Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 10

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

→

Belgium

See /Archive 9#Belgium for previous discussion.

Officially it was "Southern Netherlands". Bijl0130 (talk) 11:19, 31 March 2009 (UTC) -

New file File:Battle of Waterloo by William Heath.jpg

Recently the file File:Battle of Waterloo by William Heath.jpg (right) was uploaded and it appears to be relevant to this article and not currently used by it. If you're interested and think it would be a useful addition, please feel free to include it. Dcoetzee 23:38, 1 April 2009 (UTC)

Hofschröer

To fix the MJCdetroit at 05:09, 1 June 2007 I used this version as it only had one source in the reference section "Hofschröer, Peter; 1815, The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory;Greenhill Books (London); ISBN 1-85367-368-4"

Tirronan's Revision as of 03:43, 5 September 2007 fixed some of the page numbers, so I used that version to fix some more of the citations. But it will take some more thought because by then there were two sources by Hofschröer in the References section. -PBS (talk) 21:00, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Revision as of 23:04, 4 June 2007 by Benea added "Hofschröer, Peter; Wellington's Smallest Victory" to the Reference section when it should have been added to the "Further reading" section, and was not used as a reference at this time. -- PBS (talk) 21:16, 4 April 2009 (UTC)

Bijlandt's brigade; let us re-write this paragraph in a proper way

See /Archive 9#Bijlandt's brigade for previous discussion. (also /Archive 9#Dutch-Belgian brigades)

Dear Gentlemen, I guess it's about time that I enter this discussion about the Van Bijlandt brigade. Certainly when I see that their are still huge mistakes in the article. I am also growing tired of people discussing secondary (and thus untrustworthy) literature.

I am the webmaster of the Dutch 8th militia website (see external links) and doing research (only in primary sources in the archives)for the last 12 years about the Van Bijlandt brigade. I literally camped for weeks and weeks in archives in these last years. Who else can say that, who is contributing to this Wiki article? I hope many more! The story I wrote is thus based on eye-witness accounts only, including of course the Siborne letters. But also around 20 Dutch sources, Nassau and French sources.

The result of all my work can be read here: http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/8/8stHis.html

My story can also found under '8th history' at my site (see external links in the main article at Wiki). Perhaps it's good for everybody to read my article first, before giving comments here.

I do not only mention all sources in my article, but actually have these in copy! I completely neglected 99% of ALL secondary literature because they are all copies of each other (see their 'reference list" to understand what I am saying here), and thus not based on real archive-work.

My grand-grand father served in the 8th militia (part of the Van Bijlandt brigade) and survived. I am writing a book about him, and this book must be accurate. That's why I put so much efforts in it. I am also working close together with Erwin van Muilwijk, together we visit the battlefield now and then to measure distances and study the terrain.

We are also working hard to place a monument on the Battlefield in 2015 (Waterloo 200 years)with all Van Bijlandt brigade casualties and the true story (as can be found in my article). Discussion with the city of Waterloo will start later this year.

My article is certainly not favouring the Dutch-Belgian troops, it simply gives the true story. If somebody believes that the article currently placed here (the Van Bijlandt brigade part) is more reliable then mine, then I have lost faith in Wiki.

Now, back to the article at this site. I am happy to re-write & complete the article (Van Bijlandt brigade part), if all agree that I should do so. For the moment I sum-op the (major only) nonsense currently in place:

It is stated that the line was defended by the 2nd Dutch division...and in addition to that the Van Bijlandt brigade. Well, Van Bijlandt was PART of the 2nd Dutch. This has to be rephrased.

Ofcourse it's wrong that Van Bijlandt van placed at the forward slope. They camped there during the night only and moved to the sunken road and behind that at 09.00 hours. Even some Siborne letters are stating that they have seen the Dutch-Belgian troops passing by to a new position in the road.And ofcourse many many Dutch-Belgian accounts.

Van Bijlandt brigade retreated and left their 7th line only! It must be a creative mind inventing this! See my story for the real story! The Dutch-Belgian skirmishers came in contact first, these were pushed back to the road, then the complete Dutch-Belgian line entered the fight. After a while the left part of the line (7th militia) was opened up because whole files were shot down. The French were pushing through that hole and the whole brigade was going back as well. They indeed retreated (in good order) on the 5th militia about 100 metres behind, which was in square.

In the article the Van Bijlandt brigade is not mentioned anymore from this point onwards. Which is strange. They were counter attacking together with the British troops immediately after this. It was during this attack that most of their officers were killed and wounded. After this attack they were reorganised and placed in between Pack and Kempt. At that moment around 1000 soldiers were left. They came in contact with the enemy again at 19.00 hours (when the Prince of Orange was also wounded in front of their line). It was shortly after that that they run out of ammo and were send behind the lines...but the battle was almost over by that time. Kolonel de Jongh (of the 8th militia) was leading the brigade, all higher officers were wounded. As were many many others! See my article for all figures, directly from the muster rolls.

With the Lion mount picture: That the Prince of Orange was wounded there is wrong. He became wounded at 19.00 while he encouraged the Van Bijlandt brigade, who was at that moment at the forward slope were they camped last night.

Just let me know if all of you like me to write the Van Bijlandt part in detail. Marco Bijl0130 (talk) 08:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

We can not use your research on this page until after you have found a publisher and had the book published. This is Wikipia policy see WP:PSTS. After it has been published it will be one of several contradictory secondary sources which this article has to balance see WP:UNDUE. This is a particularly difficult battle to keep balanced, because of the ongoing national rivalries over the contribution of the different nations who fought at the battle, as this is an English Wikipedia and articles should be primarily based on secondary English Language sources, and this means that the article will inevitably have a certain bias towards the predominant English language POV (just other Wikipedia language versions ought to reflect the prominent POV of the major sources in their languages). This advise is based on the wording in the lead of WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth" and the concept Wikipedia:Principle of least astonishment#Principle of least astonishment. Also please read Wikipedia:Expert editors. --PBS (talk) 13:28, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Well, this is going to be an interesting discussion! What if I "publish" the original sources on the internet, at my site? Many of these can be found there already! They are there for everybody to read and judge, and of course they are in Dutch, so you have to learn Dutch! But, to be more serious, the Dutch history is at stake here, and this is now presented in a terrible wrong way. I understand that every nation has it's own story (and glory), and that this a English site, and I fully respect that. But all like to present their true facts. But in this case simply huge mistakes are made. And that cannot happen on such an important article. So, in general, secondary sources are more important then primary sources???? Very strange! Please read my history page first, before you judge. An internet page is a publication as well? Bijl0130 (talk) 20:19, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Please see WP:SPS, which is the reason I wrote once your findings have been published, and by that I mean published by a reliable publisher. There is a lot of detail on what constitutes a reliable publisher on WP:V and WP:RS --PBS (talk) 20:54, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

BTW you say "Dutch history is at stake here, and this is now presented in a terrible wrong way." if so then most Dutch histories must present it a different way. Which of the standard Dutch histories presents it in the correct way? It would be preferable if it were a Dutch history which has been translated into English. -- PBS (talk) 21:02, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

If I may, I think the placing of the Bylandt brigade was already correctly described in Col. Van Zuylen van Nyevelt's Historiek, which memoir was based on his official after-battle report (as you problaby know, he was the chief of staff of the 2nd Netherlands Division). In 1908 there was an official Dutch/Belgian history of the 1815 campaign: Bas, F. de, T'Serclaes de Wommerson, J.A.J.A.R.L.G de, T'serclaes de Wommersom, J. de (1908) La campagne de 1815 aux Pays-Bas d'après les rapports officiels néerlandais, Tomes 1 et 2. The description of the battle of Waterloo is in vol.2, including the exploits of the Bylandt brigade. I am not sure whether this has been translated in English, but it is customarily referenced in Dutch scholarly works on the battle, as in modern English works that take the trouble of taking the Dutch/Belgian view into account (of which there are lamentably few, I admit). However, Wellington's Dutch Allies 1815 cites them as does Hofschroer in his Waterloo Campaign. I hope this is helpful. In any case, I seem to remember we have had this discussion before. It is a bit disingenious to pretend that there are no sources giving the correct course of events and so the British sources have to be taken on faith.--Ereunetes (talk) 23:12, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

From the discussion already linked at the top of this section, it can be seen that this issue has already been discussed at some detail, and as can be seen from those discussions I am neither for or against any particular position. It concerns me that you use the word correct as all we should do here is present the different POVs, and I understood from reading those discussions that you already agreed with the wording on this page. --PBS (talk) 15:40, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Frankly, I hadn't seen the current formulation (haven't looked at the page for some time), and I admit it is an improvement. However, I'd still object to the phrase "...left the battlefield, leaving just their Dutch battalion, the 7th [apparently this refers to the 7th Dutch Line]." The 7th and 8th National Militia, according to Van Zuylen van Nijevelt, who was there, did not "leave the battlefield" but regrouped with the 5th National Militia (that had been in reserve until the French breakthrough) and then took part in the counterattack. This is also reported in the memoir of Lt. Scheltens Souvenirs d'un Grognard Belge (1804-1848), Les Mémoires du Colonel Scheltens (Brussels 1880). Both are cited by David Hamilton-Williams Waterloo. New Perspectives pp. 294-295 (if you absolutely need to hear it in English). I emphasize that these are reports by people that were involved in the decisionmaking in the field at the time. These are not the recollections, twenty years later, of people who at best had their hands full at the time with their own commands and may have been too busy to closely observe what other commands did.--Ereunetes (talk) 20:30, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Inserting "Dutch" after "7th" and then (correctly) changing that to "Belgian" is not really important. I would replace both edits by "Line" (as there was also a 7th Militia battalion involved) but that is of minor importance, I think. The 7th Line (Belgian), made up mostly of veterans of the French Grande Armée (and therefore accorded the distinction of "Line" status), remained in place, but so did the two Miltia battalions materially as they retreated only about a hundred yards. So why not stop this foolishness?:-)--Ereunetes (talk) 21:28, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I only now see that there is a discussion about Bylandt's brigade. I was simply repairing some damage done by an editor who has a rather broad view of the meaning of "Dutch" and was editing accordingly, without paying much attention to the context. Iblardi (talk) 21:43, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

The Prince of Orange was NOT wounded near Bijlandt's brigade. The position you stated he was wounded at was East of the Brussels highway in a sector that was not under his command and with units not under his command. The Prince of Orange commanded the Allied 1st Corps which was primarily deployed west of the Brussels highway. Bijlandt's brigade was in the 'Reserve' sector- alongside Picton and Best in the center + east side of the Brussels highway on the 'Ohain' ridge. The Prince of Orange was wounded on Mont St.Jean ridge while leading Kruse's Nasseurs in the crisis events in the center following the fall of La Haye Sainte at around 7 pm. Furthermore, you stated Bijlandt's brigade as a whole fell back before D'Erlon's assault. In fact though some of Bijlandt's units did give way to the huge numbers of French, some units as witnessed and stated by Brits in Picton's units, did stand their ground and have a firefight with the French before slowly retiring alongside Picton due to the weight of the French attack. Belgian infantry units were distinct in that they wore the 'belgic' shako, which resembled the British shako. All that being said, I agree with your point about the proper location of Bijlandt's brigade needed to be written into the article since overwhelming proof shows they were never on the forward slope when the battle started. It is irritating to see the 'forward slope' myth still written in the article for quite some time now without correction and after much discussion showing the error of that myth. Equally horrifying is the line in the article that states Bylandt's brigade 'left the battlefield'! Although hundreds were used to escort the French prisoners taken back to Brussels, Bylandt's brigade stayed ON the battlefield the entire day.--Joey123xz (talk) 07:58, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

Dear all, it seems that more people think in the same way as I do. In the coming week I will make a draft text that should replace the Bijlandt part. I will place it here for comments first. I will base it on current reliable publications. And then, after receiving comments, I will place it in the article. Thanks this far for the comments. Bijl0130 (talk) 09:13, 13 April 2009 (UTC)

New Bijlandt paragraph text; for your remarks

Well, as promised during the discussion above, the new draft paragraph for the Bijlandt brigade. This should replace the old text. It’s based on literature in 3 different languages, including the most important Siborne letters and the official Dutch army history publications. The used literature is mentioned below as well, and will also be placed in the “notes” section under the article. Basically we should also mention the role of the British AND Dutch-Belgian infantry during the cavalry counter attack. But as this is left out for the moment I also left out the Dutch-Belgian part. We can add this later.

I will leave it here for comments for a couple of weeks, before placing it in the article..depending on the remarks of course! The references will be added in a correct Wiki way later on.

Proposed text.

At about 13:30, d'Erlon started to advance his three other divisions, some 14,000 men over a front of about 1,000 metres (1,094 yd) against Wellington's weak left wing.[54] They faced 6,000 men: the first line consisted of the Dutch-Belgian 1st “Bijlandt” brigade of the 2nd Dutch-Belgian division. The second line consists of British and Hanoverian troops under Sir Thomas Picton, who were lying down in dead ground behind the ridge. All had suffered badly at Quatre Bras. In addition, the Bijlandt brigade, posted towards the centre of the battlefield, had been ordered to deploy its skirmishers in the hollow road and on the forward slope. The rest of the brigade was lying down just behind the road, where they were ordered to earlier that day at 09.00 hours (they camped the previous night on the forward slope)(135,136,138,139,140,141).

As the French advanced, Bijlandt's skirmishers withdrew to the sunken lane, to their mother battalions (134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141). Then the brigade was ordered on its feet and started to return fire. Their fire was “little and not well maintained” On the left of the brigade, where the 7th Dutch militia stood, a “few files were shot down and an opening in the line thus occurred”(original quotes of Van Zuylen, the chief of staff of the Dutch 2nd division (135, 140,141 )). The battalion had no reserves and was unable to close the gap. D’Erlon was pushing through this gap in the line and the remaining battalions in the Van Bijlandt brigade (8th Dutch militia and 7th Belgian line) were forced to retreat to the square of the 5th Dutch militia, which was in reserve between Picton’s troops, about 100 paces to the rear. There they regrouped under the Command of Colonel Van Zuylen van Nijevelt and general Constant-de-Rebeque. A moment later the Prince of Orange ordered a counter attack, which actually occurred around 10 minutes later (134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142, 143).

In the mean time D'Erlon's men began to ascend the slope, and as they did so, Picton's men stood up and opened fire. The French infantry returned fire and successfully pressured Wellington's troops; although the attack faltered at the centre of Wellington's position,[59] the left wing started to crumble. Picton was killed after ordering the counter attack and the British and Hanoverian troops also began to give way under the pressure of numbers.

Used literature

134 Knoop, Willem Jan. Beschouwingen over Siborne's Geschiedenis van den oorlog van 1815 in Frankrijk en de Nederlanden" en wederlegging van de in dat werk voorkomende beschuldigingen tegen het Nederlandsche leger. Breda 1846; 2nd printing 1847. Dutch language. P. 100-192.

135. Websites of current Dutch Historians: Erwin van Muilwijk; http://home.tiscali.nl/erwinmuilwijk/index.htm, and Marco Bijl: http://home.scarlet.be/~tsh40803/8/8st.html These historians are preparing new publications about the role of the Dutch-Belgian army. And this time it will only be based on eye witness accounts and official battle reports. Drafts can be found at their sites. English language.

136. EENENS, A.M (1879) "Dissertation sur la participation des troupes des Pays-Bas a la campagne de 1815 en Belgique", in: Societé royale des beaux arts et de litérature de Gand, Messager des Sciences Historiques. Vanderhaegen, Gand,1879. French language. p. 14-30 and 131-198.

