"No Troops but the British’: British National Identity ..." Topic
18 Posts
All members in good standing are free to post here. Opinions expressed here are solely those of the posters, and have not been cleared with nor are they endorsed by The Miniatures Page.
Please remember not to make new product announcements on the forum. Our advertisers pay for the privilege of making such announcements.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Media Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench ArticleOur first Flintloque article.
Featured Profile Article
|
Tango01 | 09 Jul 2016 1:01 p.m. PST |
…and the Battle for Waterloo. "In the ‘long eighteenth-century' British national identity was superimposed over pre-existing identities in Britain in order to bring together the somewhat disparate, often warring, states. This identity centred on war with France; the French were conceptualised as the ‘other', being seen by the British as both different and inferior. For many historians this identity, built in reaction and opposition to France, dissipated following the defeat of Napoleon at Waterloo in 1815, as Britain gradually introduced changes that allowed broader sections of the population to engage in the political process. A new militaristic identity did not reappear in Britain until the 1850s, following the Crimean War and the Indian Mutiny. This identity did not fixate on France, but rather saw all foreign nations as different and, consequently, inferior. An additional change was the increasing public interest in the army and war, more generally. War became viewed as a ‘pleasurable endeavour' in which Britons had an innate skill and the army became seen as representative of that fact, rather than an outlet to dispose of undesirable elements of the population, as it had been in the past. British identity became increasingly militaristic in the lead up to the First World War. However, these two identities have been seen as separate phenomena, rather than the later identity being a progression of the earlier construct…" Free to read here PDF link Amicalement Armand |
piper909 | 09 Jul 2016 1:54 p.m. PST |
Interesting essay. One thing I've always appreciated about the British military, as a student and hobbyist and Brit-ophile traveller, is that the the British tradition has always been martial without being militaristic, if you get the subtle difference. Traditions, uniforms, music, you name it. |
dibble | 09 Jul 2016 4:23 p.m. PST |
Amazing and the same old rubbish. All nations saw others as inferior, not just the British. That her troops were excellent soldiers that were on many occasions led by indifferent commanders, showed how superior they were and when a scrap occurred they usually gave much better than they got and deeds don't lie. If that gave the individual Thomas Atkins a feeling of being better than his foe, then good because that instills a handy trait of rivalry in said profession. It's war and war needs a confident superior soldier with a stubborn streak and an army that will win through. And remember! Even within regiments of different national armies, there was and still is, a feeling of superiority in Guard, older Regiments and 1st battalions towards their younger secondary 'inferior' battalions/squadrons. Anyway, all that paper is, is yet another lefty university load of claptrap that focuses on the British only. Perhaps an examination of other nations too would show that the 'playing field's' more level and that the feeling of superiority was universal and a natural trait; whereas today, it is knocked out of you with guilt bombs and pc enfilades jotted down in chip paper like that in your link. And as for the allies being forgotten in books on 'Waterloo', I have yet to read one where only the British are mentioned and I dare anyone else to link me to one. Paul :) |
von Winterfeldt | 10 Jul 2016 4:37 a.m. PST |
an eye opener about the quality of British units compared to others, like Hannover – in 1815 is : The Correspondance of Sir Henry Clinton in the Waterloo Campaign, two volumes, edited by Gareth Glover |
E Muilwijk | 10 Jul 2016 4:46 a.m. PST |
I see you follow my website, Tango! ;-) [thumbs up] |
E Muilwijk | 10 Jul 2016 5:49 a.m. PST |
Jeez, Mr. Paul ( i.e. "dibble" ) . Could you perhaps react less volatile? The whole idea of presenting this master thesis, was in conjunction with a text from a Dutch historian, presented here apart on TMP, but actually presented by me in a news item on how to compare the Waterloo historiography in different countries. Without per se making any judgement. ( link ) You seem to soil the entire idea, as well as reacting in a way on a master thesis approved by professors from a university, that would set your remarks apart as something special ( out of the ordinary ) . What did you ever write about Waterloo? ( Sometimes it seems you can't put anything genuine here on TMP regarding Waterloo, without getting 'the crazies'… ) |
dibble | 10 Jul 2016 9:08 a.m. PST |
