"What if Napoleon had won battle of Waterloo" Topic

@minipigs

"You wont find a lot of that but neither will you see much effort about celebrating the Dutch, Prussian and other Germanic contributions."

Other than (examples from my own bookshelves);

The History of the King's German Legion" Ludlow Beamish
"Letters from the Battle of Waterloo" Gareth Glover
"Waterloo Archive" Volumes II, V and VIII of German and Netherlands sources – Gareth Glover
"Hanoverian Correspondence" John Franklin
"Netherlands Correspondence" John Franklin
Wellington's Hidden Heroes" Veronica Baker-Smith
"Standing Firm at Waterloo" Erwin Muilwijk
"Belgians at Waterloo" Boulger
"1815 The Waterloo Campaign the German Victory" Hofschroer

you mean?

42flanker

That's what the Napoleon fan-boys here can't get over: to paraphrase William Faulkener

"For every French (Southern) boy fourteen years old, not once but whenever he wants it, there is the instant when it's still not yet two o'clock on that June (July) afternoon in 1815 (1863), the brigades are in position behind the rail fence, the guns are laid and ready in the woods and the furled flags are already loosened to break out and D'Erlon (Pickett) himself with his long oiled ringlets and his hat in one hand probably and his sword in the other looking up the hill waiting for Soult (Longstreet) to give the word and it's all in the balance, it hasn't happened yet, it hasn't even begun yet, it not only hasn't begun yet but there is still time for it not to begin against that position and those circumstances which made more men than du Passage (Garnett) and Donzelot (Kemper) and Macognet (Armistead) and Durette (Wilcox) look grave yet it's going to begin, we all know that, we have come too far with too much at stake and that moment doesn't need even a fourteen-year-old boy to think This time. Maybe this time with all this much to lose than all this much to gain: Belgium (Pennsylvania), the Netherlands (Maryland), the world, the golden dome of Berlin (Washington) itself to crown with desperate and unbelievable victory the desperate gamble, the cast made two years ago."

Hi Handlebarbleep

The KGL are in British service which would make them part of the British army. Am I correct about that?

Erwin Muliwijk and Hofschroer aren't British.

Veronica Baker-Smith's book looks interesting and I am going to investigate that but from the "Books Monthly" review on Amazon:

[…Veronica Baker-Smith writes on the premise that we don't realize or don't remember that not all of Wellington's troops were British subjects, and in that she is absolutely right – I would never have given it a thought had this wonderful book not turned up…]

That seems to underscore that the problem of ignoring Germanic contributions in the Waterloo campaign is more widespread in the UK than I dared dream.

AND

"…an excellent account of the contribution of the newly formed (and short-lived) United Kingdom of the Netherlands to the Allied victory in the Waterloo campaign, and one that brings an often neglected part of Wellington's army into focus."
Historyofwar.org

There are other similar reviews that speak of neglected Netherlandish contributions as well as the fact that the author lives there and seems to be something of a Netherlandish enthusiast. But an interesting submission all the same.

Garth Glover seems to be using mostly German sources and texts which isnt really British accounts of German/Dutch contributions. the same can be said of some the other books you proffered.

I dont suggest there aren't books that discuss non British contributions at Waterloo but they are generally segregated into their own Netherlandish or germanic ghettos or difficult to popularly consume material like translated letters. I want the great Haythornwaite to write a book about like "Waterloo Men" about the Prussians (Vaterloo Mensch?)

Further, we may not be having a meeting of the minds on what is meant about the British viewpoint on the Napoleonic Wars and Waterloo where the vast majority of the histories see the wars through a British heroic lens with everyone else as chorus boys.

"I'm tryin' to think but nothin's happening!"
(Curly Stooge)

I didnt type this, it seems like my post was replaced with this. I had a copy of my original post and re-posted it below that. Anyone know whats going on?

I still want to know why nobody insists that Gazala and Tobruk were Italian victories on the grounds that most of Rommel's troops were Italian. I likewise also don't understand why the fall of Singapore in 1942 isn't argued to be an Indian defeat given that most (25 formations of 49) of the defeated troops were Indian and only a quarter were British.

