Help support TMP

"The Waterloo Model" Topic

150 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.

For more information, see the TMP FAQ.

Back to the Napoleonic Discussion Message Board

Areas of Interest


11,411 hits since 3 Nov 2005
©1994-2019 Bill Armintrout
Comments or corrections?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 

Arteis22 Apr 2006 12:43 a.m. PST

OK, I've followed this debate with interest, though with little more than a rather passing knowledge of the battle – I am no historian.

However, one thing has me intrigued, as a question was raised early in this thread but never answered – the reference to a quote from someone called Pflug-Hartung,and that it had apparently been mis-quoted or mis-used in Peter Hofshroer's book.

I would really like to see that quote exactly as Peter Hofschroer used it in his book, versus the actual quote from Pflug-Hartung … has someone got both books who can copy the excerpts here side by side?

To me, looking at both excerpts would answer this part of this argument straight away, one way or the other – either they match, or they don't. Simple!

Arteis22 Apr 2006 12:46 a.m. PST

Oh, and where can I find the story about the fall from grace of David Hamilton-Williams – this is often alluded to, but I would be intrigued to find out more?

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP22 Apr 2006 5:33 a.m. PST

Hi, Arteis,
'The Rise & Fall of H-W' was publicly played out on the pages of First Empire so if you subscribe to MagWeb, you can read the story as it unfolded.
It was awful yet fascinating.
Pflug-Hartung was a German historian of the C19th & is very respected. He evidently avouided the anti-British line taken by others of the time. I don't believe he has been translated into English

Arteis22 Apr 2006 6:58 a.m. PST

Even if Pflug-Hartung hasn't been translated into English, many of us on this board will still be able to compare the two excerpts, even if one is in English and the other in German.

But from what you say, I guess the problem might more likely be finding someone here who actually has access to the Pflug-Hartung book, if it is so old.

Palafox22 Apr 2006 7:16 a.m. PST

" This was based completly on the Hoffie claim that Wellington put 7.30 as the time of Bluchers arival on the field in his report."

I have in front of me Hofschroer book and he doesn't say that (I have the Spanish version). He says that Wellington said that the Prussians advance begins to be noted after 7pm. I haven,t found anywhere that he claimed the Prussians arrived after 7pm.

Maxshadow22 Apr 2006 8:29 a.m. PST

Thanks for pointing that out to me Palafox. I owe Hofschroer an apology.
Neihardt must have been using a different source for his statement….
"So Wellington did not notice the Prussian arrival until after 7.30 PM? A convincing argument that the man was a complete fool. Who was so stupid as to put him in charge of an army?"

John Cook22 Apr 2006 10:11 a.m. PST

I seem to remember that the offending quote in German from Pflug-Hartung was going to be placed in FE by the person, I forget who it was, who claimed it was mistranslated, but, as I remember, that hasn't happened yet. This was more than a year ago I think.


SauveQuiPeut22 Apr 2006 2:11 p.m. PST

The Waterloo Dispatch can be read here:


With reference to the Prussians at Waterloo the relevant parts are:

' These attacks were repeated till about seven in the evening, when the enemy made a desperate effort with cavalry and infantry, supported by the fire of artillery, to force our left centre, near the farm of La Haye Sainte, which, after a severe contest, was defeated; and, having observed that the troops retired from this attack in great confusion, and that the march of General Bülow's corps, by Frischermont, upon Planchenois and La Belle Alliance, had begun to take effect, and as I could perceive the fire of his cannon, and as Marshal Prince Blücher had joined in person with a corps of his army to the left of our line by Ohain, I determined to attack the enemy, and immediately advanced the whole line of infantry, supported by the cavalry and artillery. The attack succeeded in every point: the enemy was forced from his positions on the heights, and fled in the utmost confusion, leaving behind him, as far as I could judge, 150 pieces of cannon, with their ammunition, which fell into our hands.'


