"The Waterloo Model" Topic

On Radio 4 AT THIS VERY MOMENT – a play based on the making of the scale model of Waterloo which is now in the National Army Museum.

DBDD

im normally quite a fan of R4 but that seems to be a little tenous… was it good?

Yes – I enjoyed it. You can always catch it via "Listen Again" on the website. Basically, the bloke who made the model discovered that the Duke had underplayed the Prussian's contribution. He added 40,000 Prussians at Plancenoit and the Duke was not happy.

Just listened to it myself, very amusing

Darrell B D Day
"He added 40,000 Prussians at Plancenoit and the Duke was not happy."

Presumably the actors said the Duke was not happy. However, it's fiction. Hope it was enjoyable at least!

The link to hear it again, for up to one week, is:

link

Pick Thursday's option.

Ian

For those interested there is Peter Hofschroer's book on Siborne the modelmaker, the model and Wellington called 'Wellington's Smallest Victory'.

Siborne was, apparently, forced to remove thousands of Prussians from the model.

JC

I got round to listening to it this morning. Very enjoyable. It has to be heard for the comments on soldiers taking over the home. :-)

I enjoyed it so much I used Wire Tap to secure it for the lifetime of my Mac's hard disk.

Thanks Darrell for bringing it to my attention. I usually listen to Radio 4, but was catching up with Radio 7's crime hour at the time.

Ian

It sounds interesting.

However, after reading "Waterloo: New Perspectives" by David Hamilton-Williams, it would seem that the veracity of the entire model is in question, not just the placement of the Prussians. The accounts of personages that contributed to the building fund were reflected in the display, and the contributions of anyone not British were discounted. Appartantly less than one half of the submitted accounts were used in the composition of the diarama.

SMc.

Of course, David H-W is hardly regarded as reliable by some people…

Siborne did receive a lot of grief for trying to use information from non British sources. The Duke apparently chose not to remember the extent of the Prussian contribution to his victory. He used his influence to punish Siborne for producing a representation of the battle which contradicted his own account of the battle.

John Cook

"Siborne was, apparently, forced to remove thousands of Prussians from the model"

and

TERMINATOR wrote:
"The Duke apparently chose not to remember the extent of the Prussian contribution to his victory. He used his influence to punish Siborne …."

So you've read the book! Unfortunately Hofshroer's book is fictional, it's just a good read. Have a look again at the back of it and you see (strangely for a historian) there's no references for Hofshroer's anti-Duke scenes. It's all made up.

Worse, (which is less forgivable) there are countless lies. First one is page 30 line 5. I'm sure you can find the others!

Cacadore,

I do think you need to stop referring to other people's opinions as 'lies.' That is really outside the Pale. Just because you don't agree with someone, it doesn't make them a liar. Further, someone making an honest mistake is not a liar either.

What you're putting into your postings is, if not defamation, then pretty close. I would advise you to stop and change your rhetoric somewhat. You can disagree without being pejorative about it.

Just friendly, albeit unsolicited, advice. If nothing else, what you're doing is quite unseemly and it's also against the forum rules.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Just friendly?

OK. Attack the point not the man. Fine. I agree 100%.

Page 30 line 5 … what Hofshroer's putting into his book is, if not defamation, then pretty close. He can disagree without being pejorative about it. Surely?

Sorry, Gandulf. What should I do if I see a lie? Ignore it?

Men lie. Politicians lie. Authors lie and generals lie. The whole point of democracy is that if we're lucky. we can maybe, sometimes, stop them getting away with it.

The Truth. Let's have some of it. I'm ready with evidence. You have some too?

Perhaps we can have a good, impartial debate.

GAndulf,
Again, just friendly-like: By the way, where can I find the 'forum rules?' – I thought it was about behaving like we're a guest in a friend's 'house'. That's nice.

I've wiped me shoes, given some chocs to the wife; I'm sat down with a glass of whisky and a biscuit, and I'm ready. Mind you, if you were in my house and I asked you question about Napoleon which you knew the answer to, you'd think it was OK to ignore the qusetion completely and go on as if I'd never spoken? I just ask.

Why 'attack' anything? Why not just discuss and quit pointing fingers or being accusatory using perjorative language?