Unless he has recently changed his Passport due to Brexit, Peter Hofschroer is British actually.

Unless he has recently changed his Passport due to Brexit, Peter Hofschroer is British actually

OK Lapsang, I stand corrected, Peter Hofschröer as a British historian who champions the Prussian contribution during the Waterloo campaign. Is he the proverbial drop-in-the-bucket or are there a lot of other Waterloo authors who do the same?

Well you have already been given an excellent list by Handlebarbleep, so perhaps you could go and read some of them

@Minipigs

Well you can't have it both ways, the KGL being German when you want to make one point, and then British when you want to make another!

Gareth Glover has been dedicated to bringing the letters in German in the Siborne papers to a wider audience. He has also partenered with others, such as Martin Mittlacher to unify and translate the Pflug-Harttung accounts and with Erwin Muiljik to highlight his considerable Netherlands sources.

These are excellent examples of the multi-national collaboration thet can shed real light. The nationalism I was referring to was in-period, not today. I've been a member of what was the Association of Friends of the Waterloo Committee (Now the Waterloo Association) for nearly one and a half decades. I have seen visitors and contributors from other nationalities treated with nothing but the greatest welcome and the highest standards of courtesy.

I wouldn't set to0 much store by the relevance of an Amazon review though. Few members of the general public has much understanding of Waterloo beyond Abba's interpretation and a London railway station. But then again my son, who is just starting his MA in History, informs me that something like 80% of surveyed US college students thought that Obama ended slavery while around 40% thought JFK was a fictional character. The current POTUS reportedly said that the Canadians burned down the whitehouse in 1812, so who knows?

@minipigs

"I want the great Haythornwaite to write a book about like "Waterloo Men" about the Prussians"

ISBN 184415599-4 The Waterloo Armies, Men, Organization & Tactics – Philip Haythornthwaite

Dustjacket:

A detailed, authoritative single-volume study of the Waterloo armies. Full analysis of all the armies engaged – French, British, Hanoverians, Brunswickers, Netherlanders, Prussians.

After the general introduction the page count stacks up like this:

British Army (inc KGL) 41
Hanoverian 5
Brunswick 4
French 61
Netherlands 15
Nassau 4
Prussian 37

So out of a total of approx 167 pages of analysis 24.5% was British (including the Germans of the KGL) 17% Allied contingents and 22% Prussian.

In his most significant work on the campaign, I don't think at first glance that shows an appreciable bias?

Yeah, Haythornwaite is one of my favorite Napoleonic authors…but please dont tell dibble.

I think we might be conflating several distinct concepts here. I don't dispute there are a lot of enjoyable British authors on the Napoleonic wars, I don't dispute the British army was actively engaged, neither do I dispute that a few British authors throw their Germanic allies an occasional bone.

I do however maintain that the great bulk of British literature on the subject tends to focus on the British contribution in a way that makes allies like the Spanish, Dutch and Prussians seem like mere sprigs of parsley in the ears of a roasted pig.

I remember in 2009 I told, with considerable irony I might add, a couple of ultra conservatives that Obama had indeed caused the Confederacy to lose by building a tax payer funded time machine to travel to antebellum South and distribute enough food stamps to slaves to bankrupt what would've been an otherwise victorious Confederacy. These guys half believed me.

@minipigs

I have my own time travel fantasies, but none so convoluted!

What is often neglected is the "anniversary effect" on the Waterloo literature, and prevailing public opinion.

1865 – Britain had just got over a second French invasion threat, but fearful of German unification. Suspicion rife of Prussian domination of a unified Germany.

1915 – At war with our old ally and now allied with the old enemy!

1965 – Most military historians WW2 veterans or heavily influenced by them. Works singing German praises unlikely to capture much of the market (Don't mention the war, Polly)

2015 – Britain rife with talk of Brexit and on the threashold of an EU referendum. One side unlikely to countenance praising the Germans, the other side unlikely to want to upset the French. Voices of scholarly balance somewhat in the wilderness.

Far from an historian's publications on Waterloo influencing popular culture, I think it's popular culture influencing what history gets published!

