| Robert le Diable | 17 Nov 2007 8:24 a.m. PST |
Hell of a lot of interesting stuff here! Just two short comments before I hover on the sidelines like a Cossaque seeking plunder. First, in the book about Fr Rev Tactics, isn't there something about redressing the balance, i.e., not look at the 1790s while being possessed of the hindsight that N was later such a major figure? I seem to remember a sentence about how such an approach was similar to writing about the Great War primarily as it affected one Cpl Hitler…. Secondly, with regard to "who won?"; certainly not the majority of the populations of any of the combatant nations. And definitely not the native inhabitants of the British Empire. Can I get anyone another order of popcorn? |
| David Manley | 17 Nov 2007 8:37 a.m. PST |
"It is extrordinary how some English people seem to forget about Prussia." As it is extraordinary how many people in France (and England to boot) think the French won the battle of Hastings :) |
| huevans | 17 Nov 2007 8:54 a.m. PST |
Kevin, accepting your argument that D'Erlon was responsible for deploying his corps and that Napoleon allowed him the latitude to arrange his command at his discretion, how could it possibly be Ney's responsibility to unleash the cavalry without Napo's say-so? A major and sustained cavalry charge was surely an army level command decision. Uxbridge's cavalry charge is arguably an example of "bad stuff happens" to the best-planned offensives. A significant mis-timing of a corps-strength cavalry assault is within the control of the army commander and should not be taking place. Query whether Napo's blaming Ney for the cavalry charges is not a "pass the buck" attempt. And would an extra hour made any difference? The Allied line only started sagging under the French artillery bombardment towards nightfall. |
| Kevin F Kiley | 17 Nov 2007 9:20 a.m. PST |
I don't see Napoleon blaming Ney here. It is more of an acceptance of an accomplished fact. I believe Ney made the call on his own. It was an error, but Napoleon supported it, sending more cavalry forward. However, I do believe the initial error was Ney's. It wasn't just artillery that was hurting the allied line. It was a combination of artillery supporting infantry in skirmish order starting to shoot apart the allied line. Swarms of skirmishers were attacking the allied line and artillery was being manhandled up to the 100-250 yard range and actually demolishing allied squares. Enough cavalry was still available to support this effort and kept many allied infantry units in square. If this had been done earlier, say before the cavalry attacks, Waterloo's ending might have been different. Sincerely,
K |
| CPTN IGLO | 17 Nov 2007 11:27 a.m. PST |
Why always blame Ney?
When La Haye Sainte was taken around 6pm the allies were unable to take back this key position, it was a standing KO, Wellingtons whole force was completly paralyzed.
It should not be forgotten that Ney did have at his disposition just D´Erlons and Reille´s korps, in the end he got additional 5 bataillons of guards.
A failed infantry attack as such doesn´t mean much, there were more failed attacks at Wagram or Borodino.
The cavalry in those battles was unable to break into the enemy positions, I see the cavalry attacks at Waterloo as being more succesful than in other battles.
Just counting broken squares is to simple to explain the failure or success of cavalry.
After those attacks even with all french reserves comitted at Plancenoit Wellington was unable to do anything, he just could stand around and take the beating, a large number of his forces were so shot up, they never went out of square formation until the end of the battle. |
| Peeler Pie Eater | 17 Nov 2007 2:01 p.m. PST |
That argument 'What about the Prussians' is so unneccasary. If you bother to read the Waterloo Despatch, you'll notice that Wellington pays tribute to the Prussians, saying it wouldn't have been possible without them. So that 'What about the Prussians' argument is just nonsensical and pointless. We all know about them turning up, hopw about this thought though..Would the battle have happened without the Brits? Would 'we' have won without the Brits? I think not.
