"The Causes of Napoleon Bonaparte’s Loss at Waterloo 1815" Topic

Minipigs, I rather think you missed the point I was making.

Wargamers writing rules seem to rarely consider that the performance of most armies varied over twenty years with time and a host of other factors. Peronally I find the evolution into industrial warfare and the mobilisation of recognisable modern nations fascinating but trying to analyse the reasons for this variation is beyond the interest of most, so core rules often seem to treat 1805 French the same as their comrades ten years later and the various Coalition forces rarely seem to learn anything.

Also, consider that the reason for a lot of early French successes were due to operational activity (where Napoleon was generally at his best and aided by greater flexibility) rather than any innate tactical superiority. This is difficult to replicate on the tabletop, so instead we get national characteristics to try and compensate, which ignore the fact that in many cases, an advantage was secured before the first shot was fired.

As armies grew larger and supply routes in occupied territory longer, maintaining operational superiority became more difficult. It's the main reason why I think 1814 saw a return to operational form for Napoleon, as he could play to his strengths, albeit to little strategic purpose.

With regards admiring the French army, the stunning successes 1805-7 deserve recognition, but they're also a pretty safe bet for getting into Napoleonics, serving the same purpose as Romans in Ancients and Germans in the Second World War. When you add in the allied nations without which the wars would have been over much sooner, a 'French' army gives you many uniform permutations, even with a small force. My favourite when I started was Confederation of the Rhine troops rather than endless French or Prussian Blue, British Red, Austrian White or Russian Green.

As for the outcome of the Waterloo campaign, with 50% French casualties in a few days against 25% of a much larger Allied force, it does seem claiming that Napoleon's opponents were 'equally wrecked' is a stretch. Certainly the big man himself thought the game was up when he left Grouchy to it and headed for Paris.

Admiration for Napoleon seems to vary, particularly in France itself, so it's not inherently pro-British to temper consideration of his positives with a look at the negatives. I don't think Napoleon was evil ( a strawman you seem fond of), but I do think French hegemony in Europe under an elightened despot would have been less beneficial in the long run for Europe, particularly given his lack of strategic nous. Britain wanted a balance of power on the mainland and was best-placed for driving progress with the industrial revolution due to France's weak economic state.

Finally, I'm not sure why you're still posting if you find these boards intellectually bankrupt, but referring to others as brainwashed because they disagree with you and again highlighting one nationality (I don't really know why British people seem to irritate/agitate you so much) undermines your credibility and will lead to more complaints.

p.s. my name came to mind whilst reading about the Billy Ruffian. Beaux doesn't work so well.

Finally, I'm not sure why you're still posting if you find these boards intellectually bankrupt, but referring to others as brainwashed because they disagree with you and again highlighting one nationality (I don't really know why British people seem to irritate/agitate you so much) undermines your credibility and will lead to more complaints.

I never said the British irritate me or whatever. Who do you think I was referring to as brainwashed? Certainly no one here. My statement was a hypothetical.

That bit about the complaints against me is telling because it would not be the first time Ive noticed the misrepresentation of a mythical group attack which then got unilaterally reported. I suppose a strawman is better than a Trojan horse. I'm not the one trying to shut anyone down. Thanks for that.

If posters want to have their opinions, that's great but it doesnt stop there and attacks against myself and Brechtel are commonplace if we dont accept the Wellington-rules the-waves narrative.

There is nothing that I said referencing your opinion on Napoleonic wargaming rules that would justify your response. I am sorry but your post is simply bullying towards me rearranged to look like I was attacking you and I will not accept it.

The cynic in me can't resist thinking that no one is as good as their own publicity. We are just too fond of our heroes, too prone to confirmation bias. Throwing titles like greatest around sounds more like Top Trumps to me than serious historical debate or simulation. All those dice roll modifiers just allow us to feed our prejudices.

Then our 'favourite' elite troops, under our 'great' general won't take too many casualties and turn tail and run from some line troops and 'unreliable' militia and landwehr. Isn't that the very cicumstance we are dicussing though?

But wait, don't we use dice (or other randomiser functions) for a reason? Might it just be that all that Eliteness and Genius were not as important as we thought? Perhaps warfare just has too many moving parts and actually Napoleon had merely visited the casino of battle a little too often?

We are like sports commentators , endlessly analysing and re-analysing and occaisionaly getting over emotional about our heroes. There is a reason bookmakers ask us to gamble on sports, because we believe we can predict the results, but in reality bad teams beat good teams, and even dream teams have a bad day. That is on team sports of a dozen or two, battles involve thousands. How are we supposed to be pundits for that?

History is not a search for truth or being right, it is about interpreting reality. We need to start with the harsh reality that even great generals lose and the bravest and most elite troops run away now and again, and work out from there.

In that respect Napoleon and Waterloo is a solid case in point.

Minipigs, I care little for what you accept, but in the interest of setting the record straight, I'll remind you of your posting:

'In any case, i keep getting sucked into this blither-sphere, probably because I find it intellectually bankrupt. Maybe the posters here are unaware of how they come across but there is a pro British bent in the histories on this campaign. It doesnt mean those books arent enjoyable but *anyone who remains brainwashed by the jingoistic microwaves* will find themselves an object of derision by others. Although it is true that it seems that *only a minute subsection of one nationality fanatically detonates itself against Napoleon, it also seems to be mostly on here*, which can be tiring; almost as tiring as the delusion that a few thousand archers killed every French knight at Agincourt.'

Emphasis mine. That reference to fanaticism after your brainwashing comment isn't a hypothetical. I'm not sure why you chose to bring Agincourt into a discussion about Napoleon (who was no stranger to positive propaganda himself).As 42Flanker pointed out, you do paint with a broad brush as times, so expect to be challenged. If you prefer though, I can just push the complaint button immediately when you make group attacks, rather than pointing them out to you? Free speech considerations do not apply on this forum, but attacking the person and not the argument do.

