What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that...

[emperorpenguin]

As to the question of whether they were in square or not, I am still waiting for someone to tell me where this information comes from. Barbero doesn't give any sources for this assumption, though I'm assuming it must be from the French testimony as the allied eyewitnesses are unanimous in their claims that they were in column.

Personally, I remain unconvinced. I still maintain that infantry cannot advance in square, therefore, the nearest the guard might have been to being in square is some sort of hollow column as depicted in Lachouque's book 'Waterloo'. The problem I see with this idea is that the advantages of using that formation over a standard column are so trivial as to be pointless, whilst the disadvantages are obvious, and I find it hard to see why the French would bother.

However, it might explain why upon cresting the ridge, none of the French battalions were in a position to make a bayonet charge.]

I think I can enlighten you here. General de Division Petit, who was commanding the 1st Grenadiers a Pied wrote in 1820 that "They [the Guard] passed along the left of the [Genappe] road where they were formed in squares by battalion with the exception of the two 4th regiments which, in view of their small effectives formed but one square each.....they were, as has been said, in squares, but all drawn up close to one another......The troops advanced in this way at the pas de charge.....and by musketry which crashed into our squares..."

Adkin states that the British witnesses were almost unanimous in saying the French were in columns, some claiming crowds of Tirailleurs were in front. However he supports Petit's view, stating that he actually watched the attack forming up, unlike the British who were behind a ridge and obscured by smoke. He also notes that Petit has no reason to lie and his work of 1820 is much closer in time than the British accounts some twenty years later.
As for why advance in squares? Petit believes it was a precaution against cavalry.

My own view is that had their been Tirailleurs deployed ahead then the 3rd Chasseurs should not have been surprised by the appearance of Maitland's Guards. Petit also notes the squares were "drawn up close" which sounds remarkably like the Austrian closed columns which could move and fire.

Assuming of course that he is wrong, its just as likely that the historian who claimed that the Prince of Orange was wounded at 6:15 was wrong, and that everyone has just accepted it as fact ever since.
[On a more general note - I'm always a bit doubtful about any historian who starts quoting times of events during the battle. As far as I know very few officers, and even fewer soldiers had watches at Waterloo, and every eyewtiness account I've read has described the timing of events in relation to other events, so the only way to get a feel for the sequence is actually to plot them on a chart and cross-reference when things happened in relation to each other. Trying them to put times on these events is even more hit and miss and tends to rely upon the one or two occassions when Wellington consulted his watch.

To use your event as an example, we seem to be expected to beleive that as the Cumberland Hussars quit the battlefield, one of them noticed the Prince of Orange sitting in the aide station and decided it would be a good idea to get his watch out of his pocket and make a note of the time just in case someone asked later.

As a case in point according to the evidence of Captain Seymour at the court-martial of Colonel Hake the commander of the Cumberland Hussars. He was sent by Uxbridge to persaude the Colonel not to quit the field at 5 pm, not 6 pm, therefore either the Prince of Orange was wounded an hour earlier even than you were told, or the Cumberland Hussars took an hour to gallop 400 yards

Well its this simple to me Didz, only Barbero places Billy there at the attack of the Guard. I have read a number of other authors who state he was wounded at the fall of La Haie Sainte, we know where because of the Lion Mound. If this is "Ask the Audience" I'm not going with the minority of 1 answer!

The account I read was written by a Lady who witnessed Billy being brought in, then writes that the Cumberland Hussars rode past declaring the battle lost. We know the Cumberlands quit the field before the Guard's attack.

[emperorpenguin]

I can live with "not sure". <shrug> Actually, I'm okay with "not sure" on a lot of issues, you guys as a group seem more intent on dotting every "i". I feel it's more important to get the overall gestalt.

Edit: looking back through our PM's you can get the url to the relevant thread, and you decided this was the pertinent passage (by Petit):

"Il était 7 heurs du soir environ, les corps de la garde avaient horriblement souffert, lorsqu'on fit marcher les 4e et 3e régiments de Chasseurs et les 4e et 3e régiments de Grenadiers. Ils passéront sur la gauche de la route où ils formés en carrés sur bataillon à l'exception des deux 4e régiments qui, vu leur faiblesse, ne firent que chacun un carré."

I agree, trying to get the nitty gritty of a 200 year old battle is impossible. I am happy with the balance of probabilities, and I am more trusting of authors

Yes that is correct, that is Petit's statement.

[Randall Turner]

Between Koylan and HMS we still have a long way to go.

I think most of what Koylan's saying is substantially correct, sans emphasis. The Russians were Napoleon's main enemy in terms of battlefield presence. At the start of the Imperial period in 1805 the Russians were considered by the French to have the best infantry in Europe. By 1815 the Russian steamroller was the most feared component of the Alliance. I'd probably be a bit antagonistic too for not getting much respect for my countrymen, if I were him. And I'd be a bit grumpy about Wellington's Portuguese skirmisher mass not getting the credit it deserved, or the Spanish getting credit for being as persistent as they were, for that matter.

btw - The War of 1812 threads, I'm probably the biggest Brit-basher. (But it's sooo fun!)

[Didz]

Looking back through our PM's you can get the url to the relevant thread, and you decided this was the pertinent passage (by Petit):

"Il était 7 heurs du soir environ, les corps de la garde avaient horriblement souffert, lorsqu'on fit marcher les 4e et 3e régiments de Chasseurs et les 4e et 3e régiments de Grenadiers. Ils passéront sur la gauche de la route où ils formés en carrés sur bataillon à l'exception des deux 4e régiments qui, vu leur faiblesse, ne firent que chacun un carré."

Thanks for that, my French is pretty non-existent but with the help of google I've managed to get the gist of what he said, and as far as I can see it doesn't say anything about the guard advancing in square.

What he appears to be saying is that by 7pm the battalions of the guard had already sufferred horribly, when they were ordered to move the 4th Chasseurs, 3rd Chasseurs and the 4th Grenadiers and 3rd Grenadiers, passed to the left of the road where they formed battalion squares with the exception if the 4th reigments who were so understrength that they only formed one square each.