By the way, someone mentioned a British Invasion of the Colonies, 1775. Bizzaire thinking. We didn't invade, you were in fact British until you rebelled. And..more 'Americans' fought for the Loyalists than the Rebels. (Or so I read a while ago). |
| huevans | 17 Nov 2007 2:03 p.m. PST |
Well, Wellington could not attack anyway, as he was far too heavily outnumbered in artillery and cavalry. This was a MAJOR error of the British high command before the campaign. They seem to have thought it was the Peninsula all over again and arranged their forces accordingly. Ooops, it's northern Europe now and the grazing's excellent and the French have grande batteries and cuirassier divisions! All Wellington could do was hold a line and hope Bluecher made it over in time. But then, that was Wellington's entire plan from the start. Which raises the question of why the French would have to close with their cavalry anyway? Couldn't the French horse be held off 200 yards to keep the British skirmishers from deploying. This would allow the voltigueurs and French artillery to work quite adequately. I believe it's Mercer who's quoted as saying the British actually preferred the cuirassiers to charge as it masked their artillery. |
| Kevin F Kiley | 17 Nov 2007 3:23 p.m. PST |
'By the way, someone mentioned a British Invasion of the Colonies, 1775. Bizzaire thinking. We didn't invade, you were in fact British until you rebelled.' Correct. And it was bizarre. 'And..more 'Americans' fought for the Loyalists than the Rebels. (Or so I read a while ago).' If that were accurate, the US would have lost. Loyalist units, especially the regulars, usually had no problem recruiting officers, but sometimes had a very hard time filling the enlisted strength. Sincerely,
Kevin |
| Defiant | 17 Nov 2007 5:31 p.m. PST |
>>>>That argument 'What about the Prussians' is so unneccasary. If you bother to read the Waterloo Despatch, you'll notice that Wellington pays tribute to the Prussians, saying it wouldn't have been possible without them. So that 'What about the Prussians' argument is just nonsensical and pointless.<<<< No one said that Wellington did not praise or acknowledge the Prussian presence. What I was saying is that generally in history lessons in the last 200 years since in English speaking schools the teachers do NOT mention the Prussians and thus the English speaking people get a false teaching that it was the English that won Waterloo. You and I might know better but go and ask an an average person on the street who won waterloo and see what answers you get !! So, my statement is FAR from being pointless and nonsensical. Your own statement shows how naive some of you really are. Shane |
| Stavka | 17 Nov 2007 7:38 p.m. PST |
"What I was saying is that generally in history lessons in the last 200 years since in English speaking schools the teachers do NOT mention the Prussians and thus the English speaking people get a false teaching that it was the English that won Waterloo." Well, two intervening world wars against a Prussia-dominated Germany will certainly have played its part in that. But Shane, the reality is that other than wargamers and history buffs, few people on the street outside of Brandenburg today even know who the Prussians were, let alone care. Not just Brits- ask the average American or Canadian. This bugs you because you so obviously DO care- but many, many, many people out there don't. Sad fact of life. But even so, would such an attitude be unique? To look at it from another way, how many people out in the "real world" know of the contributions of the Confederation of the Rhine to the French victories of the time- or even know what the Confederation of the Rhine was? It is Napoleon the MAN who gets the attention in many general world histories, not so much his army, and still less his allies. I grew up in Canada next to the US border, watching and reading a lot of US media. The War of 1812 in popular culture there seemed to consist of the US naval victories in frigate actions and the Battle of New Orleans. Little mention of failed invasions of Canada. This annoyed me but hey- this was history for domestic (US) consumption. Canadian education does just the same, focussing on the Niagara frontier rather than the larger context of the war. Just look at what passes as historical "discussion" between many Turks and Greeks today to realize that on the whole, the Napoleonic wars are relatively non-emotive. I do not think that the Prussian contribution is glossed over out of spite-heck, looking at education today I would say that it is simply HISTORY in general that is being glossed over. A lot has happened in the last 100 years to compete for attention in school curricula. So if what you say IS true, the Anglo-German wars would certainly have played a part, but more recently a shift in educational priorities may be the culprit here rather than any cherry-picking of the facts to suit any national agenda. |
| Defiant | 17 Nov 2007 8:21 p.m. PST |
