Talk:Battle of Waterloo

This article is selected for Wikipedia:Selected anniversaries/June 18

A few comments on the article

Drawing of wounded from the battle, by Charles Bell

I have translated this article into Wikipedia in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål and I have a few comments that may improve it.

First, this section seems to repeat what has been said above it:

D'Erlon's men ascended the slope and advanced on the sunken road, Chemin d'Ohain, that ran from behind La Haye Sainte and continued east. It was lined on both sides by thick hedges, with Bylandt's brigade just across the road while the British brigades had been lying down some 100 yards back from the road, Pack's to Bylandt's left and Kempt's to Bylandt's right. Kempt's 1,900 men were engaged by Bourgeois' brigade of 1,900 men of Quiot's division. In the center, Donzelot's division had pushed back the Bylandt. On the right of the French advance was Marcognet's division lead by Grenier's brigade consisting of the 45e Régiment de Ligne and followed by the 25e Régiment de Ligne, somewhat less than 2,000 men, and behind them, Nogue's brigade of the 21e and 45e regiments. Opposing them on the other side of the road was Pack's 9th Brigade consisting of three Scottish regiments: the Royal Scots, the 42nd Black Watch, the 92nd Gordons and the 44th Foot totaling something over 2,000 men. A very even fight between British and French infantry was about to occur.

Second, not much about the wounded and dead, I organized that into a separate section and also added a drawing by Charles Bell.

Third, I added a section covering the various myths and such about the battle, that it never was fought at Waterloo, that Wellington's army (even without Blücher's men) had more German soldiers that British, so one might say it was more of a German victory, etc. Ulflarsen (talk) 17:44, 15 June 2015 (UTC)

In regards to one can you be more specific by providing two snippets of two or three sentences above the paragraph and from the paragraph you have provided which you think are repeats?

in regards to the second this article is very large. I suggest that you write a detailed article and then add a sentence to this article (summary style).

As to the third, don't go there! This is a very well known argument and it depends on how you divvy up the numbers and is by and large a stale argument. Just as one example did the Gurkha's participation in the Falklands War mean that Nepal was one of the victors of the war? The KLG was integrated into the British Army, the Hanoverian's were from a country in a personal union with the British and in part officered by Britons. The other German forces present in the Allied army were either closely tied to the British or to the Dutch. This should come as no surprise as other German formations not closely tied to the British or the Dutch can be found in other Seventh Coalition armies and corps (See Military mobilisation during the Hundred Days German Corps (North German Federal Army) IV Corps (Bavarian Army in the Austro-German Army (Army of the Upper Rhine)).

Two recent articles that discuss this:

• Brendan Simms, 30 October 2014 What the Battle of Waterloo teaches us about Europe today, NewStatesman
• Richard Norton-Taylor, 9 June 2015 Waterloo: A German victory? The Guardian blog.

Simms states that:

The claim that Waterloo was a “German victory” was first made by the Prussian historian Julius Pflugk-Hartung before and during the First World War. He argued that the campaign was “a victory of Germanic strength over French rascality, in particular a success of the German people”.

This was elaborated on by Peter Hofschröer in a series of important but controversial works....

We can in fact say that Waterloo was a “European” rather than a “British” or “German” victory. Thirty-six per cent of the troops in Wellington’s army were British (that is English, Irish, Welsh or Scottish), 10 per cent were King’s German Legion, 10 per cent were Nassauers, 8 per cent were Brunswickers, 17 per cent were Hanoverian regular army, 13 per cent were Dutch and 6 per cent “Belgian” (Walloons and Flemings). In the recent words of the D-Day veteran and former British chief of the defence staff Field Marshal Lord Bramall, Waterloo was truly “the first Nato operation”.

I recently came across this:

In military terms, the last word on Waterloo should, perhaps be left to Napoleon himself, since they indicate a radically different perspective from that which he had expressed the Soult and Reille at breakfast. During his flight to Paris his old friend Count Flahaut asked whether he was surprised by the outcome of the battle. 'No,' replied the Emperor, with a shrug. 'it has been the same thing since Crécy.'

— Bryan Perrett

• Perrett, Bryan (11 October 2012). The Changing Face Of Battle. Orion. p. 276. ISBN 978-1-78022-525-8.

-- PBS (talk) 10:58, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Hougoumont 'Eventually they were relieved by the 71st Foot, a British infantry regiment. Adam's brigade was further reinforced' I couldn't find a previous mention of Adam in the article, so think that this has to be clarified Labocetta (talk) 16:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Reply to PBS: As for my first point I found it and changed it after I translated the text in total from this article, the text that it overlap with is before the part I copied here.

Regarding your comment about the second: I agree the article is long, but as long as the introduction is good I do not think it is a problem that we have long articles, provided there is a basis for it. I guess most people read the introduction and that's it, the rest is either for the one with special interest, or the one that jump to some section. I did this in the article in Norwegian Bokmål/Riksmål (added a section about wounded/dead) but is is only a suggestion, I will not translate that back to English.