One problem I have with this statement quite apart from the fact that it doesn't seem to say that they attacked in this formation, merely that its was the formation they adopted after they crossed the road. Is that Petit uses the term 'carrés sur bataillon'. Now I may be wrong here, but I don't think thats the correct military term for a French square, and not being French I'd have to ask someone who is to comment on whether the term 'carrés' has any other potential interpetation.

The reason I ask is that I've seen this sort of phrasing before the most of obvious example being Soult's comment 'un bataillon carre de 200,000 hommes' which certainly isn't referring to 'a battalion square of 200,000 men' a it would if it was translated literally into English.

I have a feeling the 'carrés' has a more generic meaning in French than just 'square' and that in military terms it might just mean something like 'a body of men' or a 'formation'. In which case Petit might just be saying that the 3rd Chasseurs and 3rd Grenadiers formed up in battalions, whilst the 4th Chasseurs and 4th Grenadiers formed a single formation because they were so under strength. e.g. there were six units, not eight.

[Incidently: interesting to note the time quoted is 7pm, by which time the guards attack should have been almost over not just getting organised. You can see why I'm always so dubious about times in these things.]

Adkin states that the British witnesses were almost unanimous in saying the French were in columns, some claiming crowds of Tirailleurs were in front. However he supports Petit's view, stating that he actually watched the attack forming up, unlike the British who were behind a ridge and obscured by smoke. He also notes that Petit has no reason to lie and his work of 1820 is much closer in time than the British accounts some twenty years later.
As for why advance in squares? Petit believes it was a precaution against cavalry.

One possible explanation for the existence of French skirmishers at least to the east of the spur between it and the Grenappe road is that these men were from D'Erlons Coprs which had taken the farm and had by then pushed forward and occupied to sunken road and ridge line. I believe Baring mentions these and actually tried to driven them off with a sally by the square he was sheltering in but had to fall back again due to the amount of fire they received on the forward slope of the ridge.

Several writers mention that the Guards attack provoked a lot of impromtu support from other units in the area so its possible that some of D'Erlon's men might have acted on their own initiative to support their advance.

My own view is that had their been Tirailleurs deployed ahead then the 3rd Chasseurs should not have been surprised by the appearance of Maitland's Guards. Petit also notes the squares were "drawn up close" which sounds remarkably like the Austrian closed columns which could move and fire.

I think thats a bit harder to justify. Eyewitness accounts from the Foot Guards claim that the first troops to come into sight were French skirmishers and artillery, they then mention the heavy losses suffered during the opening salvo's of grape and cannister from the French guns. It then appears as though the 3rd Chasseurs (whether in square or column) marched through these to halt less than 20-50 paces away before halting to exchange fire with the Foot Guards, and then finally disbanding and retiring in disorder withn the guard hot on their heels.

From Maitlands Account (letter 105)

'The force consisted of two strong columns of infantry; a third force consisting of both cavalry and infantry; being in reserve. The attacking columns were alike composed of the infantry of the Imperial Guard, the Grenadier forming one column, the Chasseurs of the Corps the other.

As the Attacking force moved forward it seperated, the Chasseurs inclined left. (this is where I got my theory that they may have been following the cart track) The Grenadiers ascended the acclivity towards our positionin a more direct course......Numerous pieces of ordinance (e.g. guns) were distributed on the flanks of this column.

The Brigade suffered by the enemy's artillery, but it withheld its fire for the nearer approach of the column. The latter approaching steadily up the slope, halted about twenty paces from the front rank of the Brigade. The diminished range of the enemies artillery was now felt most severely in our ranks; the men fell in great numbers beffore the discharges of grape shot, and the fire of the musketry distributed among the guns.

The smoke of the artillery happily did not envelop the hostile column, or serve to conceal it from our aim. With what view the enemy halted in a situation sp perilous, and in a position so comparatively helpless, he was not given time to evince. The fire of the Brigade opened with terrible effect.

The enemies column. crippled and broken, retreated with the utmost rapidity, leaving only a heap of dead and dying men to mark the ground which it had occupied.

Well its this simple to me Didz, only Barbero places Billy there at the attack of the Guard. I have read a number of other authors who state he was wounded at the fall of La Haie Sainte, we know where because of the Lion Mound. If this is "Ask the Audience" I'm not going with the minority of 1 answer!

Ulitmately, it depends on whether one is prepared simply to accept someone else word for it, or whether like me you prefer to see some evidence and make up your own mind.

The account I read was written by a Lady who witnessed Billy being brought in, then writes that the Cumberland Hussars rode past declaring the battle lost. We know the Cumberlands quit the field before the Guard's attack.

That would imply that he must have been wounded by 5pm, if the evidence at Colonel Hakes court marshal is correct. On the other hand one has to accept that a woman was capable of distinquishing the uniforms of the various cavalry regiments present at Waterloo and actually correctly identified the men streaming passed at the time.

That might seem to be stretching the point a bit, but if you have read Mercers Journal you probably noticed that even he (an expereinced officer, who had been around these troops for months) managed to get confused between the Cumberland Hussars assigned to his battery as punishment for their cowardice and the Brunswick Cavalry.

"Here I found Quartermaster Hall and several gunners struggling with our hussars of Brunswick. whose horses, bridled and saddled, seemd the objects of contention from the way in which they were alternatively seized by one or the other and most unceremoniously dragged about......"(it appears that these men from the Cumberland Hussars had had enough of commissarate duties and were planning to abscond) Mercer continues 'According to their own account, they are volunteers and gentlemen; therefore they feel very severely the degradation of their present position, particularly being put under a vile commissary, whom they affect to treat with the utmost contempt. Their present complaint was about their bread, which they said "was not even fit for common soldiers"... they were consequently intent on returning home. Mercer put the three most aggressive under immediate arrest and the remainder seemed to lose heart and go back to their duties. However, they were not Brunswickers, but Hannoverian's from the Cumberland Hussars, a fact that Mercer confirms this earlier in his journal when he first notes their arrival.

[emperorpenguin]

Thanks for that, my French is pretty non-existent but with the help of google I've managed to get the gist of what he said, and as far as I can see it doesn't say anything about the guard advancing in square..]

Well my French is pretty decent and I can tell you he does say they advanced in square! Didz you can't rely on babelfish or the like it gives gobbledegook.