exactly, winners write history… and with half the known world for 100 years becoming part of the English empire the whole correct teaching of history became obscured by British arrogance and wish to be seen as the mightiest of empires. (not the british people mind you, it was the politics of the time and so the people knew no better and believed what they were told). Prussia did themselves no favours with their own expansionism after 1815, 1870, 1914, 1939…so of course they're own side of history gets downplayed or lost in translation. So even tho Prussia (Germany) brought the consequences of this upon themselves I praise PH for trying to set the record straight even if I personally do not like the man. At least the truth or at least a fairer re-telling of history has come to light as a consequence. Shane |
| Defiant | 17 Nov 2007 8:23 p.m. PST |
and as a result, people like us ask questions of history writers and do not believe them on face value. You have to gather al lthe evidence and make your own assesments and judgements on what really happened. |
| Stavka | 17 Nov 2007 9:27 p.m. PST |
"and with half the known world for 100 years becoming part of the English empire the whole correct teaching of history became obscured by British arrogance and wish to be seen as the mightiest of empires." Geez, you are fond of that "arrogance" charge! Show me a nation or empire whose national education system has never looked through the lens of its own national achievements. Shane, if you want an example of selective history instruction from the powers-that-be, look no further than what the Ministry of Education tries to get away with here in Japan before you comment so strongly on the much less centralized British model. But as for Waterloo, I have to tell you that I was taught in high school in Canada (back when they taught such things and when the ties to "the mother country" were much stronger) that it WAS an allied victory for both British and Prussians. Of course it was the British side that received emphasis, but you don't have to look far for reasons why. The fact that most writings were in English, for an English-speaking audience about the contribution of British troops, is surely not something to be surprised about. Even my old kids' book on the life of Napoleon- published in England for a British audience- clearly has Napoleon being defeated by the British- AND the Prussians. No secret. So I would argue that the Prussian contribution has probably ALWAYS been out there. That people in the English-speaking world emphasized the role of British troops is not necessarily arrogance but just where their sympathies lay. That and non-historians tend to reduce historical events to their bare minimum for no other reasons than laziness through lack of real interest. Waterloo is one of the few battles in history that enters the realm of general knowledge, so is more likely to be subject to this. No doubt the fact that the commanding general of the Anglo-allied force that defended the ridge was British is a factor too. And again, although victory was predicated on timely Prussian intervention, it also depended on the Anglo-allied armies holding on. Both achieved their aims and both had a lot to be proud of. People will always be interested in their own nation's history first. Likewise, I am sure Prussian accounts and education emphasized their own contributions in the same way. |
| Stavka | 17 Nov 2007 9:34 p.m. PST |
Now of course, the ones who were really given short shrift by history were the Dutch-Belgians, but that is another story! However, I do not think the Prussians were so hard done by as you seem to think here. |
| Defiant | 17 Nov 2007 9:53 p.m. PST |
sorry to disagree stavka but this is the way I see it. If you dont agree then that fine. The Prussians were hard done by in that campaign for my mind. I gre up like most people thinking the battle of waterloo was all british…wrong. and yes the D/B did get shafted also |
| Defiant | 17 Nov 2007 9:54 p.m. PST |
free country..I, like all of you have the right to voice my opinion on this. |
| Stavka | 17 Nov 2007 10:32 p.m. PST |
Must take my mittens off before typing. "free country..I, like all of you have the right to voice my opinion on this." Of course, and I would hope nothing in my posts suggested otherwise. But if we were all of the same opinion then there would not be much point in having a discussion board, would there? |
| Defiant | 18 Nov 2007 12:42 a.m. PST |
All I am saying is the average person in any part of Britain and in many other parts of the world view (thru wrong teachings) that Britian won waterloo and to this day stick to that notion. Howerver, if you look at the history of the campaign Prussia did more than its fair equal share in defeating France, problem is, how many people really know this or to be honest really care ? Shane |
| Khevenhuller | 18 Nov 2007 3:59 a.m. PST |