137 CRAAN, W.B. (TRANSL. BY A. GORE) (1817) An historical account of the battle of Waterloo. English language. Page 30.

138. De Jongh, W.A.: Veldtocht van den Jare 1815, Historisch verhaal; in De Nieuwe Militaire Spectator (Nijmegen 1866). This is the original account of Colonel de Jongh, commander of the Dutch 8th Militia. It can be downloaded at the site of Mr Marco Bijl above. It is one of the most important printed eye witness accounts we have in the Dutch literature. Dutch language. P. 13-27.

139 Löben Sels, Ernst van Bijdragen tot de krijgsgeschiedenis van Napoleon Bonaparte / door E. van Löben Sels Part 4; Veldtogten van 1814 in Frankrijk, en van 1815 in de Nederlanden (Battles). 1842. 's-Gravenhage : de Erven Doorman. Dutch language. P. 601-682.

140 Allebrandi, Sebastian. Herinneringen uit mijne tienjarige militaire loopbaan. Allebrandi was a soldier in the Dutch 7th militia and thus his account is important. 1835. Amsterdam : Van Kesteren. Dutch language. P. 21-30.

141 Bas, F de and J. De T'Serclaes de Wommersom ; La campagne de 1815 aux Pays-Bas d'après les rapports officiels néerlandais / Parts: I: Quatre-Bras. II: Waterloo. III: Annexes et notes. [IV]: supplément: [14] cartes et plans, Jaar: 1908-1909, Bruxelles This is the document composed by the `Netherlands Institute for Militairy History (NIMH)` and is thus the most complete and reliable document ever made thus far. It also contains Van Zuylens `History of the 2nd division`. Van Zuylen was the chief of staff of the 2nd division and located right behind the van Bijlandt brigade during the whole day. He wrote a 32 pages report, right after the battle. This report forms the bases of most of the other literature mentioned here. French language. Part 3, page 300-330.

142 Pawly, Ronald. Wellington’s Belgian Allies. Men at arms nr 98. 1815 Osprey 2001. This book, although small, gives a good picture of the Dutch/Belgian troops at the battles. The ´Netherlands Institute for Militairy History (NIMH)´ contributed to the book and it thus can be seen as the official Dutch history. English language. P. 37-43.

143. Letters from the Battle of Waterloo: the unpublished correspondence by Allied officers from the Siborne papers. And “the Waterloo letters”. 2004 London: Greenhill. English language. The following letters are used: the accounts of General Kempt, Calvert of the 32nd infantry, Cruikshank of the 79th , Winchester & Hope of the 92nd, Evans (Ponsonby Cavalry brigade) and Clark Kennedy of the Royal Dragoons. These are the only letters that actually state some details about the Dutch-Belgian troops.

Please forward your remarks Bijl0130 (talk) 15:05, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The problem is with the new text that it presents the information as certainties, it does not present the two different versions of the events, which from the discussions on this talk seem to indicate exist. --PBS (talk) 22:42, 15 April 2009 (UTC)

The same problem exists with the current text which seems to be taken from Siborne as filtered through Barbero (though that doesn't make it any more truthful). I think the best solution would be to present both "points of view" with supporting sources and finally bring the controversy out into the open.--Ereunetes (talk) 00:02, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I agree, but this time we do it properly. It will not be enough to only mention Siborne or Barbero. I like to see quotes from THEIR SOURCES. I can and will give many quotes from the above literature (the sources they used to write these books) as well when necessary...only then we can compare. I can also put primary documents on the net to support the quotes. If others can do the same from the British literature (and their original sources)we do it properly.Bijl0130 (talk) 13:23, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We can not use primary sources as you are suggesting, see the Wikipedia policy on no original research. What we should do is document the battle using reliable secondary sources and note the difference when there is a divergence between those sources. As an example of what I mean, see the sentences at the start of the "Hougoumont" section which discusses the time the battle started. --PBS (talk) 16:56, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

I fully understand. But what happens if two or more secondary sources are claiming totally different opinions? Then we will never come to one final conclusion. Therefore I proposed to discuss the primary sources behind these secondary publications. As long as we keep this discussion on this talk page it can't harm anyone? Otherwise we indeed end-up in in a simple yes-and-no discussion with regards to trusting the one or the other secondary source. That is what's happening in the past on this talk page, and I like to avoid this. Because it will never result in any structural solution, so it's a waste of (my) time. Bijl0130 (talk) 17:09, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

We do not have to come to a conclusion, we just note that there is a difference of opinion and leave it at that -- as we do with the time for the start of the battle. This is a major difference between an academic paper, where points are awarded for original perceptive arguments and a Wikipedia article. There is one important point though, we should present the information as it is usually presented in reliable English language sources, but that does not exclude presenting other points of view providing that they are given a balanced level of coverage (WP:UNDUE and Wikipedia:SOURCES#Exceptional claims require exceptional sources). Summerville has a summary of the dispute that is available online (Christopher J. Summerville Who was who at Waterloo Pearson Education, 2007 ISBN 0582784050, 9780582784055 p. 31-35). --PBS (talk) 17:33, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

What I have just written may seem a little strange but it is justified by the phrase at the start of WP:V "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true. " --PBS (talk) 17:36, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

P.B. Shearer seems deliberately disingenious to me. What he apparently says here, is that Bijl0130's sources, though they are secondary, don't count, because they are not written in English. I doubt if that is what the wikipedia policy says. If that were true, a large number of citations in the article ought to be deleted. But let's assume for the sake of argument, that the citation has to be an English-language secondary source. Let me supply the following then: David Hamilton-Williams, Waterloo. New Perspectives. The Great Battle Reappraised. John Wiley & Sons, 1993 ISBN 0-471-05225-6, pp. 294-295. H-W uses the same sources as Bijl0130, quoting Col. Van Zuylen van Nyevelt verbatim on page 295: "...Whilst the enemy was rallying his forces in great haste the nearest troops [Kempt's; H-K] of the second line attacked his flanks, supported in the movement by the Head of Staff [De Constant Rebecque], who had been able to rally about 400 men of the troops which had been forced to retire. They succeeded in driving the enemy back over the sunken road, pursuing him with the bayonet." So here we have a secondary source, in English, quoting a primary source in translated Dutch. Does this conform to wikipedia policy, or what more is needed?--Ereunetes (talk) 00:12, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I am not being disingenuous deliberately or otherwise, I am simply stating Wikipedia policy. If there is disagreement in the sources, we should reflect that disagreement in such a way that it reflects what reliable sources state (WP:WEIGHT and WP:NPOV#Balance), with weighting towards the prevalent view in English language histories (WP:NONENG). --PBS (talk) 21:09, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A new twist: "weighting towards the prevalent view in English language histories". Even if that prevalent view is demonstrably at variance with the facts? I mean, why do you prefer the clearly biased narrative, written more than twenty years after the battle, by a subaltern officer, who was not present at the battle, to the official after-battle report of an officer who had been in a responsible position during the battle, written within two days of the battle? Other than British POV? Why all this resistance to a long-overdue reformulation of the text? If it was justified to put the controversy about a minor point, like the exact start time, in the article, why not then the controversy (that has been raging for about 170 years now) about the slander of the Belgian/Dutch forces?--Ereunetes (talk) 21:55, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

I have no objection to mentioning the controversy, but we should not replace one POV with another, instead we should strive for balance as represented in the sources (with an appropriate weighting to those views expressed in reliable English language secondary sources). It seemed to me that you are retreating from what you wrote before "think the best solution would be to present both "points of view" with supporting sources and finally bring the controversy out into the open.". For the moment I'll say no more, as I am starting to repeat myself, but I will put the point on the military project page and see if anyone else has an opinion on this. --PBS (talk) 22:32, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

(de-indent) The solution to this has already been stated above by various people in various ways and is very simple: both points of view are depicted, using reliable secondary sources to reference both. It is then up to the reader to decide which, if either, they believe. The research provided above does need to go in the article, just not in format it is presented here.--Jackyd101 (talk) 23:25, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

A full read through of both texts (the one here and the one currently in the article) indicates that there is actually little difference between them in terms of broad scope, only in matters of detail. The text as it appears in the article could certainly do with better referencing, while the text here needs a serious copyedit to improve prose and remove extraneous detail. I see no reason why a compromise cannot be reached that incorporates Dutch and English sources with correct English grammar - what details exactly is the dispute about here and can those disputing them please lay them out clearly for investigation? --Jackyd101 (talk) 23:35, 17 April 2009 (UTC)

Gentlemen, try to remain focussed! Up till now I didn't see ANY detailed suggestion about possible changes in the text. This subject is not about general matters, but about re-writing the mentioned paragraph in a practical way. Please suggest text changes, or otherwise start a separate discussion about the Wiki background in a new chapter. With regards to the question above (Jacky101); the main differences are indeed in the details, but these are important. Main points that should be changed: 1; Bijlandt brigade was NOT placed on forward slope at start of battle as stated in the current article. 2; Bijlandt brigade was NOT routing to the rear after the first shot (and was never seen again), but retreated slowly in ONE line, regrouped and joined the counter attack (this infantry counter attack part is no subject here, as this is not explained in the current article anyway).

Hope this explained it a little bit better to those of you that are not familiar with the subject.Bijl0130 (talk) 08:19, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

We apparently are not making much progress here. The last entry in this discussion was made on April 20. Meanwhile I understand the article has been partially protected (or has that been lifted again?), so attemps to edit the passage under discussion may not be encouraged. As I see it, two things are disputed: was the brigade still in its exposed position at the start of the battle? and did the brigade "leave the battlefield" (with the footnote about the "booing"), or did they just retire to the position of the 5th Militia battalion, before being rallied? The two questions are not unrelated as the position of the brigade during the French opening artillery barrage goes to asserted heavy losses from this barrage sustained by the brigade. Those heavy losses are then used by some writers as an excuse for the asserted flight. However, if there was no flight, there is no need for this excuse. In this context it is worth noting that Dutch sources do not mention the exposed placement of the brigade and therefore also not heavy losses as a consequence of the barrage, though the Dutch would seem to be most in need of the excuse if the asserted flight took place. As a matter of fact, the main reason for supposing the brigade "left the field" seems to be the fact that some British troops booed fleeing Dutch troops. Does it follow that these fleeing troops comprised the entire brigade? It would seem not. Against the assertion that the brigade "left the field" speak the after-battle reports cited in the discussion up to now that say that they were rallied and joined the counterattack. If we now look at the references in the article for the asserted placement of the brigade and the asserted flight of the troops, it seems only Barbero and Longford are used. Both "filter" Siborne, which is hardly convincing.

I would propose the following compromise text: in the current paragraph, starting with "At about 13:30, d'Erlon ..." drop the sentences after "All had suffered badly at Quatre Bras." The next paragraph would start: "As the French advanced, Bijlandt's skirmishers withdrew to the sunken lane. Then the brigade was ordered to its feet and started to return fire. On the left of the brigade, where the 7th Dutch militia stood, a few files were shot down and an opening in the line thus occurred. The battalion had no reserves and was unable to close the gap. D’Erlon's troops pushed through this gap in the line and the remaining battalions in the Bijlandt brigade (8th Dutch militia and 7th Belgian line) were forced to retreat to the square of the 5th Dutch militia, which was in reserve between Picton’s troops, about 100 paces to the rear. There they regrouped under the command of Colonel Van Zuylen van Nijevelt and general Constant-Rebecque, though some fled the field and were booed by British troops. Meanwhile d'Erlon's men began to ascend the slope... etc"

I think this version could be adequately supported by the references cited above in this discussion. Note that I even left in the all-important booing :-) Would this be acceptable?--Ereunetes (talk) 00:02, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm of the opinion we should accept there is no POV regarding what we as objective students/ authorities / buffs know as current facts that add up as opposed to the older tainted British view that scandalized the Dutch-Belgians. I'd even not go to great length in the 'new' paragraph but merely let the numerous detailed footnotes support brief points regarding Bijlandt's brigade:
1] the brigade was a mostly non veteran force and had fought tenaciously at Quatre Bras as part of the force that denied Ney the crossroads before Wellington arrived with reinforcements.
2] the unit was not on the forward slope AT ALL at the start of D'Erlon's attack, aside from skirmishers and attached artillery units.
3] Only SOME of the hard pressed Dutch units fled-after bearing the brunt of the columns attacking them before Picton's units were themselves engaged and equally forced back slowly with Bijlandt's units who remained in position -as British witness accounts state. So yes some troops fled as did most of the Allied nations + Brit forces to various degrees in the entire battle who were on the front lines- ie, Halkett's Brit brigade suffered casualties heavily, but his company sized battalions at battle's end illustrate many soldiers left the field unwounded when compared to casualty tallies for the day.
4] There was no flight off the battlefield by the brigade as a whole. They did still exist as a cohesive unit to continue in the battle. There was a considerable number of the brigade used to escort French prisoners taken in the counterattack, back towards Brussels.
I think we should bravely chuck the ancient version that slanders the Dutch-Belgians; it is skewered documentary. We have ample sources including British witness accounts to give the proper and honest/ deserving telling of D'Erlon's infantry attack and the true opposition it faced across the Ohain ridge. Is it really necessary to write the old slandered anti-Dutch/ Dutch forward slope version and then just add footnotes stating the correct 'version' in opposition. It seems most elsewhere in the this wiki Waterloo account pains have been taken to write corrected updates upfront of 'myths' ie, "the Old Guard attacking Wellington "--Joey123xz (talk) 15:09, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

See my last comment in this section and "We have ample sources including British witness accounts" the prohibition on WP:OR. If it is the major view in modern reliable English language sources, it should not be too difficult to find modern reliable sources in English to support your ideas. --PBS (talk) 11:58, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

What Joey123xz, Bijl0130, and I myself have been saying is not "original research" and we have quoted reliable sources, English-language and otherwise. As to what is "the major view" that is first of all debatable and it does not cut much ice if it is demonstably based on only one erroneous source (to wit: Sibourne, who needed the Bylandt brigade on the front slope to make the rest of his narrative "consistent"). So maybe you should start addressing our arguments instead of repeating yourself. Incidentally, in your "last comment" you write: "For the moment I'll say no more, as I am starting to repeat myself, but I will put the point on the military project page and see if anyone else has an opinion on this." Is there anything worth reporting back?--Ereunetes (talk) 21:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Van Bijlandt paragraph text; for your remarks PART/DRAFT III

Dear all, I rewrote the proposed text a little bit based on the remarks above. But as there are no real detailed suggestions made, the changes are not big. This time I am intending to place it in the main page within one or two weeks as the article contains both old and new points of view, but now put in their perspectives. The article uses literature from all over Europe and from all languages, both old and new. Besides all this is was long enough open for discussion and there are no real detailed suggestions or objections made. This means that we comply with all Wiki rules. Time to include!

The counterattack is still not included, as this is a complete different discussion. We could start it seperatly, and I am happy to start this as soon as this discussion is finished.

Proposed text.

At about 13:30, d'Erlon started to advance his three other divisions, some 14,000 men over a front of about 1,000 metres (1,094 yd) against Wellington's weak left wing.[54] They faced 6,000 men: the first line consisted of the Dutch-Belgian 1st “Van Bijlandt” brigade of the 2nd Dutch-Belgian division. The second line consists of British and Hanoverian troops under Sir Thomas Picton, who were lying down in dead ground behind the ridge. All had suffered badly at Quatre Bras. In addition, the Van Bijlandt brigade, posted towards the centre of the battlefield, had been ordered to deploy its skirmishers in the hollow road and on the forward slope. The rest of the brigade was lying down just behind the road, where they were ordered to earlier that day at 09.00 hours (they camped the previous night on the forward slope)(135,136,138,139,140,141).

As the French advanced, Bijlandt's skirmishers withdrew to the sunken lane, to their parant battalions (134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141). As these skirmishers were retreating through the British skirmish lines they were booed by some British troops, thinking they were leaving the field. At the moment these skirmishers were joining their parent battalions the brigade was ordered to its feet and started to return fire. Their fire was “little and not well maintained”(141).

