"Dutch Belgian Troops at Waterloo Rated for Perfomance" Topic

It would have been interesting to see which way the D-Bs jumped if Wellington's army retreated/crumbled at Waterloo.

Ergh Napoleonystika.

Pile of horse . Full of anglophobes with an anti Brit agenda. About as reliable as a Bulletin. Wouldnt trust it as far as I can throw it.

Ergh Napoleonystika.

While I would agree that the site does have a very aggressive tone the conclusions presented on the performance of DB troops is largely supported by both Delevoet's book on the DB cavalry in 1815 and Robinson's book on Quatre Bras. Those conclusions being that they fought as well as any other nations troops of similar experience and training and better than some. There were no mass desertions or refusals to obey orders, they stood their ground when told to, advanced when required and charged when ordered to. Any "failures" were due to understandable factors – being assaulted by superior numbers of enemy, standing under prolonged and heavy artillery fire, charging an enemy superior in numbers while in the wrong formation etc. Barbero comes to a similar conclusion in his book on Waterloo in which he states that there was very little to seperate the participating nations in either skill at arms or courage.

True enough. But while it's on that site, it's tainted.

If its willing to lie/ exaggerate/ distort so much about one subject. Why wouldnt it do so in others.

Having said that I do agree with you, the Dutch/Belgians were not inferior troops.

So, after all this discussion, if for example you were planning a waterloo wargame and wanted to keep the 'troop class' simple and decided on only 3 classes: 'Good' 'Average' '2nd Class' (I deliberatly havnt used the word 'Poor')how would you class the troops ?
For me it would be:
Good:
All Guard and 95th Rifles.
Average:
French Infantry & Cavalry, Brit/KGL Infantry & Cavalry, DB Light Infantry (Jagers)and Nassau, Brunswick Lieb & Adv Guard, Hanovarian Line & Light, Prussian Line & Light Infantry & Cavalry.
2nd Class:
DB Line and Militia Infantry & Cavalry, Independant Nassau Brigade, Prussian Militia Infantry & Cavalry. Hanovarian Militia & Cavalry, Brunswick ine & Light Infantry & Cavalry.

What do you conclude ?

I would conclude that three categories are nowhere near enough. For example, there were recognisable variations within the British line regiments and within the Imperial Guard; some of the Prussian Landwehr were well trained, highly motivated and well led while at least a couple of the high numbered line regiments were less reliable.

Guard, veteran, line, 2nd class, militia?

I agree with colinjallen and Karpathian, however I was trying to encourage a decision from some people regarding the position of the Dutch Belgians during the Waterloo campaign. Based on my many years of interest in the period and my many years of military experience as a soldier I still can not see how DB infantry and cavalry units can be put in the same class as Brit or French troops, in general the DB were not as well traind, led, inspired or even equipped as the French & Brits.

Based on my many years of interest in the period and my many years of military experience as a soldier I still can not see how DB infantry and cavalry units can be put in the same class as Brit or French troops, in general the DB were not as well traind, led, inspired or even equipped as the French & Brits.

Well, what about looking at it specifically:

Why, from your many years of interest in the period, do you think DB troops were worse?

What, from your years of military experience, inclines you to think DB troops were worse then British and French troops?

Why do you think they were less well-trained?

Why do you think DB regimental officers were worse than their French ccounterparts?

Why do you think the British and French troops were more inspired to fight then DB troops?

In what ways that would make a difference were DB troops less well-equipped then their British or French counterparts?

Regards

Hi

the categories should be laid out in the rules you are using …

Commercial rules are likely to have it all worked out for you – of course you can alter to suit your own research should they not meet your intrpretation of history.

My current home brew rules try to be simple and I have conscripot, veteran and elite ratings.

If you have a much broader set of retings (I imagine) you will be aiming at a tactical level of game – my basic unit of operation is 4000 infantry (divisional/brigade level depending on nationality/organisation).

IMO when you get overly broad on ratings your rules no doubt follow that criteria and I do not want that level of complexity in my games.

Are you not using a specific set of rules?

OOPS!

Training, leadership, inspiration and equipment are all indicators of POTENTIAL battlefield performance.

However, what should matter for us as wargamers is ACTUAL battlefield performance and I can see nothing to suggest that the bulk of the DB regular forces performed significantly worse than any other similar troops.

in general the DB were not as well traind, led, inspired or even equipped as the French & Brits.