Regarding the third: The main "players" were Napoleon, Wellington and Blücher, and everyone with some knowledge of military systems know that "the big guys" run the game. In that respect is is right that we view the victory as British, with German assistance. But, it is very clear that the bulk of the soldiers were German, the articles you point to also state that, and numerous other sources, like John Keegan in The Face of Battle and recently Tim Clayton in Waterloo. When it comes to Hanover, that was a personal union, and as a Norwegian I know a bit about that as we were united with Sweden in such an arrangement from 1814 to 1905. That personal union did not change the nature of the two nations, they were still Swedish and Norwegian.

So I think this road is indeed needed, that is to mention that the British, even without Blücher, was a minority within Wellington's force, because most people think it's not that way. This does not change the fact that Wellington was the "organizer of Napoleon's defeat" and that Blücher was his main supporter in that, so to say. Anyway, I think this is as far as I will venture on this topic. I mainly contribute to Wikipedia in the Norwegian version in Bokmål/Riksmål and I only posted the comment here as I found out while translating. And for the record, I am a pure amateur in this, I have no background in the field and had to read up on it. Ulflarsen (talk) 20:02, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The article states "Decisive Coalition victory" and the number of troop from each of states that contributed to the allied army are listed as are the total number of Prussians in the battle box, there is nothing in the article that states it was a British or German victory (this fits with guidance in WP:ASSERT or "let the facts speak for themselves"). -- PBS (talk) 23:42, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I agree that we should use words like "Coalition Victory", but I am not so confident of the phrase "Anglo-allied army". I would like to change this label to "Coalition army", since the Anglo's in that formation made up only 36% of the total. This correction can be implemented quickly and easily, and will make the article more accurate and less Anglocentric. Any objections? Wdford (talk) 15:43, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Yes, your views are not relevant when English-language sources overwhelmingly use the term "Anglo-allied". The English-language Wikipedia has to follow the precedent of usage in English-language sources. Also your view is not accurate. Wellington's army was not the same as the Prussian army, and the Austrians and Russians were also part of the Coalition, but their forces were not present. Therefore Wellington's army was no more a "Coalition army" than Bluecher's was. Wellington's army was an army of those states within the coalition that had agreed to place their forces under his control. Bluecher's army had initially incorporated troops from Saxony, but it has never been called a "Coalition army". Urselius (talk) 19:59, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

Calling Waterloo a "German victory" is akin to describing the First World War One as an "American victory". Certainly,the Prussians were the freshest and most powerful players remaining on the field, but their late arrival and relatively low casualty figures illustrate clearly that the bulk of the efoort had taken place elsewhere. Moreover, if the campaign is considered as a whole, it is hard to overlook the fact that both Ligny and Wavre were significant defeats which were only prevented from becoming disasters by the existence of the other allied armies. All in all, it's best not to rewrite history; they generally got it right at the time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.199.236.86 (talk) 20:31, 4 February 2016 (UTC)

If this is what you learned at school, then it’s clearly important that history be corrected urgently.

It is widely accepted that Wellington was going down fast, and he himself admitted that that he would not have survived much longer without Prussian support. Proper generals don’t measure their “effort” in terms of how many of their own men they managed to sacrifice – that is a largely British phenomenon. In terms of actual results, the Prussians rescued Wellington at Waterloo, and without them he was doomed, British jingoism notwithstanding.

Ligny was not a "significant defeat", it was an orderly withdrawal in the face of a dominant enemy. There was no other "allied army" involved to help them, and in fact the whole Ligny reversal was due to Wellington promising to send Allied support and then failing to do so. The Prussians withdrew in good order and were battle-ready again within hours – very far from a disaster.

Wavre wasn’t even a defeat as such – the Prussian objective was to divert a chunk of the French army away from Waterloo and to keep them from intervening – all of which they accomplished with total success despite being heavily outnumbered. The French (and English) happily trumpeted a Prussian defeat at Wavre, but in reality Thielmann only yielded the field when he knew that the objectives had been achieved and that no further benefit would be gained by incurring further casualties. The French found out as well a few minutes later, and promptly yielded the field in turn, so to describe Wavre as a significant defeat bordering on disaster is utter BS.

