"Who's more obsessed Waterloo or Gettysburg devotees " Topic

You're average American cares much more about ACW hence Gettysburg than a European care about Napoleonic/Waterloo.

Europeans have thousands of years of wars and battles to bicker about.
Americans got 350 years.

According to Google Books/World Cat.
The most biographies written about:
George Washington 1,070,000
Napoleon 652,000
Jesus Christ 597,000
Franklin Delano Roosevelt 568,000
Peter the Great 565,000
Abraham Lincoln 561,000
Stalin 548,000
Alexander the great 515,000
Winston Churchill 503,000
JFk 368,000
Mao 248,000
Adolf Hitler 197,000

Now expand those categories to include the period in which that person lived or operated. For example, for Napoleon include the period 1792-1815; for Lincoln, include the years of the Civil War, 1861-1865, etc.

Perhaps, the original question should be reset- Which has the most fanatics Waterloo or Gettysburg a) if you are American, b) if a European, or c) from elsewhere.

Personally – I go for Chancellorsville

Waterloo. More interesting battle, more interesting what-ifs and more interesting outcome. Oh, and the uniforms are more fun.

Gettysburg – no idea. I have a book, but haven't bothered to read it.

Gettysburg is so well documented that there is less dispute about the facts of the battle. Timings, placings, units involved, casualty figures, weapons etc etc. The topography has not been destroyed. It is a far more evocative visit than is Waterloo for a complete novice.

There is still a role for "What if" in Gettysburg and how individual commanders could have acted differently, but what they did is well known.

Waterloo, so much is and will always be unknown. Fifty years earlier and in an age when literacy was not so widespread. Add to it a multination battle, add the personality of Napoleon (like him or not, he did define the age) add the (shock?) outcome which effectively ended the "war".

Plus the elegant uniforms, which most were not wearing that day of course………

Waterloo does seem to attract the obsessives (suits my OCD tendency anyway)

How accurate is Google/Worldcat?

Waterloo has been written about a lot more than Gettysburg. It's just that our American friends don't see it that way.

Waterloo was a compact, densely militarily populated battle and is much more interesting too. With its massed cavalry attacks, massed infantry attacks, grand assaults on defended complexes on the left, right and centre. All in the space of 9 hours of almost continual drama. As for the uniforms and spectacle, there's no contest. There's no battle like it in modern history.

Paul :)

I'd venture that Waterloo is nominally the "bigger event" given the international scope and that it involved many of the main players of the global stage.

Gettysburg is a huge national event that didn't resonate until much later, when the US achieved its full momentum on the world stage.

When I look at the battlefields, it's almost blindingly clear that Gettysburg is quite present in the collective minds, whereas Waterloo, once THE watershed event has been overshadowed by WWI and WWII in the popular mind in Europe.

Gettysburg is littered with monuments and is a matter of national pride. No such feelings in Waterloo if only because the country it happened in didn't even exist and most of the people involved were foreigners anyway. And that's the problem, It is celebrated by the British, the French and to a lesser degree by the Germans, whose own mythology places the turning point squarely at Leipzig. And the battle of La Belle Alliance is mostly an afterthought and one last moment of glory for old warhorse Blücher. Same for the Dutch, they put their national moment of glory in the 80-years war, and the Belgians prefer to look to the Battle of the Golden Spurs if you are Flemish or 1830 which is the key moment for the French Speaking part and the reason why the Belgian household has always been of two minds. Waterloo isn't covered with monuments like Gettysburg because everyone involved came from another place and nobody stayed to raise monuments to their own glory other than a handful of national memorials scattered to the more quiet corners of the battlefield.

Waterloo does not have any real political capital because none of the various communities in Belgium can recuperate it as a glorious moment in their history. At best there is some interest in generating a bit of local tourism.

There's no battle like it in modern history.

Sure there are, and some of them are in the Napoleonic period: Wagram, Leipzig, and Dresden were both larger battles and the first two were just as decisive.

And for campaigns, the most effective of the period was Jena in 1806.

Of course, there were no British units involved, except for Leipzig, which may be a factor in your hyperbolic statement above.

