The truth about the battle of Waterloo

Interesting finding on youtube...
The truth about the battle of Waterloo
Or "To fight the old propaganda and the lies about this time and to restore the true facts of this battle of Waterloo" by cumbas.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ev-wteEDjXU

It is an interesting beginning, but I do wish he would post his sources.

Originally Posted by IAB1789

It is an interesting beginning, but I do wish he would post his sources.

Same. I would have loved to have that in text mode and not in video. But well.

I believe some of his sources come from British historian Sirborn (the one, whose research "effectively called Wellington a liar") and German historian Peter Hofschroer. While another big chunk of his info are in fact well-known facts which could be found in any source - like the one that French were heavily outnumbered (as significant part was detached to hold the Prussians) and it was compromised quality middle guard who engaged British centre on the final assault.

Basically, its all down HOW the information is presented. No wonder that Wellington and British glory-grabbing historians preferred to omit this basic analysis of numbers, quality and overall situation, to come up with a picture that Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo was purely due to Wellington’s “genius” and "invincible" British army.

As we live in an informational age I think the British-Wellington version of Waterloo is likely to crumble badly in a future even amongst people with limited knowledge on Nwars.

Another forum member also noted that English Wikipedia, which is usually the first and the last point of reference for these people, already consistently under review as a result of this ongoing change.

However, to most of the common British folks, who associate Waterloo with Abba song or the bridge in London more than with the battle, it will always remain “British victory” at the back of their minds - which is understandable as long they do not come up with the usual British bravado about Waterloo on historical forums.

Originally Posted by Kolyan

Basically, its all down HOW the information is presented. No wonder that Wellington and British glory-grabbing historians preferred to omit this basic analysis of numbers, quality and overall situation, to come up with a picture that Napoleon’s defeat at Waterloo was purely due to Wellington’s “genius” and "invincible" British army.

I wish people wouldn't use black - I have sensitive eyes and can't see in my dark-on-dark page style thingy. I don't recall ever hearing of Wellington being a 'genius' or the Brits ever being 'invincible' at any time. Mind you, at school we learnt the British are the bastards that massacred our boys by sending them 'over-the-top' into machine gun fire. The man seems the same as Patton to me - worshiped in his own homelands, but really just someone who stood back for the most part until the other armies had become casualty-burdened and war-weary before committing to decisive action. But maybe I'm just wrong and the cannon ball that hit Uxbridge actually bounced off Wellesley first.

I like this guy.

Pretty hard to take seriously with all the shrill cries of "sacrilege and lies" etc.

Basically wants to exchange an Anglo-centric account of the battle with a Franco-centric one. This guy doesn't want truth. He wants an apologetic account of the battle to explain why his "visionary statesman" and the France "representing a Europe of the people" lost.

Excepted that, until fairly recently, there was no "franco-centric" view of the battle. It's a defeat, the last of the emperor, period. There was no real interest about what really happened, what mattered was the result.

So, in a way the british view of the battle wasn't challenged even in france (or maybe among some napoleonic geeks and a few historian).
Don't forget the period that immediately followed was the restoration, the royal french army didn't bother to defend the last napoléonic attempt and latter it was forgotten behind the glorious days in the collective memory. Austerlitz is more known than Waterloo. Obviously.
Even Trafalgar is more well known i suspect (and there too, the british view of the battle isn't challenged as far as i am aware).

For my part i never suspected the contribution of the prussian was massive (and early) as it was until fairly recently. Or that the french were outnumbered because of this threat or that the attack of D'Erlon was very successfull before the english cavalry charge (although i knew the charge dispersed them badly) and maybe more of a long firefight than a charge in column in the usual sense. Or that despite a fierce resistance the french progressed continuously during the course of the battle until the final assault ended in a rout.

By the way this new reassessing of the battle isn't really anglophobic or franco-centric, rather it reajust the role of the belgo-dutch and german troops in the outcome and the fact that the french really threatened to reach their goal until fairly late in the day, despite the odds (difficult ground, several setbacks, some blunders, the arrival of the prussian).
Napoléon last attack was a gamble because it wasn't launched with enough fresh forces to be a sure thing, but even then, the allies were so exhausted that it COULD have succeded.

If it wasn't for several blunders in its execution and above all else the fierce resistance of the allied troops and their late manoeuvering and counter-attack to bear their numbers and firepower upon the guard.

The fact is that the valour of the british (and allied troops) that day isn't really put in question (by the most serious people at least), the cavalry charge ended in a disaster for the horsemen but it really saved the day, the resistance at Hougoumont (wich was helped by the ground, but still...) etc are all glorious feats.
But the british troops didn't won the battle alone, or as heroïcally (that is without any setbacks at all) as often told.

Originally Posted by Keyser

Excepted that, until fairly recently, there was no "franco-centric" view of the battle. It's a defeat, the last of the emperor, period. There was no real interest about what really happened, what mattered was the result.

So, in a way the british view of the battle wasn't challenged even in france (or maybe among some napoleonic geeks and a few historian).