Secondly, it is a fact that England would have lost WW1 had the USA not intervened when they did on the Allied side. Similarly, Britain likes to claim that they won WW2, although Britain’s role was largely to start the war, and then to get kicked up and down for two years until Hitler grew complacent and declared war on Russia and the USA, who then defeated him. There is a lot of pro-British propaganda in encyclopedias masquerading as "history", including on Wikipedia, and therefore "history" needs to be corrected where necessary. Wdford (talk) 10:48, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

You seem to be unaware that Wellington would not have made a stand at Waterloo if the Prussians had not made the commitment to send at least one corps to his aid. No Prussians, no Battle of Waterloo! Ligny was a defeat for the Prussians, not as extensive as Napoleon thought, but still a defeat. When you are defending a position and that position is overrun, it is a defeat. That your commander-in-chief is knocked off his horse and ridden over by a cavalry charge just underlines that you have suffered a defeat. My grandfather, a British soldier, was gassed on the Western Front - he survived but died prematurely due to his lungs never fully recovering. Be very careful when you denigrate the sacrifices of others. The French had many more troops on the ground in WWI than the British, and the American contingent was smaller by far than either of the preceding, and fought for a very short time. Had the fighting continued for longer the American contribution might have been decisive, but as the Germans folded after their last-gasp offensive the Americans were useful, but not essential for the Allied victory. You also seem unaware that Hitler offered Britain very good terms for a ceasefire and peace in 1940. In Hitler's view Germany and Britain were "twin Germanic powers", and if Britain had given Germany a free hand in Europe, Germany would have been content to support the continuation and even aggrandisement of the British overseas empire and sea-power. That Britain took the heroic view that standing alone against Hitler's Germany was preferable is the reason that the West is relatively free today. Urselius (talk) 19:20, 6 February 2016 (UTC)

I am well aware that Wellington would not have made a stand at Waterloo if the Prussians had not made the commitment to help him – a singular point in favor of the importance of the Prussian role, yes? Similarly, Blucher would not have committed to the battle at Ligny were it not for Wellington’s promise of support – a point you seem to over-look. The difference was that Wellington failed to meet his commitment at Ligny, whereas Blucher retreated from Ligny along a supporting route, and then force-marched his army in impossible conditions to rescue Wellington, despite Wellington letting him down earlier.

My forefathers participated in both World Wars, and while some of them came home physically or psychologically disabled, some of them never came home at all. Britain was not the only country to make sacrifices.

Obviously the French had many more troops on the ground in WWI than the British – the war was fought in France not Britain. The American contingent only arrived late in the war, because it wasn’t their war to begin with, but by the end of the war they numbered about 2 million men. The American Expeditionary Forces were actually a key asset at the Second Battle of the Marne, which broke the hitherto-successful German Spring Offensive and permitted the Allied Hundred Days Offensive that ultimately led to the end of the war.

Hitler regarded Britain as a "Germanic power" partly because the Anglo-Saxons were originally Germanic people, and partly because every English monarch since George I had a German spouse – George VI was allowed to marry a British spouse only because he wasn’t supposed to ever be king. Hitler never wanted war with England – his strategy was to dominate Europe, not England. This extended to letting the British Army off the hook at Dunkirk when he could have crushed them easily.

Britain did not take a "heroic view" to protect global freedom – that is blatant British propaganda. Churchill wanted a war with Germany to protect Britain’s interests as a global power. We can see the true extent of Britain’s commitment to global freedom in the way they followed in America’s wake across the Pacific campaign, re-imposing British imperial oppression on their former colonies as soon as America had liberated them from Japanese imperial oppression. We can see the true extent of Britain’s commitment to global freedom in the way Churchill signed Eastern Europe away to Soviet slavery in the Percentages agreement. We can see the true extent of Britain’s commitment to global freedom in the way Britain participated in carving up the Middle East after the war, including invading Egypt to steal the Suez Canal, and in the way Britain fought to hold on to colonies in the Malayan Emergency up to 1957 and Hong Kong up to 1997. The West is free today because America and the USSR defeated Germany in WW2, and because America then defeated the USSR in the Cold War. The world is relatively free today despite Britain, not thanks to Britain. Wdford (talk) 17:30, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

You have an odd take on history, were you frightened by a Union Jack at an impressionable age? Urselius (talk) 18:59, 7 February 2016 (UTC)

Interesting - a diversion away from facts toward an ad hominem attack. When you have a minute, please check out [1] Wdford (talk) 12:51, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

Flippancy, yes, but hardly an ad hominem attack. I resorted to flippancy because historical facts seem to have no impact upon you. For whatever reason, you seem to have an anti-British axe to grind, and this appears to be the driving force behind your proposed edits to this article. Your last distortion of fact just left me incredulous. If Britain had taken up Hitler's offer of peace in 1940, which all evidence points to having been genuine, a number of things would have happened, or not happened. A neutral or German-aligned Britain would have allowed Hitler a free hand to concentrate all his forces against the USSR. I doubt that the USA would ever have declared war on Germany. Any Japanese aggression would have not been against British possessions in the Far East (as Germany would have objected) and the Pacific War would have been an entirely Japan versus the USA affair. The world would have been a far different place today. Urselius (talk) 14:05, 8 February 2016 (UTC)

I have no axe to grind generally, but I am opposed to the profusion of propaganda that infests so-called "history". Britain just happens to be a major culprit in that process – probably because many historians are/were British, and because history is written by the victors - and by their junior allies. I believe Churchill even got a Nobel Prize for Literature, for his semi-fictional opus on "history as he thought it ought to have been".