Because Erwin, it has been the same old myth. I have read countless books on the campaign and have yet to read one where the allies aren't mentioned in it. That eyewitnesses state that they saw foreign troops not behaving well is well documented, but then again it is well documented that the 69th/33rd and 73rd/30th and perhaps the 23rd didn't either. Even a company of the 95th were said to have 'run for the woods' during the great cavalry attacks Waterloo which could be seen by some as cowardice, not realising that it was a tactic to be used by riflemen if they were caught in the open order by cavalry or that a large formation of enemy cavalry were in the area. But because they loitered in the woods for some time, it was perceived by one of their officers (wounded during the battle) that they ran away! Did they run away? who knows It's the same with most of the eyewitness accounts as being what they perceive not what actually happened. That they remarked on such an incident was because it stayed in their memory and they related it to a third party as they saw it. "Finally, they help to explain why in much of the English speaking world the battle of Waterloo is viewed as a British victory, rather than an allied one"
The Russians and the U.S see World War II and many campaigns therein as being won by them. Some of their documentaries and literature will show their own troops predominately and only mention 'allies' in the narration as a suggestion that they were part of a battle or offensive. Even D-Day is seen as mainly the struggle for the Americans on Omaha Beach with something going on on the periphery. Does that mean that the Americans were the most important troops on the battlefield? To the American reader/viewer yes, and their interest is going to be predominantly for those of their country with only cursory mention of the allies. but at least in the battle of Waterloo, individual units and armies are mentioned frequently. The same goes for Waterloo and the British part in that victory. It was also an allied victory. Did the armies of the other contingents see it as their victory? I bet they did and that they also saw their part in the battle as the main highlight, just as the British did. It's all about selling books and always has been about keeping the reader interested, and that means playing on their nationalistic preference. That other nations didn't have historians doing likewise is no fault of the British and perhaps the reason for other countries not having the historical output of the battle is because even they saw themselves as the supporting cast and not the star in the story (But I see them as every bit the part), which would be their issue and not that of the British public. I personally have always seen Waterloo as an allied victory, But be honest, the highlights of the battle happened to involve the predominance(though not exclusive) of British (and Hanoverian) regiments. That this is the case may be down to a lack of information from the other contingents which is being readdressed with you, John and somewhat by Gareth, but The narrative of the Battle will still be largely the same and the predominant regiments doing the deed will be the British. I leave you with this From Sir Hussey Vivian: "In truth, I care not what others may say, we were greatly indebted to the Prussians and it was their coming on the right and rear of Napoleon that gave the victory of Waterloo. We might have held our ground, but we never could have advanced but for the Prussian movement" Which sums it up well methinks! Though I must add. All the allied soldiers who fought in that campaign deserved their laurel of victory. Paul :) |
Zargon | 10 Jul 2016 10:12 a.m. PST |
There were other nations on the allied side besides the British at Waterloo? Well colour me scarlett. |
willlucv | 10 Jul 2016 12:16 p.m. PST |
I was amused to see this thesis was written by someone from the University of Queensland. Many Australians tend toward a interestingly parochial view of their own military history where the brave diggers prevail in spite of the bloody Poms. Back on topic I have never read anything that underplays the contribution of non British troops to the allied victory at Waterloo. One phenomenon you do get with all military servicemen is a tendency to favour their own service, regiment or unit. Most servicemen are intensely loyal to their regiment. |
Tango01 | 10 Jul 2016 3:25 p.m. PST |
Of course I did my good friend!… Congrats for it!! (smile) Amicalement Armand |
Gazzola | 10 Jul 2016 5:52 p.m. PST |
E.Muilwijk Good post. The thesis was excellent and well researched. The problem with some is that it might be seen as saying or implying something negative about the British, and that won't do. However, I imagine most of us here read a considerable amount of work and accounts of any campaign, and do not let one version define our opinions. But concerning the general public, then and now, that was probably most unlikely. And even now, with all the mass of publications over time and last year's Waterloo anniversary, if one were to ask anyone in the street who was at Waterloo the reply would probably still be, if they knew anything at all, the British and the French. And we would be hard put to find anyone with knowledge of Quatre Bras, Ligny or Wavre. And I don't think we can really expect British memoirs