Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 8

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Archive This page is an archive. Please do not edit the contents of this page. Direct any additional comments to the current talk page.

Contents

Quotations

I would just like to point out that quotations from original sources should not have their spelling, grammar or capitalisations changed. Any variations from modern norms may be highlighted with sic in square brackets after the "mistake," but it is often better to just leave them alone.Urselius 19:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

  • Mea culpa. MOS does say "whenever reasonable" leave unchanged. From "P.M." to "p.m." does not strike me as unreasonable, especially as parts have been italicised here, and the punctuation has been changed (to remove spaces before colons and semi-colons by Gutenberg). --ROGER DAVIES TALK 10:58, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I just think it is bad form to change anything within quotation marks. The reader has the right to expect quotes to be verbatim. I think strict academic criteria demand this. Otherwise the unscrupulous could edit passages to change their meanining without leaving a trace. Urselius 12:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Sure. There's certainly a strong argument for that in academic publishing (including theses) where part of the purpose is to preserve intact the text of an unpublished document (letters, particularly) which may later disappear. In non-academic media, though, "silent correction" is widespread. It is used for consistency of style and ease of reading, and - in the case of typos or mispellings - to avoid causing embarrassment to the original author. In contrast, Private Eye magazine, in the UK, for instance, is famous for publishing letters peppered with 'sic' to ridicule or belittle the authors. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I agree with Urselius there have been several changes to quotes that as I do not have the original source I do not know if they are fixing the quote or altering it to the standard wikipeadia style. One that I added which was a cut and past from the internet version of the text is:
This morning I went to visit the field of battle, which is a little beyond the village of Waterloo, on the plateau of Mont St Jean; but on arrival there the sight was too horrible to behold. I felt sick in the stomach and was obliged to return. The multitude of carcases,
to
... The multitude of carcasses,
(Note that in the same quote Frye uses "Allies" not allies as we tend to use in this article.) But I do not think that such changes to the original quotes should be made. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
That was nothing to do with me, but "carcase" is an acceptable but obsolete spelling of "carcass". Should it be changed? Good question. What is more important in a general encyclopedia: accessibility or strict academic standards? The answer may be to edit it in the text but to mention the change in a footnote. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 13:55, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
In the first paragraph of the MOS it says "An overriding principle is that style and formatting should be applied consistently throughout an article, unless there is a good reason to do otherwise, except in direct quotations, where the original text is generally preserved." and goes on to says in the Quotations section "Wherever reasonable, preserve the original style and spelling of the text." I take a reasonable change to be where the meaning of the text is compromised without the change. For example it is sometimes useful to substitute a name for a pronoun as in "... said he was a big man..." to "... said [King Henry] was a big man...". IMHO neither of these changes highlighted above are needed to make the text more comprehensible. --Philip Baird Shearer 16:09, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
Yet textual substitutions can do violence to the original in a way that trivial stylistic ones cannot ("Friends, Romans and [Italians], lend me your ears" or "This day is called the [25th October]".) I doubt whether P.M. was in caps in the original, far too clunky, and not the prevailing style of the time. I suspect the OCR software, which also silently corrects by stripping out spaces around quotation marks, screamers, colons and semi-colons. If I have time later, I'll check. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Formatting quotations

I don't wish to put noses out of joint by upsetting the apple-cart but am I alone in finding the {{cquote|}} sections break up the flow? It's the amount of white space about them that is so disjunctive. Perhaps blockquotes would be neater?--ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:01, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I prefer cquote. --Philip Baird Shearer 13:27, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
I like it a lot too. Here, though, it's a bit overpowering. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:13, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Anyone like to help me out with Wagram?

I am now working on this - rewrite it first, then put in the sources, citations and eye candy, and then see about getting it up to GA. The treatment of 1809 is a bit perfunctory at the moment. Tirailleur 11:59, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Image of Napoleon

There is a public domain image of Napoleon which might be better than the photo of a statue we have at present.

http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/79/Napoleon_the_first.jpg

I don't have the computerese to import it, unfortunately. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs) 14:03, 25 September 2007


There are many here on Commons too. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:12, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

I like this one: http://commons.wikimedia.org/wiki/Image:DelarocheNapoleon.jpg Tirailleur 14:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

They are both available for use The first on this sever, and the second (see Wikipedia:Wikimedia Commons):

Urselius choice

Tirailleur preference

I have copied the first image onto the commons (see Wikipedia:Moving images to the Commons) --Philip Baird Shearer 16:45, 25 September 2007 (UTC)