As regards this particular article, English children are seemingly still taught that Britain won the Battle of Waterloo and thus saved the world from French conquest and oppression. Firstly this is patently false – if anybody beat Napoleon at Waterloo it was the Prussians. And had the Prussians not been there to back him up, Wellington would have stayed out of Napoleon's way completely until the Prussians or the Russians or the Austrians arrived to help him, and that war might have ended very differently indeed. Second, while Britain was supposedly "saving" people from French conquest and oppression, they were themselves busy conquering and oppressing everything they could get their hands on – often in direct competition with France. The war against Napoleon - like the war against Hitler - was about British self-interest, and had nothing to do with protecting freedom.

A bit off topic, but since it has come up - if Britain had taken up Hitler's offer of peace in 1940, Hitler would have invaded Iraq etc eventually to secure an oil supply. Britain would have declared war on Germany eventually, to hold on to its vital colonies, which is why Churchill wanted war earlier rather than later. Hitler may or may not have attacked the USSR at some point, but if it happened without Britain and the USA in the war already and able to build up the USSR, Germany would probably have driven the under-equipped Soviets back beyond the Urals, and then stopped. We might at least have been spared the Cold War, which I’m sure the people of Eastern Europe would have appreciated, although living under Hitler would not have been ideal either. Japan was always going to have a war – like Britain they were an island of traders with limited natural resources of their own, so like Britain they needed to conquer an empire of colonies to be able to loot the natural resources they needed. However Britain had already stolen all the good colonies in Asia, so a Japanese war with Britain was inevitable. They attacked the USA first – partly because they would need to grab the Philippines eventually, which was basically an American colony, and largely because the USA was already helping Britain against Germany and they feared the USA would help Britain against them too. Without a war in Europe, the Pacific campaign would probably have gone much as it did, although with different timing, and with no Pearl Harbor attack, and initially at least it would have focused on Britain and the other European colonial powers then present is Asia - most of whom were already under Hitler's occupation and unable to protect their colonies anyway. The USA might have chosen to stay out of it, in line with their preferred neutrality stance, but odds are they would have bumped heads eventually as well. Germany had no influence over Japanese foreign policy. However they did have many common enemies, and they would probably have welcomed each other’s attacks on the common enemies at opposite ends of the planet. For Japan to drag Britain into a war at the other end of the world just as Hitler was taking aim at Iraq, would have suited Hitler just fine. Wdford (talk) 11:39, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Can I suggest that all this speculative discussion, fascinating as it may be, might take place somewhere other than the talk page for this Wikipedia article? Except insofar as it relates to any proposed changes to this article. W. P. Uzer (talk) 11:57, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

I have nothing more to say to you on this matter, but I will oppose any edits you make which push your particular agenda. I have checked your talk page and much of it seems to consist of strategies designed to win edit wars. I have better things to do, like actually writing quality content backed by relevant references. Urselius (talk) 11:59, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

My "agenda" is only to improve neutrality in these articles, and that includes removing blatant propaganda where it still persists. While you are busy with writing quality content, please do also take note of [2] as well. Wdford (talk) 12:25, 9 February 2016 (UTC)

Every few years somebody comes along to wikipedia who has only just read Hofschroer, and imagines him to be the last word and the final authority on the battle of Waterloo. Peter Hofschroer lost a libel action against fellow historian John Hussey for defamation (Hussey had shown that PH seriously misrepresented significant aspects fo the campaign), was ordered to stop harassing police officers by the High Court, and is currently in prison in the UK, awaiting trial starting 4 July 2016 on charges of possessing 7,000 indecent images of children. This background information may provide a bit of colour on how reliable his judgment is.

The problems with Hofschroer's various claims are as follows:

- he fails to justify the term "German" which was at the time mainly a geographical expression. He considers as German anyone who spoke German, which in 1815 included people in eastern France, southern Denmark, eastern Poland and most of Austria. Most of these Germans either weren't represeented or were on the French side;

- he asserts that Waterloo is peceived as a British victory but does not cite a single source that says this;

- he doesn't set out a basis for measuring relative contributions to the outcome, other than distance marched (without noting that the direction of most German marching was away from the enemy, in retreat) and headcount. "Germans" lost every battle they fought alone in the Hundred Days, however, and won only when Wellington was present; Wellington won all his battles. This argues that Wellington's was the decisive presence. If headcount determined victory we would have to conclude that all Rommel's victories in 1941-1942 were Italian victories;

- at Waterloo Wellington's 67,000 defeated 59,000 French including almost all its elite units. Blucher defeated just 10,000 French with 50,000 men and Thielmann was himself defeated by Grouchy. If it's all about headcount, it looks like a Wellington win again on the basis that his was the army that defeated the most French.