to have filled their works with praise of the contributions of other nations, since the memoirs were mainly about their experiences, not a history of what actually happened. It is only what happened to them that they can actually recall and write about. And they have, if I remember rightly, mentioned the allies, some in a good way and others not so good, depending on the personal experience of the author or how they perceived events, accurately or not. But those of us who read a lot will, for example, know that what may have been seen or related as troops running away may have actually been an ordered retreat. But the author of the memoir may not have been aware of that. And they may not have been aware of any contribution the allies undertook before the author's contact with them. Thankfully, more specific titles, such as those by Hofschroer and more recently, Veroncia Baker-Smith's book on the Dutch and Belgians at Waterloo, Glover's titles and even Franklin's Osprey series, highlight the vital involvement of Britain's allies. We need more books that are specific and concentrate on the allied contribution, in order to obtain a more realistic and accurate account. And the thesis is merely pointing out the reality of the British mindset, quite correctly, based, for example, on the 'cheerful stoicism' of some memoirs and the farce surrounding Siborne's Waterloo models. But it is not saying that only the British felt they were superior, that other nations may not have felt the same. The Thesis was, after all, concentrating on the British. As you say, some people seem to attack and offer a hostile reaction far too quickly, to something that was offered for thought and discussion. |
Gazzola | 10 Jul 2016 6:13 p.m. PST |
Dibble Your description of the thesis being a 'another lefty university load of craptrap', is hilarious. The whole point is that the Thesis is not about how other nations thought or if troops from other nations also thought themselves superior. It was concentrated on the British viewpoint. Perhaps you could consider writing one yourself, as it would be interesting to see a study that might cover that subject. But you can't knock something just because it concentrates only on the British, unless it intended to do otherwise. That is you showing your obvious bias. But I did wonder if you actually read the Thesis? All of it? The quote you offered by Vivian is actually quoted on page 62 in the thesis? |
dibble | 11 Jul 2016 2:05 a.m. PST |
Gazzola So I could have copied and pasted? Damn! It would have saved me looking it up again and typing it out wouldn't it? I have knocked the author but there's no bias in my post against any one allied nation.. Paul :) |
willlucv | 11 Jul 2016 12:27 p.m. PST |
When all's said and done it wasn't the British who built a whacking great monument on the battlefield commemorating a minor injury to a Dutch general. Incidentally 'Slender Billy' was well liked by the British, unlike say Wellington who was rather unpopular as a Prime Minister. |
Gazzola | 12 Jul 2016 4:55 a.m. PST |
dibble 'So I could have copied and pasted?' Are you admitting you did not actually read the Thesis? And I never implied you were biased against any one allied nation. Your obvious bias is against anything you perceive as negative written about the British. |
dibble | 12 Jul 2016 7:08 a.m. PST |
Gazzola Thanks for the clarification! Not for me to fly in the face of public opinion. The best part of that article are the comments on Siborne's History of the war in France and Belgium, in 1815. All the paper consists mainly of is the Slagging off of all three endeavors of Siborne's grand project. Paul :) |
Gazzola | 13 Jul 2016 3:10 p.m. PST |
dibble 'slagging off' Really? I think, concerning that aspect, the thesis (not article) just highlights the problems surrounding Siborne's intended project and the revised version. I don't see that as slagging off but telling it as it is, or rather, as it was. But I imagine his model is still worth viewing and I know his book is still worth reading. |
dibble | 13 Jul 2016 6:26 p.m. PST |
Gazzola 'slagging off' Really? I think, concerning that aspect, the thesis (not article) just highlights the problems surrounding Siborne's intended project and the revised version. I don't see that as slagging off but telling it as it is, or rather, as it was. But I imagine his model is still worth viewing and I know his book is still worth reading. That you don't see it as "slagging off" I do! I agree with Beurden's comments on this matter. I have Siborne's tome and would recommend it to others to peruse, but I wouldn't rely on it in the same way as your friend has in the past. As for the letters Siborne compiled, they are always worth having; along with his unpublished ones that Glover released. I saw the Waterloo diorama at the National Army Museum a few months after it first went on display and to be honest, I couldn't see what the fuss was all about. What was good though, were the Time Machine life-size figures, especially the retreat to Corunna vignette of a wife bent almost double, carrying her wounded and exhausted husband over her back through deep snow. Paul :) |
|