Because of the small size of the initial image as it appears on the page, I would go for the first (left hand one) to replace the statue. However, the second might be a good addition to the aftermath section as Napoleon looks, if not defeated, at least very glum indeed. Urselius 08:15, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

I'd favor the later image as it is Napoleon in later years. The Napoleon of Waterloo/Ligny was not the Napoleon of Austerlitz showing the lack of energy and weird almost implausable breaks in action that allowed both the Prussian and Allied armies a chance to break off contact and reorganise at will. Also note that Prussian 1st Corp delayed most of the French army for 24 hours, single brigades stopping the advance from 4 to 6 hours in some cases, and again it was for lack of attention that this happened. I didn't find it suprising that he died 6 years later.Tirronan 18:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

Either new image is preferable to the present one - go ahead and change it! Urselius 08:42, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Step forward, anybody who knows how. (Pause...sound of church bells, the wind blowing tumbleweed past...) Tirailleur 11:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Changed. --ROGER DAVIES TALK 11:50, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Roger. Now what about swapping the second general picture of the battle, or perhaps the photo of the Lion Mound today, for this picture of the struggle for La Haye Sainte? http://bcosenza.free.fr/image/hs.jpg It's a museum image so I assume free to use - how does one check? Or the Adolf Northern painting of the Prussians busting into Plancenoit (http://imagecache2.allposters.com/images/pic/BRGPOD/141450~Attacking-the-Prussians-in-Plancenoit-in-the-Battle-of-Waterloo-1863-Posters.jpg)? Tirailleur 16:21, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

My doesn't that picture capture the effects of that section of the battlefield? Probably my single regret is in this article is my failure to capture the ferocity of the fighting in and around Plancenoit. In example 96% of the Young Guard were dead and Lobau's corps ceased to exist after the battle (1/3 of Lobau's Corps was at Wavre and fine btw) no quarter was asked for or given in Plancenoit. Tirronan 14:27, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, how about a sentence or two to that effect - "The fighting at Plancenoit was among the fiercest of the campaign. Amid scenes of carnage, the crucial village changed hands five times during the afternoon. 20,000 French troops, including crack Guard formations, defended it against relentless attacks by, eventually, 30,000 of Bülow's and Pirch's Prussians. The Young Guard was destroyed where it stood, suffering 96% casualties." Five times is my estimate of how often it changed hands. Lobau had it, then 15th Brigade took it (#1), then the Young Guard took it back (#2), then Bulow took it (#3), then the Old Guard took it (#4) and finally Bulow retook it (#5) and kept it. Is that right?

Pirch took the woods to the south of Plancenoit and turned the flank the 5th time and what was left of the Guard in Plancenoit had to retreat, they took that woods by bayonet from the guard btw, Line Musketeers of the 25th. Anything left in Plancenoit was surrounded and bayonetted, no one was allowed to surrender. Tirronan 02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

The only streetfighting I can think of in the era that was worse, sieges excepted, was at Hiller versus Masséna at Aspern, where Hiller took and retook the village seven times. There was nothing left of it afterwards. Amazing what even 1809 field artillery could do to masonry, given enough of it.

Plancenoit was like Verdun on a smaller scale. Tirailleur 21:36, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually you wouldn't have to go very far, St. Armand at Ligny changed hands as many times and the Prussians still had it when Ligny itself fell. I like that turn of phrase though. Tirronan 02:02, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

French heavy cavalry casualties again

Tirronan does PH say anything about whether Guyot's Guard heavy cavalry division was engaged at Ligny? I would like to tighten the language around the losses. Tirailleur 19:36, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

I am at work right now but I will check this evening and get an answer back to you. It will help if you know that Corps he was in. Tirronan 19:51, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind I found the order of battle Guyot was at Waterloo, no mention of him at Ligny but probably was as I don't remember any heavy Cav at Quatra Bras. It was included with the reserve and remained under Nappy's direct command and that places him at Ligny. Tirronan 20:12, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