On the left of the brigade, where the 7th Dutch militia stood, a “few files were shot down and an opening in the line thus occurred”(original quotes of Van Zuylen, the chief of staff of the Dutch 2nd division (135, 140,141 )). The battalion had no reserves and was unable to close the gap. D’Erlon’s troops pushed through this gap in the line and the remaining battalions in the Van Bijlandt brigade (8th Dutch militia and 7th Belgian line) were forced to retreat to the square of the 5th Dutch militia, which was in reserve between Picton’s troops, about 100 paces to the rear. There they regrouped under the Command of Colonel Van Zuylen van Nijevelt and general Constant-de-Rebeque. A moment later the Prince of Orange ordered a counter attack, which actually occurred around 10 minutes later (134,135,136,137,138,139,140,141,142, 143).

In the mean time D'Erlon's men began to ascend the slope, and as they did so, Picton's men stood up and opened fire. The French infantry returned fire and successfully pressured the British troops; although the attack faltered at the centre,[59] the left wing started to crumble. Picton was killed after ordering the counter attack and the British and Hanoverian troops also began to give way under the pressure of numbers.

See for literature list above.The following could be added:

144. Waterloo. New Perspectives. The Great Battle Reappraised. David Hamilton-Williams. John Wiley & Sons, 1993 ISBN 0-471-05225-6, pp. 294-295

This last literature is only needed when we discuss the counter attack? I don't have it, so I am not sure if it support the rest of the above draft text. Any one can help?

Please forward your remarks, greetings. Marco Bijl0130 (talk) 09:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC).

I've added a important new English source:

"Belgians at Waterloo: With Translations of the Reports of the Dutch and Belgian Commanders" Demetrius C. Boulder; Boulger, London 1901. S.H. De only English translation of the reports of Van Zuylen and others."

And placed the new text in the article after almost 6 months for comments in the discussion page. Bijl0130 (talk) 12:35, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Very good to see the update. Thanks for the hard work you put in. I still think some tweaking is needed to refine the section which you have taken great pains to 'adjust'. To start off, I think mentioning 'Ohain ridge' by name is a good reference. You could mention too, added to Wellington's 'left wing' being attacked, the focus of the attack was more on the center left and center right [ and one of Durette's brigade's columns hitting the extreme Left's fortified farmhose positions]. One key target of the attack was La Haye Sainte which of course is on the Allied Right center. In my opinion it should be noted what the massive attack aimed to do - bulldozer onwards and threaten Brussels/ the Brussels road/ one of Wellington's line of retreat via that highway and perhaps cut off links with Prussians who Napoleon at 10am, knew was arriving by its mention in a despatch to Grouchy. Pointing out that the most heavily engaged infantry units were Picton's division and Bijlandt's brigade on the center left, AND the Ompteda's KGL brigade and Kielmansegge's Hanoverian brigade in the center-right could give the general reader better 'position visuals' of the activity in this event. A point could be made about all 3 brigades in Picton's division deployed in 4 rank lines - 'columns of fours' mentioned by Siborne's 'Waterloo Letters'. Making also a brief note that Vincke's Hanoverian brigade was not contacted in the more eastern part of the Ohain ridge.

There's a spelling error regarding 'parent' in this line- Bijlandt's skirmishers withdrew to the sunken lane, to their parant battalions.

I think you should add here in the final section of the crisis, In the mean time D'Erlon's men began to ascend the slope,, instead, that 3 of D'Erlons 4 colums were cresting OVER the Ohain ridge at the point when Picton, the Dutch Belgians, except Vincke's brigade of Hanoverians, were all getting pushed back. The extreme left was not crumbling, but the center-left was.

Also, I still don't see where in the footnotes specific reference is made for the mention of the Prince of Orange taking command of units of the 'Reserve Corps' positioned on the East of the Brussels road. The Prince of Orange's 1st Corps command was to the West of the Brussels road. Who was it exactly that stated the Prince of Orange had moved into the Reserves Corp's location in their crisis moment when indeed the Prince at that time was having his hands full in his own command's position above La Haye Sainte commanding Kielmansegge and Ompteda while heavy French activity was ongoing there prior to Uxbridge's attack with the Household Brigade in that section. It seems highly unlikely he would've galloped over to Picton's and Bijlandt's sector while scrutinizing the French attack enveloping La Haye Sainte directly on his own position at the same time the French were pushing back Picton and Bijlandt in the Reseves Corps area adjacent to his own pressured Corps- indeed at a time while he personally ordered the Luneberg battalion to its infamous destruction in its line formation advance to reinforce LHS when it was ambushed by French cuirassiers. and .....Where was Wellington at this point? Supposedly near Hougoumont, but I remember reading 'somewhere' he may have rode over to the extreme Left just prior to D'Erlon's attack.

Also, in the postscript of D'Erlon's attack, -no doubt noted in your dutch-begian sources- I think mention could be made that hundreds of Bijlandt's troops were used to escort the French prisoners taken back to Brussels and that Bijlandt's brigade remained on the battlefield and still in the line on Ohain ridge - it could be pointed out that Picton and Bijlandt's units were severely depleted in strength too and barely hung onto their positions against harassment attacks by D'Erlon's recuperated troops/ survivors for the rest of the battle.

Anyway- well done again - I hope my input is of some appreciated use.
--Joey123xz (talk) 13:29, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

I found vol. III of De Bas and 't Serclaes de Wommersom's "Campagne de 1815" online in google books. All the famous Dutch/Belgian after-battle reports, including the ones by Col. Van Zuylen van Nijevelt, Generals Perponcher, Trip, Ghigny, Van Merlen, and Chassé can now be read either in the original Dutch or the French translation online by the interested Waterloo buff. I put a direct link to the Van Zuylen report (which runs pp. 289-352, not 300-330) in note 59. Unfortunately, the link starts on p.286, but that is only 3 pages off. I hope the link stays current.--Ereunetes (talk) 19:55, 26 April 2010 (UTC)

30th British Infantry- Footnote 44 - Macready- CORRECTION needed

Footnote 44 needs a correction. Macready's unit was not part of a 'Light Division'. The 2nd battalion, 30th British Foot was in Colin Halkett's brigade of British infantry which was in General Alten's 3rd division in the 1st Corps of the Prince of Orange. There was a 'Light brigade' of British infantry in Lord Hill's 2nd Corps in Clinton's 2nd Division whuch was Gen.Adam's 3rd British brigade composed of the 52nd Lt.Infantry1st btn, 71st Light infantry 1st btn,. and the 2nd and 3rd btns. of the 95th Foot.--Joey123xz (talk) 08:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)

This seems like the easiest correction to apply.
I should clarify- the line pointing to Footnote 44 in the actual article itself is in need of the correction. The line quotes Macready of the 30th Foot, Light Division. My point above pertains to this very real error in fact.--Joey123xz (talk) 15:22, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Well spotted. The article Order of Battle of the Waterloo Campaign describes this as you say (search on "2nd Battalion, 30th"), The source state " Halkett's brigade in the right centre which was composed of battalions of the 30th, the 33d, the 69th, and the 73d British regiments. ... The late Major Macready served at Waterloo in the light company of the 30th." So please fix the citation. -- PBS (talk) 12:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks PBS; although I see 'Halkett's Brigade' was added, no change was made to removing 'Light Division' from the erroneous line, or merely altering it to read 'Light Infantry Company' instead.--Joey123xz (talk) 14:05, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

Numbers do not add up

In the section "Armies", it is indicated that 58,000 of the troops in Napoleon's army were infantry, 14,000 were cavalry, and 7,000 were artillery, adding up to 79,000 troops. However, this section gives the total as 72,000. Which one is correct?66.27.114.113 (talk) 21:06, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

It seems there were two edits in September 2008 which changed the total troop figure from 69,000 to 72,000 [1] and the infantry number from 48,000 to 58,000 [2]. The source remained unchanged though (Barbero, p. 75) so it would be interesting to know what figure that provides. BarretBonden (talk) 21:44, 12 April 2009 (UTC)

Both edits were made by the same IP address without any explanation, so I have changed the sentence back to the original version which adds up. BarretBonden (talk) 16:52, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Expression "to face one's Waterloo" (from Abba song or from before that?)

If wasn't coined by Abba, maybe it'd be worth mentioning in the article.--Tyranny Sue (talk) 12:22, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

See Waterloo in popular culture#Other --PBS (talk) 12:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Possibly useful image

British Royal Horse Guards and Lifeguards charging in 1815:

Armies

A half-paragraph in the Armies section is completely unrefernced and needs attention. Comments in bold:

Wellington was also (why "also" - non sequitur - this is a change of subject) acutely short of heavy cavalry, having only seven British and three Dutch regiments. The Duke of York imposed ref? many of his (York's or Wellington's?) staff officers on Wellington, including his (York's or Wellington's?) second-in-command, the Earl of Uxbridge. Uxbridge commanded the cavalry and had carte blanche (carte blanche to do what? Vague) from Wellington (but if Uxbridge was imposed on Wellington why would he give him carte blanche?). Wellington stationed a further (further to what? non sequitur - this is another change of subject mid-paragraph) 17,000 troops at Halle, eight miles (11 km) away to the west; they were not recalled to participate in the battle but were to serve as a fall back position should the battle be lost.ref? They were mostly composed of Dutch troops under William, Prince of Orange's younger brother Prince Frederik of the Netherlands. ref?

Cyclopaedic (talk) 07:16, 18 September 2009 (UTC)

The Duke of York was commander-in-chief of the British army, he had considerable control over Horseguards (the administrative headquarters of the army). Horseguards imposed a number of staff officers and subordinate generals on Wellington. The Quartermaster General imposed on Wellington was so incompetent that Wellington prefered to dispose of him and use DeLancy, a mere colonel, as a de facto QMG.

The case of Uxbridge was complicated. Wellington would have prefered Stapleton Cotton to command his cavalry. Cotton was a dependable plodder who would never use much initiative (initiative was something Wellington disliked in his generals), Uxbridge in contrast was a brilliant cavalry commander, but one inclined to rashness, and to using his initiative. Uxbridge was also Wellington's social equal and would have to be treated as such. Additionally Uxbridge had seduced and later married the wife of one of Welligton's brothers, so relations must have been strained by this history.

Wellington's reaction to Uxbridge's presence was interesting. He appears to have allowed Uxbridge a free hand in controlling the cavalry. Uxbridge was later to state that Wellington gave no orders whatsoever to himself as to the deployment of the allied cavalry during the Battle of Waterloo.Urselius (talk) 13:07, 6 November 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, but the paragraph still needs improving (and appropriate citations). Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:57, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

Referring to the topmost quoted txt; The troops at Hal were a force stationed there in case of a scenario in which the French would employ a strategic outflanking movement. Hal was not a fall back position. Wellington would have fallen back directly north through Brussels.--96.22.104.115 (talk) 16:51, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm confused abouth the words "Belgium" and "Dutch"

During the time of the battle of Waterloo, Belgium did not exist, so I'm not sure if it should be used in the article (napoleon reaching the belgian border etc) although the word Belgium has always been a synonym for "The Netherlands", also in those days. When the anglo-dutch coalition is mentioned, what is meant by dutch? Do they mean the definition of Dutch at the time (Netherlands + Belgium) or the current definition (just the Netherlands) or another definition? Did soldiers from what is now Belgium fight in this battle, and if they did, on what side? Thanks to anyone who might clear up this confusion to me and in the article.--Lamadude (talk) 01:22, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

The article follows the terminology used in English-language reliable sources and in use at the time of the batttle. The united Kingdom of the Netherlands was newly-created, and there were clear distinctions between its Dutch and Belgian parts. "Dutch" refers to the former United Provinces, "Belgium" to the former Austrian/Spanish Netherlands. Dutch and Belgian troops wore different uniforms, but they are collectively referred to as Dutch-Belgians. Cyclopaedic (talk) 05:49, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Ney

Why does Michel Ney get equal billing with Napoleon in the first sentence of the lead and in the infobox? He was a subordinate commander. Cyclopaedic (talk) 17:49, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

The implication, from Bonaparte's own writings, is that Ney became the battlefield tactical commander. (Cacadores) — unsigned comment added by Cacadores (talk • contribs) 16:36, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Napoleon was in charge of the battle but much of what he wrote after the fact was about making sure he wasn't to blame for the defeat, Grouchy's reputation never recovered from it, and Ney wasn't around to defend himself anymore. Napoleon was primary in directing the defense of Plainoit as if the Prussian's broke though this would have been immediate unrecoverable defeat, Ney was in charge of most of the force working Wellington's side. However it was all in view of Napoleon who could have acted anytime he decided to. --Tirronan (talk) 17:33, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

"La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!" hooliganism

Re: section Attack of the Imperial Guard.

Over the past year, someone has repeatedly vandalised clarification of Cambronne's attributed phrase "La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!" by surrepticiously placing 'ref' markers so that the text cannot be seen.

This dishonest behaviour serves the quest for truth ill and it would be nice to know who the hooligan is. (Cacadores)Cacadores (talk) 16:52, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

It is not vandalism. I added the text as one of the original two footnoted to this article back in 2005. It is a minor point not directly linked to the battle and is better as a footnote. -- PBS (talk) 20:10, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Shearer,

Thank you for your reply but I'm afraid you may have made three mistakes. Not only have you removed clarification of a historical conflict (some of which I put there), you did not report your reasons, even though the result removes a neutral presentation and replaces it with a one-sided point of view. It is very much 'directly related to the battle', since it presents a whole senario to the reader: the Guard called upon to surrender, heroically replying that they will not (actually that is a point of view undermined by historical evidence that the Guard dissolved into individual surrendering runaways). Be that as it may, by leaving this point of view, you are removing any reason for the reader to investigate the conflicting evidence. Now, Wikipedia seeks a 'neutral point of view' and someone is altering that part of the article (not just the references) to present a one-sided point of view. I quote Wikipedia's rules:

Wikipedia has a neutral point of view, which means we strive for articles that advocate no single point of view. Sometimes this requires representing multiple points of view, presenting each point of view accurately, providing context for any given point of view, and not presenting any point of view as "the truth" or "the best view". That means citing verifiable, authoritative sources whenever possible, especially on controversial topics.

Attempts to make the presentation neutral by simply qualifying the phrase to reflect the conflicting evidence have also been removed. I would be interested in who is responsible and I think we deserve an explanation.

At the moment, the phrase:

It was during this retreat that some of the Guards were invited to surrender exhorting the famous retort: La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas! (The Guard dies, it does not surrender!).

violates this policy, since the words 'exhorting' and 'the famous retort' are clearly meant to imply veracity and thus give a point of view: that the phrase was really said, and not a lie.

In support of the phrase: The phrase can be traced back to a journalist called Rougement who claimed General Cambronne said "La garde meurt et ne se rend pas !" ("The Guard dies and does not surrender!"). After the phrase became famous, letters published in The Times in June 1932 claim that General Michel may have said something similar. (Secondary sourse) 2.D.H. Parry (c. 1900) Battle of the nineteenth century, Vol 1 Cassell and Company: London. Waterloo

Against this view: (a) Cambronne (the person the jounalist claims said the phrase) himself denied saying this or anything else and (b) A series of letters to The Times suggests that British Colonel Hugh Halkett had already captured Cambronne before the reply (whatever it was) could have been made. Backing this up is the fact that Cambronne, seriously wounded, was taken prisoner by the British after the battle. Secondary source quoting primary source: Ref: 1.^ Boller, Jr., Paul F.; George, John (1989). They Never Said It: A Book of Fake Quotes, Misquotes, and Misleading Attributions. New York: Oxford University Press. ISBN 0-19-505541

A neutral view So, if we apply a normal histographical analysis, we thus find that the reliability of the journalist (who himself is a secondary source) is in question. In support of such a conclusion, is the fact that journalism in France for many years had been subject to state censorship and propaganda. Ref: The Napoleonic Phenomenon By A. Lentin, 2004, The Open University.