Shane Honestly, given the quality of GCSE teaching in the UK? Well, when most people mention Waterloo they think you are talking about the railway station. Once you have corrected that they may have seen the film, as that is going to be their main, if only, reference, as the Napoleonic wars are not touched on at all in any syllabus worth mentioning except to look at the background to the Chartist movement. We are a long way from Gilbert & Sullivan's "When Wellington thrashed Bonaparte…" Your opinion may hold good for people educated in the rigid and rather hidebound educational strictures of the 50's, (if they can remember their childhood History lessons) but anyone over the age of 50 was probably not even taught about it. K |
| Rudorff | 18 Nov 2007 4:36 a.m. PST |
Shane, where are you getting your information about the British education system ? For a start there is no such thing, there are different systems in the different constituent parts of the Country. In your quest for historical accuracy, can you accept that whilst the English are British, the term "English" when you really mean British is inaccurate. I went to school in the 70's. We studied the Romans in Britain, the Jacobite Rebellions, the Industrial Revolution, the Agricultural Reforms of the late 18th Century, the Clearances, the abolition of slavery, and Female emancipation. Oh and we did the build up to WW1, The Bolshevik Revolution, the League of Nations, the build up to WW2 and the United Nations, the emergence of the Labour Party. There is a common thread here, and that it they are all items of interest to the ever-so-slightly left wing leanings of those in power nationally, locally and the teachers of "Arts" subjects. I can honestly say that I have no recollection whatsoever of the Napoleonic era being mentioned, never mind discussed or studied. By the same token the subject of the British Empire was never a subject of study although it was discussed where it was relevant in relation to the subjects we did study. Your opinions may very well be accurate to your own experience in Australia, but I don't recognise them for my part of the UK. Therefore your continual assertions about what was taught here are starting to grate a little The clincher, in my opinion, that the Prussian contribution was recognised at a "popular" level was a kid's programme called "Michael Benteen's Potty Time", thechestnut.com/potty.htm one episode had a re-enactment of the end of Waterloo where Wellington gets saved by the Prussians – ok they were in Tigers, but the thought was there :-) |
| Defiant | 18 Nov 2007 5:00 a.m. PST |
there ya go, you are adding fuel to my fire. The real truth of Waterloo was never taught and the only educational refrences to waterloo was that the British red under Wellington beat the French blue under Napoleon, all the rest was not bothered with…. if I am grating then great, that is the point to get people to respond one way or another. |
| Rudorff | 18 Nov 2007 5:09 a.m. PST |
"there ya go, you are adding fuel to my fire. The real truth of Waterloo was never taught and the only educational refrences to waterloo was that the British red under Wellington beat the French blue under Napoleon, all the rest was not bothered with…." I'd ask you to explain that, but I fear we would then disagree again. I'll have to ask – what part of THERE WAS NO REFERENCE TO WATERLOO OR BRITISH RED UNDER WELLINGTON do you fail to grasp ? Fine, well done mate, you've defeated me with your superior logic, I'll withdraw and allow you to carry on showing us that we are all victims of subliminal conditioning. |
| Defiant | 18 Nov 2007 5:11 a.m. PST |
shortcut, have you blown a fuse or something ??? guess you don't like it when people do not agree with you eh ? |
| Rudorff | 18 Nov 2007 5:55 a.m. PST |
Actually I thought I was being reasonably restrained. You make a general statement about what has been taught to the British that has no basis in fact; when this is pointed out to you, you somehow see this as vindication of your original (mistaken)generalised statement. I have no problem if someone disagrees with me, providing it is based on fact. I would not have the breathtaking self-confidence to tell someone who grew up in Australia what they were taught at school, something you seem to have no problem with. So like I said, you carry on,chap. |
| Edwulf | 18 Nov 2007 6:07 a.m. PST |
Speaking as someone who did history at university and did history at A level and GSCE youll probably be surprised to learn that in our history lessons we dont actually study the battle of waterloo at all. It merits a once sentence mention at the start of A Level European History but only in saying that after it finished the Allies met at several treaties and restablished old European borders. No mention of the battle occured elsewhere (this is 92-97), except in GSCE British hitory, and then only to explain why Peterloo 1819 was labelled as such. Truth is we studied very little that could be considered flagwaving or patriotic, instead it was mostly around the analysis of sources and deciding whether Peterloo was heavy handedness or the result of crowd panic, if Dunkirk was a victory or a defeat ect ect. At no point are we taught Waterloo was a British victory. Your Joe Bloggs (ie bloke on the street who doesnt have history as a hobby) probably only knows it as such because all he sees of it are statues to British soldiers, regiments, paintings in Britain and Train stations (all rightly deserved). Naturally these are intended for a home audience and national pride NOT as a testement to every one who fought at the battle. As such, they probably dont know about the the Brunswickers, Nasseurs, Belgians, Dutch and Prussians that also were there. And if theyve seen WATERLLO the movie, by Bonderchuck (I know thats spelt wrong) theyll be in even more of a bind as that only shows the British (Russians made it, nowt to do with us, blame them). In military/ historical circles its widley excepted that it was an allied victory. If The Prussians hadn't arrived we would have broke (this was stated at the time as inevitable), If we hadnt had lasted as long as we (thats the "allied" we) did then the Prussians would have been up a certain creek without a paddle aswell. The suggestion that the British contribution was not important is ludicrous. Just as retarded as claiming it as a purely British victory. Again, suggesting we merely survived, the war and didnt win is pointless. Its the equivilant of me saying to an American "yeah, you didnt win, we won more battles, we just gave up and quit" Doesnt hold up im afraid. We survived Waterloo. Fair point. Napoleon/France didnt. Id be daring and suggest in a fight the survivor beats the one who doesnt. As to the "war", then not only did we survive, we came out the biggest and strongest and certainly most powerful. Clearly the winner, and seeing as we were the constant enemy I think thats fair. Now, as far as I know, with regards to Waterloo, in Germany its often portrayed as a German victory in which some Brits and Netherlanders were on the sidelines. On the field itself the largets monument is dedicated to the Dutch and Belgian soldiers who won the day. Its natural for each country to big up its own involvement. |
| Edwulf | 18 Nov 2007 6:08 a.m. PST |
errgh.. apologies for the typos. |
| Khevenhuller | 18 Nov 2007 8:29 a.m. PST |
Edwulf wrote: "And if theyve seen WATERLLO the movie, by Bonderchuck (I know thats spelt wrong) theyll be in even more of a bind as that only shows the British (Russians made it, nowt to do with us, blame them)." You need to watch it again, the arrival of Blucher at the end of the film gives rise to one of the most quotable lines in ant Napoleonic game: "No pity, no prisoners, I will kill any man I see with pity in him…" It is pretty clear that his arrival is the clincher of victory. K |
| Defiant | 18 Nov 2007 9:19 a.m. PST |
shortcut, I will continue to have my own opinions thank you very much and I WILL carry on, old chap… |
| Foxwig | 18 Nov 2007 9:28 a.m. PST |
Remember that when you talk about the "average Briton on the street" as people who think that Waterloo was won exclusively by the English, you're talking about people whose knowledge of the history of their nation is such that they cannot name a single battle fought in the English Civil War, nor name the century it was fought in. The schooling in this country when it comes to military matters is appalling – if you learned nothing else but what was mentioned at school, you'd think that there was a period of peace from 1066 to 1914… |
| Ivan the Reasonable | 18 Nov 2007 10:22 a.m. PST |
Shane Devries. exactly, Winners write history like we british after Waterloo do you mean Shane? |
| Cacadores I | 18 Nov 2007 10:23 a.m. PST |
Devries,
''General Gueisenau answered that call by first falling back to Wavre and then sending on not one but three corps by the end of the day and not a moment too soon I might add for without them we would have lost Waterloo". This non-sequeter always comes up. Reality is: the Prussians were there, (though late). Ipso facto Wellington won. Nevertheless Gneisenau (assuming that's who you mean) did his best to make sure they never got there! |
| McLaddie | 18 Nov 2007 10:33 a.m. PST |
Uh, so I take it that NOBODY has read Griffith's new book on French Tactics? I was fascinated and frustrated scrolling through this thread and where it's gone--to the "average Briton on the street." The only thing that stopped me was some pithy comments by the Captain: Captn Iglo wrote a while back:
Nappy was a big scale thinker , a control fanatic and an artillerist, the most unlikely person to deal with the small details of infantry tactics. TS: Just before Austerlitz, not only did Napoleon draw out how each division was to deploy, down to the battalions and batteries, he was ordering the positioning of regiments of Hussars and companies of infantry. This was something he did on a regular basis. Remember--control freak. Captn Iglo wrote:
The voltigeurs were a drawback and arguably more an idea to expand the recruitment base of the army and reduce minimum size requirements for infantry. His monster columns were critisized by nearly everyone, even jomini.
Nobody did copy ordre mixte. TS: Where did you get this? The Voltigeurs were a drawback?