Sincerely,
Kevin

where can I find the 'forum rules?

TMP link

It would be a good idea to avoid loaded words such as "lie" and "liars" when discussing history, and instead discuss facts and interpretations in a civil manner.

Then the onus is on you to demonstrate that these are lies.

JC

The British mag La Moniteur has an article on the model.
It produces evidence from Siborne that he removed the numbers of Prussians because hed got it wrong.
The model captures a moment when the Guard had recoiled. Most of the British and all of the Prussians did nothing for between 10 to 15 minutes and then advanced.The model is set in that 15 minutes.
Hofshorter claims 15 minutes is an unimportant bit of time. See how far you can walk in 15 minutes!
My opin of hofshorter is he seems to have an agenda. Is he guilty of Ruling Theory?

Thank you to smcwatt, fighting15s and TERMINATOR. It's an interesting phenomenon, and it sells books (that being my opinion). Perhaps you appreciated that I was commenting on the written word.
_______________________________________________________
Gandulf,
Ah, Gandulf. You may find this helpful:

Re: Cultural respect
As I would respect your cultural background, then you would be doing yourself honour by respecting mine. I, and thousands of others have been bought up in an academic and debating tradition which is adversarial. You will find that it is often the cultural norm in so-called Anglo-Saxon countries such as Australia, New Zealand, India and Britain. It a normal part of educational and political life. At some universities, for example, it is common to ask a candidate to ‘defend' a thesis, to demand evidence and to ‘give way' if necessary. It is also part of frequent national debate to expect that solutions are found by the open expression and testing of beliefs that are adversarial or humorous in nature. And to remain friends.

I am not suggesting that you need to alter your culture, but I suggest that it would help you to stick to the topics raised, rather than focussing on an individual. Perhaps it is lack of experience. I therefore, by way of helping you, answer the statements you chose to ask. However, perhaps in future you would consider a less personal and humourless means of proceeding.

Gandulf:
"I do think you need to stop referring to other people's opinions as 'lies.'"
I haven't.

"That is really outside the Pale"
I assume you know what the ‘pale' was? Your choice of allusion is revealing: it was used for those outside, to not be one of us, to not share our beliefs. Interesting.

" Just because you don't agree with someone, it doesn't make them a liar. Further, someone making an honest mistake is not a liar either."

I agree. Please clarify if you have a point.

I do think you need to stop referring to other people's opinions as 'lies.'
I have not.

So, enough now. My request to you to engage in impersonal debate stands: Do you accept or shirk?
_______________________________________________________
Dear the Editor,
Thank you for your interest. As rules, you ask us to avoid
Spamming, profanity, sexual language, malicious lies about you, persistent moaning or complaining or whining.
I do. You write:

" It would be a good idea to avoid loaded words such as "lie" and "liars" when discussing history, and instead discuss facts and interpretations in a civil manner.

Thank you. An obvious question arises:

What should we do when we wish to discuss a deliberate lie (as opposed to a mistake) found in history or in historical writing?

John Cook
"Then the onus is on you to demonstrate that these are lies.

A fair challenge. However, I have provided some evidence, so perhaps you can first give me your opinion on it so far as there is a lot of it. You should bear in mind that it's impossible to ‘prove' a negative but I actually think it's clear in this case. I'll try to approach it another way if you haven't seen any of the books.

I look forward to your reply.

Cacadore, calling Hofschroer's book fictional just gave me another good chuckle. It seems you're going a bit far in order to defend your HERO Wellington, a bit too far!

I think Hofschroer's books were a needed correction to the traditional & fairly uncritical views of The Duke.
As such, they represent the strength of history in challenging an accepted story in a search for the truth.
However, this doesn't mean Hofschroer is then above reproach.
Someone has mentioned the Le Moniteur article on Siborne's model which gives a plausible reason for the removal of most of the Prussian figures.
Ideally, a discussion of the issue should follow without heat or without agendas.
regards, donald

I see this has risen to the top again. I am afraid no proof of anything has appeared here, only a difference of opinion as to whether Wellington gloated or not. In order to prove that Hofschroer is lying or his book on Siborne was fiction it would be necessary to show that he invented his source material otherwise it is just a matter of interpretation of source material and opinion.