I suspect there's a bit of marketing going on as well. Unlike the collection of rare birds that frequent discussion groups like this, most people who read history want to read about people like themselves. If I'm a UK author, I'm going to sell more books about the British at Waterloo than if I write about the Dutch and Belgians. Or at least that's what their publisher will be telling them.

It's sort of like how many Americans think D-Day was the most decisive moment in the war against Nazi Germany – books about Normandy ( where there were Americans) sell better than books about Operation Bagration (where there weren't any).

If I'm a UK author, I'm going to sell more books about the British at Waterloo than if I write about the Dutch and Belgians

Uniquely, however, you'll only be criticised if you're a UK author who does this. If you're a German, Dutch or Belgian author, you'll be lauded to the skies for overemphasising the German, Dutch or Belgian contribution.

4thC, would it be fair to say you have a bit of a beef with the Prussians?

@ 42flanker

Not really, I'm a bit of a Germanophile actually. I speak and read the language and have lived and worked in what we can no longer call "Greater Germany".

I do object to the continued latter-day overemphasis of their contribution and proficiency, when the most cursory reading exposes very severe shortcomings in both areas. In terms of military proficiency I'd group the Prussians with the Spanish, based on their poor performance in 1813-15 as well as 1806-7, except that for national tenacity in adversity, the Spanish hit them out of the park.

Uniquely, the overemphasis of the Prussian contribution is always zero-sum, too. It's always based on appropriating credit from or assigning blame to someone else, who supposedly did it all wrong then lied about it. I suspect this is probably because even today, there is a nutty fringe still relying on long-discredited sources like Hofschroer and Hamilton-Williams for their opinion of the Prussians.

I can't think why, because when you read something Hofschroer's written that you hadn't heard before, it tends to collapse under even quite cursory scrutiny. As well as the well-rehearsed Waterloo nonsense, there's also his assertion that Liebertwolkwitz was a uniquely huge cavalry battle, which is now widely taken as fact but which falls apart when one looks at half a dozen other battles.

We still await a measured English-language history of the significance of the Prussian contribution to the struggle against Napoleon. To be properly dispassionate, this would need to look at not just the late afternoon of 18th June 1815, but at how Prussia contributed to defeating Napoleon previously: in 1803-1805, 1806-7, 1807-12, 1813-14, and in 1815.

For bonus points, it would be interesting if such an analysis were to consider how 1813-1814 became known as the Befreiungskrieg when erste (zweite, dritte etc) deutsche Bürgerkrieg would have been equally accurate.

@4th Cuirassier: if you consider yourself Germanopile I am glad that you haven´t changed your opinion to "neutral"…I grew up in an era when bashing my country was mainstream thinking here in Germany, so I am used to that kind of nonsense. And I chuckle when I consider the amount of anger you must feel now that the contribution of Prussia to the defeat of Napoleon (who I admire)is widely recognised.
cheers

Minipigs- can you give some examples from the great bulk of British literature to support your statement?

@ dogtail

I think the presumed right of others to bash and indeed lecture Germany dissipated like air leaking from a balloon during the 1990s. That was when we saw how the various Balkan ethnicities couldn't wait to treat each other the instant the Soviet boot came off their neck. Likewise the British record under occupation in the Channel Islands was nothing meritorious, and latterly we had our very own crypto-anti-Semite leading a major party. We've never actually elected anyone like that, but then again, neither has Germany, which post-Versailles was saddled with a proportional electoral system and a constitution that gave excessive powers to the President, including emergency powers that allowed a minority regime to act like it had a majority. In that light there was nothing exceptionally bad about the German nation's behaviour up to 1945.

If you arrange the same facts in a different way, they can sometimes support unexpected conclusions. It's uncontroversial to note that Prussia fought four campaigns against France between 1802 and 1815: 1806-7, 1813 before the armistice, 1813-14 after the armistice, and 1815. Prussia was defeated in the first two, prevailed with Russian, Austrian and Swedish help in the third, and was defeated in 1815 wherever not assisted by Wellington. The Prussian plan to defeat Napoleon unassisted fell apart on day 2 and they had to be rescued. Like Britain in WW2, they didn't win in 1815, they were on the winning side.

