| Tango01 | 14 Dec 2019 10:45 p.m. PST |
….during the French Revolutionary and Napoleonic Wars "In 1815, the Duke of Wellington took command of a multinational army that comprised British, Dutch, Belgian and German troops in the culmination of the 20-year conflict with Revolutionary and Napoleonic France. Such was the contribution of non-British troops to the victory at Waterloo that a recent revisionist history of the campaign has rechristened it ‘The German Victory'.1 Alongside the regiments of the British Army present at Waterloo were units from allied nations, including Hanover, Brunswick, the new Kingdom of Holland and a separate Prussian Army. Also present within Wellington's army was the King's German Legion (KGL), a corps of Hanoverians that had been created when the electorate was overrun by the French in 1803, and there were other links between the allied troops and the British Army. The Brunswick army contained a nucleus of men from the Brunswick regiment which, like the KGL, had found its way into the pay of the British Army as a foreign regiment. As with much of the history of transnational recruitment, Britain's extensive use of foreign troops was a product of manpower demands yet they were maligned despite their significant numbers and involvement in the war…."
Main page
link
Amicalement
Armand
|
| newarch | 15 Dec 2019 5:47 a.m. PST |
I'd dispute the argument that the British looked down upon foreign born soldiers. My understanding is the German and Hanoverian troops in the British Army were very highly thought of, especially the cavalry, who were regarded as much more reliable than the homegrown equivalents. The allied Portuguese were well thought of during the Peninsula campaign. The main issue with Dutch and Belgian troops at Quatre Bras and Waterloo was simply that they were a bit of an unknown quantity, especially the latter, many of whom were sympathetic to the French. |
Dave Jackson  | 15 Dec 2019 7:43 a.m. PST |
I fully agree with you Newark. |
| Tango01 | 15 Dec 2019 3:54 p.m. PST |
If they were not "foreign" troops… why when the War against Napoleon ended… they were all discharged? Amicalement
Armand |
| arthur1815 | 15 Dec 2019 4:32 p.m. PST |
To save money, of course! |
| Green Tiger | 16 Dec 2019 5:55 a.m. PST |
Public opinion was very much in favour of hiring mercenaries or paying foreign powers whilst Britain kept the tyrant at bay with the navy. |
| Tango01 | 16 Dec 2019 11:07 a.m. PST |
|
| newarch | 16 Dec 2019 1:04 p.m. PST |
Over quarter of a million servicemen were discharged by the British following Waterloo, the country simply didn't need and couldn't sustain such a massive army in peacetime. I can't see any particular bias against foreign soldiers in respect of this. |
| Brechtel198 | 16 Dec 2019 3:41 p.m. PST |
How was 'the tyrant held at bay' with the Royal Navy? |
| dibble | 16 Dec 2019 4:33 p.m. PST |
|
| Tango01 | 17 Dec 2019 10:45 a.m. PST |
My vote goes for Trafalgar…. (smile) Amicalement
Armand |
| arthur1815 | 17 Dec 2019 2:21 p.m. PST |
Brechtel198, I think you are being deliberately disingenuous.
Whilst I appreciate from your numerous posts that you don't consider Bonaparte to have been a tyrant (and I don't propose to restart that debate), you must surely accept that by its close blockade of French ports and victories in battles such as Aboukir Bay and Trafalgar the Royal Navy prevented a French invasion of Britain, thereby 'keeping him at bay'. |
paints the Dogman from the Flintloque starter set.