No! It's my opinion as it is for many others. Waterloo isn't the most written about for nothing. But then, Napoleon having his Guard thrashed, surrender or run away. His artillery and artillery park captured with the British alone capturing 122 pieces and his army as a whole thoroughly beaten, isn't a very tasteful thing to read about for the Napoleon admirers, now is it?

Paul :)

You are entitled to your own opinion of course; you are not entitled to your own facts.

Hamilton-Williams and Hofschroer would disagree with you on both those points Kevin.

As an American, and an ACW "buff," I'm much more familiar with Gettysburg than with Waterloo. As far as I'm concerned, Gettysburg gets much more than its fair share of what little attention the ACW gets anymore, even in America.

Obsessing over Waterloo? I didn't know anyone was.

D-Day is probably a bigger deal in popular culture than either Waterloo or Gettysburg.

How many Tom Hanks movies / TV series are there about Waterloo?

Sure there are, and some of them are in the Napoleonic period: Wagram, Leipzig, and Dresden were both larger battles and the first two were just as decisive.

How do you work that out? Waterloo was the decisive battle of the Napoleonic period, it ended the wars and saw Bonaparte exiled to rot on an island. Can't get much more decisive than that. But of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong, but it seems to be the opinion of just about everyone else.

Perhaps without the campaign into Russia,, and then Leipzig there never would have been a Waterloo ??
One of my favorite quotes = "We will not stop with Napoleon until we have spilled every ounce of Austrian, Russian, and Prussian blood" -- or something like that.
"oponion of EVERYONE else" or a dozen or so people on TMP?
All through the eyes of wargamers- I think my earlier stats I posted gives a better picture within the general public.
I had a dozen or so fellas attend my Church that were ACW fanatics that never even heard of wargaming.

Regards
Russ Dunaway

Thing is Russ you used that word "perhaps" perhaps, perhaps not. Waterloo ended it all, that's the decisive bit. I also said "just about everyone" not everyone.

Waterloo
No one has ever "Met their Gettysburg"

How do you work that out? Waterloo was the decisive battle of the Napoleonic period, it ended the wars and saw Bonaparte exiled to rot on an island. Can't get much more decisive than that. But of course that's just my opinion, I could be wrong, but it seems to be the opinion of just about everyone else.

First, the study of military history, and the subsequent writing of it, is not an exercise in democracy. There are always majority and minority opinions, and each can be correct on a particular subject.

Second, the period 1792-1815 was a continuing series of wars, not just one and the period 1803-1815 is usually called the Napoleonic Wars, undoubtedly meaning more than one. So, there were treaties and 'endings' to the wars as they came and went. Waterloo was the final one of course, but it wasn't the only decisive one.

Yes it was, it ended the Napoleonic wars. If you'd actually read what I'd written, you would have seen that I said "wars".

Slightly off-topic.
But Napoleon gave u power twice, at the recommendation of his Marshals and the civilian government.
So did Ludendorff in WWI.
Yet Hitler and Japan carried on till their countries were flattened, much like the Syrian rebels have done in Mosul etc.

The whole conversation consists of "pethaps" except where there are some actual numerical facts which could at least be an indication.
The discussion is not an issue of what each individual prefers.

Regards
Russ Dunaway

Brechtel:

You are entitled to your own opinion of course; you are not entitled to your own facts.

My 'facts' are not my 'facts' they are researched facts.

Paul :)

The whole conversation has shifted to which battle was the greatest or most important, in our opinions anyway, and away from "obsessed devotees?"
To measure actual number of "obsessed devotees" it would seem you would have to find some actual numbers based on some actual facts to at least make an educated guess?
Oddly enough, I would say based on this new criteria, "the Russian did it ???"

Regards
Russ Dunaway

@Old Gory
So on that basis I'd say Gettysburg, as America has 300 million people compared with say 100 million Brits and Aussies and Kiwis etc.

What does any countries population size have to do with finding numbers and the "total" amount of people, regardless of where they may live, who have some type of "obsession" with any given subject?
So, if there are that many more Americans that swing the number of "obsessed devotees" in favor of Gettysburg, then that is still the actual number?
As I said in an earlier comment-- I highly doubt that large parts of the populations in Africa or Asia have even heard of these two battles, and if so, then only superficially, certainly no where near being "obsessed devotees" --it would seem to me?
Regards
Russ Dunaway

do I detect some snarky comments here again???

