"The Causes of Napoleon Bonaparte’s Loss at Waterloo 1815" Topic
359 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.
In order to respect possible copyright issues, when quoting from a book or article, please quote no more than three paragraphs.
For more information, see the TMP FAQ.
Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board
Areas of InterestNapoleonic
Featured Hobby News Article
Featured Link
Top-Rated Ruleset
Featured Showcase Article
Featured Profile ArticleTaking a look at elements in Land of the Free.
|
Please sign in to your membership account, or, if you are not yet a member, please sign up for your free membership account.
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Gazzola | 27 Aug 2020 7:09 a.m. PST |
dibble Interesting to see you not disagreeing with the 'British' government stating they would 'interfere' with the government of France. But I think Pitt's involvement with Britain and the 3rd Coalition and Pitt's willingness to pay others to fight against Napoleon, suggests his 'interference' is not just aimed at France's Revolutionary government. 'In December 1804 William Pitt signed an alliance with Sweden; once Britain had also signed the Treaty of Pressburg with Russia in April 1805 the core of the Third Coalition was in place. Britain was to pay Russia £1.25 GBP million in golden guineas for every 100,000 men she field against France.' (from your favourite book Napoleon the Great by Andrew Roberts, 358) You can't get more 'interference' with a government than paying millions of pounds to others to go to war with them. LOL And in terms of the British Press, come on dibble, if you had read Clayton's book you know it describes how censorship was inflicted during this period, people were arrested and jailed. And Associations and Societies, basically snitching on publications stating anything negative were encouraged. 'During December and January loyal declarations came in from most parts of the country, promising, in the words of the Oxford loyalists printed in the local newspapers, to help suppress locally 'all seditious, treasonable, inflammatory Publications, whether in News-papers, printed Hand-Bills, ludicrous or caricature prints or any other Mode.' (This Dark Business by Time Clayton, page 29) So much for free speech, eh? Makes your lie like a bulletin sound a bit tame, wouldn't you say? I can't see why you just can't accept all nations were equally as bad or as good as each other. You can't simply believe one nation was goody white and another baddy black. Real life and real history isn't like that. Anyway, enough of our merry making. People are discussions, such as ours and slavery, even some were brought up first by another member, is off topic. So, back to the topic. Napoleon's failure at Waterloo was caused by the British having more luck than the French. (eg: Prussians coming to their rescue, as opposed to Grouchy failing to stop them) Discuss! LOL |
Gazzola | 27 Aug 2020 7:19 a.m. PST |
MiniPigs Yes, that is what some of us generally debate, that ALL nations did good and bad things, not just one nation or one leader. That is the truth and reality of history but I fear the truth conflicts with some people's biased opinions and viewpoints, so they have to find another reason for someone daring to have different ones to their own. You get used to it and it is best just to throw a few facts their way, laugh and move on. If some people don't want to accept the facts, that's their problem. But thankfully, there are many who are open to learning something new and having their viewpoints challenged. |
Handlebarbleep | 27 Aug 2020 9:15 a.m. PST |
@Gazzola So if I read you right, the USA paid Britain to interfere with the lawful government of the third reich? Confused at the logic. |
dibble | 28 Aug 2020 2:09 a.m. PST |
Handlebarbleep: I don't know why you bother. I had already outlined everything with certain posters on this thread but they seem to ignore and make out that the person that they are reponding to posted no such thing. This for instance: Gazzola Interesting to see you not disagreeing with the 'British' government stating they would 'interfere' with the government of France. That must have hurt? LOL you seem to ignore exactly what I posted above. I know why it's being done, its because you haven't got an argument so try to make one up. And presumption is not only childish, it's silly too. Then we have this: 'In December 1804 William Pitt signed an alliance with Sweden; once Britain had also signed the Treaty of Pressburg with Russia in April 1805 the core of the Third Coalition was in place. Britain was to pay Russia £1.25 GBP GBP million in golden guineas for every 100,000 men she field against France.' (from your favourite book Napoleon the Great by Andrew Roberts, 358)You can't get more 'interference' with a government than paying millions of pounds to others to go to war with them. LOL Again, another non-argument in its rawest sense. But at least Britain was not a succubus but gave aid. Did not threaten or invade countries that traded with the enemy And in terms of the British Press, come on dibble, if you had read Clayton's book you know it describes how censorship was inflicted during this period, people were arrested and jailed. And Associations and Societies, basically snitching on publications stating anything negative were encouraged. 