Offhand I can't remember if they actually fought at Ligny, or were present but did not engage; can you? I am thinking about rewording the commentary about French cavalry casualties along the lines of "Musters taken the day after the battle reflect not only combat casualties at Waterloo, but also those at Ligny and Quatre Bras, as well as stragglers, prisoners and others not with the unit when musters were talen. Illustratively, however, Guyot's crack Guard heavy cavalry division - which was not engaged at either Quatre Bras or Ligny - lost 47% of its strength between 15 and 19 June." This makes the point that even a guard division, which did not take casualties prior to Waterloo and which could be expected to suffer relatively little from desertion, lost half its strength trying to break squares. Tirailleur 10:22, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Well there are two things to bear in mind here: 1. Attrition, just marching units around will cost you men, happens even today, horses throw shoes, come up lame, saddles and tack break, guys fall off horses and are injured, horses and men get sick, ect. This is a statistics type of thing and one of the things that civillians rarely understand. One guy riding a horse and none of these things have to happen, 20,000 guys riding around and it has to happen and will happen every single time and you can even quantify it as a percentage that will grow or wane as to the experience, training, and quality of the units involved. 2. {OR} if you don't have a statement that expresses exactly what you are contending happened from a historian or an eyewitness account or statement from one of the French Officers you have crossed into OR territory. I'm pretty certain about somethings that happened at Waterloo and none of it will ever find it's way into the article for lack of concrete proof. I'm not saying that is what you are going to do but just be aware of it when you issue a declaritive statement, you have to prove it. Tirronan 14:59, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

I probably won't bother to re-write since I think actually it looks OK. I did look up casualties in Houssaye a bit further though. He gives the following analysis of those present with (as an example) the 8th Cuirassiers on successive days:-
1st June: 31 officers, 438 NCOs and troopers
15th June: 32 officers, 427 NCOs and troopers (down 11)
Quatre Bras: 31 officers, 421 NCOs and troopers (down 7 more)
Waterloo: 18 officers, 282 NCOs and troopers (down 152 more)
26th June: 14 officers, 75 NCOs and troopers (down 211 more).
So that's 81% casualties in less than 4 weeks. It's interesting that although the 8th lost as many men at Quatre Bras as the Union Brigade did at Waterloo, as a percentage of its strength, nobody ever describes the 8th as having been eviscerated or destroyed at QB. Tirailleur 13:29, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

This is wrong and I am fixing it

while Georg von Pirch's II Corps and parts of Ziethen's I Corps engaged at about 18:00.)

Ziethen's corp was there in full array and only 2 brigades of Pirch's corps were involved (though they may have been assembing behind Placenoit). Tirronan 20:15, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

It sounds like it got reversed - all of I Corps and part of II Corps was on the field and in action, rather than the other way about. Good catch. Tirailleur 10:24, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Maintaining

You all need to think about adding your names to the maintaining tag. Tirronan 01:26, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

What is it and where is it? Urselius 08:41, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

It is at the top of the page in a banner that states that I help maintain the article and can be checked for sources. At the very least, you and Phillip need to be on there and probably Mag51 as well. Tirronan 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I've tried adding my name, but the best I could do was produce a second banner with my name on, which seems excessive. Urselius 14:43, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

  1. Go to the {{Maintained|{{User:Tirronan/maintenance}}}} at the top of the page
  2. then paste {{User:Urselius}}
  3. into the existing tag {{Maintained|{{User:Tirronan/maintenance}}HERE}}.
--ROGER DAVIES TALK 14:56, 30 September 2007 (UTC)

Merci! Urselius 08:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC) Spoke too soon, I just got "{{{1}}}}" with that. If I put a "/" after my name then it was OK but came up "Urselius/" in the box and didn't link. Urselius 08:13, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Sorry, my fault. This can be done various ways. For the easiest, it's {{user|Urselius}} that needs adding. This however makes Tirronan's look strange (because it has "user" in front of it), so I've edited them so they're both the same way. However if you prefer it the way Tirronan's was add User:Urselius/maintenance, pointing to a maintenance page you create. If you hate it, just reversion is your friend! --ROGER DAVIES TALK 09:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. Urselius 15:08, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

This needs to be addressed

A late start, uncertainty about the direction the Prussians had taken, and the vagueness of the orders given to him meant that Grouchy was too late to prevent the Prussian army reaching Wavre, from where it could march to support Wellington.

