Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 1
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Please do not reply to this page it is an archive of old discussions.
In the battle box it states only 25,000 prussians engaged but later in the article it is stated that 30,000 prussians attacked Plancenoit. Shouldn't someone fix the battle box?
The 106000 men mentioned in the article sound like the entire anglo-allied army under Wellingyons command. I think just 67000 men of the Anglo allied army were fielded at Waterloo.
Cadr, you removed the section: After an hour, in the centre and on the French right flank, he committed general d'Erlons I corps to the assault. Wellingtons habbit of positioning his troops just after the crest shielded them from the worst of the French artillery. Throughout the 18th, Ney assaulted the Allied line with alternating infantry attacks and cavalry charges.
At about 14.00 elements of the Prussian IV and I corps started to arrive at the battle field and put pressure on the French right flank. When at the end of the afternoon, Napoleon ordered an assault of his Old Guard aggainst the battered and exhausted British line, the experienced French Old Guard did not manage
Why did you remove this info? TeunSpaans 05:25 16 May 2003 (UTC)
Reading through this article again, I think it was a good article one or two years ago. But imho it is time for a major expansion. The description of the actual battle is just some 13 lines. I am sure there is much more to sy about this battle. For example, elements which are missing are the wet grass on the morning of the battle, thea map of the battlefield, the position of the French and Allied units at the start of the battle, Napoleons health(stomach), the misunderstanding between Dutch/Belgian troops and Prussian troops, more detail of the fight in the center, which british units which repelled the final assault of the French old guard, Wellintons reverse slope tactics, names of the farms on Wellingtons left, (papelotte, I think, was one of them), and so on.
Also, except for the Prussians, about whose participation has been much debate, the order of battle is pretty clear. This could be added to the article.
Who is willing to undertake a major rewrite of this article? I will not, as I am afrain someone will throw away my contributions again (the previous deletion, without any attempt at explanation, still hurts me)TeunSpaans 06:17 10 Jun 2003 (UTC)
Contents [hide] 1 Timing 2 Links to more details 3 In the conclusion section 4 Map 5 Starting with a quote 6 More on Quotes 7 Dutch-Belgians at Waterloo 8 painting 9 re: painting 9.1 question 10 Terrain 11 Improvement Drive 12 Belgium? 13 Glitch 14 Reversal 8 October 2005 15 cavalry attack 16 Vandalism 17 Napoleon left the battlefield? 18 Les Miserables as a source?
[edit] Timing There seems to be some confusion in the sources about what happened when. Part of this may be due to watches being set to the time of the capitals of the combatants and not sun time. However because London and Paris are quite close this should not be much of a problem.
I think all times in the battle shoud be on the 24 hour clock. At the moment it is a mishmash of both 24:00 and am/pm.
There are some other problems. For example in the curren page it says:
The battle commenced at about 11:20 in the morning and concluded at about 22:00 that evening when General Cambronne surrendered to Col Halkett. and further up the page it says
When the French artillery eventually opened fire on Wellington's ridge at around 11.35am, THE START
Yet in Wellington's Dispatches he says "yesterday morning, and at about ten o'clock he commenced a furious attack upon our post at Hougoumont."
Now it is possible that the French attack on Hougoumont for went on for 1:30 before the main artillery opend up but in which case I think that the start of the attack on Hougoumont should be mentioned as the start of the battle.
Afterall a further contributary reason (apart from the weather) for the delay in the main artillery opening up against the centre, could be that Napoleon was trying to get Wellington to shif forces to reinforce Hougoumont before he started his major attack on the centre near the road past La Haye Sainte.
THE END.
The pursuit of the French by the British went on for more 2 hours after the Last Stand and by the Prussians for longer than that.
So the simplest point to say that the battle finished was when Wellington and Blücher met at the inn La Belle Alliance, which was around around 21:00 hours. It was NOT when General Cambronne surrendered to Col Halkett because that was before the French last stand was over [1].
[edit] Links to more details I agree with TeunSpaans I think the article needs expanding, and I think this should be done with links to other pages. That way people can read a summary of the battle here and details in the links. Just as happens with the current links of Hougomont, La Haye Sainte and La Belle Alliance. For example some usefull links would be:
Franco Prussian confrontation. The French last stand. The persuit
[edit] In the conclusion section The conclusion should mention the decisivness of the battle and its impact on Europe over the next 50+ years. There should also be a link to the Congress of Vienna
I am willing to make some of these changes but if anyone agrees with me I'd be happy to let someone else do them Philip Baird Shearer 00:27, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
I agree with you (and TeunSpaans) that this article is inadequate. I had been thinking that Waterloo would make an excellent signature article for WikiProject Battles; it's well known, well documented, relatively short, and shouldn't arouse too much argument (wishful thinking). However, I've got zero knowledge on the subject so can't really contribute much (I can do a map of the movements leading up to the battle; Ligny, Wavre, Quatre Bras and Waterloo, but that's about it). Anyway, you have my support if you want to make the necessary changes. Geoff/Gsl 04:40, 17 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Map There is a map of the battle, in the battle box on the German page de:Schlacht bei Waterloo. Could someone who knows how to do it, put it into the battle box on this page? Philip Baird Shearer 22:58, 23 May 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Starting with a quote Maveric149says "do not ever start articles with a quote". Why not if it is an appropiate one? I think that
"A damned near run thing" – the Duke of Wellington is appropriate.Philip Baird Shearer 13:52, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
No it is not. Quotes go to Wikiquote or inline within the context of the text (if there are enough of them, then a small section can be set aside for them as well - but that is really only done for bios). All articles must first start with a definition. Qutoes are POV. See also Wikipedia:Manual of Style. --mav 21:13, 19 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I looked in the Wikipedia:Manual of Style and can not see a prohibition on quotes in the lead section. Where is it? But I did see:
Rules and regulations such as these, in the nature of the case, cannot be endowed with the fixity of rock-ribbed law. They are meant for the average case, and must be applied with a certain degree of elasticity. I also looked in the Wikipedia:Lead section There is nothing there that says that "All articles must first start with a definition". What it says is The lead should briefly summarize the article. It is even more important here than for the rest of the article that the text is accessible, and some consideration should be given to creating interest in reading the whole article (see Wikipedia:Summary style and News style). I think the quote is a brief summery of the battle and in creating interest in reading the whole article is appropriate.