I already gave you the correct English translation above They [the Guard] passed along the left of the [Genappe] road where they were formed in squares by battalion with the exception of the two 4th regiments which, in view of their small effectives formed but one square each.....they were, as has been said, in squares, but all drawn up close to one another......The troops advanced in this way at the pas de charge

Is that Petit uses the term 'carrés sur bataillon'. Now I may be wrong here, but I don't think thats the correct military term for a French square, and not being French I'd have to ask someone who is to comment on whether the term 'carrés' has any other potential interpetation.
I have a feeling the 'carrés' has a more generic meaning in French than just 'square'

[Incidently: interesting to note the time quoted is 7pm, by which time the guards attack should have been almost over not just getting organised. You can see why I'm always so dubious about times in these things

Carre does mean square.

The Guard attack began at ~7pm, I already said this, where do you get the idea it was already over?

[General Brittanicus]

I think most of what Koylan's saying is substantially correct, sans emphasis. The Russians were Napoleon's main enemy in terms of battlefield presence. At the start of the Imperial period in 1805 the Russians were considered by the French to have the best infantry in Europe. By 1815 the Russian steamroller was the most feared component of the Alliance. I'd probably be a bit antagonistic too for not getting much respect for my countrymen, if I were him. And I'd be a bit grumpy about Wellington's Portuguese skirmisher mass not getting the credit it deserved, or the Spanish getting credit for being as persistent as they were, for that matter.

btw - The War of 1812 threads, I'm probably the biggest Brit-basher. (But it's sooo fun!)

I'm glad the French thought the Russians had the best infantry in Europe, it means they paid more attention to them rather than the British in the iberian peninsular who's infantry although being made up largely of the dregs of society were alot better trained than the majority of the troops in europe at that time- As Wellington said about his troops "I don't know what they'll do to the enemy; but, by God, they frighten me." As for the Portugese they were trained by British officers and organised by Wellington and they were extremely valuable in helping to regain the iberian peninsular from the French. Near the start of the war the Spanish armies were extremely unreliable and i wouldnt exactly call their infantry top notch either. Thank god the Russian steamroller was the most feared component of the Alliance, it allowed the British to destroy both the French and Spanish navies, cripple the French coastal economy/economy as a whole, take the iberian peninsular and fund virtually every major power out of their own pcoket including the Russians. I think i know why the French lost the war if they thought Russia was the biggest threat.

[Astaroth]

Moved to the Historical Research Center.

[Kolyan]

Koylan is the biggest Britain-Basher and much of what he says is wrong, exxadurated or just made up! By Viitoria, there were over 50,000 British troops in Spain. Earlier, ther had been around 25,000, which made the victories at Rolica and Talavera even more impressive. Wellington also often had to put up with incompetent and arrogant Spanish commanders who turne d up late for battle and their lazy, disorganised Spanish troops. Only later in the war when Spain had been given British trainng, money, weapons and powder, did they start to become an more effective fighting force.
The guerillas helped Wellsely more than the regular Iberian troops ever did, and they got much of their weapons, supplies and help from GB.

And in fact French troops in the Penninsula were usually good quality troops, under experienced and very able French commanders, who had beaten the Prussians, Russians, Austrians and whoever else countless times. They just werent good enough to beat Wellington and the British.

The British did definately NOT avoid big battles. Just go and read any account of the War, and you see the battles.
Nor were they afriad of taking losses. At Badajos in 1812, The British stormed breaches in the fortress walls and captured the city, taking over 5000 losses, mostly in the two breaches. Badajos was probably the strongest fortres in the whole war, and it was taken by British blood, bravery, and a refusal to be beaten. And that was just one of the many seiges. So dont EVER assume that Britain was afraid of takind losses or big engagements.

Dont underestimate the effect of British money and supplies to the other countries. If not, then they all would have been utterley conquered and defeated, without Britians money and supplies to keep their armies going. And can i point out, that none of the loans from Britain were ever paid back.

So not only did Britain fund the war for Russia and Austria and Prussia, it drove the French back from Lisbon in Portugal to Toulouse in France, helped by a few Spanish and Portugeese regular troops (trained, led, supplied and paid for by Britain) and a lot of brave guerillas (supplied, armed and paid by Britain).

There is no...British propaganda about the Napoleonic War. In fact, the Army's massive contribution is often overlooked and forgotten, as the Royal NAvy gets much of the credit for Trafalgar and all the other engagements. So GB gets far less credit than it deserves for the Napoleonic War, even from itself, and definately not from the other Aliied countries, who would have been conquered if not for British money and support, and a second front opened by the British in Spain.

Here is some more proof that Wellington was a first-rate genral: At the battle of assaye, in 1803, 14,000 British troops and Sepoys under the IEC defeated over 100,000 Maratha troops. Britain had 19 small cannons, the Marathas had over 100 heavy guns. Wellesly was hopelessly outnumbered in every way. But he advanced his excellent Highland infantry, up a slope, under fire from all the Marathas heavy guns, and into the hordes of Maratha infantry, who where annihalated by the Scots. So Wellington beat over 100,000 Marthas with over 100 heavy guns with 14,000 Scots and Sepoys and 19 pea-shooters. Skill or what.

Let me give you a quote of Napoleon "Give me control of the (English) Channel for 6 hours, and I shall rule the world." Britain was more important than Russia, as it was funding the rest of the allies, and it was blockading France. In the end, it was British troops, skill, ships and money, not anything else, that playd the biggest part in defeating France, KOYLAN.

You also forgot to mention Major Sharpe

PS http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/ba...m#introduction

[Didz]

I've found the source for Barbero's claim that the Prince of Orange was his on his horse and unwounded at the time of the Imperial Guards attack and was indeed leading a battalion of the 1st Duke of Nassau Regiment to attack the guard with the bayonet when he was shot.

This is from the journal of General von Kruse, commander of the 1st Duke of Nassau Regiment....