It's also uncontroversial to note the Prussian record in actually assisting Napoleon, for example by not joining the Third Coalition, and by allying with him between 1807 and 1812. Unless you take all that lot together, and also note how trivial their military effort would have been without British money, arms, and uniforms, and Russian and Austrian manpower, you're not looking at the complete picture of Prussia versus Napoleon. This was that Prussia was, unfortunately, actively on the wrong side much of the time, and only marginally effective when on the right side. The hofstorian strand of thinking, however, stridently objects to any of this even being brought up. In fact, the hofstorian tries to spin it as somehow discreditable that Britain provided its allies with the specie and wherewithal to fight (thank God it wasn't the other way around, or we'd never hear the end of it).

The idea that 1813-1814 was a huge German national struggle looks doubtful when you look at how many Germans remained on the wrong side. It looks preposterous when you look at how, and for how long, Spain and Russia mobilised against France. That's a national struggle.

It is exactly this wider, not very flattering perspective of the Prussian story that the later "German" myth of Waterloo was designed to obfuscate. These were waters that politically needed to be muddied. Some people fell for it then, but we needn't do so now.

As for "the contribution of Prussia to the defeat of Napoleon [being] widely recognised", every 5 minutes we get someone along here announcing that it's not. So which is it?

Ouch. 4th Cuirassier that is pretty forensic and presumably will answer several of the points made by Dogtail.

I would say however that when anti-Napoleonic thought and feeling really did become openly active in Prussia, that the country did throw itself fully into military opposition to Napoleon's Empire in early 1813- despite having supported Napoleon the previous year against Russia. There is no question about that.

However, we must also recognise that broader 'German' opposition to Napoleon did take somewhat longer to show itself- indeed not in any significance until until after the Battle of Leipzig, after which it did flourish vigorously.

An obvious exception of course are those Germans such as the KGL and Brunswickers who valiantly shared with Britain from the early and most disheartening days, the long struggle against Napoleon's attempts to dominate Europe- and whose contribution is rightly given prominence by both German and British historians. These Germans are for me some of the real heroes of the Napoleonic wars, and the KGL memorial at Bexhill, Sussex is a fitting place for British people to pay tribute to the long endure of such brave and steadfast warriors. .

I might add that the Prussians' performance as allies in 1793-95 was pretty p-poor. "Take the money and run- I've just remembered something important in Pomerania" would not be too unfair.

Thereafter, I confess that from my limited perspective I had rather subscribed to the post-Jena narrative of plucky Prussia redux.

I do believe that chauvinism is stupid. I do believe that military history and history in general should be studied without national bias. There is no doubt in my mind that there is german chauvinistic literature about the Waterloo campaign. But I never read in this forum that Waterloo is indeed a german victory.
I have the impression that a lot of effort in the napoleonic forum is wasted. I would prefer to discuss the merit of a withdrawl of the allied troops to Waterloo and Wavre instead of defending Prussian policy after the disastrous defeat in 1806/7, when Prussian existance was in danger.
Mr 4th Cuirassier,in my humble opinion you are trolling. You are fighting assumed hofstorianism with british chauvinism. That is of no use to me, I never read Hofschoers book about the german victory in the Waterloo campaign.
Imho misguided english chauvinism led to Brexit, which will increase the price of Frontrank and Perry miniatures. And that really pi..es me off.

Meanwhile, the other recent hypothetical, from Robert Le Diable:-

"What would have happened if Napoleon had lost at Austerlitz?"

…has only received three replies.

Waterloo should always be considered as an allied victory. Not to accept it as such is to insult all the allied troops involved – Wellington and the British and their German-Dutch-Belgian allies, who stood their ground and the Prussians who did keep their word and arrived in time to make the final difference.

As a youngster I always thought of Waterloo as the British (English and Scots) against the French. But once you start researching and finding out more about the battle, you soon discover that several nationalities were involved. But if you talk to anyone who either does not have a military interest or Napoleonic interest, that mindset is still prevalent. So it is up to us to basically educate those that may still be unaware of the different nationalities that were actually involved. This probably goes for other battles and campaigns and I have heard people describe the Crimean War as Britain against Russia. They seem quite disappointed when you tell them the French and Turks were also involved and they were fighting on the side of the British.