In conclusion There are clearly two conflicting points of view as to whether or not this phrase was really said on the one hand, or invented on the other. The proper way to deal with such a conflict (in accordance with Wikipedia policy) is to qualify the presentation of the phrase so that the casual reader is not misled: either a) present both strands of evidence or b) render the presentation neutral. It can be done with one word. The word is 'alleged'.

Now, you can you chose which route a) or b) you prefer.

In the meantime I have dealt with your concerns about including reference in the text by leaving your wholesale removal of the clarifcations. Instead I have made the text neutral by trying to present the middle ground, that is chosing the less intrusive second option, adding the word 'alleged', which I hope will satisfy you.

Anyone wishing to remove the word 'alleged' in order to restore the one-sided point of view should discuss their reasons here.

Regards,

Cacadores Cacadores (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Re: Hooliganism continues.

I have just had a look at the hidden references (the references which sought to restore the neutrality of the historical presentation) and found that not only were the clarifications hidden from the public text (which Mr Shearer graciously admitted to doing) but that the clarifications themselves were also tampered with. The clarification, which showed that Cambronne denied saying any phrase, has been removed and a unattributable statement (in conflict with the historical record), that Cambronne used the word 'Merde' has been inserted instead.

Might I remind users here, that Wikipedia is not intended to be a place for the indulgment of a point of view, but that it is meant to be neutral. Here, entries intended to clarify have been replaced with phrases which appear to have been selected less according to the quality of evidence and more according to the point of view they support. Please let's remind outsleves of why we are here.

Thank you

(Cacadores (talk) 02:32, 15 November 2009 (UTC)).

You put in the specific claim "although it is also claimed Cambronne replied "Merde!" (Boller p. 12). However, Cambronne himself denied saying either phrase". There is no source for "Cambronne himself denied saying either phrase". The source you have provided (Boller) say he denied saying La-Guarde-meurt Boller does not say that he denied saying Merde.

As a general rule we do not use "allegedly" in phrases like this as it carries a POV, that we the editors think it false. (see WP:WTA)-- PBS (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Shearer,

May I remind you that we are all editors. If you think the word 'alleged' is perjoritive, then you can either find a more neutral version, or restore both strands in the text as the Wikipedia advises: my attempts are mearly removed and the words are presented as fact, which is innacurate. The reason there is no source for 'Camronne himself denied saying either phrase' is that it was repeatedly removed. I have restored one source. Please don't vandalise the neutrality of that sentence again. Rather, propose your own method of reflecting the two viewpoints or strands of evidence. (Cacadores (talk) 02:41, 19 November 2009 (UTC)).

User:Cacadores yes we are all editors, it is not if I think the word in pejorative, it is to do with the use of the passive narrative voice (Wikipedia's voice) by stating in the passive narrative voice that a phrase is alleged it is expressing an editorial opinion.

Why have you removed "although Cambronne clamed he replied Merde!"?

AFAICT your source is William Leeke The history of Lord Seaton's regiment, (the 52nd light infantry) at the battle of Waterloo volume 1 footnote on p.60. In that footnote there is nothing that says that Cambronne denied saying Merde (or for that matter the other phrase, it states "French writers assert" and attribute it to General Michel). So which source are you using for denial of Merde as Boller p. 12 says Cambronne denied saying The "Guard dies..." but claimed he said Merde. -- PBS (talk) 10:35, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Dear Mr Shearer,

If you are replying to me, then I would be grateful if you could indicate that next time. I removed the phrase: "although Cambronne clamed he replied Merde!" only because it was difficult, grammatically, to leave it in and to express the doubt surrounding it without losing sense of what the footnote is about, which is not that phrase at all, but the phrase La Garde meurt, elle ne se rend pas!. By all means try to re-insert it if you are able to reflect the doubt surrounding it.

Regarding my complaint about removal of my attempts to retore neutrality to that section over a long period: I notice you have neither explained why that happened nor denied doing it. If it was not you, then please say so.

Regarding the word 'alleged': perhaps you didn't read my previous post? I did point out an alternative method of restoring neutrality so please propose a wording which meets Wikipedia guidelines as I indicated. I can see how the word 'alleged' might be understood to throw doubt on the sentence's object. However, in English-speaking countries (certainly Commonwealth ones), we are used to seeing the word 'alleged' commonly used in newspapers and reports as a means of indicating readers should suspend judgement, including in cases other than legal or police. Your interpretation of this - if I understand you correctly - that leaving the subject of the passive verb alleged unsaid would be taken by the average reader to indicate that the author has expressed a negative opinion, is a highly unusual if not ideosyncratic interpretation. You are inferring that using the passive voice is normally taken to mean that the passive subject has received a judgement from the author. Actually, the interpretation used by the media is not that the journalist is expressing an opinon, but that he/she is indicating that he or she does not have conclusive proof the statement is correct and/or that there is not yet a consensus about the statement's veracity - exactly what we need here! Now, in some contexts, if used gratuitously where any doubt would be unusual, then the adverbial form can have an unneccesarily perjoritive effect, as in he has allegedly got married. But in the context of an historical quotation, it simply indicates that there is doubt about authenticity. Which is the case here.

Let's take a step back for a moment: the phrase first appeared in a newspaper attributed to Cambronne who then denied saying it. The attribution to Cambronne was now discredited and the phrase itself is put in doubt. Later, after the phrase becomes famous, one or possibly two individuals appeared to try to reclaim the phrase for a French Captain. Now, whatever the later claims, for or against, it is pretty clear that this quotation is at the very least, doubtful. It can be argued if it is mildly doubtful or hugely doubtful. But in either case, Wikipedia rules indicate that the phrase should not now appear as 'fact' in the open article. The previous paragraph failed because the phrase was presented as fact. Now all this is known and fairly obvious so I would really like to know why my genuine attempts to render this section neutral were repeatedly stymied.

The answer, clearly, is to find the best way to render this article neutral, not to restore a false veracity to the presentation. It should be mentioned, that anyone with a sentimental attachment to the French Guard might find that phrase alluring. I can also feel that it is a shame to throw doubt on such brave words. But the closer we come to the historical truth, the closer we come to real human understanding and true sympathies.

Let's face it, the original presentation was lazy. Let's try to get it right together.

Over to you.

 (Cacadores (talk) 00:08, 20 November 2009 (UTC)).

The edit history of the article is there to be looked at. I have reverted the changes several times, but I do not know if I am the only person to have done so. The wording was grammatical before you changed it, it included a source that said he denied saying "the guard..." but did include merde and a source for that. The source you included does not include a denial (so why include it?). Given these three points, and the fact you have repeatedly not come up with any additional relevant sources over and above the ones listed, I am reverting to the older version.

Notice that I am not reverting to an earlier version before discussing it with you, and before you edit the text again I would appreciate it if you would discuss any changes you wish to make before making them and wait for at least as long as I have for you from me to reply. See also Wikipedia:TALK#Good practices

-- PBS (talk) 10:48, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I have altered the text to address some of the issues you have raised. -- PBS (talk) 16:38, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

While we are on the subject, titling this section as "Hoolianism" is rather provocative in and of itself. One of the things on the page that we edit from is "If you do not want your writing to be edited, used, and redistributed at will, then do not submit it here. All text that you did not write yourself, except brief excerpts, must be available under terms consistent with Wikipedia's Terms of Use before you submit it."

No one's writing is above editing which seems to the central issue. I submit that this getting a bit much for subjective changes and if you can't have your work edited then this isn't the right format for you. Tirronan (talk) 19:27, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I've altered this again I'm afraid, but hopefully uncontroversially. First, exhort means "encourage", so to "exhort a retort" is both an ugly rhyme and a misuse of the word "exhort". I think what was meant was elicit, meaning to generate or provoke as an answer or response. Secondly, I've deleted the word "allegedly" from "allegedly apocryphal". Apocryphal means "of doubtful authenticity". Apocryphal allows for either possibility: that it was said, and that it wasn't. Unless there is a body of notable opinion out there that categorically maintains this definitely was said, beyond all doubt, it's apocryphal, not allegedly apocryphal. For it to be allegedly apocryphal, one would need the claims of doubtful authenticity to be doubtful in themselves. Tirailleur (talk) 11:51, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually a welcome addition, occasionally we get the guy that thinks his edits are from on high itself and can not stand any change without threats etc. Hopefully this will end the matter and we can cease with the half page justification for acting like an agent of the Lord himself. --Tirronan (talk) 16:42, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

Some questions about the current version

I see the entry now characterises the battle as having been fought against Napoleon and Ney. Sez who? Napoleon routinely delegated the implementation of parts of his tactical plan to his marshals. Even at Waterloo, however, he seems to have controlled the Plancenoit front personally, and the Hougoumont imbroglio too to the extent of earmarking Jerome's corps to attack it and later directing artillery against it. Ney's sphere was thus the centre, i.e. one-third of the front, and also about one-third of the troops (d'Erlon plus the cavalry). Was there something special about the degree to which Napoleon delegated at Waterloo? If not, shouldn't we either dispense with this or, alternatively, describe the Anglo-allied army as being under Wellington and Uxbridge, and the Prussian as under Blucher and Ziethen (or A N Other - IIRC at least one of the Prussian corps commanders outranked Gneisenau, who therefore technically wasn't second-in-command)? It just seems a bit odd. Actually it seems a bit francocentric. If one reads French accounts of the battle, they describe it as being between Wellington and Ney, as though they can't stand the idea that their hero got thrashed personally. I smell a rat here.

Next. Where we say "Reille's Corps on the left and d'Erlon's Corps to the right were to attack the village of Mont Saint Jean and keep abreast of one another. This order assumed Wellington's battle-line was in the village, rather than at the more forward position on the ridge", are we sure anyone assumed that? AIUI, Napoleon gave d'Erlon the objective of getting to Mont St Jean. That doesn't mean he thought that's where the Anglo-allied army was. He was simply setting d'Erlon an objective well beyond the enemy line so he wouldn't stop as soon as he punched through it. The presence of pickets and artillery along the ridge, the initial presence of Bijlandt's brigade on the forward slope, the location of the grand battery and the fact that d'Erlon went forward in an attacking rather than marching formation across the valley, make it quite clear that everyone on the French expected to find Wellington's troops immediately behind the ridge.

Re the spiking of the guns. Barbero has it that most of the British guns were knocked out or driven by recoil back off the ridge and out of action. This would explain why the French didn't spike them (they were out of the battle anyway) and also why Wellington hated his artillerymen so much (they ignored his orders and thus removed themselves from the fight). Other than it being a standard myth about Waterloo, do we have any respected secondary accounts that support the claim that French cavalry carried headless nails around? Or that they were known to dismount and spike guns while standing twenty yards away from infantry squares with an unfired volley in the breech? I have read an account that said they should have simply carried off the rammers and sponge staves, but I would think the gunners themselves carried those off first.Tirailleur (talk) 18:05, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

If my memory serves, I believe that at least some of the British gun crews did the exit stage left to Wellington's disgust which rendered them hors de combat regardless, and I seem to recall that none of the french cav that day was carrying such nails. I don't remember Chesney calling it out, PH wouldn't have either, I do remember Barbaro making that comment and I have read that elsewhere though I don't remember where, bemoaning the fact that the Bon Saber Joachim Murat wasn't running the Cav because he would have supposedly done so. I'd have to dig out a half dozen books to get this ref though. --Tirronan (talk) 19:55, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

It's just that in 30 years reading in this period, I've never come across a reference to French cavalry routinely carrying around bags of headless nails. This is presumably just in case they came across some guns that had been abandoned, but whose crews were sheltering in squares nearby and would retake and use the guns if they weren't spiked. If the crews weren't nearby, eg were dead, spiking them was a waste of time. So presumably, at this point, the "headless nail detail" is ordered to dismount and the nearby enemy infantry in square just ignores them and doesn't try to pick any of them off while they're standing around fishing the headless nails out of their britches pocket or wherever. Doesn't sound at all likely, and the passage is also a bit grafted on and Randomly Capitalised.

I'd agree it might be worth saying something about why they didn't attempt to disable the guns, and I think Barbero has a citable answer. They'd recoiled down the muddy reverse slope, couldn't be hauled back up it by manpower, and any attempts to hitch horses up just got the horses picked off. They recoiled down the slope because in defiance of Welly's orders, they had been used for counter-battery fire and were thus O/A when they were really needed. Tirailleur (talk) 01:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

Here is an 1807 report of attacking infantry spiking guns, as most of the contemporary reports thrown up by a Google Books search seem to be of retreating forces spiking their own guns before abandoning them. Here is a book published in 1859 "The cavalry catechism: or, instructions on cavalry exercise and field ...‎ - Page 143" on how to spike guns and what could be used. this article describes common and spring spikes issued to the artillery, unlike the cavalry manual it says common spikes were made of soft iron not steel. -- PBS (talk) 07:04, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

OK, but these interesting links don't support the article's assertion that French cavalry in 1815 were routinely equipped with bags of headless nails. Surely the obvious reasons why the cavalry didn't stop to spike the guns are that there weren't many left (per Barbero); that those there were appeared abandoned and easily taken later; that they went forward to rout a retreating enemy; and that once among the guns, they were constantly being countercharged by allied cavalry and not at leisure to dismount to spike them. I don't see, essentially, why we need to introduce a little proverbial wanting nail to explain the non-mystery of the French failure to spike the allied guns. Tirailleur (talk) 12:48, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I was not commenting either way, I was just providing information. But now I will make some points on the issue. Unless we can find a source we can only guess, if as indicated in the 1859 manual about armies in the 1860s, cavalry in some armies in 1815 were routinely equipped with spikes (or not as the case may be). The point about the lack of spiking is made in many books (so it is legitimate to include it in the article). Even if a convincing argument can be made here on the talk page as to why the guns were not spiked, that speculation as to why they were not spiked can not be added to the article unless there is a source to support it (WP:SYN). If no research has been published on the subject it would make a very good research paper :-) -- PBS (talk) 21:05, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

All good information and points, Philip. For everyone's convenience here is the current article text which we are discussing:

A small detail in this unsuccessful cavalry offensive is that, contrary to their habit, the French Cavalry under Marshal Ney did not bring headless nails with them, they also seem to have been unaware that headless nails were stored in boxes attached to the British gun carriages. After the capture of the heavy British guns, the Cavalry could have made them unusable by hammering a small headless nail into the priming tube. If they had done so, the British could not have used them so devastatingly against the French after they recaptured them a short while later.

Let's us remember that there were not just British batteries in Wellington's army at Waterloo, and that the other contingents had many batteries deployed on the slope and in reserve positions. The French cavalry had the opportunity to drag away the allied guns too or even remove the wheels off the cannons during the hour and a half period of constant charging. The cavalry simply had no sharp commanders telling them to do so- or the horsemen in the rear to do so. However what was the impact of not removing the Allied guns anyway - None in my opinion: The remainder of the entire afternoon and evening, the French kept charging on horseback, and the Imperial Middle Guard attacks hit home to the reverse crest at which point they were routed. What would've been devastating is French gunners turning the abandoned allied batteries 180 degrees and firing downhill from the crest into the packed Allied squares. As you know, the one French battery that managed to occupy the center/ crossroads area directly in Wellington's middle after the fall of La Haye Sainte, by itself blasted a crisis situation in Wellington's center in creating devastating casualties before that threat was suppressed. Keep in mind it was just the front line infantry units that Wellington withdrew from the crest to the reverse slope. The Allied batteries remained on the slope and were firing at the oncoming French cavalry until the last moment before the gunners ran back to the safety of their supporting squares located below the crest of Mont St.Jean's reverse slope. So the idea that the front line batteries were on the reverse slope is wrong- reverse slope troops can only see up to the crest itself- not the valley beyond--Joey123xz (talk) 16:46, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

I guess we agree that there are some problems with this version, and also that the guns were not spiked, that nobody really knows why not, and that it would have been a good idea as they could be and were re-manned and fired into the cavalry as they withdrew. I therefore move that we lose the above passage in favour of this:

For reasons that remain unclear, no attempt was made to spike the allied guns while they were in French possession. In line with Wellington's orders, gunners were able to return to their pieces and fire into the French cavalry as they withdrew after each attack.