I'm not well versed in the French historiography of the Napoleonic Wars but I find it rather difficult to believe that there aren't any scholarly works on the subject.

I was merely commenting that it's pretty obvious the guy who made this video has an agenda. Apart from his blatantly biased choice of words (the "sacrilege" example of my previous post being the best example) even the music is nationalistic French. As I mentioned I'm not really well-read about the Napoleonic Wars but the obvious bias in the video made me question the rest of the information he put forth.

Don't forget the period that immediately followed was the restoration, the royal french army didn't bother to defend the last napoléonic attempt and latter it was forgotten behind the glorious days in the collective memory. Austerlitz is more known than Waterloo. Obviously.
Even Trafalgar is more well known i suspect (and there too, the british view of the battle isn't challenged as far as i am aware).

I repost my last edit because that help understand why there was no major historical research on waterloo from the french perspective even in France. I am not saying there is no scholar work at all about it, i don't know, there are certainly a few.
But what is sure is that there is none done by a major historian wich was popular enough to challenge the classical view of the battle.

(As a matter of fact, military history is far less popular among french historian than in english speaking world and the work of a few unknown (and often very biased) specialists, or of the historical service of the army))

Now, you're right about the bias in the video, but from what i gathered about the battle, most of it is true and can easily be checked, the part about the commitment of the prussian to the battle is the easiest.
The fact that the old guard was at Plancenoit (and kept in reserve for the 1st grenadier) too.

About Trafalgar,

I have in fact read a few things that while they doesn't contradict the british perspective emphasize some actions of the french fleet (the fight of the Redoutable for exemple), the actions following the battle, the fact the invasion of england was canceled, why the fleet didn't follow the plan, why it sailed from the ports etc.

Originally Posted by Keyser

I repost my last edit because that help understand why there was no major historical research on waterloo from the french perspective even in France. I am not saying there is no scholar work at all about it, i don't know, there are certainly a few.
But what is sure is that there is none done by a major historian wich was popular enough to challenge the classical view of the battle.

(As a matter of fact, military history is far less popular among french historian than in english speaking world and the work of a few unknown (and often very biased) specialists, or of the historical service of the army))

Now, you're right about the bias in the video, but from what i gathered about the battle, most of it is true and can easily be checked, the part about the commitment of the prussian to the battle is the easiest.
The fact that the old guard was at Plancenoit (and kept in reserve for the 1st grenadier) too.

About Trafalgar,

I have in fact read a few things that while they doesn't contradict the british perspective emphasize some actions of the french fleet (the fight of the Redoutable for exemple), the actions following the battle, the fact the invasion of england was canceled, why the fleet didn't follow the plan, why it sailed from the ports etc.

That may be so (I don't really know) but the true bits in the video are maken dubious by the horrid quality level of the rest of the video and therefore the video itself achieves the opposite of what it intended.

History as we all know is written by the victor. That doesnt mean that it represents necessarily the whole truth of the situation. In a subject as contentious as this it is difficult to find the middle line.

I think that the Prussians deserve more credit in the big picture of things. I am a child of British parents and the Commonwealth education system where Wellington is a god. I doubt however that he is though of in the same light in India. With a bit of reading on the socio political context of the era, you find no European major power with clean hands.

Its also a well known fact that as as much as the English decried Napoleon's "land grabbing", the English seemed to be doing a pretty good of of it themselves during the period.I hope that as time passes and more information comes to light on the period that people can discern the differences between propaganda and fact.

Really, the arguement seems rather redundent in my eyes. I mean it is a well no fact Wellington was pushed to the limit by the time Prussian forces were breaking through Napoleon's flank. But to say that if the Prussian's hadn't arrived Wellington would of been defeated is ridiculous. Had Napoleon had an extra 50,000 or so men to attack with his plan of attack may of changed as would Wellington's defence I imagine. But to argue that point is also redundent casue no one alive today was there. As for this man's claim of the British soldiers Général Maximilien Foy of Napoleon's own army would argue the opposite.

"The glory of the British army is based principally upon its excellent discipline, and upon the cool and sturdy courage of the people. Indeed we know of no other troops as well disciplined"

"In conclusion it may be said, that the English army surpasses other nations in discipline, and in some particulars of internal management; it proceeds slowly in the career of improvement, but it never retrogrades; and no limits can be affixed to the power of organization to which a free and intelligent people may attain."


And those are French accounts. Yes the Prussian's were needed on the field that day, and yes the British were a minority in the alliked army, but that Army was under the direct control of a British Field Marshal. The end result will never change, Napoleon was defeated, the coalition powers triumphed and the 1st Empire fell. And it was Wellington's army that held out until reinforcements arrived, but if it had not been for Wellington's army, there would not have been a Waterloo.

Originally Posted by General Cornwallis

But to say that if the Prussian's hadn't arrived Wellington would of been defeated is ridiculous. .

OMG. Try coming up with such statement on more serious Napoelonic forums and see how long it takes before you embarraseed enough to change your profile.