As for the wargaming rules explanation (and coincidentally, on the topic of misrepresentation), I was unclear how you read my initial statement as 'pointing out that most people admire Napoleon'? That would be a presumptuous statement indeed and as I actually pointed out, opinion is divided beyond the Anglosphere. I think most people (in the general population?) are more aware of his activities as a general, but even then, the Russian Campaign and Waterloo are prominent.

My issue is more to do with the imperfect science that is miniature wargaming, which involves a number of compromises and thus can lead to a distorted understanding of historical events.

Handlebarbleep, your post reminds me of a quote from The Prophet, which I re-read recently:

'"Say not, "I have found the truth," but rather, "I have found a truth."

Someone else said that an argument is to see who is right, whereas a discussion is to discover what is right.

I'm a big fan of Wes Anderson's films and a quote came to mind when I considered how Napoleon rose to power but was unable to sustain it, in my opinion, at least partly due to a failure to appreciate the wider strategic context and thinking winning battles was enough to secure lasting power.

"To be frank, I think his world had vanished long before he ever entered it – but, I will say: he certainly sustained the illusion with a marvelous grace!"

Any declaration that there's a pro-British bent in histories of Waterloo needs to be stood up in two ways. One is a list of British sources that understate the allied contribution and that is long enough to be demonstrably representative of the remainder. We've been over this a million times. There aren't any, never mind a list, never mind even four or five.

The other is by a comparison with what non-British writers say and what sources they use. If you read modern German-language writers on Waterloo, oddly enough, they rely heavily on British sources too.

The idea that there some motherlode of German, French, Dutch (or any language but the repellent English) sources out there, untainted by disgusting Anglocentrism, in which The Truth can be found, is laughable, immature guff.

If you're one of those people who hates Britain and the British, just say so out loud so we all know to stifle you or at least discount your opinions appropriately.

4th Cuirassier

Do you really believe that if people make a negative comment about Napoleonic Britain or the British in action, that they must hate Britain or the British?

That sounds like a get-out excuse for ignoring anything other than praise for the British, which in turns suggest anyone foolish enough to think that way, is ignoring the reality of history.

And if people admire Napoleon or the Napoleonic French, that is their choice. It does not mean you have to do the same or agree with them. But to make out they must hate their country and must let everyone know so that they can be stifled, sounds like a sad, desperate plea on your behalf for people to stop posting their opinions in case they disagree you opinions and viewpoints.

Don't ask for the stifle, much better to debate.

Handlebarbleep

I fully respect your post on respecting other people's viewpoints and opinions. That's how it should be, after all, no one is forced to agree with other people's opinions and it is sometimes interesting and educational to hear why other people's viewpoints differ etc. Sometimes of course, they are sadly just led by their bias, which ruins debate.

Even so and when people post things like 'Prussians couldn't win a battle in 1815 without Wellington's aid' and others suggest that people must 'loathe their country' or that they should admit it so they can be 'stifled', you just have to ignore such desperate posts and continue to state, debate and support your own viewpoints and opinions.

Talking of which, I think I stated that the British had never been defeated in the Peninsular. I must take that back because they did, at least on three occasions. Badajoz, Burgos and Fuengirola. I was reminded of this when posting recently in the Fuengirola 1810 thread.

But saying that and although the overall commander at Fuengirola was British and was captured, it could be considered more of an allied defeat, since only half the actual troops involved were actually British. When I researched it in 2008 I thought I would be looking at a siege action but it turns out most of the fighting took place on the beach and area surrounding the fort, so technically a field action, albeit a small one compared to the main field actions. No doubt others will disagree. But you can't change the facts and the reality of the action.

"…a marvellous grace".

Crikey. I understand the current estimate of French military deaths in the Napoleonic Wars is about 900,000. This would take total deaths (other combatant nations, civilians) into the millions. There will doubtless be people on this forum who can provide more accurate estimates. Plus of course the
incalculable suffering from starvation, disease, wounds, rape, pillage and God knows what else. And to what purpose? Napoleon's lust for glory and power and his desire to found a lasting family dynasty.

I appreciate these impulses were not uncommon amongst his opponents in the ruling monarchies of Europe, but Napoleon's determination to achieve his worthless ends through war and aggression appear to single him out even in this company.

This is one of those towering figures in history of whom we can safely say that it would have been better if he had never lived. People can go on about the Code Napoleon as much as they like but Napoleon's administrative achievements do not even begin to justify his actions as leader of France.

This is of course a forum, and a thread, that is supposed to be about military history and wargaming. I appreciate Napoleon's extraordinary abilities as a military commander, but I'm afraid I couldn't allow this more general remark to go unanswered.

Keith Flint.

"Wargamers writing rules seem to rarely consider that the performance of most armies varied over twenty years with time and a host of other factors."

On the other hand, La Belle Ruffian, this is a remark I can whole-heartedly agree with.

@Gazzola and @La Belle Ruffian

I agree fully that we should be free to intellectually question and challenge another's conclusions. After all, that is how we collectively learn and move our understanding forward, from one imperfect interpretation to another slightly less imperfect one.

I draw the line when we then critique not the logic but the person. I believe labels like "uniformed", "wrong-headed" or even "brainwashed" are unhelpful. As is merely peddling prejudiced views on who were "good" or "bad" secondary sources and then criticising someones scholarship off the back of not agreeing with you about their relative merit.

Yes, we are interested in history, but we are all equals. No one is playing teacher, correcting their students or grading our essays. I actually get quite heated when that attitude surfaces. It is the height of arrogance (and quite dangerous) to assume you are the best read or have the superior library on here.

I particularly get upset when veterans talk down to 'civilians', claiming that their service gives them special insight. Get over yourselves, we are talking about two centuries ago. "The past is a foreign country, they do things differently there" as LP Hartley put it. (Before anyone accuses me of being anti-veteran, I've got more more than two and a half decades of spud bashing and sandbag filling in myself)

We are on the golden journey to Samarkand "We are the Pilgrims, master: we shall go Always a little further: it may be Beyond that last blue mountain barred with snow, Across that angry or that glimmering sea."