'During December and January loyal declarations came in from most parts of the country, promising, in the words of the Oxford loyalists printed in the local newspapers, to help suppress locally 'all seditious, treasonable, inflammatory Publications, whether in News-papers, printed Hand-Bills, ludicrous or caricature prints or any other Mode.' (This Dark Business by Time Clayton, page 29) Because, as I posted above "Unlike the future 'lying like a bulletin' The British press was 'for its day', an excellent source of accurate news in general." Which is a correct statement. And also for its day, a much freer press than any in the rest of Europe, and people were still able to post pro-French sentiment if they wished, which some did, without arrest. It was when people started inciting rebelion and treason that they were stopped, which was the right thing to do. It only goes to show that some posters think that the British government too should have pandered to the 'revolutionary cause' and allow the small minority of the British to riot, burn, loot, rob and murder their way to power. So much for free speech, eh? Makes your lie like a bulletin sound a bit tame, wouldn't you say? No! Only those with such a view that I have pointed to at the end of my last sentence, think that… I can't see why you just can't accept all nations were equally as bad or as good as each other. You can't simply believe one nation was goody white and another baddy black. Real life and real history isn't like that. And I can't see why you can't stop spinning. Napoleon's failure at Waterloo was caused by the British having more luck than the French. (eg: Prussians coming to their rescue, as opposed to Grouchy failing to stop them) Discuss! LOL So, what the Allies did do, …There is nothing so mind (and bones, blood, flesh) blowing as being hoisted on one's very own petard. |
Au pas de Charge | 28 Aug 2020 5:33 a.m. PST |
It was when people started inciting rebelion and treason that they were stopped, which was the right thing to do.It only goes to show that some posters think that the British government too should have pandered to the 'revolutionary cause' and allow the small minority of the British to riot, burn, loot, rob and murder their way to power. This is a perfect illustration of what makes a myopic mentality dangerous. Assumptions about legitimacy for the British crown and privileged government are Thank you for re-exposing this; maybe it will illustrate how several on here view some of the pro British posters as overly aggressive while they themselves think they are just posting a neutrally charged viewpoint. But maybe not; after all, Of course, everyone can choose a side |
La Belle Ruffian | 28 Aug 2020 8:47 a.m. PST |
This is a perfect illustration of what makes a myopic mentality dangerous. Assumptions about legitimacy for the British crown and privileged government are an admission that the utterer is an establishment front runner with an authoritarian mindset. Thank you for re-exposing this; maybe it will illustrate how several on here view some of the pro British posters as overly aggressive while they themselves think they are just posting a neutrally charged viewpoint. But maybe not; after all, cults are cults for a reason. Of course, everyone can choose a side Personal and group attacks reported. |
Michael Westman | 28 Aug 2020 9:04 a.m. PST |
"Napoleon's failure at Waterloo was caused by the British having more luck than the French. (eg: Prussians coming to their rescue, as opposed to Grouchy failing to stop them) Discuss!" No luck involved. The Prussians moved earlier and faster than Napoleon did. What did Napoleon say about time? |
Au pas de Charge | 28 Aug 2020 9:35 a.m. PST |
Personal and group attacks reported. But it isnt a personal attack because i am trying to demonstrate what other people are seeing here and why there is more controversy in this subforum than on any others. It's just the truth. And it isnt against dibble, he just sort of stumbled into this.
And it cant be a group attack..unless this group exists; a group which really has little interest in either history or civilized discussions and just wants to pick fights. Well, does it exist? Does anyone want to admit that they belong to this group? And last, it is hardly a secret that you follow me around this forum trying to get me banned and have done so for a while. However, it is now a matter of record with the admins. I find that it is even further proof that the group (which doesn't exist) comes on here to push an assertion in other posters faces and then tries to report or destroy anyone who disagrees. |
La Belle Ruffian | 28 Aug 2020 9:40 a.m. PST |
Minipigs I told you publically why I reported your comments the last time when you attacked people rather than their arguments (and the editors agreed with my opinion). Feel free to do likewise. |
Au pas de Charge | 28 Aug 2020 9:47 a.m. PST |
See that the problem Le Belle Ruffian, you are not only a self admitted tattletale but you seem to think your job is to shut me up. What exactly are you afraid of? That the group which doesn't exist, actually exists? Remember, no one kicks a dead horse. Additionally, I see dibble's posts as incredibly abusive. Somehow you missed all that. I was trying to sidestep all that and give some light on how some people see it as it's either 100% Wellington or you're somehow a Napoleon cultist? And what do you do, report it as a personal attack (against someone else, I might add)rather than take it as the other viewpoint. Way to help prove a premise. |
La Belle Ruffian | 28 Aug 2020 10:06 a.m. PST |
See that the problem Le Belle Ruffian, you are not only a self admitted tattletale but you seem to think your job is to shut me up. What exactly are you afraid of? Minipigs, as I've explained previously, name-calling rarely enhances an argument. Love the Sinner, hate the Sin is more my approach. I'm all for robust debate but the Editor has chosen to forbid it in the rules. It's his site, so free speech does not apply. I've yet to report you for attacks on me, personally but if these recent comments stay up then I hope you won't mind being reminded of them the next time you complain about people being aggressive and bullying. Additionally, I see dibble's posts as incredibly abusive. Somehow you missed all that. Then feel free to report him and see if the Editor agrees or point this out at the time. Why didn't you do that rather than quote him in your response attacking him and people who don't see eye to eye with you? At least Dibble will know why you saw his posts (about what people are saying and doing rather than their character imo) as abusive. |