I assume by 'books' the target is about to shift to others, presumably his two volumes on Waterloo. As with 'Smallest Victory' I have also read these, indeed he sent me his manuscripts before publication for peer review.

I am not competent to comment on his interpretation of source material – that remains 'owned' by the author of any book. Once again one would have to show that the source material had been falsified to show that they were 'fiction', or deliberately omitted/selected to slant the argument.

I am in the happy position where my opinion of Wellington and Napoleon is that, as human beings, they were both gold-plated s***s.

JC

Wellington wrote his Waterloo Despatch the day after the battle. It appeared in The Times four days later, on 22 June 1815. Acknowledging the 'timely assistance' of the Prussians, Wellington, put their arrival on the field of battle at 7 p. m. The evidence, from Siborne's extensive research and correspondence with numerous survivors from all armies, including official despatches and records, timed the arrival of the Marshall Blucher's army and their active engagement at 4.30 p.m. a considerable difference in timing indeed. Nor was the 4.30 p.m. arrival of Prussian reinforcements of a trivial order. They arrived in force and attacked the French enemy in force at the hinge of the battle between Napoleon's and Wellington's opposing armies.

Hello, John,
The use of the words "lying' Or "fiction" are clearly out of order.
I am of the opinion that, in general, there are many truths.
Hofschroer makes a case for Wellington pressuring Siborne over the use of multitudes of Prussian troops in his model.
Gary Cousins, in his 'Left Wing History' (First Empire no.84) makes a case for Siborne removing them as part of his on-going self-correction.
Take your choice.
I do have problems with your "I am not competent to comment…." Really? Feel free not to but I do like to hear your opinions as they are inevitably interesting.
regards etc, donald

Well said, Donald. Glad to see you here.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Donald,

Since you brought up one of the excellent articles by Gary Cousins in First Empire, there are also great articles on Waterloo in the same magazine by John Hussey and Greg Pedlow. I would recommend them to all who can get their hands on them.

They are in issues 67,71,73,76,77,78,79,80,81,82,84 of First Empire and are available on MagWeb.

I was asked this question before in the recent past and finally found the information. I do hope this helps.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Donald,

I detect an agent provocateur.

How can I comment on the interpretation of a mass of source material the larger part of which I have never seen?

I'll leave that kind of thing to Kevin.

JC

'I'll leave that kind of thing to Kevin.'

And that was prompted by what? Why don't you keep your nasty comments to yourself. There was no need to saying something like that. If you want to pick a fight or just leave nasty comments, unprovoked to boot, why don't you go the the Current Affairs board? There you can wallow all you like. I've had quite enough of your nonsense.

Sincerely,
Kevin

'You might also try and work on your sense of humor.'

Remember?

You do like to dish it out but you just can't take it, can you.

JC

No, John, that isn't the point. You like to cause trouble and then blame others, mostly myself, for starting arguments.

The threads here lately have been going very well. Civil, rational, and polite discourse has gone on, with a few exceptions, and not 'the usual suspects.' As far as I'm concerned, you have to be snide, snotty, and an all-round marplot just to start an argument. Apparently, you can't live without it. That's my impression, and I'm tired of your silliness and nonsense. It's too bad that you cannot just engage in polite discussion to get your points across and not bait people into an argument.

If you disagree, then prove it. If you can, then I'll admit I was wrong and apologize. If not, then leave me out of your petty snobbery and direct your venom somewhere else. There was a time when you were reasonable and quite nice. I have suggested that you and I 'make peace' on more than one occasion. You are either refusing to do it, or you enjoy just causing trouble and baiting people. It is too bad and I feel very, very sorry for you. You must be a very unhappy person.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Honestly, fellows, do we need to go in this direction?

No, you're right, we don't. My apologies.