....the elite of the infantry, Napoloen's Guard, reached the plateau, with our infantry withdrawing only 100 paces. A violent firefight broke out, and showing as much courage as foresight, the Crown Prince, who had been in command on the plasteau througout the course of the battle, attempted to put an end to it with a bayoney charge. For this honour, he thought of the Nasseurs. Thus, he bought up the 2nd Battalion and led it in column. The remainder of the 1st Battalion joined up with them and the attack was carried out with great bravery. I saw one side of a square of the French Guard start to waver when, perhaps because the Crown Prince was wounded, a wave of panic hit the young soldiers and at the moment of their greatest victory, the battalion fell into confusion and retreated. The remaining battalions in the first line soon followed, leaving only small bodies of brave men on the plateau. I had the Landwehr battalion and the remainder of the 2nd Battalion join them, but in such a way that the enemy fire have little effect upon them.

So, according to this account the Prince of Orange had not been lying in an aide station since 5pm, but was very much in the thick of the battle right up until 7pm, when he was wounded by the Grenadiers of the Imperial Guard. Also interesting to note that this account acknowledges that at least one battalion of the guard were formed in square once they arrived on the ridge.

This seems to support Barbero's account and is probably where he sourced the information.

Carre does mean square.

I realise that 'Carre' means square in French, just as Square means square in English. However, the word square in English also has other menaings when used in certin contexts e.g. 'All's square', 'I'm going to square up with you tomorrow', 'fifty-seven square feet', 'are you being square with me?' etc.

I know the French language is much more regulated than English, but nevertheless we do find examples of Carre being used in French phases such as 'Battalion Carre' where clearly it is not meant to indicate a physical square. Some French dictionaries also state that in addition to 'square' carre can mean a unit of measure, a grouping of objects, or just a set of things. According to Babylon it also means straight, forthright or outspoken, or can be used to refer to a pageboy. We also see examples like 'Vieux Carré' which strictly translated reads 'Old Square', but is actually the French Quarter of New Orleans.

Others include:
Carré de papier - A slip of paper
Carré de soie - A square of silk
Carré' de choux - A cabbage patch
un Carré de rois - four kings
Carré d'agneau - a rack of lamb
faire mordre les Carrés - to dig in the edge of your ski's

In effect, it seems to have a role as both an adjective and a noun in the French language, and given that Petit has not used the correct term for a battalion square in his notes, I still wonder if word Carre is not being used as part of a more generic military term. He may for example merely have been trying to convey the number of formations or units into which the attack was divided, thus making it clear that the 4th Chasseurs and Grenadiers were formed into one unit rather than two like the others.

The reason the phrase 'carrés sur bataillon' seems odd to me, is because its out of sync with the normal syntax used by the French for referring to a formation which typically uses 'of' or 'by' not 'on' as the linking term. e.g. Ordre de Battaille = Order of Battle, colonne par peleton = Column of Companies, colonne d'attaque = Column of Attack. Squares by Battalion would therefore be 'carrés par battaillon' and battalion squares would be 'carrés de batailon'. I definately should have paid more attention to my French mistress at school

I'm also reminded of the song 'Sur le pont d'Avignon' which for years was assumed to mean that the French danced on the bridge at Avignon, but actually refers to the dancing that took place under the bridge on the island in the middle of the river.

The Guard attack began at ~7pm, I already said this, where do you get the idea it was already over?

I was comparing it with the other eyewitness accounts who claim that it began at 6:30 and was over by 7pm. It really just underlines my point that time is unreliable during a battle. People under stress lose their ability to judge time accurately, and the time pieces of the period, even if carried were not always accurate.

[eboracum]

You also forgot to mention Major Sharpe

PS http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/ba...m#introduction

Oh no, not that website again! I've got a feeling whoever put it together had a slightly odd agenda and I really wouldn't classify it as a reliable source.

Enjoying the detailed discussion of Waterloo though.

[emperorpenguin]

[On a more general note - I'm always a bit doubtful about any historian who starts quoting times of events during the battle. As far as I know very few officers, and even fewer soldiers had watches at Waterloo, and every eyewtiness account I've read has described the timing of events in relation to other events,

As a case in point according to the evidence of Captain Seymour at the court-martial of Colonel Hake the commander of the Cumberland Hussars. He was sent by Uxbridge to persaude the Colonel not to quit the field at 5 pm, not 6 pm, therefore either the Prince of Orange was wounded an hour earlier even than you were told, or the Cumberland Hussars took an hour to gallop 400 yards.]

So you mistrust times yet you quote me a time of 5pm for this? Seymour was ordered by Uxbridge to intercept Hake at the time LHS fell, which by virtue of accounts and timecharts happened around 6pm and most definitely BEFORE the Guard attacked. He failed to stop their flight and they took off to Brussels.
And here is just one eyewitness stating times. Not saying they are 100% correct, but just to show you they are recorded. I'd be interested to see the rough outline you have of the length of the battle.

http://209.85.229.132/search?q=cache...ang_fr|lang_en

The reason I ask is that I've seen this sort of phrasing before the most of obvious example being Soult's comment 'un bataillon carre de 200,000 hommes' which certainly isn't referring to 'a battalion square of 200,000 men' a it would if it was translated literally into English.

First of all Didz, that quote was by Napoleon, not Soult. "You may imagine that it will be a fine thing to move around this place in a battalion square of 200,000 men. However all that demands a little art and certain events."
It refers to Napoleon's technique of covering the flanks of each of his corps in imitation of a battalion square.

Petit's words have been translated by military historians, and they were not using babelfish/google/forgotten school French! Besides which you are not using the full or actual words in Petit's book, which says ou ils furent formes en carres sur bataillon a l'exception des deux.

You said squares cannot move. At El Bodon a combined square of the British 5th and 77th did just that (Haythornthwaite). Austrian divisionmasse and battalionmasse routinely moved.

Ulitmately, it depends on whether one is prepared simply to accept someone else word for it, or whether like me you prefer to see some evidence and make up your own mind.

Well good luck with building that time machine, seems to me the only way you'll be happy, seeing as you don't trust any historians (except Barbero oddly)

I've found the source for Barbero's claim that the Prince of Orange was his on his horse and unwounded at the time of the Imperial Guards attack and was indeed leading a battalion of the 1st Duke of Nassau Regiment to attack the guard with the bayonet when he was shot.

This is from the journal of General von Kruse, commander of the 1st Duke of Nassau Regiment....
This seems to support Barbero's account and is probably where he sourced the information

.

