Which battle do we know the most about?

Hello,
After taking a huge break from both NTW as well as reading about the time period I am now willing to jump right in again. As I was considering what I was gonna start reading about I came to wondering:
Which battle do we have the most amount of information about?
Which one can we describe, with some certainty, the most detailed?
And last but not least, why is it that we know so much more for this particular battle?

Austerlitz and Waterloo are most probably the battle we know the most about.

Both have had a huge impact.

Just to clarify, I am not wondering which ones have been most extensively studied by historians but rather which ones do we have the most first hand sources and such for.

Originally Posted by MrT

I am not wondering which ones have been most extensively studied by historians but rather which ones do we have the most first hand sources and such for.

I think you'll find that in most cases the latter determines the former. That is, historians will tend to spend more time studying the events that have the most material to study. The more material there is, the easier it is to get an understanding of the event and also to view the event in different contexts.

Taking the case of Waterloo, the battle was immediately recognised across Europe as a significant event. There was a large market for both official accounts and unofficial (first hand) war stories from the soldiers & observers that were there, and contemporary historians. Just like today, when the market wants something, the publishers rush to meet the demand.

The peace that followed meant that large numbers of soldiers returned home and the armies of most European nations decreased in size dramatically. As a consequence, there were a lot of soldiers with spare time on their hands to write up their stories. Naturally, the bigger and more recent battles, such as Waterloo, featured more heavily in their writing.

Exactly which battle has the most first hand sources available to you will depend on where you are and what language(s) you speak, the quality of your national archives and library system, and so on. Although I do suspect that Castel's suggestions of Austerlitz and Waterloo will probably be close to the top.

I would have said Waterloo is the clear winner because of Siborne's correspondence with those who participated - see review of latest work on these by Glover at http://www.napoleon-series.org/revie...ooletters.html; also see further work by Glover on British, German souces advertised at http://www.garethglovercollection.co...oocampaign.htm. The British Army museum is advertising two books:Hanoverian correspondence at http://books.national-army-museum.ac...-pr-31980.html; and Netherlands correspondemce at http://books.national-army-museum.ac...-pr-31894.html.

Makes sense, Siborne + sources from different languages. How about any of the battles with France vs Austria or Prussia? There seems to be quite a lot of information from the Austrian side regarding the war of 1809.

Originally Posted by MrT

And last but not least, why is it that we know so much more for this particular battle?

Waterloo, of course, because Abba did a song about it!

Waterloo; signified the end of an era.

Why does everyone think Waterloo was the last battle? There were still lots of battles after this!

Originally Posted by money

Why does everyone think Waterloo was the last battle? There were still lots of battles after this!

While there were & have been many battles since Waterloo it was the last battle of the "NAPOLEONic" era......the name says it all!

Originally Posted by Prince of Essling

While there were & have been many battles since Waterloo it was the last battle of the "NAPOLEONic" era......the name says it all!

I meant there were more battles in the Seventh Coaliton!

Originally Posted by money

I meant there were more battles in the Seventh Coaliton!

Okay - but nothing worthy of being called a battle after Waterloo.

Digby Smith in his "The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book" lists 45 events in total post-Waterloo covering sieges, clashes, skirmishes, blockades, & bombardments.

Originally Posted by Prince of Essling

Okay - but nothing worthy of being called a battle after Waterloo.

Digby Smith in his "The Greenhill Napoleonic Wars Data Book" lists 45 events in total post-Waterloo covering sieges, clashes, skirmishes, blockades, & bombardments.

Oh Really? And what of la Suffel?

After waterloo the war was over. Napoleon knew the game was up, none of the battles afterwards carried any lasting significance while waterloo essentially signaled the final downfall of Napoleon; and the ending of an era.

Originally Posted by underworld965

After waterloo the war was over. Napoleon knew the game was up, none of the battles afterwards carried any lasting significance while waterloo essentially signaled the final downfall of Napoleon; and the ending of an era.