Au pas de Charge | 28 Aug 2020 10:25 a.m. PST |
Did you even read what dibble wrote? What I discussed and how I handled it is the least and softest of it. First you seem to ignore the fact that dibble attacks Gazzola about a half dozen times. Did you report dibble? Second, several times dibble connects both the British and the French Napoleonic behaviors to modern day events several times. This is exactly what I have been saying for about a year. This isnt discussion of history or even a discussion its an allegory about modern social issues repackaged as a Napoleonic discussion.I appreciate dibble's honesty which is why I lifted what he said to illustrate how some people see this non-existant group. But, apparently, you cant analyze anything on here. All I did was analyze his own statements. That there are legitimate and illegitimate governments, that a government has a right to suppress protestors and define rebellion and treason any way it desires with current day examples. You sort of dragged dibble into this but…Here's something from dibble:
It only goes to show that some posters think that the British government too should have pandered to the 'revolutionary cause' and allow the small minority of the British to riot, burn, loot, rob and murder their way to power. Just like those in society today who have started to act and think that way, especially in the US Republic. Is this a group attack? Does this group exist? Am I in it? Should I have reported it? Does the statement demonstrate a mind set which believes in law and order and authority or is it a carefree, constitutional viewpoint. Am i imagining it? Like Ive said, some people are willing to have some rough and tumble, robust discussions and others just pretend to, playing the victim card when someone on the side they dislike gives them any opportunity. And sorry, i dont think you are for robust debate at all.I dont think you can tolerate a contrasting opinion and you're chronic desire to get at me underscores that. |
La Belle Ruffian | 28 Aug 2020 10:35 a.m. PST |
Is this a group attack? Does this group exist? Am I in it? Should I have reported it? I'm not one of the editors, so I'll repeat my advice: Feel free to either point out where you perceive abusive comments towards members of this site (rather than how they have behaved or what they have written) or report him and see if the editors agree. In the first instance you inform someone publically of an issue you see (I did do this with you some time ago). They can choose to agree with you or not but you've made your point. In the second we have an idea of how the site rules will be enforced. Either of those in the context of a discussion forum seems preferable to insulting people because you don't like what they said whilst claiming that you are justified and they are not. |
Au pas de Charge | 28 Aug 2020 10:38 a.m. PST |
I'm all for robust debate but the Editor has chosen to forbid it in the rules. It's his site, so free speech does not apply. And, presumably only sometimes, you'll help them enforce these rules?
I've yet to report you for attacks on me, personally but if these recent comments stay up then I hope you won't mind being reminded of them the next time you complain about people being aggressive and bullying. That's because I avoid you for reasons that you no doubt suspect but are probably best left blank. And it is true that you've made quite a career by using third party discussions to report me. Maybe you could give us all the reasons you feel it your duty to police some posters constantly and not others? But you never answered my question. For a group attack to take place, there needs to exist a group. Does this group exist? Can you describe it? |
La Belle Ruffian | 28 Aug 2020 10:41 a.m. PST |
Minipigs, I refer you to my last post. |
Au pas de Charge | 28 Aug 2020 10:50 a.m. PST |
@La Belle Ruffian Personal and group attacks reported. This is what you said. I lifted dibble's remarks to make a generalized point. No personal attack, no mention of his name. As for the group attack, if the group doesnt exist, what I wrote wouldnt disturb anyone, would it? Again does this group exist? Because you really aught not to be reporting infractions that cannot possibly take place. You seem to believe that if the mods agree with your report that that this is dispositive of your righteousness. Are you suggesting the mods time people out for group attacks on non-existent groups? Or, rather is this an admission that the mods believe there is this group as i have described it? I mean it is apparent that justice swayed your decisions. You simply couldnt sit back and see an infraction of those rules take place. Further, you couldnt allow dibble to report my post either and you had to make a very public announcement that you did so Perhaps the announcement was for the benefit of a group that doesnt exist? Doubtless, my post was so outrageous that you could ignore dibbles comment: you seem to ignore exactly what I posted above. I know why it's being done, its because you haven't got an argument so try to make one up. And presumption is not only childish, it's silly too. Of course, one COULD come to the conclusion, that you didnt like my comment because you just dont like me. And that youre alright with dibbles comment for the opposite reason. But, c'mon, that's crazy. I mean, let's not get personal right? It's probably just that you simply cant let a single infraction of the posting rules get by you.