Sincerely,
Kevin

No problem, Kevin.
So back to the topic.
In general a historical author has a theme. Not surprisingly, his book aims at the theme, disregarding irrelevancies.
So far,so good?
The theme of the Hofschroer books is Wellington's perfidy.
I think most would agree he was a wily general & later, careful of his reputation. Isn't it possible that the Duke would not particularly wish to share the laurels *and* have other reasons that Siborne removed several hundreds of Prussian figures? As Siborne himself advances a motive for his actions that do not refer to pressure from Wellington, this seems plausible.
I think multiple truths is a defensible theory that mirrors the complexity of real life.
I would by no means denigrate Hofschroer's books but I am coming to the opinion hat they present information relevant to his theme & not necessarily all the information.
And, oh, before anyone uses that nasty foreign term for a nasty foreign thing, I am not an 'agent provacateur'. This is a civil discussion.

Hi Donald,

The Duke was a great captain and one of the best, if not the best of the allied commanders. I also think he was careful, after the wars, of his hard-earned reputation.

He's also been characterized as 'something of a toady and more of a snob' which, as an Anglo-Irish aristocrat, is not hard to imagine.

I also believe that he gave the Prussians their due at Waterloo in the immediate aftermath. I'm also convinced of the events outlined in the articles written by Pedlow, Hussey, and Cousins in First Empire. Their material is well-researched and quite convincing. I highly recommend their work.

Waterloo was not won either by Wellington or the Prussians, but by them both as an allied force. I also think that is old news and that anyone that studies the campaign can figure that out for themselves.

Sincerely,
Kevin

Would someone like to share with us the contents of the infamous "Page 30 Line 5" that has been referred to throughout this thread? Just curious.

Page 30 Line 5 of Wellington's Smallest Victory alludes to the Tussaud waxwork exhibition as follows:

"(The elderly Wellington) was among its visitors. In fact, he came so often to gloat at the effigy (of Napoleon that Sir George Haytor was commissioned to paint the scene)"

As for Kevin's stuff, the characterisation of Wellington as 'something of a toady and more of a snob' is from Elting and presupposes that Elting is a Wellington expert and although it may not be hard for Kevin to imagine it, on the grounds that Wellington was an 'Anglo-Irish aristocrat', it does not follow unless all Anglo-Irish-aristocrats were the same and it may or may not be true. It is not often that three logical fallacies appear in a single sentence.

Turning now to Kevin's assessment of the articles by Pedlow, Hussey, and Cousins in First Empire as being
'well-researched and quite convincing', here is another fallacious argument. It is perfectly possible to agree that they might appear to be 'quite convincing' to Kevin, or anybody else, but unless Kevin is an authority on Waterloo, which I am fairly sure he is not, there is no logical link between Kevin being convinced and whether they are 'well researched' or not.

They may be extremely well researched but Kevin cannot know this and, therefore, his recommendation on the basis of terms that are not equivalent, is worthless.

JC

Would you accept "seemingly well-researched and convincing to me " ????

Also, "not all that interesting", to be quite blunt.

When historian a goes to some lengths to describe the error in the way historian b represented the opinions of historian c writing about the post facto publicity management of events by historical actor d (who had moved from commanding troops into politics, thereby removing any notion in my mind that anything said or done by historical actor d bore other than a coincidental relationship to truth) …. well , it is all just a tad rarefied, isn't ?

But yes, "well-researched and convincing", to my poor level of knowledge and comprehension.

Since M. Gandalf is not expert enough in your eyes, nor am I (je suis sur!) , who exactly would you consider expert enough to pass the judgement "well-researched and convincing" and not , in that statement, be committing a logical fallacy ?

g

just g,

In defence of John Cook, Gandulf has used 'well researched and convincing' before as a non-evidential debate stopper. Cook was right to draw attention to it; it is a poor habit.

Equally, Gandulf's post comparing Wellington and Napoleon was at the very least, balanced and fair and deserves credit for that. Someone commented that Wellington is my 'hero'. Unfair. The Boney fans are numerous and enthusiastic! You will permit me to occasionally add my corrective.

John Cook:
'I am afraid no proof of anything has appeared here, only a difference of opinion as to whether Wellington gloated or not. In order to prove that Hofschroer is lying or his book on Siborne was fiction it would be necessary to show that he invented his source material otherwise it is just a matter of interpretation of source material and opinion'.