I would urge you to read more than one book on this subject or at least to treat Hofschroer's claims with the appropriate neutrality. He's not the consensus and he isn't really respectable. Tirailleur (talk) 13:36, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

" ... invading Egypt to steal the Suez Canal ..." - actually the Suez Canal was French and British property which they had paid for, as was a strip of land on either side of the canal. This was then stolen by Nasser's government when they nationalised it without compensation to the French and British owners. In other words it was theft on the part of the Egyptian Government. And Nasser's government itself was the result of an illegal coup d' etat.

BTW, Hitler's invasion of Poland was also illegal under International Law, which is why France and Britain voluntarily went to war with Nazi Germany in 1939. Neither the USSR nor the US did any such thing, instead they either joined Hitler in carving up Poland on the one hand - until they themselves were invaded, or waited until they were attacked by Japan on the other. Two rather salient facts that are noticeably absent in some 'Mickey Mouse' histories originating from those two countries.

Prussians arrive in force

From the history of the article:

• 07:25, 2 August 2015‎ PBS (Copy edit of the last edit including one major reversal. "first units to arrive were rushed immediately into the battle" is not accurate see the details in Waterloo Campaign: Ligny through Wavre to Waterloo. Also please use short inline citations.)

@user:Wdford, as I have made a number of adjustments to your recent edits I think it a good idea if we start to discuss changes here (rather than just in the history of the article). The reason why I revert the addition of:

The first units to arrive were rushed immediately into the battle, and the Prussians opened fire on the French for the first time at about 4:20pm.

Is because a general reader may infer from that sentence that the Prussians sent forces in pell mell as they arrived. All the major protagonists after generation of war were far too experienced to do this. The Prussians assembled the necessary forces in the Wood of Paris first and launched an ordered combined arms attack. In Selborn's words copied into the article Waterloo Campaign: Ligny through Wavre to Waterloo (see the sections: "Prussians occupy the Wood of Paris in strength" and "Advance of the Prussians from the Wood of Paris (16:30)"):

As the troops reached the Wood of Paris, they were disposed, with a considerable front, and in a close compact order, on each side of the road leading from Lasne towards Plancenoit. The artillery kept to the road itself; and the cavalry was drawn up in rear of the Wood, ready to follow the infantry. ...

It was when the 15th and 16th brigades debouched from the Wood of Paris; the former on the right, the latter on the left; and each in the usual brigade formation for advance peculiar to Prussian tactics. The direction of the attack was perpendicular to the right flank of the French Army; and consequently, also, to the Charleroi road, which constituted the French main line of operation

-- PBS (talk) 07:50, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

I am happy with your edits, by and large, and I agree with all the article says about the attack on Plancenoit. However the source I quoted (Parkinson) says that Bulow's advance units "were rushed forward in almost immediate attack" and that they opened fire at 4:20pm, much to Wellington's relief. I'm sure that most of the Prussians did regroup in the woods first, before attacking the town, but seemingly Blucher's first objective was actually to support Wellington's left flank so as to avoid a collapse - "night or the Prussians must come", said the Duke. While Ziethen played this role later to great effect and broke the right of the French attack on Wellington's position, the first of Blucher's troops to arrive at the battle were actually members of Bulow's corps, so Blucher threw them right on in to prop up Wellington's left. On the map it also shows that part of Bulow's corps was active at Wellington's left flank while the bulk of them went further down, attacked the town of Plancenoit through the woods and opened a second front in the French rear as per Blucher's original plan, supported later by Pirch.

While some books use the title Anglo-allied army, others use the title Anglo-Dutch, and it is widely agreed that most of the troops were actually German. I'm not sure why you considered the title Anglo-Dutch-German to be inaccurate? However I would be happy to use simpler terms like Allied or Coalition instead.

From my reading, it seems that Napoleon specifically wanted to keep the two Coalition armies from linking up - he went to a lot of trouble to keep them apart, he sent a big part of his army under Grouchy to keep the Prussians away until he was finished with Wellington, he only engaged at Waterloo because he thought Blucher was out of the game, and he was looking good to win at Waterloo until the Prussian army arrived and forced him to split his forces. You seem to feel differently? Wdford (talk) 12:13, 2 August 2015 (UTC)

