Talk:Order of battle of the Waterloo campaign/Archive 1

Three pages
Now it is in table form, which I think looks better, Given the size, I guess we will have to break it into three pages. Philip Baird Shearer 23:46, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I agree on splitting the page up. By the way, what colour do you think should be used to make the corps' distinctive from the divisions? I've just experimented with colours based on national associaion, but the blue, red, and black strained the eyes. SoLando (Talk) 23:58, 22 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Salut mes camarades! Hope you don't mind me joining you in this effort. I was thinking of doing an OoB for Waterloo for a long time. So long, in fact someone beat me to it and started one. Then I thought about adding to and improving upon it. When I saw you two had taken up that task too. So I decided the time had come to "Be Bold" and jump in WIKI WIKI style, since I don't wish to be the Grouchy here and miss out on the big fight:>. --R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 08:13, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * :-) That's all that really needs to be said (even if it's only a smiley). I should have (hopefully) the Prussian template finished shortly . Do you know of any book (or whatever) containing details on killed and wounded figures for each unit at Waterloo? I've only been able to find this, which lumps them into total figures. SoLando (Talk) 19:29, 24 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks for making me feel welcome:> Yeah I've run into the same problems in finding any good breakdowns of unit casualties. Our task is not made easier by the fact there were so many. An officer remarked following the bloody affair, "It was usual after a battle to go to neighbouring units and ask 'Who's dead?', but in this case one asked 'Who's alive?'". And of course Wellington is said to have lamented after his own survey of the carnage-"The only thing worse than a battle won is a battle lost." Worse still, from our standpoint, I suspect the 19th century ball and bean counters were far more interested in total casualties than unit losses. These tabulations were used simply as raw data to obtain the overall figures, then discarded, lost or possibly even destroyed. Also large numbers of wounded lingered for days after the battle before succumbing, which would have had a drastic impact on any casualty figures. Given all this, the best we can probably hope for is enough data to make some sort of reasonable estimates. This is not unusual. So many battles of this period, for all the above mentioned reasons, lack reliable, exact casualty figures. That's why when giving these numbers we so often have to use qualifiers such as "around" "about" or approximately". If humanity were truly sane and civilized, it would have stopped the development of military technology after this point. Ok, enough moralizing, lacking unit casualties I'll continue to look up brigade commanders pour L'Armee du Nord, and fill in Wiki links. I'll try to get some Prussians too, so when you have their template ready they can be added. Salut!--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:01, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * R.D.H. - that was very eloquent:-) You've compelled me to start off into a similar vain (oh no!). Sadly, humanity is still yet to attain a true level of sanity and civilisation; after all, we have Britney Spears :-D I personally believe that we will one day achieve a heightened spirituality (replace with less pompous term) and awareness of the true sanctity of human life....one day. It's a pity it's virtually impossible to persuade the world to renounce the reasons for partaking in violence against one another. Waterloo, though there were less casualties than Leipsig, certainly has a resonance in most peoples' minds similar to that of the Somme, even if Waterloo didn't rip the heart out of a generation. Okkkkk, I've really digressed there. Back to the article. How about combining "killed" and "wounded" into "casualties"? That way we can utilise the information from  and scrutinise the figures using additional sources. The Prussian template will be completed shortly (deja vu?), but I've been distracted lately. I'll be up into the wee hours thanks to the Baseball World Series, so should be completed within the next six hours :-) Take care.  SoLando (Talk) 00:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)
 * The template is finally finished. SoLando (Talk) 03:58, 26 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Digress away my friend :> Of course if our species were truly sane and civilized, we would have stopped weapons technology at the rock. By the time we got to Waterloo the "Genie" was out of its bottle. The course had already been set towards the industrialized slaughter of the First World War and the mechanized, high tech butchery of the Second. But there is still something gloriously terrible about the Napoleonic era. The nature of Napoleonic warfare was just horrible enough to deter conflict (there was not another Major European was for almost 40 years after Waterloo...yet not so horrific or devoid of honor or individual acts of valour to, as you say, tear the heart out of an entire generation.