This is a very sensitive battle for many Europeans (as you are not one, you may not appreciate it,) particularly Dutch, English, French and Germans, but few of them would disagree with the quote. There are much more contentious quotes which could be used at the start of the article and I would agree with removing because they could be defined as a point of view (POV) e.g.
"They came on in the same old way and we stopped them in the same old way" – Duke of Wellington But unless you can make a better case than you have, I would like to restore the quote. Philip Baird Shearer 12:00, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
Sigh. Having to mention plainly obvious things is really annoying: A lead section needs to start with a lead sentence. If you don't know what that means, then read news style. --mav 07:48, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
I don't think any article should begin with a quote. Put it in a later paragrapgh is you have to. But don't begin the article with it. If you do that we could just as easily argue for starting the article with a quote from Napoleon or Blücher. Mintguy (T) 16:51, 20 Jul 2004 (UTC)
If Napoleon or Blücher had said something which succinctly summed up the battle and is not controversial, then a quote from either or them would be suitable, but AFAIK they did not. Think of as a sound bite about the battle not as quote. If the sentence was included in the lead section without attribution then presumably you would not object to it as it is an accurate summery. Why do you object to it as a quote? As an example of what I mean have a look at the style used by The Economist. For example one of their lead articles published this week 21th July entitled "Alan Greenspan’s testimony", subtitle "your flexible friend" first sentence "The hard times are behind us, says Alan Greenspan." or another article in the business section printed edition 15th July "Stuart Rose and the future of retailing" "A Rose-tinted vision", "Has Stuart Rose seen the future of retailing? 'A BIT boring,' is how Stuart Rose describes some of the products sold by Marks & Spencer (M&S)."
The news section that you highlighted mav is for journalists who can not know how short their article will be edited down too given the changing nature of news in a daily news paper, so they have to use a pyramid style. I my opinion the weekly news magazine style is a better guide, as journalists know the number of words they will be allocated and can therefore break out of the highly stylized format of daily papers. There is no need to Sigh mav, as in the words of Keynes "when the facts change I change my opinion, what do you do?" If you can convince me that it is better not to use a quote at the start then I'll happily agree with you, but so far you have not and I hope that I have given you food for thought Philip Baird Shearer 20:46, 21 Jul 2004 (UTC)
[edit] More on Quotes As about the quote, i think it can be moved to a seperate quotes section, where the 'merde' of the french imperial guards officer can also be included. No doubt old Nap also made a nice statement. TeunSpaans 06:00, 19 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I do not think that the quote should be moved. As I said before think of it as a sound bite. There are lots of other quotes which could be included in a quotes section but I think thay are better in context. For example under Scots Greys you will find a Napoleonic quote Ces terribles chevaux gris! Comme il travaillent! and you can find the word(s) of Cambronne' in the article on the Imperial Guard both on links from this page. BTW following the link to Cambronne you will see that he almost certainly did not utter the imortal phrase and that if anyone did it was General Michel.
What would be much more useful in this article than a list of quotes, is a detailed descrition of the last stand of the Imperial Guard and the fighting retreat some French regiments made. Philip Baird Shearer 17:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
I agree on that last one... TeunSpaans 18:31, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC)
[edit] Dutch-Belgians at Waterloo Wellington's hodge-podge command consisted of British, German, Dutch and Belgian troops. Some of these were of very poor quality (some Belgian and Dutch had even fought in the French Army and were thus sympathetic towards Napoleon), and ran away before the conflict began.
Um, this bit is utter nonsense and very POV. Most Dutch and Belgians did not support the occupation and annexation of their country by Napoleon, and liked even less that their men-folk were rounded up to be used as cannon fodder for the Russian campaign. Many Dutch officers were indeed veterans from Dutch regiments in French service, but those same officers led their soldiers with distinction while holding off the French at Quatre Bras (though sadly the Battle of Quatre Bras article also suffers from the same Anglo-centric themes). As this site mentions, the Dutch-Belgian regiments at Waterloo were only forced to retreat after enduring an artillery bombardment and repelling several infantry assaults. No cavalry charge came to their rescue, unlike what happened when British regiments were similarly pressed.