This is wrong for a couple of reasons and I can cite to source on them from both PH and Chesney. Napoleon gave verbal orders to Grouchy in the evening, the day after the aftermath of Ligny, this was followed by formal orders around 7am, and he departed around 9am. Groucy then gave a detailed report to Napoleon stating where the Prussians were and a fairly accurate assumtion of their intent. He reported that there were 3 Corps in Wavre (there were 4) and intent on joining Wellington. Napoleon's response was to repeat the order given at 7am at 2pm. At 6pm he gave the order to join him ASAP "by driving the Prussians through Wavre to him". The charges that Grouchy did anything wrong came after when he was in exile Tirronan 14:44, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I seem to remember that a fairly small band of fugitive Prussians moving east rather than north were assumed by the French to have been most of the Prussian army at one point. Soult has been almost universally condemned by historians for his lack of precision in draughting orders during the campaign. Urselius 14:46, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Depending on the source there were about 8,000 to 11,000 deserters heading east which confused things for the French. However, this is what Grouchy posted to Napoleon, that there were 3 Corps camped around Wavre and that Prussian Officers were bragging to local inhabitants that they were going to join Wellington to defend Brussels, he further noted that they didn't act like they were defeated and were arrogent. PH's books actually give the orders given to Ney and Grouchy and it paints a picture not very flattering to Napoleon. He had every opportunity to know that he had a real problem on his right, that Grouchy was at best going to be outnumbered 3:1 and that he'd either be destroyed or unable to effect the Prussians. The key to his defeat was not taking better action against the Prussians. Tirronan 20:22, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
Here is what I am proposing, mainly to the point that Groucy was doing exactly what he was supposed to be doing and in the way it was supposed to be done. Napoleon was keenly aware that Groucy was badly outnumbered, he was also aware that following the Prussians closely could invite disater as they had the annoying habit of catch pursuing forces strung out and mauling them (i.e. Katzbach). His instructions went to some length to caution Groucy to keep closed up and keep his lines of retreat open. Reading the tone of his orders it was anything but a order to rush opon the backs of the Prussians. Those orders did come late in the day but all it showed was that Napoleon had no idea that 3rd Corps was fortified behind a swollen river that wasn't fordable. Groucy was never in a position to effect the outcome to wit: Had he violated his orders and marched straight to the Waterloo position at 7am he could have interviened but this would have been in direct violation of his orders and would have required knowledge he didn't have. He could have back back tracked his forces and taken them up the road that led to the Waterloo at about a 15 degree angle from the Wavre road when he heard the cannons at Waterloo. This was (and reportedly still is) a miserable small road that took a historian 4.5 hours to walk alone. Given that armies move much more slowly than a single man he wouldn't have appeared on the Battlefield for 6 to 8 hours at the most optimist. Also note that the road from Wavre to Waterloo intercepted the proposed route and still would have been intercepted by the Prussians in route to Waterloo. Napoleon's fate was sealed when he left Groucy at Ligny there really weren't options anymore on the morning of Waterloo. Tirronan 16:50, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

If you ever wondered about the quality of our work

The History Channel is running Battleground: Art of War about Waterloo, about as sorry a bit of pandering as I have seen. I am surely glad that we have worked so hard to bring this article to the public in an effort at the truth anyway. Tirronan 02:31, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

Wellington portrait

...is a Peninsular-vintage likeness. Any way of knowing if we can use this one instead? http://www.britishbattles.com/waterloo/images/duke-wellington-600.jpg

Tirailleur 18:29, 5 October 2007 (UTC)

There is a portrait of Wellington holding a telescope, he is dressed in the clothes and sword he wore at Waterloo. The painter, Sir Thomas Lawrence, initially painted him, in 1824, holding a watch, but Old Nosey had him paint it out and replace it as it implied he was waiting for the Prussians! Don't know if it is available in public domain, however. Urselius 13:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

By US Law, anything over 85 years old is out of copywrite protection. Still cracks me up how badly Wellington wanted the Prussians to just go away and leave him as the sole victor of Waterloo. Tirronan 22:31, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Wellington's Dispatch, written on the evening of the battle, gives ample praise to the Prussains: I should not do justice to my own feelings, or to Marshal Blücher and the Prussian army, if I did not attribute the successful result of this arduous day to the cordial and timely assistance I received from them. The operation of General Bülow upon the enemy's flank was a most decisive one. This is is easily as much praise, if not more, than he gives to his own troops. I think, that history is best served by avoiding the ascribing of base motives to historical figures in an unbalanced way. Cacadores (talk) 15:43, 29 March 2008 (UTC) (user: Cacadores) 29th March 2008.