Thank you for your post. You are informed well. I beg to differ: I think perhaps you've missed an essential point. It is not a matter of 'interpretation of source material and opinion' because Hofschroer himself does not treat it as that. He treats it as (sometimes qualified but many times as unqualified) fact – enough to draw conclusions from. We are, therefore, entitled to judge Hofshroer on the terms he, himself sets.
______________________________________
Re: Hofshroer and Wellington's Smallest Victory.

That is my case, and your comments and correctives are most welcome. It is, at the very least, a topical and interesting subject I chose this book as an example, because, being shorter Hofschroer's historical technique is clearer.

The thesis:
That Wellington, set about in a dishonest, egotistical and calculating manner to ignore the Prussian contribution to the victory at Waterloo, in order to claim Waterloo as his victory alone. That he roped others into this conspiracy. That he was prepared to break a man to keep this secret. (Subsidiary effect:) That Wellington was a dishonourable man.

How does Hofschroer go about this? So, Hofschroer makes great play of quoting source material and giving references. He also repeatedly, and with a seemingly exhaustive logic (which is what gives his books their power and readability), gives repeated disparaging and damming descriptions about Wellington's conduct throughout, culminating in conclusions that Wellington 'abused' his position, that he 'broke' a man, that he was, 'malicious' that he attempted to 'wipe the Prussians from the field of Waterloo'. These descriptions are about real events that are referenced. They are grave charges. They apparently destroy Wellington's reputation.

Wellington's 'egotistical' behaviour is the conclusion of the book. This view is rammed home in every chapter. So it was with no particular aim in mind that I started to examine the references provided. Imagine my surprise when I looked at the unremitting factual references which appear to show Wellington's despicable character. I discovered that everything else seems to have genuine references, except…the unremitting factual references which appear to show Wellington's despicable character!

At first I didn't believe it. Hofschroer is a world famous historian. But I looked for evidence of the main thesis of the book; Wellington's conspiracy to break a man, and found I was looking in vain. Instead, I found that references to Wellington's gross conspiracy are deliberately and carefully inserted into the evidential and narrative thread to make them appear as evidence. These insertions can only be described as calculating and unremitting. They are not presented as opinions or possibilities among other possibilities. In the general case, I will leave you to decide the honesty of such a technique.

The un-annotated page references are mearly the tip of the iceberg of completely made-up insertions. Don't forget, Hofschroer's thesis rests upon these insertions:

Page/line:
30/5 "gloat"
37/11 "Harding"
125/6 "he does not appear to have been allowed to do so"
125/15 "What was it they did not want him to see?" (Conspiracy insinuation).
125/27 Interestingly H. quotes Wellington as volunteering twice that the first indication he had of the Prussians coming up as at 10am and of hearing firing at 4.30pm, in order to show that Wellington sinisterly 'knew' of the Prussian contribution. Much later in the book, this evidence is ignored in order to reach a conclusion that Wellington tried to wipe the Prussians from the field of Waterloo'. There is complexity here, I appreciate.
139/3 "The Duke was simply not giving the Prussians the credit.."
139/29 – 140/9 "sarcastically….bitter"
144/26 "grudgingly"
145/11 "avoid taking responsibility"
168/25 "certain high authority"
Sometimes the invention is simply too obvious:
178/2 "fob".
Again, Hofshroer gives counter evidence to make a minor disparaging point, even though it runs counter to his thesis, so is removed from his conclusions (!):
179/13 "showed the positions…praised the accuracy".
179/25 "misleading"
182/26 "puppet"
219/21 "detractors"
221/16 "set about…wounding"
225/7 "inspired"
241/6 "rung hollow"
252/19 "largely accurate" is supposition and counter evidence is again ignored.
257/16 "knew it to be" is supposition
257/24 "Duke's determination to damage Sibourne's credibility". Made up.
251/14 "likely" Supposition.
265/26 "Apsley House treated Sibourne most unfairly. He never got the promotion he was promised" (Apsley House is Wellington). Insertion plus calculated insinuation.
266/12 "malicious statements" A curious reference to eye-witnesses here yet there seem to be none.
266/19 "inspired by the Duke"

Etc, etc, etc. Space does not permit more quoting indulgence.