 * Now about that article we're working on:> Great job on the templates! I think your suggestion of combining killed and wounded is the only sensable option we have. And the site you found is the only decnt online source. I'll keep looking for commander links...provided I got the spellings right..disambig pages are our friends ...Salut!:>--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 10:35, 27 October 2005 (UTC)

Strength Killed and Wounded
As can be seen in the previous section on this talk page, the strength of units varies eg
 * 6th (Dutch) Hussar Regiment - Lt-Col. Bereel (470)
 * 6th (Dutch) Hussars - Lieutenant-Colonel W.F. Bereel - 641

In these cases should we go with both |470 or 641| and footnote the difference, or is there a more authoritative source that can be used?--Philip Baird Shearer 15:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

What is the source for killed and wound that are currently in the article? --Philip Baird Shearer 15:10, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Van der Smissen
I changed the entry for Major Van der Smissen, the chief of the artillery of the Third Netherlands Divison. He indeed became a baron (in 1818) and a major-general, but in 1815 he was still a major. In the literature about the battle he is usually called "major" Van der Smissen. I have changed the underlying wikilink to Jacques Louis Dominique Baron van der Smissen, because that probably ought to be the title of the article, if someone is going to write it. I found these biographical data: born October 2, 1788 in Kapellekerk near Brussels. Married Louise Caterine Colleton Graves on October 10, 1816. Son of Henri van der Smissen and Marie Anne Haelen. Created baron in 1818. Promoted maj.-gen. in the 1820s. Played a controversial role during the Belgian Revolution of 1830. His son became a Belgian general, too. Died in Wiesbaden(?) February 5, 1856.--Ereunetes (talk) 21:29, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

Régiment de Légère
Is it Régiment de Légère as stated or just Régiment Légère? It doesn't look like correct French to me - Légère being an adjective (Regiment of Light). Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:02, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

(British) Unit designatons
Hello, I've never posted here before so apologies if I am not following the correct protocol. I merely wanted to point out how difficult it is for an encylopedia such as this to quote DEFINITE figures for killed and wounded. I have been researching the PRO documents at Kew for many years and have complete lists for each British unit - total number of men present, KIA, died of wounds, and wounded. I would hesitate to ever present these as anything other than estimates, perhaps with a margin of error as much as 5% for casualties. At the moment one British infantry regiment's figures are given - the 52nd Foot - they are listed here as having lost 35 men, taken from the regimental history. My own findings, using the WO25 document series of 1815, states that 20 men were KIA, 35 died later of wounds, with another 153 wounded. This does not vary greatly from the figures given but I would suggest that, should I ever be mad enough to start counting all over again, I might come to a different number again! My point is, an enclopedia should make clear what are concrete facts and what are approximate figures.

First, thanks to all the people who made this article much better!

Anyways, just have bit of problem with the British units in their present form, what with all the parentheses. To me it looks untidy. Now I'm not aware of the any editorial convention which would apply in this particular case so I suggest that we leave the name of the units (i.e. Prince of Wales's Own Guards) in the form that they have had during the battle period, instead of putting parathesis here and there [i.e. 7th (The Queen's Own) Regiment of (Light) Dragoons (Hussars)] which may prove torturous to readers. We can then link to modern-day British units that amalgamated and/or inherited those older units, where possible. This is, of course, just a suggestion. --Chinfo 08:24, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * Or how about single quotes? For example in the above example: 7th 'The Queen's Own' Regiment of (Light) Dragoons. Or Italics only for unit titles mayhaps? IE: 7th The Queen's Own Regiment of (Light) Dragoons.--R.D.H. (Ghost In The Machine) 13:09, 25 October 2005 (UTC)


 * I have to admit, the use of paranthesis isn't necessary - I'm just a stickler for formality with these type of things :-D The parentheses ("Queen's Own", "Light Infantry", etc.) were part of each regiments' full title during the Waterloo period, though I'm sure Wellington preferred to use numerals ("Send for the 95th, danm it man!!" :-D). Yes, the British military hierarchy probably thought (for some reason) that these titles were clear and understandable *puzzled*. Regiments.org should clarify the title styles for this period. SoLando (Talk) 00:30, 26 October 2005 (UTC)