Barbero as a source

I am more or less finished reading this book which I heard of through this page. It's certainly detailed, although I notice a few errors, and some of his more controversial claims (such as most British artillery crews fleeing their guns or the field very early on) aren't supported by cites. How reliable do we think he is? Tirailleur 10:38, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

I've read the Barbero book, it contains errors, then again most of them do. If you have reputable contradictory sources then you have to look at the source material. I've ready 50 reports on Groucy's stupid errors and thought him a pounder, right up until I read the orders and the sequence he was given them. I've not read anywhere else about fleeing crews with one exception and that was a single battery. You'll find that in David Hamilton-Williams "Waterloo a new perspective". Again he is another author with lots of good information but again has to be treated with extream caution. I've noted some rather grevious errors in his book as well. As I remember this was during D'Erlon's 1st advance and an artillery battery's crew took off. Then again a couple of Battalions were mauled and breaking up and retreating as well. This battery was replace by a horse artillery battery. -- Tirronan (talk) 17:08, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

There are a couple of understandable translation errors - 95th and KGL riflemen are referred to as "fusiliers", for example, perhaps because riflemen in Italian is "fusilieri" or something similar. The Household Cavalry are referred to as "dragoons", which they weren't, although it raises an interesting question as to what you should call unarmoured heavy cavalry. "Heavy cavalry", probably. The episode where Mercer's battery got enfiladed is in there twice, once as his being enfiladed by the French, and later with the enfiladers described as Prussian. The latter is the correct account, because Mercer describes how an agitated German-speaking staff officer straightened things out. This is why I am dubious about his account of RA gunners pulling their guns out of the line. Elsewhere, he writes that the Allied guns' recoil moved them steadily to the bottom of the reverse slope, the gunners were too exhausted to push them back up, and it wasn't feasible to use horses to bring them back up to the crest because the French skirmishers picked off everything that stood or moved. So did they retreat, or were they just physically unable to remain in the line? Tirailleur 13:18, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Citing off the cuff here so take it with a caution, but as memory serves a battery received some fire, got unhinged and ran to the disgust of some Brit officers nearby. A horse battery was ordered up in its place. Given that you have 2 histories quoting it I'd tend to give it weight. I'll also note when its Prussian he seems to be relying on PH so on those sections you'd be better off just reading Peter's work. Barbero is a better read however. Tirronan 16:47, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Prussian General Staff system

this is what we currently have: The Prussian army was in the throes of reorganisation. In 1815, the former Reserve regiments, Legions, and Freikorps volunteer formations from the wars of 1813 - 14 were in the process of being absorbed into the line, along with many Landwehr (militia) regiments. The Landwehr were mostly untrained and inequipped when they arrived in Belgium. The Prussian cavalry were in a similar state. [17] Its artillery was also reorganising and would not give its best performance - guns and equipment would continue to arrive during and after the battle. Offsetting these handicaps, however, the Prussian Army did have excellent and professional leadership in its General Staff organization. This staff system ensured that before Ligny, three-quarters of the Prussian army concentrated for battle at 24 hours' notice. After Ligny, the Prussian army, although defeated, was able to realign its supply train, reorganize itself, and intervene decisively on the Waterloo battlefield within 48 hours. [18] Two and a half Prussian army corps, or 48,000 men, were engaged at Waterloo by about 18:00. (Two brigades under Friedrich von Bülow, commander of IV Corps, attacked Lobau at 16:30, while Ziethen's I Corps and parts of Georg von Pirch's II Corps engaged at about 18:00.)

brb with the proposed change. Tirronan 19:57, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

The Prussian army was in the throes of reorganisation. In 1815, the former Reserve regiments, Legions, and Freikorps volunteer formations from the wars of 1813 - 14 were in the process of being absorbed into the line, along with many Landwehr (militia) regiments. The Landwehr were mostly untrained and inequipped when they arrived in Belgium. The Prussian cavalry were in a similar state. [17] Its artillery was also reorganising and would not give its best performance - guns and equipment would continue to arrive during and after the battle. Offsetting these handicaps, however, the Prussian Army did have excellent and professional leadership in its General Staff organization see [German General Staff]. These officers came from 4 schools developed for this purpose and thuse worked to a common standard of training. This system was in marked contrast to the conflicting and vague orders issued by French army. This staff system ensured that before Ligny, three-quarters of the Prussian army concentrated for battle at 24 hours' notice. After Ligny, the Prussian army, although defeated, was able to realign its supply train, reorganize itself, and intervene decisively on the Waterloo battlefield within 48 hours. [18] Two and a half Prussian army corps, or 48,000 men, were engaged at Waterloo by about 18:00. (Two brigades under Friedrich von Bülow, commander of IV Corps, attacked Lobau at 16:30, while Ziethen's I Corps and parts of Georg von Pirch's II Corps engaged at about 18:00.)

what do you think? Tirronan 20:04, 1 December 2007 (UTC)