So in good fellowship, let us go on that pilgrimage together.

Keith, I did say that he was no stranger to positive propaganda ;)

Whilst I'm pretty sure I'd rather spend an hour trapped in a lift with Msr Gustave than Napoleon, if we go back to most absolute monarchs then we find few who didn't commit or condone actions we would condemn wholeheartedly nowadays and the same applies to many generals. I'm reminded though, that the past is another country, where they do things differently. If we're to have rulers then I think the constitutional figurehead is my preferred model.

Whilst bloody though, the Napoleonic wars were just one period of conflict amongst many over the previous centuries. For me, the significance is the absolute end of hundreds of years of French dominance. That's not entirely due to NB's ultimate failure to achieve his personal aims of course; the French monarchy's support for the American Revolution and then the chaos of the French Revolutionary period hastened the process no end.

I certainly rate General Bonaparte far higher than Emperor Napoleon the statesman, but I can understand why his earlier successes meant that he rode his luck, when he should have sought a compromise. He was an opportunist, who with some cause, believed his early press and then wrote the rest himself. He was no monster when compared to his peers, but I do wish people would also recognise his serious flaws.

Now, a friend did mention to me that that he felt Napoleon's dismembering of the HRE and formation of the Confederation of the Rhine actually accelerated the process of German nationalism and unification. If only he could have seen the future…

You feel terms like brainwashed are unhelpful when leveled against those who consume pro-British Napoleonic propaganda, eh? A group which it seems most in this forum say doesn't exist and yet still sparks indignation. I suppose there's a little unicorn in us all? Although a few seem to have sat on the horn.

Recognized attacks and rudeness seems to be something of a one way street. Here's a few choice, "helpful: bits from this thread; some of them paeans to stimulating, intellectual discussion:

…pretty inane for someone who parades himself as a "trained" historian. Any more ahistorical gibberish you'd like to dazzle us with?

Yes, there was more mud at Waterloo than British troops, which proves Wellington lost.

Well, quite. The alternative is to accept that the side with the better troops and leaders won, which is completely unacceptable to latter-day Buonapartist fanboiz.

If only Bonaparte had a couple of Apache gunships, he would definitely have won.

Ever two or three months the same question crops up and we go over the same ground again and again. "Why did Napoleon lose at Waterloo?" The same arguments are brought out because the "Lost Cause" of Boney is too much for some people.

Both sets want to know how their "God of War" was beaten by those the perceive as lesser men. Yankees and Allies have overwhelming numbers and they're mere flunkies of the Ancien Régime or greedy industrialist who somehow cheated.

I've never really understood the tired old canard that claims that Wellington, c19th British historians, or wider British society sought to denigrate the role of the Prussians at the battle, and portray it as a solely British victory.

This is one of the most common accusations flung about in the lower end of the Napoleonic history market

I suspect that what the revisionists are angry about is the impression lay people get about Waterloo from non-historical sources.

There's a Waterloo Station in London, Abba sang that "At Waterloo Napoleon did surrender", and so on. Therefore Waterloo must have been a British victory.

The argument that this is perceived as a British victory is the revisionist position. From this straw man, which cannot be substantiated by reference to the work of any historian, they (Hamilton-Williams, Hofschroer) proceed to insist that it wasn't.

The point is we all know that. What we hear much less of – from the same very loud mouths –

This is clearly very, very hard for the revisionists to understand, much less swallow.

Strawmen, revisionists, swallow? Are these words tools of the dispassionate intellectual or the street fighter?

Minipigs, I care little for what you accept, but in the interest of setting the record straight, I'll remind you of your posting:

I know, I know. But we all have to admit that for a group of pro-British napoleonic enthusiasts and authors who dont exist, there certainly seems to be enough bluster and hypersensitivity to make one wonder who exactly needs defending?

There are enough belittling comments, arrogant assumptions plain, old fashioned vitriol and dismissals of other people's point of view to supply a 12lb battery with grapeshot for en entire battle.

The problem I see on this site (and not just this site of course) is that too many people get emotionally involved over an historical matter that took place over 200 years ago and has absolutely no bearing on today.

Now, a friend did mention to me that that he felt Napoleon's dismembering of the HRE …

Actually the Austrian Emperor (after making himself AUSTRIAN emperor instead of drawing this title simply from the Empire) dissolved the Empire to prevent Napoleon to take over its institutions and transform it into one of his tools, probably by extending his title from Emperor of the Franks to Roman Emperor.

There are enough belittling comments, arrogant assumptions plain, old fashioned vitriol and dismissals of other people's point of view to supply a 12lb battery with grapeshot for en entire battle.

An insightful comment. Well done.

History is not a search for truth or being right, it is about interpreting reality.

No, the study of history is about researching and collecting facts and different subjects and then interpreting those facts to come to a logical conclusion.

That process is called historical inquiry. There are many 'truths' and that can be misleading. I always look sideways at any book title, for example, that has the word 'truth' in it.

I agree with MiniPigs in his many points regarding the double standard employed by many here especially when they disagree with someone.

I found the following which may, or may not be helpful regarding British propaganda of the Napoleonic period, and which is still being used today both on historical forums and in some dubious publications:

From The Secret War Against Napoleon: Britain's Assassination Plot on the French Emperor by Tim Clayton, 12-13.

‘Through their propaganda strategy the British made the central issue the question of whether or not Napoleon was really a villain-ground over which biographers are still arguing. By doing so they succeeded in deflecting attention away from the question of what the British themselves were up to (one that Napoleon attempted to pose unavailingly in his own propaganda), and whether it was a good thing that Europe should continue to be ruled by kings, princes, clerics and-as grew more and more evident under Pitt and subsequent British ministries-bankers. This Dark Business is not a defense of Napoleon but an explanation of how and why the British government turned him into a monster-and of how astonishingly successful in the long term that gambit proved to be. Although it is utterly obvious that such a thing happened, the story has never been told. There is still a gap in Napoleonic literature at precisely this point: how Napoleon was painted black.'