In what way? Most of the 'monster columns' weren't 'his', but other generals'. McDonald's wasn't 'a column' as Kevin points out, and it did the job, thank you. And I agree with Kevin: Jomini was a braggart and a putz. He was basically copying down other generals' play books and taking the credit. That's not to say his work isn't important, but some of his claims are very suspect, such as his account of Archduke Charles stating that Jomini's book inspired him to use Battalionmasse formations at Essling etc. etc. And "Nobody did copy ordre mixte"? Really? Do you mean that other nations didn't use it? The British used it on a regular basis. Examples: Harvey's brigade at Albuera. The Prussian SOP for brigade deployment was a 'ordre mixte'. Several deployments by the Russians at Borodino. |
| Peeler Pie Eater | 18 Nov 2007 11:26 a.m. PST |
Nice thread. Try refighting Waterloo without the Brits….it won't last long! LOL. Would Napoleon have won if the Prussians hadn't turned up? Well who knows, cos it didn't happen that way.
Our history will of course emphasize our part in it..just as any other country does. Read US history..you'd think they'd won WW2 all on thier own.
And did someone call me 'naive?' Well, thats just a fine display of arrogance that is..LOL |
| CPTN IGLO | 18 Nov 2007 3:17 p.m. PST |
scotsman,
a lot of generals like Ney and St.Cyr did recommend a third ranker system for skirmishers, it was actually at times even practiced by the french.
The french army did come out of the revolutionary wars with the reputation that every french soldier at heart was a tirailleur.
Nappy didn´t do anything to improve or regulate this.
The voltigeur idea as far as I see it was just a smart calculation to get the undersized guys for infantry duty, they couldn´t load the long musket upright in close order formation, by the standards of the day small guys were physically unfit for infantry duty.
At the beginning the idea was to give the small guys a short dragoon musket, then the idea was to use them as backpack on heavy cavalry horses as some sort of early panzergrenadiers, finally nappy came to the conclusion to give these guys a regular long musket and a mission it which these guys were able to load it without creating confusion.
the icing of the cake was to give these people elite status, which shows again that nappy was not only a great mobilizer of troops, but a brilliant pychologist too.
Still until the end local commanders had to draw up their own skirmisher regulations, like Davout in 1812.
Nappy could indeed rely on the experience and talent to improvise of his core troops, but the tactical innovations of that era have nothing to do with Nappy´s involvement.
What became a french speciality under his guidance, notably in the post camp de Boulogne era was all kinds of artificial grand scale formations.
Ordre mixte as I understand it is not the first line in line and the second in column, but troops of the same line in a combination of column and line, or stacked lines in some sort of column.
As said before, beware of critisizing a military genius and veteran of 40 battles, but innovative or groundbraking it was not.
And lets not forget the moving square for the attack, post napoleonic writers like Bugeaud and jomini had an obseession with this semi ideal formation and it was actually quite often used by the french under Napoleon.
Nobody did copy this, the most succesful copyists of the french in the 19th century were the prussians, but they were more fascinated by the simple methods of 1795. |
| Defiant | 18 Nov 2007 4:12 p.m. PST |
Cacadore wrote : >>>>Reality is: the Prussians were there, (though late). Ipso facto Wellington won.<<<< Reality is that the Prussians began to make their presence known about 1pm with their advance and this affected Napoleon's thinking right away, troops were despatch to reconnoitre them soon followed by and entire re-deployment by Napoleon's entire right flank. As a consequence a good 15-20,000 troops who should have been used in the centre, and probably as a result tipped the scales against Wellington never fought the British (allied) army all day. By 3pm the Prussians began to make themselves involved in the battle and by 4:30pm were deeply involved in the battle. Sorry, but the Prussians were there and not late and far from late. First shots fired at 11:35am
D'Erlon's attack at 1pm – Prussian's seen advancing
Cavalry attacks at 3pm – Prussian advance forces contacted and fighting
La Hay Sainte falls at 6pm – Prussian flank attack in full swing
Guard attack at 7:30pm – French right collapsing
French army collapses by 8:30pm – Prussian forces take over pursuit
Battle over at 9pm I think the Prussians made a significant presence in the battle don't you ? Cacadore wrote : >>>>Nevertheless Gneisenau (assuming that's who you mean) did his best to make sure they never got there!<<<< Yes, that is who mean thank you for correcting my spelling. >>>>made sure they never got there<<<< oohh really, please refer to my reply above. Any layman of the period would argue with you on that one cacadore !! Regards