"I'm sure that most of the Prussians did regroup in the woods first, before attacking the town, but seemingly Blucher's first objective was actually to support Wellington's left flank so as to avoid a collapse". After debouching from the Wood of Paris a detachment consisting of the 2nd Battalion of the 18th Regiment, and the 3rd Battalion of the 3rd Silesian Landwehr, followed by the 1st Battalion of the 18th Regiment attacked towards Frischermont and Smohain. The attack by this detachment was quite slow and they did not reach the area near the villages until around 17:30. However the main Prussian thrust was initially towards La Belle Alliance (which was clearly visible to Blücher from the edge of the Wood of Paris) and then later towards Plancenoit. There is a detailed account of this in this link, unfortunately it is part of Pierre de Wit's a self published account, so it is best that it is not used as a source in this article. However De Whit tends to support Siborne account (Siborne 1814, pp. 490 ff.) as does Hofschröer in Waterloo 1815 Wavre to Plancenoit & the Race to Paris (but the text of that book is not online). Zieten dithered between going to Wellington's aid and following his orders to assist Bülow in attacking Plancenoit. It is summed up in Hofschröer in a section called "Zieten's crucial decision" (Hofschröer 2006. p. 50.) Siborne details Ziten's attack down the left flank of the Anglo-allies including the friendly fire incident around Smohain (Siborne 1848, pp. 538–542). [there was another friendly fire or in this case sabring between Vivian's brigade and Prussian cavalry on the road between La Belle Alliance and Rossemme before Wellington and Blucher road up together to Rossome from near La Belle Alliance] (see Vivian, Hussey (1833), "Reply to Major Gawler on his 'Crisis of Waterloo", The United Service Magazine, pp. 310–324) -- PBS (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The source I quoted (Parkinson) says that some of Bulow's men engaged on Wellington's left long before then - at 4.20pm specifically, although everyone agrees that this was not Blucher's main thrust. Zieten did not "dither", he followed his orders until he got new information from Muffling. In the days before portable radios, this was not a simple matter. Blucher was Zieten's boss, not Wellington, but Parkinson says that when Zieten himself was informed that Wellington was on the verge of retreating he decided "immediately". Wdford (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

The details of the engagements before 4:30 are described in detail in Waterloo Campaign: Ligny through Wavre to Waterloo. In the section "Domon's cavalry attack" it is mentioned that Blücher ordered a cannonade sometime between 4:30 and 5:30 to inform the Anglo-allies that he was near by and in the hope of drawing more French reserves against himself (Siborne 1848, 494). -- PBS (talk) 17:19, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I have posted the relevant text from Hofschröer's book to your talk page in "Zieten's crucial decision" (see § Zieten dithering). I think you will have to conclude that Hofschröer describes Zieten dithering. It does not mean he did just that Hofschröer describes him as doing so. -- PBS (talk) 17:08, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Anglo-allied is the simplest and least confusing name. Allied and Coalition are confusing because there was a Prussian army there as well. The Prussians were both allies and a member of the Coalition. Anglo-allied is better than the other choices because adding names in place of allied, mean the Belgians are missing. If the Belgians are missing because it is argued they were in units attached to the Netherlands state (and were therefore Dutch units) then German is misleading as that means ethnic origin not state. So to get out of that morass it is simpler to us the term allied. -- PBS (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"Anglo-allied" is a very Anglocentric term, considering that only a third of the troops involved were actually "Anglo". The even simpler "Allied army" would be fine, or even "multinational". Wdford (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR -- PBS (talk) 16:33, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

"From my reading, it seems that Napoleon..." yes and no. If he had been on the top of his game then he would have attacked Wellington early on the 17th before Wellington had a change to withdraw his army through the defile of Genappe. At dawn on 17th neither Wellington of Ney knew what had happened at Ligny! Both Siborne and Hofschröer argue that it was inaction by Napoleon on the morning of the 17th that lost him the campaign. However that does not get away from the fact that on both the 16th and the 18th Napoleon engaged both armies with large detachments which he hoped would stop the combining, so to use the word "individually" in the lead of this article is misleading. It would take much more than a sentence in the lead of this battle article to describe his strategy and tactics which. The lead of this battle article is becoming far to large, a lot of the stuff in it would be better placed in the Campaign article(Waterloo Campaign) or in the case of his initial strategy the more detailed starter article Waterloo Campaign: Start of hostilities (15 June). -- PBS (talk) 00:02, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Meatgrinder

In regards to the morning of the 17th, if Marshal Ney had launched a holding operation and Napoleon had launched an attack before 10:00 with those corpse not heavily involved the day before, then to paraphrase Patton, Napoleon could have said "this time Wellington's stuck his head in the meatgrinder and i've got hold of the handle". But that day Napoleon was not the old Napoleon, nor was he a Patton. --PBS (talk) 00:51, 3 August 2015 (UTC) Yes - hindsight is a wonderful tool. Patton had the advantage of radio communication, air-superiority and a huge US army backing him up, plus an even huger Russian army squeezing his foe from the other side and pulling away most of their resources. Napoleon had primitive communications, and had to rely on what stood and slept around him, with all his eggs in one pan. Wellington was more in the Patton position than Napoleon - a huge Prussian army just over the hill to back him up, and a Russian army plus an Austrian army closing in on the enemy capital, which was not itself united behind Napoleon to begin with. And what did Wellington do? Unlike Patton, Wellington clung to the ridge and waited for "night or the Prussians" - not very Pattonesque. (Not that I'm a fan of Patton.) Mind you, British generals got much more Pattonesque at Balaclava, and look how that turned out. Wdford (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I thought that "individually" was a good one-word summary for "stop them combining", but OK. I agree that the lead of the article is getting very big - para 4 is not really on point, and we can delete all of it save the sentence "Napoleon abdicated 4 days later", with the blue link as per current. I am also concerned that there is a lot of duplication across many separate Waterloo-related articles - much of it directly cut-and-pasted. Wdford (talk) 10:23, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