' 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'

Hofschroer deals with this part of the Waterloo Dispatch on Page 324 of Waterloo:German Victory, starting in the last paragraph. The first part quote above is abbreviated to '… about seven in the evening…the march of General Bulow's corps…had begun to take effect'. Hofschroer accuses Wellington of being 'less than frank' with this, based on Hofschroers interpretation of 'take effect' as 'playing a role in the battle'. The possibility that Wellington, veteran of many a desperate battle, may have had a different idea of what 'take effect' meant ie breaking through the French line, for example, is not even considered by PH. He lists the knowledge that Wellington would have had of Prussian movements (summarised by 'Neidhardt' above) through the day and then declares that 'To say that the Prussian intervention only became effective at 7pm was clearly an attempt to play down the role of his ally and great rival in the battle.' (page 325, lines 13-15). So, how does Hofschroer square that conclusion with the fulsome tribute quoted above 'I should not do justice…' etc? The answer is…he doesn't mention it at all, despite the fact that it is obviously 100% relevant to the point under discussion. This omission can therefore only be a deliberate decision by PH not to quote it, a fact which has made 'The Waterloo Dispatch Bit' the most cited evidence that Hofschroer creatively butchered the historical evidence to 'prove' his theories.

Ironically, directly underneath the W-D-B mentioned above Hofschroer delivers a little lecture…'Before accepting primary source material and eyewitness accounts at face-value, the historian should cross-reference such accounts with the record and other such material to establish its accuracy and veracity'. He could well have added '…especially when it's in one of my books'.

In the contest between Interpretation vs Integrity? IMHO 'begun to take effect' is a matter of interpretation – we'll never prove what Nosey was thinking, so fair game…so long as the historian shows an objective approach to the material and considers all options with an open mind, which PH doesn't. Nosey meant what PH wants him to mean , end of story.
Accusing him of 'playing down' the Prussian role while pretending that the tribute to them doesn't exist is a matter of integrity and, there being no conceivable reason for considering it unimportant or irrelevant, an unacceptable distortion of the facts.

Palafox22 Apr 2006 5:54 p.m. PST

"Accusing him of 'playing down' the Prussian role while pretending that the tribute to them doesn't exist is a matter of integrity and, there being no conceivable reason for considering it unimportant or irrelevant, an unacceptable distortion of the facts."

No, that's not correct either.

I do not agree with Hofshroer interpretation of Wellington intentions, which I still think is wrong, but accusing PH of dishonesty is exactly the same with PH accusing Wellington of dishonesty. Your conclussions on PH could be equaly dishonest because PH comes to that conclussion after noting several dispatches from Wellington, other comanders and specially long after the battle (which you have ignored in your analysis so I could conclude you have been dishonest, I do not think that BTW, just think you are also jumping too fast on conclussions).

"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"

Of course this can be misinterpreted, PH choose to take that interpretation and takes the part open to that interpretation. Fine, others take only the first part for their interpretation: "I should not do justice to my own feelings" and forget the rest.

PH should have put all the dispatch text which would have helped, but this is still a matter of interpretation. In fact as he mentions where the texts are taken from and from where they can be checked I would never accuse him of hidding information.

John Cook22 Apr 2006 6:20 p.m. PST

It would be helpful to quote the entire paragraph and the one preceeding it.

In them Hofschroer explains for the reader why he believes Wellington was being 'less that frank' because, to summarise Hofschroer's view, Wellington was in communication with the Prussians from 1000 and was probably aware of Prussian intervention from about 1500, at least by 1630, by which time it had relieved pressure on the allied army and, therefore, saying that it only took effect by 1900 was ungenerous.

A theory, incidentally, only attempts to explain existing observations. One doesn't have to agree with it. It is also impossible to 'prove' a theory, only disprove it.

What has to be done to falsify Hofschroer's theory it is to test the hypothesis that Wellington did not have effective communications with the Prussians from 1000, that he did not know where the Prussians were or what they were doing at around 1500 to 1630, and that he was unaware of their intervention before 1900.

As far as the 'fulsome tribute' in the Dispatches is concerned, in does not mention times, so I am unsure how it is relevant to the discussion in the two paragraphs?


Maxshadow22 Apr 2006 7:29 p.m. PST

Thanks for the posting SuaveQuiPuet. It has made the whole issue much clearer.
The 'fulsome tribute' is relevant because it directly contradicts the…
'To say that the Prussian intervention only became effective at 7pm was clearly an attempt to play down the role of his ally and great rival in the battle.'
especially as one follows the other.
Hofshroer may have used other dispatches that more fully support his theory but to reach these conclusions from this one does require a lot of mental gymnastics. Ignoring inconvenient facts is some thing I expect from Politicians and Prosecutors but Historians are supposed to try their best to avoid it. Arn't they?