"perhaps ???"

Digby Green,

No one met their "Gettysburg" because that battle did not end the war or result in a decisive defeat and the capture of the head of state. The ACW carried on for two more years. Napoleon was finished, he met his Waterloo.

Brechtel198,

You can expand them to a period, but what is your point? My point was about the number of books written about Hitler in response to another post.

Perhaps you want to level the playing field because Washington has had more time for more books to be written about him. That is certainly is a good point. But the issue was as per the comment I was referring to; was there were more biographies on Hitler than anyone else and the answer is no. Periods not withstanding

How accurate is Google/Worldcat?

Waterloo has been written about a lot more than Gettysburg.

I didn't say anything about that. What are you talking about? I was just responding to a post about the number of books written on Hitler. It was a list of Biographies not about any battles.

As for its accuracy, I have no idea. I honestly thought there were more books about Lincoln than Washington. You have another source that contradicts it, then post it.

Late to the post I know.
The most "anal" gamers for rules and historical accuracy in my years at conventions on average, have always been Nappy's. Don't get me wrong, I love the period and have a lot of metal men to prove it but in my experience, by far Nappy gamers. Like one other said the fact that they argue over the table about if the regimental colors of the uniform during a game should be there…..I have found the fact that it is suppose to be a fun game to play that most or everyone enjoys and not a historic recreation on the table gets lost on many fans of the period. Napoleon period/waterloo for sure, in my experience. Note, I am only talking about gamers, not the general public.

Having checked out the TMP link below I now wonder how I ever had the temerity to ask my original question!

TMP link

Did the French have any chance to win the war? The country was sick of war and the population and horse supply had not rebounded. Most of the good leaders had been killed off or were worn out and overage. The Austrians and Russians had not even gotten onto the field yet. Prussia was not completely mobilized. Every nation in Europe didn't want to live under Napoleon. The allies would never risk Napoleon as leader of France. Even if the Dutch, Prussians and their British allies had retreated, the core of any future French army had been gutted in that battle.

That battle was not that important. France would have been crushed and perhaps even partly partitioned within another 3-9 months. The French people would not have been behind another war. History would not have been changed much……Whereas a big Confederate victory and an end to the War of Northern Aggression, would have lessened the power of the USA over the next century and would have lead to considerable European intervention in the Americas.

Trajanus

That link to the Axe at Hougoumont issue………

That is by far one of the more benign and useful topics on the Napoleonic Forum.

It has shown a great depth of research into "early" (OK not primary, maybe not even secondary, sources) and shows how myths can arise. It rarely got unpleasant and personal and culminated in a superb link, from von W to a paper on Hgmt.

Believe me, there have been far worse than that.

and your question? By far, Waterloo, or Belle Alliance, or Mt St Jean, or Les Cent Jours ,or the War of the Seventh Coalition.

Heck we cannot even agree what to call it. At least with Gettysburg……….

This easily the most entertaining board on TMP.

Heck we cannot even agree what to call it. At least with Gettysburg…

Maybe we can agree on what to call the battle, but we can't agree on what to call the war!

Patrick R

Interesting points about turning points. I imagine the Russians see 1812 as the turning point, while the Germans, as you suggest, see Leipzig as the turning point, and of course the British see Waterloo as the turning point.

So that's three turning points? And three turning points suggests that Napoleon and the French must have been doing okay and had their own turning points, in order for the allied victories to be considered as turning points. LOL

dibble

I was highly amused at your comment (3rd March, 7.06am) concerning Napoleon admirers reading about Waterloo.

You wrote that it 'isn't a very tasteful thing to read about for Napoleon admirers'

I guess that is why the most books I own on any single battle by far are about the Battle of Waterloo. LOL

Obsessive? Napoleonic fans as is pretty obvious from the above posts. The Napoleonic board seems to attract some of the worst posters on the site if the number of Dawghousings is anything to go by. I only look at it to see what has caused the banishment and it seems generally to be the result of a response to a post from a particularly self opinionated fan who loves to make a big thing about his abilities as a historian, and loves to disparage any who disagree with him.

donlowry's comment….brilliant.

Never thought of that. At least as many names for the ACW as for the War of the 7th Coalition!

