"Prussians at Waterloo and the Waterloo Despatch" Topic

No! I'm Spartacus!

Give us Barabas!

I'm glad Sparker did raise this- to my mind the revisionistas are all looking pretty intellectually threadbare these days and such reality checks as Sparkers are welcome.

I don't normally like to be a controversial poster and hope others don't take this as provocative. However, it seems clear to me that W paid a worthy tribute in his despatch (which I too have in full) to the decisive partipation of the Prussians at Waterloo. Supercilius Max's comments on circumstances are very relevant too
Napoleonic enthusiasts can get much too bogged down in the weeds of whether Bylandt's Brigade or the Cumberland Hussars etc are fairly treated in history, and forget the big truth- Without W and the British contingent, there would not only have been no victory over Napoleon on the 18th of June, but no real campaign in Belgium and indeed no allied army that Napoleon would have thought worth marching against in person.

Without W there MAY have been a second Leipzig in Eastern France later in 1815, but there may equally have been second Ulms, Austerlitzs and Jenas.

"…had begun to take effect, and as I could perceive…"
You see, "had" indicates the pluperfect tense. It had already happened. Before. What he meant by "take effect" is open to interpretation, but I imagine it wasn't "appear".

Sparker

Just a quick answer. I am not saying that Wellington did anything dishonourable. In our time that behaviour would be dishonourable. In his times, wasn't.

Other thing: when I say official dispatches I am not talking about the dispatches composed in our present, but back in the period. If you want to understand Wellington's Dispatch, or any other dispatch composed between 1660 and 1939 you need to think like an historian and put your mindframe in the mood of the times being analyzed. Not like a XXth-early XXIth person with his own set of cultural prejudices.
If you wish understand what and why Wellington wrote you must free yourself of your XXIth Century prejudices. Honour, in early XIXth Century, hadn't the same meaning that in our time. Neither the word "professionalism". If you would have called the Duke a "professional" he probably would have felt obliged to defy you to a duel for insult him!
He wrote for a public. The only public that mattered to him: those Britons that were aristocrats like himself, for the King and the Court and, as a second thought and just because they hold the strings of the public purse, for the MP's. He didn't write for us. Or for the Prussians. Of for anybody else. To him they didn't matter a damm. That he mentioned the Prussians at all was a recognition of his diplomatic abilities.
You can't free yourself of your own cultural bias except you make a conscient effort. Even if you are tired. Could you imagine the scandal that would follow if a soldier would write an official report of an action to his CO calling the 'talibans' "bunch of bloody s"? However in early XIXth Century it was common usage and nobody was surprised at all!

Regards

Sparker-Thanks for the reply about why this post was timely.
I thought I was missing some significant date or anniversary that justified dancing this dance again.
I see I havent and I can switch off again.
Happy waltzing

And so, we've done this issue to death yet again. A number of people have flung some cross words at each other. Peter Hofschroer has emerged with yet another pseudonym to try and promote sales of his books and we've really resolved … well .. nothing really!

Bloody marvellous!

Just a shame this polluted the British Wargaming board and wasn't left to fester on the Nappy boards with the other petty minded, research-obsessed, shallow points scoring armchair historians populated, knobheads.
Nice original post, quickly lost……..AGAIN!

John

Symbiotic Relationship hit the nail on the head when he pointed out the grammar of the phrase.

"Begun to take effect" could have several meanings. For one thing, it depends on when the effect had 'begun' (eg a few hours ago, or a few seconds ago). The meaning also depends on where this 'effect' was beginning to happen (eg had begun to take effect in the sector where the Prussians were fighting, or the Prussians' fighting had begun to take effect on my sector).

But even with those various meanings, I can't see "begun to take effect" being used as a phrase to indicate that the Prussians had just arrived on the battlefield.

As Yogis account has been locked by Bill it seems he was PH.
Do I win a prize for identifying him first?
Next time he visits he should wear a mustache as a disguise.

No! I'm Spartacus!

<;^}

Next time he visits he should wear a mustache as a disguise.

Alternatively, he could bog off and promote his agenda elsewhere.

Monomania gets very boring very quickly, and I reckon he's had his 15 minutes

As Yogis account has been locked by Bill it seems he was PH.

I Locked the account due to his behavior, whoever he was. If it's Peter, he's operating out of a U.K. server now.

I think he has 'sleeper' identities here on TMP, set up over many years. One should look very closely at others who have posted on this thread and similar threads.

It is said he is hiding in limestone caves in the Austria-Liechtenstein-Swiss border area, often moving back and forth across the porous borders to post on TMP. Perhaps his second in command makes such posts as those above.

I think his organization is becoming, if not already, world wide in scope, with an uncanny ability to strike fora anywhere and everywhere.

Stay vigilant!

Sick simpering Tyrannosaurus Rex!

I think your Peter Hofscroers friend Steven?
If you are you should talk to him from the shoulder.
He does his reputation no good by such childish actions.
I have no animus against him and do not like to see him embarass himself here.