Shane |
| Defiant | 18 Nov 2007 4:21 p.m. PST |
also, All British people here, please do not take my comments personally regarding what I have said, it is not meant as an attack on the British people. My point is that most civilians and average people on the street in any Enlgish speaking country (not just Britain-please understand this) is only educated enough on the subject of Waterloo to understand that the British had won Waterloo over the French. Most everything else is unknown through lack of education. This misconception is what I am talking about… Prussia and the allies were forgotten about for over 150 years "mostly" by English speaking peoples all round the world and yes 2 world wars might have had alot to do with this. It took a movie director like bonaduchek to bring some truth to the matter way back in 1970 and re-dress the issue. This went a long way into having people understand the Waterloo campaign and realise that there were more than just British soldiers on that battlefield. My education regarding the French revolution at school was fairly indepth and also of the British empire and its expansions after waterloo but for me for many years in my youth all I knew of waterloo was that the British won waterloo against the French and I dare say this was the same for most of us education wise at school all over the world. I really do not feel I am attacking the British people although this is how some of you are interpreting my comments but hey, I have thick skin and know what I meant if you did not. Shane |
| Kevin F Kiley | 18 Nov 2007 4:48 p.m. PST |
'Nevertheless Gneisenau (assuming that's who you mean) did his best to make sure they never got there!' Nonsense. Blucher was hurt and out of commission at the beginning of the retreat from Ligny and it was Gneisenau who made the strategic decision to march on Wavre. |
| Defiant | 18 Nov 2007 5:36 p.m. PST |
I think that what cacadore is trying to elude too is that gniesenau did his best to slow the advance of the Prussians towards Mont st Jean. This argument is a shallow one and not worth the breathe to sugest it. Gniesenau could have easily retreated the Prussians towards Namur but he didn't….he marched on Wavre on purpose in the hope of continuing the campaign and snatching victory out of defeat and in this he made the correct decision which resulted in the victory at Waterloo two days earlier. The first corps to enter the field at waterloo was the only corps the Prussians still had in tact and thus it was sent first regardless of the cross pathing required, I would have done the same given the same decision to make. Shane |
| Defiant | 18 Nov 2007 5:43 p.m. PST |
|
| Cacadores I | 18 Nov 2007 8:32 p.m. PST |
Perhaps we should a new thread: do multiple posters reveal a slight disorganisation in their ideas?
Shane Devries 18 Nov 2007 4:36 p.m. PST
''I think that what cacadore is trying to elude too is that gniesenau did his best to slow the advance of the Prussians towards Mont st Jean. This argument is a shallow one and not worth the breathe to sugest it''.
Or even to deny it? Which you just did. So we know what to do with that response! Have a look at map and see how far Wavre is from Waterloo (not far!). Not only does Gn send off the furthest units first, and the nearest last (so the nearest is in the way of the furthest), not only does he ensure they're using the same road for maximum confusion, but he also sends them off on the longest road too. Pirch's Corps doesn't arrive till 5pm. We either have to assume that Gn was completely incompetant and didn't know what he was doing… or that he was actually quite intelligent, and did. We can't have it both ways. So, er…. well, the breath is still there and the explaining is too. Actually no Prussian historian pretends that Gn was pro-Wellington, most freely admit he was a difficult character. Anyway, the Prussians were the battle commander's planned flank attack, and as his flank attack, they contributed to his, Wellingon's, victory – no one's denying that. |
| Defiant | 18 Nov 2007 8:59 p.m. PST |
>>>>Anyway, the Prussians were the battle commander's planned flank attack, and as his flank attack, they contributed to his, Wellingon's, victory – no one's denying that.<<<< correct, however, just saying it is Wellington's victory is wrong, At Leipzig there were three armies from three fronts which in the end included a 4th under Bernadotte. So, as the Allied armies won there who claimed victory ? Schwartzenberg ? or was it Blucher, or maybe even Bernadotte ? answer was it was a combined effort of all armies. Waterloo also had multiple armies, albiet on a much smaller scale. British, Dutch/Belgian, German, Prussian. The combined effort of all in defeating the French. Wellington might have been the overall allied field commander but he was not the commander of the Prussian forces. Before the campaign started both Wellington and Blucher agreed to mutually come to each others aid if attacked. some might say Wellington failed to do his part as he was caught with his pants down and spread out over a wide ranging area. some might even say Wellington was afraid of Napoleon's reputation and failed to act quick enough as a result and left the Prussians hanging on the 16th… Regardless, at 9pm on the 18th Blucher and Wellington shock hands on the crest of La Bell Alliance and mutually congratulated each other. To my way of thinking this was a nod and tip of their hats by both men to each other for "their" victory over the French but more importantly to them, over Napoleon. also : >>>>Have a look at map and see how far Wavre is from Waterloo (not far!).<<<< agreed, but try to move cannon thru the defiles and see how long it takes you to move…