That's not an argument. The war was lost for the French after Leipzig, and even before, after the Russian campaign. It was just a matter of time...
Waterloo has just been spammed everywere by the Brits because there was some Brits in Waterloo among the Germans, Dutch and Prussians. Waterloo is the most famous battle of the Napoleonic wars why? It was not a masterpiece of strategy, it was only a victory of the Allies over an outnumbered French army of teenagers.
But the Brits need to show to the world that they are the real winners of Napoleon, not the Russians, not Austria and Prussia who reconquered Europe and fought Leipzig and won the war of the 6th coalition, but the British and their super general Wellington (who sat down on a hill waiting the Prussians and deserving for that the title of "winner of Napoleon") while the war of the 7th coalition was lost by the French since the 1st day. The anglo-saxons like to play the role of "saviour" and "super heroes", so if you let the British speak, they will say that they saved the world from Napoleon (just like the Americans and their stupid manichaeism, saying that they saved the world from Hitler, the communists, Saddam and other bulls... like that, it's typically anglo-saxon, they like to play the role of the good guy even if they are not, I think that's because they read too many comics...)
Just ridiculous right? Not surprising that a lot of Brits on this forum say that Wellington was better than Napoleon, or his equal.

(For the same reason: Agincourt and Crecy are the only battle known by the anglo-saxon public about the 100 years war... Not surprising if they believe that they won it)

A lot of what you say is right but hypocritically you also exaggerate a great
deal, the British subsidized countries such as Austria & Russia (the 2 largest
armies in Europe throughout) to stay in the war, we took a number of French
forces back to Spain from the East & more often defeating them or at least
keeping them from returning & indeed we did not have great numbers at Waterloo
but we assembled & commanded the troops that fought under us & the Prussian
reinforcements had only recently been crushed by Napoleon, our attack prevented
Napoleon from making a full pursuit of them & instead he split his forces to chase
them, they never caught the Prussians & meant that his main force became outnumbered,
so that was a blunder on the French part & more luck out of the Prussians, they would
not have lasted without us having been there.

At many times by ratio our small but elite forces were more than capable to handle
numbers greater than theirs & Wellington was a great general of his time but indeed
over-glorified, he was probably not better than Napoleon but had qualities that he
did not have & the likes of Archduke Charles were probably equal to them considering
what he had to deal with in his situation.

Also the British role was greatly significant at sea & colony as well, Trafalgar & other
minor sea engagements showed the definitive British domination of the sea with Napoleon
himself saying "Wherever wood can swim, there I am sure to find this flag of England".

We normally consider ourselves the good guys because we're taught to like you would,
we're taught about the British Empire & our cruelties to the inhabitants & we consider
ourselves the bad guys there because it is for the best, do you think we should be taught
wrong when all in all our involvement in the Napoleonic wars was for the best? It restored
hegemony & relations to a stable level in greater Europe for many decades, it is accepted
that the only times Britain intervenes in mainland Europe is to restore the balance of power,
not to conquer.

I'm Scottish, not English & I wasn't brought up with tales of Waterloo, Trafalgar or Agincourt
but I respect that they do so, I myself get quite annoyed when we get taught about Stirland
bridge since that was a ridiculously stupid English blunder & not much effort on the Scots part,
I'd feel more pride to be taught about Trafalgar where it was a fight en par & why should we
be taught about the battle of Klum when it's not OUR history?

Originally Posted by Maréchal Lannes

That's not an argument. The war was lost for the French after Leipzig, and even before, after the Russian campaign. It was just a matter of time...
Waterloo has just been spammed everywere by the Brits because there was some Brits in Waterloo among the Germans, Dutch and Prussians. Waterloo is the most famous battle of the Napoleonic wars why? It was not a masterpiece of strategy, it was only a victory of the Allies over an outnumbered French army of teenagers.
But the Brits need to show to the world that they are the real winners of Napoleon, not the Russians, not Austria and Prussia who reconquered Europe and fought Leipzig and won the war of the 6th coalition, but the British and their super general Wellington (who sat down on a hill waiting the Prussians and deserving for that the title of "winner of Napoleon") while the war of the 7th coalition was lost by the French since the 1st day. The anglo-saxons like to play the role of "saviour" and "super heroes", so if you let the British speak, they will say that they saved the world from Napoleon (just like the Americans and their stupid manichaeism, saying that they saved the world from Hitler, the communists, Saddam and other bulls... like that, it's typically anglo-saxon, they like to play the role of the good guy even if they are not, I think that's because they read too many comics...)
Just ridiculous right? Not surprising that a lot of Brits on this forum say that Wellington was better than Napoleon, or his equal.