‘Ultimately, this policy was highly successful. At times it was also executed with considerable skill, and much of the nation's literary and artistic talent rallied to its narrative and was reinforced by talent from other nations. This book emphasizes the role of the British government in forcing Bonaparte into courses of action that it could then portray in a bad light as evidence of insatiable ambition and warmongering. Its constant plotting, spying, and shrill, mendacious propaganda persuaded him to call Fouche back into action after he had attempted to relax police supervision during and after the Peace of Amiens and, in accordance with traditional continental practice, to suppress hostile journals (which were all subsidized by the British government). The British dubbed this tyranny in action and the suppression of free speech-a view that survives to this day. Yet Pitt's government had systematically suppressed and intimidated opposition voices in Britain. Propaganda is always more effective if it is not seen to be propaganda, and the government took great pains to proclaim the independence of the British press, and to disguise their involvement in and influence over the production of newspapers, periodicals, pamphlets and caricatures. The illusion of spontaneous expression was massively effective and it was partly true-there was no formal system of censorship, and very few organs of communication were fully in a ministry's control.'

What is the difference between facts and reality ?

Minipigs, the rules on attacks here permit comment on someone's argument or behaviour, rather than the individual.

As such, terms such strawman are well within the rules, given that they refer to the argument. The simple way to avoid the accusation in discussion is to respond to what people are actually saying and provide evidence for your own statements. Likewise, revisionist is a common term in historiography, to describe the approach taken by those who challenge the current orthodoxy.

I would agree that 'fanboiz' is a derogatory comment about the individual and should not be used. I will note however that responding in kind and then claiming innocence or justfication is something I have yet to note from the person who used it. Certainly, I see little evidence of 'bluster and hypersensitivity' on their part, at least.

As for 'belittling comments, arrogant assumptions plain, old fashioned vitriol and dismissals of other people's point of view' I think most impartial observers of these boards would agree that is not the sole purview of those who disagree with you.

Chad 47, it is much easier choosing facts than discovering (and accepting) the multi-faceted reality.

Michael Westman, I couldn't agree more. Beyond these boards, it seems that despite (or perhaps because of) the multitude of sources available on any number of topics and events, people want ever-simpler solutions in a world of black and white.

Puster – good catch. I have been enjoying 'Fall of Eagles' on Youtube recently, but it starts much later.

@Chad47

Reality is what we all experience, 'facts' are isolated data points that pedants can 'prove' at the cost of everyone else. That's why I prefer to use terms like common reality and evidence.

I have seen an individual manufacture an entire staff college that did not exist, run by someone who was documented in a contemporary source as being on the other side of the Europe at the time, because it fitted their 'facts'. In reality the evidence was no more than one dodgy piece of annex from a partisan source added to an original document 200 years after the so called event.

I wouldn't buy facts like that if you could get a gross for a nickel. Head over to the Napoleonicwars forum and search for Bourcet. It's a hoot.

@Chad47

What is the difference between facts and reality ?

The differences are simple, really.

The facts are that Wellington beat both Napoleon and the French. The reality is if you don't accept this 100%, you'll get attacked. Further, those attacks will get repackaged as if you're attacking the attackers.

The facts are that Wellington beat both Napoleon and the French. The reality is if you don't accept this 100%, you'll get attacked.

Well, please don't consider this as an attack but, good Lord, the Emperor and his army must surely have retreated for some reason.

Brechtel:

"Britain's Assassination Plot on the French Emperor by Tim Clayton, 12-13."

From a book (by an avowed Nappy fawner) with no evidence that the British Government was complicit in plots or the attempted assassination of the Ogre. The book is nothing but a rant of rubbish put together by a nutcase.

When evidence crops up, please, please PM me on the other site. Or you could start a new thread here on TMP.

@ HBB

let us go on that pilgrimage together.

The problem here is that you're debating with people who think that they've already arrived, and you're still on your journey.

The wider problem is that all objectively-written histories end up acknowledging the importance of the British contribution, notably the command contribution, no matter what language they're written in. Someone who for their own reasons is on a mission to belittle this contribution, but who can't find the analysis to support their position, obviously has to resort to dismissing all scholarship on the campaign as "pro-British". History has been wickedly subverted by the evil British.

All I do is call this tendency out and invite those who argue from this position to substantiate it. Before we agree to upend 200 years of history and historiography, let's have a good long list of pro-British sources that distort history and understate the allied contribution. Any thread is fine.

It has never happened and will never happen, which IMHO places adherents of the "Waterloo history is British propaganda" school very firmly in the tinfoil hat tendency.

Who has stated that 'Waterloo history is British propaganda'?

Here are some examples of British propaganda against Napoleon personally meant to demonize him and defame his character:

The following can be found in Tom Clayton's The Secret War Against Napoleon, Chapter 12.

‘As to Buonaparte himself, there is every feature in his character, every circumstance in his conduct, to render it certain that no species of fortune, mental and bodily, no sort of infamy, which a malignant spirit, a depraved imagination, and a heart black with crimes of the deepest dye, can possible suggest, or a hand, still reeking with the blood of murdered innocence and stimulated by the most insatiable thirst of vengeance, can inflict, which will not be exhausted upon the conquered inhabitants of the British empire.-Anti-Jacobin Review, xv, 332-333, 1803.

‘A revolutionist by constitution, a conqueror by subordination, cruel and unjust by instinct, insulting in victory, mercenary in his patronage; an inexorable plunderer and murderer, purchased by the victims whose credulity he betrays, as terrible by his artifices as by his arms, dishonoring valor with ferocity, and by the studied abuse of public faith, crowning immorality with the palms of philosophy, tyranny and atheism with the cloak of religion, and oppression with the cap of liberty.'-Revolutionary Plutarch, II, 204; 227.