It's factual, it's amply supported and thus doesn't IMO call for a specific cite, and since there isn't any single source of "authoritative speculation" on why the guns weren't spiked we just pass over it. Anyone disagree? Tirailleur (talk) 12:31, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

"Ney's sphere was thus the centre, i.e. one-third of the front, and also about one-third of the troops (d'Erlon plus the cavalry)." Presumably the majority of the units under Ney were the same as those he had commanded at Battle of Quatre Bras usually referred to as the Left Wing. As to how much independence he had, I am not sure we can tell. But on a cynical note: It certainly is convenient for those French historians, past and present who wish to portray Bony as a demigod to explain the failures of his campaign on his subordinates. The "English" are retreating, send in the cavalry to help them on their way. What they were not retreating! Why did ~~Napoleon~~ Ney give that order?

The rational argument in support of Ney in semi-independent command can be presented quite convincingly by factoring in the Prussians. Once the Prussians reached the field, two battles developed and Napoleon chose to concentrate on the new threat leaving Ney to deal with the old one (as Wellington had only sat there all day it was not unreasonable to assume he would continue his defensive stance and as such was not such an intimidate threat).

I do not think that he should be listed as a commander in the battle box. In the body of the text all we can do in this article is present both views (that Nay did and did not have semi-independent command) using published sources to make the point. -- PBS (talk) 21:31, 26 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning and conclusion. In fact, if Ney should be in the box, so should Lobau because he seems to have played the same role in Plancenoit as Ney did before Mont St Jean. I move we take it out. Tirailleur (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps I can shed some light on these subjects, based on the reading I've done on this battle.

Degree of autonomy of Marshal Ney during the battle.

First, at Waterloo the Marshal was not formally second-in-command, as this position was filled by Chief of Staff, Mashal Jean-de-Dieu Soult. Ney's role seems to have been somewhat close to field commander by proxy - French military historian A. Pigeard, Dictionnaire des batailles de Napoleon, page 932 says (translated from French): "towards 13:00 hours Ney, who had kept his authority under [the Emperor's] orders..." [Fr: a gardé son commandement en sous-ordres]). But how wide was his authority?

Several sources (JC Dammame, Barbero, D. Smith) portray Ney as being constantly on the right/centre side of the battlefield. He is portrayed as supervising the massing of the grand battery, alongside Generals Desales (commander of the Grand Battery) and Ruty (commander of the Armee du Nord artillery), then alongside d'Erlon. At this moment (between 12:00-13:00 hours), Ney seems to have been under strict orders to organise the French (main) attack on the right. Meanwhile Napoleon, from his observation post at Maison Decoste (next to La Belle Alliance) supervised the left - the attack of Reille's II Corps. As Napoleon retreated to the inn at Rossomme (from which much of the field was not visible) after the begining of d'Erlon's 1 km attack march, Ney seemed to make a decision all by himself (perhaps with Napoleon's permission?) which is to detach a few squandrons from Milhaud's cuirassier division and place them under his direct command. He then sent them forward, under the command of one of his ADC, Belgian colonel Crabbé. A charge by perhaps two of these squadrons cut into pieces an Anglo-Allied battalion not far from La Haye Sainte. This episode is recounted by Barbero as being the beginning of the great cavalry confrontation that day. A bit later Ney is portrayed again next to general Desales and sardonically remarking "You are being charged", as he saw the British heavy cavalry charge towards Desales' grand battery. This episode is from Dammame's book. The next important episode seems to be the moment of the French cavalry attack. D. Smith (not at all a fan of the Emperor) attributes the decision to Ney, who presumably ordered Milhaud to charge through the British centre. Napoleon is quoted to have said that the charge was one hour too early but that they needed to consolidate what Ney has done by sending more cavalry. Nonetheless D. Smith has some doubts about that and quotes captain Brack from the 2nd ('Red') Lancers of the Guard, who says that all the Guard cavalry (both the light and heavy brigades) joined in the cuirassiers' charge simply by mistake. Historian Jacques Logie blames Ney for not bringing in the infantry he had available (he says that Bachelu's division from Reille's Corps would have been available for this attack). Later, it seems to be clear that Ney directly supervised the successful attack that took La Haye Sainte; he is portrayed as crying out to d'Erlon: "Friend, if we don't die here, the émigrés will kill us." Then, as the Anglo-Allied and Prussians were pushing through, Ney is portrayed by D. Smith (who quotes the same Brack) as haranguing the Guard cavalry and then troops from d'Erlon's Corps (probably the division of Allix, commanded by Quiot). Finally, the attack of the Guard: here the Marshal met Napoleon who gave him direct command of 5 battalions. This is probably the last important action of the Marshal during this battle.

So, obviously Ney's role was essential and he did seem to have had maybe a couple of hours in which Napoleon was quite far from the battlefield (at Rossomme) and he naturally had carte blanche to act he saw fit, although probably not authorized to use the Guard or Lobau. Does he deserve (or should he) feature in the commander infobox? I think not, because, although he had a significant (for the French rather negative) impact on the outcome of the battle, he was nonetheless under more or less close and quasi-continuous supervision of Napoleon. It is for the same reason that you don't put General Bulow (whose Corps did much of the fighting around Placenoit) alongside Blucher in the infobox.

Thanks, some good sourcing and reasoning there. It seems clear to me that he was a subsidiary commander implementing someone else's plan, perhaps with some tactical autonomy, but he wasn't in charge of key decisions such as whether to fight at all. I think it needs changing. Tirailleur (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon thinking that the Anglo-Allied line was in the village of Mont Saint-Jean. I've never heard this one and I would want to see a clear source for that.

Likewise. I think someone has misunderstood. Napoleon definitely told his guys to take or threaten Mont St Jean, but this was just giving them a phase line which they should reach. I move we take it out until someone comes back and supports it. Tirailleur (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Most Anglo-allied guns becoming useless because of muddy reverse slope and abandonment by their crews

D. Smith (again quoting Brack from the 2nd Lancers of the Guard), D. Howarth point out quite clearly how destructive the artillery fire was for the French cavalry at the moment of the cavalry attack. Also, Brack (quoted by Smith) says that at some point a heavy Guard 12-pounder battery was brought before the Guard cavalry to respond to British artillery fire. Brack says that the guncrew had a very hard time indeed bringing it into position up the muddy slope, but they did manage to do it. Thus, it can be assumed that, whilst Anglo-allied guns recoiled down the reverse slope, some would have brought back up. Anyway, more than a few British guns seem to have remained operational throughout the afternoon and several sources underscore the effect of their fire on French cavalry.

Barbero's take on this is that the reverse slope was too slippery to manhandle guns up, and when horses were coupled to the guns, the French skirmishers picked off the horses. The numerically superior and heavier French cavalry ensured there were no Allied skirmishers to do this in return, so when the French brought guns up the only incoming fire would have been from Hougoumont and La Haye Sainte. I can't imagine individual squares were prepared to use up their loaded volley in this way. So if Brack says the French still had trouble moving guns up under comparatively light fire, Barbero's claim that it was impossible for the Allies to move guns back into position looks sound. It doesn't explain the failure to spike any of them, of course. Tirailleur (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

The reverse slope was less steep than the forward (facing the French) slope, it must be remembered. Also though Mercer's battery was unlimbered, and fired against the cavalry attacks, on the reverse slope (his was a reserve unit committed relatively late in the battle) most, if not all, of the allied batteries in place before the commencement of the battle would have been positioned either on the crest or (more likely) just below the crest on the FORWARD slope. Contemporary artillery needed line of sight to the enemy to fire at them (with minor exceptions). You cannot see through a ridge, or depress cannon to fire at an enemy below you with earth intervening.Urselius (talk) 09:02, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

The Allied gun batteries that were on Mont St.Jean ridge were not pulled back to the reverse slope. It was just the infantry battalions on the crest itself that were given orders to retire to the reverse slope. The Allied gunners fired at the French cavalry as they rode from their lines up to the summit of Mont St.Jean - at that point the Allied gunners ran back off the crest to the squares on the reverse slope. On the crest of a large hill like Mont St.Jean, cannons do not recoil back to the reverse slope - between firing, gunners move guns back into position. Also keep in mind Mercer's position. He was actually at the orchard of La Haye Sainte while the attack at Hougoumont got underway -around noon; At that point he was ordered to the reserve positions on the Allied Right-Center rear near Lord Hill's Corps - adjacent to which was the Brunswickers Corp in front of which Mercer was finally positioned. Lord Hill's Corps remained in position mostly until AFTER the French cavalry charges at which point his forces were placed ON the reverse slope of Mont St.Jean. Mercer was in fact not positioned on the reverse slope on Mont.St Jean, but facing it from a position behind. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey123xz (talk • contribs) 17:17, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Spiking

A. Piegeard, Dictionnaire de la Grande Armee describes the process and seems to suggest that it was standard practice: "When an enemy's cannon was taken, without the possibility of carrying it away, it was spiked, so that it could not be used any more" (translated from Fr).

Right, quite a long post. Hope it's useful.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 00:02, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, very. It's clear that it was standard practice to try to do this, but unclear that it was standard practice for cavalry to carry the wherewithal to do it and to dismount in order to do so. I can't think of any example of cavalry doing this. To take a not-dissimilar example, the Light Brigade didn't spike the Russian guns at Balaclava either, but nobody suggests they should have. In both cases the cavalry were milling around among formed and unbroken enemy infantry with loaded weapons with formed fresh light cavalry nearby and heavy cavalry elements besides. I'd damn sure I wouldn't have dismounted and tried to spike any guns either at that point...Tirailleur (talk) 12:52, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Cavalry support for D'Erlon's attack

I see that the cavalry support for D'Erlon's grand infantry attack has recently dwindled from 2 brigades of cuirassiers to "a few squadrons." I suspect that this is due to Barbero's bizarre claim about an aide de camp of Ney managing to detach random squadrons from their parent regiments, brigades, divisions and corps - aparently without consulting their regimental, brigade, divisional and corps commanders - in order to charge the Lüneberg Battalion. I find this difficult to credit. The Lünebergers may have been charged by a couple or even a single squadron of cuirassiers, and an aide of Ney's may have been present, but it is certain that the rest of Dubois' brigade of cuirassiers were not far away and that Dubois was in command.

The left of D'Erlon's infantry was covered by Dubois' cuirassier brigade, which was later broken by the Household Brigade, behind the French infantry and to the right-rear of La Hay Sainte (from the French perspective), was Travers' cuirassier brigade. I would therefore suggest that the French attack was supported by 2 brigades rather than a few squadrons.Urselius (talk) 13:25, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

I think it was Barbero who made that claim. The current wording does at least allow for either case, i.e. a few squadrons could be three from one regiment or one each from three. IIRC Dubois' brigade was broken and Travers' counter-attacked.Tirailleur (talk) 17:12, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

It was Barbero who made that claim regarding a few squadrons being given to Crabbe, with which he broke the Luneberg battalion. Nonetheless, I take Urselius point, in that I've checked at least 5 other sources today (Logie, Pigeard - 2 different books, Smith, Howarth, Dammame) and none of them talk about the Belgian colonel's role in this affair. Other than that, I also agree that Dubois' brigade from Milhaud's Corps joined in for d'Erlon's attack and preceded Quiot's brigade for a while before moving up towards La Haye Sainte. These cuirassiers destroyed the Luneberg battalion (with a few squadrons placed under Crabbe which had hidden in a pocket before charging???), then made a series of mock charges uphill but the Anglo-Allies were formed into square, so, talking casualties from musketry and artillery fire, the cuirassiers fell back to reform, when they were charged by the Household brigade which broke them and made them retreat in some confusion. They would be rallied later and would take part in the massive cavalry attack against the squares. --Alexandru.demian (talk) 23:20, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, D. Smith says that it was with the brigade of Travers (7th and 12th cuirassiers) that the Household brigade clashed, so not with Dubois', although Logie claims that it was Dubois. Logie also claims that Dubois' was the only cuirassier brigade which had been brought up for alongside d'Erlon's infantry in the first attack. --Alexandru.demian (talk) 23:32, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Pigeard says that the brigade that was broken by the Household cavalry was indeed Travers' (7th and 12th cuirassiers) not Dubois' (1st and 4th cuirassiers).--Alexandru.demian (talk) 23:43, 27 January 2010 (UTC)

Both possibly used Houssaye, who also gives Travers' brigade as the one the Household Brigade charged. However, Houssaye makes a couple of definite mistakes in the same passage - one of which is that Vandeleur's brigade included the 13th LD rather than the 16th. The 13th were part of the 7th Brigade, attached to Grant's brigade during the battle itself. He also says that Vandeleur's brigade didn't contact the French lancers when evidence from the officers of the 12th LD makes it quite clear that they did. It appears that the evidence for Travers' brigade being on the left flank of the French infantry attack is somewhat suspect.Urselius (talk) 11:22, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I have read somewhere - W Siborne possibly or maybe Ian Fletcher - that the elements of the Householders which charged to their left of La Hay Sainte contacted part of Travers' brigade but Travers retired, only to counter attack once the cohesion of the British heavy cavalry had broken down.Urselius (talk) 14:14, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

This just shows how little we actually know for certain about several episodes of this battle. Smith says that it was the brigade of Farine (and Jacquinot's lancers) that clashed with and repulsed much of the Union brigade and a part of the Household brigade, during the episode you are mentioning. But anyway, I guess that all this uncertainty is just due to the complete disorganisation of the French Army that followed the battle of Waterloo, with most soldiers and officers fleeing for their lives. Then, with Napoleon's abdication, the invasion of the French soil, the return of the Bourbons and all the ensuing turmoil, few actually had the opportunity or the motivation to cooly jot down the exact details of the battle for posterity. Also, by looking at the losses in officers that the different brigades in Milhaud's two divisions registered, we cannot draw any conclusion either, as these are almost identical. Given that even more important pieces of the puzzle seem to be missing (e.g. did Grouchy actually make a mistake by not heading for Mt St Jean early during the day, when did the battle at Waterloo actually start, why did the Guard cavalry join in when Kellermann charged etc. etc.), I think it is even more difficult to be sure which brigades engaged the Household cavalry in the early cavalry battle. We can only choose to go with the mainstream perspective; we only have to establish what that is. --Alexandru.demian (talk) 18:28, 29 January 2010 (UTC)

Napoleon Bonaparte

From my talk page:

Dear Mr. Shearer, I have seen your recent edit of the article on the battle of Waterloo. While I agree that the Coalition did not recognize Napoleon as Emperor in 1815, I argue this reason is insufficient in justifying the absence of his rightful Imperial title in an encyclopedic article. Here is why: as you probably know, a French Constitution had been validated by plebiscite on the 1st of June 1815 and this Constitution had put in place the French Empire with Napoleon as Emperor. Thus, taking the view that he was not Emperor in 1815 is adhering to the Coalition's point of view about the nature of the French form of government, an issue that was actually strictly within the scope of French internal affairs. The issue of the recognition of the regime was at the time of a strictly political nature and was usually settled in peace treaties (e.g. Napoleon was recognized as Emperor of the French and King of Italy by Russia and Austria after he beat those countries and made peace with them, in 1805 and 1807 respectively). Moreover and even more importantly, historians take the view that Napoleon was Emperor in 1815. I quote the example of specialists such as Jean Tulard or Britisher Richard Homes who naturally speak of the 'Emperor'/'emperor' in 1815, when talking about Napoleon. Also, D. Smith repeatedly speaks about 'Napoleon' rather than of 'Bonaparte' or 'Napoleon Bonaparte' (including in the chapter about the battle of Waterloo). I believe that these arguments are encyclopedically-sensible and the mainstream on the matter and thus I have re-inserted Napoleon's Imperial title in the lead of the article about the battle of Waterloo. Best,--Alexandru.demian (talk) 15:21, 31 January 2010 (UTC)

See Hundred Days#Constitutional reform, Charter of 1815 (22 April, 1815), wikisource:Declaration at the Congress of Vienna (13 March 1815), and the wikisource:Treaty of Vienna (Seventh Coalition) (25 March, 1815).