>>>>Not only does Gn send off the furthest units first, and the nearest last (so the nearest is in the way of the furthest), not only does he ensure they're using the same road for maximum confusion, but he also sends them off on the longest road too.<<<<
The only fully intact Corps after Ligny was the 4th Corps under Bulow, Gneisenau sent them simply because they were still in tact. The other corps followed along after them and in all the confusion of the retreat they had YET to stop to re-organise and reform…brilliant effort I must say to fight a massive battle, retreat in disorder without stopping and then to turn up at another battlefield less than 2 days later don't you ??? >>>>Pirch's Corps doesn't arrive till 5pm. We either have to assume that Gn was completely incompetant and didn't know what he was doing… or that he was actually quite intelligent, and did. We can't have it both ways.<<<< your opinion only cacadore, Gneisenau was far from incompetant. You obviously do not know a great deal about the Prussian army do you ? Shane |
| Defiant | 18 Nov 2007 9:13 p.m. PST |
cacadore, I ask you please can we keep this debate on a professional level and not let it degenerate to a personal attack mind set on both sides. I am not saying you are doing this because you have not, however, I know both of us in the past, due to passionate beliefs have let things deteriorate and I do not wish to revisit those days. I am enjoying this debate and would love to continue it even if the horse has been totally flogged to death before. |
| Khevenhuller | 19 Nov 2007 3:49 a.m. PST |
Cacadore Can I ask, as you seem to think that Gniesenau dragged his feet, a discussion of actual motives for this? Nowhere in your agrument can I find an adequate explanation of why he would choose such a course of action. Although he may have sent of the corps furthest from Mt St Jean (Bulows), it had not fought at Ligny and was fresh, which seems to me to be as good a reason to choose it as any. You may take issue with this as a decision, but he probably knew the state and capabilities of the troops far better than most: he was, after all, staff office par excellance… K |
| Yorck von Wartenburg | 19 Nov 2007 4:58 a.m. PST |
I Corps had fought on 15 and 16 June, taken 40% casualties and was out of ammunition. No point in sending that first, if at all. II Corps had taken a pounding at Ligny and was out of ammunition. No point in sending that either. III Corps was engaged with Grouchy. Couldn't send that. IV Corps was freshest, fully supplied and was sent first. That is what is called making sensible decisions. |
| Defiant | 19 Nov 2007 5:04 a.m. PST |
|
| Khevenhuller | 19 Nov 2007 1:56 p.m. PST |
Depends which 'Brit Historians' you read, Yorck… K |
| Major Snort | 19 Nov 2007 2:55 p.m. PST |
There are perhaps some German historians who also should not be taken too seriously, Eh Yorke? |
| CPTN IGLO | 19 Nov 2007 3:15 p.m. PST |
german authors do usually know what a deployment is, british usually do not, british authors writing on tactics is often a painful experience. |
| McLaddie | 20 Nov 2007 12:46 a.m. PST |
Captn Iglo wrote:
a lot of generals like Ney and St.Cyr did recommend a third ranker system for skirmishers, it was actually at times even practiced by the french. The french army did come out of the revolutionary wars with the reputation that every french soldier at heart was a tirailleur. Nappy didn´t do anything to improve or regulate this. Captn:
Okay. I am not sure what this has to do with my post, as I didn't as a word about skirmishers, but I'll go along with it, other than your last line: "Nappy didn´t do anything to improve or regulate this." He did do a number of things, such as creating voltiguer companies in line regiments, and making a concerted effort to maintain the 1:3 ratio in legere/ligne regiments, from 1796 all the way into 1814. Whether you think his efforts were improvements is an open question, but he certainly regulated who skirmished and how many on a variety of levels. |
| malcolmmccallum | 20 Nov 2007 9:02 a.m. PST |
Was not Napoleon also the one pushing to remove the concept of Regimental artillery from the French army? From a Colonel's point of view, the loss of those would seem to greatly affect infantry deployments and tactics. |