@Lapsang

"What would have happened if Napoleon had lost at Austerlitz?"

…has only received three replies.

Excellent point and an example of a battle where the coverage is generally straight forward without propagandists elevating either the participation or results of the battle to the level of a crusade. When one reads about Austerlitz, the Austrians and Russians are generally both discussed and neither one is left out or underrepresented.

Because of that fair minded, non partisan approach to the battle, even by British authors, you dont see any controversies over interpretations of which nation is responsible for what actions.

Waterloo is without doubt an allied victory of two armies, one of which was itself multinational. The victory would not have been possible without both armies cooperating. I don't see any argument about that.

4th Cuirassier made an interesting point though about what nationality we ascribe to armies, victories and defeats- Gazala is indeed called a German victory because the victorious army although mostly composed of Italians was led by a German. Singapore is called a British defeat because the defeated army, although mostly Indian, was led by a Brit.

Ignorance and denigration of the contribution of other partners in coalition wars is definitely NOT limited to the mass media and general population of Britain. French newspapers and general TV coverage of the WWI centenaries gave very little on the other armies fighting alongside their forces in France. Of course British general coverage of the same centenary equally focussed vastly more on British (and quite a lot on Empire too) sacrifice and heroism- with little focus on the French- that's just what mass media does- nothing uniquely British about it.

The Russian popular narrative of the great patriotic war barely if at all references the contributions of other countries. In this view, the main American contribution to what we call WWII was making trucks for the Red Army. As for American mass media treatment of the contribution of other countries to WWII- U571.

Of course there are many Russians, French or Americans who have a strong and nuanced understanding of military history, just like there are many such people in the UK. But it is unfair to single out UK because of historical ignorance and distortion in the mainstream media and general population- that happens everywhere.

I still want to know why nobody insists that Gazala and Tobruk were Italian victories on the grounds that most of Rommel's troops were Italian. I likewise also don't understand why the fall of Singapore in 1942 isn't argued to be an Indian defeat given that most (25 formations of 49) of the defeated troops were Indian and only a quarter were British.

Gee, I dunno, mysteries abound. Why do they call it the Indian Mutiny when these people were fighting for their own country against an invader? Further, why doesn't THAT 200 years long colonial example vex you but the fall of Singapore for two years is a matter or world import?

If we are going to discuss the inability of a culture to see how it is indoctrinated by egocentricity, it might be wiser not to pound the table with examples that tend to reinforce that very premise.

The glib answer as to why there's not much discussion about Austerlitz is that neither Hamilton-Williams nor Hofschroer wrote dodgy books about it.

The more nuanced answer is that as it wasn't an allied victory, there's never been Waterloo-esque material to work with if you want to spin up a little storm. There's never been room for nationalist revisionism later to try to appropriate the credit for it. It cemented rather than conclusively ending an epoch, making it less interesting than the scuffle 10 years later. It's impossible to make handwavey statements about what "everyone" thinks of Austerlitz, or to correct other people's wrongthink, because nobody thinks of it at all, really.

Some kvetching might be expected of later battles at which there were significant contingents allied to the French. Then again, nobody in (strictly geographical) Germany or Italy in 1840 was going to argue that Germans or Italians deserved more credit for the result of Borodino. The battle was a bloodbath, and the campaign was a defeat; hence, so what if Italians won it. Won what?

With Austerlitz it's not really even possible to argue about who was more responsible for the defeat, because as the defeated army was mostly Russian, the answer's obvious.

To the French it doesn't matter.
When I was in the NAVY I was laughing at the French visitors, as they teach kids that HMS VICTORY was sunk !

"Why do they call it the Indian Mutiny…?"

Presumably because it took place in India.

"Why do they call it the Indian Mutiny…?"

Presumably because it took place in India.