The plebiscite may or may not have been legitimate as Hundred Days#Constitutional reform says: "In the Republican manner, the Constitution was put to the people of France in a plebiscite, but whether due to lack of enthusiasm, or because the nation was suddenly thrown into military preparation, only 1,532,527 votes were cast, less than half of the vote in the plebiscites of the Consulat; however, the benefit of a 'large majority' meant that Napoleon felt he had constitutional sanction." As to the argument "Napoleon was recognized as Emperor of the French and King of Italy by Russia and Austria after he beat those countries and made peace with them, in 1805 and 1807 respectively". You would have been better off pointing to Treaty of Fontainebleau (1814) which shows the other Coalition members had different views at that time from Britain. But the Declaration at the Congress of Vienna makes it clear that previous recognition was null and void because in the words of the Declaration "By thus breaking the convention which had established him in the island of Elba, Bonaparte destroys the only legal title on which his existence depended, and by appearing again in France, with projects of confusion and disorder, he has deprived himself of the protection of the law, and has manifested to the universe that there can be neither peace nor truce with him."

I think it better that Napoleon Bonaparte is used in the lead as it is a matter of political and legal opinion if he was Emperor of the French in 1815, it is not a matter of opinion that Napoleon Bonaparte commanded the French army at Waterloo. -- PBS (talk) 06:17, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Why don't we take a leaf out of the then British govt's book and call him "the head of the French government"? :-) Tirailleur (talk) 17:33, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't really think that the fact that Napoleon was Emperor in 1815 is a matter of opinion. There seems to be consensus among established authors on the matter. If it were a matter of opinion, it would mean that we would repeatedly find mainstream authors write things like: 'The French army at Waterloo was led by general of division Napoleon Bonaparte'. I've never come across anything like that. As I said before, quoting established British authors, they speak about Napoleon and/or the Emperor, when talking about the battle of Waterloo.--Alexandru.demian (talk) 17:57, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Not true they may well use the name "Napoleon" as a short hand for Napoleon Bonaparte as easily as for Emperor Napoleon. You would need to come up with sources (in English) that specifically stated "Emperor Napoleon" before calling him just Napoleon to support that claim, or a passage in the text that says he was still generally regarded as Emperor. -- PBS (talk) 04:37, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I disagree. As I said above, British authors I have consulted all alternate "Napoleon" and the "Emperor"/"emperor" when speaking about the man at the battle of Waterloo. Here's 4 well-known British authors: Charles Esdaile, Digby Smith, Richard Holmes and David Howarth, that I have just rechecked. All four of them refer to Napoleon as the "Emperor"/"emperor", when talking about the 1815 campaign in Belgium. None of them calls him anything else, which, to me is more than sufficient proof that they consider Napoleon to have been Emperor of the French at Waterloo. Whatever the agenda and the position of the Coalition powers in 1815 regarding this topic, mainstream modern British historians do not acquiesce to it. Among the mainstream French historians (Pigeard, Tulard, Palluel-Guillard, Fierro, Max Gallo, Logie etc.) there is wide consensus about the fact that he was Emperor. Other mainstream historians (Canadian J-C Dammame, Italian Barbero) also call him Emperor in 1815.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 16:29, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

David G. Chandler also refers to Napoleon as "the Emperor" throughout the Hundred Days campaign. Most non-scholarly biographers from Emil Ludwig to Dominique de Villepin seem to do the same, although there's no reasonable method of verifying them all. Alexandru is correct in his assessment of French historians, and even as far back as Jacques Bainville—a passionate légitimiste monarchist and generally not one to do Napoleon any favours—the imperial title of 1815 is acknowledged. On the other hand, I've yet to encounter a military historian who takes the legal formalism of Napoleon's enemies at face value. It's clear the burden of proof should be the other way around. Albrecht (talk) 22:26, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

The defeat of the Union Brigade

This site http://www.napoleonichistoricalsociety.com/articles/scotsgreys.htm says the Scots Greys et al rode not through the French divisions but down the intervals between them. Interesting?Tirailleur (talk) 22:29, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

As I read it the article is saying that the Union Brigade cut their way through the leading brigade or brigades of the French divisions and that the rear brigades fell back in confusion. This seems fairly reasonable, the day after the battle eyewitnesses from the British cavalry sent out to find their own wounded speak of finding neat rows of French muskets and packs in place where they were abandoned by their owners during the Union Brigade's attack.Urselius (talk) 15:52, 28 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree on that article's note of the Greys riding past the columns after demonlishing the head of the columns. Each British cavalry regiment in the Union and Household brigades all had their own pattern of attack during the charge. Some drove into columns, others made wide manoeuvres and of course some halted their attack wisely, and the Greys of course plunged too far ahead. For the Greys to be assumed to go through an entire divisional column and still intact to get to the Grand Battery seems impossible. It does seem accurate as pointed out in the article, that the Greys crushed the head of the French column on the Ohain ridge itself, and then swerved east as a main body between the two demoralized/ breaking French columns nearest them -Marcognet and Durette- actually charged / galloped at this point. There is a good map of what the Greys attack looked like in the book Waterloo Perspectives by David Hamilton-Williams. In his very detailed account he tells of the Greys getting battered in its subsequent attack on a prepared brigade of Durette's infantry before the remnants steered west after, towards the Grand Battery under Napoleon's eyes in the French center and their fateful 'glory'. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey123xz (talk • contribs) 16:58, 30 March 2010 (UTC) --Joey123xz (talk) 17:45, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Cambronne's "Merde!"

Though a literal translation is no longer present in the article's main body, there has been long-standing confusion over the meaning of Cambronne's laconic retort. While literally meaning "shit," the French merde! when directed at someone is idiomatically closer to the English expressions, "Fuck off!" or "Go to Hell!" In other words, the expression is one of defiance (closer in spirit to "The Guard dies...") and bears no trace of the dismay or shock usually associated with "shit!" This is clearer when you consider the longer forms, Merde à vous! or even Je vous enmerde! Albrecht (talk) 20:59, 10 March 2010 (UTC)

(By way of comparison, Admiral Laborde wired the word MERDE to Admiral Darlan before duly scuttling the French fleet in Toulon, in response to Darlan's order that the French ships be turned over to the Germans. Albrecht (talk) 21:05, 10 March 2010 (UTC) )

I've always rather liked Admiral Laborde for that reason... --Tirronan (talk) 08:13, 11 March 2010 (UTC)

This page is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Good Article

From the history of the page:

09:00, 31 May 2010 TreasuryTag (→Further reading: This article was linked from WP:GA, so it is having {{good article}} added per Wikipedia:Bot requests/Archive 36#GA symbol, using AWB)

Wikipedia:Featured article candidates/Battle of Waterloo/archive1

When was this article promoted to Good Article? Does the history of the suggested changes to the article to make it a good article exist (like the archive for featured article?)? -- PBS (talk) 11:36, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

I can't find it either, but according to this version of this talk page it was "Nominated by an unspecified nominator at 2007-08-29". I had a quick look at the archives but couldn't find Waterloo there. Looking at the bottom section of that page, I assume Kierano was at least involved in the nomination. Maybe you should ask at his/her talk page. --Fama Clamosa (talk) 12:17, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

There is a section in this talk page's archive on what needed to be done: Talk:Battle of Waterloo/Archive 6#GA review dated 29-Aug-2007. -- PBS (talk) 13:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Apparently, the article was reviewed and promoted by Jackyd101 on September 21, 2007. A few diffs:

I guess the suggested changes in Archive 6 were intended for a potential FA nomination.

--Fama Clamosa (talk) 22:26, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

It was promoted to at GA sometime back, we went for a FA later, it was turned down pretty quickly when there was resistance to a historiography given the hate and discontent that this battle has raised between the UK and Germany. I wouldn't mind another shot at it if we can come up with a good section for the historigraphy, I did one for the Battle of Borodino which is just as hateful I assure you with just as many folks and historians lying through their collective teeth.Tirronan (talk) 00:23, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

The article was granted GA status 9/21/2007, so it has been a good while.Tirronan (talk) 10:37, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Citations and harvnb templates

I have just been through the process of wrapping the references in the reference section of the article English Civil War in the template {{citations}} and then I wrapped the in-line citations in the {{harvnb}} template (diffs). As an aid for the reader, this puts in a link from the short in-line citation to the full source reference in the references section. But it is time consuming to do, so I'll start the process but would appreciate some help. -- PBS (talk) 11:44, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

One of the side effects of using the templates is that it homogenises the format of the in-line citations which tidies up the appearance of the ==Notes== section. -- PBS (talk) 21:00, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Battle honours etc

This source J. Booth, (1817) The battle of Waterloo: also of Ligny, and Quatre Bras, containing the ... pp. 277–288 contains a list of awards promotions etc given to British Officers and regiments in the wake of the Waterloo Campaign. I'm not sure if any of it needs to be in this article or perhaps into another article, or just footnoted. But editors of this article may find it interesting even if the information is not included in Wikiepdia. -- PBS (talk) 00:31, 30 June 2010 (UTC)

Casualties

I don't want to appear to be biased, but in The Battle: A New History of Waterloo Barbero states that Wellington and Blucher lost around 24000 men. Wellington: 3500 dead, 10200 wounded, 3300 missing (17000). Blucher: 1200 dead, 4400 wounded, 1400 missing (7000). That's 24000 casualties. These figures are even cited in the text. Guard Chasseur (talk) 05:54, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

That isn't bais that is a legitimate concern with a respected cited source. The problem is there are about a few more histories here. Let the other editors chime in and we can make a decision on what needs to be done.Tirronan (talk) 12:35, 17 September 2010 (UTC)

Armies

These second paragraph is not clear:

...Of these, 25,000 were British, with another 6,000 from the King's German Legion. All of the British Army troops were regular soldiers and 7,000 of them were Peninsular War veterans.[16] In addition, there were 17,000 Dutch and Belgian troops, 11,000 from Hanover, 6,000 from Brunswick, and 3,000 from Nassau.[17] William, Prince of Orange showed personal bravery in the battle.

These Coalition armies had been re-established in 1815, following the earlier defeat of Napoleon. Most of the professional soldiers in these armies had spent their careers in the armies of France or Napoleonic regimes, with the exception of some from Hanover and Brunswick who had fought with the British army in Spain.

The British Army was part of a coalition army and the British Army had not been "re-established in 1815, following the earlier defeat of Napoleon". "Most of the professional soldiers in these armies had spent their careers in the armies of France or Napoleonic regimes" , most of the professional soldiers (who would have been British, KGL) in these armies had not "spent their careers in the armies of France or Napoleonic regimes". If this second paragraph means the Dutch, Belgian and Nassauian troops then it should say that. -- PBS (talk) 23:45, 26 September 2010 (UTC)

I have had a go at a minor rewrite of the paragraph that stated "These Coalition armies..." It probably needs more. As only 7,000 British soldiers were Peninsular War veterans, quite a lot although professional soldiers may not have been in a major battle. This should be teased out a bit (Ie it was not just Jonny foreigner who was inexperienced). I am not sure if the Dutch Army (or the other armies) had been reconstituted or if it was an amalgamation of pre-existing forces. I think more research needs to be done to find out what the secondary sources actually say about where these armies came from and if they claimed previous battle experience of fighting together as units. For example the Prussians had been allied for Napoleon for a time, But few thought that any Prussian regiment would go over to Napoleon. The only reason this is relevant is it was thought that some of the French speaking Belgian regiments could not be trusted. -- PBS (talk) 21:43, 26 October 2010 (UTC)

I think Barbaro is one of the better sources in comparing the armies. Much of Wellington's old force was either coming back from New Orleans or from Canana. Much of the Brit forces were gathered from reserve and garrison battalions at home if memory serves, its getting late here so I will check for you in the morning. Many of the Dutch Belgians had seen service under Napoleon but many were Landwehr or equivalent types just brought together. Of the 3 armies there that day the shipwreck were the Prussian forces, and even at that they had gotten some experience and fought harder with the loss of the Rhinelander that didn't want to be there. I do remember that Barbaro stated that the 3 armies were about equal, something I at 1st disagreed with, but as time goes on I'm coming to his view.Tirronan (talk) 04:47, 27 October 2010 (UTC)

Ok the Armies of Hanover and Brunswick were recent reconstructions under professional officers and most of the enlisted were recent recruits hired for life or long service in the most traditional of ways and of varying nationalities. The KGL was considered among the best. Barbero p.32-33

reconnaissance

The Prussian defeat made Wellington's position at Quatre Bras untenable, so the next day he withdrew northwards, to a defensive position he had personally reconnoitred the previous year - a year before??? TeunSpaans (talk) 20:28, 28 September 2010 (UTC)

so it is reputed by multiple books.Tirronan (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

And given that out of preference Wellington liked the tactic of negating the French deployment of a grand battery by placing his men on a reverse slope a tactic he had used many times before, (it also made if difficult for French officers to judge when to give the order to redeploy from column to line -- (they came on in the same old way)) and that at the top of the escarpment there was the sunken lane ditch, the battle site was just the sort he liked. That he had reconnoitred it a year before is less incredible than the possibility that he stumbled on it by change retreating from Quatre Bras towards Brussels.

Wellington's infantry were in fact ON the summit of Mont St. Jean ridge (west of La Haye Sainte ) PRIOR to the mass French cavalry charges in that sector. While Picton and Bylandt's brigades were in shelter behind the cover of the hedge lined crest of the Ohain ridge on the East half of Wellington's positions prior to the French battery bombardment, the front line battalions on Mont St.Jean were on top of the ridge suffering from the French cannonfire after D'Erlon's attack had failed. Wellington withdrew those brigades of Halkett, Kielmansegge, and Ompteda to the reverse slope of Mont St.Jean as was witnessed by Ney who mistook the 'disappearance' of those troops to be a retreat of Wellington's center ( in combination with the column of wounded, prisoners and stragglers he could likely make out streaming north on the Brussels highway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Joey123xz (talk • contribs) 20:58, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Some primary sources that Wellington was in Brussels and reconnoitring the countryside around about can be found in Supplementary despatches, correspondence, and memoranda, Volume 9, by Arthur Wellesley of Wellington On page 187 Wellington writes from Courtrai to the Earl of Bathurst on 20th of August saying that "I am just setting out for Paris ... I have seen a good deal of the country and will send you my report from Paris ... Whatever may be the military consequences of our tour, we have made noise enough in the country, and the people are convinced of our intention to defend it".