‘An obscure Corsican, that began his murderous career by turning his artillery upon the citizens of Paris-who boasted in his public letter from Pavia of having shot the whole municipality-who put the helpless, innocent, and unoffending inhabitants of Alexandria, man, woman, and child, to the sword till slaughter was tired of its work-who against all the laws of war, put near 4,000 Turks to death in cold blood, after their surrender-who destroyed his own comrades by poison.'-Buonaparte's True Character, Wheeler and Broadley, Invasion, II, 284.

‘The contents of these volumes are interesting in a remarkable degree; as detailing, either from personal knowledge, or from accredited works of other writers, the lives, conduct, and crimes, of every person distinguished as a relative, a courtier, a favorite, a tool, an accomplice, or a rival of the Corsican upstart, who has hitherto with impunity oppressed, and plundered the continent of Europe; and as exhibiting at the same time a clear display of the extraordinary kind of police by which Paris is now regulated. Such a mass of moral turpitude as is here displayed, yet in a form that leaves little room to suspect its authenticity makes up blush for out species.'-European Magazine XLV, 56, 1804.

And then there are these two from more British publications:

‘Fear is always cruel…In the late war and in the present the British Ministry has been loudly accused of participating in, and encouraging those plans of assassination, which have been directed against the person of the chief magistrate of France. Let the ministry, if they can with truth, vindicate themselves from so black a charge by a solemn and authentic disavowal; and let the British public show the high honor and intrepid courage, for which they have long been renowned, by consigning to merited contempt and abhorrence all works, together with their authors, who direct tendency is to degrade the generous and high-spirited patriot into the lurking assassin.'-Annual Review and History of Literature II, 510, 1803.

‘It has been considered an appropriate appendage to this work, to republish the celebrated pamphlet of ‘Killing no Murder,' one of the most singular controversial pieces the political literature of our country has to boast; one of those happy productions which are perpetually valuable, and which, whenever a usurper reigns, appears as if written at the moment, and points with equal force at a Protector-or a Consul.'-originally from Killing No Murder directed against Oliver Cromwell and resurrected to be against First Consul Bonaparte.

The problem with propaganda is that it is most effective when it has a grain or two of truth in it. There is also the matter of intent, ie the purpose for which is written. If the critera is to influence public opinion, even if it means playing fast and lose with the truth, then almost all of Napoleon's Bulletins are propaganda, even if only of the mildest kind.

Propaganda was, and remains, a perfectly valid tool of war. I wouldn't criticise either side for using it. We might dress it up and send it to school today by calling it Psyops. Napoleon was an excellent proponent of psychological operations, and this was recognised by Wellington. His comments about many armies being half beaten before they entered the field, or that his hat was worth thousands of men on the battlefield showed he understood the effects.

I think it would be wrong to conflate period propoganda with what some here are accusing each other of.

Wellington definately had his adherents and had periods of great popularity, probably no more than after Waterloo. But he lived long enough to become unpopular. Remember the Iron Duke epithet referred to him protecting his windows from the mob! He remained in public life into old age, his deafness even christening the "Hoo Hoo" cabinet.

Napoleon didn't not suffer the ignomies of old age, and his later years were in seclusion. Napoleon had the good grace to die a 'persecuted' prisoner, still spinning his grievances almost to the last. This has meant that the persona he had crafted survived and lives still, and if anything his defeat and demise has only added a hint of martyrdom.

If you think that's claptrap, people have to Google where Wellington is buried, and even then at best he shares top billing with Nelson (in the end though, Nelson is way more famous than him). Des Invalides is a very different proposition, and you can see where the accusations of a cult started.

Brechtel:

So why do you suppose, was British propaganda so negative towards the 'Corse Ogre'? Could it be because he was the tyrannical head of an Enemy perhaps? One wonders what his regime were publishing about the British? Perhaps they were all olive branch waving whereas the nasty Eenglishh' were horrible name callers and tongue pokie-outers.

Just one hundred years later and the example of the Boche were executing civilians, getting found out, then concocting the 'dum-dum' lie that the British were using the No.3 Magazine cut-off to misshape the Mk.VII bullet-head. Bull**** of course, but as happened then, so the same types of 'propaganda' shenanigans went 100 years before and would happen again 25-30 years later and carry on throughout the cold war. Most of it inflated, half-truths and some myth. It was used by all sides.

PS.

More Clayton? That Loon drips Napoleon cultism like no other…

Oh! and instead of carrying on with an occurrence that happened years earlier, Can we get back to 'Napoleon the well trounced' of Waterloo?…

I wonder if there might be a clue,
in the title "Anti-Jacobin Review'?

dibble

'nutcase' 'loon' really? I guess Tim Clayton must have said something negative about the British. LOL

@Gazzola

I realise you are being humourous, but you inadvertantly reveal part of the problem. We tend to think/converse in polar axes, such as French vs British or Napoleon vs Wellington.

The reality is we can recognise hagiography without there being polarisation.

Handlebarbleep

It's called banter. I'm sure dibble can take it. He's pretty good at giving it to others.

And actually, I'm stating a reality. Dibble does tend to blow his top and insult anyone daring to offer anything negative about the British.

Stand your ground, defend your viewpoint by all means. But to insult others just because they offer a different viewpoint and one dibble certainly does not agree with or wants to hear, that's the real problem.