And then, you need to make a post indicating that you've reported it. Well, that's just standard operating procedure on here too…Not. Again, I COULD say that you're pandering to a certain gang of fellows to show participation in its defense against the outrageous suggestion that they might be shoving people around. But then, that's impossible because, or so, Ive been told on numerous occasions, this group doesn't exist. Thus, again, since you are such a slave to the rules. What group has been attacked? |
dibble | 28 Aug 2020 6:29 p.m. PST |
MiniPigs: "And it isnt against dibble, he just sort of stumbled into this." Pray tell me what it was I "just sort of stumbled into"? I tell it how I see it from what I know. I also don't pretend to see things or comment on things I do not know. I also quote people directly whereas some only post what they think they have precieved in others posts without direct quotation. There's a huge TMP Napoleonic archive that can be peruse which would help in getting the feel for those who one may have a difference of opinion with. i see that my name has come up several times in the last dozen posts. Feel free stifle me if I'm not liked…Cheers. |
Handlebarbleep | 28 Aug 2020 7:17 p.m. PST |
As stimulating as this all is, my question still stands. What exactly is wrong or immoral with giving funding to an ally when you are at war with someone? Didn't France financially support American rebels? Didn't the US extend lend-lease in the last century, including to it's then ally, the Soviet Union? I'm fighting to see the difference and not succeeding. |
42flanker | 29 Aug 2020 2:13 a.m. PST |
No luck involved. The Prussians moved earlier and faster than Napoleon did.What did Napoleon say about time? What did Napoleon say about luck? |
4th Cuirassier | 29 Aug 2020 5:36 a.m. PST |
The Prussians were exceedingly lucky too. They were only able to assist at Waterloo because IV Corps wasn't at Ligny. IV Corps was supposed to be there, but as luck would have it, Bulow outranked Gneisenau. The latter's order to Bulow to get there ASAFP was both phrased and treated like a request, rather than an order. Had Bulow been junior to Gneisenau, tersely ordered to Ligny, and hence been there, IV Corps would have been routed too, along with the other three Prussian Corps. On the 18th, Bulow's was the only corps fit to fight at Waterloo because it luckily hadn't been at Ligny. I and II Corps hung back, making only late, supporting efforts. Had Bulow been at Ligny, no Corps would have been fit to fight at Waterloo in the 18th. And it was pure dumb luck. Wellington would have been told there was no prospect of Prussian assistance – either directly, as in "we've all been routed and we're not coming," or constructively, as in "we've all been routed, we're coming anyway and fingers crossed you or we don't fall apart before we get there, eh?" Neither of those would have told Wellington it was worth fighting at Waterloo, so he'd have fallen back on Antwerp and inflicted a Corunna-style check on one pursuing French wing while the other rounded up the remnants of Bluecher's army and bagged the lot. Other things would change in a small way in consequence. Hofschroer would still have published his mad book claiming the Germans were winning it till the British lost it. There would be firm TMP-wide agreement that the horrible British deserved to lose because they only abolished slavery 30 years before America did and were therefore to blame for it, and that anyone who differs hankers for the days of empire, LOL. Likewise Napoleon deserved to win because he only caused a few million deaths and those were Britain's fault as well. The colour of the bricole would remain unknown, we'd all be citing the renowned German author der Selbe all over the place, and debate would still be raging over whether the Austrian or French army had the second-best artillery of the era. We'd agree it wasn't Russia's as they had no artillery school until 1952. |
42flanker | 29 Aug 2020 5:56 a.m. PST |
der Selbe Do you have a reference for that? |
Puster | 30 Aug 2020 8:35 a.m. PST |
@4th Cuirassier Your contempt for Hofschroer or the Prussians is clear, but what exactly makes you think that the Prussians would have lost at all at Ligny if they had another corps? I have not read anything by Hofschroer (ok, the first 30 pages on his book on Siborne, but these hardly count here), but isn't it true that the Prussian army took their stance at Ligny because Wellington said he would reinforce them, if he could? It became quite clear fast that he could not, but at that time the engagement was on – in many ways it is the very same scenario as Waterloo, with reversed roles, and that the decision was done finally shorty after 19:00 with using an assault by the Guard – again a mirror of Waterloo, just without flanking allies? I really wonder what makes you so bitter versus the Prussians that you have to claim that they "mutinied" or were successfull "by exceeding luck". |
Brechtel198 | 30 Aug 2020 12:30 p.m. PST |
What did Napoleon say about luck? Napoleon believed that luck was 'the ability to exploit accidents.' |
4th Cuirassier | 30 Aug 2020 4:27 p.m. PST |