Yet numerous other accounts say Prince Billy was wounded during the fighting for LHS. Other sources say it was Donzelot's division, not the Guard, fighting Kruse. Seems Barbero is alone in this one.

Carré' de choux - A cabbage patch

and given that Petit has not used the correct term for a battalion square in his notes, I still wonder if word Carre is not being used as part of a more generic military term.
The reason the phrase 'carrés sur bataillon' seems odd to me, is because its out of sync with the normal syntax used by the French for referring to a formation which typically uses 'of' or 'by' not 'on' as the linking term.

We aren't discussing vegetables! I find it funny that someone self-confessed as poor at French is arguing Petit's French is wrong! Carre means square, nothing more. Also bear in mind this is 200 year old French, just as with English there are changes in grammar and syntax.

You remind me of that Irish soldier in the movie Waterloo, "This fellow knows how to defend a helpless position!" No matter the evidence you ever see it appears to me that you always have a preconceived notion and pick minute holes in anything challenging your view. You did the same regarding the Austrian debate.

EDIT Re: Guards screened by skirimishers

The Middle Guard followed their mounted commanders, Marshal Ney and General Louis Friant. Henri Lachoque writes: "Without a single skirmisher to scout ahead, Ney, Friant, and Poret de Morvan marched at the head of Guillemin's battalion of the 3rd Grenadiers."

From that Napoleonistyka site so not certain but does provide another French view that there were no skirmishers.

[Didz]

So you mistrust times yet you quote me a time of 5pm for this?

I never said I trusted the time quoted, I was merely pointing it out as an example of why times quoted can't be fully trusted.

Seymour was ordered by Uxbridge to intercept Hake at the time LHS fell

Based upon the eyewitness accounts I've put this event somewhat earlier, between the attacks by the British Heavy Cavalry and the advance of the guard during the second wave of French cavalry attacks on the allied centre. Somerset's and Ponsonby's Brigades were 'hors de combat' have not managed to recover for their earlier charge, but the French cavalry were already advancing again and Uxbridge was desperately trying to find cavalry to fend them off. He was forced to start committing Dornberg's light cavalry against the French cuirassiers committing them one regiment at a time to try and preserve the combat effectiveness of the brigade, having learn't from his heavy handed use of the heavy cavalry that he needed to keep some reserve in hand. nevertheless, he was eventually forced to commit Arenschildt's Brigade as well and when these light cavalry were exhausted and the French were still coming he began to look for more reserves. To make matters worse Napoleon had just sent Ney, Kellerman's Cavalry Corps as reinforcements, two brigades of cuirassiers, a brigade of dragoons and the Carabiniers. These now advanced up the slopes around La Haye Sainte took possession of the Allied gun line and descended on the squares of Von Kruse's Nassau Regiment, Ompteda's KGL Brigade, and Kielmansegge's Hanoverian's. The Nassau regiment were in a particularly bad situation as without any artillery or cavalry to keep the French at bay they were able to drag forward artillery that played upon the german squares with impunity. The 1st Battalion was particularly badly hit and the temporary loss of cohesion enabled the cuirassiers to get in amongst them wiping out one and a half companies, and capturing Captains Schuller and Waitz.

The French cavalry attack had indeed isolated La Haie Sainte, preventing ammunition and reinforcements reaching the garrison, but it was still holding out despite the lack of ammunition. Meanwhile, Uxbridge desperately trying to find some cavalry fit to send into combat approached a Dutch Heavy Cavalry Brigade and ordered them to follow him forward, but they refused to move.

It appears that his last minute appointment as their Commander in Chief had not been communicated to them by the Prince of Orange and they were only taking orders from their own officers. It was shortly after this embarrasment as he was remonstrating with the Dutch that Uxbridge noticed the Cumberland Hussars moving towards the rear and sent Seymour to stop them.

It was actually some time after the French cavalry threat had finally subsided and Wellington had managed to stablise the centre with Chasse Netherlanders that Ney finally turned his attention to La Haie Sainte and took it.

You said squares cannot move. At El Bodon a combined square of the British 5th and 77th did just that (Haythornthwaite). Austrian divisionmasse and battalionmasse routinely moved.

I accept that its a bit pedantic, but the simple fact is that a square can't move. When a square moves its actually a hollow column, all the soldiers are facing the same way, rather than outwards and it's as vulnerable to cavalry as a column. (see below)


The only advantage I can see to moving in a hollow column is that in theory its faster to form square from that formation than from an open column. The disadvantage is that forming line from that formation is much slower, and of course overall movement speed is much slower.

[Incidently, whilst not real evidence notice the artillery pieces deployed between the squares in that print, and the fact that the walls of the column/square are only two ranks deep. I'm also struck by the fact that even the artist had trouble reconciling how the men would manage to march in such a tight formation. The French salden waddle was difficult enough to master even at 12" intervals but these guys are practically pressing their chests into each other backpacks.]

The really puzzling thing about this whole issue, is why the French would choose such a strange formation to attack in. I think it was Randall who suggested it might be because they were nervous of another sudden strike by the British cavalry like the one that destroyed D'Erlons attack. Which is possible, except of course that a close column is almost as much proof against cavalry as a hollow column and almost as easy to form square from, whilst having none of the obvious disadvantages of a hollow column.

Well good luck with building that time machine, seems to me the only way you'll be happy, seeing as you don't trust any historians (except Barbero oddly)

Never said I trusted Barbero. In fact, the main problem with Barbero is that he doesn't quote his sources for anything, so its impossible to judge how good his research is. The fact, it that I prefer to compare what historian's claim to actual facts rather than simply accepting their opinions.

Yet numerous other accounts say Prince Billy was wounded during the fighting for LHS. Other sources say it was Donzelot's division, not the Guard, fighting Kruse. Seems Barbero is alone in this one.

Nope! the quote I gave came form Hofschroer, so he isn't alone. It seems they are using the same sources.

We aren't discussing vegetables! I find it funny that someone self-confessed as poor at French is arguing Petit's French is wrong! Carre means square, nothing more. Also bear in mind this is 200 year old French, just as with English there are changes in grammar and syntax.

Never said that at all, in fact, I was asking a question, which so far nobody has bothered answering. The examples I gave were merely trying to expain the reason I was asking for clarification.