There is a reason for the duplication. Until 16 August 2014‎ there was not campaign article other than the Hundred Days. For this reason the four main battle articles were stand alone rather than being detailed articles of a summary style campaign article. To get a lot more text available for the other days of the campaign, I did not have time to modify the content of these four battle articles now that a campaign article existed. The area at the moment were a lot more work needs to be done in the Hundred Days article, particularly the sections "Invasion of France (18 June – 7 July)", "Napoleon abdicates" and "Prussians enter Paris". The sections in this article before and after the main battle section need to be reviewed given the existence of the Waterloo campaign article, some of the text probably needs moving into that article -- the campaign article is badly balanced at the moment and needs work, not so much pruning large sections as expanding some sections as the article is only 63k in size. Serious consideration needs to be given to turning this article into a summary style article, for example the details of key elements of this battle such as the battle of Hougoumont (a battle within a battle) could be moved out summery style, although I know that some regular editors here such as user:Urselius have recently expressed strong reservations about doing this, I hope that they can be persuaded in the future. -- PBS (talk) 17:45, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Re Talk Page Guidelines – noted, thank you.

Re Ziethen: - Thanks for the text. However I don’t see any mention of dithering at all. From the sequence we see that Ziethen arrived to find a lot of Wellington’s men in retreat. He grew concerned and, rather than flip a coin, he sent out scouts to find out what was actually happening. This is not dithering, its best practice. He receives a plea for help from Wellington’s army, plus contrary orders from Blucher (his boss). He obeys his orders. However Muffling – himself a very high-ranking Prussian – then comes on the scene. Muffling is not to be taken lightly. One can presume that he pointed out the danger that would fall upon Blucher if Wellington collapsed, how Pirch was already supporting Bulow, and how Ziethen’s assistance was essential to the outcome of the battle. Ziethen accepted this new information and changed his decision (just that one time). That is open-minded and intelligent behaviour, not dithering. It was also very brave - if he ignored a direct order and it went badly, Blucher would not have been gentle with him. One thinks of the many cases in British military history where a lack of open-mindedness had tragic consequences – Balaclava again, for instance.

Re Domon’s cavalry attack – the sequence and timing is unclear – this may have been a completely separate incident. Siborne’s objectivity has been questioned, and he apparently has been cited for down-playing any non-British contribution, although many of these articles rely heavily on his version of events. Parkinson states that Blucher engaged the French at 4.20pm “from the edge of the wood”, whereas Siborne seems to imply that Blucher was nowhere near the scene when he first opened fire, and was just making a noise. Are these two separate incidents, or do we need to choose whom to believe?

Re WP:ENGVAR – I don’t quite follow the point here? Are you agreeing to use the term “Allied army” going forward?

Re the duplication – I understand the history here, but something must be done sometime. I think the best is to first do a proper job of the “micro-articles”, such as Battle of Waterloo and Battle of Wavre and Battle of Ligny etc. Then we look at the “higher” articles, such as Waterloo Campaign: Ligny through Wavre to Waterloo, and we remove all the excess detail where a “micro-article” is being replicated. A summary such as “This lead to the Battle of Ligny, after which Blucher moved his men north to Wavre where the Battle of Wavre subsequently took place.” Then we look at the “even higher” articles, such as Waterloo Campaign, and eliminate unneeded replication again, until we reach the top. We also need to clean up articles such as Duke of Wellington, where the whole thing is regurgitated yet again (and the article runs to 124k in consequence).

Wdford (talk) 20:29, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

I think I made by view about the name of Wellington's army clear See the paragraph that starts "Anglo-allied is the simplest..." To add to that paragraph: Anglo is a synonym for British in this context and should include the Germans in the KLG (integrated into the British Army) as were the Hanoverians were to all intense and purposes. To separate these from the British is (without explaining this relationship is presenting a misleading POV). It is like saying that Nepalese soldiers fought in the Falklands War -- True in a literal sense, but misleading without explaining the context. Hence the suitability of Anglo-allied which is a common name in British histories (WP:ENGVAR).