These references, and other made-up insertions in a similar vein, are the only foundation for the book's conclusion:

269/22 "It is the record of the pettiness of one mans ego and of a battle about history…"

Is it OK for one man to invent so much unattributable new material, present it as evidence within the evidential and narrative thread, not as opinion or interpretation, but in many examples as unqualified "fact"? And to draw the book's conclusions from precisely these made-up insertions…..and still be thought to have used an honest historical technique? To still be thought of as an honourable man?

But why has Hofschroer taken such an anti-Wellington line?
Perhaps we can discern it here:

Hofscroer quotes a Prussian military magazine:

"There is certainly no lack of works from England on the campaign of 1815. However they cannot fully satisfy the Prussian reader because they…..take a one-sided view".

Hofshroer admits that this could apply to most accounts of the campaign. He fails to follow through the obvious logic, that this is true of any first-hand accounts of any battles any time in history. And that a nation will be more interested (and a public more likely to buy) accounts that focus on the battle from the point of view of their own troops. Most historians would simply put these accounts in their proper place, to be judged in comparison with other accounts. But here we are seeing something else. English becomes the dominant language on the planet and English viewpoints are read around the world. We've seen it on this forum – Europeans have come to see English as an international language and it comes as something as a shock to find that it is also a national language of a nation and its history. It's not Wellington that Hofschroer is attacking; Wellington is just a cipher. It's the impression that an accident of history has given an elevated power to the viewpoints of the English and thus reduced the contributions of other nations. It's annoying. It's angering. Hofshroer needed to correct it, and it's no accident that he chose the English language in which to do it.

But… and it's a big 'but', he chose, you may think, to have taken the short cut, to achieve a corrective impact that a mere careful academic study would fail to attain. Placing the English viewpoint beside the Prussian viewpoint was not enough. He required the 'English' version of history to be doubted. He chose to attack it and its main protagonist at every opportunity.

He chose to invent evidence.

Hi, Kevin,
A battle so thoroughly researched & with innumerable books wrtten about it & still several large questions unanswered & many smaller details needing to be filled in.
Re; Pedlow et al, I've read their stuff in First Empire & some of the 'discussion' here & on the defunct forum.
Perhaps I may not be entitled to an opinion, but the points they raise don't seem to be answered.
The most important seems to that Pflug-Hartung (who I have not read) does not say what Hofschroer says he did.
I wish a third party would read this key source & pronounce who is correct.
I don't actually have a problem with the concept that as he aged, Wellington got a little more defensive of his reputation. So maybe the "truth' lies in the middle somewhere?
regards etc, donald

Hi Donald,

Everyone is entitled to an opinion. All those volumes on Waterloo gone to waste. ;-)

I enjoy the articles from Pedlow et al, and it is quite obvious from their notes that they've done their homework.

Guess I'll have to get hold of a copy of Pflug-Hartung and see what I can find.

I do have an excerpt from de Bas on Quatre Bras that I need to translate.

Agree with you on Wellington as he aged. Seems to me to be a logical conclusion.

Sincerely,
Kevin

The problem with all this is that the criticism is essentially of Hofschroer's conclusions. Attempting to challenge the conclusion to an argument is futile and the route must be to challenge the premises on which it is based.

Premises that are verifiable are relatively easy to deal with, those that are evaluative are not. Most historical arguments contain rather a lot of evaluative premises which is why historical interpretation is often the subject of dispute by those who have personal interests, some of which appear to be present here.

In addition, the one ingredient missing to all of this is Hofschroer himself which makes it doubly futile.

JC

John Cook,
"Attempting to challenge the conclusion to an argument is futile and the route must be to challenge the premises on which it is based. "

Mr Cook. I did.

With specific page and line references. Have a look.

Your low 'futility' threashold is worrying!

No, these are mostly conclusions.

Not my 'futility threshold' (beware the ad hominem fallacy), I have neither the time, access nor inclination to examine the source material to form an opinion on the validity, so I can't really comment in this context.

JC

Yet you just have. And arrived at a negative conclusion. I think you forget: it is not 'futile' to challenge an assersion. Actually my page references are not to assersions but to made-up events that Hofshroer fallaciously presents as fact.