And I'm actually surprised dibble is saying anything about the Tim Clayton book anyway, considering he stated in a thread about the book (2019) 'I have not read the book through and nor will I' Of course he could have been, joking, after all, he later gave it one star review on Amazon. And I'm sure he wouldn't write a review without actually reading the book, all of it. LOL

And as much as we all want to debate sensibly and with facts and arguments etc, I think when someone offers a statement like 'Napoleon the well trounced of Waterloo', that some people are far too entrenched into their biased opinions to even consider anything that might challenge it. After all, you'd have to be a 'loon, nutcase or Nappy worshipper' not to think the way some people do. LOL

But I'm sure there'll be plenty of debates, arguments, disagreements and no doubt insults yet to come. The solution is not to take anything said personally, after all, history cannot be changed. No matter what is said or discovered, Napoleon will always lose at Waterloo and the battle will always be an allied victory, not a British one though. LOL

@Gazzola

You make some very valid points, but we get the same from both perspectives. Whenever I try and inject even a note of realism into any aspect of Napoleon's character, I get accused of defaming him (as if the dead could sue!). It seems that plenty are still keeping some kind of sacred flame going. Ironically, i don't think that is actually doing the proper assessment of Napoleon the man, much less as a general, much of a favour, particularly if he has to compete with a legend.

Whilst Wellington has his defenders, I don't get the impression that he attracted quite the same adulation then, and certainly not now. Poor old Bluecher seems to get rubbished by all comers, but the irony is not lost on me when it comes from a Napoleon supporter, don't they realise that by diminishing the talents of his opponents they just make Napoleon's performance look worse?

My take on it is that all three commanders made some pretty serious strategic and tactical mistakes. The winners were either those who made fewer or having made them recovered quickest before their opponent exploited them. Fortunate timing (ie luck) had a much more significant role than many admit to.

To me, all that illustrates that nobody, no matter how talented, can go on beating the odds forever. Wellington was famously cautious, and ultimately looks good because he could quit whilst he was ahead. Napoleon looks bad because he rolled the dice too often and his risk taking eventually caught up with him.

All this emperor's immortal memory and invincible plucky Brits stuff is bunkum, on both sides.

Yes, we British have been quite a warlike race, and went on to establish the largest empire the world has ever seen. However, we didn't win every time, it came off the back of some quite unsavoury practices and was attended by pretty considerable dollops of luck rather than good judgement.

Yes, by any standards Napoleon was a remarkable individual, and not necessarily the ogre he was portrayed as at the time. However, he was no saint and not infallible despite his carefully crafted persona and almost cult like iconography. His empire was ultimately a failure. He rode his luck more than once, and eventually that was his undoing.

@Michael Westman

"..too many people get emotionally involved over an historical matter that took place over 200 years ago and has absolutely no bearing on today."

Easy to say from the other side of the pond. One portmanteaux word refutes that. Brexit.

Belgium

One is a list of British sources that understate the allied contribution and that is long enough to be demonstrably representative of the remainder. We've been over this a million times. There aren't any

Just stumbled over the Waterloo diorama made by Sliborne, and that he had to remove some 20000 Prussian miniatures to not overemphasize their effect on the battle. While this certainly does not make a list, it probably qualifies as "any", and considering that there had to be some pressure on him to modify his diorama shows the contemporary British view upon that battle.

What's the basis of the assertion that "he had to remove some 20000 Prussian miniatures to not overemphasize their effect on the battle" (my emphasis)?

Is it Hofschroer? It is, isn't it?

Its on the website of Royalarmouries. No idea who the author is, though:

link

Only one major criticism was raised, that it over represented the contribution of the Prussians in the final victory, and in the end Siborne rectified the ‘error' by removing almost 20,000 figures.

Edit: A small search indicates that the info on that site may indeed go back to Peter Hofschroer, as he is given as source for the used image. Does that make the info wrong?

Edit2: I never read anything from Hofschröter, but he seems to be focussed (probably a bit too focussed) on the German aspect of Waterloo. He also published a book on Siborne and the diorama, which is available used for less then a fiver including shipping. Just ordered one, to judge myself how he is working with sources.

Only one major criticism was raised, that it over represented the contribution of the Prussians in the final victory, and in the end Siborne rectified the ‘error' by removing almost 20,000 figures.

I cannot see that P.H: has anything to do with this, it was seemingly the British public which wanted to bake in the glory of winning at Belle Alliance.

As today some cannot accept the plain truth that without Blücher fulfilling his promise to aid his brother of Arms Wellington, Wellington's army would have been torn to pieces.

You don't have to read German books on that, read Andrew Field's series the French perspective and realize how close, despite Prussian timely interference his army was at the collapse.

I am not sure the British public had much to say about Siborne's detailed management of his model.

Here is what Siborne wrote in the 2nd Edition of his 'History of the War in France and Belgium, in 1815' (1844), Volume 2. pp. 270-72. Make of it what you will. Sections in bold are mine. I have also taken the liberty of some additional paragraph breaks marked thus '/'.

[FOOTNOTE] "* The description given, in the present work, of the distribution of the Prussian troops at the moment of the defeat of the attacking columns of the French imperial guard by Maitland's and Adam's British brigades, being at variance with the representation of those troops upon the Model of the Battle of Waterloo when the latter was first submitted to the public, some explanation of the grounds upon which this deviation from my original arrangement is founded, appears to be requisite.

Having applied to the Prussian government for the information I required concerning the disposition of their troops at that particular moment represented on the model, it was most readily and liberally supplied to me by the officers of the head-quarters staff in Berlin, at the instance of the Prussian minister of war. This information, wbich was given with minute detail, was rendered more complete by the distribution of the troops having been laid down upon a plan, drawn on a large scale. On comparing these data with the evidence I had collected from officers of rank and intelligence, posted, some throughout the greater part of the battle, and others, during the whole day, on the left of the Anglo-allied line, whence the Prussian movements could be distinguished, I felt perfectly satisfied that there could be no doubt as to their accuracy on certain points, whilst upon others, this evidence was of too vague a nature, as regarded time and situation, to enable me either to corroborate or to rectify the details with which I had been furnished by the Prussian authorities. Thus, for instance, the junction of the leading column of Zieten's corps with the left of the Anglo-allied line, the forming up of the cavalry of that column on the flank, and in the rear, of Best's Hanoverian brigade, the relief of a Hanoverian battery by a Prussian battery upon the summit or knoll on which the Anglo-allied left rested, as also the previous conflicts in and about both Planchenoit and Smohain, upon the extreme right of the French army, are facts satisfactorily confirmed by corroborative evidence. But, as regards the disposition of the Prussian troops between the extreme left of the Anglo-allied line and the immediate vicinity of Planchenoit, I feel equally satisfied, after a most careful and diligent investigation of the whole question of the Prussian co-operation, in all its bearings, that, according to the original arrangement of the figures upon the model, the Prussian troops distributed along that intervening space, immediately in front of Lobau's corps, were represented in too forward a position./