The Waterloo Campaign: Ligny through Wavre to Waterloo is not a higher level, it is a detailed article describing what happened between the end of the battle of Ligney and the start of Prussian engagement in the battles of Wavre and Waterloo. There is a small amount of overlap but I deliberately ended the Ligny to Waterloo article where I did (Prussians advancing out of the Wood of Paris), because that is were this article picks up the story. So at the moment we have four levels:

1.Hundred Days--- Top level (at the moment War of the Seventh Coalition is a redirect to Hundred Days)

2.Waterloo Campaign, Minor campaigns of 1815, Abdication of Napoleon (1815), French Provisional Government of 1815, Treaty of Paris (1815) etc

3. The four major battles Ligny, Quatre Bras, Waterloo and Wavre, detailed articles about 15, 17 and 19 June and the days through to 7 July (and articles such as minor battles Battle of Issy and Reduction of the French fortresses in 1815 -- although these just as easily fit into level 4)

4. Details of the battles and days eg Order of battle of the Waterloo Campaign, Hougoumont, the Malplaquet proclamation and Waterloo Campaign: peace negotiations.

I do not think you should be too hung up on 16:20 or 16:30. That authors/historians of all four articles agree on the time to within 10 minutes is remarkable given the disagreement as to the time of the start of the Battle of Waterloo (see Battle of Waterloo, footnote d for why this happens). De Whit list his sources for 4:30, there are about 20 of them with a range of times, you will find them in footnote 13 pages 14-15 in his web page.

I think you are misunderstanding what Siborne writes. His history is one of the most detailed there is available in English (it is a pity he did not cite his sources) and on the Prussian movements between Ligny and Waterloo his details and analysis of those details are similar to Hofschröer's. De Wit gives similar details and he cites primary sources. Where Siborne has been criticised is for his treatment of the Dutch and Belgian forces, but he does reflect the prejudices of the largely British sources he used. However one can not read his book without drawing the conclusion that he give a detailed account of the Prussian contribution to the campaign. I do not understand how you come to the conclusion "whereas Siborne seems to imply that Blucher was nowhere near the scene" Siborne places Blücher in the Wood of Paris (presumably near the edge as he could see the battlefield) and that a cannonade was directed at cavalry too far way to be much hurt by the fusillade. Hofschröer's states that "next around 5pm, came the mudcaked [reserve] artillery" although later he mentions that the Prussians did have horse artillery available when the attack started. De Whit gives a similar account to Siborne of the start of the action (although is artillery fires canister as does the horse artillery mentioned by Hofschröer):

Opposite the Prussian forces gathering in the Bois de Paris were the 2200 horsemen and 12 guns of the divisions of Domon and Subervie, in position between the complex of Fichermont and the Bois de Ranson.page 1

So the section "Domon's cavalry attack" is in the correct chronological place, but it was most likely either side of 4:30 because French and Prussian cavalry patrols were already skirmishing before the Prussian infantry debouched from the Wood of Paris. I read what the preview of Parkinson says on 237 it is a much briefer account than the others, but I do not think it contradicts the much more detailed accounts. For example while I can understand how you drew from that account "The first units to arrive were rushed immediately into the battle" (when you did not have access to a more detailed account), but what it actually says is "Troops from Bülow corps were rushed forward in almost immediate attack..." which given the two more detailed online accounts I have provide here, I think ought to be interpreted slightly differently. As he does not mention units at whom the guns were trained, one could infer units from Lobau's VI Corps from his text but in fact they initially fired at Domon's cavalry. The engagement with units of Lobau's Corps came a little later. -- PBS (talk) 11:52, 4 August 2015 (UTC)

Trimming the article

The article stands at 150k. I have trimmed the lead section by removing some sentences that do not relate to the topic directly, but which address events thereafter. The sections for "Prelude", "Armies" and "Aftermath' all have articles of their own, and could be trimmed back a bit further as well. Any objections? Wdford (talk) 11:58, 3 August 2015 (UTC)

Image overload

The first sections of the article are overloaded with images, particularly maps and topographical photos. The panorama, on my view at least, is overlapping an image of an old map. I think that some sort of rationalisation is required. This seems to have been made worse as the result of recent text trimming, see above. Urselius (talk) 19:39, 13 September 2015 (UTC)

I tried to rectify the difficulty with the panorama overlapping other images by removing one rather marginally useful image, but this has been restored. We therefore have the original problem. I think that the panorama is more useful than the other image (it is a an engraving showing the Lion Mound and is therefore no improvement on modern photographs in showing the original topography), however, something needs to be done to rectify the situation. Perhaps restoring the text removed earlier might fix it! Urselius (talk) 20:39, 23 September 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Battle of Waterloo. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20150514080537/http://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=202977755949863934429.00047c129818db15cbe12&t=h&z=9 to https://maps.google.com/maps/ms?ie=UTF8&hl=en&msa=0&msid=202977755949863934429.00047c129818db15cbe12&t=h&z=9

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:48, 27 February 2016 (UTC)