While English-language popular history texts, movies and television programmes emphasise the British contribution, the British-born were in fact a minority of the total Allied forces at Waterloo - Germans and Belgian-Dutch made up the majority! [2] --kudz75 01:58, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
It is true that if one looks at the popular histories of each country that each country fought a different battle! I personally was never happy with the paragraph as it was because it was open to different interpretations. I think that what the original author meant was
Wellington's hodge-podge command consisted of British, German, Dutch and Belgian troops. Some of these were of very poor quality and ran away before the conflict began. It does not specify which nation's troops ran and it only states that "some" did. However as it is a slur and the regiments (if any) that ran away ought to be named, or the paragraph ought to be removed. I think perhapse thought, it would be a good idea if you would intergrate the text you have written into the Battle section and not have in in the Conclusion. Philip Baird Shearer 11:33, 10 Dec 2004 (UTC)
You're quite right, while I was re-writing the paragraph I had a nagging thought that it didn't seem to belong in the Conclusion anymore but since the running-away stuff was already there... I'll have a go at integrating it into the battle section. --kudz75 05:47, 11 Dec 2004 (UTC)
[edit] painting I have a 1902 history book with a color painting in it titled The Sunken Road at Waterloo, by Stanley Berkley. It shows a bunch of cavalry running off the edge of a hill above a road. If it seems like it might be useful, please give me a holler on my talk page, and I'll scan it in and post it. (Don't respond here, because the Waterloo article is not on my watchlist.) --Bcrowell 01:04, 4 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Great picture, can someone put something in the article about the sunken road itself? I keep hearing references to it, but I don't see anything about it here. JHCC 21:32, 21 Jun 2005 (UTC)
[edit] re: painting > "I have a 1902 history book with a color painting in it titled The Sunken Road at Waterloo... Great picture, can someone put something in the article about the sunken road itself?..."
Here is what Victor Hugo says about it, writing 35 years later: my translation -- from "Les Misérables" (Livre de Poche) v. 1 ISBN 2-253-00503-7, pages shown below --
"The undulations of the farm fields where Napoleon met Wellington no longer exist -- no one remembers what they were, on June 18, 1815. In taking over this funereal scene, for the building of monuments, they have removed the real geography of the place, and the history has been so disturbed that it no longer is remembered. To glorify it, they disfigured it. Wellington, revisiting Waterloo two years after, cried, 'They have changed my battlefield!'.
"Where today there is that enormous earthen pyramid surmounted by a lion, at the time of the battle there was a hillcrest, which fell toward Nivelles in a manageable incline but toward Genappe in what amounted to an escarpment. The height of this escarpment still may be judged today from the height of two large monuments which line the Genappe road; one a tomb for the English, on the left; the other a tomb for the Germans, on the right. No tomb for the French -- for France, the entire plain is a sepulchre.
"Thanks to thousands upon thousands of farm carts filled with soil, today one reaches this hillcrest 150 feet high and 500 feet round via an easy ascent; but on the day of the battle, above all on the Haie-Sainte side, it was a tough and abrupt climb. The slope there was so steep that the English cannons positioned at the top could not aim below, toward the farm in the bottom of the valley at the center of the combat. On June 18, 1815 the rains had dug into this even more: the mud complicated the ascent, so that one not only fell back but sank into the bog. And for the length of the plateau crest there ran a sort of ditch, which was impossible to see for any observer who was far away...
"What sort of ditch? Let me tell you... Braine-l'Alleud is a Belgian village, Ohain is another. These villages, both hidden by rises in the terrain, are joined by a pathway of about one and one half leagues' length, which crosses a rolling plain, and often enters and leaves the hillocks like a plowed furrow or deep groove, so that at various points this pathway becomes a ravine. In 1815, as today, this pathway cut the crest of the Mont-Saint-Jean plateau between the two roads from Genappe and from Nivelles; only today it is at the same level as the plain; back then it was it was a sunken common pathway.
"Stones have been taken from this path for the building of the pyramid-monument. The path was then and is still a trench, for the greatest part of its route; a trench sometimes a dozen feet wide in which stones from its steeper sides wash out and collect, here and there, above all in wintertime during the rains. And accidents happen...
"The pathway is so narrow at its entry near Braine-l'Alleud that a passer-by there was crushed by a cart, as a stone cross in the nearby cemetery testifies, giving the name of the decedent, 'Monsieur Bernard Debrye, Brussels merchant', and the date of the accident, 'February 1637'.
"This pathway was so deep, on the plateau of the Mont-Saint-Jean, that a peasant, one Mathieu Nicaise, was crushed there in 1783 by a landslide, as another stone cross once testified -- the cross disappeared during all the refurbishments, but its pedestal still is visible on the grassy slope to the left of the road between La Haie-Sainte and the farm of Mont-Saint-Jean.
"On the day of battle, this little community pathway which no one knew about, bordering the crest of the Mont-Saint-Jean, this deep ditch at the summit of the escarpment, this rut in the road hidden in the earth, was invisible, in other words it was terrifying...
pp. 331-2
"All at once, tragedy: on the English Left, on our Right, the head of the column of cuirrasiers reared up with a terrible roar. Arriving at the very height of the crest, wildly excited, all in their fury and on course to exterminate the English 'squares' and cannons, the cuirassiers suddenly discovered between them and the English a crevasse, a ditch. It was the community pathway of Ohain.