It was only subsequently, when collecting that further information which has enabled me in the present work to describe with such minuteness of detail those brilliant dispositions of the Duke of Wellingtion, by which he not only defeated the French imperial guard upon his own position, but secured the victory, that I discovered the error into which the Prussian authorities had been unconsciously but naturally led, when laying down for me the distribution of their troops along that part of the field to which I have particularly adverted, and which distribution gave the appearance of a much greater pressure upon
the French right flank than could have occurred at the moment represented on the model./

The cause of this error is very simple, and is easily explained. All the Prussian accounts of the battle, more especially those two which bave appeared "under authority,"-I allude to that published in 1825, by Colonel Wagner, of the Prussian staff, and to the more recently published history by Major von Damitz of the same staff, founded upon materials furnished by General von Grolman, who was employed in the capacity of quarter-master-general of the Prussian army during the campaign of 1815 -concur in representing the Duke of Wellington's defeat of the attacking columns of the imperial guard, and the advance of his whole line, as happening at one and the same moment; whereas, in reality, there was an interval of at least twelve minutes between these two incidents. The Prussian authorities have not hitherto been cognizant of the fact that when the British line advanced, Vivian's light cavalry-brigade was attacking and dispersing Napoleon's last reserves of both cavalry and infantry posted on the French left of La Belle Alliance, the very centre of the enemy's lines; that Adam's light infantry brigade was attacking and defeating the rallied force of the first attacking column of the imperial guard upon the height situated midway between La Belle Alliance and La Haye Sainte; and that Vandeleur's light cavalry-brigade was pushed forward in support of Vivian./

These attacks, planned with consummate judgment and electric decision, and carried into execution with perfect order and unequalled gallantry, could not, from the configuration of the ground, be observed by the Prussian army; to which circumstance may be attributed the origin of that miscalculation concerning the actual disposition of the Duke of Wellington's forces at the moment of the general advance of his line, which induced the Prussian authorities to confound that advance with the defeat of the attacking columns of the imperial guard./

When, therefore, those authorities, with a liberality and good feeling for which I can never feel sufficiently grateful, furnished me with the information I solicited relative to the distribution of the troops "at the moment of the defeat of the imperial guard upon the crest of the British position," they did so under the impression that that event and the general advance of the Anglo-allied line were coincident. Hence the fact of the Prussian troops, along the central portion of their line, having continued advancing against the French right up to the moment of the general forward movement of the Anglo-allied line, has rendered it necessary, in order to afford a more correct representation, to make such alteration upon the model in the dispositions and movements of those troops as shall accord in point of time with the defeat of the attacking columns of the imperial guard, instead of their being made to conform, as they previously did, with the moment of the general advance of the Duke of Wellington's army; which advance, it should be remembered, was made by his Grace to follow up a victory he had already secured, and, in conjunction with the Prussian attack, to render the overthrow of the enemy complete in every respect./

This arrangement, which has been observed upon the illustrative plan accompanying the present work, will, I feel persuaded, present the nearest attainable approximation to truth, and I trust, at the same time, prove satisfactory, by means of the foregoing explanation, to those of either pation who have shared in, or studied, the memorable events of the glorious 18th of June.

I may take this opportunity of remarking that notwithstanding the complicated details which must necessarily be comprised in a modelled representation of a battle, like that of Waterloo, at so late a period of the action, only one single instance of inaccuracy has been pointed out to me as occurring in the distribution of the Anglo allied troops- namely, the posting of the 3rd battalion of the 1st or Royal Scots, in second, instead of front, line- an error which will be duly corrected. Such a result has indeed exceeded my most sanguine expectations, and I shall feel great confidence in submitting my amended arrangement of the model, as offering a true and faithful representation of the battle at the most critical moment of the day."
{ENDS}

As today some cannot accept the plain truth that without Blücher fulfilling his promise to aid his brother of Arms Wellington, Wellington's army would have been torn to pieces.

You don't have to read German books on that, read Andrew Field's series the French perspective and realize how close, despite Prussian timely interference his army was at the collapse.

I am not sure that anyone contests the first point very much, it being the whole point of Wellington's plan.

As to the second, I tend to think this is one area where there has been too much emphasis on the British experience: many of the troops that played such an important part in the defeat of the French attacks and the subsequent rout of the French were in a rather better condition than the average British unit at that point.

@Whirlwind

thanks for all the interesting information.

as to the second point, well reading how worn out some of the allied battalions were and down to strength including the Brits, a fresh push – Lobau or the Young Guard – would have had a very good start to punch through Wellington's center.

Gazzola:

'nutcase' 'loon' really? I guess Tim Clayton must have said something negative about the British. LOL

Nah! He blathers and lathers rubbish. He accuses the British government of the day of things it did not do and does it with absolutely no historical evidence of what he claims. He then shows with an almost orgasmic printed diatribe, his complete and utter hero-worshipping, fawning and idolisation for a long-dead despotic tyrant.

It's called banter. I'm sure dibble can take it. He's pretty good at giving it to others.

Why thank's for the compliment… :)

42flanker

I have had Hoffies Wellington's Smallest Victory from when it was hot off the press years ago. The book's size too is diminutive but its contents aren't at over 300 pages where he tries to prove his point.

