"The Myth of Maitland's Charge at Waterloo" Topic

Reading the History of the 52nd at Waterloo by Lord Seaton, it seems that the order gived by Wellington as "Up Guards and drive those fellows in" was not true.

Even the atack and route of the leading Imperial Guard Column by the Guards was a myth too.
I quote the text:

Lord Hill was on the right of the 2nd battalion of the 1st.Guards which was "stationary and not firing." The 3rd battalion of this brigade of Guards was lying down in square, on the reverse incline of the position, to the left of their 2nd battalion and at some distance from it, when the Duke, coming back from the centre of the position, and seeing how they were fired into by a large mass of skirmishers of the Imperial Guard, desired the commanding officer "to form line on the front face of the square, and to drive those fellows in," (this was the origin of "Up Guards, and at them," words which were never uttered). The Duke's order was immediately obeyed, and the 2nd battalion of the Guards drove them some little distance down the slope, when there was a cry of "cavalry," and the Guards retired up and over the British position in some disorder. This agrees with Colonel Gurwood's statement, that as the 10th Hussars, in which he commanded a troop, were moving from the left to the right centre of the position, they saw the Guards retiring in some confusion. This, from all accounts, was the only movement made against the enemy by Maitland's brigade of Guards (and this was made by one battalion of it only) during the action. They suffered severely from the cannonade, and were charged, as all the troops were, by the French cavalry, and suffered very
very much from the fire of these skirmishers of the Imperial Guard, whom they drove in; but this was the only forward movement they made against the enemy. Gurwood must have seen them at some distance down the reverse slope of the British position, just about the time that the 42nd were completing their right-shoulder-forward movement, and that the skirmishers of the Imperial Guard were forming in front of their leading column. I must not now stop to prove that the story of Maitland's brigade of Guards having attacked and routed the leading column of the Imperial Guard is a mere myth, and that this has been all along well known to every officer of the 52nd who was present at Waterloo, from Lord Seaton down to myself, the youngest ensign, but will hereafter devote a chapter or two to the subject.
Unquote.

Amicalement
Armand

I think its a little unwise to revise history based on one man's account, even an eye witness. It would be interesting how much time had elapsed before this source penned his account.

The Grenadier guards were awarded their title, and their bearskins, specifically because of their action in overthrowing the French Imperial Grenadier Guards. I suspect that if this was really such a complete myth a storm of protest would have broken out in the letters column of the Times, as for example happened over Beresford's 'imaginative' explanation for his failures at Campo Mayor.

Interesting quote, though.

IIRC there was a lot of argument beteen the Guards and the 52nd as to who was really responsible for the defeat of the final French attack and who charged when.

The various letters to Siborne by participants of the units involved agree in some respects but none of them are sure whether or not Wellington gave any order. One even says that it is not worth ahving a controversy over whether Wellington said 'Up boys and at them'.
Powell's letter (he was a lt. in the 1st. Guards) says that the first column was stopped by fire from Maitland's bde. Lord Saltoun cried 'Now's the time, my boys' and the bde 'sprang forward', pursuing the first column past the end of Hougoumont orchard. They then found themselves exposed to the next column and the bde retired to its original position.
As they fell back, Adam's brigade had taken position to one side. Once Maitland's had moved past them, the Guards halted and faced the French. The two brigades then attacked this next column which was driven off.

A lt. of the 52nd also confirms this advance and the need to retire due to becoming outflanked.

Allowing for the intense confusion of battle ~ blinding, choking smoke, screaming men, shrieking horses, the deafening noise of artillery pieces, adrenaline, witnesses in shock, etc, etc, etc, who can really say for sure?

A combination of volley fire and bayonet charges form a number of Allied units, including the Guards, the 52nd, Detmers Brigade of Dutch and Belgian troops, and canister fire from artillery all did their bit.

Let it rest, I'd say.

I have a healthy disdain for modern reviews/rewrites of history which is by now well entrenched. There hasn't been one thread on here in the whole of 2009 which referred to suggested 'new' outlooks on history (and mostly Waterloo, it appears) nthat have been worth a damn. Three words: Waterloo – New Pesrpectives.

Enough said.

I would have thought that any evidence being submitted on an historic event would be welcomed, or at the very least, discussed. There is much debate over the final Guard assault at Waterloo, and in different venues it has been oversimplified.

I wonder if the information was on a French unit would the attitude be any different? I would submit that it would be and the attitude would not be to 'let it rest.'