"It was a terrible moment. There was the ravine, unexpected, gaping, immediately beneath the hooves of the horses, two fathoms deep between its two sides; the second rank pushed the first in, and then the third rank pushed the second in; the horses shying, and rearing, and falling, throwing their hooves into the air, crushing their riders, no way to escape, the entire mounted column at this point being a projectile, the force gathered to crush the English thereby crushing the French, the inexorable ravine unsatisfied until it filled with bodies, horsemen and horses rolling and grinding each against the other, melding into a single fleshy mass in this whirlpool, and, once this ditch was filled with living men, the rest marched over and passed on. Nearly a third of Dubois' brigade collapsed into this abyss. And here the loss of the battle began..."
pp. 336-337
-- lots of versions, both original French and in-translation, are available of all of this, online & otherwise, so pls slice & edit away... I have real trouble making cuts to any of Hugo's texts, myself...
The explanations / excuses for the performance of all at Waterloo, not just the French, have been legion. The new French prime minister blames Grouchy, in large part: see D. Villepin, "Les Cent-jours ou L'esprit de sacrifice" (2003). Others including Hugo have blamed the rain, there are partisans of the Prussians who grumble about the English and vice versa, and Napoleon's bravado and loss of perspective have had their due. But thanks to the above passage from Hugo the "sunken road" hypothesis has been a leader: read the rest of Hugo's account, for that. I expect that all theories on Waterloo are true: must have been a mess, in that mud.
--Kessler 21:47, 24 July 2005 (UTC)
Seems to me the pp. 336-337 quote, above, might be added to the article, with the heading "Victor Hugo, on 'The Sunken Road'", right next to the excellent painting of same recently added -- maybe shifting the image's position a little, maybe not... What do others here think? If there's no objection or other comment within a little while I'll do that. --Kessler 17:37, 26 July 2005 (UTC) I think it is much too long. A sound bite length quote, yes but not a page in an article pushing the limits on size. Besides the theory is not only one. I have always liked the explanation by Brigadier Gerard a creation of Sir Arthur Conan Doyle in "The Adventures of Gerard":
"So high was the spirit of France at that time that every other spirit would have quailed before it; but these people, these English, had neither spirit nor soul, but only solid, immovable beef, against which we broke ourselves in vain. That was it, my friends! On the one side, poetry, gallantry, self-sacrifice--all that is beautiful and heroic. On the other side, beef. Our hopes, our ideals, our dreams--all were shattered on that terrible beef of Old England." --Philip Baird Shearer 18:40, 26 July 2005 (UTC)
OK how about simply that second paragraph, then -- from ""It was a terrible moment" down through "And here the loss of the battle began..." This is Victor Hugo, after all: a shame to miss out on his prose, politically correct or incorrect as his overall views might be -- and here he is only describing, & pungently -- added to which we have this wonderful painting, currently lacking any explanation. The overall Wikipedia point being to provide not just facts but also something readable: soundbite length perhaps but also a real "quote", as you say, not just a bon mot. It's a dramatic juxtaposition, that painting with a really poetic description of it. Compliments on your "solid, immovable beef" quote, incidentally. I've known a couple of Englishmen like that -- even some English relatives of my own, a ways back. As "solid" as the French are "excitable": I suppose Doyle was correct in saying those two types are what met & clashed at Waterloo. --Kessler 20:31, 26 July 2005 (UTC) Pondering on this I think I have a better idea. Why not write an article like Hougomont one under the title "sucken lane" or perhapse a better alternative is the Belgian Ohain road.
I was going to suggest that it be inserted somewhere in the description of the battle field. But have just realised that there is none. So we need a section with a description of the Terrain of the battle field, so that there is a place for your new sentence :-) --Philip Baird Shearer 02:08, 29 July 2005 (UTC)
OK, how about the following?: to be placed between "Prelude" and "Battle" -- Added "The battlefield today" section. --JW1805 21:43, 9 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] question The article says: When Napoleon unexpectedly left the field in the early afternoon. This is new to me - are u certain of it? I always understood that he directed the battle from La belle alliance, leaving the operational issues to Ney, he himself feeling not well.
He did leave the field for a time. This means that he handed over control not that he went by bus back to Paris! Philip Baird Shearer 17:48, 21 Aug 2004 (UTC) On the whole, the article has improved remarkable, though it favours the anglo saxon view - it is ceratinly not written from a dutch or french view. ;)
[edit] Terrain The Waterloo Battlefield, Victor Hugo's "mournful plain", is a small farming valley set among rolling hills. The natural gentleness of the site makes little impression from above or from afar, and so offers the map-bearing bicyclist -- or foot-soldier -- unanticipated surprises. GoogleEarth barely notices Waterloo, although focusing close-in on the valley base and then "tilting" your screen can bring the contours out a bit. On the day of the battle Napoleon, tragically for the French, overlooked or simply could not see several things through his telescope, among them a Sunken Road...
The French approach, from the south, leads down a gentle slope to the little farm of la Belle Alliance, and the valley's base. But from there the land gradually rises toward the highest "rolling hill" in the immediate region, the Mont St. Jean, across the upper slopes of which the Allied forces were positioned, just beyond the farm of la Haye Sainte. The French plan was to charge uphill, but that night it poured rain: in Les Misérables Hugo describes the result -- "today one reaches this hillcrest 150 feet high and 500 feet round via an easy ascent; but on the day of the battle, above all on the Haye-Sainte side, it was a tough and abrupt climb. The slope there was so steep that the English cannons positioned at the top could not aim below, toward the farm in the bottom of the valley at the center of the combat. On June 18, 1815 the rains had dug into this even more: the mud complicated the ascent, so that one not only fell back but sank into the bog. And for the length of the plateau crest there ran a sort of ditch, which was impossible to see for any observer who was far away..."