Taking each of those in turn.
Trained – well there were a large number of veterans in the DB units and had been formed for over a year so sufficient time for training.
Lead – again many veteran officers in the DB units and high command.
Inspired – a bit difficult to quantify, but the DB units seems to have fought as hard as any others. If anything I would ahve said the French lacked a certain inspiration. I think there was a degree of war weariness in the French. Certainly operations don't seem to have been pursued with the same degree of verve and urgency as had been done before.
Equipement – the main problem is the variety of firearms that the DB units had which made supply of ammo more of headache. Easy enough to include a low ammo rule for appropriate units.
I tend to rate DB units as average the same as line Brits and French. The Guard (Brit & French), Highlanders, Rifles, etc get the higher ratings, militia, some Landwehr etc lower ratings. If your rules have more nuance you can rate each unit on a more individula basis. The General de Brigade site has an OOB which is a good starting point.
link

What I do know is the individual soldier is the same the world over, he is a 'product' a product of his training and his experience, and experience is a 'double edged sword' and second to training. The quality of the training depends on the experience, passed on knowledge and organisasion of the trainers. The infant (and infant is the right word) DB army of the time did not have that same quality of trainer or training organisation that the Brits and French and Prussian had.
The individual soldier is nothing on the battlefield if he does not operate within an efficient, motivated unit. This is where the DB army lacks again when compared to the others. The staff officers and higher command officers of the DB army were in political turmoil, many until recently had been fighting for their new enemy (this in some way also applies to the French) that must affect anyones commitment to die. Also because of the rapid creation and expansion of their army many were promoted well beyond their ability all these factors serve to reduce any nations ability and 'fighting spirit'. The other nations higher quality units had a higher unit 'esprie de corps' (sorry if the spelling is wrong) this can only be created through time and history and battles, the DB regiments didnt have that. Any experienced soldier would agree that the differences between the combat abilities of different units is always small, but the small differences can make all the difference on the battlefield (I emphasise can ! its like throwing a '1' not a '6').

Because of the nature of battle, how a unit 'performs on the day' (or on the table top) is always some what unpredictable. The DB army in some cases performed better that predicted, the same applies to the other armies who were involved.
On a wargame table I believe that Cossacks should be able to beat French Guard Cavalry, but the French commander needs to throw a '1' and the Cossack commander needs to throw high.

@True Grit
While I agree with your analysis of the factors that go to making a successfull unit and on up to the army it also applies, in spades, to the French and to a certain extent to the Prussian army – particularly to the Saxons. But to stick with the French many of the units until the very recent past had been serving the Bourbons as had most of the senior officers. The loyalty of these would have been suspect, which can't have helped any esprit de corps. Because of suspect loyalties many senior officers were in posts that they weren't suited/qualified to occupy. Many of the units were newly raised from the recruits that were called to the colours and while containing some veterans would have had even less time than the DB's to get used to new comrades and form any sort of unit identity. On top of that the French army's recent experience had been ones of high losses and defeats and while some may have been eager for a chance at revenge I'm pretty sure some would have thought enough is enough.

It would benefit us all to read the accounts of the battle again with a less jaundiced eye, no matter what nationality we are.

I've read French accounts that would lead one to believe that they won. I've read British accounts that would lead one to believe that there were no allies that could be depended on, that the Guards alone defended Hougomont

Most of the individual soldiers who left accounts could only have witnessed very small portions of the battle, and probably wrote their accounts way after the battle and almost certainly, deliberately or otherwise, inflated their own role or contribution.

The British troops were not all veterans of the Peninsula and many non British accounts describe the British units as, on occasion, retreating in disorder, including the 95th Rifles. Other than the Cumberland Hussars there does not seem to be any accounts of whole units fleeing. Wellingtons line would not have held without the efforts of all the troops involved. I doubt if there was much to choose between any of the line units of any of the nations, and they all gave "the last full measure".

Also to include the Prussian Landwehr as 2nd Class is totally out of line. Read the accounts of the attacks on Placenoit, by the 13th and 14th Brigades, two thirds of which were Landwehr and who were engaged for the most part against the various units of the Guard including the Old Guard Grenadiers.

I am fairly new to the Napoleonic period, but when rating the French Infantry for Waterloo, they were probably the best on the field with the Prussians probably on a par. They were the attacking units and stuck at it all day against enemies that were defending strong points, well supported by artillery.

Although I'm old I wasn't there, I have to rely on the accounts that those who were there left me as do the authors who have written the definitive works on the topic so all of the above is just my opinion.