I don't think there's any historic incident that shouldn't be discussed and if it changes, in fact, what the traditional viewpoint is, all the better.

The fact is, that Maitland was driven back from his position after his initiall success against two Guard battalions. Another battalion drove Maitland back, but in its turn was outflanked by Adam.

Sincerely,
K

I have a healthy disdain for modern reviews/rewrites of history which is by now well entrenched. There hasn't been one thread on here in the whole of 2009 which referred to suggested 'new' outlooks on history (and mostly Waterloo, it appears) nthat have been worth a damn. Three words: Waterloo – New Pesrpectives.

I don't believe that 'revisionism' is something bad by itself. After all, every history book is a 'revision' of those that preceded it.

What happens with Waterloo is that as new sources are being uncovered and researched, the traditional narrative is not enough to give a precise understanding of the campaign. There is a need to write a more nuanced story, including those elements of truth that were left out in previous analysis. That's not (should not) be bad. Just the opposite: thanks to them, even if we disagree with the conclussions, we can advance our knowledge of the past; of what happened and why.

Revisionism serves a purpose: to shatter our sense of complacence. Even the most polemic revisionism (Holocaust's revisionism, for instance) had, in the end, a positive effect: it forces historians to recheck their sources, and to depurate their analysis and research techniques. It forces to advance our knowledge of our past.

Nobody in his senses would deny the relevance of British contribution and Wellington's generalship to the victory over Napoleon in Belgium's fields. But thanks the revisionism we can be able to have a most accurate picture of the actual nature of that contribution. For what it's worth my respect towards Wellington as an outstanding general rose after the revisionist histories put in the picture the contributions of Dutchmen, Belgians, German and Prussians to the victory at Waterloo. To win a battle when you are at the front of an army that never fought together before, with troops and commanders that are an unknown quantity, in an alliance where every partner had its own strategical concerns, and against one of the most brilliant commanders of the age takes more than a mere general: it takes a stateman of such skill that makes more amazing what Wellington was able to accomplish.

Best
Antonio

Oh, No! Not the 'Charlie Brown" defense – "Why's everybody always picking on me?"

Give it a rest, Kev! <:^{

Antonio,

Revisionism has become in many respects a 'dirty word' in the study and writing of history. That has taken place because many believe the term means to 'change' instead of, perhaps, to 'update' based on research that finds material that hasn't been used before. It is also very much overdone in the last fifteen years. In that respect, it falls in the category of the terms 'myth' and 'debunk.' That also goes along with the almost manic pursuit of 'new' material.

For Waterloo, it has been in print for at least 30 years that without the Prussians Wellington would have lost. Further, the Dutch-Belgian contribution at Quatre Bras has also been known and understood. In that respect, it isn't either 'new' or 'revisionist.'

Any historian or student of history worth his salt is going to keep looking at material and finding out information that was not familiar or known to him. I do think, though, that too many terms are used too much, are misused as pejoratives, and there seems to be an urgency and a manic desire to prove something or someone is incorrect.

Sincerely,
K

Personally, I think Basileus summed it up argument rather well. In additon, one does suspect that the revisionism Kevin would prefer was the triumphal entry of the Imperial Guard in Brussels at the very least and for choice, London.

Only if it was true. ;-)

Sincerely,
K

Sorry Kevin, I should have added a smile too ;-)

"For Waterloo, it has been in print for at least 30 years that without the Prussians Wellington would have lost."

At least! Vivian said that "[the Prussian support] was a necessary part of our remaining in our position and risking battle… Any attempt therefore to throw doubt on the combination by which their assistance was afforded to us is quite absurd." Written 1839, published 1891.

Revisionism has become in many respects a 'dirty word' in the study and writing of history. That has taken place because many believe the term means to 'change' instead of, perhaps, to 'update' based on research that finds material that hasn't been used before. It is also very much overdone in the last fifteen years. In that respect, it falls in the category of the terms 'myth' and 'debunk.' That also goes along with the almost manic pursuit of 'new' material.

I agree with you. There are two kinds of revisionist history: the one which updates/improves our knowledge of the past, or that provokes a healthy debate on the subject; and the one that simply tries to replace a myth with other myth of a new kind. The second is clearly worthless as history. However it has a secondary (unintended) effect, and that is that the real scholars would be pushed to do a better research.

