"Waterloo units strengths accuracy" Topic

Following on from my thread regarding opinions of the two books below

TMP link

Who is more accurate regarding the numbers of men in the various infantry and cavalry units at Waterloo for the British French and Prussians armies, would it be Siborne, Adkin, Bowden or someone else

link
This link goes to a French language site, but I guess it is the best source for troop strenght and uniform guides on the www you can get.

If you can't understand French, just click around, and you should find it.
Start under "unités/nation".

I would say Atkin for the battle proper, though he often describes the losses units incurred at QB and Ligny.

I would use Bowden for the beginning of the campaign and Mike Robinson for Anglo-Allied numbers and losses at Quatre Bras. Siborne is more than a little dated.

Both Bowden and Adkin used Wellington's dispatches for the strengths of the Anglo-Allied army at Waterloo. Wellington has the rank and file categorized as Present, Sick-Present, Sick-Absent, Command, and PWs & Missing. Bowden adds the Present, Sick-Present, and Command figures while Adkin just uses the Present and Sick-Present figures and not the "Command" figures (individuals not present with the unit at that time).

This is interesting – I'm collecting the Waterloo campaign units at 'accurate' strength and using the sources I've found the units that got brawled at QB (scots esp.) look a little light numerically which would make sense if the numbers were taken at Waterloo. So Mike Robinson's numbers for campaign start strengths?

Numbers are static and at best an educated guess. Warfare is dynamic and changes from moment to moment. Who knows how many guys actually showed up or stayed with their unit or joined other units or just ran away? Use the number you like or feel you can justify.

Fair point 49mountain. However, the Waterloo campaign is one of the few where fairly accurate numeric data exists if you want to use it. I do as it happens (although I'm an exponent of the detail vs game/fluidity fraternity too!) and in several cases there is a significant difference between battalion sizes on this campaign in particular – the average French battalion was lucky to be 400 strong whilst Allied units were frequently north of 650 at the start of the campaign, several even 800-1000 which can have a pretty big impact at the tactical level. Robinson's book arrived today and a quick comparison of his pre-QB numbers vs Adkin's pre-Waterloo numbers bears out some interesting truths on the impact of QB action for those who were really in the thick of it – battalion strength below on a 1:20 basis, pre-QB / post-QB:

79th Highlanders – 39 / 22
42nd Highlanders – 31 / 17
92nd Highlanders – 35 / 21
69th 30 / 28
73rd Highlanders – 28 / 25
30th 34 / 32
33rd 29 / 29
28th 31 / 28

Some big differences there – same can be said of 5th National Militia or Bijlandt's whole brigade which had taken a pounding at QB only to be first in the line of fire at Waterloo. It's detail, but detail that interests me and I feel relevant for 'my' version of Waterloo. But I 100% agree that this level of detail is frankly irrelevant for most representations of campaigns. It just makes me happy ;-)

RuL – an interesting point. I often wonder what differ ence it made tacically the various different strengths. It is a long running "discussion" between me and my brother about why "most" wargamers base French as 36 figures, yet Allies as 32's.

Do you have any sources that discuss teh tactical impact of the smaller units?

Marc – I'm sure there are plenty if I did a little digging. Put simply mass takes a lot longer to 'erode' while smaller units could be more flexible – each had their own foibles too! The most obvious that comes to mind is the relative isolation of the individual French Guard battalions as they crested the Allied ridge independently – each ~500 strong in column – to be met by the British Guards in line – each ~1000 strong – and then in one case simultaneously flanked by the ~1000 strong 52nd leading to descriptions of them literally being blown backwards off the crest by the firepower. Another might be the ease with which Travers' cuirassier brigade was swept aside by the British Heavy Cavalry – each of his units was 200-350 whereas the British cavalry were 4-500 with velocity and the slope on their side.

I'm not going to stake my flag on these two examples as they're well documented, controversially in several cases, and only demonstrate British vs French examples. Can of worms… But I'd be interested to hear of some that immediately come to mind from other people, especially ones demonstrating the versatility and coordination of well trained smaller units over larger bodies of men.