Yes, this is perfectly said. I suppose it wouldn't give some even the slightest ironic pause to cast that event as anything but a bunch of disloyal, murderous curs attacking the very body come to enlighten them.

I am surprised some in the UK haven't demanded an apology from the Indian government…and maybe some reparations.

This is the similar tonality with the Napoleonic Wars and the UK histories. The chant is that none of the UK authors ever said it was Britain that defeated Napoleon and France…but we all know that they did…but try and find the actual sentence that declares that…nudge, nudge, wink, wink.

Brilliant. Somewhere, Goebbels is taking notes.

I suppose, MiniPigs, there's no point my stating that the Indian Mutiny deserved its contemporary name because it began when troops in the Bengal Army rose up against their officers; that not all the Indian armies rebelled; and that Britain had never invaded India, but British merchants had gone there to engage in trade?

I wonder what the American Revolution or War of Independence would have been called if it had failed, and George Washington and other leaders had been executed for treason.

I suspect all countries/cultures are, to one degree or another, 'guilty' of the egocentricity you seem to suggest is a peculiarly British vice.

I don't think that we should be too surprised that historians tend to write using material that comes to hand, i.e. from their national perspectives.

However, whilst I have seen whole books that criticise Siborne for not using Prussian or other German material, I don't hear of Pflug-Harttung being criticised for being too German-centric. Or Houssaye as being too much of a Francophile, or T'Serclares de Wommerson as being fixated on the Netherlands contribution.

Earlier in the thread I shared more modern works that recognise the multinational nature of the campaign. Many were by British authors, most using British publishers and significantly all in English. When taken along with the meticulously research in the French archives of Paul L Dawson and the sterling efforts of Andrew Field to bring orignal French accounts to an Anglophone audience it paints a very different picture to the jingoistic stereotype.

Yes, visit the Palace of Westminster and you will see huge pictures of Waterloo and the death of Nelson. But go to the Tuilleries and you would see David's ceiling of Austerlitz. The chauvenism accusation we may level at popular culture are not borne out by the modern British historical authorship or establishment. If it was we would have banished Andrew Roberts
and Tim Clayton into exile as traitorous Bonapartists years ago! As far as I know, we haven't and their books grace my shelves along with all the others without any of them spontaneously combusting if a fit of heresy.

The participants themselves were almost uniformly prejudiced. Soldiers usually are, normally against all commers who do not share the same capbadge as them. Death or Glory! Ubique! Per Adua Ad Astra! Semper Fi! Certa Cito!

OK, I admit, that last one was mine.

However, allowing for period attitudes I find the British conspiracy theory is largely just that.

There can be no doubt that the modern British conspiracy is a matter of fact: Airfix had English and Scottish infantry, Horse Artillery and those Hussars, and it took them decades to release Prussian Landwehr.
And the French artillery was awfull.

Minipigs- as you brought up the Indian Mutiny and obviously have some opinions on that- would you also like to give us your views on the 'Phillipine-American war'? A 'war' in which between 200,000 and one million Filipinos died.
Here's a few highlights on the way that 'war' was prosecuted:

"In November 1901, the Manila correspondent of the Philadelphia Ledger wrote: "The present war is no bloodless, opera bouffe engagement; our men have been relentless, have killed to exterminate men, women, children, prisoners and captives, active insurgents and suspected people from lads of ten up, the idea prevailing that the Filipino as such was little better than a dog. Reports were received from soldiers returning from the Philippines that, upon entering a village, American soldiers would ransack every house and church and rob the inhabitants of everything of value, while those who approached the battle line waving a flag of truce were fired upon.""

another perspective-

"Corporal Sam Gillis: "We make everyone get into his house by seven p.m., and we only tell a man once. If he refuses we shoot him. We killed over 300 natives the first night. They tried to set the town on fire. If they fire a shot from the house we burn the house down and every house near it, and shoot the natives, so they are pretty quiet in town now."[

or this-

"A soldier from New York: "The town of Titatia was surrendered to us a few days ago, and two companies occupy the same. Last night one of our boys was found shot and his stomach cut open. Immediately orders were received from General Wheaton to burn the town and kill every native in sight; which was done to a finish. About 1,000 men, women and children were reported killed. I am probably growing hard-hearted, for I am in my glory when I can sight my gun on some dark skin and pull the trigger."

c20th British historians wrote a lot about the Indian Mutiny- much of it very critical of British actions. There isn't so much written about the Phillipine-American 'war'. We get some rich input from you on British colonial history Minipigs. Perhaps you'd favour us with your views on this episode of US colonial history- in the spirit of compare and contrast. Perhaps the Filipinos weren't fighting for their own country though, but just to cause trouble.