Back in 1994 a so-called 'historian' (I won't mention his name) published a series of books whose intention was to debunk the 'myths' of the Spanish Civil War. Most of his research simply revealed an embarrasing lack of understanding about the history of the Second Republic, but weirdly enough he hit a nerve between the Spanish public opinion and his book was a best-seller. Up to then the Spanish scholars were lazy in their believe that they only needed a sloppy research to perpetuate an short of 'official' narrative of the II Republic and the Civil War (a narrative that, simplyfying a lot, preserved the idea of a democratic Republic fighting alone versus the forces of the obscurantism and totalitarism). To make short a long story: the books of that 'historian' shook the complacency of the old nawbabs. A generation of younger historians started to work hard in the sources, trying to understand what was the Republic and what meant the Civil War. Thanks to their work our knowledge of the period is better and deeper that 15 years ago. And this happened thanks to a bad researched and politically biased revisionist book. Sometimes even bad history can be a good thing.

Regards
Antonio

Waterloo happened in 1815. There is NO new evidence. Just 'alternative' theories based on extracts and opinion from stuff which, if it had been worth anything, would have been discovered a whole lot sooner.

As for historians being 'worth their salt' by digging up this sort of guff, it's just the opposite as far as I'm concerned. Want to be a historian? Then dig into stuff that is only now being counted as history so that you can be cutting edge, not trawling the dregs of events adequately covered many decades ago.

I seem to recall that the good gentlemen over at the old "Empire, Eagle and Lion" magazine did a great deal of research on the whole Guard's attack sequence and published their findings some years ago. I will have to dig around and see if I can find that issue…

As for historians being 'worth their salt' by digging up this sort of guff, it's just the opposite as far as I'm concerned. Want to be a historian? Then dig into stuff that is only now being counted as history so that you can be cutting edge, not trawling the dregs of events adequately covered many decades ago.

"Adequately covered" is a tricky expression.After all, what one historian considers "adequately covered", another won't. Historians learned long ago that no work of history is "definitive"; that everytime new documents are being uncovered; that you can take new approachs to an old subject; or that a new invention can help you to discover new trinkets of truth. Perhaps I am misunderstanding what you mean, but I can assure you that there is no historian today that would admit that exists such a thing as a historical subject that is "adequately covered". It would be unprofessional.

Best
A.

One may as well describe a ball as a battle.

At least John Mosier hasn't written what he laughingly likes to describe a 'book' about Waterloo. Yet.

Just to be clear about the provenance of Brits thanking Prussians for the victory at Waterloo, it first started with the official report of Lord Wellington. Let me see, that would have been written on the night of/early morning after the Battle.

So much for revisionism!

A generation of younger historians started to work hard in the sources, trying to understand what was the Republic and what meant the Civil War. Thanks to their work our knowledge of the period is better and deeper that 15 years ago. And this happened thanks to a bad researched and politically biased revisionist book. Sometimes even bad history can be a good thing.

I'm not so sure revisionism is so good, I only see published books on the Spanish civil war biased one side or another and it's nearly everybody pursuing their own personal agendas. Just three of the books in the last five or seven years which only treated the military events I found worthy.

BTW, Armand, I strongly recommend The Waterloo Companion from Adkin. If I remember correctly also treats the affairs of the charge.

With respect, Basileus, what historians learnt some time ago is that unless they can come up with a new spin they are rapidly unemployed. It's like UK universities that get additional grants for research. As a result they churn out any guff, as long as it fits the definition and is 'different'. Now we know potatoes do everything from making you fat, making you thin, giving you cancer and powering fossil fuel reactors.

I do appreciate that I'm a cynic, but that's the way I look at people.

Being an historian and working in UK university I can say it is not the case. Simply put there is always new material, even from ancient world… if you say adequately covered you are an arrogant <add favorite espletive> or just you have not done your work right. Revisionism is a ongoing process, you take the available interpretations and add new material and then, maybe, come to new conclusions or, pheraps, simply validate the previous conclusion. But almost any military history subject is full of wide gaps. Even "adequately covered" topuic for populistic histories like Stalingrad are ripe for new and more informed treatment like the recent trilogy from David Glantz.

To be quite onest the argument "adequately covered" has been hear from very bad historians or people who is toos imply confortable with accepted truth (aka myth) than serious research.

As another academic historian, I would like to add my weight to the argument that nothing is ever adequately covered. To assume that we know everything about an historical event is inherently flawed, unless one can clearly demonstrate that every possible historical source has been discovered and assessed, which is, of course, impossible in and of itself.