You did the same regarding the Austrian debate.

Hardly, I just got tired of trying to explain a quite simple concept to someone who had a completely closed mind to the point I was trying to make.

EDIT Re: Guards screened by skirimishers From that Napoleonistyka site so not certain but does provide another French view that there were no skirmishers.

There are two other possible explanations that occur to me which might explain the British mention of skirmishers and artillery appearing on the crest before the French column. Both based on my personal observation of how steep the slope is.

1) Its probably the case that whether the guard were in column or square they would not have been able to maintain a close formation whilst climbing up the slope, as I said earlier it is steep enough to occassionally need the use of your hands to steady yourself and its hard to see how a tight formation with 12" intervals could have been kept under such conditions. Its possible that the formation dissolved or at least lost cohesion during the climb, which might have made the first men to appear on the crest appear to be a skirmish line. It might also explain why all the columns halted when they reached the crest, perhaps they were trying to reform and wait for the last men to reach them.

2) The other possibility is that if the French were indeed dragging guns up the slope with them, then they would almost certainly have needed to assign additional men to bricole them up the incline. The sudden appearance of these men on the crest of the ridge might have looked like a skirmish line as the gun itself would not appear until later and then be instantly abandoned once it reached more level ground and the soldiers dropped the ropes to return to the ranks.

Just a thought, and obviously no way of proving it unless some French officer mentions it in his diary.

[Kolyan]

Oh no, not that website again! I've got a feeling whoever put it together had a slightly odd agenda and I really wouldn't classify it as a reliable source.

- you don’t like what it says so naturally “get a feeling” that you don’t like the website and you would not classify it as a reliable source without checking its references, history, authors and sources.

The actual “"The Invincibles" page referring to British army is just an analysis of a well known facts like battles and account witnesses accounts which could be found in books.

Until you do a significant secondary research and prove that they have an agenda to disgrace British army apart from historic agenda your “personal feelings” are not to be trusted.

In this case to be objective you will have to explain why they talk about the flaws of all other armies? And why they talk about the good things of all other armies including British? Maybe they have an agenda to disgrace all others as well? Or maybe they use the critical approach to well known facts and the outcome does not fit the traditional British scenario?

[Kolyan]

By Viitoria, there were over 50,000 British troops in Spain.

-Battle of Vitoria is not something I would be proud of:
“Many British soldiers turned aside to plunder the abandoned French wagons, containing "the loot of a kingdom". ..... the gross abandonment of discipline caused an enraged Wellington to write in a dispatch to Earl Bathurst, "We have in the service the scum of the earth as common soldiers". The British general also vented his fury on a new cavalry regiment, writing, "The 18th Hussars are a disgrace to the name of soldier, in action as well as elsewhere; and I propose to draft their horses from them and send the men to England if I cannot get the better of them in any other manner."
Glover, Michael. The Peninsular War 1807-1814. London: Penguin, 2001.
Wellington, Arthur Wellesley, Duke of (1838),

Earlier, ther had been around 25,000, which made the victories at Rolica and Talavera even more impressive.

“Battle” of Rolica is skirmish in 1805, 1807, 1809, 1812, 1813, 184 war terms against a weak French division outnumbered 4 to 1. What’s so impressive?

Battle of Talavera is a French strategic victory due to subsequent British retreat to Portugal after the battle. What’s so impressive

And in fact French troops in the Penninsula were usually good quality troops, under experienced and very able French commanders,

Bloodbaths like Eylau, wiped out much of the cream of the French army and by the time the Peninsular War was in full swing many of the troops that had won Austerlitz and Jena were dead. The first French army to march into Spain in 1808 was predominantly composed of inexperienced conscripts ("The Spanish Ulcer: A History of the Peninsular War" Gates)

“"But it was easy to perceive how astonished they were at the sight of our young infantry soldiers. The moral effect was wholly to our disadvantage, and as I compared the broad chests and powerful limbs of the Spaniards who surrounded us with those of our weak and weedy privates, my national pride was humbled. Though I did not foresee the disasters which would arise from the poor opinion of our troops on the part of the Spaniards, I was sorry that the Emperor had not sent into the Peninsula some veteran regiments from the Army of Germany." (Baron de Marbot)

"December 1809. I had to take a hundred refractory conscripts from the citaled of Blaye to be incorporated in the corps after our entry into Spain. Lest they should again desert they had to march together under an escort and to be shut up every night behind bolt and bar." (Barres - "Memoirs of a French napoleonic officer" page 134 )

For the decisive years 1808 to 1812, French annual conscript calls ranged from 181,000 to 217,000. During 1810 and 1811, when France was at peace in the rest of Europe, the majority of these conscripts went to the Peninsula and substantially diluted the quality of the French forces serving there.

who had beaten the Prussians, Russians, Austrians and whoever else countless times. They just werent good enough to beat Wellington and the British.

“Napoleon seemed to ignore the food question in Spain. The scattered state of the French army in Spain rendered its situation desperate, and that the slowness of Sir Arthur Wellesley saved it several times…. In contrast, the Allies, particularly the British, seem to have been peculiarly inept at surviving without plenty of supplies. Even in times of minor food shortages, indiscipline erupted on a vast scale. The British divisions went to pieces in the lean days after Talavera for example - and as late as the Waterloo campaign of 1815, we find Wellington commenting to his Prussian friends that 'I cannot separate from my tents and supplies. My troops must be well kept and well supplied in camp ..." ("The Spanish Ulcer: A History of the Peninsular War" Gates)

Reread my posts above about that Peninsular War in Spain and Main theatres of Napoleonic wars. – These cannot be compared.

The British did definately NOT avoid big battles. Just go and read any account of the War, and you see the battles.

Even Sweden sent a crops to Germany for the 1813 campaign while British when asked refused to send one regiment. It was far more comfortable to "fight" napoleon in Spain.

At Badajos in 1812, The British stormed breaches in the fortress walls and captured the city, taking over 5000 losses, mostly in the two breaches. Badajos was probably the strongest fortres in the whole war, and it was taken by British blood, bravery, and a refusal to be beaten. And that was just one of the many seiges. So dont EVER assume that Britain was afraid of takind losses or big engagements.

