"‘The Belgians ran at the first shot.’ The battle of ..." Topic
8 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 do not use bad language on the forums.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Recent Link
Featured Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Workbench Article
Featured Profile ArticleTaking a look at elements in Land of the Free.
Featured Book Review
|
Tango01 | 20 Apr 2018 3:50 p.m. PST |
…. Waterloo and the rhetoric of cowardice "For many generations British historians have decried the conduct of the Dutch troops at the battle of Waterloo as cowardly, an accusation which Dutch and Belgian historians, in their turn, have tried time and again to refute. This accusation of cowardice results from the exclusive and uncritical use a chauvinistic British historiography made of compatriotic eyewitness accounts. The slighting assessments of the Dutch military they contain, in most cases, derive from misinterpretation: the smoke and noise, the chaos and danger of battle precluded an objective appraisal of each other's combat performance. Miscommunication further enhanced this negative opinion. Since the occasional allies of Waterloo were not allowed time to get to know and appreciate one another, they were unfamiliar with each other's language, uniforms, and command structure. Nonetheless, the British were certainly acquainted with fighting side by side with foreign troops, and they were more than willing, if applicable, to appraise their professionalism. As this common battle experience was lacking at Waterloo, historical prejudices could easily prevail." Main page link Amicalement Armand |
4th Cuirassier | 21 Apr 2018 3:16 a.m. PST |
We should certainly beware of eyewitness accounts, even about Waterloo, and even from scrupulously truthful German sources. |
Tango01 | 21 Apr 2018 11:05 a.m. PST |
|
Gazzola | 22 Apr 2018 4:10 a.m. PST |
Tango01 I think we should be careful with all eyewitness accounts no matter who they are by and how interesting and enjoyable they are to read. Eyewitness accounts are generally based only on what areas of a battle or campaign the writers were personally involved in. However, they do form part of historical research and can offer insights to events and historical characters of all nations. In terms of the Dutch and Belgians, there is a book that looks at how they were and are sometimes viewed even today: Wellington's Hidden Heroes by Veronica Baker-Smith, 2015 |
Tango01 | 22 Apr 2018 3:07 p.m. PST |
Thanks my good friend…. Well… I consider myself as an eyewitness of war… and then … I have read books were the authors never be there and told a war that I have never saw… (smile)
So… it seems that everything is relative … (smile)
Amicalement Armand |
Prince of Essling | 27 Apr 2018 6:54 a.m. PST |
See link Knoop, Willem Jan. Remarques critiques sur l'ouvrage du capitaine Siborne, intitulé : "Histoire de la guerre de 1815 en France et dans la Belgique" et réfutation des accusations qui s'y trouvent contre l'armée néerlandaise, par W. J. Knoop,… traduction française par P. G. Booms,…. 1847. |
Tango01 | 27 Apr 2018 11:19 a.m. PST |
Many thanks!. Amicalement Armand |
Munster | 27 Apr 2018 9:22 p.m. PST |
"Well… I consider myself as an eyewitness of war… and then … I have read books were the authors never be there and told a war that I have never saw… (smile)" All too true, glad you came through, historians of modern conflicts often have a story to tell, rather than telling the story of those who were there |
|