"I remember in 2009 I told, with considerable irony I might add, a couple of ultra conservatives that Obama had indeed caused the Confederacy to lose by building a tax payer funded time machine to travel to antebellum South and distribute enough food stamps to slaves to bankrupt what would've been an otherwise victorious Confederacy. These guys half believed me."

I don't.

And for those who are curious about the Philippine "Insurrection" (as it is termed in a lot of American histories, possibly with less definitional justification than the term "Indian Mutiny"), google "Hell Roaring Jake Smith" or "Littleton Waller."

Well I do remember that this thread has to do with "What if Napoleon Won at Waterloo" so with that in mind my comments are:

1. The Prussians had more forces moving up.

2. The British would have continued paying. They never backed down when it came to fighting Napoleon. Even without Austria not initially in the War of the Sixth Coalition they funded the alliance. If a wolf pack volunteered to fight the dreaded Boney the British would make sure it got fed and given proper lodgings! ;)

3. Davout was organizing more forces. By the time the Allies did get to Paris in June 1815 they were not ready. Napoleon would have needed another 3-4 weeks to give Davout time to organize the National Guard/new forces.

4. The Allies were operating in the south against Jean Rapp. Winning at Waterloo means that Napoleon races down there with most of the army while a corps and some cavalry operate as an "army of observation." The Austrians and allies head towards the Rhine!

On Waterloo … it was an ALLIED victory. Hof. was trying to push this German victory thing too much. I enjoy his book for several reasons but pushing the British and Dutch-Belgians aside was not cool.

And yes, we all know how the French allies were often left out of the victory laurels by Napoleon. You can honestly say that Austerlitz was a French Victory as only a very small percentage of the army was allied. On the other hand, by the time of Eckmuhl and Wagram substantial amounts of allies were involved. Wagram could honestly be called a "French-Allied" victory. ;)

"Yes, this is perfectly said. I suppose it wouldn't give some even the slightest ironic pause to cast that event as anything but…"

I am certain there's a forum elsewhere on TMP where you may suppose to your heart's content, but the discussion had turned to the question assigning or mis-assigning national labels to military events according to numbers involved, not categorising them as to the merits, or otherwise, for the British presence, interesting though that might be.

So. 'Indian' was relevant. 'Mutiny,' less so.

Although, like Singapore, and Gazala, the Indian Mutiny has precious little to do with the battle of Waterloo, – apart, of course, from the fact that it was won by a mere sepoy general.

@dogtail

I still have that Waterloo farmhouse set. The figures are wrong for both LHS, Hougoumont or Pappelote.

For LHS standard British infantry can be repainted for KGL, and the French infantry can do double duty as Nassauers.

The highlanders and Imperial Guardsmen have no reason to be anywhere near the farm.

As grown-ups who play with minatures, we seem to forget that Airfix was just a toy manufacturer, pandering to the pocket-money budgets of little boys. In these days of merchandising and film franchises, we also forget the influence of the cinema. Waterloo and The Battle of Britain were certainly early influencers on my spending habits.

What that does mean though is that Airfix sold just enough ME109's so they could be shot down by Spitfires and Hurricanes!

I also probably thought that the French Infantry pack only had an Eagle in it so Sgt Ewart of Cpl Stiles had something to capture. But in my defence, I was only 9!

Handlebarbleep/dogtail

Agree with all of your comments on the Airfix Waterloo range. There is a story that they had Prussian Cavalry part designed when the company went bankrupt the first time- I can only wonder what they would have been like. With Airfix attention to historical detail they probably would have been Cuirassiers- the only type not present.