Originally Posted by La♔De♔Da♔Brigadier Graham

Everyone here is absolutely aware of all this! or almost everyone.
Yes when I was a lad Wellington was a godlike figure, however its up to people who take an interest in what happened to study explore and find out what might have occurred surely?Not everyone is blinded by patriotism[...]

I highly agree with this. Putting forth points that are taught in public schools to children shouldn't really be a concern should it? If the academic community had their facts wrong then I'd start to worry. Of course, our tin-foil hatted friends seem to think so, but their arguments and viewpoints have become invalid a long time ago anyway.

Originally Posted by TheBlobThing

Of course, our tin-foil hatted friends seem to think so, but their arguments and viewpoints have become invalid a long time ago anyway.

So basically if some one like me says that British were outnumbering French hat Waterloo my “arguments and viewpoints have become invalid a long time ago anyway” .

– the below good old defensive forum framework is at work again! Its just that now you jump straight to number 6.


1. It is known that everyone is biased
2. It is known that British sources are biased too.
3. Hence it is acceptable to portrait Wellington as genius and English army as the ubber-force because of 1 and 2.
4. Just leave it as it is as not much can be done anyway because of 1 and 2.
5. If someone does try to break this status quo - he is surely hates-British-totally-absolutely-biased-and-full of crap - refer to point number 1.
6. hence no evidence/discussion/facts/analysis will be accepted from now on as firstly- we are happy with things as they are now, secondly - refer to point number 1.
End of story - any questions refer to point number 1.

You say historians can be got it right? Well, there are hundreds of factors that can be highlighted - ignored to create a certain picture depending in agenda. And in fact it is British vision which dominates the field now:

"let's don't forget that approx. 90 % of Waterloo books and articles were written in English-speaking countries. The prolific Waterloo-industry flooded the book market and internet with books, articles, illustrations, and websites.” David Chandler

try to obtaining this book:

1815 The Waterloo Campaign: The German Victory
http://www.amazon.com/1815-Waterloo-Campaign-Greenhill-Paperback/dp/1853675784/ref=sr_1_1?ie=UTF8&s=books&qid=1272453514&sr=1-1

– you will be surprised how much you do not know about Waterloo -


TO La♔De♔Da♔Brigadier Graham:

In fact these myths a pretty common amongst general population slightly interested in Nwars – I come across it a few times per week on this and Yuku forums. You do not need to dig deep to find out that I am right - just look up NTW British unit stats or bring up “Why everyone is so obsessed with British” thread.

As for “getting over it” [Waterloo] – its not a matter getting over it and moving on to Star wars forums - its actually the opposite – its about getting INTO it – its all about history and whoever loves history naturally would not be satisfied with a story written in Wellington’s dispatches but wants to dig a lot deeper.

Originally Posted by Kolyan

So basically if some one like me says that British were outnumbering French hat Waterloo my “arguments and viewpoints have become invalid a long time ago anyway” .

No, your arguments are invalidated for the same reasons Fuzee puts forth in this post:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...13#post7167313

After this you will be put on my ignore list for good. Have a nice conspiracy theory... I meant day!

Originally Posted by TheBlobThing

No, your arguments are invalidated for the same reasons Fuzee puts forth in this post:

http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...13#post7167313

After this you will be put on my ignore list for good. Have a nice conspiracy theory... I meant day!

Not suprisingly Fuzee has gone missing after post #58 here:
http://www.twcenter.net/forums/showt...=349381&page=3

Have a nice feel-good-fake-virtual-reality.

Not a very effective way of presenting this information to be honest. People don't log onto youtube to be presented with walls of text. He should have taken some lessons from 'Hot for Words' if he really wanted to get his point across.

OMG. Try coming up with such statement on more serious Napoelonic forums and see how long it takes before you embarraseed enough to change your profile.

Are you Napoleon Koylan? Do you know the decisions he would of made had Grouchy's troops been on the field of battle. Do you know the exact movements Grouchy would have made. Let alone do you know how Wellington would of reacted to an extra 50,000 French troops. No one does because nobody alive today was there, and to be hypothetical doesn't help. Grouchy's troops may of forced Wellington into a route, or god knows, Grouchy's troops could of bungled the battle and led to a quicker defeat. Anything can happen in a hypothetical world.

I also don't understand the historians who say "Germany did not need Britain, but Britain needed Germany". If the performance of Prussian armies alone against Napoleon speaks for itself, and Blucher faced Napoleon's full force alone, I think it statistically more likely that they would of suffered defeat as at Ligny. I mean Leipzig required three great powers and smaller German states to defeat Napoleon's army.

In the end it comes down to Napoleon lost to an Allied army under the command of Wellington, the army's prime infantry were British, and KGL/Brunswicker, and the Dutch heavy cavalry can be admired. Most divisional/ Brigade commanders came from Wellington's camp. It was an allied effort, but the battle showed that when the Dutch and other contingents were in retreat it was Wellington's veterans both British and German who held to the last. To say the British were uneeded is just as much a fallacy as the claims that the British won the battle themselves, but they were needed that day. The British were needed that day with their "Iron discipline and shooting ability" as quoted by General Foy, to hold out until the Prussian army could arrive.