When he got to Paris he wrote a memorandum to Lord Bathurst as promised, it was dated 22 September 1814 and titled "On the Defence of the Frontier of the Netherlands" it is catalogued in The Dispatches of Field Marshal the Duke of Wellington, During his various campaigns in India... and France from 1799 to 1815 by Arthur Wellesley and John Gurwood. The memorandum starts on page 125 and continues for a further four pages. In it he identifies good defensive positions for an army in the field "There are, however, good positions for an army at La Trinité and at Renaix behind Tournay; another between Tournay and Mons, on the high grounds about Blaton; there are many good positions about Mons; the course of the Haine from Binch towards Mons would afford some good ones; about Nivelle, and between that and Binch, there are many advantageous positions; and the entrance of the forêt de Soignies by the high road which leads to Brussels from Binch, Charleroi, and Namur, would, if worked upon, afford others." And of course "the entrance of the forêt de Soignies" is a description for Mont-Saint-Jean and the Waterloo battle field. -- PBS (talk) 10:22, 29 September 2010 (UTC)

Also See this 1815 post battle account: "Battle of Waterloo; or, Correct narrative of the late sanguinary conflict on ..." by W. A. Scott (Lieutenant-General), p 149 (footnotes): "'The position of Waterloo,' says Lord Bathurst in the House of Lords, 'was one well known to his Grace. In the summer of last year, his Grace went there in his way to Paris, and on that occasion he took a military view of it.— He then declared, that if ever it should be his fortune to defend Brussels, Waterloo would be the position he would occupy'."

So the information has been common knowledge since shortly after the battle, even though the dispatches were not published until later. -- PBS (talk) 19:30, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

This is very good stuff, Philip. You need to work it into the "tactics" section of the actual article. --Michael K Smith^Talk 17:31, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Casualties 2

Since no one's piped in the issue regarding allied casualties, I suggest 22,000-24,000 dead, wounded or captured. But the current citation is incorrect, as Barbero states there were 24,000 allied casualties, so this needs to be changed. -- Guard Chasseur (talk) 05:45, 13 October 2010 (UTC)

Plagiarism Concern

As I have been doing some research on the Battle of Waterloo, I have been checking out a number of sites and have become a bit concerned that much of this article was seemed to mirror that from http://www.battleofwaterloo.org/ including the organization, format and content. In just comparing the introductions of each, I was struck by the extreme similarities in verbiage, sequencing and even quotes. In addition, I did not see the site credited as a reference. I am not trying to cause trouble as much as just raise a concern. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.58.108.134 (talk) 07:38, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Yes, similarity is striking, but considering that this article has grown organically, and actually uses better English, ( When Napoleon was returned to power in 1815, plenty of states had opposed his comeback. Since then, the Seventh Coalition was formed and armies began to mobilize. There are two huge forces assembled near the northeast border of France. These forces were under the command of Blucher and Wellington. Napoleon had planned to attack the said forces before they can unite with the other members of the Coalition in coordination of France invasion.) I get the inpression that that page is more than likely taken from our text, via a translator into and back out of another language. Thanks for bringing it to our notice, but I think we are safe. IdreamofJeanie (talk) 08:11, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

I wrote most of the Prussian sections and most of the last section, back years ago. You may look at the history of the article to see this. Since that time I have seen this article reproduced verbatim and with changes while not being attributed. It will not the be 1st time I've seen my own writing here staring me back in the face under someone else's name. We are public domain and it comes with the Territory. I've been involved with this article over the last 4 years and watched it grow.Tirronan (talk) 15:22, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Well I looked, that is my writing and of the others here, the only Plagiarism is on that website, and yes it has been translated from another language at back.--Tirronan (talk) 20:47, 18 October 2010 (UTC)

Anglo-Allied?

considering that there were just as many allies troops at this battle as there were British, why does this article use the term "anglo allied" to refer to Wellington's army? Or does that reflect that it had a British commander? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Voucherman (talk • contribs) 19:52, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Actually 2/3's of it was from other nations, but it sounds better than the Anglo,Dutch, Belgium,Kassle Hessian,Nassau, ect. I'm sure you get the point.Tirronan (talk) 20:08, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

but doesn't that put unfair emphasis on the British contribution? Voucherman (talk) 20:31, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter as the phrase is in use in essentially all English language publications concerning the battle, and an encylopaedic article must reflect this. It is arguable that in the absence of the British contribution (and many of the "Anglo" soldiers were Irish or Scots) the army would not have existed at all.Urselius (talk) 22:33, 1 December 2010 (UTC)

Usage of 'Belgian' prior to 1830.

This article (a very interesting read by the way) makes use of the term 'Belgian' prior to 1830 (the establishment of Belgium) therefore I have some questions. As far as I can see, this article uses 'Belgian' in two senses.

To refer to the troops fielded by the Kingdom of the Netherlands as a whole.
To refer to certain divisions fielded by said Kingdom which are claimed to have borne this name.

Could someone please provide a citation for the second use, with the addition of what is precisely to be understood by 'Belgian' here? As for the first use. Belgians are not an ethnicity, nor were they a nation at this time. So using wording like the 'Dutch-Belgian troops' for the Royal Dutch Army at Waterloo is like using 'English-Scottish-Welsh-Irish troops' for the British army. With the exception that those actually were defined groups of people at the time.

Could someone please tell me, why this wording was chosen? Cheers, G.Burggraaf (talk) 15:08, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

I am probably one of the least sensitive editors on this article about the usage of names. That being said there are readers out there and a few editors as well that are very sensitive about naming conventions. There are other editors that are far more knowledgeable about the Dutch-Belgian units than I, but some of those units were indeed designated as Belgian. If you want to start a edit war insisting on certain naming conventions that appeal to you for whatever (assuming good) reason is just about certain to cause one. I'd prefer not to start such things over names. We had a Russian Editor that decided that English names for Battles were far too lax and proceeded to rename battles to more reflect the proper (Russian) convention. Now it was all done in good faith mind you but the howls were deafening and I laughed so hard my sides were hurting. Just be aware that the naming conventions used on this article are the common ones and probably best left as is in most cases.Tirronan (talk) 18:01, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

If there were regiments called "Belgian Xth" then by all means, they should be referred to as such. However, if confusion has or can arise from the other uses of 'Belgian' in this article/time, then it should be either changed or explained to avoid it being seen as an anachronism.G.Burggraaf (talk) 18:13, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Contemporary accounts make the distinction: for example see the 1815 account "Battle of Waterloo; or, Correct narrative of the late sanguinary conflict on ..." by W. A. Scott (Lieutenant-General.) p. 150. -- PBS (talk) 19:04, 31 December 2010 (UTC)

Allied or Coalition's Army

Being the british less than 1/3 of the allied army, I suggest a more democratic name than anglo-allies.

See http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Waterloo_myths_2.html#_Peter_Hofschroer_explains_why_Waterloo_is_German_victory -Ilhador- (talk) 06:29, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

See above #Anglo-Allied?. -- PBS (talk) 07:55, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Also, even if the size of the British Army was small most of the other powers were only able to field their own troops due to varying levels of British financial aid. Therefore the number of soldiers provided by the British is not a true measure of the importance of the British contribution to the war against Napoleon or to the Waterloo campaign in particular.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Urselius (talk • contribs) 09:16, 2 February 2011

I wrote the initial sections about the Prussian involvement, over some stiff objections, so I don't think anyone is going to call me an Anglophile. However, the British did organize, help equip, and led that army, Anglo-Allied is close enough.Tirronan (talk) 16:34, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

The British did a helluva lot more than "organize, help equip" the Allied army. Look at the casualty figures and you'll find that the British regiments suffered far out of proportion to their numbers, while most of the non-British units suffered hardly at all. The British infantry squares held out against horrific and repeated attacks by the French cavalry; the Household Cavalry, especially the Coldstreamers, suffered enormous losses but still held; and the Scots at La Haye Sainte took 90% losses and still managed to retreat in good order.

At the same time, I don't think there was a single Dutch-Belgian infantry unit that didn't retreat at some point and flatly refuse to return to the line -- and this was their own country they were supposed to be defending. A number of Dutch-Belgian regiments actually threw down their muskets under French pressure and fled without firing a shot. And yet they complained that the British government's subsidy for putting on a uniform was too small! Not to mention that the incompetent Prince William's confused orders caused more casualties among his own troops than among the French.

And you certainly can't claim the Prussians "won" at Waterloo. First, they took their own damn time getting there, even with Blucher pushing them. Second, when the advance units arrived and saw the French, they attempted to retreat. If the Prussians had left their camp when they were supposed to, and had arrived when they were expected to, the battle might have been a lot shorter, and with a lot fewer Allied casualties.

If it hadn't been for the fighting ability and staying power of the British soldier and trooper, the Dutch and the Germans today would be speaking French. --Michael K Smith^Talk 22:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

You are out of your league in this discussion. This area is not 'we are the champions of the world' nationalist-promoting. This is an objective facts-finding/ based arena. This is the wrong place to swagger about with "We the British" malarkey.

I will however pick apart your myths with facts - that you obviously will dismiss anyway.

You said "The British infantry squares held out against horrific and repeated attacks by the French cavalry"........ Are you not aware that half of the squares on Mont St.Jean facing the cavalry charges were not British! I suggest you research a good map of Allied unit dispositions at Waterloo.

Contrary to your statement- "I don't think there was a single Dutch-Belgian infantry unit that didn't retreat at some point and flatly refuse to return to the line" ....... Bijlandt's brigade at Waterloo for the most part stayed in line amidst Picton's divisions in the battle against D'Erlon's divisions that crested Ohain ridge. Van Merlen's Dutch cavalry brigade took part in Uxbridge's cavalry attack against D'Erlon. Ghingy's Dutch-Belgian cavalry brigade took part in the cavalry counter charge that stopped the French cavalry's counter attack wiping out the Union brigade. Dutch-Belgian cavalry were very active in counter-charging during the French mass cavalry attacks. The Dutch-Begian brigade of General Detmers routed the Grenadiers of the Middle Guard.

"Prince William's confused orders caused more casualties among his own troops than among the French." - actually, the Prince of Orange gave disastrous orders to troops in his command, these were not Dutch-Belgians..... one was a Hanoverian battalion, and the other was a KGL battalion.

"First, they took their own damn time getting there, even with Blucher pushing them." . You apparently have no clue at what time the Prussians started their march to Waterloo on June 18th. You have no clue about the difficult terrain they marched in to get to Waterloo- muddy valleys- try walking for miles and hours in mud, and then judge. The Prussians arrived halfway into the battle to start their fight at 4:30 pm. Wellington was not going to fight at Waterloo without the Prussian promise of assistance. The Prussians risked their lives/ existence to come to Wellington. They were mauled at Ligny 2 days earlier, and in spite of that, they incredibly chose to march away from their lines-of-communications trusting Wellington was going to hold his position.

You have no respect for soldiers bravery the way you slander non British soldiers like Waterloo was a football game.

"If it hadn't been for the fighting ability and staying power of the British soldier and trooper, the Dutch and the Germans today would be speaking French." And Commonwealth nations and Americans can be equally arrogant in claiming if 'it wasn't for them' in WW2, the British would be Nazi-saluting. You need to keep your arrogance outside of intellectual forums, because all you do is humiliate yourself.

--Joey123xz (talk) 03:08, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

From napoleonistyka:

"Wellington's force consisted of contingents from three countries: Britain, Germany and the Netherlands.

Each formed roughly one-third of his army, with the Germans making the largest third, the British the smallest. Almost all of Blücher's Prussians were ethnic Germans. In the theatre in the Low Countries, 75% of the troops were German.

Of these, Blücher's Prussians did most of the marching, fighting and bleeding. Reference to the relevant charts in volume 2 of my work on 1815 demonstrates this clearly.

Germany could have won this campaign without Britain. Britain could not have won it without Germany.

Nevertheless, British historians present Wellington's army as "British", except when it comes to imparting blame, when parts of it become "foreign" and claim the campaign was a British victory."

According to the British newspaper "The Independent" (November 2004) Waterloo was largely won by Prussians, Hanoverians, Saxons, Dutch and Belgians. Although the British prefer not to dwell on it, these nations supplied around three-quarters of the 120,000 soldiers who defeated Napoleon at Waterloo. Of the 26 infantry brigades in Wellington's army of 70,000, only nine were British; of the 12 cavalry brigades, only 7 were British. Half the 29 batteries of guns were Hanoverian, Dutch or Belgian. None of these included the 53,000 Prussians who turned up eventually for the battle and swung it Wellington's way when the French were pushing for a late victory.

All three Wellington's strongpoints at Waterloo (Hougoumont, La Haye Sainte and Papelotte) were defended by German troops. Papelotte was defended by Prince Bernhard of Saxe-Weimar's brigade made up of Germans in the Orange-Nassau and the 2nd Nassau Regiments. La Haye Sainte was defended by one battalion of King's German Legion. Hougoumont was defended not only by the British Guard but also by various German troops including battalion of 2nd Nassau under Mjr. Busgen, several companies of Hannoverian jagers and in the end by light companies of Du Plat's brigade, light companies of Brunswick corps and part of Halkett's Hannoverian landwehr brigade. -Ilhador- (talk) 23:52, 7 August 2011 (UTC)

Most of that from Peter H's book, I think the units defending have been accurately accounted for and I know the Prussian contributions have been because I wrote them, so what is your point?Tirronan (talk) 00:25, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

What you say is not entirely true. British comment was biased by what the British officers actually saw. They didn't see the Prussians fighting over Plancenoit, so naturally British opinion underplayed their part in the battle. They did see the Germans of the KGL fight and praised them highly. They also saw that the German Brunswickers were mostly raw and young recruits and took that into consideration, generally saying they did better under fire than they were expected to do. They did see the Hanoverian Cumberland Hussars flee the battle, but they were the only unit to keep running all the way to Brussels, so there's no surprise that they were heavily criticised.Urselius (talk) 10:46, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Yes, but I don't know what the main line of the statement the fellow is making? Yes 75% of the troops on the Allied side of the battle spoke German or Dutch but as far as the article goes I don't think we missed who each contingent went to which country did we? I know that I included the Prussian side of the battle and there shouldn't be any question there so again what was he getting at?Tirronan (talk) 12:34, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

I think he has a grudge against all British historiography concerning the battle, rather than this article. Of course British historians have played up the British role in the battle, and French historians concentrate on how N lost the battle not how his opponents won it - that is how national bias works. The educated reader takes this into account and looks at more than one source to find a balance. Urselius (talk) 14:36, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Well if the fellow had bothered to read the end of the battle section it states pretty categorically that there were three almost simultaneous breeches in the French lines, as Wellington himself said, had our counter-attack failed Blucher had already made it so there would have made no difference. Any single one of the breeches was fatal to the French position, Zeithen's 1st Corps looks to have made the 1st breech and cannon firing on the French flank was arriving about the time that Wellington counter-attacked, even had all that failed 4th, and 2nd corp would have rendered the point mute advancing behind the French main line and only line of retreat. I guess I don't get where the rivalry comes in, it was about as effective a cooperation as one gets in war. I guess some folks insist on fighting the battle over and over.Tirronan (talk) 18:35, 8 August 2011 (UTC)

Hougoumont

The last edit, by User: Guard Chasseur is correct in my opinion. From what I've read, there seems to be no direct evidence indicating Napoleon's intentions with regards to the Hougoumont attack. Several authors (inc. Jean-Claude Damamme) state that it was Prince Jerome who took the initiative to storm the position. The Emperor habitually delegated battlefield tactic detail to his subordinates and Damamme speculates that, although General Reille was Jerome's commander, he did not order him to stop, since he was the Emperor's brother. Anyway, all that aside, the Emperor's initial orders were that Reille's IInd Corps was to advance in order to keep itself in line with d'Erlon's I Corps, which was preparing its main attack against Wellington's left. So, yes, good edit.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 08:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

So in your opinion all credit goes to Napoleon for his brilliant decisions and all damnation falls on his subordinates for their mistakes, because they were the cause of his defeat and downfall. This is the standard Napoleon apologists stance and often coupled to the piles distraction.