I like it, it emphasises an imporant point about lackadaisical and downright poor staff work in the French side compared to that of the Prussians. Tirailleur 23:22, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Wavre

I've started expanding the article and hoping for additional help from my Waterloo co-editors Tirronan 06:31, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Prussian casualties

According to Robert Mantle's book on Prussian Reserve infantry - which is available online courtesy of the Napoleonic Association - the 18th Regiment took 740 casualties and won 33 Iron Crosses at Plancenoit. That is, one regiment took 10% of all the Prussians' casualties in the battle. Worthy of a mention? Tirailleur 23:26, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Actually yes, it is a nice addition. That would be 33% of a fully stocked regiment. There were some 7,000 Prussian casualties and I have never seen a break down on the regiments. I suspect most were incurred at Plancenoit. Tirronan 12:10, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

Added into the "Aftermath" section. Turns out it was actually 740 other ranks, or 810 if you include the officers and NCOs:-

...all the ex-Reserve units except the 13th, 16th, 17th and 20th Regiments took part in the Waterloo campaign. The 18th Regiment suffered the heaviest casualties of any Prussian Infantry unit: 21 officers, 49 NCOs and 740 men killed or wounded -- and gained 33 Iron Crosses in one afternoon's fighting round Plancenoit. They and the 15th Regiment, committed straight from an exhausting cross-country march against fresh troops of the Imperial Guard, bore the brunt of the struggle and it was fitting that the ex-Reservists should have a rôle on the final victory.

I've footnoted and there's a link to the online text in the footnote. Based on what we have in the article so far, it looks like the 18th arrived at Frischermont and drove the French out of there and all the way back past Plancenoit, which they took, lost, retook, and lost again to the Guard. Other of Bulow's units then arrived and joined in.

All that and they didn't even have proper uniforms:-

6th R.I.R. became the First Westphalian Regiment (No 18). In his L'Armée Prussienne de Waterloo, F R Bourdier states that the majoirty of men had received the regulation uniform (rose pink facings and white shoulder straps) by June 1815, but a small number 'quelques rares élements' still retained the old uniforms. In addition some men wore the regulation uniform but with crimson or yellow facings, while others had removed these old facings but had not received rose coloured cloth and went to war with collar and cuffs in the same colour as the kollet.Tirailleur 13:03, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

One of the things that gets your attention when you start following what was accomplished was what they accomplished with what they had to work with, a fairly shabby half trained army and only the regular and former reserves were well trained. Tirronan 16:52, 3 December 2007 (UTC)

as an expression

I know it isn't directly related to the battle itself, but perhaps something could be mention about its use as a generic moniker for someone's defeat. Saying that something is someone's Waterloo. Seems like it is a prevalent enough reference to warrant inclusion. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.153.117.118 (talk) 22:40, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

See also Waterloo in popular culture --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 22:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Napoleon's actions after Waterloo

I don't think the article says anything about what Napoleon did in the immediate aftermath of the battle. Reading it again, there seems to be no mention of his actions after ordering the Old Guard until the mention of his possible escape attempt to North America and his final surrender to the Bellerophon a month later. Where was he in the mean time? Can anyone fill this in, perhaps in the Aftermath section? Mlouns (talk) 02:48, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

My understanding is that where you find his carriage at Genappe was as far as he went with the existing troops and then fled back to Paris. Understand that the Prussians would have lined him against the nearest wall and had him shot. However the sources I have are vague on the subject and once out of the general retreat Nappy's actions pass beyond the scope of this article. Tirronan (talk) 15:46, 24 December 2007 (UTC)
I agree the Waterloo Campaign covers this issue and is the place for more details. --Philip Baird Shearer (talk) 10:14, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Battle of Borodino

I've started working on this article and I can use a hand with it. I have exactly 1 book on the subject and this battle being pretty important it was barely a start class article. I can use the good services of the editors here on that article. Tirronan (talk) 18:33, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Decisive Coalition victory?

Is there a reason why the battle isn't considered a decisive victory? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 217.44.171.9 (talk) 21:29, 20 January 2008 (UTC)

I think it can be safely assumed a victory is decisive unless otherwise stated.Agema (talk) 14:30, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Who won Waterloo?

This is a pretty old debate, so , what are your opinions? The Prussians or the Anglo-Dutch? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 156.34.30.229 (talk) 21:55, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

The opinion of the combinded editors are that we don't blog on talk pages on this article. Tirronan (talk) 22:00, 25 January 2008 (UTC)