Among the many things which went wrong for Napoleon at Waterloo was that ditch, known in later battle lore as The Sunken Road: "a pathway of about one and one half leagues' length... like a plowed furrow or deep groove, so that at various points this pathway becomes a ravine... sometimes a dozen feet wide... hidden in the earth, (it) was invisible, in other words it was terrifying..." On the day of the battle, as Hugo tells it,
"It was a terrible moment. There was the ravine, unexpected, gaping, immediately beneath the hooves of the horses, two fathoms deep between its two sides; the second rank pushed the first in, and then the third rank pushed the second in; the horses shying, and rearing, and falling, throwing their hooves into the air, crushing their riders, no way to escape, the entire mounted column at this point being a projectile, the force gathered to crush the English thereby crushing the French, the inexorable ravine unsatisfied until it filled with bodies, horsemen and horses rolling and grinding each against the other, melding into a single fleshy mass in this whirlpool, and, once this ditch was filled with living men, the rest marched over and passed on. Nearly a third of Dubois' brigade collapsed into this abyss. And here the loss of the battle began..."
-- Hugo's view only, of course, that conclusion, but there are many theories as to what happened at Waterloo. --Kessler 21:51, 31 July 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Improvement Drive The article Napoleonic Wars has been listed to be improved on Wikipedia:This week's improvement drive. To support the article, you can add your vote there.--Fenice 08:03, 5 August 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Belgium? In which country was Waterloo on the day of the battle? Philip Baird Shearer 19:03, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
On June 18, 1815, Waterloo was situated in the United Kingdom of the Netherlands as Belgium didn't become independent until 1830. -- fdewaele October 18, 2005, 20:33 CET
[edit] Glitch Please note there is a glitch with the text to the left of the top of the main map box. It currently reads:
Napoleon knew that, once his attempts at dissuading one or mor chance of remaining in power was to In other words this text is not visible:
e of the allies from invading France had failed, his only My revision as of 23:20, 7 September 2005 to insert a paragraph break brought back the missing text, but this has now been reverted. This problem is on an 800 x 600 screen using IE.
Tyrenius 16:20, 10 September 2005 (UTC)
[edit] Reversal 8 October 2005 I reverted the changes made by IP address ********** because of the tone of the changes eg: "Waterloo was largely won by Prussians, Hanoverians, Saxons, Dutch and Belgians".
It is disingenuous to emphasise the ethnic background of the soldiers as if they were fighting in the modern nation states which control the territory today and provided contingents to the army as states do to NATO. Some Hanoverian units for example were to all intense and purposes integrated into the British Army in a similar way as the Gurkhas today (see Halkett). When the Gurkhas provided the screen for the British Army's advance into Kosovo no one talked about Naples taking part in the advance, although the Serbian police who met them, in what the Gurkhas called "the jungle" (woodland), could have been in no doubt about who they were. That is not to say that the units provided by other nations, such as the Dutch and others under the command of the Prince of Orange were not part of a combined Allied army, which should be mentioned, but that over emphasis of the ethnic diversity of the allied army is as bad as pretending that it was all part of a British Army. -- Philip Baird Shearer 09:38, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
>>I reverted the changes made by IP address ******** because of the tone of the changes eg: "Waterloo was largely won by Prussians, Hanoverians, Saxons, Dutch and Belgians".<<
I had done so in order to provoke a strong reaction from you. Your british-centered tone instead was most discriminating in my eyes, not to mention the tons of facts your narrative was blatantly omissing, be it the arrival of Ziethen or Napoleon's intelligence about Prussian movements, thus rendering Prussian/German participation to something close to invisible. My changes were meant to serve as a wake-up call. Nothing more, nothing less. In the meantime I have amended my tone and realised, that you did incorporate some of my ammendments as well. Furthermore the tale, that Napoleon had left the battlefield is of revisionist french origin and does not hold any ground. I expect you to please read Hofschroer's books with an open heart.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by Canadian historian (talk • contribs) 18:33, 8 October 2005 (UTC)
Welcome to Wikipedia. If you are interested in battles you might like to take a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Battles and possibly Wikipedia:WikiProject Wars and Wikipedia:WikiProject History. Because of the disruption it causes to pages, making a point by editing the article is not considered acceptable behaviour especially if you have not raised the issues which concern you on the talk page of the article before making the edits. You are free to put a template on the work see Wikipedia:Template messages/Disputes and Wikipedia:Template messages/Cleanup but again it is expected that you explain why you have added the template on the talk page of the article. People can not address your "Point Of View" (POV) if they do not know that you have one which differs from that already expressed in the text. You wrote above "Your british-centered" I presume you mean all the editors who have contributed to the page, and now that you have, you would write "Our British-centered" :-) Oh and one last thing why do you not write "french" and not "French"? Philip Baird Shearer 00:31, 9 October 2005 (UTC) EDIT: Now that I have successfully introduced some Prussian, Brunswick, Dutch and Nassau activity in to your narrative (Yes, they fought there as well, to your surprise I presume) I would not state that this narrative is so british-centered any longer, but a lot more balanced, right? One last thing, Gneisenau is referred to as Neidhardt not as "August". That entier part of your narrative is still un-historical and ficticious. When have you finished reading Hofschroer? - canadian historian PS. French or french? - I am sorry but I do read accounts and sources in many different languages at the same time, in order to establish a proper knowledge of sources available, which at times results in mistakes when it comes to writing. ;-) Why do you write Neithardt and not Neidhardt? Btw, his family name was Neidhardt von Gneisenau, that's why he isn't "August von Gneisenau".—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 67.68.7.33 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 13 October 2005 (UTC)