Lu Ny China22 Apr 2006 10:13 p.m. PST

I believing the following:

· The Earth is flat
· The moon is made of green cheese
· Wellington was an honest politician. He did not pressure Siborne into removing 40,000 Prussians from the Waterloo Model, not that that would possibly constitute playing down their role in the battle. No sir, aliens abducted them.

Do I qualify for the head-banger of the week award?

John Cook23 Apr 2006 4:22 a.m. PST

No, it does not contradict anything.

The 'fulsome tribute' is not relevant because it says nothing about times.

Time is central to Hofschroer's argument and, as the 'fulsome tribute' contains nothing this context, it has no diagnostic value.

The thrust of the entire passage in the Dispatches, it seems to me, clearly plays up Wellington's contribution, but it would wouldn't it.

Whether or not Wellington was attempting to play down Prussian intervention by act or omission, by failing to recognise that it was effective before 1900, is a matter of opinion.

Hofschroer's is, evidently, that it was deliberate.


David Watkins29 Apr 2006 5:40 a.m. PST

Extract from Pflugk-Harttung; Zieten's Message PDF link
Reproduced in the original German so that those that can can see the actual conclusions reached by Pflugk-Harttung, in relation to Greg Pedlow's article on on Zeithen's message which can be found here. PDF link

David Watkins29 Apr 2006 5:41 a.m. PST
Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP29 Apr 2006 6:03 a.m. PST

Game, set and, I think, match.

Kevin F Kiley29 Apr 2006 6:24 a.m. PST

Great to see you here Dave. Very well done.

David Watkins29 Apr 2006 9:25 a.m. PST

No problem gents, it has been availabe at for about a year now

Lu Ny China29 Apr 2006 10:57 a.m. PST

Me Lu Ny from China. Me cannot read German. You have translation into English to prove point? No? My! What a surprise. Me not think you not tellie truth.

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian29 Apr 2006 1:40 p.m. PST

Hmmm… Neidhardt's IP is the same as Lu Ny China's, and a check of the public records show that the IP address is registered to:

Peter Hofschroeer
Deleted by Moderator
Deleted by Moderator Gaishorn am See

SauveQuiPeut29 Apr 2006 1:51 p.m. PST

Everyone knew it, but someone had to say it…grin

SauveQuiPeut29 Apr 2006 2:13 p.m. PST

On a serious note, though…while assuming that 'Revealing the identity of a TMPer' is no longer a Dawghousable offence, was it necessary to post PH's address to make the point, rather than just the name?

Personal logo Editor in Chief Bill The Editor of TMP Fezian29 Apr 2006 2:26 p.m. PST

Fair enough point – though I would think if he minded, he wouldn't have it listed on his public IP registration.

Palafox29 Apr 2006 2:45 p.m. PST

Wha__? huh?

I'm amazed. I never hoped to find such really nasty board behaviour in this board, he would have done much more ignoring all critizing instead of defending it in this hideous way. Really sad.


Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP29 Apr 2006 3:26 p.m. PST

I think I've bought my last book by PH.

Maxshadow30 Apr 2006 12:09 a.m. PST

Thanks to those who took the time out to reseach this.
Esp considering the risk of having your mental health questioned. :o) Money saved not buying anything by this author can now be spent on even more lead, even though I can't seem to get around to painting what I've all ready got.

Defiant02 May 2006 5:51 a.m. PST

/sigh I am reading his two books on the Waterloo campaign right now, really wish I dindn't spend the money now.


Defiant02 May 2006 5:52 a.m. PST

/sigh I am reading his two books on the Waterloo campaign right now, really wish I didn't spend the money now.


John Cook02 May 2006 10:33 a.m. PST


I presume not at the same time:-)

Peter is not everybody's cup of tea, but his books are money well spent, in my view, even if you don't agree on his thesis concerning Wellington.

BTW has anybody translated the Pflugk-Harttung extract yet?


Artilleryman02 May 2006 10:49 a.m. PST

Personally, except in very extreme circumstances, money spent on well presented history is seldom wasted. This is particularly true of new takes on well known events. Peter has his paricular view and puts it over well. Take it or leave it, it's still interesting. And anyway, no one from that period is innocent of blowing their own trumpet (look at Napoleon's account of Marengo). Especially at the highest level they had political considerations to make and their own positions to enhance. There were few totally straight talkers like Blucher ('I don't care what's happening just let me at Bonaparte!) or Davout (and even he played with the idea of being king of Poland). Bring it all on I say. It's grist to the mill and it helps us make our on minds up.