Belle Alliance due to one of the greatest liars of all times.

I just can't figure this out – who was the greatest liar of all times whose lies caused Waterloo to have more obsessed devotees than Gettysburg? Surely Hofschroer's or Hamilton-William's books weren't that influential? Is it Napoleon?

Boney – who else – his lies to cover up his misakes in that battle are so good, that still a huge amount of people believe them.

Ah! Thanks, and sorry to be so dim.

I only look at it to see what has caused the banishment and it seems generally to be the result of a response to a post from a particularly self opinionated fan who loves to make a big thing about his abilities as a historian, and loves to disparage any who disagree with him.

Those doghoused that I have noticed were posters who became personal in their responses, ad hominem if you like (which by the way is a logical fallacy) because their postings were disagreed with. Perhaps those posters should be more civil?

Is it Napoleon?

Napoleon later said that no one did his duty that day including himself.

He also said that if Berthier had been there he 'would not have met that misfortune.'

…it seems generally to be the result of a response to a post from a particularly self opinionated fan who loves to make a big thing about his abilities as a historian, and loves to disparage any who disagree with him.

I don't think any one individual can be pinpointed as the cause. From what I can see there a number of posters who seem to unable to resist try to score points off others and feel a pathological need to drag their feuds into even tangentially-related topics. I also think that some of them be happier on an academic history forum rather than a wargaming forum.

I also think that some of them be happier on an academic history forum rather than a wargaming forum.

This one always used to be pretty high on the academic history vibe!

link

I don't think this is the only site were debates get heated at times and comments sometimes personal.

And the discussions on this site can often be very informative and helpful to those who may not be aware of other viewpoints/sources etc concerning whatever topic is being discussed.

And yes, sometimes Napoleonic enthusiasts get very passionate about the period and their viewpoints, but there is nothing wrong with that providing they accept that other people might disagree and have different opinions.

Marc at Work – "more interesting battle" but you have yet to read the book on Gettysburg?

SMH at that one.

I rate Gettysburg a more interesting battle – not because I am in the US but because Waterloo was like a battle at the end of a war where it just didn't matter. With the Allies approaching (Austrians, more Prussians, Russians) Napoleon never had a chance.

The Battle of Paris in 1814 saw the downfall of Napoleon – not Waterloo. He was done in 1814. Not 1815 which is just a swansong in a long history of his days as a military commander.

You might say that Napoleon was finished the day he stepped foot in Russia and Spain.

As far as uniforms go .. well we Colonists love those colorful uniforms you European insist on wearing. Makes it easier to target you on the battlefield! LOL

Waterloo remains popular ONLY because Wellington was there. Had Britain not been represented at the battle it would have the same popularity as …. well the Battle of Paris! ROFL

When was the last time a Brit ever wrote ANYTHING about the Battle of Paris which again was THE event of the wars. The gathering of ALL of the Allies that fought on the Continent finally bringing an end to Napoleon's reign.

Sorry Paul – I just have to differ with you that Waterloo was the most interesting Euro battle. Leipzig has far more to offer. HUGE massed charges, MORE Euro troops packed into a small area, MORE guns, you name it. And what coverage does it get? A book by Digby Smith that has tons of quotes about priests more than generals! LOL

That is how much interest folks seem to place on the LARGEST battle in European history prior to WW1. A few books in English on the battle.

Leipzig deserves a 2 to 3 volume treatment. It is that monumental of a battle. Imagine if Napoleon had just cut his losses and returned to France with the bulk of his army intact? He was waiting for the Saxon corps to arrive – which defected during the battle. A Polish division arrived on the first day.

Had he withdrawn on the 17th the battle was over and he would have had some 40,000+ more men to use in 1814.

Waterloo – yawn. Since pretty much its been proven that the Prussians had little part in the outcome why did they even bother to show up (HUGE WINK).

Lets see 8 more books on Leipzig or another of the important battles during the wars long before another Waterloo anything comes out.

I feel the same about Gettysburg too in that regard. I am glad to see ACW books on such topics as the Red River campaign or Chickamauga come out. Gettysburg has been written about a lot and its refreshing to see the authors provide a far more balanced treatment of the ACW than the Euros (and especially British – if its not British the British don't seem to want to write on it).