[edit] cavalry attack David Hamilton-Williams states that at the time it was the logical thing to do as d'Erlon needed time to sort out his command after his repulse and with the Prussians starting to menace his right flank, Napoleon had no viable infantry reserves at hand to compete with Wellington. After all II Corps had been shattered by Uxbridge, I Corps was facing Hougoumont and VI Corps was sent to Plancenoit. Leaving only the Guard and the cavalry corps of Kellermann, Milhaud,... given the fact it was still only about 14h it was still too soon to sent in the Guard. Leaving Wellington alone was no option because it would have lead to defeat as Wellington would have been given a breathing space when time was of the essence for Napoleon and Wellington would have been able to act in cooperation with the Prussians. Thus the cavalry was called upon to busy Wellington, hoping to break the enemy centre as Murat had done at Eylau. Attacking squares with cavalry is perfectly feasible as long as the cavalry is directly supported by horse artillery batteries. The cavalry attack would keep the infantry immobile in their squares and would give the French artillery time to unlimber at 200 yards and pepper the squares with canister (as Sénarmont had done at the Battle of Friedland). As a result, square after square would have faced the choice at either standing still and die or flee and be chopped to pieces by the roaming cavalry. Chances are very big that the center would have collapsed after witnessing several squares being blasted to pieces.
Ney was blamed later by Napoleonic apologists of having squandered the Emperor's master plan by charging, thus leading to defeat but the only blame one could place on Ney is that he neglected to use his cavalry in combination with the horse artillery (Ney being an infantry general and no cavalry general). The same could be said of Napoleon as he too neglected to send in the horse artillery when he reinforced the first cavalry attacks with the Guard cavalry.
sources:
David Hamilton-Williams, The Fall of Napoleon, the final betrayal, Arms and Armour, London, 1994, 352 pages David Hamilton-Williams, Waterloo New perspectives the Great Battle Reappraised, Arms and Armour, *London, 1993, 416 pages -- fdewaele October 19, 2005, 10:50 CET
Thanks for the reference I'll add it so you can see how it is done for anything else you add like this. sorry I miss read the references what are the page numbers for the arguments above? Whether from an infantry of cavalry background, a French Marshal would know better than to send unsupported cavalry against formed infantry in squares. The traditional view that from the valley floor the repositioning of some of Wellington's regiments was taken to be a general retreat is the best explanation of why the French cavalry was sent over the ridge. Even if the French had known the Allies were not retreating and had sent horse artillery with the cavalry what would have happened the first time that the French cavalry had retreated (as they did a number of times)? The French guns unprotected by infantry would have been captured or spiked. So to succeed against a still formed army cavalry and horse artillery had to be supported by infantry. Given that the French knew that Wellington was known to be a cautious field general and was unlikely to leave the high ground to attack the French until he was sure that victory was his, why would he French have thrown away their cavalry, like they did, to stop an advance that was very unlikely to be made? As the French still had the middle guard in reserve, the only explanation as to why the French launched a cavalry attack and not a combined arms attack is that they thought a general Allied retreat was starting to happen which if pushed could become a route. IMO throwing in the cavalry and the infantry separately as happened does not make sense under any other analysis. Although it is said that Napoleon left the field, it may have been that he left Ney to conduct the left wing of the army, while he concentrated in stopping the Prussians, after all someone had to do it. So it may not be that he left the field but he may have delegated what had become a slugging match against Wellington to concentrate in setting up a another front line on the French left against the Prussians. After all, the reason for a left and right wing with sperate commanders as well as corps commanders was so that Napoleon could delegate on what were towards the end of the Napoleonic wars increasingly becomming multi-army battles. Philip Baird Shearer 21:24, 19 October 2005 (UTC) The horse artillery would not necessarily have been left to their own during the retreats of the cavalry. As it would have been horse cavalry, they were able to limber and unlimber rapidly and would have been able to follow the cavalry wherever they went. Also, the cavalry and artillery would have been coordinated so the cavalry would have been screening the artillery and would not leave them completely unguarded. Also, the effect of several squares collapsing due to the artillery fire would have made a great impression on the allies. A square losing cohesion would be overrun by cavalry. What would you think would the effect of this be on the other squares? either face shrapnell or the sabre... As to the Middle Guard, Napoleon was always very reluctant to use his Old and Middle Guard, they were reserved for the "final push". In fact, most of the fighting by the Guard in the different Napoleonic campaigns was done by the Young Guard. Given the run of the battle, he would only use them for the final push or to stop an imminent breakthrough (such as the two batallions of the Old Guard which were sent to support Lobau [VI Corps] and Duhesme [Young Guard] at Plancenoit) and not already between 14h and 15.30h. Given the fact that II Corps was out of the action for a few hours until sorted out again, I Corps was engaged around Hougoumont, VI Corps and the Young Guard were facing the Prussians and the old and middle guard being the last reserve, Napoleon simply didn't have any infantry available to face the allies with. The only arm he had left in plenty quantity was his cavalry. -- fdewaele October 20, 2005, 13:00 CET "But for all the odds agin’ you, Fuzzy-Wuz, you broke the square" When reading an analysis of Kinpling's poem "Fuzzy-Wuzzy", it stated that the French never broke a British square. Is there a recorded instance during the Napoleonic Wars of the French ever breaking a British square? Philip Baird Shearer 13:59, 20 October 2005 (UTC)
(EDIT: CanHist): Oh dear, you can not rely on Hamilton-Williams' narrative at all for most of his "sources" can not be found nor traced and he was accused of deception and F R A U D, by most acclaimed historians. People, specifically in germany tried to follow his footnotes but were unable to do so. Some of the information with regard to his handling of sources is readily available on the net. Just enter Hamilton-Williams in to google-com and you will be surprised! Its a fabrication, nothing less! "Is there a recorded instance during the Napoleonic Wars of the French ever breaking a British square?" Are you kidding? There is more than just one incident.... Oh my, where is this discussion heading again?