The quality of the troops probably had less to do with who won on the day than the tasks assigned to them by their commanders. On the day, Wellington and Blucher got it right, and Napoleon got it hopelessly wrong.

As a wargamer I would prefer to rate all of the line the same, maybe give the Old Guard a slightly better rating than anyone else and then fight it out.

I doubt if there was much to choose between any of the line units of any of the nations

but when rating the French Infantry for Waterloo, they were probably the best on the field with the Prussians probably on a par

There seems to be a contradiction in what your saying.

It would benefit us all to read the accounts of the battle again with a less jaundiced eye, no matter what nationality we are.

What a refreshing view! A very good post.

The quality of the training depends on the experience, passed on knowledge and organisasion of the trainers. The infant (and infant is the right word) DB army of the time did not have that same quality of trainer or training organisation that the Brits and French and Prussian had.

I just don't understand this. The Kingdom of the Netherlands had been allied with the French for years and was then part of France. If the 1815 French had 'quality of trainer or training organisation' then the Dutch-Belgians did too. If the French had experience and passed on knowledge, so did the Dutch-Belgians.

Militarily their experiences had been the same.

Regards

So, considering the above from 'whirlwind' are we saying that todays Afgan Regular Army is as good as the British and US army ? or the Russian army because the Afgan army has been trained in part by western and Russian experienced professional trainers ?

No. If you want to move it to a modern idiom, it makes no sense to rate your private contractors as less good than your USMC, Paratroopers, Gurkhas or whatever, if those private contractors are all ex-USMC, Paratroopers and Gurkhas!

Regards

Sorry whirlwind I didn't follow that ?

True Grit,

A line soldier in the 1815 Netherlands Army was just as likely to have served in the pre-abdication French Napoleonic Army as a line soldier in the 1815 French Army, as the whole area had been part of France since 1811 , and before that allied to the French.

The whole 'doubtful loyalty of the D-Bs' only has any traction at all to the degree that the above is true.

Or put it another way. Several people have expressed the following views of D-B troops:
1. They were less experienced and less well-trained than their French opponents.
2. Their loyalty was doubtful because they had recently served the Emperor rather than opposed him.

One of these statements cannot be true.

Regards

Gentlemen, I didn't think my question would elicit such a response.

My feeling is the the DB troops having served under French rule for so long might not really be all that friendly towards the French. Similar to the Prussians who obviously were extremely unhappy with their occupation. The line was obviously well trained, considering their performance at both Quatra Bras and Waterloo.

Our rule set Shako 2 has it's limitations regarding classes. Those of you who suggested 4 levels of training and experience I feel are correct, however I am limited to the rules.

Thus what I glean from your information and opinion is this.

Dutch line rated as line. (4's)
Dutch Militia rated as 2nd rate Militia. (3's)
Belgian line I feel should be rated as line. (4's)
Belgian Militia rated as 2nd rate militia. (3's)

Dutch Cuirassiers I feel should be rated as Elites (5's) similar to French Dragoons but not as high as French Cuiassiers. (6's)

Dutch Light Dragoons rated as the usual light cavalry. (4's)
Dutch Hussars rated as 2nd rate militia. (3's)

Brunswick Lieb, Advanced Guard and Light rated as line. (4's)
All others including line rated as 2nd rate Militia. (3's)

This is what I will present to the scenario designer along with your comments.

Thanks for all your responses.

I wonder reading all those contributions how the Allies could have won against such excellent French soldiers with most of their own troops being inferior.
Hougomont held be Nassau troops and no British, the green Brunswick troops performing well, the Hannoverian Landwehr routing French Imperial Guard, the Dutch-Belgians doing their duties.

Perhaps I may be so bold to add something else from a different perspective, eventhough I am a wargamer myself and understand all the previous discussion and well-worth contributions here.
I have recently published my first volume on the Netherlands field army during the Waterloo campaign, containing information from its mobilisation in March up to the first day of war on 15th June.
Perhaps this can add something more to appreciate these troops.

1815fieldarmy.nl/index.htm

lulu.com/spotlight/erwinmk12

Dutch Cuirassiers I feel should be rated as Elites (5's) similar to French Dragoons but not as high as French Cuiassiers. (6's)

===

The Dutch didn't have cuirassiers in 1815.

Cuirassiers should be Carabiniers.

I'll come back to this topic over this weekend; first I need to play Bull Run tomorrow… that's an entire different (wargame!) period :-)