Re Airfix figures of later periods I would say that it catered for WWII German types as generously for the Germans as the British- regular infantry, Afrika Corps, Paratroopers and Mountain Troops vs four flavours of British troops in the range.

Re aircraft, on many occasions I happily ran around the garden with an FW190 held in one hand chasing a Spitfire held in the other and making takka takka noises. I've had to stop doing it now though, as my wife thinks the neighbours will worry about me.

The French Artillery had wobbly wheels, and the British RHA Guns loomed over them by comparison. And those poor old British Hussars were expected to face off against Cuirassiers every game…

I seem to recall that initially the only 'British' Infantry available were the Highlanders, perhaps the figure designers were Scottish.

To reflect proper woke shame at Britain's history, I think wargame figures need to be retooled to acknowledge the evil of British history.

There shouldn't be any "Waterloo British" anything any more for obvious reasons, and suitable poses might include

- Line infantry advancing towards Portugal
- Rifleman bombarding Copenhagen
- Line officer tolerating slavery
- Foot Guard hiding behind a Belgian
- Engineer officer setting fire to church full of civilians
- Light infantry running away from Middle Guard
- Woman soldier calling out male aggression

Acceptable personality figures would be tough, but could perhaps include "Wellington with fingers crossed behind back lying to ADC".

That is actually quiet funny. I would have made it "Wellington promissing to help the Prussians with fingers crossed behind the back" but yours OK.

@dogtail

But he did help the Prussians, he fought a battle at Quatre Bras and tied up an entire wing of the French forces.

It was meant to be a joke, nothing more. No need to go to "He said this" "No he said that" "Show me the tape".

One of the most enlightening books I ever read was " Waterloo, Battle of Three Armies," edited by Lord Chalfont (1979). He had three authors write about it – one English ( William Seymour), one French (Jacques Champagne), and a German (Eberhard Kaulbach). I have no idea if the scholarship was all that good ( although I suspect it was fine by 1979 standards). But it was fascinating to compare how they wrote about the same events and compare them.

For example, describing the British cavalry charge, Seymour describes the British heavies as that came down the ridge as "having suffered very few losses themselves (some Life Guardsmen had been shot by flanking fire from men of Bachelu's division)." In contrast, Champagne says "Life Guards and dragoons were decimated by Bachelu's rifle fire as they reached the crests." "Some men" versus "decimated." It's a great example of how authors' writing reflects their national biases.

I used to have that book, many years ago. From what I could see, both Seymour and Champagne wrote some fairly self-aggrandising prose on behalf of their respective 'teams', and only Kaulbach seemed to be attempting to put together an unbiased account of the battle.

@dogtail

Just making the broader point that , joking aside, "allied overall victory" is sauce for both goose and gander, i.e. 16th and 18th

A point worth remembering, perhaps, is that at the same time Siborne was compiling his Waterloo dossiers, the project titled the 'National Military Record' first conceived by the Duke of York was finally coming into being in the form of Richard Cannon's 'Historical Record of the British Army.'

Launched in 1836 under the auspices of the Attorney General Dept., it had been first announced in 1822 "with a view of preserving a remembrance of the particular service and achievements of the British Army, a National Military Record of all the battles and actions in which the regiments have been, or may be engaged"

Intended to produce in one series official histories of all the regiments of the British Army (and the Royal Marines), by the time Cannon retired in 1854, he had written or overseen some 77 volumes (The series was never completed). Using records and drafts from the individual regiments, the quality of the histories varies considerably, with many traditions of questionable origin being set in stone.

This was the era when what we today might call regimental brands were being shaped, with a strong sense of competition fuelled by jealousies and resentments over the award of honours and distinctions, a new phenomenon that during the Great French War had developed from an occasional award to a more standardised scheme on which regiments staked their reputations. It remained curiously arbitrary nonetheless and sparked feuds lasting years. This prickly sense of competition generated a certain myopia at regimental level in the reporting of events and it is hardly surprising that this should have been reflected in equally chauvinistic attitudes at a national level. Admittedly that had become something of a British speciality under the Hanoverians; ironic though that might seem.