Please sign you edits on a talk page with 4 "~" I have never read any of Hamilton-Williams books or even heard of him until he was mentioned here. Guess I'll have to read some reviews. Do you think Wikipedia should reference him? As to the other question can you name a regiment and a battle where a British square was broken? I suspect it is like the myth that German paratroopers were never to be used as airborne troops after Crete because of the losses they suffered. For example they were planned to be used in the Battle of the Bulge but lack of fuel prevented it. Philip Baird Shearer 17:07, 20 October 2005 (UTC) I did google for Hamilton-Williams but found several negative opions but even more positive. And that person (Hofschröer) seems to hold the Siborne's version to be canon! Whereas that work has been disproven by various Dutch and Belgian authors, time after time as Anglo centric and riddled with bias against the "Dutch-Belgians" and Prussians. I have the impression there is some character assassination going on against Hamilton-Williams... I have yet to find a reasonable published account which proves he deliberately falsified his account anywhere of the Waterloo campaign, or deliberately falsified his sources. I don't claim he holds the truth, nobody does but he wrote a very good work which has been praised by many. Some of his theories are perhaps theories and opinion but they were well thought but that counts for many scholars. To me it seems, the blackening of Hamilton-Williams is mainly done by the more Anglo centric scholars whereas the more "continental" minded seem to embrace it. According to Luc De Vos - professor of military history at the Belgian military academy - in his work "Het einde van Napoleon: Waterloo 1815", one British square was cut to pieces by the French cavalry at Waterloo: the 69th Regiment... and three allied colors were lost to the French cavalry. Did a quick Google seems that it was at Battle of Quatre Bras and was due to a mix up in orders. (I think it forms an important backdrop in Bernard Cornwell novel "Sharpe's Waterloo" ). First they were ordered to form a square and then reform into lines. It was at this point that they were caught by French cavalry. Of the two colours a regiment carried into battle the King's colour captured, but the 69th's Regimental colour was not. At least that is what happened according to this source[3]. The regimental history on the web has one sentence: "Later, as part of Halkett's 5th British Brigade, the battalion was badly cut up at Quatre Bras due to mishandling by the Prince of Orange and lost its King's Colour." --Philip Baird Shearer 21:54, 20 October 2005 (UTC) As to the battle of the bulge: the German paratroopers were used in an airborne role! Granted not in a large quantity but the regiment of Baron Von Der Heydte was dropped behind enemy lines. -- fdewaele October 20, 2005, 19:40 CET
(Edit: CanHist):I will get into Wikipedia etiquette at one point and then sign etc.... Ad Hamilton-Williams: Look at these accounts of people trying to follow his footnotes.... It is striking! It starts with looking at his maps, actually... I have read the book myself and the way he's smearing at Siboorne is un-paralleled. Siborne's meticulous work airs only a few incidents which do not get independent backing. Ad Hofschroer? What is fabulous about his work is, that he accurately gives you the german sources (which I happen to know as they've been in part part of my own research) as something moreless un-read in the english world. He is painstakingly honest and almost "glued" to sources! Ad Siborne: Please read Hofschroer "Wellington's smallest victory". In the english I myself happen to trust Chesney and Siborne the most as their work gets independent support (from Dutch/German sources)...!! Ad Square: I recall several more incidents (Peninsular, Quatre Bras), but I'd have to look them up. Ad German paras: They saw action throughout WW2 (specifically in Italy and the eastern front) but were never used again in an all-out airborne mission without support other than from the air....