For example, there is a long-held view that the junior regiments of the Old Guard at Waterloo (aka Middle Guard) wore a fairly un-uniform set of uniforms, and that the Grenadiers a Cheval wore the jackets that they were issued during the Bourbon restoration. However, recent "discoveries" in the French archives reveal that the infantry units had enough correct uniforms (including bearskins) and that the Grenadiers a Cheval seem to have worn their "Napoleonic" uniforms for the campaign.

Old Bear, you may have views on historians and universities; however, unless those views are based on real research and a deep knowledge of historians and universities, they may be flawed.

indeed, there is a great difference between the history of Niall Fergusson and the history of E.P Thompson.

'angles' and 'new' theories are taught as the easiest way to explain historiography to undergraduates – its not much more than journalism, but it produces a much better quality of undergraduate essay if they have to make a case for themselves when offered opposing source material.

but the real quality historians go past this, and delve into archives. that is where historical research is conducted – seaking evidence from the undocumented sources (most of which are not, in fact, 'forgotten').

Sadly, trophy academics tend to be flashy and populist, and they get on telly much more than the dusty old warhorses who produce evidence rather than theories.

can you imagine understanding Waterloo with only Wellingtons dispatches and without Silbourne questioning as many participants as possible?

"Flashy and populist"; I may just have to slip those words in to my next conversation with a certain person:).

its the most polite description of his public persona I could come up with.

He has failed to impress me as anything more than a good presenter/salesman so far – but he is still very young, so hopefully he wil put his talents to good use in his middle years.

Ferguson is actually a very fine financial and economic historian; however, his forays into the mass media have been very much a triumph(?) of style over substance.

He now seems to have returned to his main area of work, with a rather fine book on Siegmund Warburg hopefully appearing this year.

Some years ago we made good friends with a couple and their kids on holiday.

The father, Robby, was very poshly spoken, but unassuming and very friendly – a psychiatric social worker who said he learnt more about people in two years working as a refuse collector than in his official training.

We went round to their house one day and my mouth dropped open at a whole display stand of gorgeous Napoleonic swords. I asked him about them, "O yes," he said, "they belonged to an ancestor of mine, who was with the Guards at Waterloo."

Robby's surname? Maitland : ) It was a fascinating visit!

'However, recent "discoveries" in the French archives reveal that the infantry units had enough correct uniforms (including bearskins) and that the Grenadiers a Cheval seem to have worn their "Napoleonic" uniforms for the campaign.'

Colin,

There has been evidence for years that uniforms were ordered during the Hundred Days but did not reach the depots until either after the units went north or after Waterloo. Do you have any specific information on this subject and from whom?

Sincerely,
K

10th Marines,

The French army archives contain a set of documents detailing the uniforms and equipment that were both ordered and delivered to the Guard regiments. These clearly show that the proper uniforms for the 3rd and 4th Grenadier and Chasseur regiments were issued before the start of the campaign.

As to the Grenadiers a Cheval, the "old" Napoleonic uniforms were still at the depots and appear to have been re-issued when Napoleon returned.

My source is the actual documents themselves.

Colin,

Are you going to publish them?

Sincerely,
K

Colinjallen – right you are -

10th Marines,

No, because someone else is already doing so. When I was told about these records, I was dubious so went to check for myself; they do exist and they do contain the information that I was told they did.

Colin

Colin,

Are you at liberty to state who is doing the research or the work that will be coming out? If not, that is perfectly understandable. It is very interesting information.

Sincerely,
K

As there is a fine statue of Lord Seaton in the quadrangle of my old high school, I for one am prepared to consider his testimony. And I agree with Kevin that simply poo-pooing any "new" or "revised" evidence as inconsequential is anti intellectual.

It may of course be absolutely impossible to ever determine exactly what happened during this phase of Waterloo, given that the impressions of even the most diligent eye witnesses must have been affected by fatigue, adrenalin and clouds of gunpowder smoke.

In case new material comes up – we must take this into account – in case we ignore it – old entrenched views will prevail.
This is the main problem – to be able to change ones own old believes – seemingly impossible for some to do.

10th Marines,

The research was carried out by a colleague of mine who prefers not to be named (I am nost sure why). However, she informs me that it will be published as part of a work on the validity of testimony and memoirs (apparently she became interested in these after I loaned her a copy of Marbot's memoirs!).