isn't it true that the Prussian army took their stance at Ligny because Wellington said he would reinforce them No, it's not. The Prussians took their stance at Ligny because they thought they could defeat Napoleon unassisted and thereby accumulate political capital. The Prussians had commenced their concentration at Ligny, and uncovered the road to Brussels, before they even informed him. They bungled it and only massed three Corps of an original five. They were then defeated by inferior numbers on ground of their own choosing. These mistakes very nearly blew the campaign on the second day and they spend the rest of the 19th century lying about it to misdirect later comedy hofstorians. The stupider ones totally bought it. The first Wellington knew they intended to fight at Ligny was when he rode over to their position on the 16th. We can be confident Bulow would have been included in the rout had he been there because this was the outcome of every 1813-1815 battle Prussian troops fought. If they did not have grossly superior numbers or a more effective ally on the field, they lost. They also frequently lost when they did have numerical superiority and an ally on the field, so these were no guarantee of success, but their absence meant a surefire defeat. They only had superior numbers at Ligny, so they'd have lost. |
Puster | 31 Aug 2020 7:17 a.m. PST |
and thereby accumulate political capital. You know, that is again one of your unnecessary slenders… Considering the rest of your posts, I do not think I want to debate this with you. |
4th Cuirassier | 31 Aug 2020 8:43 a.m. PST |
Which is your prerogative, but if you only want to discuss views you agree with you may be missing the point of debate. It's also worth pointing out that the "slander" of suggesting Prussia sought to make political capital out of defeating Napoleon at Ligny alone isn't something I made up. You might not be familiar with it, but that speaks to what you've read. It is, in fact, a view conceded and articulated by German historians. First, here is Hussey on the Prussian decision to fight. Late on the 15th Gneisenau wrote to Mueffling to say that "the army will concentrate tomorrow on the Sombreffe position where the Prince intends to give battle…inform us as soon as possible when and where the Duke of Wellington intends concentrating and what he has decided to do." Note that there is no sign of any supposed pre-agreed plan there that the Prussians would only fight if Wellington would be supporting them. They were intending to go ahead and fight regardless, with no up to date knowledge of Wellington's dispositions or whereabouts. Here is Pflugk-Harttung, a German historian, on the motive behind this. I'll quote this at length because it's not something hofstorians are inclined to acknowledge, much less quote: "One has to note that on the 15th they were determined to stand and give battle even without Wellington…to this must be added another factor, more political than military. The Prussians felt that they had been poorly treated by the Congress of Vienna…the only way to improve this could be to fight it out on the battlefield against Napoleon…if they took him on alone and won alone, Prussia's position in the world would be very different. It alone would have turned away the danger Europe had faced….now Europe would have to be grateful, whether it wanted to or not…Thus English assistance was not even desirable and was therefore not requested; instead, Wellington was simply asked what he intended to do…Gneisenau's entire actions on the 15th and 16th were determined by this point of view. There was no other urgent reason to accept battle at Ligny; a decisive battle could easily have been postponed for one or two days in order to fight it together with the allies, if that had been desired. But this was desired so little that they stood and fought even the entire corps of Bulow was not present. Wellington…had to assume that, because all the reports …were from the morning of the 15th, nothing significant had occurred at midday or in the afternoon, as this would otherwise have been reported to him…none of this happened." Pflugk-Harttung is thus pretty clear that the failure to warn Wellington the Brussels road, the failure to ensure that Wellington was concentrated and nearby, the failure to concentrate properly themselves, and the general failure to keep Wellington in the picture weren't oversights. They were all deliberate; omissions aimed at Prussia's being the army that defeated Napoleon. It's not slander if it's true. They made sure to keep Wellington out of it. Why did Wellington say that Napoleon had humbugged him and stolen a day's march? How did that happen? Why, because the Prussians wanted it to. When it all went hideously wrong, they couldn't admit to it, so they falsified the historical record to achieve through hofstory what they could not achieve in fact. Thus Prussia's defeat became Wellington's, and Wellington's victory became Prussia's. German historians themselves saw through this self-serving, dishonest guff 100 years ago. The Hamilton-Williams / Hofschroer school of fabricated history disinterred a lot of this rubbish from 100 to 150 years ago and reanimated it as though it were some new perspective. In doing so they broadened ignorance, reduced our comprehension of the period, and retarded historical understanding by the same 100 to 150 years. Meanwhile, have you never wondered why the Prussians didn't go straight for the Wavre concentration while Wellington concentrated at Waterloo? That way, four rather than one undefeated Prussian corps could have arrived, without their having taken the pasting of Ligny. |