Yes it was a good conduct on behalf of British army. Not big as you say – French garrison was only 5,000. The aftermath however was something not too advertised in UK I guess:
“With success came mass looting and disorder as the redcoats turned to drink and it was some 72 hours before order was completely restored. The wanton sacking of Badajoz has been noted by many historians as a particularly atrocious conduct committed by the British Army: many homes were broken into, property vandalised or stolen, Spanish civilians of all ages and backgrounds killed or raped, and many officers were also shot by the men they were trying to bring to order.” (Fletcher, Ian. Fortresses of the Peninsular War. p.47)

And can i point out, that none of the loans from Britain were ever paid back.

Please accept my condolences for your loss.

In fact it was paid by Russian, Prussian and Austrian blood.

After 1812 Kutuzov publicly announced that Europe's liberation should be purely Austrian, Prussian and British problem and he didn’t want to pay with Russian soldier’s blood for profit of Manchester merchants, Sussex factory owners and London’s bankers. Unfortunately Alexander I was seeking for the title of "liberator of Europe" at the expense of his solders. He would be damn disappointed to find out that two centuries later people are thinking that it was Britain who liberated Europe.

There is no...British propaganda about the Napoleonic War.

" I just wonder who is more fictional, the author of Sharpe or some British historians. They created a virtual reality, a feel-good network. Anything which seemed to detract from their reputation as pillars of the temple of belief in British martial invincibility is omitted in their works. The strong bias is confusing and at times comical. "Marshal Ney ... opened a most galling fire from the shelter of the olive trees, this threw our brigade into disorder and we retired rather in an irregular manner." - NCO, British Foot Guard.

The words describing the non-English (Dutch, French, German, Belgian ) defeats are very expressive and damaging:
"trashed", "mauled", "utterly routed", "fled in complete panic", "fleeing left and right", "whole formations broke", "...the carnage was awful..." - Jac Weller, "the terror stricken masses" – Siborne, or my favorite: "French officers were brought up from the hollow in great numbers, delivering up their swords."

British defeats are described in either dry or mild words:
"retiring to safety in an irregular manner", "taking a better position in the rear", "falling back rapidly", "moved to the rear", "tactically outmanoeuvred", "an advance to the rear in force" :-)

The Dutch and German soldiers are:
Mad dogs, Brainwashed, Paper tigers, Cowardly, Desperate, Cornered, Cannon fodder, Bastards.

English soldiers are:
Professional, Lionhearted, Confident, Heroes, Dare devils, Knights of the battlefield, motivated by sense of duty "

http://napoleonistyka.atspace.com/Wa...tml#dutchterms

The more I dig into the subject the more info pops out - the question is do you want to apply some critical thinking? Or you feel more comfortable in your " virtual reality, a feel-good network” bubble?

Here is some more proof that Wellington was a first-rate genral: At the battle of assaye, in 1803, 14,000 British troops and Sepoys under the IEC defeated over 100,000 Maratha troops. Britain had 19 small cannons, the Marathas had over 100 heavy guns. Wellesly was hopelessly outnumbered in every way. But he advanced his excellent Highland infantry, up a slope, under fire from all the Marathas heavy guns, and into the hordes of Maratha infantry, who where annihalated by the Scots. So Wellington beat over 100,000 Marthas with over 100 heavy guns with 14,000 Scots and Sepoys and 19 pea-shooters. Skill or what.

Your historical example of battle of Assaye against 18 -19th century outdated weak Asian irregulars as a proof that Wellington is military genius does not impress to say at least. I am glad you did not bring any examples from African wars where British massacred naked locals from the Bronze Age.

In fact there were not 100,000 Indians but around 50,000 -60,000 (page 22
Millar, Simon (2006), Assaye 1803: Wellington's First and 'Bloodiest' Victory, Oxford: Osprey Publishing) (page 102, Cooper, Randolph G. S. (2003), The Anglo-Maratha Campaigns and the Contest for India, Cambridge).

To reinforce my point I will give a few examples:
Russo-Persian War 1804-1813 - Georgian Grenadier Regiment - At Aslan-Doos, together with 17th Jäger Regiment (total 2,200 men and 6 guns) defeated 24,000 Persians with 12 guns. They captured 5 Colors and 500 prisoners; while 1,200 Persians were killed and wounded
(Kersnovskii - " Russian army history" Vol I, pp 194-293) .

Russo-Persian War 1804-1813 -17th Jäger Regiment, at Askerani, approximately 360 jägers (+120 musketiers) with 2 guns, were surrounded by 20,000 Persians. They withstood all attacks for two weeks, although only 150 survived. (Kersnovskii - "Russian army history" Vol I, pp 194-293).

Does this make you to believe that their commanders were military geniuses? Why not? They are not British?

A better example is Battle of Rymnik 1789 - Russian general Alexander Suvorov defeated Turkish army - far more formidable enemy than 18 -19th - century irregular Indians or Persians. Russian-Austrian army was 25,000 while Turks had 100,000. The losses were 700 for Russains-Austrains and 25,000 for Turks. Now do you consider Suvorov a military genius?

The weakness of your argument is that you use the wrong benchmark. If you are talking about Napoleonic wars the correct benchmark to use is Napoleon himself. Any examples of Wellington fighting him? Yes? Waterloo? Reread this thread to see what was going to happen to him as per himself after 5 hours of fight.

On the there hand –here are a just a few examples for the Russian army facing French with Napoleon himself and the results were nothing to a near :
-Shevardino 1812 outnumbered 4 to 1. I think it was French General Kolenkur who wondered why the battle lasted so long considering so few Russians involved.
- Eylau 1807
- Borodino 1812
- Smolensk 1812
- 1805 Bagration’s rearguard action. Although not against Napoleon himself but outnumbered 6 to 1.

Wellington was a good general but his frequent placement to same rank as Napoleon is a direct outcome of British virtual reality and British super army brand created by British themselves. The tasks and challenges he faced were nothing compared to what Kutuzov, Barklai, Bagration, Bennigsen, Archduke Charles, Blucher faced fighting against Napoleon. Accordingly there is no historical evidence that Wellington can be put in a line with them not to mention Napoleon himself.

Ah ! Wellington ought to light a fine candle to old Blucher.