(For the same reason: Agincourt and Crecy are the only battle known by the anglo-saxon public about the 100 years war... Not surprising if they believe that they won it)

Well it seems someones been hitting the anti-Britain juice. True, the war of the 6th coalition was lost for France at Leipzig, but the war of the 7th coalition war lost for France at Waterloo. Britain was undoubtedly a key component in the allied coalition because of it's navy & the fact it funded the other allies. Also, Spain became a "running sore" on the forces of Napoleon because of Britain! Britain funded and armed the Spanish guerillas, and Wellington commanded the allied land forces and led them to victory after victory over the french. And that is a fact, so I would like you to come back with FACTS before you start spraying further anti-British propaganda. Factually Wellington WAS a good general, although you, like most french generals of the time, seem to think otherwise. Wellington won victory after victory, although I'm sure you can find some reason that they all were just luck, right? And once again, please stay on topic, the thread is - which battle do we know most about? And as you yourself have said "Waterloo is the most famous battle of the Napoleonic wars". That is because it signified the end of an era. It was the last significant battle of the Napoleonic wars and was the last nail in Napoleon's coffin so to speak. As the thread asks what the most famous battle is, that is all you need say, not whine about how the British spread "lies" & "propaganda". Waterloo is the battle everyone knows the most about, and we should just leave it at that.

Originally Posted by underworld965

Waterloo is the battle everyone knows the most about, and we should just leave it at that.

Because brits made it so, not because it was more important than Leipzig.
Not only its importance is exagerated (because brits were there, roughly 17% of the forces in presence that day woohoo), as Maréchal Lannes already pointed out the Grande Armée was already finished after Russia and Leiptzig. So call it the final nail if you want, but the glorious grand battle synthesis of the period, it's perhaps time brits stop smoking...

Besides, what annoys me the most is that the rosbifs take pride of that... Prussian victory anyway. Let's admit it, without the arrival of the Prussians, Wellington would have made a "tactical retreat" (which means, if you dont speak "war english" fluently: "run for cover on their island yelling mammma" - we say "fuir à l'anglaise" in France )

So all in all, a secondary battle, in which they were just a few compared to the Dutch and the Prussians, but they managed with their legendary ability to make it look like a critical battle in which they were the big winner:
as Maréchal Lannes said above, typically English.

"Les anglais sont des peigne-culs et des jean-foutres"
- J. Murat, Maréchal d'Empire
Nothing else to add.

Originally Posted by Didz

The sad fact is that as Maréchal Lannes has said a lot of the material produced is basically rubbish based on English propaganda

shhhht. Dont say that, you may ruin their fun while they'll watch Sharpe next time.

Now Jihada and underworld, you can continue to self-congratulate yourself, enjoy your feel good realities, on your anglo-centric forum, I'm out of this thread. Salut les blaireaux!

Originally Posted by Δράκων

Because brits made it so, not because it was more important than Leipzig.
Not only its importance is exagerated (because brits were there, roughly 17% of the forces in presence that day woohoo), as Maréchal Lannes already pointed out the Grande Armée was already finished after Russia and Leiptzig. So call it the final nail if you want, but the glorious grand battle synthesis of the period, it's perhaps time brits stop smoking...

Besides, what annoys me the most is that the rosbifs take pride of that... Prussian victory anyway. Let's admit it, without the arrival of the Prussians, Wellington would have made a "tactical retreat" (which means, if you dont speak "war english" fluently: "run for cover on their island yelling mammma" - we say "fuir à l'anglaise" in France )

So all in all, a secondary battle, in which they were just a few compared to the Dutch and the Prussians, but they managed with their legendary ability to make it look like a critical battle in which they were the big winner:
as Maréchal Lannes said above, typically English.

"Les anglais sont des peigne-culs et des jean-foutres"
- J. Murat, Maréchal d'Empire
Nothing else to add.


shhhht. Dont say that, you may ruin their fun while they'll watch Sharpe next time.

Now Jihada and underworld, you can continue to self-congratulate yourself, enjoy your feel good realities, on your anglo-centric forum, I'm out of this thread. Salut les blaireaux!

Instead this of anti-British diatribe - how about being constructive and providing good suggestions on which battles are covered to the greatest extent in French literature (with the titles of books & the names of their authors) as some of us "ros boeufs" can surprisingly read French?

I am also interested getting the same information from Spanish, German & Italian readers.... while I would also like the info in other languages e.g. Russian etc it would be merely to collate titles/info on battles

The problem with Waterloo is that whilst it is undoubtely the most studied and written about battle it is also the most lied about battle in the history of warfare. Starting with Wellington himself the story of the battle has been so corrupted that its hard to seperate the facts from the spin, and since Siborne no historian has really put enough effort into studying the fact first hand accounts. Thus much of what we are told is contradictory and poorly supported by primary evidence.