Michael Westman | 31 Aug 2020 9:07 a.m. PST |
That's an interesting analysis by Pflugk-Harttung. It would be interesting to see what would have happened had the Prussians decided not to concentrate so far forward. Napoleon's plan was to initially confront the Prussians (around Gembloux he thought). But it would have been difficult to withdraw Zieten's corps far as it was deployed so far forward. Could it have successfully withdrawn intact? |
4th Cuirassier | 31 Aug 2020 11:40 a.m. PST |
Michael That's more or less what Hussey suggests Wellington was expecting. Hold the frontier thinly, fall back for a few days until the main thrust's axis is discerned, then one wing holds Napoleon as the anvil, while the other wing acts as the hammer. Wellington's concentrations reflect this, which is why it is nonsense for anyone to assert that he agreed something different off the cuff. This plan is more or less what did happen, but only after two completely unnecessary battles had been fought. Quatre Bras happened only because with the Prussians concentrated that far forward, the French at QB could have penetrated the two armies' position and defeated each in detail. So QB had to happen because Ligny was happening. What has emerged for me from my reading about 1815 these last 40-odd years is what total mugs Napoleon made of the Prussians. |
Whirlwind | 31 Aug 2020 1:13 p.m. PST |
Hold the frontier thinly, fall back for a few days until the main thrust's axis is discerned, then one wing holds Napoleon as the anvil, while the other wing acts as the hammer. Wellington's concentrations reflect this, which is why it is nonsense for anyone to assert that he agreed something different off the cuff. Put like that, there are certain resemblances to how Wellington defended the Portuguese frontier. |
ReallySameSeneffeAsBefore | 31 Aug 2020 2:00 p.m. PST |
4th Cuirassier- thanks for highlighting the reference from Pflugk-Hartung. I've heard of his work of course as one of the standard works in German on the campaign-and seen snippets quoted but not at any length. I'm somewhat more supportive of the Prussians' efforts at least after Ligny, but coming from a noted German source- this analysis of Prussian actions up to Ligny looks quite compelling. Whatever any of us makes of it- it is certainly good to have material like this made available again in support of these discussions. I certainly agree that the 'Hamilton-Williams/Hofschroer school' of revisionist history of the Napoleonic wars has set back understanding of the period significantly- with their mendacious conclusions 'supported' by fake sources and misleading quotes, all topped off with sensationalist headlines. There are one or two writers on Napoleonic subjects still engaged in that tacky business unfortunately. They seem motivated either by a desire to be recognised as having discovered a genuinely 'new' angle on one of the most studied eras of military history, or because more cynically, they realise that revisionist history sells books to the credulous- especially those who find the established narrative not quite to their personal taste. Anyway Cuirassier- well done for bringing further source material from a German perspective into this debate. |
4th Cuirassier | 31 Aug 2020 2:30 p.m. PST |
I think after Ligny the Prussians got a dose of reality and realised, Blimey, we just came within an ace of blowing this whole thing. So from that point on, their performance markedly improved. They could have either preserved what was left of the army and fled east from Wavre / Ligny; or staked everything on marching to Waterloo, risking their entire army. It took exemplary moral courage to do what they did, nor do they ever seem seriously to have considered weaselling out. Bluecher had given his word and he wasn't going to flake. What is odd is that they then spent the next 100 years pi55ing copiously in their own chips by suggesting that it was Wellington who nearly blew it and Prussia who had retrieved it, rather than the exact reverse. The contrast between the moral courage of June 1815 and the lack of generosity of spirit thereafter is startling. It is a bit of an object lesson in how proper history is done and of how infrequently military history is done properly. When all the "Germans won it" nonsense started to re-emerge in the 1990s, a proper historian would ask, Hang on, how did we get from this version of 1815 to this version of 1815? Anyone exploring that would have found, in studying the history of the history, that the hofstorians' account was not a new analysis, but a reanimation of a long-discredited old one; and that there are many "German" accounts, not just one, many of them a lot more honest. You don't need to get into the numbers game or the headcount or any of the other misdirections – you just look at the history of the history. |
Handlebarbleep | 31 Aug 2020 7:24 p.m. PST |
