"Waterloo vs. Wabash" Topic

I was reading Colin Calloway's The Victory With No Name today, which is about the battle of the Wabash, and in his chapter on the battle he compared it with Waterloo. These two battles were fought 24 years apart, and Waterloo involved 200,000 soldiers fighting in an all day battle, while Wabash lasted only 3 hours and around 3,000 American troops and Indian warriors fought there.
But his comparison got me thinking: If you HAD to choose one of these battles to actually fight in, which would it be and whose side would you go with? I would pick Waterloo on the Prussian side because I don't like the French, and plus at Wabash most of the Americans were scalped while alive. I would rather have a cannonball take off my head than be scalped and mutilated while still alive. And plus Waterloo was so much more important than Wabash.

Total agreement Haitan – true I'd have to go through the battle of Ligny first and that wasn't a walk in the park.

I'd actually never heard of the battle with Wabash. Was it significant?

Who'd be a Prussian? You get no credit for turning up anyway

You try that walk from Wavre to Plancenoit! Even nowadays, without having to drag cannon with you, assured no-one is trying to kill you at the other end (actually, these days…) and on tarmac roads most the way, not mud a foot deep. Oh, and you get to sleep in your hotel that night and have not been marching all over Belgium for days on end….

I'd go for Waterloo 1815 and dig myself a deep fox hole, on top of the ridge………..

Every so often I would stick out my head to check some uniform minutiae. Ah, so the Greandiers a Cheval did wear the surtout, The Guard Dragoons did not (I had guessed that), there was a 71st HLI piper, the DBs did not have a back peak to their shako, etc etc.

Actually, a friend of mine recently did that "walk" deadhead! Well, to be fair, he did as much of it as he could in a car, and then tried to walk the rest. He photographed the tracks, most of which are still not "metalled" and still not wide enough to take more than a single gun carriage and a chap walking beside it (one side only). In many places, the trees still grow across the tracks and need to be pushed back – lots of work there for the zimmermann!

138SquadronRAF: The battle of the Wabash was fought on November 4, 1791 during the Northwest Indian War. It was the worst defeat the U.S. Army ever suffered at the hands of Native Americans. 632 soldiers were killed, in fact only 48 men survived the battle uninjured. It was a far worse disaster than Custer's Last Stand at Little Bighorn.

The Wabash is more commonly known as St. Clair's defeat, as the Monongahela is better known as Braddock's defeat.

One of the few times Washington was known to curse in public was when the President was informed of this disaster. The US army had three infantry regiments at this time. The 2nd and 3rd were decimated at the Wabash. The 1st escaped because St. Clair had sent them chasing after deserters before the battle.

St. Clair, like his friend Washington, was bullet-proof. He had numerous bullet holes in his clothes but none in his body when this was over.

The upshot was that Wayne was given lots more time and money to raise and train troops than St. Clair ever got. In the fullness of time Wayne's Legion forced the tribes to sign a peace treaty after the battle of Fallen Timbers.

"And plus Waterloo was so much more important than Wabash."

Depends on your perspective.

Wavre to Plancenoit. You can do much of it on Google Earth first. I brought the most detailed maps I could find and had saved all the metalled road images, until finally there is a track off a roundabout. There are some modest inclines…modest on a covered road, not a foot of mud and with a cannon to pull. I was ready for a beer by the time I got there…..and forget anything involving a battle (and the pursuit of a beaten enemy). The sunken lanes are still an obstacle to the east of "Waterloo" indeed.

It is worth doing these things to understand what they could (did) achieve

Dances with Clydesdales: I suppose it does. I respect all who fought in either battle and both are among my favourites in military history.
Perspective is correct, but Waterloo is more important for Europeans than Americans. But Wabash is virtually forgotten in the U.S. today. I'm sure an Ohio Indian would care nothing for Waterloo and rather focus on Wabash, just like a Briton or Frenchman in 1830 would be far more aware of Waterloo.
Wabash ultimately led to the victory at Fallen Timbers and the Indians were forced to sign the Treaty of Greenville. Waterloo led to a half century of peace in Europe and ended Napoleon's Empire forever. So for that reason, Waterloo must be considered more decisive.

Waterloo led to a half century of peace in Europe and ended Napoleon's Empire forever.

I have seen this 'interpretation' repeated often on the internet forums regarding the end of the Napoleonic Wars in 1815.

A closer look at the situation from 1815-1871 shows something else…

When the loot was divided up at the Congress of Vienna, Prussia gobbled up as much of western Germany as she could. Russia swallowed Poland and the Austrians 'reentered' northern Italy to retake possession. Belgium and Holland were forced into a 'mutually repulsive' union by Great Britain, and half of Saxony was taken by Prussian and the Saxon king imprisoned. And the allies forced the French to take back the Bourbons, with Talleyrand's gleeful acknowledgement. And the Spanish Bourbons returned and refused the suggestions of those who had fought against the French for a more liberal government.

This led to a series of revolts and revolutions that plagued Europe through at least 1848. France had two more revolutions, in 1830 and 1848 and a republic was once again established. Poland revolted against Russia, which was brutally put down. There was a revolt in Spain in the early 1820s and revolution in Belgium which led to an independent Belgium with its own king. Prussia and Austria suffered revolution and general unrest and Italy would finally be unified after an armed struggle under the king of Sardinia. And all of this was the result of, at least partially, the settlement at Vienna and the uprooting and suppression of Napoleonic reforms in Germany, Poland, Belgium, and northern Italy.

So while there was a 'general peace' in Europe after Napoleon's defeat, there was not an absence of violent revolution and internal problems that resulted from Napoleon's downfall.