I have reinstated the deleted text as it is not exactly OR or a small minority view -- as a Google book search of Waterloo "battle within a battle" shows. To save time I simply took the first book returned that had a full page of text and that states it was a diversionary attack, but there are many more. -- PBS (talk) 11:41, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Napoleon apologists are, in my opinion, just as lame as Napoleon bashers. I am interested in historical accuracy. I don't rule out the Hougoumont attack as a diversion theory. FYI, I wrote the battle of Waterloo Featured article on Romanian wikipedia from scratch and, given the sources I had then (3-4 years back), I too stated that it was a diversionary attack, a statement that is in the article today. Some of my more recent reading has made unsure about this, although I still accept it as a possibility. I do think that Napoleon has made some critical errors at Waterloo, including errors about choosing some of his commanders and staff and other decisions. But these errors were mostly at the level of grand strategy, which was usually his only major preoccupation in a battle. I'll do some research about this in a while. Best regards, --Alexandru Demian (talk) 22:59, 4 February 2011 (UTC)

Diversion or not, no definite statement about the purpose of Reille's offensive, given that we have no idea what went through Napoleon's head that day. Guard Chasseur (talk) 10:25, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

We don't have to know went through Napoleon's head that day. We only have to summarise what reliable sources state about the attack. -- PBS (talk) 10:52, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

It would be interesting to know what Bonaparte had to say in Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire de France en 1815, avec le plan de la bataille de Mont-Saint-Jean why he chose to attack Hugomont before any other position. -- PBS (talk) 11:18, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

So long as there is good citation we can certainly accommodate it. I am not at all certain that it is correct, most of my reading seems to incline towards Jerome's decision, as with the calvary charge being ordered by the calvary reserve commander. In one sense however both of you are correct, both Napoleon and Ney watched the events without much of a comment and regardless Napoleon bears responsibility for the conduct of his commanders under his direct command. One of the constants with this battle will remain, Napoleon in his memories blames those around him for the defeat, he made no mistakes whatsoever. Groucy paid dearly for that and to this day I hear the same old crap, so regardless of what sub-commander actually ordered said attack, Napoleon allowed it when he could have and probably should have intervened, it is still his fault.Tirronan (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

(outdent)I wanted to expound on this just a bit, this battle and the Battle of Borodino share some of the same issues in that there were characters involved that deliberately skewed the truth to preserve their reputations. It colors and confuses the battle just as it does in the other history. Through out this series of battles (remember that the Battle of Wavre was going on at the same time with some 50,500 troops, and this battle was influenced by the Battle of Ligny 2 days before) is characterized by the decisions of independent decisions of sub-commanders throughout. Wellington didn't make a huge blunder, in not concentrating... Napoleon didn't make a mistake in leaving Groucy too far away to support... you get my drift here with self serving commentary after the fact that has colored the battle to this day. I never understood how so many Russian's got the truth of the Battle of Borodino wrong until I really looked at the history of the histories, yes the dreaded Historiography, of the Battle to understand the mountain of lies propagated from day 1 of that battle. The argument here is a reflection of the lies of the past. I would suggest that we consider a section on the Historiography were this can be explained in detail.Tirronan (talk) 15:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

There are two sides to the Goumont attack, as far as the French are concerned:

Napoleon's intention. Historian Jacques Logie states that there is only one written note indicating Napoleon's orders to his Corps commanders that morning. It states (I am translating from French): "As soon as the entire army will be deployed for battle, at around 1300 hours, after the Emperor will give the order to Marshal Ney, the attack will begin, in order to gain control of the village of Mont-Saint-Jean, where the crossroads lie. To that effect, the 12-pounder batteries of the IInd Corps and those of the VIth Corps will be reunited with those of the Ist Corps. The 24 cannons will open fire on the troops of Mont-Saint-Jean, and Count d'Erlon will commence his attack by taking forward his leftmost division and supporting it, according to circumstances, with the other divisions of the Ist Corps. The IInd Corps will will move forward at the same time, in order to keep itself aligned with the Ist Corps. The sapper companies of the Ist Corps will get ready to barricade themselves immediately at Mont-Saint-Jean". A Post Scriptum signed by Marshal Ney is added, saying: "Count d'Erlon must take note of the fact that it is on the left rather than on the right that that the attack will begin. Communicate this news to General Reille."

I thus draw the following conclusions:

Napoleon's objective was to take the village of Mt Saint-Jean, which was actually behind Wellington's line, which was, as authors say, unknown to Napoleon.
d'Erlon's attack was the main one. Reille was to keep himself in line with him.
d'Erlon's objective was NOT to turn and roll up Wellington's flank (like Davout had done against Rosenberg-Orsini at Wagram) but rather to try and pierce his centre with one division, by taking Mt Saint-Jean and then fixing Wellington's left wing. d'Erlon was free to organise his attack, by choosing to engage his other 3 divisions as he saw fit, according to battlefield developments.
Ney added a PS, emphasizing that d'Erlon's attack must begin on the left and Reille had to act accordingly to support him. It

The execution. From the written orders, we can clearly see how the Emperor was delegating tactical detail, in order to allow his commanders to make the best tactical decisions, based on battlefield developments. The orders for the IInd Corps are extremely brief, but Napoleon had had a long discussion with Reille and Jerome that very morning. In the written order, there is no mention of a diversionary attack on Hougoumont, although Logie speculates that this was one. Not Barbero... I now have several sources stating that the intention of Reille (and maybe Napoleon) was to simply take the woods at Hougoumont, in order to protect the flank of d'Erlon and to allow him to pivot on Reille's Corps, as he pushed back Wellington's flank. It was however Jerome's uninspired initiative to try and take the "castle", which was not a part of Napoleon's orders and resulted in unnecessarily high losses.

In conclusion, I do agree with Tirronan that we should have a Historiography section. I also think that we should add more flesh to the section explaining the Hougoumont attack.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 23:19, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

In all fairness I believe that both points should be covered there is certainly enough support for it.Tirronan (talk) 23:26, 6 February 2011 (UTC)

Initially, the main attack was directed at the left flank rather than the centre. It is possible that Napoleon envisaged some form of double envelopment of Wellington's forces (Reille's men were supposed to remain abreast with those of d'Erlon's). But given that the allied forces were hidden behind the ridge, Napoleon needed to unmask the enemy's positions.

At around 4:00, Napoleon moved to attack Wellington's centre. Such a move required him to take La Haye Sainte but also Hougoumont. These two positions controlled the ridge masking the allied army. Hougoumont protected the allied right-centre, and some strategic heights overlooking the allied army (from which Napoleon could advance his artillery as he had done after the fall of La Haye Sainte).

Given that Napoleon ordered Jerome to take Hougoumont 'at all costs' (supposedly), that he personally ordered artillery to set fire to Hougoumont's defences, and that he had a clear view of the movements of his left flank, I highly doubt that the Hougoumont offensive was a diversion. Additionally, Hougoumont was positioned on the forward slope; only a totally ignorant general would expose his troops in order to defend the village. More likely, Napoleon was remaining open to a variety of possibilities by attacking Hougoumont (makes sense, considering that he couldn't make out Wellington's positions), but redoubled his efforts to take the village when he moved against the allied centre.

But by all means list the different points of view. Guard Chasseur (talk) 02:18, 7 February 2011 (UTC)

Left is mentioned here a lot. Who's left? From the French view Hougoumont was to the left of La Haye Sainte. From d'Erlon's part of the front left was probably slightly to the left of La Haye Sainte but close to the centre of Wellington's front.

AD, you write "Napoleon's intention. Historian Jacques Logie states that there is only one written note indicating Napoleon's orders to his Corps commanders that morning." There are also post battle memoirs such as Mémoires pour servir à l'histoire ..." to cover intention.

AD you also claim "Napoleon's objective was to take the village of Mt Saint-Jean, which was actually behind Wellington's line, which was, as authors say, unknown to Napoleon." While Napoleon may not have know precisely where Wellington's lines were he must have known that they were in front of the village! For two reasons, he had scouts (if he could not see Wellington's forward deployments) and if Wellington was not deployed in front of the village of Mont-Saint-Jean his criticism of Wellington deploying with a forest to his back would not would not be pertinent as village of Mont-Saint-Jean (not the farmhouse) was close to the edge of the Forêt de Soignes.

AD you wrote "in order to protect the flank of d'Erlon and to allow him to pivot on Reille's Corps, as he pushed back Wellington's flank." But if d'Erlon was attacking on his left he would not be pushing Wellington's flank back, but punching through the centre straight up the Charleroi-Brussels road to Mont-Saint-Jean, so while Reille's Corps (if it were able to advance up the escarpment which was quite steep behind Hougoumont) would be protecting his flanks, there would be no pivoting.

GC I agree with you that Hougoumont lay in front of some strategic heights but it is unlikely to have been a direct path (because they were heights), more likely if Hougoumont had fallen two options were open to the attackers an attack the French left (Allied right) of the Charleroi-Brussels road to support d'Erlon or an attack further left up the Nivelles road. BUT as Hougoumont did not fall, but La Haye Sainte did and the French did attack the centre I do not see how you can say that "to attack Wellington's centre. Such a move required him to take La Haye Sainte but also Hougoumont". Not sure about your comment "only a totally ignorant general would expose his troops in order to defend the village" Wellington's use of the reverse slope was not that well understood (or more generals of the era would have used the tactic to negate French field artillery and confuse their advances) and besides Napoleon did not rate the Sepoy General.

This article is already too large, so I think that details about Hougoumont should go into that article. If we are going to have a historiography section then it has to be a short overview for an article about the historiography of the Battle of Waterloo because there has probably been more written about this one battle than all of the other of the Napoleonic wars put together and trying to write a neutral summary of the the historiography without it being too larger for this article would be very difficult -- PBS (talk) 22:08, 8 February 2011 (UTC)

PBS, Napoleon did speak about it in St. Helena. I remember reading that he said something about fixing Wellington's attention on Hougoumont, but this is a post factum statement and might actually have not been his true intention on the morning of the battle. The maps the French had available actually provided surprisingly little information about the Hougoumont complex and led one to believe that it was a village rather than a great farmhouse with several adjacent buildings. In any case, although the farmhouse is visible on the site of the battlefield today (from where the French stood), it was, at the time of the battle, completely hidden by the treeline of the park. Napoleon did not know that he was dealing with a mighty, fortified farmhouse, surrounded by a perimeter wall.

Second thing: Whatever was Napoleon's intelligence on the morning of the battle, there were elements suggesting that Wellington might move his line back to the village Mt.-St.-Jean, where he could make his stand. General Haxo, commanding the Sappers of the Guard, reconnoitered a sector of the battlefield and reported that no earthworks had been carried out, and Marshal Ney also went on an early morning mission and came back convinced that Wellington was about to retreat.

As for the third thing, d'Erlon had received verbal instructions during the morning conference. He was probably instructed to take his divisions up in echelon, with his right leading and turn Wellington's flank. Napoleon then had a change of heart, thus the written order and Ney's Post Scriptum emphasis that the attack should begin on the left, rather than on the right. Had d'Erlon pierced Wellington's centre at La Haye Sainte, he would have virtually isolated the Anglo-Allied weak left, which the other divisions of d'Erlon would have pushed back. With Reille in control of what looked like a village surrounded by a small forest, d'Erlon could then safely pivot on this position, going northwest. Note that there is virtually no indication that d'Erlon was aiming to outflank the Anglo-Allied left. Whatever was the plan, there was surely nothing definitive about it on the morning of the battle. There were just too many unknown elements and things that could go wrong... as they actually did. One facet of Napoleon's battlefield genius resided in the fact that he remained open to all possibilities ("I pity the general who comes on a field of battle with a predefined system.").

Nevertheless, since there is some debate about this and the article is already long enough, as you say, I'm more than happy to focus on other articles, which need more urgent attention than this one.--Alexandru Demian (talk) 10:34, 10 February 2011 (UTC)

"Wellington's use of the reverse slope was not that well understood (or more generals of the era would have used the tactic to negate French field artillery and confuse their advances) and besides Napoleon did not rate the Sepoy General". Napoleon understood the effectiveness of Wellington's reverse slopes. He was surrounded by people who had faced the duke in the past and himself used reverse slopes (admitedly, not in the same way that Wellington did and not for quite the same purpose). I don't believe reverse slope tactics originated with Wellington either. As for "Napoleon did not rate the Sepoy General", I disagree; he had praised the duke on several occasions (ok, this is getting off topic).

The article need not go into depth about Reille's siege of Hougoumont. However, it's worth mentioning that in a classic Napoleonic battle Napoleon would pin the enemy frontally and allow him to draw in his reserves, after which he would launch a flank attack against the enemy's line of communications. Such a move would force the enemy to draw his reserves back to defend his flank, thereby destroying the 'equilibrium' in the enemy's front line, leaving Napoleon in the position to launch his reserves at the breach created in the enemy's front.

At Waterloo, Napoleon evidently expected the attack to begin on his left, at Hougoumont. In taking Hougoumont, Wellington would be forced to bring in his reserves to defend right flank. Had this happened, Napoleon would have been able to launch d'Erlon against the duke's weak left flank, seizing Mont St Jean. Wellington's reserves would have been diverted to defend his line of communications with Brussels, allowing Napoleon to launch his reserves against Wellington's weakened right flank. Such a move would have trapped and destroyed the bulk of the allied army. It is likely that Napoleon envisaged such a course of action.

Of course, the arrival of the Prussians would have upset this plan, forcing Napoleon to prematurely attack Wellington's left (Prussian presence was detected early on), before Hougoumont had fallen and Reille had pinned Wellington's right. Blucher drew Napoleon's reserves away from the battle and prevented him from manoeuvring. Thus, all Wellington was facing throughout the battle was Napoleon's pinning attacks (except the middle guard's assault).

This is purely hypothetical, but it illustrates how Napoleon might have desired to take Hougoumont and at the same time divert Wellington's reserves. Guard Chasseur (talk) 23:33, 12 February 2011 (UTC)

Way off topic but... strategically it made sense for Bonaparte to force Wellington to retreat along his lines of communication away from the Prussians. Breaking through Wellington's left flank would have achieved this. However talking a couple of years after the Battle Wellington said that if he had had to retreat he would have retreated with the bulk of his army towards the Prussians, leaving his right flank to retreat towards the Channel (Chesney, Charles C. (1997). Waterloo Lectures. London: Greenhill Books. Rep Sub edition. ISBN 1-85367-288-2. Preface to the Third Edition (March 13, 1847) page xii). This of course would have been a daring strategy, and not the sort of thing that Wellington is noted for. But of course in the long run if the Prussian army had stayed in the field, with the first Russian army only weeks away, it is a Coalition strategy that could have worked, although I doubt that there would have been 12 field marshal batons in it. -- PBS (talk) 01:15, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

"In taking Hougoumont, Wellington would be forced to bring in his reserves to defend right flank. Had this happened, Napoleon would have been able to launch d'Erlon against the duke's weak left flank, seizing Mont St Jean."

In actual fact- the bulk of Wellington's reserves were already on the Right Flank itself - and in considerable depth. In other words, he had all the troops needed to defend the Nivelles- Brussels road if Hougoumont were captured - thus there would be no diverting of troops to the right, except if things got that scary, then reserves in the center would be diverted to the right- ie, Lambert's brigade. --Joey123xz (talk) 13:19, 13 October 2011 (UTC)

That's quite interesting. I'm not sure I believe Wellington, considering the weakness in his left flank and the difficulty to retreat through the forest of Soignes. And the bulk of Wellington's troops were concentrated on his right and centre. I'm not sure what the move would have achieved in the long run, given that a great part of the allied army would have retreated to the sea.

In the hypothetical battle I've mentioned above, Napoleon would indeed have cut the Anglo-allies from the Prussians. However, it's unlike Napoleon to not be thinking of decisive victory; an assault against Wellington's left would not achieve this. To defeat Wellington's army in detail, Napoleon's reserves would have marched against Wellington's right while d'Erlon cut the British off from the Prussians (trapping the bulk of Wellington's army in the process).

Anyway, this definitely is getting off track. All we can say is that Napoleon remained open to a number of possibilities by attacking Hougoumont. Guard Chasseur (talk) 04:39, 13 February 2011 (UTC)