4th Cuirassier Because secret strategy conferences are, by their very nature, er, secretive, we lack considerable material on either the conference at Tirlemont or a verbatim account of the meeting at Brye. Either of these would give us an insight to the Mens Rea of the allies. If we take the Pflugk-Hartung evidence at face value, we could see why the 'Gneisenau Faction' would want to cover their embarrassment at a defeat by attributing the lack of a Corps as being down to the none assistance from their ally (Wellington) rather than sloppy staff work (Bulow). Thus the "unless I am attacked myself" is conveniently lost in translation. Like all all conspiracy theories, there is a grain of truth in what Hoffy re-heated. The De Lancey Memorandum has holes in it big enough to drive a Clapham Omnibus through. Situational awareness was not the push-button affair we have today and commanders did not have the helicopter view of the wargamer or Kriegspeiler. Wellington was not above suffering from a bit of sloppy staff work either, as he did not have the assistance of some of his key Peninsular officers. Despite De Lancey's mortal wounding on the battlefield and his romantic death with his new bride by his side, he had the dubious honour of being thought of as the idlest man in the army. I know it's a stereotype, the posh but thick public schoolboy fudging his homework hoping no one will notice. But I've seen it done in the 20th Century. On an exercise, an ops officer lost radio contact with his troops, but was required to give a situation report to the commander. Using his watch and the plan, he proceeded to read out where his troops should be by now. Now, my commander was on the ground with his tactical HQ, and could see where this officer's troops were (or more pointedly, weren't). Suffice to say, this officer left the exercise a trifle early, and with rather more orifices than he arrived with. So I'm perfectly happy to put the document down to a little 'funk and fudgery' But why put any of these down to incompetence when a conspiracy or cover up could be manufactured? Why not indeed, when: a) It sells books b) Feeds your paranoid martyr complex which is part of your personality disorder c) It sells books d) Empowers you via the "special knowledge" button as part of your personality disorder and e) Did I mention it sells books? Which rather proves your point 4thC. Before we can climb into the minds of Napoleon, Blucher or Wellington we must first climb into the those of the historian and publisher that's selling us the book. To quote Mandy Rice-Davies "Well, he would, wouldn't he?" |
4th Cuirassier | 01 Sep 2020 2:52 a.m. PST |
@ HBB Agree with all that, which puts it very well. We don't know what was discussed at Tirlemont on 3 May because nobody left a note of it. We do know that there was no agreement made at Tirlemont that the Prussians would fight at Ligny if Wellington supported them. We know this because on 2 May, the day before, Ziethen received orders to fall back on Ligny and alert Wellington if he were attacked. So this tells us that the decision to fight on that ground had already been taken before that meeting. The meeting assumed its later importance because as it hadn't been minuted, it was the only possible place in the record into which a conversation that never took place – the one in which Wellington agreed to support the Prussians – could later be inserted. Once one gets the historiography straight, as a proper historian would, it's instantly clear what the hofstorians are playing at. |
Au pas de Charge | 03 Sep 2020 6:28 a.m. PST |
@Puster Without the Prussians, the British or Anglo-Allies would have lost. Without the Prussian flank attack on Napoleon at Waterloo, the British lose and even after Waterloo, without the multi-national armies moving on Paris, Napoleon would've been able to raise another army and draw the war out. The point is that the Prussians contributed a lot to napoleon's defeat at Waterloo. But then, the British government had been depending on German muscle for a long time. |
Handlebarbleep | 03 Sep 2020 7:42 a.m. PST |
@Minipigs I think that the Prussian contribution was well understood "I should not do justice to my own feelings, or to Marshal Blücher and the Prussian army, if I did not attribute the successful result of this arduous day to the cordial and timely assistance I received from them. The operation of General Bülow upon the enemy's flank was a most decisive one; and, even if I had not found myself in a situation to make the attack which produced the final result, it would have forced the enemy to retire if his attacks should have failed, and would have prevented him from taking advantage of them if they should unfortunately have succeeded." Napoleon wasn't Britain's enemy, and somehow the Prussian were co-opted. The Prussians had felt the weight of French boots on their neck and in some respects had far more of a score to settle. They were full partners in this enterprise. Did both of the allied commanders make mistakes? Yes, of course, but none of them proved fatal even if they rode their luck a little. Napoleon had an army with fragile morale, ran out of luck and compared to his high points, ran out of talent. His mistakes were not necessarily worse, but they did prove fatal for his army, and ultimately his ambitions. |
42flanker | 03 Sep 2020 9:37 a.m. PST |
