"Soldiers of Oxfordshire = ‘The 52nd and the Rout of" Topic

….Napoleon's Imperial Guard at Waterloo' – 11th April

"Of the many controversies arising from the Battle of Waterloo, that surrounding the role of the 52nd in the rout of Napoleon's Imperial Guard in the last stages of the battle remains one of the most hotly-debated. Resentment at Wellington's failure to recognise the 52nd's key role led the Regiment's George Gawler to take to the pages of the United Services Journal in 1834.

Thirty years later, the Rev William Leeke, one of the most junior ensigns at his first battle, published , in 1866, the history of the Regiment at Waterloo."It is beginning to be more and more widely understood" he opened his Preface with, "that a very great injustice has been done to Lord Seaton and the 52nd Light Infantry, which regiment he commanded [as Lieutenant Colonel Sir John Colborne] by those who have attempted in subsequent years, to write the history of that great battle." Latest to advance the cause of his old regiment is Nigel Sale with ‘The Lie at the Heart of Waterloo' (2014). There are those from the French perspective, such as Paul Dawson, who contend that the 52nd were only opposed by line infantry and not the Imperial Guard at all! (‘Au Pas de Charge!', 2015, and ‘Waterloo: The Truth at Last', 2017)…."
Main page
link

Amicalement
Armand

That old chestnut again. So many recent books ranging from the totally paranoid nonsense to serious academic research. Funny enough I thought "The Lie at the Heart of……" combined both!

Glover's recent "Waterloo, the Defeat of N's Imp Guard etc" is subtitled "….and the End of a 220-year-old controversy". I found it very convincing, totally reasonable in acknowledging that it took a combination of units to achieve the final victory (at the end of a very long day indeed). The speaker should not overlook this tome.

Every recent book on Waterloo has been notable for the dreadful subtitles, surely added by daft publishers

Agree with you my good friend.

Amicalement
Armand