British RHA Troops were officially designated by letters - eg Mercer's Troop was officially G (Dickson's) Troop RHA (Dickson still being its titular commander even though he had moved on to greater things). Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Wellington's staff
This source J. Booth, (1817) The battle of Waterloo: also of Ligny, and Quatre Bras, containing the ... p. 31 list the Staff officers in Wellington's army. -- PBS (talk) 00:14, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Old and Middle Guard casualties
The article states that the 1st Grenadiers of the Old Guard suffered 1000 killed. However, this is more likely for killed and wounded, perhaps captured. And no source is cited for 1000 killed. Mark Adkin states in 'The Waterloo Companion' that the grenadiers had half there number the regiment could muster after the campaign. This means that around 600 grenadiers were missing. However, surely this applies to the wounded as well. Similarly, 700 men for the second grenadiers didn't attend roll call. And how many of these missing were killed? As for the Middle Guard, their casualties were heavy but again there seems to be too many killed.

I'm not sure about the casualties at Ligny, though. The Middle Guard did suffer badly but I'm not sure about the Old Guard. All the same, I don't think that the 1st Grenadiers suffered 1000 killed. And anyway, no source is cited here. Guard Chasseur (talk) 09:43, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Numbers don't add up
Eg the 1st Heavy Cavalry Brigade (Brigade Zware Cavalerie) has a summary strength alongside it of 1,241 men all ranks, but the individual regiments sum to only 1,238.

The division as a whole is shown as having 3,634, men but the individual brigade strengths sum to 3,611 including the artillerymen.

The text says that the Allied 1st Corps had 24,844 men but the table on the next line gives totals that sum to 26,703. Tirailleur (talk) 13:54, 9 November 2012 (UTC)

No sources for a large edit
I am concerned about the accuracy of this article. The original article was massive altered between 25 October to 1 November 2011 by Legal010 who only ever edited this article and the Quatre Bras order of battle with this edit on 26 October 2011 by Legal010.

Legal010 did not add sources for the additions to either article so there is no way of knowing if the current versions are accurate.

Legal010 also introduced the wording "off" into this page. Has anyone any idea what it means? -- PBS (talk) 11:11, 10 December 2012 (UTC)


 * I think it's a tradesman's expression, isn't it? Ball valves, 2 off; toilet cistern, 3 off"; etc.


 * I've previously noted that the unit breakdowns don't foot with the totals. Tirailleur (talk) 15:22, 15 January 2013 (UTC)

artillery numbers
What do those numbers like 88 & 91 in front of the artillery totals mean? - it can't be the number of guns or their weights e.g., "88 6x6lb guns & 2x5.5in ".If its crews perhaps that could be indicated somehow.Tttom1 (talk) 19:53, 10 February 2014 (UTC)

Lieutenant-Colonel James Hay linked to the wrong full article.
If you click on the name of Lieutenant-Colonel James Hay, you will be taken to the full article on James, Lord Hay who was in fact a completely different person. Lord Hay only held the rank of ensign, and was ADC to General Maitland. He died tragically on what was almost his first day of battle when his horse reared, apparently making him a good target for a cavalry skirmisher. The other James Hay lived a considerably longer life, and this isn't the first time the two men have been confused with each other. However, the remains of James, Lord Hay were moved to crypt in the British Waterloo Monument when it was constructed circa 1890

http://napoleon-monuments.eu/Napoleon1er/1815WaterlooEvere_EN.htm#Grose Hay (towards the bottom of the page)

RogerInPDX (talk) 03:54, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

I am now beginning to wonder if there might have been THREE men named James Hay:

http://archive.org/stream/waterloorollcall00daltuoft/waterloorollcall00daltuoft_djvu.txt

The fastest method is to do a page search for "Hay" on this site.

RogerInPDX (talk) 04:36, 8 June 2014 (UTC)

Dutch Belgian Cavalry Division
I have been doing a bit of co-editing on Quatre Bras. It threw up an anominally over the numbering of Jean_Baptiste_van_Merlen brigade. In the article it was numbered "2nd Netherlands cavalry brigade" Initally I changed it to "3rd Netherlands cavalry brigade" but on looking on the net it was clear that some other sources also used 2nd, so I have compromised for the moment with "2nd Netherlands Light cavalry brigade".

