Talk:Order of battle of the Waterloo Campaign

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
This article is within the scope of the Military history WikiProject. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the project and see a list of open tasks.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.

[edit] 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 [1], 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 [2] 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)

[edit] (British) Unit designatons

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)


[edit] 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://web2.airmail.net/napoleon/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)

Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../o/r/d/Talk%7EOrder_of_battle_of_the_Waterloo_Campaign_bee6.html"