Gosh, what happened Raul? Was your new year's resolution "try to wind people up more"?

A suddden flurry of posts aside from this old chestnut ("The myth of Maitland")
we also have: "Why didn't Wellington help the Spanish at Ciudad Rodrigo?"
and
"Was Hudson Lowe a villain?"
"Why did the French and Prussians hate each other?"
"What was the most important military contribution of Napoleon?"

all interesting questions but did you REALLY need an answer to them all within a few days?
Have you been employed to make TMP more lively?
:)

Sorry Mr. Lord Hill if I boder you.

Questions about Nap Era on a "Saxon" (British-American) forum are interesting to me.
If you go to another forums (french-italian, etc) you can read another point of vew of the same subject.

Amicalement
Armand

Is the myth being questioned here whether or not Wellington shouted out "Up Guards and at 'Em" ? Because he himself denied ever saying that phrase and claimed that he had thought to have said 'Stand up Guards' or similar.

I think Quistorp's post to Sparker has got mingled with a message he must have sent to someone rather different.

The 'Association of friends of the Waterloo Committee' official website has a rather good analysis of this issue here – link

It details the actions of the 52nd from 'the crisis' until nightfall and gives them much credit. It also asks why history has given all the credit to Wellington and the 1st Foot 'Grenadier' Guards. It refers to the 'Guards Myth' and speaks of cover-up and suppression of facts.

Wellington's official account is brought into question – which is interesting as the Association has "His Grace the Duke of Wellington KG,LVO,OBE,MC,DL" as President, he's the great-great-grandson of Arthur Wellesley.

Interestingly, the article mentions only British units, and seems largely concerned with pushing a 52centric view.

From the end of that article:
"The author served in the 1st Green Jackets 43rd and 52nd and its successor the 1st Royal Green Jackets in the 1960's. Copies of ‘Wellington's Waterloo Secret' by Nigel Sale, priced at £3.50 GBP plus £1.00 GBP UK postage and packing, can be obtained from the Royal Green Jackets Museum Peninsula Barracks, Romsey Road, Winchester, SO23 8TS, Tel 01962 828549; email museum@royalgreenjackets.co.uk"

It explains a lot about the 52centric view.

I think that it's all here.
Long to read, but very interesting.

link

Amicalement
Armand

This was one of my favourites… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

Has it been not done to death, more recently, though?

Was there not Glory Enough for All?

It was a combined arms victory and any one missing component, be it Artillery (of any Allied nation), the units that held the farms, the infantry that stopped d'Erlon, the Heavies that cleared the field buying time, the despised allied units that did largely stay in square, instead of flee or desert, light cavalry doing the duty of heavies…..the outcome would have been very different. As for Blucher, taking that incredible risk of marching across what might have been the face of Grouchy's advance, instead of falling back to safety to fight another day…inspired and turned out well in the end. But, in an alternate history…

I like the opening quote that the 42nd were involved in the final repulse. There were few enough of them at the start of the day………….and that is quite a sprint across the ridge from East to West, even in a kilt! Mind you, if you wanted Highlanders there, 71st are missed out completely in the map of the repulse in the latest Osprey "Waterloo and Wavre" p78

I thought Wellington was more likely to have called out, "Now Maitland. Now's your time."

Certainly, His Grace put a lot of noses out of joint by singling out the 42nd for praise in his Waterloo dispatch and failing to mention other regiments- British, needless to say- that had been more closely engaged and suffered more on the day.

Maybe… but still an interesting thread… (smile)

Amicalement
Armand

42nd were indeed mentioned, but only for Quatre Bras. Notoriously, on the big day, Wellington mentioned few units other than the Guards and Heavies (half of them Guards anyway, let's face it) in his Dispatch.

Reading it again this morning, I am left with the idea that, perfectly reasonably, he only had a very superficial idea of how it had all panned out….other than the final score. Which is what generally counts.

The problem was that Wellington didn't specifically mention any line regiments in relation to the 18th, only, as you say, the Guards and the Heavies.

As far as those jealous of the 42nd were concerned, it was Alexandria all over again.

I find it touching that in later life Wellington confided, "I should have given more praise."

Of course, he was not in the best frame of mind to compose a historical document on the night of 18th-19th June, especially with many of his staff dead or wounded. Frankly, given the depressive state that he found himself in, I find it remarkable that the document is as clear as it is.