The two external links we have differ on the numbering:

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/British_Order_of_Battle_WATERLOO.html
 * Heavy (Dutch-Belgian) Brigade - Maj-Gen. Trip
 * 1st (Dutch) Carabinier Regiment - Lt-Col. Coenegracht (446)
 * 2nd (Belgian) Carabinier Regiment - Col. de Bruijn (399)
 * 3rd (Dutch) Carabinier Regiment - Lt-Col. Lechleitner (392)
 * 1st Light (Dutch-Belgian) Brigade - Maj-Gen. Baron de Ghigny
 * 4th (Dutch) Light Dragoon Regiment - Lt-Col. Renno (647)
 * 8th (Belgian) Hussar Regiment - Lt-Col. Baron Davivier (439)
 * 2nd Light (Dutch-Belgian) Brigade - Maj-Gen. van Merlen
 * 6th (Dutch) Hussar Regiment - Lt-Col. Bereel (470)
 * 4th (Dutch) Light Dragoon Regiment - Lt-Col. de Merex (271)

http://www.napoleonic-literature.com/Waterloo_OB/Allied.htm
 * Dutch Belgian Cavalry Division - Lieutenant-General Baron Jean Alphonse de Collaert
 * 1st Netherlands Heavy Cavalry Brigade - Major-General A.D.Trip van Zoudtlant
 * 1st (Dutch) Carabiniers - Lieutenant-Colonel L.P. Coenegracht - 446
 * 2nd (Belgian) Carabiniers - Colonel J.B. de Bruijn - 399
 * 3rd (Dutch) Carabiniers -Lieutenant-Colonel C.M. Lechleitner - 392
 * 2nd Netherlands Light Brigade - Major-General Baron Charles Étienne de Ghigny
 * 4th (Dutch) Light Dragoons Lieutenant-Colonel J.C. Reno - 647
 * 8th (Belgian) Hussars - Lieutenant-Colonel Baron L.L. Davivier - 439
 * 3rd Netherlands Light Brigade - Major-General Baron J.B. van Merlen
 * 5th (Belgian) Light Dragoons - Lieutenant E.A.J.G. de Merex - 441
 * 6th (Dutch) Hussars - Lieutenant-Colonel W.F. Bereel - 641
 * Netherlands Horse Artillery - 241
 * Captain A.A. Petter's Half-Battery, HA - (3) 6lb guns, (1) 5.5 inch howitzer
 * Captain A.R.A. Gey van Pittius' Half-Battery, HA - (3) 6lb guns, (1) 5.5 inch howitzer

Notice that not only do the Brigade names vary so the regiments for the 2/3 light Brigade. One is 6,4 the other 5,6. I think that the 6,4 is a mistake because there is a 4th in the previous brigade.

So what is the most popular naming convention for these three Brigades? -- Philip Baird Shearer 11:45, 27 November 2005 (UTC)

The second OOB looks more correct to me. The British numbered their brigades consecutively with no separate distinction for heavy cavalry (1st and 2nd brigades were heavy, 3rd to 7th light). I suspect that, as "Slender Billy" had served under Wellington for years, he would have followed the same convention. Also I'm certain that each brigade had a Belgian regiment.

Urselius 08:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

I've checked Siborne's history and he has the latter OOB.

Urselius 09:14, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Shouldn't the commander of 8th (Belgian) Hussars be Duvivier? And I don't think he was a baron at the time. 92.3.216.29 (talk) 16:17, 4 November 2014 (UTC)

1st Hanoverian Cavalry Brigade
At the moment this article states:
 * 1st Hanoverian Brigade commanded by Major General Victor von Alten
 * 2nd Hussars, King's German Legion commanded by Lieutenant-Colonel August von Linsingen

However states "Victor von Laten (colonel commandant 2d hussars K.G. Legion) Superintended the duties of the Hanoverian cavalry, under the orders of lieutenant-general the earl of Uxbridge...." and states that the 1st Hanoverian Brigade was commanded by [Albrecht] von Estorff (while the Hanoverian corps/division consisted of the 1st Hanoverian Cavalry and the Brunswikck Cavalry).



As does:
 * Carl von Clausewitz in "Chapter 24 Situation the Morning of 16 June", On Waterloo, p. 98.

At the time that the 1st Hanoverian Cavalry Brigade was reconstituted in Britain in 1808, it was commanded by Victor von Alten:

This information tends to suggest that Victor von Alten commanded/superintended the division/corps while the commander of the 1st Hanoverian Brigade was Estorff.

Any other thoughts?

--PBS (talk) 13:21, 7 June 2015 (UTC)