''Attempting to challenge the conclusion to an argument is futile''

A rather amazing and slightly weird comment. What does it mean? Unfounded assersion may not be challenged? Why on earth not?

Hofshroer made assersions and attempted to back them up with detailed descriptions of events and motivations with references. I, and others, have discovered that Hofshroer's references are spurious, his events coloured by apparent bias and his details made up.

So yes, we are entitled to question his conclusions. Absolutely.

There is one thing of which there should be no doubt: Hofshroer's works should be doubted, they contain (let's be polite here) ''errors'' that call into question his whole thesis.

At the very least!

If you've discovered serious problems with Hofshroer's sources by all means quote chapter & verse.
As much as I trust you, I'd need proof to take this statement as fact.
regards etc, donald

Dearly Beloved,

Amid all this rancour and historical handbag swinging, I would just like to point out that regardless of how many 9mm Prussians were, or were not, removed from the model and who caused them to be removed; when it comes to Plancenoit, they are still there!

It's just not possible to see them anymore.

When first installed at the NAM there were viewing windows on two of the four sides of the case containing the model. For many years there has only been the main one where the video presentation controls now are.

Previously, there was a smaller window round the corner, where the manikin of Sergeant Ewart now stands. Through this you could see Plancenoit complete with pounds worth of Prussians in and around it.

You can still make out the church from the front viewing area but because of the topography and the lighting, our little blue/black chums can't be seen anymore.

Perhaps the Duke of Wellington had the window filled in too?

Dear List,

As a man with no horse in this race, and one who doesn't know all the ins and outs of this particular topic, but one who has read a lot of Napoleonic history, I'd like to propose a hypothesis from left field.

It does not surprise me that Wellington's estimate of the time of Blucher's arrival was out of wack. He would have had no way of knowing when the Prussians arrived. So far away across a field of smoke and mayhem, Wellington was probably kind of preoccupied with surviving the next French assault. He may have had no idea how many more attacks the French had in store—except the bearskin infantry would have been a clue that the end was near. One thing about the 7:30 PM estimate of Prussian arrival is that may have been when Wellington first was aware of a Prussian presence. Even without any smoke, Wellington may not have had a line-of-sight on the Prussians until 7:30.

Next, Wellington was one of Britain's rare successful land commanders—to this day. That victory got him a job as a big time minister, hanging out with Queen Victoria and all. Naturally, he would be defensive of it. I'm not saying he would lie about it, or even ruin a lowly diorama builder—which I would think was a bit beneath him.

As for the number of Prussians present at the battle, or present on the table, I have no idea—really. No way Wellington was counting them. How could anyone have counted them? The only way we know which units were there was from official Prussian reports and letters from officers of the units. None of that was written until after the battle, and I seriously doubt that Wellington had any interest in investigating those kind of details. He was not a wargaming nut like us. He was a triumphant general of one of the world's most decisive battles—again, to this day.

Now as for Hofshroeder—he's a contemporary historian of some repute. One thing I've noticed about 21st century writers is that they never want to write just another history book. They are looking for an angle with some sensational new theory—"earthshaking revelations." I'm not saying the man deliberately misrepresented the facts. He probably came across some information that spurred a theory in his head. Then, MAYBE, he looked at things from that angle and got a little carried away making his point. I'm not saying that's what happened, but I've seen it happen a lot lately.

Does this make sense to anyone besides me?

Bill

This does rattle on. I must say I would be interested in Hofschroer's alleged 'spurious references'.

As far as conclusions are concerned, if I conclude that the moon is made of cheese you cannot challenge my conclusion very satisfactorily simply by saying it is false, spurious or whatever, because it is what I state to be my belief.

The way to challenge my conclusion is through the premises I deploy to demonstrate that the moon is made of cheese, and lead me to that belief.

JC

Bill,
Yep, makes sense to me. You tend to get the generalist book (mix up the available sources & rehash in modern English), the eye-witness book (quote after memoir quote) & the angle book (as described by you).
BTW this isn't a complaint: I get so much pleasure out of reading all three categories. There is always the danger of over-emphasising the 'angle' though.
regards, etc, donald