| Tango01 | 07 Dec 2014 11:01 p.m. PST |
"Re-enactment to mark 200 years since Battle of Waterloo will place in 2015
But rumours of changes being made amid concerns of upsetting French
The battle will be staged over two days with French winning at end of first
Final day will see the Allied victory which ended almost 23 years of war
Napoleon could be played by an American and third of his troops from UK
There are also rumours of plans for a VIP ceremony with descendants of Napoleon, Duke of Wellington and French president Francois Hollande…"
Full article here
link Amicalement
Armand |
 Nashville  | 07 Dec 2014 11:12 p.m. PST |
Sounds like battle of Shiloh – one side wins on day one and is defeated on day two. |
| Knight of St John | 08 Dec 2014 5:20 a.m. PST |
No it's just our french friends are a bit sore about the fact they lost. |
| nsolomon99 | 08 Dec 2014 5:24 a.m. PST |
I suppose the idea is that Day 1 will represent Ligny and Quatre Bras and Day 2 will represent Waterloo? |
| Tango01 | 08 Dec 2014 10:00 a.m. PST |
I understand that they represent the battle till 04 PM when the french were winning and then when the Prussians began to presure more hard and lost it. Amicalement
Armand |
| Tyler326 | 08 Dec 2014 10:51 a.m. PST |
Considering the French haven't won a war in sometime , giving them day 1 is a nice gesture.I am sure the won't appreciate it. |
| 21eRegt | 08 Dec 2014 1:26 p.m. PST |
It is funny that the article mentions Mark Schneider playing Napoleon and makes it sound like it is still up in the air, when Frank has been the poster boy of all the publicity for months. It must be very irritating to be so dependent on the good will of a nation you dominated for so long that they will make the event PC. Trafalgar with the Red/Blue fleets was certainly a travesty. They have supposedly also added a Sunday battle to maximize the Euros taken in. |
| IanKHemm | 08 Dec 2014 4:07 p.m. PST |
"Considering the French haven't won a war in sometime…" I think you might have forgotten a little conflict called WWI. |
| Lilian | 13 Dec 2014 2:54 p.m. PST |
…and what is the name of this former little british colony where the French won the war to give it the independence? |
 deadhead | 19 Dec 2014 1:18 p.m. PST |
Poor French. They turn out to be the most successful nation in warfare according to "The Second Book of General Ignorance" Faber and Faber p137 (It sits in our bog. Our colonial cousins would call that the "restroom"………never understood that. I do not go in there to…..Oh hang on…….get back to the topic) It seems Niall Ferguson has worked it out. Since 1495 AD, 125 major European Wars, French in 50 (British 43, Austria 47). Battles since 387 BC…….. 168 battles. Won 109, lost 49, draw 10. 3 points for win and one for a draw. They would be in Champions League territory! The "British race" has had the advantage of the Channel and exploited that by producing what is probably still the best navy in the world (if minuscule). How our land army would have fared against Kaiser Bill or Hitler (or Boney) without that stretch of water, as the ultimate ditch, does not bear thinking about. Bless them, the French. Nice place, great wines, reasonable cheese, crap cars. Who would remember Waterloo, if Nosey had told that apocryphal artillery officer, "Oh damn your eyes, try a shot if you must. You might just hit him I suppose"…and he does……. |
| arthur1815 | 19 Dec 2014 4:06 p.m. PST |
What's the good of winning battles if you lose the wars? And why do the statistics start in 1495? To omit Crecy, Poitiers and Agincourt, perhaps? Although the Hundred Years' War is an example of my first point: English win several notable battles, but by the end have lost control of their French territories, except Calais. |
| dibble | 19 Dec 2014 10:55 p.m. PST |
And what were those battles? Has ferguson compiled a list for us to peruse? And what of Niall Ferguson? His take on the causes of the First World War and that Britain should have stayed out of it, was ripped apart in a televised debate on BBC2 back in June. If his logic on 'battles' won are as concise as his take on WWI, then I for one would take his findings with a large pinch of sea salt. Paul :) |
| deadhead | 20 Dec 2014 7:51 a.m. PST |
Why 1495? I confess I never even thought to ask that……..obvious now you mention it. Ferguson, far as I know, has not produced that list, he is just quoted in this entertaining little book. Strikes me if anyone was justified in taking offence, it would be Wellington's Allies and esp the Prussians. The field gives you the impression that only Buonaparte's troops were there, the literature has always been about "Britain's" greatest land victory. The rest were "also rans" (who consistently did so, we have always been told). At last there is new literature addressing this |
returns to Flintloque to paint an Ogre.