No, Britain was just a chinless richboy relying on Daddy's ill-gotten cash to bribe brawny German boys to stand between him and the Franchees and stop those 'Garloise' smoking goats from coming after his women. |
4th Cuirassier | 03 Sep 2020 9:52 a.m. PST |
Equally, without the British or Anglo-Allies, the Prussians would have lost (as they did, twice, at Ligny and Wavre). Without Wellington's stand at Waterloo, the Prussians lose (again). It's not hard. They lose worse than Wellington, in fact, because Wellington had an undefeated reserve at Hal to retreat on, whereas III Corps at Wavre was taking its second defeat in three days. |
Au pas de Charge | 03 Sep 2020 2:58 p.m. PST |
@Handlebarbleep All Three participants made mistakes. Ultimately, Napoleon lost. It could be that Napoleon's disdain for and desire to get at a Britain which harassed him relentlessly proved to be a bigger Waterloo than even the battle itself was. |
Au pas de Charge | 03 Sep 2020 3:02 p.m. PST |
No, Britain was just a chinless richboy relying on Daddy's ill-gotten cash to bribe brawny German boys to stand between him and the Franchees and stop those 'Garloise' smoking goats from coming after his women. This is of course ironic hyperbole. Britain certainly risked her own neck too but not for any selfless principal. And yes, the British also have a lineage of either providing subsidies to German states to get them to fight for their causes or hiring German soldiers outright as mercenaries. |
Handlebarbleep | 03 Sep 2020 6:20 p.m. PST |
@Minipigs There is the small point that since George I the British Royal Family were (and still mostly are) German. At this period they were Hanoverians. |
dibble | 03 Sep 2020 7:09 p.m. PST |
"But then, the British government had been depending on German muscle for a long time." Did the French rely on tens of thousands Troops from other nations, including thousands from countries that would later become part of Germany? |
Au pas de Charge | 03 Sep 2020 7:54 p.m. PST |
@Handlebarbleep There is the small point that since George I the British Royal Family were (and still mostly are) German. At this period they were Hanoverians. That's a very good point. It goes into the mix but it is not dispositive. I understand the British were trying to contract for 20,000 Russians to serve against the colonists in the Revolutionary War. Although not Germans, this would suggest that foreign troops were not always sought out because of kindred ancestry. |
42flanker | 03 Sep 2020 9:52 p.m. PST |
Yes, indeed; a similar analysis applying to the curious appearance of French troops at various points in the 13 Colonies circa 1778-81 The Spanish were only claiming what was rightly theirs |
Brechtel198 | 04 Sep 2020 5:46 a.m. PST |
Why curious? The French were declared allies and would support the Americans when they could. |
Chad47 | 04 Sep 2020 7:53 a.m. PST |
I thought the Treaty of Alliance was in 1778, so how do you classify the supply of materials to the Continental army prior to that treaty ? |
dibble | 04 Sep 2020 12:24 p.m. PST |
Let's just accept the point that all nations at this time Revolutionary/Napoleonic eras and involved in the conflict, had allies by the thousands. |
Gazzola | 04 Sep 2020 2:37 p.m. PST |
Handlebarbleep It is clear you obviously do not understand or perhaps, don't ant to accept the truth. The British paid money for other nations to wage war with France. No payment no war. They 'had' to pay them money in 1815 because the allies refused to move until they did so. |
Gazzola | 04 Sep 2020 2:58 p.m. PST |
dibble Er, you do remember Britain 'threatening' the Danes because they wouldn't meekly hand over their fleet? LOL It does make you wonder, considering the allies refused to move against Napoleon in 1815 until Britain paid them to, that they were more interested in another pay packet than they were of any imagined threat from Napoleon. Perhaps they all knew how keen the Brits would be to pay up and how afraid they were if they didn't? |
Gazzola | 04 Sep 2020 3:03 p.m. PST |
Michael Westman Forgive me if I have this wrong but I am pretty sure that the Prussians got past Grouchy, not Napoleon. Napoleon defeated them and, had Grouchy not failed in his task, would have prevented them from coming to Wellington's aid. I'm not trying to throw the total failure by the French at Waterloo onto Grouchy. It was a team failure, if anything. However, his failure to block the Prussians was a major factor in the eventual defeat of the French at Waterloo. I think that's a fact that can't be disputed, even by dibble! LOL. |
dibble | 04 Sep 2020 3:34 p.m. PST |
Gazzola Er, you do remember Britain 'threatening' the Danes because they wouldn't meekly hand over their fleet? LOLIt does make you wonder, considering the allies refused to move against Napoleon in 1815 until Britain paid them to, that they were more interested in another pay packet than they were of any imagined threat from Napoleon. Perhaps they all knew how keen the Brits would be to pay up and how afraid they were if they didn't? Umm? Unless you, and specifically you, quote directly, and seeing as I have asked in the past for you to reciprocate but you have ignored me, I will no longer answer your diatribes as I'm tired of having to hunt down what part of someones (not just mine) post you are responding to….take care John… :) |
Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
|