Robert le Diable02 May 2006 11:34 a.m. PST

What's an "IP" (as mentioned by The Editor): I looked at "Dawghouse" and "Membership Profile", and found that "Lu Ny China" is, apparently, based in China, and Neidhardt, apparently, based in Iraq. Should not one be banished for use of cod Pidgin-English, which is potentially inflammatory? Just a thought from a comparative innocent.

SauveQuiPeut02 May 2006 12:11 p.m. PST

Robert: I'm no expert, but it's a string of numbers that functions as a kind of address thingy for computers. Having the same IP means that two or more accounts are originating from the same computer or account…or something.

As far as the books go if you don't buy them just because of PH's theories, you're throwing a lot of baby out with the bathwater. The first book 1815:Wellington, his German allies, Ligny and Quatre Bras is by far the superior book and well worth buying for the detailed look at the Prussian Army and Ligny. The second book 1815:German Victory isn't anywhere near the standard of the first IMHO, but still covers subjects that other books neglect eg the 'North German Federal Corps' under Kleist and the 'Fortress War' that continued for months after Waterloo. It would have been nice if it had also covered the Wurttemburg and other German contingents that came under Austrian command, but one can't have everything…frown.

Defiant03 May 2006 9:45 p.m. PST

Yeah I am gifted John, I can read two books at the same time. "One eye on each". hehehe

Got to admit the truth here, I have owned both books since they first came out a few years ago…read them both back then and actually agreed with alot of what he said. But…it is easy to read an authors comments and believe them without listening to arguments from the other side. Once you talk to people that have detailed information and facts that can either prove or refute an author's claims you get a much more balanced idea if right from wrong, truth from fiction.

For me I just begun to read volume one last week when all this flared up and you stop and wonder if you should be bothered. but I have like most of you, massive libraries of the Napoleonic era and as like most of you (I would imagine) have read every book you have and have read them not once but 10 times over…so I said, "stuff it" and still reading it now. After all he is a darn good writer and convincing in his arguments.


Cacadore04 May 2006 6:12 a.m. PST

Re: The outing of LooNi China
Wot, did I do that? Amazing.

Quite a revelation that dispatch. I've seen many debates about who 'won' Waterloo and about how Wellington claims the Prussians weren't even there when he advanced – with quoting from Hoffshroer galore.

Whether or not other defenders of Hofshroer were correct, Wellington's dispatch counters Hoffshroers central thesis, which is to paint a picture of Nosey as a dishonerable man claiming the credit for the victory as all his own.

Bearing in mind that:

1) Such dispatches are normally a commander's report for home consumption, based on the dispositions and results pertaining to his own army and not those of other armies, and,

2) That Nosey was usually retecent in praise – it was one of his enduring regrets that he didn't give more in his lifetime,

3) He hadn't slept in, what, two days?

then real Dispatch tends to come across as a reasonable generous document, giving credit where credit is due to the Prussians.

How can you get to the truth if you cut out evidence?

JeffsaysHi04 May 2006 6:41 a.m. PST

Somehow getting Dawghoused would be quite acceptable in exchange for expressing the view that you must be one of the saddest most blinkered little apologists I have ever had the misfortune to see on a forum.

Oh and try reading something pre 1960 will you?

Cacadore04 May 2006 12:01 p.m. PST

Ok: 'Hi!'

LOL: A fellow scholar! Greetings. Though I think you'll find the Dispatch was written in 1815, wasn't it? And Cambacere's: lettres indites a Napoleon 1802-1814 contain quite interesting material.

Have you read any of Napoleon's descriptions of Waterloo from St Helena? They make interesting reading. I think his thrust from Charleroi at least, out-generalled Wellington at that point, don't you think?

You probably know Wellington's estimate of Boney: ' Yes Bounaparte was certainly the best of them all, and his prestige worth 40,000 men', Napoleon's of Wellington: rating him before Waterloo, but afterwards saying 'un bon homme de peu d'espirit, sans…grandeur d'ame'. Yet I think the remenicences of all brave men, when truth is the intention, add something to our lives too, don't you?

