"Wonders will never cease......" Topic

link

Political correctness comes to history.

"Worsley said that Wellington's first cable back to London all but whitewashed their involvement."

So Wellington not only downplayed the role of the Prussians but secretly used the electric telegraph in 1815?

What ground-breaking research by Ms Worsley has led her to that conclusion, I wonder?

"She said British badly needed a victory after being rocked by Napoleonic war"

Seems a bit of an odd thing to say had all the victories over the French in the peninsula and subsequent invasion of France left the British badly needing a victory?

Once again popular history 'discovers' something that interested historians have known for years. I do not think that anyone with a more than passing interest on history does not know that Wellington tried to play down the Prussian role and that most of his Waterloo army was not British.

What's next? The startling discovery about why he was really called the 'Iron Duke'?

Perhaps it's a counterblast to prevailing brexit rhetoric………

I can't see she said anything that isn't so – but hogging the credit is just human nature and has been raised to an artform by Hollywood. It's just not worth getting worked up about. Anyone who has read anything on the period will know it took maximum effort from all the allies to overcome Napoleon.

"I can't see she said anything that isn't so.."

Er, sending messages by 'cable' in 1815!

Surely EVERYONE knows that the defenders at the Alamo killed 1000s of Mexican (can we say "Mexicans" now?) Soldiers at the Alamo -- with Davey Crockett doing 80% of the damage clubbing with Old Betsey.

Russ Dunaway

All the Allies played important roles but I suspect Waterloo would be remembered as a French victory had not the Duke been there to supply some Iron.

And of course, we all now know that thanks to the latest research Anne Boleyn was black.

Not forgetting machine gun armed red coats gunning down unwieldy columns of crapauds.

Oh Dear. A historian saying something negative about the British! My word, people might have to take their Union-Jack blinkers off. And that will never do, will it! LOL

And it's not 'political correctness'. It is offering the full picture, rather than a narrow minded British viewpoint.

And perhaps she meant that Britain badly needed a victory, in the hope they would not have to keep funding everyone to fight the French and they can get some of their er, funding back?

BillyMN

And Maximum funding from Britain before anyone would make a move.

It's about a history programme that debunks the often erroneous, or at best simplistic, popular understanding of historical events. It's meant for those who don't read history. I imagine there's another episode that discusses the fact that the '45 wasn't a Scotland v England affair.
Nothing to see here. In fact, I suspect that if I saw the programme (rather than just a newspaper's report of it) I might well approve of it, in its own context.

I'm with the Ritter. It's facts carefully selected and presented by someone well out of her field to support BBC's opposition to Brexit.

And she's attacking a classic straw man. No historian ever claimed it was an exclusive British victory--but without the Brits, there wouldn't even have been a battle.

Mind you, despite being a "BBC Historian" she does have a field. If we were discussing palace internal politics or architecture, I'd pay attention to her.

TV has a habit of using charismatic academics with a proven track record in broadcasting to deliver documentary material. Lucy Worsley is attractive and has screen presence and Janina Ramirez is another who both started with their own subject matter but have been consequently sought out by channels like the BBC to deliver other material. They don't necessarily write or produce what they speak to – look to the credits if you need to get excited or apportion blame. I have in the past.
As a non-Brit I do wonder why Brexit is still an issue – it's all over I thought and I don't see the correlation between this product and whatever else might still be going on in UK domestic politics.
Several contributors to this thread have already indicated that documentaries are not produced for the likes of wargaming military history aficionados – it's for mass consumption of an assumed uninformed audience. Do we really need reminding ourselves that documentaries are opinion pieces designed for infotainment?
This programme is simply catching up with with a well overdue adjustment to the perspectives of the campaign and battle which has already occurred in modern academia. It also seems to be trying to correct generational misconceptions amongst the British populace. The BBC does not make product for any audience other than a UK one – if it sells off-shore all the better. I'd respectfully suggest there was no British army in the 100 Days campaign – a large British contingent to be sure but no whole army. There was an Allied army under Wellington and a Prussian army under Blucher and the Allied army had more 'Germans' and European soldiers in it than native English speakers – we know this (or many of us do) but people who are primarily informed about the world through the TV likely do not.
This cannot be a bad thing.

Sorry, Robert, but have you seen the programme? Or just read the piece by a paper which has its own axe to grind?
Most Brits know that Wellington and the English won the battle of Waterloo, so a popular corrective is useful every so often.

I'm Scottish, so of course regularly grind axes, if not claymores

I think Unlucky General's opinion is valid and very well expressed.

Point, advocate. Only read the article. I haven't seen a programme in about ten years, except for a few old mysteries on DVD. (Hmm. Unless that WWPD refight of Gettysburg counts?) Anyway, I haven't watched a TV broadcast for information in this century.

I wasn't big on it in the previous century.

As to why Brexit is still an issue. A major, no going back, constitutional change was made by a single absolute majority vote. Not a good idea. It's certainly not how America would do it.
I feel the same way about Scottish independence, and it looks very much as if that will happen very soon too.

Should note I used to get BBC World Service on long commutes. It doesn't keep me from buying up the BBC Merrivale Holmes when the BBC is willing to sell it, but it cured me of any suspicion the BBC will do history or politics straight.

It's all part of Russia's disinformation campaign.

I gather turkeys will be getting a vote on Christmas "very soon too"?

I'm sure Blucher sent a 'cable' home downplaying the role of the Prussians and letting Berlin know it was Wellington's army that held out most of the day and the Prussians were running a bit late.

The last line of the article concludes, "His downfall signaled the end to the hundred years war between the English and the French."

I must have missed that Napoleon was behind the Hundred Years War.

Brechtel 198 would probably say it was forced upon him by the aggression of Edward III and Henry V, who wanted to rule France instead of him…

I can understand people dismissing the article writer but to dismiss the historian, especially if people have not actually seen the programme in question, is comical and a denial of the truth because it might not agree with some people's viewpoints.

And perhaps the article writer, who may not have the same military interest or knowledge as those that attend this site, might have been referring to the previous fighting against France, rather than just the Hundred Years War? As we all know, Britain did fight against the France in previous wars before Napoleon came on the scene.

It will certainly be interesting too see the actual programme, well, perhaps not to some. LOL

Just watched the French Revolution episode. Not bad really, killing off a few myths and all that, including the propaganda about Napoleon's actual height.

Funniest and best bit for me though, albeit rather sad as well, was the silly Royalists at the end who firstly stated 'Royalty is of divine inspiration' LOL
More worrying however was that also said the French Revolution and beheading of the King was 'worst catastrophe of the last two and a half centuries' Obviously they have not heard of World War One, World War two etc, etc. They must have a really limited reading history and knowledge of well, anything.
And finally, to top it off they said they would come to the UK because we have a Queen. Er, I guess their limited reading list and knowledge might not have included anything on the English Civil War otherwise they would have been aware that the Brits chopped the head of their king long before the French Revolution.
Next up I think is the Napoleonic Wars and Waterloo episode.

Significant, I think, that the expression "fibs", which would put you in mind of some Nursery-School misdemeanour, has been used to describe, among other things, the Coup d'Etat which removed James VII from the throne. Who benefits from this kind of distortion, worse even than "dumbing-down"? With regard to the current crop of popular TV presenters of History, it's of note that one eminent Scottish Historian, both Academic and scholar, upon seeing what was to be broadcast, refused to allow his name to be associated with a series upon which he had actually advised.
With regard to one female presenter in particular, she's clearly an equestrienne of long experience.