It is not that they did not see action. But the often stated (as it is in the wikipedia article): "meant that the fallschirmjäger were never again used as airborne troops", however there were plans to use German paras in the Battle of the Bulge in a similar way to the use of Allied paras over the previous summer. Lack of fuel and bad weather being the reasons for the delay and the scale of Operation Stösser. Philip Baird Shearer 00:51, 21 October 2005 (UTC)
(Edit: CanHist): I quote from a website: In Waterloo - New Perspectives, David Hamilton-Williams writes about Napoléon's Lancers: "Able to impale a standing or mounted enemy by the force of his forward impetus, he could also make stabbing thrusts at men crouching or lying flat on the ground, something virtually impossible for sword- or sabre-armed cavalry... Un-quote. This is only an example of H-W cluelessness as of course a ordinary rider could reach out at anything within range with his sabre and certainly could touch the ground with it. Cavalry sabres were also specifically designed for that i.e. a tad longer than those carried by officers serving in the infantry! H-W admittedly writes very good prose, but his facts are nothing but an abstruse albeit-interesting-to-read collection of thoughts that are not founded on factual knowledge. It is fiction par excellence mixed with some historical knowledge. An interesting mix, but not more. With regards to Siborne, please do consult Gareth Glover, Letters from the Battle of Waterloo. He, after crawling through the Siborne letters again, confirms the validity of Siborne's work .... There is little room to maneuver for revisionist "historians" like Hamilton-Williams as objectivity and truth, although apparently hard to grasp, must remain something to aim for....
That might be an anglocentric view but it is definately not shared by the Belgian and Dutch historians. I do not discount Siborne's original map contribution and Wellington's vendetta but the problem with the Siborne papers as with many of the British historians until in the 20th century is his attitude with regards to the Dutch-Belgians. (In fact, Glover largely is conspicuously silent with regard to the Dutch-Belgians). Ever since the 1840s, the main beef against Siborne by Dutch contemporaries and later historians is the view of Siborne as onesided, biased and inacurate with regards to the Dutch-Belgian troops. The best example of this bias are for instance the often quoted letters by Mercer about the Dutch Belgians... For instance the work of W.J. Knoop in 1847, de Bas and T'Serclaes de Wommersom in the early 20th century and more recently Vels Heijn and De Vos all see Siborne as an anglo centric writing which partly distorts the truth to the greater glory of the British. Of course this is something many British historians of the time did but Siborne is definately no better than any of them, in fact he and his son are often attributed as the main creators of the popular myth of the Dutch Belgian cowardness which is found in so many British works about the battle. --fdewaele October 26, 2005, 22:40 CET
[edit] Vandalism A user 193.62.43.1 has done great harm to this article. He deleted the battlebox and some of the content... and I'm unable to restore it. Could someone who knows what the exact previous versions were restore it to its previous splendor? --fdewaele - 25 November 2005, 15:45 CET
[edit] Napoleon left the battlefield? (CanHist)You must finally venture to correct this paragraph. Old Boney never left the battlefield (even Thiers does not mention this) and this whole affair is but an invention by Victor Hugo! It is also rather strange to see Hamilton-Williams still quoted on this rather curious Waterloo page. Look after Chesney or Thiers even to get a hunch. This is about history and facts and not about wishful thinking a la Hugo! - who apparently got this fairy tale from a book published in the 1860ies by a fellow called Dumaine. CanHist 03:22, 7 December 2005 (UTC)
CanHist if it is you because this was posted from a different IP address from the one you have been using. Please create an account because this could be someone spoofing you and as you said higher up the page "(Edit: CanHist):I will get into Wikipedia etiquette at one point and then sign etc....". I think that we need a page on David Hamilton-Williams as we have pages on two at least two other contriversial authors of history books David Irving and Jörg Friedrich. It would then be easier for us who are not experts on on this man to make a judgement on whether to keep his references in battle on this campaign. As you have expressed opinions on him perhapse you would like to start an article. The article on Jörg Friedrich would be a good template -- Philip Baird Shearer 17:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC) It was indeed me ;-), believe it or not, I managed to get through this log-on thingie and apparently learnt how to sign... Ad: H-W, I must say, that I do not wish to get deeper into this than necessary for my own work, for he who deals with rubbish loses too much time to deal with real important things ;-) It is totally sufficient to say that his writing, despite of being nicely styled and good prose, is obsolete and fraudulent. Honestly, I would not allow a student of mine to quote from his "content". We could exchange some of that over email as well, at one point, if needed CanHist 03:17, 7 December 2005 (UTC) Btw, my IP frequently switches (so should yours!)...
For that matter, if we're talking bias: two of the references (Waterloo - The German Victory, Myths and lies about the Dutch-Belgian performance at Waterloo) are from the same site. Whilst there are some decent articles on their pages, generally they tend to involve anti-British racism. There's a mild dose in the latter of those two; others on the site are far worse. It is important to note the contribution of the non-British in the battle, but it is also important to supply good and fair further reading: can better references be found to direct people to than those, particularly the second? Agema 22:58, 23 April 2006 (UTC)
Question: How good is that source if it talks about a Dutch-Belgian performance? As far as I know, there was no belgium at the time... Sander 20:36, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
Nonetheless, the term Dutch-Belgians is often used to denote the troops from the then United Kingdom of the Netherlands, mainly I believe because the distinction was made by the Netherlands themselve as some units were designated as Belgian. fdewaele - 24 April 2006, 22:48 I'm pretty sure that was just a regional indentificational term (derived from Belgica) not a term used for nationality ... ah, but what are you going to about it eh?Most people don't even know there was no belgium before 1830. Sander 20:57, 24 April 2006 (UTC)
[edit] Les Miserables as a source? Victor Hugo's account of the battle is rather romanticised and hugely biased in favour of the French.. I'm not sure it's an appropriate source for an impartial article.
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Battle_of_Waterloo/archive_1"