I confess I've read very little about 'I vill shoot any man who shows pity' Blucher, as German is not my forte. But he sounds like a brave and honourable man. Do you know any original material you know of in translation that you'd recommend? Or point out the 'apologist' part of my list of 23rd Nov, 10.37. Most grateful :-)


Cacadore04 May 2006 1:21 p.m. PST

Hofshroer also imputed a lack of generousity of spirit to Nosey with regards to the Dutch in, I think one of his more recent books, yet Nosey wrote (about Quatre Bras):

' The Prince of Orange immediately reinforced this brigade with another of the same division, under General Perponcher, and, in the morning early, regained part of the ground which had been lost….

' In this affair, His Royal Highness the Prince of Orange, the Duke of Brunswick……highly distinguished themselves
' His Royal Highness the Prince of Orange distinguished himself by his gallantry and conduct, till he received a wound from a musket ball through the shoulder, which obliged him to quit the field.

'General Kruse of the Nassau service, likewise conducted himself much to my satisfaction; as did General Tripp, commending the heavy brigade of cavalry, and General Vanhope, commanding a Brigade of infantry in the service of the King, of the Netherlands.

Here is generousity of spirit, and it's lack is what disturbed me in Horshroer.

Cacadores07 Feb 2008 2:28 p.m. PST

I'm just putting this up for Dave Hollins who referred to this debate on another thread. We might prefer to debate the subject here.

Cacadores07 Feb 2008 2:47 p.m. PST

I quote Dave Hollins from the 'Dear Cacadore' thread
TMP link

I don't see that you sustain your claim – starting with:

"Hofschroer's thesis rests upon these insertions:


30/5 "gloat"

Okay, so Peter's dislike of W is well-known, so he thinks W would have gloated at some success of other. What about thevrest of hte sentence – presumably this "success" is documented and W might have written something about it, so I would think Peter might have said something like: "Writing to x on y date, W gloated over his success" with some note somewhere about the text of the letter. Well, W has written this letter and the text is at whatever reference and no doubt, W might say "I succeeded in doing x today". Okay, Peter having read quite a bit about W has formed the view that W was indeed gloating, but that is not fundamental to his case, he letter is and the ref is given. I don't see how Peter can be accused of building a case on a single word, when the letter is the evidence.

As for Peter's response, as you use a nickname, you might one of those, who has been on his case for over a decade and as you are not really addressing his evidence, I expect he lumped you in with them. Having suffered a minor version of that campaign, I can see why he gets rather short sometimes.

Cacadores07 Feb 2008 3:01 p.m. PST

Pter Hollins
To take just this bit for now:

"Hofschroer's thesis rests upon these insertions:
30/5 "gloat"
………..I don't see how Peter can be accused of building a case on a single word, when the letter is the evidence.''

Note I used the plural 'insertions'. Take them all and you have the 'evidence' upon which the book rests.

To deal with his 'case', one has to take the evidence one at a time as he did. Which I did.

Peter Hofschroer gives a reference for the scene in which this 'gloat' appears. Peter Hofschroer writes that Wellington 'gloated' at a waxwork of Bonaparte.

I look up the reference. I find there is no record of Wellington 'gloating' at this waxwork of Bonaparte.

I conclude Peter Hofschroer made it up. I haven't asked why he made it up. And indeed I asked Mr Hofschorer about it, whereupun he could have shown me evidence he forgot to refer to in the book. He couldn't.

I did this for the other 'evidence' Peter Hofschroer uses to back up his case, in a simlar way. If tghe evidence is false, then so is the argument, surely?

However, if you have the evidence that Wellington 'gloated' at the waxwork, then please show us. Indeed is you can provide any evidence for any of Hofschroer's assertions (which together from his 'proof' then point them out. Fair dues.


Cacadores07 Feb 2008 3:07 p.m. PST

I meant 'Dave Hollins' of course.
The full list of PH errors, you can find here

Dave Hollins
''As for Peter's response, as you use a nickname, you might one of those,''
In my 'conversation' with Peter Hofschroer, you'll see on this thread that it was he who appearently pretended to be someone else. And the abuse (and descriptions of violence – though not threats) I recieved from him (see the above link) rather precluded getting on to first name terms:-)

Edwulf08 Feb 2008 7:42 p.m. PST

India ia an Anglo Saxon country is it?