I remember being able to read it from beginning to end but that's about it really as it seemed to just enter at the eyes, cogitated about the grey-matter then left the memory without impact.

It has the odd page with a b/w illustration of a notable or odd artifact and a few boring colour pictures in the middle. It also has a place on my bookshelf but lays horizontally on the top of my neatly, size-graded, and categorised tomes.

@42flanker

Siborne I think hits the nail on the head

"…could not, from the configuration of the ground, be observed by the Prussian army"

Anyone who has done more than just visit the Rotunda and climbed the Lion Mound knows this very well. The view from the Lion Mound gives an almost billiard table impression, however from the ground the fact that the battlefield isn't just broken up by the two ridges but also by a subtle but telling disection running North/South. This effectively disconnects eyewitness accounts from either side of it.

If you walk up from the Lasne valley, the ground appears to rise in an amphitheatre effect, having Plancenoit at it's centre. Whilst the rim of left flank of Wellington's position can be seen, the centre-right (the scene of Siborne's crisis) cannot. Indeed many visitors are astonished how obvious LHS is looking up the road from the direction of le Caillou, it quickly dissapears into a dip (actually a shallow re-entrant) when viewed from East or West, at best getting a glimpse of it's roof.

I never cease to be amused at the sight of wargamers, who know the table top layout intimately, getting completely disorientated out on the ground by this feature. I think Siborne is a bit optimistic in thinking that he's got this down to a 12 minute window, but that would be internally consistant with the retrograde movement of the figures on his model.

Out of this topographical molehill PH constructs a conspiracy theory mountain. As Siborne points out, the Prussians have every right to believe they were further forward at the time of crisis because they were unsighted and unaware of the timing of the defeat of the Imperial Guard. At the same time, whilst he could probably have seen the intervention of Von Zieten's Corps, Wellington was equally unsighted of the action around or beyond Placenoit. He therefore has every right, in good faith, to think that Siborne's original placement was in error.

Siborne is perhaps quite flowery in his language for modern tastes, and as a junior officer perhaps a little too deferential to his seniors. What I believe what 42flanker has highlighted though is a historian revising his opinion in the light of new evidence. Hardly a crime. There is evidence though of an agenda driven manipulation of the presentation of data to support a preformed theory, just not by Siborne.

Of course, based as it was on evidence of mostly British Officers, his work of course Anglo-centric. But then Pflug-Hartung's is based on German sources yet we don't condemn him for it. I'm happy for people to form their own interpretations of the data, but for me the accusation of collusion by Siborne is unproven.

@ von W

As today some cannot accept the plain truth that without Blücher fulfilling his promise to aid his brother of Arms Wellington, Wellington's army would have been torn to pieces.

There are some who cannot accept the plain truth that without Wellington fulfilling his promise to stand fast at Waterloo, Blücher's army would have been torn to pieces. In fact, by 4pm, three of Blücher's four Corps already had been. Without Wellington, Blücher would have lost four Corps and three battles in three days flat – an absolutely vintage performance.

@HBB
There is evidence though of an agenda driven manipulation of the presentation of data to support a preformed theory, just not by Siborne.

You mean by Prussia, I take it?

@42flanker
That section of Siborne precisely nails down the point of question, and explains from Sibornes view why he did this. Obviously it was NOT done to diminish the Prussian participation, so I withdraw this as an example against Cuirassiers claim. The website of the Royalarmoury certainly (and unluckily) summarizes this in a different light.

@Handlebarbleep
I do not think that he simply reset the Prussions by 12 minutes – half an army do not show up in that scale in that timespan – but as I read his treatise these 12 minutes just made him realize that there is indeed a gap, and worked on from there.

@4th Cuirassier
Just as Wellington would not have fought without believing that Blücher would have come to his aid, Blücher would not have rushed into Napoleons army in undue haste without knowing that Wellingtons army was already engaged – so he certainly would not have lost "three battles", or even two.

On the overall debate on merits the 12 minutes (or 30, or whatever) do not really play a great role, as the 9 btns. of Guard that went into Plancenoit where not available for the attack on Wellingtons center, which was probably the decisive contribution.

Looking at some of Hofschroers other arguments he does has a point in that Wellington commanded more Germans then British or Dutch/Belgions to start with in HIS army (admittedly some 6k of these in the KGL, though), which makes HIS command skills shine even more brightly, but makes even just his part in Waterloo an Allied rather then a British victory, even before the first Prussian entered the field. That said, I just crossed Waterloo-Station twice last week in the sub – in Hannover, not London, alas…

Wellington had been commanding Germans since the Peninsula, of course: KGL were among his most effective troops; there were still German jägers in the 60th, I believe; and as we know, Hanoverians, Hessians, and Brunswickers, variously played an important role in the Low Countries and in the West Indies 1793-1801, as well as earlier during the AWI and related scuffles.

By 1815, the presence of Germans, or other allied troops, as part of a force under British command was unremarkable. Was any one keeping tally? As Wellington himself said: "Oh, I know nothing of the services of particular regiments; there was glory enough for all."

Where does the nationalistic point scoring stop? Should we start totting up the balances of English, Welsh, Irish and Scots soldiery on the field- or has that been done already?

@Puster

The time and distance works if you believe (as the established British view of the events did) all the Prussians were doing at that moment was pursuing a foe that was already broken.

@42flanker

I don't blame the Prussians per se, they were basing their interpretation of their own eyewitnesses, as were the British. However, if you are a modern historian sub-titling your work "The German Victory" or "New Perspectives" I think we are entitled to think you have an agenda.

In the end though, they are debating a sequence of events that happened if not simultaneously then at least in quick succession. Neither side has a good view of the other, and even the French sources disagree on what came first. We don't need to suspect a cover up if national narritives differ, in fact I'd be more suspicious if they agreed!

Other than a few fanantical die-hard romantics we all agree what came next for the French, almost total collapse of order, rout and retreat.