I was wondering the same thing how an historical Author can stoop to such a level and can't have a reasonable debate or conversation on the forum. I would think his knowledge would be worthy as his books are really impressive with a great deal of in-depth research put into them.

It's a shame really.

Regards
James

Sparker,

you will notice that the Duke makes quite clear in the Despatch that the victory was assured whether the Prussians were present or not- although he states that Buelow`s "operation upon the enemy flank was a most decisive one…" he goes on to point that he was already in "a situation to make the attack which produced the final result", which regardless of what he said after makes it quite clear that as far as the Duke was concerned he won the battle without the Prussians. Or have I misread this?

Hindenburg

Dear Hindenburg,

Sorry for the delay in answering, I thought this one had gone DIW.

We could probably argue for days about this one. Yes, you have a legitimate interpretation. But when reffering to the attack which produced the final result, perhaps he was just identifying the one he was talking about…

My point, essentially, is that it is clear from this despatch that Wellington did heap fulsome praise upon the Prussians, that this despatch is not an obscure reference, and any fair minded individual attempting to portray the Duke as trying to grab all the glory for himself should, at the very least, have admitted this.

Kind Regards,

Sparker

Sparker,

Despite what some have intimated, Wellington also thanked the Dutch Belgiums and other nationalities:

''His Royal Highness the Prince of Orange distinguished
himself by his gallantry and conduct…..General Kruse, of the Nassau service, likewise conducted
himself much to my satisfaction, as did General Tripp, com-
manding the heavy brigade of cavalry, and General Vanhope,
commanding a brigade of infantry, in the service of the King of the Netherlands''

The real test, however, would be to compare the thanks Wellington expressed about the Prussians immediately after the battle, with the fullsome praise lavashed on the English by Blücher and von Gneisenau in their reports.

Er…………..

Now where are those reports?

Cacy,

Thanks for that info about the Duke thanking the Netherlanders, I wasn't aware of that.

Kind Regards,

Sparker

It's always nice to read debates based on "Opinion before Facts",or "Everyone is entitled my opinion".

Dennis,

My opinion is simply that to cast doubt on Wellington's gratitude or lack of, without at least refering to his own words on the subject written immeadiately after the battle is poor history.

What actual facts am I missing which have a bearing on this opinion?

May I suggest that if you aren't interested in other peoples's opinions you don't read a message board!

Sparker

BigDennis,

I now realise you are the chap who goes around spitting on soldiers graves. Ergo I'm really not interested in your opinion any more, no need to bother responding.

Sparker

Sparker. You missed my point. I wasn't refering to your opinion specifically. I was refering to historical opiinions in general. Both the British and Prussians played their roles and both did it well.

what a sandbox full of self-righteous kids =)
I wonder why this topic gets this much attention if its a dead horse? Everybody jumps on it!

Almost nobody seems to be interested in the information itself.

weird =)

paul weissi

''Almost nobody seems to be interested in the information itself.

weird =)''

I guess one answer is that a lot of people get interested in Napoleonics out of an admiration for Boanaparte himself. And today's Boanaparte exists within a haegigraphic pseudo-historical cloud: to understand 'Napoleonic history' you have to take on board the haegiography: we have to waste time dealing with Cambronne's "The Guard dies …" statement, the white charger crossing the Alps or the 'charge across the Bridge at Lodi' only because abandoning them would hurt the mythic grandeur.

Napoleon, the master strategist, who stated: 'the British are bad soldiers and Wellington a bad general' in the face of his own commanders opposing personal experience, is the moment where we have to take a choice. Either, in your mind, you want Wellington to win Waterloo, or you want him to lose it (bacause you support Boanaparte). If, the latter, you've actually got rather a lot of surrounding puff to support you, inlcuding the whole post-Waterloo analysis by Bonaparte himself, proving that Wellington 'lost' Waterloo. The history of the genesis of this haegiography, becomes an alternative history filling the place of history and facts rather get in the way. Hence the lack of interest in them.

Cacy,

You make a very interesting point about the histography/hagiography of the 1815 campaign. It goes a long way to answer all my questions about the sound and fury surrounding these issues and why people overlook or ignore the facts to stick to the 'Hollywood' version of the legend. I used to think it was because of a subconcious anti-British world view, its actually much more comforting to think it is more of a romantic pro-Napoleon stance. After all, Byron and Beethoven were very much taken with the man…