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx09 Feb 2008 5:44 a.m. PST

I don't suppose there is a ref to W actually gloating, but his viewing of the waxwork is recorded. In such a situation, I think anyone would gloat and it makes for more interesting reading than "W saw N's waxwork" – we would be more surprised if it were claimed that W broke down and cried!

It is not PH's evidence, since that is based on documents, which set out the story. Adding in a bit of colour is what readers expect, but it does not create his case – normal human reactions or something consistent with an individual's behaviour based on lots of other documents are okay. You would see exactly the same thing in any biog of Nap.

Cacadores12 Feb 2008 12:26 p.m. PST

Dave Hollins Thank you Dave, for taking the time to reply and apologies I haven't replied sooner.

09 Feb 2008 4:44 a.m. PST
''I don't suppose there is a ref to W actually gloating, but his viewing of the waxwork is recorded.''

It is recorded, and the implication of 'contemplation' is there.

''In such a situation, I think anyone would gloat and it makes for more interesting reading than "W saw N's waxwork" – we would be more surprised if it were claimed that W broke down and cried! ''

Yet the evidence is that he didn't 'gloat' but 'contemplated' or was interested and didn't talk – a rather different impression.

If you leap now to Hofshroer's conclusion, that Wellington 'broke a man', had the Prussians 'removed', was dishonourable… you can see the epithets are pretty strong. And working backwards through the book, you can see that this conclusion is based upon……..nothing more than the very list I quoted: a series of a-historical phrases.

Dave, have a read of the book again if you have it (Wellington's Smallest Victory) and look at the part where it's claimed or implied that Wellington met or 'knew' Sibourne. Then look for the evidence. That's a pretty crucial centre for the books argument…. and I think you'll agree, it's an, at best, idle speculation. Sibourne left copious notes – yet no 'meeting' is ever mentioned! What would you conclude?

It's how I read it. Now I have, it's hard to see that it isn't anything more than deliberate obstufication. What do you think?

Cacadores21 Feb 2008 2:06 p.m. PST

Oh well. I thought Dave Hollins was going to defend Peter Hofschroer.

Apparently not!

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx21 Feb 2008 2:17 p.m. PST

I haven't read the book – too much else to read I'm afraid. However, I have known PH for about 30 years and he has told me quite a lot about various collections of documents. Consequently, I would anticipate that PH's case is bulit on documents – you might disagree with his interpretation, but the case will stand opr fall on those documents. To suggest that Peter might have added a bit of colour round the edges and built his whole case on that would not be the PH I would recognise. I would read SV again and look at the docs.

Personal logo ochoin Supporting Member of TMP21 Feb 2008 6:38 p.m. PST

I always though Hoffie's various uniform books were well researched.

ian47122 Feb 2008 4:13 p.m. PST

I would like to see Peter H reinstated. I agree his behaviour has been disappointing. His contribution to the study of the Prussian Army of the Napoleonic wars (in English) has been magnificent – a starting point for nu erous wargamers. I do not agree wih his denigration of Wellington, but this is not a voice we should silence.

lutonjames22 Feb 2008 5:47 p.m. PST

I've read the whole thread and enjoyed most of it (though I did 'speed read'/skip some of the repetition).

I'm no expert or even very well read on the Napoleonic was or Wellington, but i've read a fair bit of British political history of the mid 19th century, it doesn't seem to much of a stretch to see how Wellington would understand stressing his importance to the fate of the battle of Waterloo as important to his political career and his ego.

Ok I'm pro-chartist so not always a fan of wellington, but he did come up with some great quotes.

I'm glad that I've read the orginal dispatch. But it does seem that Hofschroer interpretation can quite easly be taken and the defenders of Wellington have more work to defend their position than Hofschroer. Finding a ridge and going 'hull down' behind it, is not very convincing (to me at least).

I do hope the stuff about Wellington claiming that he didn't see that many Prussian is true, just because it reminds me of Arsene Wenger.So seems to have a ring of truth.

Cacadores22 Feb 2008 8:05 p.m. PST

Dave Hollins
''I haven't read the book''


So what was all this: ''I don't suppose there is a ref to W actually gloating……it makes for more interesting reading…. ………It is not PH's evidence, since that is based on documents, which set out the story.''

Dave. Come on. 'Makes for more interesting reading'? That is not an honest reaction. You've not looked at my references at all, have you?

Pages: 1 2 3 4 

Sorry - only verified members can post on the forums.