Without him, I don't know where His Grace, as they call him,

would be; but as for me, I certainly wouldn't be here."

- Napoleon on St. Helena

Let me give you a quote of Napoleon "Give me control of the (English) Channel for 6 hours, and I shall rule the world."

" . . . . in five years I shall be master of the world:

there only remains Russia, but I shall crush her."

- Napoleon in 1811

[Kolyan]

Between Koylan and HMS we still have a long way to go.

Your “truth in between” comment relates purely to HMS over patriotic posts and is irrelevant to my arguments as I am not suggesting that any army for that matter Russian or French army was “an invincible” and “the best” Army of its time.

Each army went though its ups and downs through Napoleonic wars and each had its own distinctive features a few basic examples are: the French had the best organisation (staff, corps systems) and used artillery in the most efficient manner while the Russians had soldiers whose tenacity and willingness for sacrifice was well recognised and proven by well known undisputed facts like casualties ratios.

However my main point is that British, apart from musket reloading were the best at brand creationabout “invincible” “best” British army and at exaggerate their MILITARY (not financial) contribution in Napoleonic wars.

This brand creations process is greatly aided by the fact that we live in a Anglo-American dominated world and also by the irony of Waterloo where Napoleon in his last battle after 19 years of fighting Russians, Prussians and Austrians was defeated by an army comprised of only 30 % British who never fought Napoleon himself before. It was still good enough for British to declare it as a British victory, and claim that they defeated Napoleon and build on it suggesting they were the best.

To me using Russian vs British army comparison was the best way to demonstrate the nature of this brand and I am sure that some concerns have started to arise in HMS’s and emperorpenguin’s heads provided they are reasonable persons.

I can’t see how "truth in between" can be possible fitted between two views. I didn’t say that Wellington was a bad general or British soldiers were bad. In fact I said the opposite - that overall Wellington was a good and cautious general (maybe too cautious) and British soldiers were not bad. but they were far from the best and in many very important ways British army was inferior to French, Russian, Prussian and Austrian armies.

PS. I also love Beatles.

[Lord Claremorris]

What if Napoleon won Waterloo and the battles after that, and what would it be like in NTW, I remember Kieran saying if your win Waterloo, you can go on to conquer the world, but what does that mean? All other reviews say that at the END of the campaign, you can decide to play a Waterloo scenario, but thats it. Anyway, what would have happened in your opinion if Napoleon won Waterloo, and completely destoryed or captured Wellingtons army. Would he turn and try to destroy the Austria and Russians heading towards France in 1815 as he did in 1805. what do you think?

Hmmm, I would say Napoleon Bonaparte would go on to suffer a glorious decimation at the hands of the 500,000 or so Austrians and Russians that were streaming Westwards. The only thing that would have been different is that Napoleon would have ruled Belgium for a little while, until the Allies mustered their overwhelming strength and smashed him.

[Invictus XII]

Imagine if Napoleon did take britain in 1805.

How would we be in Australia, and the rest of the Commonwealth. The world would be completely different!

[emperorpenguin]

-Battle of Vitoria is not something I would be proud of:
“Many British soldiers turned aside to plunder the abandoned French wagons, containing "the loot of a kingdom". .....

You mean a Napoleonic army looted? Well that's something that never happened in all armies! Oh wait......it did!

Battle of Talavera is a French strategic victory due to subsequent British retreat to Portugal after the battle. What’s so impressive

This is just so ....... naive, that's as kind as I can be

Even Sweden sent a crops to Germany for the 1813 campaign while British when asked refused to send one regiment. It was far more comfortable to "fight" napoleon in Spain.

To paraphrase Napoleon, what was Britain supposed to do, manufacture the soldiers? The British army was very small and committed to Spain and North America What would be the point of sending one regiment

He would be damn disappointed to find out that two centuries later people are thinking that it was Britain who liberated Europe.

I can only see bitter, biased non-British people who think that. There is no British historian who says Britain liberated Europe.



.

The strong bias is confusing and at times comical

. .

oh the IRONY

The words describing the non-English (Dutch, French, German, Belgian ) defeats are very expressive and damaging:
British defeats are described in either dry or mild words:
The Dutch and German soldiers are:
English soldiers are:

Sorry, is it possible you can be any more SUBJECTIVE and cherrypick a bunch of words to fit your preconceived bitter bias!?

Your historical example of battle of Assaye against 18 -19th century outdated weak Asian irregulars as a proof that Wellington is military genius does not impress to say at least. I am glad you did not bring any examples from African wars where British massacred naked locals from the Bronze Age.

Outdated Indians? You clearly know nothing beyond stereotypes about the Indian forces.
What about Russia's glorious campaigns against backwards locals in Central Asia and the Caucasus? Oh right those are noble....

Wellington was a good general

Really? I thought he was mediocre earlier..........

Spoiler Alert, click show to read: 

[Didz]

Imagine if Napoleon did take britain in 1805.

How would we be in Australia, and the rest of the Commonwealth. The world would be completely different!

I would assume that the commonwealth would either no longer exist, or more likely be French controlled.

I also suspect that the USA would be French, though that might be difficult for the American's to accept. I simply don't think they would have been able to stand alone against a French controlled Europe at the time.

@HMS Empire Broadsword, Koylan

I think you guys are going a bit overboard on this issue. Personally, I'm quite happy to discuss history on these threads, but its not worth getting heated about, and certainly not worth abusing other people over. For what its worth I don't believe for a minute much of the propaganda that appears in British history books, but at the same time French history books are equally suspect. The simple answer is to accept them for what they are and then look beyond them in search of the truth, not take up entrenched positions and start lobbing grenades at each other.

[and would you guys please stop posting entire posts in Bold, its very annoying.]

[eboracum]

Think I touched a nerve there, sorry Kolyan I didn't realise that it was your website. I really don't want to be drawn into a slanging match about which country is the best, I was just commenting based on what I perceive to be some factual errors on those pages, as well as a fairly random referencing technique.

While the aim of your posts (and the website) is obviously part of a polemic to debunk a few of the pro-British military myths of the last 200 years, I'd be careful of doing so with the use of some bad history and a the hint of a nationalist agenda. Two wrongs don't make a right!