Kind Regards,

Sparker

I'm sorry, but to imply that people who do not share your opinion are doing so out of an irrational anti-British world view or of Napoleon worship is more than a tad arrogant. Can you not accept that you yourself may be affected by national bias?
I have no wish to get bogged down in an irrelevant and petty argument which is more about flag waving than objective history. Waterloo has established itself as a significant British victory, it is after all to the army what 15th Sept is to the RAF or Trafalger to the RN. It is clearly very emotive for some people and also has comtemporary propaganda value (calling metric "Napoleon" and Imperial "Nelson"). But with regards to popular historiography, all I know is that when I go to the library, all I see in the Napoleonic section titles are Wellington, Waterloo, Nelson, Trafalger, Peninsula, some dreadful book by that vulgar propagandist Andrew Roberts, then maybe the odd book about Austerlitz, or something about how Napoleon beat everyone else. Everything, including miniatures board games (one I am very interested in "the lion and the eagle" for example), seem to give the impression that this was almost exclusively a Britain V France conflict with a few ineffectual bit part players thrown in. I laboured under this misaprehension for some time until by chance I encountered an acount of the battle of Leipzig, which opened my eyes to a whole new perspective. Waterloo would never have happened without this battle and other nations played a much more important role militarily in bringing down Napoleonic France than some people would have us believe.
Napoleonic history really should not get bogged down by endless debates on Waterloo, this is what I find to be so frustrating. This is a much more rich and complex period of history, and I exhort anyone with a brain and who genuinely wants to understand history to broaden their horizons and to challenge so called received wisdom. Do not be put off by snearing reactionaries with outdated world views and cantankerous attitudes trying to force thier opinions on all and sundry, there is nothing wrong with revisonist history.

I would also like to add that talk of an "anti-British" world view is not only paranoid, but strongly suggests what I fear is a view which holds Britain to be far more important in the world than it actually is, which is the problem with some people's approach to the Naploeonic wars.

I guess that's where Napoleon went wrong.

I would also like to add that talk of an "anti-British" world view is not only paranoid, but strongly suggests what I fear is a view which holds Britain to be far more important in the world than it actually is, which is the problem with some people's approach to the Naploeonic wars

Not paranoid at all, but has to be taken in context throughout the last 200 years and in relation to political/economic/military events throughout that period.

Clearly an individual person's view of Britain will be determined by what has politically and personally happened to them throughout this period and at what point during the period you ask their view. I would suggest that many previously subjugated peoples of the British Empire have a quite dire view of Britain.

As to Britain's importance in the world..well even a brief inspection of the period will show that clearly this has changed. Unfortunately many people still see Britain from the perspective of Empire and as such have an augmented opinion of it's importance.

I'm English and quite frankly, think that Britain stinks at the moment for a variety of reasons, however that does not cloud my opinion of the importance of Britain over the last 200 or so years.

Pete

'Wellington was a Saint' by Cacadores & Sparker, England 2009.
Drawing on resources only ever seen before in print of any tuppeny halfpenny book on Waterloo these amazing historians bring out the full never realized before truth of this tremondous English hero, whilst in one fell swoop demolishing the ignorant rantings of the ill intentioned cronies of infamous discredited pro_Napoleon author who had merely spent the odd years and more at the BL, Southampton, and other mingy places filled with dull old manuscripts.

Well done chaps.
Chocks away, onwards and upwards to the firmament.

Meeee-ooow, saucer of milk, table jeff!

Oh joy another unholy mixture of nationalism with history.
I guess I shouldnt complain; its an old practice.
Some of the histories spewed out by Prussian/German historians in the late 19th century with their anti-British sentiments are hopelessly biassed too.
But lets try to clear up a few matters.
Certainly, as fascinating as Waterloo is, yes it does get more than its fair share of attention.
But only the brain-dead would think the campaign of 1815 is the entire Napoleonic Wars.
And if you want forgotten campaigns, how about my favourite, the Italian front? I do think Austerlitz and the 1812 campaign get quite a lot of attention though.
I also think it is reasonable to judge Wellington as Europe judged him in 1814/15. He was one of the saviours of Europe, one of the most successful generals of the age and the man who beat Napoleon himself (not the only one but it was a small club). He didnt attain his ascendancy at the Congress of Vienna just because of his political ability!!!
Arguing over exactly how good he was is fun but really its a waste of time. Like trying to quantify the genius of an artist or the beauty of a sunset.Lets accept his military ability was extraordinary.
I believe that the importance of the Peninsular War is often unfairly discounted/ignored. The years of conflict there, by British, Portuguese, Spanish and Germans against the French may well have been the catalyst for Napoleon's eventual fall.
I am all in favour of a thread that debates whether Britain and her efforts against the French "saved" Europe or not. But lets make it as calm and logical as we can.

Well said…

Cor blimey govnor. You lot dont arf go orrn about this.

The fact is, Without Wellington at Quatre Bras on the 16th, there wouldnt even have been a Prussian army on the 18th.

QED

(but yes, Blucher did save Wellington's bacon at Waterloo, no doubt about it. Fighting together is what is meant by the term 'Ally')

JeffsaysHi,

How ironic! You accuse me of being a cod-historian who doesn't look at source material!

Have you actually read the start of this thread?

I guess in your haste to get in some anti-British comments you are inadvertently agreeing that the Waterloo Despatch, as a primary source, ought to be taken seriously in reflecting upon the credit Wellington was giving to Blucher and the Prussians?

Well done Sir!

Kind Regards

Sparker

yawn