kieran 17:13, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

The problem here is on two points, one half the crap ever written on Waterloo devolves to hero worship of Wellington, Napoleon, and for the German Population Blucher. Its so pointed that lessor French generals have been thrown under the buss for Napoleon's sake. Winnowing away the lies to get to the real truth is a major pain and this page has had issues with enough trolls in its past to not want to attract others. I'd prefer to just list what the General did, his victory or defeat should speak for itself. Tirronan 10:05, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

There may be a point to make about the hands-on approach of Wellington. He, on the day, had a knack for being in the right place at the right time all the time, compared to Napoleon, who issued broad instructions then left everything to Ney. Weller says that the preocuupation with Hougoumont possibly came from Napoleon himself because from where he was it was one of the few places on the battlefield he could see. Tirailleur 11:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * Perhaps a picture: "A Rifleman of the 95th Rifles presents Wellington with a cup of tea on the morning of The Battle of Waterloo" - By Aylward or "The Duke of Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, offering encouragement to the infantry at some stage in the battle" - By Robert Hillingford? --Philip Baird Shearer 12:16, 31 August 2007 (UTC)


 * I like both of those, are we allowed to use them? Tirailleur 21:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * As near as I can make out, faithful two-dimensional reproductions of paintings do not produce a new copyright (at least in the USA). Thus, provided the artworks themselves are out of copyright (usually true if they're more than 100 years old), then they're usable. I looked at those links, however, and they're not very high resolution images. If we can't get better copies, though, they could do. -Kieran 21:20, 2 September 2007 (UTC)


 * Is it that simple? The pictures my be out of copyright, but arn't those digital copies of the pictrures still in copyright? I think that the copy of tea drinking picture may be OK because it is on the UK MOD site and there is a Wiki template for material from The Crown, but the other picture's copy is on a commersial site. --Philip Baird Shearer 10:03, 12 September 2007 (UTC)